U.S. Trade Agreements

Floor Speech

U.S. TRADE AGREEMENTS -- (House of Representatives - May 22, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Crowley. I certainly appreciate the hard work of Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel and the ranking member, Mr. McCrery, as well as Sandy Levin, working with the administration to come up with an agreement. This is very important.

Let me give you some of my personal experience. I am from Laredo, Texas, which is the largest inland port in the U.S. If you want to see trade, go to a place like Laredo, Texas. I have seen not only the primary jobs that are created, but also the secondary jobs it creates when we talk about international trade.

When you look at the U.S. economy, the $12 trillion economy is bolstered by trade, which is a pillar of our American economic power. In 2005, U.S. exports to the rest of the world totaled $1.2 trillion and supported one in five of the U.S. manufacturing jobs we have. Jobs directly linked to the export of goods pay 13 percent to 18 percent more than the U.S. jobs that we have.

Agriculture exports hit a record high in 2005 and now account for 926 jobs
that we have. So trade creates jobs, and I think the balanced approach of the new Democrats plays a role in developing this and is something that is so important to us.

I believe in trade for several reasons. It is not only the economics, but the other thing is, we have to stay engaged in the dialogue. If, for whatever reason, the United States would turn against trade, that is not going to stop the world. Other countries are going to continue entering into their own trade agreements. That is why it is important that the United States continues trade negotiations and stays in the dialogue.

If I can say one thing, and then I will leave it open, one of the things that I have seen is ever since President John F. Kennedy talked about the Alliance for Progress, he looked at countries like Peru and Colombia, to make sure that we have that dialogue with them because if we are able to do that, then we can bolster those economies. And again, talking about immigration just briefly, but the more jobs you create in those countries, hopefully the fewer people will come to the United States. Being on the border, we see those people trying to get better jobs in the United States.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CUELLAR. Let me just follow up on the points that they make.

First of all, for the people, like the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania said, if people are interested in labor standards, the environment, raising up the wages of certain countries, the only way we can do this is by having some sort of dialogue. If we retreat back, then there's no vehicle to use to raise those standards, and this is why those trade agreements are very, very important.

The second point is, and Mr. Crowley mentioned this, if you're interested in the rule of law, if you're interested in the principles of democracy, if you're interested in the economics, like the gentleman from New York said, we have to have some sort of vehicle to engage those countries, because if we don't engage them like you said, other countries will do it. So either we get engaged, or somebody else is going to do it.

Let me just give you a brief history about what happened to us in Central America a few years ago. We decided to turn our back to a lot of those countries. What happened? In the 1980s, you'll recall the Communists, Nicaragua, the sandanistas all came in, and all of a sudden the United States said, oh, you know what, we better get engaged. So, instead of having trade agreements, we started sending arms to those countries.

The response to that was the Caribbean-based initiative, and, of course, we saw what happened with the other trade agreement we did. This is why history should teach us that if we don't get engaged with countries, then somebody else is going to fill the vacuum, whether it's Chavez, like you mentioned a while ago, or it's going to be Castro or somebody else. But if we don't stay engaged, we're going to lose this. So this is why it's so important that we stay engaged in these trade agreements.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CUELLAR. Let me just make two points to conclude.

First one, let's talk about the Constitution. Why are these trade agreements different? Why are they going to be different; whether it's Peru, Colombia, Panama or Korea, why are they going to be different? First of all, in the past, the President pretty much negotiated the agreement, and it was an up-or-down deal. This time, the Congress, through our leadership, through the New Democrats, we're asserting ourselves through the commerce clause. That is, we have the right to assert ourselves to make sure that we're part of the process so we can set up the framework. And this is why these trade agreements from now are going to have a different type of framework, because Congress is getting involved in the development of that trade policy, number one.

Number two, I will conclude with this. In 2005, the U.S. exports to the rest of the world totaled $1.2 trillion. Think about that, $1.2 trillion. Jobs have been created all across the country not only by big companies, but also by the medium and small companies.

Second of all, jobs that are directly linked to the export of goods pay 13 to 18 percent more than the other U.S. jobs. I have seen this personally in my hometown where we have this trading community. It works, and we have to stay engaged, and this is why this new framework that the New Democrats have developed along with our leadership will provide the pathway for new agreements in the future.

And thank you again for all the work that y'all have done.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source