[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 106 (Wednesday, July 15, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H8163-H8170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     GLOBAL TRADE AND JOB CREATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this evening I have taken out this Special 
Order to talk about an issue that is of grave importance to the 
American people. There is no doubt about the fact that the American 
people are hurting. We are seeing tremendous losses across this 
country. People are losing their homes. In California, the State that I 
am privileged to represent, we have an unemployment rate statewide of 
11.5 percent. People are losing their jobs; people are losing their 
businesses; and people are hurting. It's something that has been 
recognized by Democrats and Republicans alike. We right now are 
witnessing the implementation of policies that I believe, very 
sincerely, will exacerbate the problem.
  We were promised when we were provided with the so-called economic 
stimulus bill--$787 billion, but if you include interest a $1 trillion 
stimulus bill--we were promised by the President of the United States 
that if we implemented that measure, we would not see the unemployment 
rate exceed 8 percent. And we all know today, unfortunately, as I said, 
in California the unemployment rate statewide is 11.5 percent. 
Nationwide it is 9.5 percent. Economists across the board and the 
President of the United States, even in an interview yesterday, have 
indicated that we are going to see a continued increase in the 
unemployment rate. Now that was, again, after we were promised that 
implementation of the so-called economic stimulus bill which would 
prevent unemployment from exceeding the 8 percent level.
  Since that period of time, we have seen this House pass a massive 
tax, which is going to be inflicted on families across this country as 
it relates to energy. Now you will recall one of the hallmarks of the 
President's platform and the statements made repeatedly by our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been that we would not 
see any kind of tax increase imposed on Americans earning under 
$250,000 a year; and yet we know, based on the very modest report that 
came from the Congressional Budget Office, that we will see at least a 
$175 increase in the energy tax imposed on Americans as it relates to 
this so-called cap-and-trade measure.
  The debate that's going on right now relates to health care. We all 
want to do everything that we can to ensure that those 40-plus million 
Americans who are uninsured have access to quality, affordable health 
care. But the measure that is before us, I clearly believe, undermines 
the quality of care and the assurance that people will have access to 
quality health care. We also know that the cost imposed on small 
businesses and big businesses across this country will be very great. 
And those numbers, as have been shown in a wide range of reports that 
have been brought before us, have led many to indicate that there will 
be a tremendous job loss because of this. Because the increased costs, 
as it relates to health care, inflicted on small businesses will lead 
many of them to reduce the number of jobs.
  So I am very concerned, obviously, as are the people who I am 
privileged to represent from the Los Angeles area and the people across 
this country and, frankly, I think many Democrats as well as 
Republicans here in the House of Representatives, they are very, very 
concerned about this issue of dramatically increasing the size, the 
scope and the reach of the Federal Government. It is very well 
intentioned, of course, Mr. Speaker. It is very well intentioned 
because we all want to make sure that we focus on improving our 
environment and decrease our dependence on fossil fuels. We all want to 
ensure that every American does have access to quality affordable 
health care, and we want to make sure that we get the economy back on 
track. But I believe that the trillion-dollar economic stimulus bill, 
the so-called economic stimulus bill, the so-called cap-and-trade bill 
that has been put forward and the measure that would dramatically 
increase the cost of health care and diminish the quality of care are 
troubling signs. The reason I have taken out this Special Order--and I 
know I am going to be joined by colleagues of mine, Mr. Speaker--is 
that we are in a position where we still have a chance to actually 
focus on job creation.
  I'm going to talk this evening about something that has been very 
near and dear to me for many, many years. It goes back to my education 
in college; and that is, the notion of the United States of America 
playing a leading role in global economic growth so that we can 
increase the number of good American jobs. That means good jobs right 
here in the United States of America. I believe that trade is key to 
that. Trade, global trade is going to play a big role in creating jobs, 
jobs, jobs. Because the natural question that has continued to come 
forward from this promise that we would not see the unemployment rate 
exceed 8 percent is, Where are the jobs? We have a chance. Mr. Speaker, 
we still have an opportunity to turn the corner on that. With a 
shrinking economy and mounting job losses and anxiety for what the 
future holds, we need the job-creating power of open trade more now 
than we have ever needed it. It's one of the very sad ironies of the 
trade debate. Tough economic times often lead people to say that we 
should pull up the drawbridge and lead to a term that I know no one 
likes to have hanging around their necks, but that term is 
protectionism. Protectionism is a bad thing. But frankly, during tough 
economic times, there are many people who happen to respond by being 
proponents of protectionist measures, in fact, avoiding the notion of 
more open trade. There is a fundamental and very dangerous 
misconception held by many, including,

[[Page H8164]]

frankly, many here in the Congress--I'm happy to say very few on the 
Republican side, but many on the Democratic side.
  As I talk about this, Mr. Speaker, I also want to add that I hope 
very much we'll be able to get back to the bipartisan consensus that 
once existed in our quest for open trade. The fundamental and very 
dangerous misconception that is held by many is that engaging with 95 
percent of the world's consumers who live outside of the United States 
somehow hurts job creation right here in the United States. Let me 
repeat that, Mr. Speaker. We need to remember that 95 percent of the 
world's consumers don't live here in the United States. They live 
outside of our borders. So the notion that engaging with those 95 
percent somehow hurts job creation here is preposterous. In fact, 
nothing could be further from the truth. Even during these difficult 
economic times, even during this economic recession, even during this 
time when people are looking for jobs, they've lost their homes, 
they've lost their businesses, we continue to be the world's largest 
exporter of both goods and services. There are 57 million jobs directly 
supported by this engagement in the worldwide marketplace today. Now 
that is more than one-third of our entire workforce who have trade 
actually responsible for the fact that they have jobs today. A million 
Americans have their jobs today because of our engagement in the global 
marketplace. It also means that more than one-third of our workforce 
would be threatened if trade were to be diminished. But the impact of 
trade engagement is even more far reaching than these 57 million jobs 
with a direct connection to global trade. There are tens of millions of 
additional jobs that are indirectly related to trade as well. 
Manufacturers that lower costs and become more competitive by importing 
parts of their supply chain actually benefit from trade. That means raw 
materials coming into the United States for manufacturers so that they 
can engage in the export of finished products, there are a tremendous 
number of jobs that are related to that. Manufacturers that lower costs 
and become more competitive by importing those parts for their supply 
chain actually benefit from trade.

                              {time}  1830

  So do the retailers and wholesalers who sell the goods these 
manufacturers produce. There are thousands of small businesses who 
provide services for exporters, whether it is information technology, 
the IT sector support, printing services, logistics or any of the 
countless business services that help facilitate companies that are 
globally engaged. All of these companies, all of these companies are 
indirectly tied beyond the 57 million jobs here in the United States 
that are directly tied to global trade. All of these support efforts 
create, again, tens of millions of jobs right here in the United 
States. And so we as Americans benefit from both imports and exports as 
well.
  Unfortunately, that message gets lost amid the constant barrage of 
anti-trade rhetoric which we regularly hear. The protectionists and the 
isolationists who want to disengage from the worldwide marketplace have 
been adept and relentless in making their case against trade.
  That is why we are here tonight, to take a look at the actual facts 
and to try to set the record straight on the tremendous benefits of 
open trade and the opportunity it presents to help to begin restoring 
job creation in this country.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, as we talk about these items that I mentioned, 
the economic stimulus bill, which hasn't kept the unemployment rate at 
the 8 percent level that was promised by the President, it has gotten 
instead to 9.5 percent, the health care measure and the so-called cap-
and-trade bills which many studies have shown will cost jobs, we can 
help reduce the numbers of job loss if we were to focus on creating 
jobs through greater trade. It is instructive to look at past trade 
agreements and see what the impact has been on our economy and on our 
workforce right here in the United States.
  Let's look at the U.S.-Chile free-trade agreement as an example. It 
passed with bipartisan support. But it also drew the usual criticism 
from protectionists who oppose open trade at every opportunity. This 
agreement was passed in 2003; so we now, Mr. Speaker, have 6 years of 
experience and data to draw from in analyzing what the impact of the 
U.S.-Chile free-trade agreement has been.
  Since implementation of this agreement 5 years ago, our exports to 
Chile have increased by 345 percent. Now, when Congress considered this 
agreement, the International Trade Commission had estimated that there 
would be a 12 to 52 percent growth in the first 12 years. So far, we 
have seen growth that is nearly seven times higher than even the 
highest estimates that we had back in 2003.
  More than 10,000 U.S. companies are sharing in the success by 
exporting to Chile. This includes large manufacturing companies like 
Caterpillar which relies on export markets for half of all of its 
sales, to small, family-run companies like Lion Apparel in Dayton, 
Ohio. These companies and their workers have been boosted by the 
explosion of new trade that was made possible by this U.S.-Chile free-
trade agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a success story that has been repeated 
throughout every agreement that we have implemented. Again, I 
underscore that, throughout every agreement that we have implemented, 
we have success stories to which we can point, which is why we actually 
have a manufacturing goods trade surplus with our free-trade agreement 
partners. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker: we have a manufacturing--we 
are constantly hearing regularly from critics of trade that we have a 
tremendous loss of manufacturing jobs because of trade agreements, but 
we actually have a manufacturing goods trade surplus with our FTA 
partners. The key to increasing manufacturing jobs in this country is 
more, not fewer, free-trade agreements.
  The same holds true throughout all sectors of our economy. Now, I 
spoke today with the CEO of UPS, one of the great companies, Scott 
Davis, who in yesterday's Wall Street Journal penned a fascinating 
piece talking about the new jobs that trade enables his company, UPS, 
to create. And these are the words from Mr. Davis. He said, for every 
40 internationally shipped packages, UPS, United Parcel Service, can 
create one new job. This is only common sense.
  He explained to me today when we were talking about this that if you 
look at those who were moving the packages, not just the drivers, but 
those who had responsibility for handling packages and all, it creates 
the equivalent for every 40 packages the United Parcel Service exports.
  Greater engagement around the world means more economic growth, 
greater competitiveness and more job creation. It is just that simple. 
Now that is the good news, Mr. Speaker.
  The bad news is that failure to expand our trading relationships were 
even worse, withdrawing into isolationism, which tragically is what has 
happened in the past couple of years, will have very, and already has 
had and will continue to have, very negative consequences at a time 
when we, as Americans, cannot afford to lose a single job here in the 
United States of America.
  Because jobs, jobs, jobs, here at home, in the United States, is what 
this is about. It is what the American people are talking about. It is 
what they are asking for. It is what they were promised in last fall's 
campaign and what they had been promised throughout this year. And so 
we have before us a great opportunity that will, in fact, help us 
create more jobs.
  On Monday, U.S. wheat growers announced that they are on the verge of 
losing half of their exports to Colombia if we do not quickly act on 
that agreement.
  While the U.S. has stalled this agreement, Colombia has moved forward 
with other negotiations. It has just signed an agreement with the 
trading group known as Mercosur, the South American trade bloc led by 
Brazil which includes Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay.
  Colombia also intends, along with linking up with Mercosur, to 
conclude an agreement with Canada, our northern neighbor this fall, our 
NAFTA trading partner is engaging with Colombia now, in large part 
because we have failed to comply with the agreement that we made to 
have an up-or-

[[Page H8165]]

down vote here in the House of Representatives and in the Senate on the 
U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement.
  Without the U.S.-Colombia FTA, our wheat producers, who already face 
tariffs that can range as high as 124 percent, will not be able to 
compete with our Argentinean and Canadian counterparts who will enjoy 
duty-free access into the Colombian consumer market.
  This is just one example, Mr. Speaker, of the competitive 
disadvantage our farmers, manufacturers and service providers face and 
will continue to face if the United States refuses to move forward or 
takes a step back.
  Now we have three pending agreements. I mentioned the Colombia 
agreement. We also have pending agreements with Panama and South Korea 
that were negotiated in good faith. The first two, Panama and Colombia, 
are two very, very important key allies as we all know right here in 
the hemisphere. Their goods and services already enjoy duty-free access 
to the U.S. consumer market. That is a good thing. We are able to get 
cut flowers, coffee and things like that that come from South America, 
from Colombia especially, duty-free here in the United States. These 
agreements would simply level that playing field, providing us access 
to their consumer market.
  The latter, South Korea, is a very important strategic ally as we 
know. And it is the world's 13th largest economy. The potential for 
economic growth and job creation by entering into what would be the 
world's largest bilateral trade agreement ever is staggering. With our 
unemployment rate at 9.5 percent and job losses, as we all know, 
mounting every month, we cannot afford to delay another moment.
  These agreements, Mr. Speaker, are job creation agreements and 
American job creation agreements, which is something that Democrats and 
Republicans alike want to see happen. Job creation is at the forefront 
of Americans' minds right now. We know that.
  Well, I believe comparisons of our economic situation and the Great 
Depression may be misguided. There is a very significant lesson to be 
learned from that time in our Nation's history. Conservatives and 
liberals alike agree that the economic decline that began with the 
stock market crash in 1929 was dramatically exacerbated and prolonged 
by the Republican-initiated, I'm embarrassed to say, the Republican-
initiated Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which instituted dramatic, drastic 
protectionist measures. It began as an agriculture measure to impose 
tariffs on agriculture items and products, but it expanded. And it was 
very, very far reaching. This was precisely the wrong approach to take, 
plunging us as a Nation further into an economic depression.
  I would hope that we have learned the basic lesson from our history: 
isolationism is always bad for an economy. But it is especially, 
especially dangerous when we are already facing hardship.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress has tried nearly every possible kind of 
bailout in order to stimulate our economy. And as we have seen in the 
past several months, not one has worked, certainly not as has been 
promised. It is time for us to turn to a proven policy that again will 
create good jobs right here in the United States of America, well-
paying jobs. We know that jobs that relate to trade pay significantly 
higher than those that do not.
  So it is time to move with this trade agenda. We can move it forward. 
We have an opportunity to do that.
  I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be joined by a number of my 
colleagues who have been very active in our trade working group and, 
well, no one is on their feet at this moment. I will be happy to yield 
to my good friend from San Diego who immediately lurched to his feet 
and understands full well how important the issue of trade is, as he 
represents the very, very important gateway city into Latin America of 
San Diego.
  I'm happy to yield to my good friend, Mr. Bilbray.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman from California 
for bringing this item up.
  Mr. Speaker, one item I would like to discuss is the issue of our 
neighbors to the south. Every country in Central America has taken on 
the issue of free trade with the United States. And at great political 
risk, their political leaders have been willing to step forward and 
say, for the prosperity of the hemisphere, we must cooperate and work 
together, not just militarily, not just through aid, but through that 
long-term relationship of trade.
  And it is sad to see that while they have the political bravery to do 
the right thing for their economies and for their citizens, our 
political system stands frozen in our tracks. Speaker Pelosi refuses to 
bring forward the agreements that their leaders have been brave enough 
to step forward and support.
  Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time just to add a comment to that, 
not only has there been a refusal to bring it up, but for the first 
time since implementation of the 1974 Trade Act, when a commitment is 
made to a country in good faith, with which we embarked on these 
negotiations, for the first time ever, after that vote was promised, we 
here under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, utilized the Rules 
Committee, where I sit, and it was over my protest, of course, to 
actually subvert and prevent the up-or-down vote that was promised to 
our very, very important allies in Colombia.
  I'm happy to further yield to my friend from San Diego.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate that.
  You can imagine the frustration of somebody that sits down with you, 
negotiates in good faith, give and take, comes down to an agreement, 
and you tell them, go over and get your country to support it, and then 
we will go over and get ours, and you go ahead and do your part, you 
expend the political capital, you're brave enough politically to ask 
your people to support a proposal, and then you turn around with your 
partner, who asked you to agree and to move this agenda, to sit there 
and stonewall and refuse to even allow a vote, that kind of stab in the 
back with our partners.
  And these are not partners, Mr. Speaker, that are far away. These are 
our neighbors to the south. These are people that not only we, but our 
grandchildren and our great grandchildren are going to be living with 
for centuries to come.
  Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, let me just add that not only 
are they our neighbors to the south, but they are, without a doubt, our 
strongest allies on the South American continent playing a big role in 
dealing with the interdiction of illicit drugs coming into the United 
States.
  And I regularly point to the fact that there is no country in modern 
history that has gone through a greater transformation for good in a 5-
year period of time than Colombia. And the reason is that under the 
leadership of President Uribe, he has not only taken steps to 
demobilize the FARC and the paramilitaries in his country, but he also 
has made great steps towards dealing with the labor issues. And 
tragically there have been, in the past, labor killings, and there have 
been problems that continue to exist in Colombia. But he has been so 
helpful with us.
  We do know that on the South American continent today there are 
leaders who are not only not friendly to the United States, but are 
subverting the cause of freedom; and we know those leaders, Rafael 
Correa in Ecuador, Abel Morales in Bolivia and, of course, Hugo Chavez 
in Venezuela, and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. We are seeing very 
serious problems here. And yet we have this important, strong ally 
dealing with these issues.
  We promised them that we would have a vote so that we can create 
good, American jobs for Caterpillar's workers, for Whirlpool's workers, 
and for the other small businesses that exist.
  That is why I think it is very, very important that we continue to 
hold up our tradition of supporting our global leadership and trade, 
continue to do that.
  And I'm happy to further yield to my friend.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. BILBRAY. Colombia is a good example of somebody who is brave 
enough to take on the drug cartels, was brave enough to take on the 
extreme leftists in their continent and be able to be brave enough to 
be an American ally. And for us to stiff-arm them and to basically 
punish them, it appears, for being a friend, who in the world will

[[Page H8166]]

want to risk themselves of being an ally of the United States? This is 
the example we're setting.
  Moving on from Colombia, Panama is really a time-sensitive issue. Mr. 
Speaker, while we sit here today, Panama is moving forward with an 
aggressive program to rebuild the Panama Canal, one of the greatest, if 
not the largest, expenditures that Latin America has seen in our age. 
We are sitting on the sidelines while Panama is moving and looking to 
build this new project.
  And can you imagine at the turn of the last century if America had 
sat back and allowed other countries to be able to take advantage of 
the economic opportunities, if Teddy Roosevelt had ignored the 
challenge of Panama and Central America, where we would be today and 
how history would be different.
  Today, the Panamanians are building the canal. They want to buy 
Caterpillar equipment. They want to buy John Deere tractors. They want 
to see Bechtel and American companies come down there. They want to 
create American jobs because they want to have a full prosperity zone 
down there working with us to build the new canals.
  While they're waiting to move forward, our political system in this 
city is stiff-arming them again, freezing them, and doesn't have the 
political bravery to do the right thing and allow a vote on a proposal 
that they were brave enough to move forward to.
  So anyone who's listening to us and is looking at those factories 
that could be buying tractors, bulldozers, equipment, could be getting 
the contracts for the canal, just remember, it's your political process 
here in Washington that's freezing it out giving China and giving 
people from Iran, giving the rest of the world the leg up to get jobs 
out of the Panama Canal while Americans are being obstructed.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his contribution. And just to take 
his great example on Panama and to further build on Colombia, it's very 
interesting.
  It has been, as I look at my colleagues here, Mr. Herger, Mrs. 
Biggert, Mr. Conaway, who've been very involved in this issue for so 
many years, it's hard to believe when I was given this number today, it 
has been 967 days--967 days--since we signed the agreement with 
Colombia. And people from the State of the great gentlewoman from 
Hinsdale, Illinois, who work for Caterpillar and others have actually 
been forced in that 967 days to pay $2.1 billion in tariffs that 
otherwise would not have been there. And if one could think of the 
tremendous number of jobs that could have been created right here at 
home--because that's what this special order is about, Mr. Speaker. 
It's about creating good jobs here in the United States of America.
  This Special Order is actually the brainchild of my friend from 
Hinsdale. We were having a meeting of our Trade Working Group, and she 
proposed that we come to the floor and talk about how we can create 
more good U.S. jobs by expanding open trade.
  And with that, I'm happy to yield to the author of this Special 
Order, my friend from Hinsdale (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank you for 
heading up this Special Order, and I thought I better get down here 
since I had proposed it. And I think it's a great idea because we--
trade is so important right now during this recession. It is more 
important than ever that we continue to advance freer, fairer global 
commerce and not regress towards more harmful protectionist trade 
policies. And free trade agreements are one of the many ways to improve 
all of the Americans' standard of living and to get our economy back on 
track.
  And you mentioned Caterpillar. Let me just say that there are two 
plants that are very close to my district, and I have had the 
opportunity to drive a top loader 10 times.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I find it very hard to 
believe the gentlewoman from Hinsdale drove a high loader. A 
Caterpillar high loader?
  Mrs. BIGGERT. A 10-ton loader that has a basket.
  Mr. DREIER. If I were to witness that, Mr. Speaker, I would get out 
of the way, but I'm sure you did very well.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I can drive it forward and backward, and it is a huge 
vehicle. I think it holds a million golf balls in its basket, so you 
can imagine how big this is.
  But this is such an important piece of equipment. And Colombia has 
had so many of these vehicles to go--for trade. And here, as you said, 
we have the tariff that has to be paid by Colombia at $200,000 per 
vehicle for an off-road tractor going into Colombia while Colombian 
exports come into the United States nearly duty free.
  So this trade agreement is so right because that $200,000 per vehicle 
could be used and stay in America with a free trade agreement and 
supply many more jobs in my district and nationwide. And, in fact, in 
days since the Colombia Free Trade Agreement was signed here and has 
not been put into place, U.S. companies have paid over $2 billion in 
tariffs on goods and services that are exported to Colombia. And the 
money, you know, could do so much more.
  Let's go back for a minute to the Chile Trade Agreement, because I 
was the Republican whip on that. You put me in that position, and it 
was really an eye-opener, I think, for so many Members on this floor.
  So many of them were skeptical. So many of them thought this was--
that we shouldn't be entering into this, all of these global trade 
agreements. And the benefits that have been provided by that where 
American exports to Chile grew from $2.7 billion in 2003 to $12.1 
billion in 2008. That's outstanding.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I would like the gentlewoman to 
repeat that number. So, again, the actual raw number in dollar value of 
the increase in our exports from the United States is what number?
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Our exports to Chile grew from $2.7 billion in 2003 to 
$12.1 billion in 2008, and U.S. imports from Chile grew from $3.7 
billion in 2003 to $8.1 billion in 2008.
  Now, I love those green grapes that come in from Chile. And, you 
know, this is a thing where food products and everything that's coming 
from there is that we send over our products when they're having their 
winter; they send over their food products when we're having our 
winter. So it works out.
  And then another statistic is that in 2008, the U.S. was Chile's top 
source of imports and the second largest destination for Chilean 
exports while Chile was the 25th largest export market for U.S. goods.
  So we are doing really well to have that partnership, and that's why 
we need to move ahead with these other trade agreements.
  Let me just say one more thing about the Peru Trade Agreement also 
that was passed. My home State of Illinois, we exported $198 million in 
goods to Peru in 2006. So, as seen with Chile and other countries, 
we have a fair trade agreement with the amount of exports to Peru that 
will only increase. So we should do everything to encourage the trade 
agreements that are now on the table.

  And the cost, the cost of stalling these free trade agreements, for 
example, it's not fair that an Illinois company like Caterpillar should 
have to pay the $200,000 tariff and so many other companies that face 
the same thing; plus, the national security issue, the fact that we're 
dealing with countries so that we're not allowing some of the countries 
that are hostile to us to just have such a foothold there.
  With the Colombia agreement, I think a couple of things. And so many 
of these agreements have gotten into human rights or labor protections, 
and I think Colombia, in particular, has worked so hard to further 
reduce the violence and increase labor protections there by improving 
the labor and human rights in their nation. And we actually used to 
meet with President Uribe for so long, and it really was a shame then 
that we could not get this agreement through. And it really was unfair 
to change the law--I don't think you can change the law, but to have 
the Speaker not allow this agreement to come up within 45 days.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend it was not just--it 
was not just a change. It was, from my perspective, a complete 
abrogation of the responsibility that we had. And my concern is that we 
embark not only on other free trade agreements, but any other 
international negotiation with

[[Page H8167]]

any other partner in the world to deal with national security issues 
and other challenges out there. What good is our word after a 
commitment was made that there would be an up-or-down vote because of 
trade promotion authority that was granted by the Congress to the 
executive branch and negotiate this agreement saying we would have an 
up-or-down vote and then all of a sudden reneging on that commitment 
that was made?
  I would be happy to further yield to my friend.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think you are absolutely right. That is a much stronger statement, 
and that is the statement that should be made to abrogate our 
agreement. And I think that after all that Colombia had done with the 
labor protections--for example, in 2005 and 2006, Colombia issued new 
Presidential decrees and regulations that addressed the concerns about 
the applications of labor laws, cooperatives, and temporary workers.
  In 2006, they agreed to the establishment of a permanent 
representative of the International Labor Organization to be stationed 
in Colombia to promote the fundamental rights of workers.
  In 2007, the Colombian legislature passed laws that significantly 
expedite proceedings and enhanced Colombia's existing labor courts. All 
of these changes, and yet we could not get this labor agreement and the 
trade agreement through after so much negotiation that it really is a 
shame.
  So these significant efforts to improve labor relations in Colombia 
have led to the Colombian labor unions representing 79,000 Colombian 
workers to fully support the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. All of 
these things. It's an embarrassment.
  Mr. DREIER. So the gentlewoman is saying that the unions in Colombia 
are supportive of this agreement?
  I'd be happy to further yield.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Correct; 79,000 workers in the union support this 
agreement.
  Mr. DREIER. We're constantly hearing, Mr. Speaker, that unions are 
all opposed to this agreement. It seems to me that the unions here in 
the United States of America are opposed to it, and I've never quite 
understood that. How can creating more jobs for the union members and 
workers at Caterpillar and Whirlpool and a wide range of other 
companies across this country be the wrong thing to do, opening up 
markets so that their products can be sold into those countries? To me, 
I can't understand it.
  And when we've got the unions--all except one union, I'm told, and 
it's actually basically the public services union, which has nothing to 
do with the issue of global trade is the only union in Colombia that 
has opposed this. But I have had the chance in Bogota to meet with a 
wide range--and I know my colleagues have--of union leaders who are 
passionately supportive of this measure because they know it will end 
up being beneficial to their country and their workers.
  I'm happy to further yield.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I think there is a disconnect with some of the unions 
that they don't understand that this is what creates jobs in the United 
States when we have the products that we're going to export, and the 
more that we export, the more jobs that we have created, and this is 
what moves our economy along.
  Let me talk about one more issue, and that is that the U.S. trade 
deficit is shrinking. In May this year, there was a 9.8 decline in the 
U.S. trade deficit. That means that we are exporting more and more. We 
have been at a deficit where we have imported more, so we are running a 
trade surplus.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I will say to my colleagues 
something that I mentioned in my opening remarks, and I know that 
you'll agree with this, and people are always saying that these trade 
agreements cost manufacturing jobs here in the United States, people 
are thrown out of work because of these trade agreements, when, in 
fact, the opposite has been the case. We actually run a manufacturing 
job surplus with our partner countries with these FTAs.
  And I'm happy to further yield.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I think that the surplus has been running $9.3 billion 
for January through May of 2009.
  Mr. DREIER. It's a very, very impressive measure.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. So I thank the gentleman so much.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for recommending that we take 
time to talk to our colleagues about this important issue.
  And, again, I will say I know that she and Mr. Conaway, Mr. Herger 
and others join me in hoping that this will be a bipartisan agreement.

                              {time}  1900

  Let me just take one moment as I prepare to yield to my other 
colleagues, and I'm happy to yield again to my friend from Hinsdale, to 
talk about the much-maligned North American Free Trade Agreement.
  Now, my friend comes from Texas. My California colleague is here. We 
represent States that border on Mexico, and we so often hear people 
describe virtually every ailment in society as being tied to the North 
American Free Trade Agreement when, in fact, more than one-third of all 
U.S. exports, more than one-third of all the exports leaving the United 
States of America, go to our NAFTA partners, and for some States, that 
percentage is significantly higher.
  Michigan, we know what a devastating economy Michigan has. The number 
actually in Michigan is 68 percent of the exports from that State go to 
our NAFTA partners, obviously a great percentage to Canada but also 
much to Mexico.
  In Ohio, we so often hear our colleagues from Ohio maligning any kind 
of trade agreement. Yet, 54 percent of the exports from Ohio, where do 
they go? To our NAFTA trading partners. Those jobs created in Ohio, 54 
percent of them go to our NAFTA partners.
  In Indiana, it's 52 percent. In fact, without the North American Free 
Trade Agreement the manufacturing workforce of these States would be 
devastated, and let's say that again, Mr. Speaker. While we hear that 
NAFTA is responsible for any job loss that takes place in Ohio, in 
Michigan, and in Indiana and other States, in fact, were it not for the 
North American Free Trade Agreement the manufacturing job loss would be 
tremendously higher than it is today.
  Since implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
between Canada and the United States and Mexico, we have actually seen 
our trade triple to nearly $1 trillion. Between 1993 and 2007, 28 
million American jobs have been created, or a 25 percent expansion in 
our workforce. Between 1993 and 2007, U.S. industrial production, 
three-quarters of which is manufacturing, rose by 57 percent, almost 
double the productivity increase in the 12-year period before 
implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  And more than 110,000, small- and medium-size businesses export to 
Canada and Mexico, 110,000. I know many of them are in Texas, many in 
California, many in Illinois and other States. These companies are 
spread all across the country, but the top exporters to Canada and 
Mexico are, in fact, Texas, California, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, New 
York, Indiana, and Pennsylvania.
  And so while we regularly hear the North American Free Trade 
Agreement as being maligned and responsible for any economic challenge 
we face in this country, the opposite is the case.
  Have there been any people displaced? Well, of course there have 
been, and that's one of the reasons I've supported trade adjustment 
assistance, as I know my colleagues have, so that any people who do, in 
fact, face job loss that they will be in a position where they are able 
to be retrained, put into positions that will end up being very 
beneficial for them.
  So I'm very pleased now to be joined by one of the great champions of 
the trade agenda who's a member of the Agriculture and Intelligence and 
the Armed Services Committees, and he's the gentleman from Midland, 
Texas (Mr. Conaway). I'm happy to yield to him.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and 
those are some pretty startling facts. I'm a CPA and I tend to work 
better with facts than I do with hyperbole and make things up and 
guesses and wishes. Those facts are pretty startling when it comes to 
the----
  Mr. DREIER. I must say, it's unusual for me to use facts.

[[Page H8168]]

  Mr. CONAWAY. For the much-maligned North American Free Trade 
Agreement, most of the time you hear people criticize it, but they do 
it based on old data based off of misconceptions, and when you begin to 
lay out the facts to them, particularly from the States who--some of 
the most inflammatory comments that I heard on this floor about NAFTA 
come from Members from Ohio. And that's a pretty startling fact that we 
will have to confront them with perhaps the next time that they bring 
that up.
  I would like to move back to Colombia because I think, given free 
trade agreements that are the most ripe for execution and for 
completion, Colombia would certainly be in that category.
  My colleague mentioned it had been 967 days that that bill has 
languished in our system. Let me point out that, over 925 of those 
days, we're under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi. So it has been the 
Speaker who has stood in the way of reducing tariffs by $2.1 billion, 
that my colleague mentioned earlier; insisting that the 35 percent 
tariff on automobiles remain in place; the 10 percent tariff on cotton 
remain in place; and the 10 percent on computers and other things made 
in the United States remain in place.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, would my friend repeat those numbers? I 
think that's very, very telling, and that is a tariff level in place 
basically undermining the ability of sending the products of U.S. 
workers here in the United States into Colombia.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Well, it's interesting that between the unions and the 
Federal taxpayers, we own General Motors, and so a General Motors car 
made in the United States bears a 35 percent tariff if you try to sell 
it in Colombia. So you add 35 percent to the cost of that car, and it 
competes with a car say made in Korea or other places that don't have 
that tariff, and then we don't compete well on a cost basis. So those 
are American manufacturing jobs. They speak to you on behalf of the 
American taxpayers and the unions for a change, which I don't normally 
speak to, if we're going to prosper General Motors, why not do 
something that drops the tariff, makes us more competitive for the 
taxpayer-made automobiles to be sold in Colombia?
  As you mentioned earlier, Colombia's continued with the unilateral 
trade agreements that they're doing that continue to disadvantage 
American businesses that compete with businesses from those countries 
that Colombia----
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, let's state for the record, I would 
say to my colleague, why it is that Colombia has resorted to these 
agreements with Mercosur, with Canada. The reason is very simply, 967 
days ago when this agreement was signed, President Uribe and our 
friends from Colombia assumed that within a relatively short period of 
time, that we in both Houses of Congress would do our due diligence of 
looking at the agreement, and then we would have had an up-or-down 
vote. So it's hard to blame our friends and allies in Colombia for 
having embarked on negotiations with Canada and with Mercosur as we 
have, again, reneged on our commitment to have an up-or-down vote here.
  And I'm happy to further yield to my friend.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Well, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I was startled last week when I saw a headline attributed to a 
comment that our United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk made that 
trade still or was a high priority with the White House. High rhetoric 
but no action. I've not seen any pressure from the White House on the 
Speaker to tell the Speaker that we have a great friend in Colombia, we 
have an ally, a stalwart ally in President Uribe, and we need to quit 
thumbing our nose at him, quit treating him like a redheaded stepchild, 
and begin to treat him as the friend and ally we know him to be by 
recognizing the importance of this free trade agreement, and getting it 
passed, getting it signed and getting it implemented into law.

  The only reason I can see so far, remaining reason, is our trade 
unions' opposition to this particular trade agreement. I'm not sure why 
they picked out Colombia because, in the grand scheme of things, 
Colombia's overall economy doesn't threaten any particular business in 
the United States.
  But the remaining issue is with our trade unions. It's been my 
experience that Colombia has addressed almost every single one of the 
issues with respect to union organizers that was the pushback. They've 
decreased the violence significantly. They've agreed to ILO standards. 
As my colleague Mrs. Biggert mentioned earlier, they've agreed to an 
Office of the High Commission from the U.N. on human rights. All those 
things have been agreed to so there's no rational reason to continue to 
maintain the 35 percent trade barrier on automobiles. There's no 
rational reason to maintain the 10 to 15 percent trade barrier on 
movies and DVDs. There's no rational reason to maintain the 10 percent 
tariff on cotton. And finally, there's no rational reason to maintain 
the 10 percent tariff on computers. That hurts American businesses.
  My colleague mentioned a while ago that our trade unions don't 
understand that when we make things in the United States and sell them 
overseas that creates jobs. I would respectfully disagree. They are 
bright, smart people. It's counterintuitive why they would be against 
creating jobs in America so that we could build stuff and sell it 
overseas, but I think they full well understand the mechanics of how 
that works.
  So I would encourage my colleagues to continue to push on the 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Colombia is the strongest democracy in 
South America, and at a time when there's unrest in Honduras, unrest in 
Venezuela, unrest in Bolivia and throughout that region, we need a 
strong ally in that country. We need to put our actions where our mouth 
is, in effect, and put this agreement in place so that we can quit 
insulting our good friend President Uribe by refusing to bring this up.
  I appreciate the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. DREIER. I appreciate the gentleman for his very thoughtful 
contributions and I'd be happy to yield to my friend from Hinsdale.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I was going to maybe correct what I said. What I meant 
to say that there were people on the other side of the aisle that had 
blocked these agreements, and not the trade unions. I know that so many 
of them really do know how important this is.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for her contribution as well, and it 
has been an unfortunate thing. I believe that there are intelligent 
people within the union movement here in the United States who 
understand that creating jobs in the United States hinges in large part 
on opening up markets where 95 percent of the world's consumers are 
outside of our borders, and yet, they have, for some unknown reason, 
and there's lots of speculation as to why they do this, they have 
continued to drum up and really pander to what is the lowest common 
denominator of fear, frightening people, My gosh, if we embark on an 
agreement, we're going to lose jobs, when, in fact, every shred of 
evidence that we have is that the opposite is the case.
  And I thank my friend for her contribution. I thank my friend from 
Midland as well.
  Now, I'm very, very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to yield to our very, very 
hardworking colleague who for many years served as the top Republican 
on the Ways and Means Committee Subcommittee on Trade who's been a 
great champion of it, as a fellow Californian, represents important 
agriculture industry in his State, the largest industry. I say as an 
Angeleno, that I know full well that agriculture is the number one 
industry in our State of California, and the idea of opening up new 
markets is very important.
  And actually, as the gentleman begins, I want to talk a little bit 
about the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement because I know that would 
play a very big role in benefiting the constituents he has, the farmers 
whom he represents.
  With that, I'm happy to yield to my friend from Chico.
  Mr. HERGER. Well, I thank my good friend from California (Mr. Dreier) 
for yielding and also for the leadership that you've given over the 
years in this incredibly important area of trade, of fair trade, of 
free trade, and how crucially important it is to our economy, not just 
to the district I represent but to our entire Nation.

[[Page H8169]]

  And Mr. Speaker, the number one concern for Americans right now is 
the economy. Americans know that the health of the U.S. economy 
directly impacts their job and their ability to provide for their 
family and keep a roof over their heads.
  At the beginning of the year, Democrats pushed through the Congress 
an unprecedented measure to spend $787 billion in an attempt to 
stimulate the economy. That was money we had to borrow, creating a 
national deficit that will reach almost $2 trillion by the end of the 
year.
  The President assured the American people that this was the only way 
to prevent the unemployment rate from reaching 8 percent. Yet, with 
this mammoth deficit spending, the unemployment rate has skyrocketed 
not to 8 percent, but to 9.5 percent, with estimates indicating it will 
reach 10.5 percent before the end of the year and no end in sight.
  While Americans continue to struggle to find work, Congress has moved 
on to other issues, ignoring one of the most obvious and efficient 
vehicles to promote economic growth and create jobs: trading with other 
countries. Importantly, this solution doesn't require the government 
spending billions of dollars nor does it require a huge expansion or 
invasion of the government into the free market. It is as simple as 
removing foreign barriers to U.S. goods and services so that our 
workers and businesses can compete on a level playing field in the 
global economy.
  Most Americans don't know that the U.S. is not only the number one 
trading Nation in the world but also the number one manufacturer and 
that our record exports last year were the one bright spot in our 
economy.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me ask my friend to repeat that. We are 
the number one manufacturing country in the world? So few people 
realize that. People believe that it is China. People believe that 
there are other countries, that Mexico is, but we continue, even with 
this struggling, down economy to be the number one manufacturing 
country in the entire world?
  Mr. HERGER. That is absolutely correct, number one manufacturing 
Nation in the world, the number one trading Nation in the world. Trade 
is part of the foundation of a strong economy and high standard of 
living.

                              {time}  1915

  Today, for example, more than 57 million American jobs depend on 
trade, and these jobs pay 13 to 18 percent higher wages. Clearly, it 
would be in our Nation's best interest to build on this record, helping 
us through this difficult economic time.
  The premise is simple: reducing tariffs and other barriers would make 
our goods less expensive and therefore more competitive in foreign 
markets. The additional sales from exports will help sustain and grow 
our U.S. businesses during this economic downturn, creating much needed 
job opportunities in the United States.
  When you combine the fact that demand is sluggish in the United 
States due to the high unemployment and general uncertainty about the 
economic outlook with the fact that 95 percent of the world's consumers 
live outside the United States, it seems like the commonsense solution 
would be to encourage U.S. exports by reducing barriers abroad. The 
best way to do this is to negotiate market-opening trade agreements 
with other countries.
  Mr. Speaker, my district in rural northern California is typical of 
many districts across the United States that are largely dependent on 
agriculture. We produce more almonds, walnuts, rice, and prunes than we 
can possibly consume, and heavily rely on exporting these goods to 
foreign markets.
  The bottom line is promoting free and fair trade through these 
agreements is an essential component of economic recovery. 
Unfortunately, House Democrat leadership has failed to take this 
necessary step for our workers, despite the fact that we have three 
agreements--three agreements already negotiated and just waiting for 
congressional approval.
  Two of these pending agreements are with close U.S. allies in South 
America: Panama, and Colombia. Both of these countries largely already 
have duty-free access to U.S. markets due to trade preference programs, 
while our goods face high tariffs in theirs. Yet, these nations want to 
move from a one-way trade relationship to a two-way relationship. Why? 
This Congress is preventing that from happening when our workers would 
benefit from new opportunities in these markets.
  It is mind-boggling to me that the U.S. Government continues to 
ignore the needs of our workers in such a way.
  We also have a pending agreement with South Korea, which is the most 
commercially significant agreement for the United States, as Korea is 
already our seventh largest trading partner.
  Together, these three trade agreements would increase U.S. exports by 
at least $10.8 billion, as estimated by the U.S. International Trade 
Commission. That clearly means more businesses for U.S. companies and 
more jobs for American workers. And these benefits are spread 
throughout the entire economy. All sectors benefit: manufacturers, 
agricultural producers, and services.
  Yet, instead of providing this true stimulus to our struggling 
economy, Congress and the administration have chosen to tie our hands 
behind our back. We must realize the cause of this inaction. If the 
American people knew that denying a vote on the Panama agreement is 
causing U.S. workers to miss an opportunity to export heavy machinery 
to Panama for their $5 billion Panama Canal expansion project, would 
they think Congress is acting in their best interest by sitting on the 
agreement? I think not.
  If the American people knew that if Canada ratifies their agreement 
with Colombia before the U.S., Colombians will be buying Canadian wheat 
instead of U.S. wheat, would they think that loss in market share to 
our competitor is acceptable? I don't think so.
  If the American people knew that if the European Union ratifies their 
agreement with South Korea before the U.S., Koreans are going to use 
European services instead of services provided by American workers, 
would they think their Members of Congress are doing what's best for 
American workers? Absolutely not.
  By not finalizing these agreements, we not only miss out on 
opportunities for our businesses to expand; we will also start to lose 
our current market share to our competitors. The EU, Canada, China, and 
other nations aren't standing still. They will continue to push for 
their own market-opening agreements that would put U.S. goods and 
services at a competitive disadvantage.
  Mr. Speaker, the reality is that if we are not moving forward, we are 
moving backwards--and other countries aren't going to wait for us to 
catch up. Trade is an essential part of economic recovery and the 
American people cannot afford for this Congress to continue to ignore 
it. Expanding trade opportunities for our businesses will help them 
grow and expand, creating jobs that American workers need right now. 
And if that isn't reason enough, we don't have the luxury of time to 
sit back and wait while our competitors race by. I urge this Congress 
to act on behalf of American workers and pass the three pending U.S. 
trade agreements. Our great Nation is at a crossroads. Will the 
Democrat Leadership of this Congress take our Nation down a 
protectionist path, isolating our Nation from the rest of the world, or 
are they going to choose the path traveled by Pres's John Kennedy and 
Bill Clinton and embrace the quest for open markets that have helped 
make this country the greatest Nation in the world?
  During this time of economic instability, it has never been more 
important for the leaders of our Nation to actively choose open markets 
and free & fair trade. The United States already tried protectionism in 
the 1920s--it was called the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1928 that raised 
tariffs on products in every sector which resulted in a worsening of 
the Great Depression. Mr. Speaker, the American people cannot afford to 
go down their protectionist path again. We desperately need the 
benefits & opportunities that these trade agreements create.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for his very 
thoughtful contribution, especially mentioning the very important Korea 
agreement.
  This is about jobs, jobs, jobs created right here in the United 
States of America. And that is exactly what these trade agreements will 
do.
  I thank my friend and all of my colleagues for their participation in 
this very, very important Special Order. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that 
we will continue this conversation, and look forward to work in a 
bipartisan way to get these agreements through so that we

[[Page H8170]]

can create more good job opportunities for our fellow Americans.

                          ____________________