[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 81 (Tuesday, June 7, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3513-S3515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         FREE-TRADE AGREEMENTS AND TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of our 
pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.
  Right before Memorial Day, the Finance Committee held two trade 
hearings, the first on the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement, the 
second on the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Earlier, the Finance 
Committee held a hearing on the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion 
Agreement. These agreements have been thoroughly reviewed by our 
Finance Committee. In fact, given that the Colombia agreement was 
signed in 2006 and the Panama and South Korea agreements in 2007, these 
agreements have been more than thoroughly reviewed by U.S. elected 
officials and U.S. agencies over the past several years. For the sake 
of the U.S. economy and for the sake of our country's standing in the 
world, it is clearly time to take the next step. It is time for 
President Obama to submit implementing legislation for these agreements 
to the Congress.
  The U.S. trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea are 
good agreements that will benefit the United States and American 
workers. According to the nonpartisan U.S. International Trade 
Commission, these trade agreements, once fully implemented, will likely 
increase U.S. exports by over $12 billion and grow the U.S. gross 
domestic product by over $14 billion. Put simply, our trade agreements 
with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea will boost U.S. exports, expand 
the U.S. economy, and thus promote job growth in the United States.
  The President and members of his administration understand this. They 
have spoken on numerous occasions on the benefits of the U.S. trade 
agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea for our country. 
Please bear with me as I review some of their statements.
  Four months ago, President Obama, in his State of the Union Address--
4 months ago--expressed his support for the U.S.-Korea Free Trade 
Agreement, which he stated will support at least 70,000 American jobs. 
He then asked Congress to pass the Korea agreement as soon as possible.

  Last December, President Obama noted that the South Korea agreement 
is expected to increase annual exports of American goods by up to $11 
billion. In that same speech, he said:

       I look forward to working with Congress and leaders in both 
     parties to approve this pact because if there is one thing 
     Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on, it 
     should be creating jobs and opportunities for our people.

  I couldn't agree more.
  Just 2 months ago, the President stated that he believes a recently 
announced labor action plan of Colombia serves as a basis for moving 
forward on a U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement and that this 
represents a potential $1 billion of exports--our exports--and could 
mean thousands of jobs for workers here in the United States.
  After meeting with President Martinelli of Panama, President Obama 
said he is confident now that a free-trade agreement would be good for 
our country, would create jobs here in the United States and open up 
new markets with potential for billions of dollars of cross-border 
trade.
  The President's principal trade adviser, U.S. Trade Representative 
Ron Kirk, just last month recognized that the U.S.-Korea trade 
agreement will support more than 70,000 American jobs, and he noted as 
well that it will result in over $10 billion in increased annual 
exports from the United States.
  In April, Ambassador Kirk said Colombia represents $1.1 billion in 
new export opportunities for the United States. Regarding Panama, he 
stated that the Panama agreement will provide access to one of the 
fastest growing markets in Latin America.

[[Page S3514]]

  In speaking of all three pending agreements only last month, 
Ambassador Kirk said that ``the pending agreements with South Korea, 
Panama, and Colombia are at the forefront of our efforts to open new 
markets.''
  In April, Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke emphasized the need to 
pass the U.S.-Korea Trade Promotion Agreement through Congress as soon 
as possible. He also said that the administration feels similar urgency 
to get the pending Panama and Colombia trade deals done. He noted that 
all three pending trade agreements will move us even closer to 
President Obama's National Export Initiative goal of doubling American 
exports by 2015.
  Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has spoken on behalf of the 
administration in favor of our pending trade agreements with Colombia, 
Panama, and South Korea. On May 12, he stated that the paramount reason 
to implement these three pending trade agreements is jobs. He went on 
to note that these trade agreements will result in over $2 billion in 
additional sales of U.S. agricultural products. Secretary Vilsack has 
also stated that until we complete these three trade agreements, U.S. 
agriculture will not have a level playing field in Colombia, Panama, or 
South Korea.
  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spoken on the benefits of 
these three trade agreements for our country. When discussing the U.S.-
Korea Free Trade Agreement in April, she stated not only that this 
agreement will increase U.S. exports by billions of dollars and thus 
support tens of thousands of American jobs but also that implementing 
the South Korea agreement is profoundly in our strategic interest. When 
speaking on the subject of trade and economic growth last month, 
Secretary Clinton said that ``one of our top goals is to complete free 
trade agreements with Colombia and Panama.''
  As someone might say, there is a lot of upside to these agreements--
billions in new exports, billions in economic growth, and thousands of 
new jobs. What is not to like?
  So I have a question. What is the holdup? What on Earth is the 
administration waiting on? This country needs all the jobs and economic 
growth we can get. So why does the administration refuse to submit 
these agreements to Congress for consideration? Despite declaring the 
benefits of these agreements for the United States at every turn, the 
Obama administration is sitting on them, hurting our economy, and 
undermining our job growth.
  With respect to international trade, the administration has adopted a 
policy of delay and dither. I see few signs that the administration is 
working hard to move these agreements through Congress. I don't see 
administration officials walking the Halls of Congress in attempts to 
build support for the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea agreements. 
While the administration has said great things about these agreements, 
as I have mentioned, its efforts to build any type of momentum to 
advance them on Capitol Hill are tepid at best.
  On trade policy, the administration is all talk and no action, or, as 
my friends from Texas might put it, on these agreements, the President 
and his team are all hat and no cattle. This is definitely a strange 
economic strategy. While our economy remains shaky, unemployment 
remains high--the unemployment rate is at 9.1 percent--and while the 
rest of the world watches in bewilderment as the United States lets 
other countries take over our export markets, the administration just 
sits there. It just sits there.
  Actually, let me correct myself. The administration doesn't just sit 
there; instead, the administration is actually going out of its way, 
finding new excuses for not moving forward with the implementation of 
these trade agreements.
  Despite countless speeches from the President and his administration 
about the importance of the three trade agreements to American exports, 
creating American jobs, and strengthening our alliances with key 
friends, his administration busies itself concocting more roadblocks, 
more delays, and more excuses. It is time to be blunt about this. This 
schizophrenic trade policy is doing nothing but hurting American 
workers, hurting jobs, and undermining our recovery.
  I believe each free-trade agreement, standing on its own merits and 
with the full backing of the White House and congressional leadership, 
will pass with significant bipartisan margins. But we are now told we 
will never have a chance to vote on any of these agreements unless the 
White House and Democratic Senators get what they want on trade 
adjustment assistance.

  Let's put this in perspective. Our economy teeters on the brink with 
a weak economic recovery. One in seven Americans happens to be on food 
stamps. Durable goods orders dropped 3.6 percent in April. Last month, 
the economy added only 54,000 private sector jobs, and unemployment 
went up to 9.1 percent. The real estate market remains in tatters with 
the average single family home price falling by 33 percent since 2007. 
We face an historic spending crisis that has generated warnings from 
Standard & Poors and Moody's that the Federal Government faces a 
downgrade in its debt rating--an action that would be devastating for 
this Nation and to America's families.
  To forestall this coming crisis, leaders in Congress and the 
administration are meeting on an almost daily basis to determine how 
best to get our Nation's deficits and debt under control. Every 
spending program and expenditure is being reviewed to find cuts to get 
our fiscal house in order.
  Everyone recognizes these three trade agreements will promote jobs 
and economic growth at a time when both are in short supply. Submitting 
and passing free trade agreements would be a quick and cost-free way of 
generating economic growth. Yet, in an environment where Congress is 
desperately attempting to encourage economic growth and rein in 
spending to avert a fiscal crisis, the White House and many Democrats 
are delaying the pro-growth trade agreements until we get more 
government spending through TAA, the trade adjustment assistance 
program. And for what? If an expanded TAA is so critical, where is the 
record of success to prove it? What evidence is there that giving some 
workers who have lost their jobs more benefits than others improves 
U.S. competitiveness or is a responsible way to spend taxpayer dollars? 
The mere fact that more people are in a program, and that more taxpayer 
money is being spent, is not evidence of success.
  Congress does not pick winners and losers in the movie rental 
business. When Blockbuster employees lost their jobs because of the 
rise of Netflix, nobody stood up and said we should create a new, big, 
spending government program to help displaced Blockbuster employees.
  President Reagan recognized the problems inherent in this program 
when he said:

       [t]he purpose [of TAA] is to help these workers find jobs 
     in growing sectors of our economy. There's nothing wrong with 
     that, but because these benefits are paid out on top of 
     normal unemployment benefits, we wind up paying greater 
     benefits to those who lose their jobs because of foreign 
     competition than we do to their friends and neighbors who are 
     laid off due to domestic competition. Anyone must agree that 
     this is unfair.

  That is what President Reagan said.
  By tacking the expansion of TAA onto the stimulus bill, and refusing 
to allow Congress to vote on the extended TAA program on its own 
merits, it is unclear whether there is, in fact, bipartisan support for 
this expanded program. It is billions of dollars more. If the expanded 
TAA program can stand on its own merits, as each of the FTAs can, then 
it should be introduced and voted on separately from the free trade 
agreements. Demanding an expanded TAA as another excuse to delay voting 
on these important agreements is irresponsible and self-defeating.
  At the same time, by not submitting these agreements for approval by 
Congress, the administration is doing a disservice to the American 
economy and, at the same time, is letting down some of our strongest 
allies. Nothing good can come from this continued inaction.
  Make no mistake about it. Failure to submit these agreements is a 
failure in Presidential leadership. I am convinced the window for the 
administration to submit these agreements will soon pass. Given the 
upcoming election season, I am afraid if these agreements aren't 
submitted this summer, they never will be.

[[Page S3515]]

  The President needs to act. I appreciate the President's goal of 
doubling exports. Having goals is great. But we all know that if one 
doesn't do the work and take action, goals become little more than 
false hope. They never become reality.
  The President and his Cabinet admit these agreements are essential to 
their goal of doubling exports and creating jobs here at home. Yet, the 
action necessary to achieve that goal and create those jobs--submission 
of the agreements--remains in the distant future. Instead of benefiting 
from these agreements, we watch the days slip by, the explanations and 
excuses pile up, our export markets decline, and our economy suffers.
  I strongly urge the President to submit implementing bills for the 
Colombia, Panama, and South Korea trade agreements to Congress this 
summer. There is no time like the present when it comes to encouraging 
economic growth and business creation.
  I understand they want to help their union employees throughout the 
country who are less than 7 percent of the private sector economy. What 
about the millions and millions of others who are losing their jobs not 
because of this but because we don't export and we don't have these 
free trade agreements with these three very important countries to us, 
both from a neighbor standpoint and from a strategic standpoint?
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, it is my understanding I have 10 
minutes; is that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. CORKER. If I happen to go 8 minutes or so, would the Chair let me 
know when I have 2 minutes remaning?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.
  Mr. CORKER. Thank you very much, Madam President.

                          ____________________