[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 91 (Thursday, June 17, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5053-S5054]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           INCREASING EXPORTS

  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I rise today to discuss an issue I 
believe is of significant importance to our Nation's economy. There has 
been a lot of talk lately about the whole idea of increasing exports. 
I--like, I guess, every other Member of this body--support the goal of 
expanding exports. Increasing exports means companies will sell more of 
their goods and services into more markets around the world. A number 
of those companies, I might add, are found in rural communities, found 
in States such as Nebraska. I was sitting there when President Obama, 
in his State of the Union Address, set a goal. He said: I want to 
double exports in the next 5 years.
  Since then, the administration has pushed its National Export 
Initiative, which appears to be about increasing spending and the size 
of government. But a more sensible course of action would truly be to 
increase exports--sell more. I am talking about free trade agreements. 
The previous administration negotiated a number of trade agreements, 
but there are three pending from the previous administration: Colombia, 
South Korea, and Panama. Unfortunately, these agreements have been 
languishing since they were first agreed to--now around 3 years ago.
  The current administration briefly seemed to be on the right track 
when the President stated his goal of strengthening trade with 
Colombia, South Korea, and Panama, again in the State of the Union 
Address. I was pleased to hear that. The President hit the right tone 
there. I must admit, though, up to that point, the administration's 
trade policy was enormously unclear to me, and I guarantee it was to 
everybody else.
  I thought that finally we had a trade policy. But, unfortunately, 
since that speech there has been no action. So I

[[Page S5054]]

have to ask, What is the holdup? I do not know how you can claim your 
goal is to double exports and then not take the action on pending trade 
agreements which provide the very direct, ready-made way to move us 
forward. Each one of these agreements lowers tariffs on America's goods 
and services. I will tell you from a lot of experience, that is the 
quickest way to increase exports. With U.S. unemployment now hovering 
around 10 percent, we should be focused like a laser beam on helping 
businesses grow and create jobs. Enacting the pending trade agreements 
will help us get there.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that these agreements could 
bolster our economy by $40 billion. Conversely, if the United States 
fails to implement the agreements with Colombia and Korea, the chamber 
estimates that more than 380,000 U.S. jobs will be lost or displaced.
  The trade agreements were negotiated nearly 3 years ago. Yet they 
have not come to the Congress. While we fail to act, our global 
competitors are locking up these marketplaces. Several nations are 
negotiating or finalizing negotiations with the same three countries. 
Yet our agreements with those same countries are signed and sealed and 
ready for a vote. Our competitors are, very simply, gaining an 
advantage over our producers, our exporters, our employees, and they 
are laughing all the way to the bank. Now we even have representatives 
from those countries saying they are ready to move forward without us.
  Earlier this week a respected publication, the Des Moines Register, 
quoted the Minister of Economic Affairs at the South Korean Embassy as 
saying this:

       The U.S. runs the risk of losing the Korean market within a 
     decade if you can't get a free trade agreement ratified.

  Furthermore, the article reported that South Korea is likely to 
complete a free trade agreement with the European Union by January. So 
we are not just at risk of losing the opportunity to increase exports. 
If other countries keep negotiating trade agreements while this great 
Nation sits on its hands, we are going to lose the market share we have 
today.
  I suspect this is just the beginning. These countries are not going 
to wait around forever while we twiddle our thumbs and hope that 
throwing money at a few government agencies and hiring more government 
employees will somehow increase exports.
  Each nation we have sat down with, we have negotiated, we have found 
common ground and reached agreement. Now it is time for the final step. 
The step is to vote on the agreements.
  Think of the big picture. Roughly 95 percent of the world's consumers 
live outside the United States. The global marketplace is asking for us 
to go and do business there. It is important to agriculture, but it is 
also important to our entire economy. You see, in agriculture, exports 
account for over 25 percent of total ag sales. We like to say that 
every third row of crops is sold into the international marketplace. In 
fact, agriculture is one of the few areas where the United States has 
had a net trade surplus in recent years.
  These agreements are necessary for agriculture, for farmers and 
ranchers. They are good for small businesses in my State and across the 
country. As Secretary of Agriculture, I traveled the world helping to 
negotiate trade deals. I have seen the positive results for exporters. 
I have seen firsthand the importance of these pending agreements. Each 
one would level the playing field for America's farmers and ranchers 
and companies, creating jobs, helping to reinvigorate our economy. If 
we are going to meet this goal of doubling exports, we have to do more 
than give a speech. We have to take these agreements and put them into 
the equation and get a vote on that.
  Consider this: American producers are currently forced to pay 
substantial tariffs on their exports to Colombia, to South Korea, to 
Panama. These agreements would wipe out most if not all of those 
tariffs. Roughly $2.8 billion in tariffs on American exports has been 
paid to Colombia alone since the Colombian agreement was signed in 
November of 2006.
  That is $2.8 billion that could have stayed in the United States to 
hire new workers. Most Americans probably assume Colombian exporters 
pay the identical U.S. tariffs, but that is not the reality.
  Colombian producers do not pay a nickel on 90 percent of the products 
they sell in the United States. The Colombian Free Trade Agreement 
would allow American producers to compete on a level playing field.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. JOHANNS. In South Korea, it is the same story. And I could go on 
and on through each agreement and show that what they are about is 
bringing tariffs down for our products that we are paying today.
  Well, I have given this speech now I think twice on the floor of the 
Senate and a number of times as I have been out and talked to people 
across this country. I hope this is the last time I need to come here 
to advocate just to give us a vote. My hope is the administration will 
send these agreements to the Congress for action.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________