[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 159 (Thursday, October 29, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H12126-H12132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          INTERNATIONAL TRADE

  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. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
  Let me say, I'm going to be joined by a number of my colleagues this 
evening to talk about an issue which often has a tendency to leave 
people to have their eyes glaze over. It's the issue of international 
trade. I know that we have people who are focused on the World Series. 
I regret the fact that my two Los Angeles teams, the Angels and the 
Dodgers, haven't made it to the World Series. We're all fascinated 
watching the Phillies and the Yankees play. We've got people focused 
on--as my California colleague Mr. Lungren just pointed out--the issue 
of health care. We've got understandable concern about the situation in 
Afghanistan, and our colleague from Illinois just spent time talking 
about the families who had loved ones who paid the ultimate price in 
Afghanistan.
  We have a lot of very, very important issues that we are addressing 
here, and it's important to note, as our distinguished Republican whip, 
Mr. Cantor, said in his colloquy with the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, 
that what we hear at home and what public opinion polls and, most 
recently, the Gallup Poll that came out the day before yesterday have 
shown is that the number one priority right now, the greatest concern 
of the American people happens to be the pressing need to get our 
economy back on track.
  The report came out earlier today that the jobless numbers have, in 
fact, not improved. We know that we have an unemployment rate that is 
approaching 10 percent. In my State of California, it's 12.2 percent. 
As I said, today's report that the new jobless claims did not decline 
by the extent that had been thought. We did get positive news on the 
gross domestic product growth over the last 3 months. Annualized, it 
came at 3.5 percent. But I've got to say--and I was talking to one of 
my Democratic colleagues late this afternoon who said, What evidence do 
we have of this economic growth? We all know, as we talk with our 
constituents across this country, that we have very, very serious 
problems when it comes to job creation and economic growth.
  Now I began by saying that our goal here this evening is to talk 
about international trade, and the challenge that we have, Madam 
Speaker, is to underscore the direct correlation between job creation, 
economic growth and international trade. Tragically, over the past 
several years, we have had people get it completely backwards. There 
are people who believe that as we pursue international trade 
agreements, that the natural step to follow is job loss in the United 
States. We constantly hear, Well, if we pass a Free Trade Agreement, 
what is it that's going to happen? Oh, we're going to see our jobs 
going to Mexico or to China or to any other country in the world, but 
they're going to flee the United States of America when, in fact, the 
opposite is the case. Why? Well, the reason for that, Madam Speaker, is 
that 95 percent of the world's consumers are outside of the U.S. 
border. They're not here in the United States. The United States is a 
country that has provided the world access to our consumer market. 
Meaning, as we all know, we can buy goods from China that people see 
regularly at Wal-Mart, Kmart, Home Depot, stores across the country. So 
we allow, virtually tariff-free, for goods to come into the United 
States so that the American people can enjoy a standard of living that 
is higher than it would be otherwise, and that's a good thing. It's a 
good thing.
  As I said, we want the standard of living in the United States of 
America to improve. One of the things that can help us improve our 
standard of living and create jobs based on every shred of empirical 
evidence that we have is for us to embark on more, not fewer, trade 
agreements. Basically, market-opening opportunities for U.S. workers so 
that manufacturing workers, union members and nonunion members will 
have an opportunity to sell their finished products in countries around 
the world. It's very important for us to embark on those agreements 
because the existence of those agreements--and we have a lot of 
evidence that we're going to talk about this evening that shows that--
the existence of those agreements do, in fact, create jobs right here 
in the United States of America.

[[Page H12127]]

  In fact, if we think about our goal, the goal that we have of job 
creation and economic growth, there are very few efforts that we have 
that promise more benefits if we move forward on the global trade 
agenda, and there are very few things that threaten our goal of job 
creation and economic growth if we fail to move forward on the trade 
agenda.
  So that's why I want this evening to have my colleagues who are 
here--and I will say that a number of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle--this was to be a bipartisan Special Order this evening--both 
sides of the aisle were hoping to join me. Colleagues like Mr. Meeks, 
Mr. Kind and other Members on the Democratic side and other colleagues 
here because I very much hope, Madam Speaker, that we can get back to 
the bipartisanship that has existed on the trade agenda in the past.
  Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership has chosen not to move the 
trade agenda, and I am saddened that President Obama has to this point 
not been able to move the trade agenda forward as it should be because 
I know that he very much wants to see new jobs created in the United 
States, but for I guess a number of reasons that I find hard to 
comprehend, they have failed to move the trade agenda forward.

                              {time}  1930

  Again, there are rank-and-file Members on both the Democratic side 
and on the Republican side who feel strongly about the need to do this 
in a number of areas. I want to spend this hour this evening talking 
about those.
  I have two very distinguished colleagues who are here--my California 
colleague (Mr. Herger) and the very distinguished gentleman from 
Woodland Hills, Texas (Mr. Brady). I would be happy at this juncture to 
yield to either of the two of you if we could engage in a colloquy and 
discuss some of these issues.
  I know that Mr. Herger, who, Madam Speaker, has served with great 
distinction as the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways 
and Means Committee, has been a wonderful leader in this area. I would 
like to yield to him at this juncture.
  Mr. HERGER. I thank my good friend from California (Mr. Dreier) for 
leading us in this very important discussion on trade.
  Really, the surprise, I think, for myself--now, I represent a 
northern California district which is heavy in agriculture. It's one of 
the richest agricultural areas in the world. Also, it stretches from 
just north of Sacramento almost 300 miles to the Oregon border. The 
northern quarter of it has and along the sides it has some nine 
national forests, Mt. Shasta and Mt. Lassen. As I mentioned, it is one 
of the richest agricultural areas in the world. Within the United 
States, we grow a large percentage of specialty crops grown in the 
world--walnuts, almonds, prunes. We're the third largest rice-producing 
district in the Nation.
  The fact is that our consumers in northern California and in all of 
California--and one out of every eight citizens in the United States 
lives in California--cannot consume all that we grow. We need to be 
able to export, so over half of all that we grow is exported to other 
nations. It helps with our imbalance of trade. As my friends and Mr. 
Brady know, it's not just agriculture. It's manufacturing as well.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I will engage my friend, if I 
might, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. HERGER. Yes, please do.
  Mr. DREIER. The issue of agriculture, let's spend just a moment on 
that, if we might, because the gentleman comes from an agriculture-rich 
area.
  Frankly, there are many people who believe that the State of 
California's No. 1 industry is tourism, defense, or motion pictures. 
There are a wide range of areas, but they often don't get it right, 
because the No. 1 industry in the largest State of the Union is 
agriculture.
  The Central Valley of California, which is going through serious 
challenges now of which all of our colleagues know because of the water 
problems out there, has not been able to move ahead as we would like. 
The area in northern California, which my friend represents, is a very, 
very rich area in many ways and when it comes to the agriculture field. 
I know that prying open those new markets with 95 percent of the 
world's consumers outside of our border would be very, very helpful for 
job creation and economic growth in his district.
  I am happy to further yield.
  Mr. HERGER. That's exactly true.
  I'd like to give examples of agriculture and then mention that these 
same challenges we have in agriculture we see in manufacturing as well. 
As a matter of fact, we as a nation are the No. 1 agricultural country 
in the world and exporting country, but it's not just agriculture. 
We're the No. 1 manufacturing and the No. 1 trading nation in the 
world.
  Our big challenge, as it is with our agricultural goods, is that we 
basically have very low tariffs coming into the United States. Yet, 
when we look at our markets for agriculture and for other commodities, 
whatever they might be--getting into the markets of China, getting into 
the markets of Japan, Asia, South Korea, the EU--Europe--and in the 
South American countries--we see that their duties, import duties, of 
getting our rice or our prunes or our peaches or our walnuts into their 
countries are very high. So, therefore, it's very difficult for us, 
unless we can negotiate agreements--trade agreements--with these 
countries, to lower their tariffs in order to get our goods into their 
countries.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker----
  Mr. HERGER. Yes.
  Mr. DREIER. I would say it's very interesting that my friend raises 
both Asia and Latin America.
  We have agreements, as we know, and both of these gentlemen here, 
Madam Speaker, have been involved in this and have negotiated free 
trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. Those three 
agreements are pending right now, and we, unfortunately, have not had a 
vote here in the Congress on those agreements.
  In the wake of that, our neighbors to the north, Canada, have 
embarked on a free trade agreement with our allies in Colombia. They 
have already proceeded with that, in part, because we have not. Our 
friends in South Korea have already negotiated a free trade agreement 
with the European Union.
  So what has now happened, as my friend has referred to this high 
tariff rate on all of these specialty crops that would be sold in 
Colombia, if those things are grown to the north, in Canada, under this 
agreement that has been struck, by virtue of that--because we have been 
so slow in putting together our agreement and not passing it and I 
believe, if we were to have it here in the House of Representatives, it 
would pass with bipartisan support--the Canadians are able to sell 
tariff-free into the Colombian market right now, and unfortunately, we 
are denied the opportunity to do that.
  I am happy to further yield to my friend.
  Mr. HERGER. Well, that's exactly right. Our tariffs are in the mid-20 
percent. It is as much as that that we're paying into these countries.
  So it almost defies reason to think that we are standing still in 
this Congress and that we actually have the three agreements that you 
mentioned which have already been negotiated. In Panama, they're about 
ready to rebuild the Panama Canal. The gentleman and myself have been 
down to these countries. We've seen this. These countries want these 
agreements. They've already negotiated bringing their tariffs down. 
They were negotiated in the last administration with these countries. 
All they need is a vote and an okay by the Congress.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I will say, along that line, 
the gentleman is absolutely right.
  In mentioning that construction, the modernization of the Panama 
Canal, we all know what it takes to bring about the modernization of 
the Panama Canal--tractors, road equipment, all kinds of heavy 
equipment. What comes to mind? John Deere, Caterpillar, and other 
companies here in the United States that are on the cutting edge of 
developing great, great equipment. Yet the tariff rate that exists 
right now on selling that equipment into Panama exists. With this 
agreement, we would be able to get it to zero, dramatically cutting the 
cost of the modernization of the Panama Canal.

[[Page H12128]]

  I am happy to further yield to my friend.
  Mr. HERGER. Well, that's exactly the case.
  Like everything else in life, no one stands still. You're either 
moving forward merely because your competitors are moving forward or 
you're moving behind.
  In this case, not only are we not moving forward with just these 
three agreements, which could pass, but as Mr. Dreier from California 
mentioned, we see the Canadians have also negotiated an agreement with 
the Colombians and with the Panamanians where they will now get in 
ahead of us and will be able to make agreements. Their businesses will 
begin developing their relationships, and our businesses and our 
agriculture will be on the outside, looking in. We'll be behind. We'll 
still be paying these high tariffs where our competitors will not be. 
Therefore, we will lose literally millions of jobs that we could have 
been gaining and billions of dollars in trade that we could have been 
gaining at a time when our economy is down and at a time when we have 
some of the highest unemployment we've had in many decades here in the 
United States.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I think the gentleman makes a 
very interesting point.
  As I've talked to a number of colleagues about the importance of our 
bringing up and considering and voting on these trade agreements, I 
know that my friends will hear this argument made:
  My gosh. We're dealing with a nearly 10 percent unemployment rate in 
the United States. Our State has a 12.2 percent unemployment rate. Now 
is not a good time to bring up a free trade agreement, because aren't 
we going to lose jobs here in the United States if we put into place a 
free trade agreement?
  When, in fact, as the gentleman has said so well, Madam Speaker, the 
opposite is the case, because the passage of and the implementation of 
these trade agreements are job creators right here in the United States 
of America.
  I am happy to further yield to my friend.
  Mr. HERGER. Well, that is exactly the case. It really is a win-win. 
It is virtually a win-win for all of our manufacturers, not just for 
agriculture, which I represent.
  Again, we're falling behind. We're costing more jobs. We're not 
moving forward. All we're asking for is a vote on these three areas 
that we've already negotiated with Panama, that we've already 
negotiated with the Colombians, and that we've already negotiated with 
the South Koreans. All we're doing is waiting for a vote, up or down, 
and yet we have not been able to get that from this Congress.
  Mr. DREIER. Well, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful remarks.
  I made a horrible mistake earlier. I live in southern California. 
There is a great area called Woodland Hills, and I know my friend is 
actually from Woodland, Texas, but I hope that he'll excuse me. I know 
there could be a worse slur than being mistaken for a California city, 
but as a Texan, maybe that's not the case.
  Our friend Mr. Brady has provided very thoughtful, tremendous 
leadership on the trade agenda. I've been privileged to work with him. 
Mr. Herger and I were able to join Mr. Brady, with the leadership he 
provided, on a very important roundtable discussion we had over at the 
Library of Congress on the trade agenda a couple of weeks ago.
  I am happy to yield to him.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Well, thank you, Mr. Dreier. Thank you for your 
leadership on trade for so many years in Congress.
  Thank you, Mr. Herger, a former top Republican on the Trade 
Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means.
  We are here because we want jobs in America, good-paying jobs, the 
types you can raise your family on, and today is a good day to be 
talking about it because two things occurred today.
  One, Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced the Pelosi plan--the new 
national takeover of America's health care system, which we are going 
to spend every waking hour defeating, sending back to the drawing 
board, and getting a health care reform bill that's done right.
  The third quarter economic numbers came out, which show how America 
has done over the last 3 months. It showed that it grew about 3\1/2\ 
percent. Growth is good, but if you look at it, what you realize is 
almost all of that growth are onetime events--Cash for Clunkers, which 
is over, and businesses have drawn down their stockpiles of inventory. 
That only happens one time.
  Looking forward, whether we have hit the bottom or not, the question 
is: Is the private sector, the private market in America, going to 
drive our growth in the future or is government? The only way you have 
a strong recovery is if it's the private marketplace.
  What we are missing are jobs created by selling American products and 
services around the world. It's no longer enough to just buy American. 
We have to sell American because of what you said--so many consumers 
live outside our borders. We want them to buy our ag products, our 
services, our computers, our equipment, all of that, but when we go 
outside the country, what we often find is that the rules are tilted 
against our companies and our workers.

                              {time}  1845

  Other countries, China, Europe, Latin America, have reached trade 
agreements that give their companies and their workers an advantage 
over ours. Today, what is interesting, as you both have said, is that 
when we have trade agreements, we win. We sell our American products 
and services. We have a trade surplus with our trade agreement 
partners.
  In Latin America--I was just thinking about it--in Chile people said 
we would sell about 50 percent more products there. We have sold 250 
percent more American products.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I would like to just 
underscore the point my friend has made. We regularly hear that free 
trade agreements lead to job losses in the United States. That is a 
mantra that many people, unfortunately, are beating, when in fact the 
empirical evidence we have, history has shown the opposite in fact to 
be the case.
  In fact, we enjoy a trade surplus with our free trade agreement, FTA, 
trading partners as a whole, and the country with which we don't 
happens to be Mexico. There is a reason for that. It is our purchase of 
oil from Mexico. Were it not for the purchase of oil from Mexico, we 
would, for all intents and purposes, have an equilibrium in trade 
between the United States and Mexico.
  But we do have in other countries a manufacturing job surplus, a 
manufacturing job surplus, right here in the United States. So we have 
a surplus. When we export, more jobs are created for those countries 
with which we have free trade agreements than with not. So the answer 
to deal with manufacturing job creation here in the United States is 
more, not fewer, free trade agreements.
  I am happy to further yield to my friend.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. You are right, Mr. Dreier. Those agreements 
simply level the playing field. They say if your country sells into the 
United States, we get an opportunity to sell our products into your 
country, and we have fair rules to do it. And when we compete, our 
companies, our workers win. They do it in ag, they do it in 
manufacturing, in technology, in services, in all types of goods.
  But, as Mr. Herger said, and you earlier, America is falling behind. 
This new government has taken itself voluntarily off the playing field. 
They have said we are not going to engage in trade right now. And while 
we have benched ourselves, the rest of the world is still playing this 
game. They are cutting agreements that favor China, Europe, Latin 
America, Brazil and other countries, Korea, the Asian-Pacific area. 
They are cutting agreements and deals to give their companies 
advantages far greater over ours. As a result, that doesn't just cost 
us sales of our products, it costs us jobs, because we are so good as a 
country when we compete.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I will say that yesterday I had the great 
ambassador from Colombia, Carolina Barco, in my office, and we were 
talking about the fact that Colombia has just embarked on this 
agreement with Canada, and they have proceeded with a fair trade 
agreement with Canada. So now what is happening is, our friends

[[Page H12129]]

to the north are going to have a competitive advantage over us in 
Colombia, a market of 40 million people, that we should be getting 
into, and we could do it very, very quickly.
  I would like to talk and get into some of the details now, if I 
might, with both of my friends. Since I mentioned the Colombia 
agreement, it has gotten a great deal of attention. It is seen as one 
of the most controversial in the eyes of many, and I will admit that I 
am very troubled, while we want to have bipartisanship, and I know 
there are many Democrats supportive of the U.S.-Colombia free trade 
agreement, I think that one of the saddest actions taken in dealing 
with the trade agenda was when, for the first time since implementation 
of the 1974 Trade Act, we saw the commitment--and it was a commitment 
made for an up-or-down vote here in the United States Congress--denied 
when it came to the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement. There still is 
another opportunity for us to do that.
  But there are a number of myths out there that I would like my 
friends to join me in shattering, and I would like to share some 
information that I just received yesterday, Madam Speaker, from 
Ambassador Barco, Colombia's great ambassador here to the United 
States.
  We regularly hear about union violence in Colombia. In fact, as I 
listened to a number of labor leaders here in the United States, we are 
regularly told, and it saddens me to hear this, that the Colombian 
government is murdering our brothers. That is a statement that I have 
heard repeatedly in television and speeches made by union leaders here 
in the United States.
  Colombia is a country which has I believe in a 5-year period of time 
gone through a more positive transformation than any country in modern 
history. Are there problems in Colombia? Absolutely. Is the situation 
perfect in Colombia? Absolutely not. Work still needs to be done in 
Colombia.
  But under the great President Alvaro Uribe, we have seen again a very 
positive transformation take place there. And this report of 
tremendous, tremendous violence being inflicted on union leaders has in 
many ways been shattered.
  Many of my colleagues, and I know my friends have been to Colombia, 
people on both sides of the aisle have been there, but just yesterday 
Ambassador Barco provided me some information from an independent study 
that was done by the University of the Andes in Colombia, a very 
respected institution.
  They went into a detailed analysis of violence against unionists in 
Colombia. Their data samples actually included the Colombian unions' 
own data. Information that they used for this study actually consisted 
of information that was provided to the University of the Andes in 
Colombia by the unions of Colombia.
  Their findings were that while overall violence in Colombia has 
steadily declined, we have seen a decline in violence in Colombia, we 
know that very well, in the last 8 years the decline in union violence 
has actually been greater than the decline in overall violence in 
Colombia. They went on in the study to say that there is absolutely no 
evidence today that violence against union members is systematic or 
targeted.
  So this notion that we have heard that the Colombian government is 
murdering our union brothers, which is, again, a message that has come 
forward from a lot of union leaders here in the United States, is just 
plain wrong.
  The authors of the study said the following, and I quote, Madam 
Speaker: ``Of course, any murder is a very serious matter. However, an 
evaluation of the progress made in confronting such a serious problem 
as violence against union members in Colombia must necessarily look at 
the statistical evidence. This is particularly so if the conclusions of 
such an assessment are to be used to block important economic reforms, 
such as free trade agreements.''
  So, in other words, Madam Speaker, they are saying that every murder 
is a tragedy--we all know that--and every government has a 
responsibility to apprehend and prosecute those who commit violent 
crimes.
  In Colombia, the Uribe government is doing just that. But the numbers 
don't lie. Any claim that unionists are being targeted is patently 
false. In fact, the murder rate for unionists in Colombia is one-fourth 
the rate for the general population.
  In fact, I remember on our last trip there, I was there in mid-August 
with our House Democracy Partnership and we had a lengthy discussion 
about this at what is their Attorney General, it is called the 
Fiscalia.
  The figure I was most struck with, as we spent a great deal of time 
going through the analysis of violence and specifically union violence, 
is that the murder rate in Colombia is, tragically, 39 per 100,000 for 
the average Colombian. If one is a union Member, the murder rate is 4 
per 100,000. So actually the threat is greater for someone who is just 
an average citizen as opposed to a unionist in Colombia. So this notion 
that somehow there is this planned violence against union leaders is 
preposterous.
  In fact, one of the things that President Uribe has done is he has 
put into place around-the-clock, 24 hour security for 1,500 labor 
leaders in the country, because they are determined to do everything 
within their power to ensure that union leaders' lives are not 
threatened. They are doing everything they can to protect those union 
leaders.
  I would be happy to yield to either of my colleagues who would like 
to comment on this.
  Mr. Herger.
  Mr. HERGER. Well, as my good friend from California is pointing out, 
in Colombia, I think most people picture Colombia as we pictured 
Colombia 10, 15, 20 years ago; the heart of the narco trade, everyone 
fearful to go out anyplace, whether it be in the cities or countryside 
or wherever it might be.
  As a matter of fact, I remember my first trip to Colombia, I believe 
it was in the early 1990s. Literally wherever you traveled, we were in 
Cartagena and traveled around, and you had armed guards. You had an 
armed convoy that you traveled with.
  I was there just this last year. You mentioned President Uribe and 
the incredible job he has done in the center of the narco traffic of 
South America, how they have got in and brought in those who used to be 
selling narcotics and used to be part of the military that was on the 
side of those in the drug trafficking, brought them in, trained them.
  We have met, as I know you have, Mr. Dreier, and I am sure Mr. Brady, 
we have met with some of these young people who were part of the other 
side who have come in, who have been trained for jobs.
  Mr. DREIER. It is called the demobilization effort, those from the 
FARC, the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia, which have been the 
guerrillas, and the so-called paramilitaries, those on the right who 
responded. They have had this amazing demobilization effort, where 
young people have been drawn into violence and now they are so excited 
to be part of productive society.
  Mr. HERGER. Again, as you met with them, and we met with them not 
only in Cartagena but also in Medellin, who would have thought about 
going to Medellin, where we did, and see how safe it is and met with 
these same young people, people in their mid-twenties, early twenties, 
but had spent basically their whole life on the other side, that were 
now productive and excited about the life in a democracy there and 
being able to live.
  It is incredibly exciting. And it is even that much more of a reason, 
when they have fought and done so much to change their countryside, 
have risked their lives to turn their country around, that if there is 
anyone we should be an ally to, it should be the Colombians.
  So not only are they helping us with their trade, but we are in a 
position there to aid them, to help them, to stand as an ally with 
them, as we should be with the Panamanians, as we should be with our 
allies the South Koreans, where, again, they are helping us at a time 
where economically we need these jobs in America.
  This is when our Speaker Pelosi and the head of the Senate, Harry 
Reid, should be allowing these three already-negotiated trade 
agreements to come before the House and the Senate to be voted on so 
that we can be moving forward. They are bringing down their barriers, 
selling our agriculture, selling our manufactured goods, and putting 
literally millions of Americans to work.

[[Page H12130]]

  Mr. DREIER. I appreciate my friend getting back to the point of why 
it is that we are here, because the number one priority, according to 
the American people in the Gallup poll that was released the day before 
yesterday, was job creation and economic growth. We have all been 
talking about that.
  We want to make sure that we can create good jobs, agriculture, 
manufacturing, small businesses. We want to create service-sector jobs. 
We want to create these jobs here in the United States of America. And 
I believe that one of the best ways for us to do that is to open up 
these new markets.
  Now, obviously we want to underscore concern. If governments are 
taking action, murdering union leaders, that understandably is 
outrageous. But there is a complete, complete blur that has been put 
together on the part of many people who, for some strange reason, are 
opposed to engaging in these trade agreements that I just find 
incomprehensible. It is, again, beyond me why it is that they would 
hurt rank-and-file union members, who are going to be the ones to 
benefit by opening up these new markets.
  I am happy to yield to my friend from the Woodlands.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you for raising this issue because I think 
it is shameful that America has not ratified the trade agreement with 
Colombia. Yeah, there are strong jobs reasons. Colombia is able to sell 
their products in the United States almost duty free. We want the 
opportunity to compete with their customers. Canada, Europe are cutting 
agreements with them that will cost us about half a billion dollars of 
sales of U.S. goods and services and products which, again, those are 
lost jobs.
  The point you made early on, Mr. Dreier, is that beyond that, here's 
a country that has brought itself, with America's help, from darkness 
to light. President Uribe has taken the country, established the rule 
of law, freedom of democracy, freedom of the press, freedom in the 
marketplace, has a judiciary that is working. They have lowered the 
violence rate in a neighborhood, in a region that absolutely rejects 
America and all we stand for, including this new President, rejecting 
him as well.
  Here's America's allies who are fighting with us to stop drug 
trafficking, stands with us on security issues and human rights, have 
done remarkable things, and we've turned our backs on them.
  So whether it is Colombia and that strong national security reason, 
Panama and the market that goes with that, Korea, and the rest of the 
world, where, again, as you have said, America is falling behind, it is 
just a shame.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, my friend makes a very, very important 
point on the foreign policy implications here when we talk about the 
tremendous alliance that we've been able to build with Colombia. Let's 
look at the kinds of threats that exist there.
  The neighborhood is a tough one. Of course, the very famous Hugo 
Chavez, the strong man in Venezuela. We have Evo Morales, the leader of 
Bolivia, who is a Chavezista. We know that. Very closely aligned. 
Rafael Correa, the leader of Ecuador, has fallen in line the same way.
  In the region, we of course have Daniel Ortega, the leader of the 
Sandinista movement there. And we have this strong--very, very strong 
ally of ours in Colombia. And it's amazing. When you look at the 
numbers, it has been 1,073 days--1,073 days, Madam Speaker--since the 
signing of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Guess what? $2.3 
billion--$2.3 billion in additional tariffs have been imposed on U.S. 
manufacturers, other job creators here, in their quest to get their 
products just into Colombia alone. $2.3 billion in the last 1,073 days.
  Let's look at a couple of those items. Automobiles. Right now there 
is a 35 percent tariff on U.S. automobiles in the quest to get into 
Colombia. What does that mean? On a $20,000 automobile that would be 
manufactured in the United States and sold into Colombia, the tariff 
would be $7,000. If we can pass this agreement, have a vote here in the 
House and put it into place, what will happen? Well, we'll see that 
tariff go to zero.
  Similarly, for DVDs and movies it's a 5 to 15 percent tariff. For 
cotton--and we know that textile manufacturing is very, very important. 
A lot of manufacturing takes place in Latin America. Cotton comes from 
the United States. Right now there's a 10 percent tariff on U.S. cotton 
going into Colombia. If we can bring that to zero, it means that more 
cotton in the United States of America will actually end up, Mr. 
Speaker, going to Colombia for finished product.
  Mr. Speaker, we're very fortunate to have been joined by my very good 
friend from Lafayette, Louisiana, Dr. Boustany. I appreciate his 
presence here and the strong leadership that he has shown not on only 
in this health care debate with his brilliant response to President 
Obama after he addressed us here in this joint session of Congress, but 
on the issue of international trade as well.
  I'm happy to yield to Mr. Boustany.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank my friend from California for his kind 
comments. There are so many aspects to trade that we really need to 
discuss. First of all, if you look at our economy, the United States 
economy has been a consumer-driven economy. We have seen imports vastly 
exceed exports in this country.
  All the economists are talking about getting back to some sort of 
global trade balance and current accounts balance. And the only way to 
do that is for us to increase our exports. That won't happen without 
trade agreements.
  I can give you some examples from my home State. For instance, 
exports from Louisiana following the NAFTA agreement rose 271 percent 
since 1994. Since 2004, with the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement, 
exports from Louisiana rose 219 percent. With the Singapore-U.S. Trade 
Agreement we saw a 53 percent increase in exports since 2004. Morocco, 
99 percent increase in exports since 2006. And with CAFTA we've seen a 
43 percent increase since 2006.
  Now the fact of the matter is 96 percent of the world's consumers 
live outside the United States.
  Mr. DREIER. My friend just added an additional percentage point. I've 
been saying 95 percent. Is it in fact 96 percent live outside our 
borders?
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Those are the facts I have.
  Mr. DREIER. Thanks for correcting me.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I think it's important to recognize that jobs related 
to exports pay, on average, 13 to 18 percent more than non-exporting 
jobs. These are benefits for families in the United States. These are 
benefits that create jobs in the United States.
  I know I walked in a little late into this discussion and you were 
discussing the foreign policy implications of this, and specifically 
with Colombia, but I would submit that it's even broader than that 
because as President Obama and his administrative team travel around to 
the world's capitals to deal with very difficult foreign policy 
problems, whether it's in Central Asia or in the Middle East and so 
forth, even in Africa, in these capitals those leaders are going to 
want to talk about trade and expanding trade opportunities because it 
all comes down to economic opportunity in the long run.
  If we're not prepared with a trade agenda to move forward with the 
leaders in these respective areas, then our foreign policy is going to 
be a failure.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time for a moment just to 
underscore what my friend is saying on this foreign policy issue, which 
is an important one. President Obama has, I believe correctly, talked 
about the importance of soft power. Dealing diplomatically, which I 
think is important. I, of course, am a strong proponent of a tough 
decision posture as well. But utilization of soft power is something 
that President Obama has referred to.
  In fact, at the G-20 meeting that took place, those leaders all 
agreed that they would reject protectionism. Unfortunately, if you look 
at 66 of the 78 trade measures that have been implemented since that G-
20 meeting, they have been protectionist. It's very sad because as 
we're talking about the economic downturn through which we're going 
right now and the challenges that we face here in the United States and 
in the global economy, one can't help but think about history. Because 
people are talking about regularly this economic downturn and what

[[Page H12131]]

took place seven decades ago. The Great Depression.
  We know that, unfortunately, under Republican leadership, President 
Hoover and Congressman Hawley and Senator Smoot, we saw passage in 1930 
of very, very poor trade policy. Fortunately, we as Republicans have 
been proudly providing leadership since then and we want to work in a 
bipartisan way on this.
  But most economists, regardless of their stripe, acknowledge that the 
protectionist actions which, frankly, Smoot-Hawley began as just a 
little agricultural tariff measure at the outset and grew into one of 
the most protectionist measures in the history of the United States. It 
undermined our ability globally to provide leadership.
  If you look at what happened to Europe, as we all know, following 
that, the Second World War, it can go back to this use of soft power 
question, which the President has correctly raised and, similarly, at 
that time engaging in protectionism undermines that.
  The unfortunate thing is we seem to be slipping down that road of 
protectionism now, which seriously undermines our ability to provide 
that strong global leadership in dealing with the war against radical 
extremism, in dealing with the challenges that exist in a wide range of 
areas.
  I'm happy to further yield to my friend.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I want to add as we look at this difficult economy and 
the significant unemployment we're seeing here in the United States, 
it's important to keep in mind that 97 percent of U.S. exports are from 
small and medium-size businesses.
  Mr. DREIER. I was afraid you were going to say 97 percent of the 
world's consumers are out of our borders; that it's gone up 2 percent 
since I started.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Here we are. If we want to grow small business jobs, 
the best way to do it is to expand our exports and that will help us 
also expand our manufacturing capacity. Actually, the world is moving 
forward and we're sitting still here.
  If you look at the TransPacific Partnership, everybody's waiting on 
the United States to move forward with this agreement. It's a 
critically important agreement to work out with Chile, Peru, Singapore, 
Australia, New Zealand, and Brunei.
  We're also looking at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. This is 
where we need to be engaged with China and these Eastern countries, 
because we have huge, huge trade opportunities and job growth 
opportunities by expanding these agreements.
  So I think it's clear that this administration needs to come forward 
with a comprehensive trade policy to Congress and let's get to work on 
creating this liberalized trade order because that is the element of 
soft power that you were emphasizing earlier. And it is probably our 
most important instrument of power as we move on the global stage.
  With that, I will yield back.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me say that my friend is absolutely brilliant. Not 
all doctors are seen as that way. But I'm so impressed Dr. Boustany has 
been able to charge towards great brilliance in a wide range of areas 
beyond his field of expertise. We're very fortunate to have him in the 
House.
  I'd be happy to yield to my friend who sneered when I mentioned 
doctors, my friend from The Woodlands.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I was just thinking about people who are out of 
work. We have lost 9 million people who no longer have jobs since the 
recession began--almost 3 million since they passed that huge stimulus 
bill--who may be watching tonight, to have no jobs, maybe have lost 
hope of getting them. Yet the companies that could hire them are 
manufacturing products or offering services or growing agricultural 
goods they don't have an opportunity to sell throughout the world. That 
the rest of these countries are just moving past us so aggressively 
selling, promoting their country's goods and services. And America is 
so arrogant that we don't even go out there to try to create a level 
playing field.
  I always tell people, in closing for myself, that if you drive down a 
highway, every third acre you see planted is for sale around the world. 
If you go to a computer company, every fourth worker is building 
something for sales around the world. If you go to a manufacturing 
plant, every fifth worker is building something for sale around the 
world. If you look at our whole economy, four out of every ten workers 
are tied to trade.
  So if we can sell American, not just buy American--sell American--we 
can create jobs for Americans. We can put people back to work. We can 
improve our own economy. So what are we waiting for?
  I yield back.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution. 
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I think one of the things that we have 
not really spent a lot of time discussing here this evening has been 
the U.S.-Korea deal.
  We've talked in large part about Latin America; about Colombia and 
Panama and the benefit of opening that up. But I do know that the three 
ambassadors representing countries with which we have signed these 
trade agreements have come together and they have unified on the 
message that the issue of trade and free trade is a priority for all of 
them. They each have unique cases to make as to what those benefits 
are. Frankly, as I listen to virtually all of those arguments, they are 
very positive for us.
  When it comes to Korea, the amazing thing that we look at there, if 
we were to pass this U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, it would be the 
single largest trade agreement ever embarked upon in the world because 
of the size of the U.S. economy and the size of the economy of South 
Korea.

                              {time}  2015

  They have a trillion-dollar economy, and it's a very, very growing 
market right now for our goods, and it's our seventh largest trading 
partner today. We have annual two-way trade today of $82 billion 
between South Korea and the United States.
  It happens to be and I know, Mr. Herger, Mr. Speaker, will be 
interested in this. It's our sixth largest market for agricultural 
goods in the world and our seventh largest market for another industry 
that is very important in Texas, and I know in Louisiana as well as 
California, is the IT market.
  The largest level of broadband usage in the world is in South Korea 
at 83 percent, making it a really key market for U.S. technology goods 
and services, and there is an enormous potential for increasing those 
already high agricultural exports as Korea, as we all know, must import 
70 percent of its agricultural needs.
  It stands to benefit the agricultural sectors of all of our States 
tremendously if we were to embark on that. Nearly two-thirds of 
agricultural exports to Korea will become duty-free immediately with 
passage of this. Our agricultural products currently face an average 
tariff, those products going from California, from Texas, from 
Louisiana, into Korea, on average, a 52 percent tariff today. Again, 
that would be slashed, two-thirds slashed immediately and ultimately 
they would get to zero.
  Under the agreement, nearly 95 percent of bilateral trade and 
consumer industrial products will become duty-free within 3 years and 
tariffs on almost all goods will be totally eliminated within the 10-
year period of time for implementation. The economic and job creation 
benefits of eliminating tariff and nontariff barriers to trade with a 
$1 trillion economy would be of great, great importance.
  It would be a very, very powerful display of unity between our 
countries, South Korea and the United States, as we work together to 
address, as we have said, the very important national security issues, 
nuclear proliferation treaties that exist, the war against radical 
extremism, pandemics that are there. The idea of using this soft power, 
as President Obama correctly says, would be dramatically enhanced if we 
were to pass the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.
  I would be happy to yield to my friend from California (Mr. Herger) 
if he would like to add to that.
  Mr. HERGER. I thank my friend.
  That is so true. People don't realize. You know, we hear a fair 
amount, or some, about their trade agreement that has been negotiated 
but not voted on with Colombia and some with Panama, but as the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) so rightly mentioned, the

[[Page H12132]]

big one, the biggest of all the trade agreements that we have ever 
negotiated is with the South Koreans.
  As a matter of fact I just yesterday had eight South Koreans who 
represented businesses in South Korea that were in my office, and they 
were describing to me how they wanted us to be able to pass this 
agreement, be able to have a vote here in the House and the Senate on 
this very important agreement, that their concern was that they wanted 
to do business with our American companies. They wanted to do business 
with us and that the European Union, the EU, was already negotiating, 
was in the process of having an agreement with them.
  If their agreement went through before ours did, they would lose 
their ability, obviously, if they could purchase more economically from 
the EU, that, economically, is what they would need to do. I was 
looking at some statistics, that just with South Korea, not only would 
we not pick up that extra business, those extra jobs, hundreds of 
thousands of jobs here in the United States, but we would actually lose 
business that we already have because we would lose part of this market 
to--it was estimated by staff on our Ways and Means Committee, we could 
see an 8 percent or $1.1 billion decline in our U.S. exports to South 
Korea.
  Again, at a time when nationally we have 9.8 percent unemployment; in 
California, 12.2; and in my rural northern California district it's up 
around 14 percent unemployment, the last thing we want to do is be 
losing jobs. We need to be gaining these jobs is why it's so 
particularly paramount at this time that we move forward.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for getting back to this issue of job 
creation and economic growth, which is what these agreements are about. 
It's about improving the standard of living and the quality of life for 
people here in the United States of America by not only allowing them 
to have access to products from around the world, but to create good 
jobs so that we can continue to export to those 95, 96, 97, 98 percent 
of the consumers who are outside of our borders.
  I am happy to yield further to my good friend from the Woodlands.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Let me just say this, because I have enjoyed this 
discussion. It's about jobs, it's about America falling behind.
  There is this principle in trade we should not forget. The principle 
is if you and I build a better mousetrap, we should have the freedom to 
sell it throughout the world without government interference. If 
someone else builds a better mousetrap we should have the freedom to 
buy it for our family and for our business.
  That freedom to buy, sell and compete is critical because you forget, 
other countries, because others compete to sell to you and I. We have a 
wide choice of automobiles and clothing and electronics and all. They 
say, by studies, that we save so much money because of that trade, that 
competition, that most families in America can go to a grocery store 
once a month for free because of the benefits of free trade here in 
America, which is even more puzzling on raising our standard of living 
why we allow ourselves to fall behind and why we are giving up on those 
jobs, why America isn't leading.
  That is a question I believe only our President can answer.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his very thoughtful remarks.
  Mr. Boustany.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Very briefly, I would say my friend from Texas is 
absolutely right. This is about growing U.S. jobs and creating job 
opportunities for our small businesses.
  As these export markets open up and that greater connectivity is 
created between our country and our trading partners, the standard of 
living goes up in those countries and those markets expand. It creates 
more opportunities for our small businesses to create jobs here and to 
continue to export.
  So, at a time where we are having these discussions, when this 
country is seeing high unemployment, we are coming out of a recession, 
we should be vigorously pursuing these types of agreements.
  And what are we hearing now from this White House? Silence. Silence. 
It makes no sense.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend. Let me express my appreciation, Mr. 
Speaker, to my colleagues from Louisiana, Texas and California and to 
say that it's very important for us to get back to bipartisanship on 
this issue of trade. I have been troubled with the fact that the 
President has not sent up these agreements for us to consider, as I 
know my colleagues are. I have been troubled at some of the decisions 
made by the Democratic leadership.
  But I have to say this, there are Democrats with whom we serve who 
share our commitment to the issue of global leadership by expanding 
these trade agreements. They understand the improvements that have 
taken place in Colombia, where unionists are not, in fact, being 
murdered by the Government of Colombia. They share our recognition that 
we could have jobs created for Caterpillar and for John Deere if we 
were to go into the Panama agreement. And they understand the 
implications of this U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement.

  This is the right thing for us to do, Mr. Speaker. I believe that we 
can come together in a bipartisan way. If we will simply have the vote 
here in the House of Representatives, we will have strong, bipartisan 
support for the right thing.

                          ____________________