Wednesday
Jun042008
Congressional leaders discuss aggressive new trade agenda
In a conference call this afternoon, a group of prominent members of Congress discussed launching a new trade bill. Among those contributing were Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Oh), Representative Mike Michaud (D-Me), Representative Betty Sutton (D-Oh), and Citizens Trade Campaign director, Andy Gussert.
Brown said that in 1992 the trade deficit in the U.S. was 38 billion dollars and in 2007 the trade deficit was over 750 billion dollars. Specifically, the trade deficit with China has gone up 1200% since 1992. He said that because of these staggering statistics, he and his colleagues have put serious thought into a bill that will give U.S. trade a different direction. Brown said that one of the major problems with the trade policy is the tendency for U.S. based companies to outsource jobs to other countries, which hurts the U.S. economy, which is why part of the new trade agenda is the Patriotic Employment Act, which is designed to offer tax incentives to companies that decide to manufacture goods in the U.S. The Senator from Ohio said that because this bill contains so many new ideas it probably won’t make it through congress this year, but that it is a step in the right direction.
Michaud said that this new trade agenda is not opposed to trade, it is opposed to the way the US participates in trade. He said that the agenda is focused on developing a set of guidelines that can be implemented and will be used as a “roadmap” for future trade negotiations. Michaud said that bad trade policies were costing Americans jobs and that working class families understand the need for a new trade policy.
Brown said that in 1992 the trade deficit in the U.S. was 38 billion dollars and in 2007 the trade deficit was over 750 billion dollars. Specifically, the trade deficit with China has gone up 1200% since 1992. He said that because of these staggering statistics, he and his colleagues have put serious thought into a bill that will give U.S. trade a different direction. Brown said that one of the major problems with the trade policy is the tendency for U.S. based companies to outsource jobs to other countries, which hurts the U.S. economy, which is why part of the new trade agenda is the Patriotic Employment Act, which is designed to offer tax incentives to companies that decide to manufacture goods in the U.S. The Senator from Ohio said that because this bill contains so many new ideas it probably won’t make it through congress this year, but that it is a step in the right direction.
Michaud said that this new trade agenda is not opposed to trade, it is opposed to the way the US participates in trade. He said that the agenda is focused on developing a set of guidelines that can be implemented and will be used as a “roadmap” for future trade negotiations. Michaud said that bad trade policies were costing Americans jobs and that working class families understand the need for a new trade policy.
tagged Michaud, Patriot Employment Act, Trade, senate, sherrod brown in News/Commentary
Bird's Eye View: Empty Senate Chamber
From the press box, I looked down, surveying the floor from directly above the presiding member’s desk. All of the balcony areas were empty, save for the area to my right, which was stuffed with eager tourists. The floor of the Senate within the Capitol was eerily silent, as no electronic devices are allowed in and therefore not even the sound of a vibrating Blackberry was to be heard.
From the camera view, the average American will see only shots back and forth as the camera switches from the view of a member of Congress, to the presiding member, and back. They cannot see staffers wandering in and out of the double doors, the lack of people in the balcony, or the odd hollowness that sound creates in such a large, empty room.
Congress frequently puts out the call for a debate on an issue. But heated debate rarely seems to actually occur on the floor itself, since, as is apparent, they are almost never on the floor at the same time.
The Senator from New Mexico put a large, colorful posterboard up on a easel and gestured emphatically at it to no one in particular. The stenographer typed rapidly. The audience, which now included quite a few high school students, strained to see the tiny words printed on the board as the Senator waved his hands around and jabbed a finger into his notes.
All the passion that may or may not accompany a speech is no longer evident once it’s in a transcript. It is likely that a lot of information is going to be passed that way, via a paper or electronic copy of what was said.
It is much more effective, I would think, for someone to actually be seen in person as they give their speech, since the stenographer isn’t likely to point out elements of composure, such as saying that a Senator was ‘so excited that his hair was shaking and his face was beet red,’ or ‘as Senator so-and-so spoke, he was so into it that he spit on the guy in front of him.’
Since most members of Congress are only going to read what was said, the all important element of passion in a speech will be missed.
Pity.