Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I think tonight on three occasions or maybe four, we have heard, we need to put a face on trade. I encourage all the Members, here is the face. It is the face of a refrigerator in Galesburg, Illinois, manufactured by 1,600 machinists, signed on the last day before their jobs were exported to Sonora, Mexico, thanks to a trade agreement that didn't work.

This, my colleagues, is the face of people. This trade deal, while I commend the framework of it, puts the sheriff, as we have been hearing, the President of the United States, in charge of it. I sit on the Education and Labor Committee of the House. We have had three mine disasters. The President won't do a single thing to protect our miners. He won't sign the Employee Free Choice Act to give people a right to collective bargain for it. He will not stand up for America's workers. He has had to be sued by our own government for one OSHA standard.

Tonight we stand here ready to give this President oversight on this trade deal. I have been told, well, we'll just subpoena him. We're trying that. We're trying that with the legal counsel for this President and Josh Bolten. We'll see how far that gets us.

I take offense, to be honest with you, when people say you won't vote for any trade deal if you can't vote for this one. Let me say I'll vote for every trade deal, as long as it's fair, as long as it works for American workers, as well as the people that we seek to trade with.

How much longer are we going to continue to do this? Fifty-four percent of Republicans polled don't support this agreement. Almost 70 percent of Democrats don't support it, and 60 percent of Americans don't.

I ran on this issue. I am the product of a person whose dad lost their home, not because he did anything wrong, but because he lost his job. He made me promise two things, take care of your sisters and your mother, this is shortly before he died, and do not, whatever you do, Phil, for a living, do not allow this to happen to another family.

I may only be in this Chamber for one term. I don't know. I ran on this issue. I stand on this issue. I'm proud of my voting record with this Democratic Caucus. I take a back seat to no one in party loyalty. But my first loyalty comes to the people who signed this refrigerator. I have no loyalty to the President of the United States when he has no loyalty to the people whose jobs he outsourced.

I tried to get an amendment before the Rules Committee that would say if you can get a free trade agreement, fine, but let's get the safety net for workers, one this Chamber passed that Mr. Rangel worked so hard on, whom I give him a ton of credit for.

Let me tell you what happens. The next day he says he's going to veto it. He won't insure 10 million children, he won't sign a safety net for workers, and we are going to pass tomorrow a trade agreement and expect this President to enforce it. Let me ask you all tonight not to be looking at us as though we are naysayers. We're not.

I would love to put my card in tomorrow and hit the green button, but I will not, because if I do, I will not come to back to this Chamber. I don't deserve to come back to this Chamber.

I ran to support these people. I have heard the term ``protectionism'' used this evening. If all of us, Democrats, Republicans, left, center and right are not going to stand up for the very people who sent us here, who are we going to stand up for? What are we as Members of Congress?

I ask you, tomorrow is a very big day. I guess I'm voting ``no.'' I don't guess, and I told two people today, I do so proudly. I wish I didn't have to. But I will remember Dave Bedard, who has been unemployed now after two wage concessions, no health care, a wife who has cancer.

One Member who is supporting this deal told me that I should go back to Dave Bedard. And when I said, what should I say to him, that Member said, You should talk about currency manipulation with him.

I should need a football helmet. He's going to punch me in the nose if I try.

Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Peru Free Trade Agreement and the implementing legislation before us today.

Mr. Speaker, my fight against the Peru FTA is a personal one. Districts like mine represent the very worst of unfair trade--jobs lost, economies devastated, and lives shattered. In 2004, the Galesburg Maytag Refrigeration plant relocated to Sonora, Mexico, leaving behind 1,600 unemployed workers--all innocent victims of bad trade policies.

On their last day, all the workers who were laid off signed the final refrigerator to roll off the assembly line. The inscription on the fridge reads, ``The last top mount refrigerator produced in Galesburg, Illinois with pride by the members of IAM Local 2063, September 14, 2004.'' Although devastated, the pride and spirit of these workers remained strong--a testament to the incredible workers we have in this country.

This year marks the 5th anniversary of Maytag's announcement that it would be closing its Galesburg plant. Five years later, the city of Galesburg is still recovering from the loss of Maytag and many of the workers are still unemployed.

Unfortunately, the economic nightmare Galesburg has endured is not unique. NAFTA outsourced a total of 1 million U.S. jobs nationwide with casualties in every state.

Mr. Speaker, unfair trade is not just a Midwest issue, it is a national crisis.

Weary of more bad trade deals, last November voters swept fair trade Democrats into office--sending a clear mandate for a new direction on trade.

And yet here we are. Voting on another one-sided, so called ``free trade'' agreement crafted by the Bush administration under fast track authority.

President Bush's use of fast track has been nothing but a blatant abuse of power. It has allowed him to force through 4 trade deals built on the flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model, one of them being the Peru FTA we are currently debating.

And we all remember what was left behind from NAFTA: the decimation of the U.S. manufacturing industry and the loss of high paying jobs. One must look no further than Galesburg to see what the future holds for American jobs if the Peru FTA is passed.

We can also expect the Peru FTA to benefit big business, similar to NAFTA. If this agreement is passed, one thing is certain, the rich will continue to get richer at the expense of the average, hard-working American.

Some who support the agreement will say that the Peru FTA is not NAFTA. They will say that the inclusion of labor and environmental standards set it apart from all former trade deals. Not so fast.

With President Bush's poor track record of enforcing labor rights, it remains to be seen

whether these improvements will have any affect at all. In fact, the President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said that he is ``encouraged by assurances that the labor provisions in the [Peru agreement] cannot be read to require compliance with ILO Conventions.'' We should be more than skeptical.

Moreover, just today the Peruvian government declared a strike by national miners illegal. So much for real reform.

In short, without the threat of enforcement, our trading partners, including Peru, have no incentive to uphold international labor standards.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the proposed Peru FTA would replicate--and in some instances expand on--many of the most devastating provisions of the flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model.

Despite ``fixes,'' the Peru FTA is nothing but a wolf in sheep's clothing.

The choice is crystal clear.

Today, Congress can choose to roll the dice when it comes to the loss of American jobs or we can choose to demand an agreement that bans off shoring.

Today, we can choose to entrust President Bush with enforcing labor and environmental standards as we did with the Jordan FTA or we can choose to accept that these standards will likely be ignored in Peru, just as they are in Jordan.

Today, we can choose to give big business another win or we can choose to stand with American middle class families.

Today, Congress can choose to expand the failed NAFTA-CAFTA model to Peru or we can choose to pursue a new trade policy.

I for one cannot go back to my district and explain that I voted for another bad trade deal that in all likelihood will result in more job loss.

I cannot in good conscience face the 1600 Maytag workers who lost their job and tell them that I voted to continue the hemorrhaging.

I came to Congress because I believe in fair trade that creates jobs and raises the standard of living for middle class families. I believe in keeping America competitive. But in my opinion, the Peru FTA does not pass the test.

For the sake of all workers, I will be voting NO on the Peru FTA. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

It is time that our trade policy starts serving the interests of America's working families.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 18 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, November 8, 2007, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3920.

In 2004, Maytag Refrigeration Products in Galesburg, Illinois, closed its

doors and bolted for Sonora, Mexico, displacing 1,600 workers, all innocent victims of a bad trade policy. I asked my good friend Dave Bevard, a former Maytag employee, to testify before the House Education and Labor Committee about his participation in the TAA program. Dave's testimony revealed a program that was difficult to navigate and plugged with funding shortfalls.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today addresses these funding problems and gives trade-impacted workers the resources and tools necessary to successfully compete in the global economy. It provides workers with sufficient notice of mass layoffs, improves the processes by which workers obtain training, and strengthens access to affordable health care.

I'm pleased to see the inclusion of two of my provisions in the bill: one that would require the Department of Labor to inform workers about the availability of counseling and early access to training services, and another to help displaced workers get additional financing aid for training. I'd like to thank Ways and Means Chairman Rangel and Congressman Levin, and my chairman, Mr. Miller, for their leadership on this issue and for the help their staff provided to include these provisions that will greatly assist dislocated workers.

Mr. Speaker, the current TAA program has not kept pace with globalization, and the bill before us aims to bring the TAA program into the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this critical legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Alan G. Wilson, garrison manager at Rock Island Arsenal, for his outstanding military service and contributions to the Quad Cities community on the occasion of his retirement.

For over 35 years, Mr. Wilson dedicated his life to serving our country. From 1966 to 1967, Mr. Wilson served in active duty in the U.S. Army. He later began his civilian career as a management analyst in the U.S. Weapons Command at the Department of Defense.

In 1974, he was transferred to the new Armaments Command at Rock Island Arsenal (RIA). After various high-level positions at RIA, Mr. Wilson became the first civilian garrison manager at the U.S. Army Garrison-Rock Island Arsenal in 2004.

In his role as garrison manager, Mr. Wilson was responsible for installation operations, which included managing an $89 million budget, supervising 60 tenant activities and overseeing 6,600 government and contracted employees.

During his tenure as garrison manager, Mr. Wilson was credited for high-performing installations during the BRAC 2005 round and addressing other BRAC-related issues such as housing and office space. Mr. Wilson also led efforts to integrate the installation with the larger Quad Cities community, resulting in an estimated economic impact of $1 million daily to the Quad Cities region.

Continuously recognized by superiors for his hard work, Mr. Wilson has received several Exceptional Performance Awards, two Superior Civilian Service Awards, two Commander's Awards, and the Achievement Medal for Civilian Service. Most recently, he was honored with the Meritorious Civilian Service Award for his exemplary record of professionalism and dedication to the U.S. Installation Management Command.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of the 17th Congressional District of Illinois, I congratulate Mr. Wilson on his retirement and thank him for his honorable service to our Nation. Alan, you will be missed. I wish you and your family well as you embark on a new life chapter and congratulate you for an admirable career.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Antioch Missionary Baptist Church in Decatur, Illinois.

The beginning of the church was the idea of Maria Carr, affectionately known as ``Grandma Carr,'' who in 1854 escaped slavery through the Underground Railroad and settled in Decatur, Illinois. Grandma Carr, along with Mrs. Gilbert Vernon and Mrs. Emily Stains held weekly prayer meetings at their homes with the goal of establishing a local community church based on the principles of equality and civil rights.

With the help of Captain David L. Allen, a white Christian, their wish came true. He offered a small frame building to the church group and officially donated ownership of the land in 1858. The first pastor of Antioch was Reverend Tom Reasoner.

With simple beginnings, the church developed a rich history of diversity and faith. The

Antioch Church housed the first school for black citizens in Decatur. Later, the church was blessed by a faithful servant named Reverend Dr. Turner who led the congregation from 1965 until his death in 1995. During the 30 years of his service, Reverend Turner established a free food bank and clothing room, which continue to serve needy families in the community today. Reverend Turner also opened a local extension of the United Theological Seminary through which many ministers in Decatur and in neighboring cities earned their bachelor's and master's degrees in theology.

I am deeply honored to represent the Antioch Missionary Baptist Church and congratulate its congregation for 150 years of service. The strong faith and history of Antioch will no doubt continue to serve the Decatur community for another 150 years, and remind us of the values of diversity and public service upon which it was established.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to my hometown, the city of Galesburg, IL, for publicly speaking out against hate crimes. Galesburg has a rich tradition of promoting equality for all of its citizens. It was a stop on the Underground Railroad and home to the first anti-slavery society in the State of Illinois.

Mayor Gary Smith recently declared October Not in Our Town Month, an effort to combat violent, bias-motivated crimes designed to cause fear and intimidation among an entire group of people.

The Not in Our Town Month proclamation states, ``Hate groups shall not divide communities.'' It also urges the residents of Galesburg to ``join together to eliminate racism and violence and to declare that respect,

equality and freedom for all people be our goal.''

Crimes based on prejudice are a poor reflection on our communities, and I congratulate Galesburg for refusing to stand by in silence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 327, the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act.

I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to the family of Joshua, both for their tireless efforts to pass this legislation and for their son's brave service to our Nation.

Too many soldiers are returning from the battlefield with hidden injuries. According to the Department of Defense, 60,000 troops have been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injuries. Sadly, only a small number of our veterans receive or seek the help that they need.

H.R. 327 strengthens cooperation between the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, it creates a comprehensive program to screen veterans for mental health and suicide risk factors, and increases training for suicide prevention.

This bill is the first step in ensuring that we treat the psychological wounds of our troops by improving mental health coordination and our outreach to veterans. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 327.

Mr. Speaker, last week, President Bush used his veto pen to strike down a bill that would provide health coverage to 10 million children. In explaining his veto, the President used rhetoric that has no basis in reality. The President claims that the focus of the SCHIP should be on poor children rather than to expand the program. But the fact is this bill does not expand the program, it simply allows for the coverage of more kids who are already eligible. As Republican Senator Hatch pointed out, for those who argue that it's out of control, 92 percent of all the kids who will be covered by this bill will be families under 200 percent of the poverty level.

The President also falsely says that the bill would cover kids in families earning $83,000 per year, but no State covers kids at that level now, and the bill actually reduces Federal support for coverage of children at higher income levels. The President's claims are simply wrong.

Mr. Speaker, the question now for House Republicans is, are they going to stand behind the President's false claims about the children's health bill, or will they join us in overriding the President's veto?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the First Baptist Church in Mt. Zion, Illinois.

In 1957, the original 45 members of the Mt. Zion faith community gathered in front of a storefront on Main Street. They chose the name of First Baptist Church and organized a mission. The following year, that small congregation began construction on a new place of worship. As the congregation grew, so did its need for a larger building. The church moved to its present location in 1962.

Throughout the past 50 years, Mt. Zion Baptist Church has played an important role in the surrounding community through its education center, auditorium and mission. I'm happy to celebrate the church's 50th year of service, and I look forward to its continued growth and good works of its congregation.

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening in strong opposition to the pending Peru Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA promised Americans 200,000 new NAFTA jobs, higher wages and an increasing U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, just to name a few. Now, nearly 15 years later, the evidence shows that NAFTA has failed to make good on its promises.

In fact, in many areas in which benefits were promised, conditions are worse than before NAFTA went into effect. For example, in direct contradiction to the promises of NAFTA, nearly 1 million jobs were destroyed directly by the NAFTA free trade deal.

My district, in particular, has suffered the loss of 1,600 jobs; and NAFTA forced Maytag to leave Galesburg, Illinois, for Sonora, Mexico. And just last week, it was announced that Carrhart Manufacturing, a clothing company, will cease production and move to Mexico at the end of December.

Every aspect of the city of Galesburg is hurting. The economy, the schools, the small businesses that feed into these plants, and the citizens have lost their spirit. Now Galesburg is trying to rebuild its identity, but I fear that the Peru FTA promises more of the same.

The proposed Peru FTA would replicate, and in some instances expand, on many of the most devastating provisions of the flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model. First, the Peru FTA preserves many of the CAFTA terms providing extreme foreign investor rights. The provisions in the Peru FTA allow foreign investors to skirt U.S. courts and laws and give foreign investors the authority to sue the United States Government in foreign tribunals for violating their FTA-granted rights.

Second, the Peru Free Trade Agreement includes the NAFTA-CAFTA procurement chapters on Buy America and anti-offshoring policies. The FTA requires foreign firms be treated the same as American firms seeking government contracts, challenging our right to invest tax dollars into American jobs and businesses.

Several groups have publicly opposed the Peru FTA for those very reasons, including the two largest trade unions in Peru.

The September 17 Change to Win Coalition letter states: ``Chapters of the Bush-negotiated FTA that literally replicate job-killing aspects of the core NAFTA-CAFTA model have not been addressed. Not one word was changed from the Bush-negotiated text.''

In addition, the Interfaith Working Group on Trade and Investment released a statement saying: ``Based on our experience with NAFTA and CAFTA, the U.S.-Peru FTA will cause lost livelihoods in rural communities, reduce access to life-saving medication and perpetuate the global `race to the bottom' for workers and environmental protection.''

But to make matters worse, no one seems to have faith in this President to

enforce the labor standards negotiated in the May 10 agreement. This administration cannot and will not enforce American worker safety right here in the United States.

In a statement released on May 11, AFL-CIO President, John Sweeney, reminded us of the Bush administration's past failures by saying: ``The Bush violations against nations like Jordan and China remind us there is no guarantee the executive branch will enforce any new rights workers may gain through these negotiations.''

The machinists labor union echoed Mr. Sweeney's statement in a letter to Congress dated August 2. It states: ``We are well aware of this administration's dismal record when it comes to workers' rights. For example, it has refused to issue a trade complaint against China for workers' rights violations described fully in AFL-CIO submissions. Given its past record, we fear that this administration will simply ignore even the most egregious labor violations.''

Recently, I received a letter from two Peruvian labor federations concerned about the labor provisions in the pending FTA.

Madam Speaker, our trade policies must start to serve the interests of America's working families and workers around the globe. We can do better. We need to overhaul our trade readjustment program. We need to calculate the loss of American jobs when this bill goes into effect, and we need to remember that our majority is here because working men and women demanded that we look out for them and their families.

Let's slow down, vote ``no'' on this trade deal, and stand up to those people who stood up for us. That, Madam Speaker, is the very least that we can do. I urge my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on the Peru agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the new Democratic Congress is taking our Nation in a new direction by putting the needs of the American people first and making long delayed investments in our future.

Over the summer, the House passed every single one of its appropriations bills for the upcoming year. Our appropriation priorities will better protect the Nation against terrorism by including 3,500 more firefighting grants and better protect our neighborhoods against violent crime by investing in 12,000 new police officers.

We also invest in community health centers so that they can provide essential health care services to more than 1 million additional Americans. We beefed up cancer and other lifesaving medical research so that we can continue to look for cures for these devastating diseases.

And we make the largest investment in veterans health care funding in the history of the Veterans Administration, ensuring that our veterans get the health care they are entitled to.

Mr. Speaker, we once again invest in priorities that were neglected by the old Republican Congress, and we do it in a fiscally responsible way following pay-as-you-go policies that will lead us to no new deficit spending.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Peru Free Trade Agreement. I just lost the third of four clothing factories in my district on Friday; hardworking men and women thrown out of work not because they couldn't do the job, but because they couldn't compete.

We have a responsibility as Members, whether you are Republican or Democrat, from whatever State you come from, to stand up for the American workers. I can't go back to my district and I will not go back to my district and try to explain to my workers who are losing their jobs, if you will just wait until we pass another trade deal that this President is not going to enforce.

I urge all of my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on the Peru Free Trade Agreement when it comes up. We can do much better, we owe it to our workers, and we will do much better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the pending Peru and Panama free trade agreements. Over 3 million American manufacturing jobs, one out of every six jobs, have been lost during the fast-track era. How many more manufacturing jobs will be lost with the passage of these two trade deals? How many more?

My district in particular has suffered the loss of 1,600 jobs when NAFTA forced Maytag to leave Galesburg, Illinois, for Sonora, Mexico. Every aspect of that town was hurt: its spirit, the

economy, the schools, and the small businesses that supplied goods to Maytag.

Now Galesburg is trying to rebuild its identity.

The November 2006 election showed that most Americans understand our past trade policies, which gave us NAFTA and the WTO, have failed; yet President Bush continues to bring more flawed trade agreements to this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, on May 10, Chairman Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee reached a landmark deal with the Bush administration to include labor and environmental protection in free trade agreements. The deal requires our trading partners to adopt, maintain and enforce in their laws and practice the five basic international labor standards: freedom of association, right to collective bargaining, elimination of forced labor, abolition of child labor, and elimination of discrimination.

As positive as this deal was, I have absolutely no faith that this President will enforce any labor provisions included in any trade deal. In a statement released on May 11, AFL-CIO president John Sweeney reminded us of the Bush administration's enforcement failure in past agreements by saying, ``The Bush administration's consistent unwillingness to enforce trade violations against nations like Jordan and China reminds us that there is no guarantee that this executive branch will enforce any new rights workers may gain through these negotiations.''

This administration can't even enforce OSHA regulations here at home. How can we expect this President and this administration to enforce laws in these two countries? Recently, I received a letter from two Peruvian labor federations concerned about the labor provisions in the pending FTA between the United States and Peru. In reference to the May 10 announcement, the letter states, ``These changes are important. Nevertheless, in order for there to be real progress that does not only exist on paper, it is necessary that the administrations of President Bush and Garcia adopt significant change that they do not appear willing to do.''

Mr. Speaker, no one seems to have faith in this President or the Peruvian Government to enforce the law. The problem is that those who support the FTA in Peru are the same people that oppose labor reform in Peru.

Mr. Speaker, our trade policies must start to serve the interests of American working families and workers around the globe. I urge all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to say ``no'' to President Bush's trade agreement with Peru. We have a moral responsibility to save the manufacturing jobs that this Nation has lost and to try to regain those jobs that we have outsourced.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the victims and the heroes of September 11. To the families, I offer my deepest sympathies for your loss. I would also like to salute the first responders who bravely sacrificed their lives.

The attacks of September 11 were a wake-up call for all of our Nation. Never before had our vulnerability to attack been so apparent.

Today, as we continue to rebuild, we stand united in our resolve to protect this Nation from further threats. This new Democratic majority implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, a critical step towards ensuring the security and safety of the American people. May all of us pause in our own way to remember the sacrifices of so many of our fellow Americans, and may God always hold each and every one of them in arms of love.

Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Education and Labor Committee, I rise today in strong support of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act--the single largest investment in college financial aid since the 1944 GI bill.

Working families in Illinois and around the Nation continue to struggle with the rising costs of college. This historic investment in higher education will begin to put a college degree back in reach for millions of average Americans, and do so at no new cost to U.S. taxpayers.

The College Cost Reduction and Access Act would make need-based student loans more easily accessible and provide for additional mandatory funding for the Pell grant scholarship by at least $1,090 over the next 5 years,

benefiting nearly 230,000 students in Illinois, including over 22,000 newly eligible beneficiaries. Illinois students and their families will receive more than $1.2 billion over 5 years in the form of student loans and Pell grants as a result of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this bill includes a provision to cut the interest rate on subsidized student loans in half over the next 5 years--from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, benefiting 128,765 student borrowers in Illinois. Once fully phased in, it would save the average 4-year college student, who begins school in 2011, $4,510 over the life of his or her loan.

The College Cost Reduction and Access Act pays for itself by reducing excessive Federal subsidies paid to lenders in the college loan industry by $20 billion. In the current budget-tight environment, the Federal Government should not be over-funding lenders while families struggle to send their kids to college.

Making college more affordable and accessible for working families is good for our economy, national security, and competitiveness in the world. I was proud to play a role in crafting this landmark legislation from the very beginning and I am honored to vote for its passage today. I urge my colleagues to join me in making college more affordable for our students and urge the President to sign this bill into law.