Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 152 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 152 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6418-S6452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNITED STATES-KOREA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT--Continued

______

UNITED STATES-PANAMA TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT--
Continued

______

UNITED STATES-COLOMBIA TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT--
Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to
speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S.
1692 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am happy to rise today to speak about
the three trade agreements that are working their way over to the
Senate. At a time when unemployment is over 9 percent and we have over
14 million Americans out of work, it is past time for us to take up
these three important agreements. These agreements with Korea,
Colombia, and Panama are going to create jobs and put Americans back to
work. That is why it is so important we move, and move on a bipartisan
basis, to get them done.
With 95 percent of consumers living outside of our borders, we need
to proactively help American workers, farmers, and service providers
sell their products all around the world. The President himself has
said that repeatedly. Just last month he came to Ohio and said he wants
to be sure more products are stamped with the three proud words ``Made
in America.'' I couldn't agree more.
One way to do that is to get these trade agreements done. Finally, we
have the opportunity to vote on them. This will help us to gain market
access for U.S. workers to about 100 million consumers.
Unfortunately, while these agreements have been sitting on the shelf
for over 4 years, our workers, our farmers, and our service providers
have lost market share. They have fallen behind because other countries
have completed agreements, and their workers and their farmers, their
service providers have gained market share that

[[Page S6419]]

we should have had. According to the National Association of
Manufacturers, by waiting for 4 years to take up these agreements,
American workers have lost over $12 billion in wages.
So I am glad the agreements are here. They should have been here
sooner. Again, this, to me, should be a lesson that we learn as a
Congress, a Senate. We need to have more agreements, and we need to
have them negotiated constantly on behalf of our businesses and our
workers.
While we have waited for the President to submit these agreements to
Congress for a vote, other countries have moved forward and have gained
footholds in other markets. The European Union and Korea, along with
Canada and Colombia, have negotiated, completed, and put into force
their own trade agreements they started to negotiate after we were done
with ours. In other words, we finished our negotiations, they then
began negotiations, they ratified their agreements, and they are now in
effect taking market share away from us.
We have seen the U.S. market share be reduced in Colombia and in
Korea because of these agreements. A good example would be our exports
of agricultural products to Colombia. We have seen them drop from 70
percent of the market for corn, wheat, and soybeans to less than 30
percent of the market just since we completed the agreement with
Colombia. Because, again, the President did not send these agreements
forward for ratification, we have been on the sidelines while farmers
in my State and around the country have lost out.
We are falling behind in Korea too. When we started discussing an
agreement with Korea, the United States was Korea's biggest trading
partner. Since then we have slid down the ladder, with China, Japan,
and the Europe Union jumping ahead of us. According to the U.S. Trade
Representative's Office, in just over a decade, our share of Korea's
goods imports has fallen from 21 percent of their market to 9 percent
of their market, while China's share of the Korean market has increased
from 7 percent to 17 percent. We are now at 9 percent; China is now at
17 percent. This has happened, again, since we began negotiations or
discussions about negotiations with Korea. By standing still we are
still allowing China and our competitors to get a leg up in this
crucial Asian market.
According to the President's own metrics, these three agreements
together will create over 250,000 new jobs. Conversely, according to
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, if we fail to move forward on these
agreements, we would lose 380,000 jobs--again, because we would lose
market share that we already have to these other countries that are
negotiating agreements while we sit on the sidelines.
The nonpartisan U.S. International Trade Commission says these three
agreements will increase U.S. trade exports by nearly $13 billion each
year.
When I was the U.S. Trade Representative, I had the privilege of
launching the Korea agreement, actually in a room right next to the
Chamber. This agreement is called KORUS. I did so with Korean Trade
Minister Kim in February of 2006. At that time, many people said this
agreement would be very difficult to negotiate. Some criticized us for
launching it thinking this economy was too big, to complicated, that we
would not be able to get a meaningful agreement. We took the chance
because we saw the incredible potential for trade liberalization, and
it would drive greater economic growth in the United States and U.S.
job creation--and also because of the importance of the alliance with
the Republic of Korea.

It turns out the skeptics were wrong, and we now have before us this
week, in the Senate, to vote on the largest free-trade agreement,
largest export agreement this Congress has looked at in almost two
decades.
Korea is a vital market for U.S. exports already. It is America's
seventh largest trading partner, and their economy is now growing by
more than 6 percent per year.
KORUS eliminates tariffs on over 95 percent of U.S. exports of
industrial and consumer goods to Korea within the first 5 years of the
agreement. The agreement's intellectual property rights provisions
contain stringent protections for American intellectual property--
extremely important to some of our service companies and other
exporters. This gives American companies additional access to Korea's
$850 billion services market.
America has a large services trade surplus, actually, in services
right now, both globally and with Korea, and this agreement will allow
American service companies that are the best in the world to expand and
sell more products to a country of more than 48 million people.
KORUS is supported by the United Auto Workers, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, and many other business and export-related groups. Let me
read an excerpt, if I could, from the United Auto Workers' statement
earlier this year about the Korean agreement. The UAW said the Korea
agreement and related auto provisions ``will protect current American
auto jobs . . . will grow American auto industry jobs . . . includes
labor and environmental commitments, and . . . has important
enforcement mechanisms.''
The KORUS agreement opens an important market for American farmers
and ranchers as well. According to the International Trade Commission,
KORUS will expand American agricultural exports by $1.9 billion to $3.8
billion per year. In my own State of Ohio, KORUS, along with Panama and
Colombia, will increase Ohio's agricultural exports by nearly $55
million annually--just to Ohio.
KORUS will eventually phase out the 40-percent Korean tariff on U.S.
beef and will immediately eliminate the 5-percent Korean tariff on
soybeans, resulting in a $3 million annual increase in Ohio soybean
exports. Soybeans are the biggest export crop in Ohio. In fact, 1 of
every 2 acres of soybeans in Ohio is planted now for export.
KORUS also opens the door for American manufacturing jobs. In Ohio
over 25 percent of manufacturing jobs now depend on exports. Over $31
billion of U.S. manufacturing goods were exported to Korea last year.
In fact, Korea was our fastest growing export destination in the world,
with a 37-percent increase over 2009. When American-manufactured goods
are exported to Korea, they face an average tariff now of about 9
percent. With passage of this agreement this 9-percent tariff will fall
to zero and in most cases immediately. However, due to this agreement
we talked about earlier between the European Union and Korea going into
force about 100 days ago, on July 1, EU exports to Korea are now on the
rise because 90 percent of their goods can now enter Korea duty free.
Again, it is important we move forward, and move forward quickly, to
avoid losing more American share which is difficult for us to regain.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote an editorial recently entitled,
``Korea Free Trade Deal Will Help U.S. and Ohio.''
The piece talked about the benefits of the Korean agreement,
particularly for manufacturers and autoworkers. The editorial concluded
by saying:

Trade can help drive recovery. This deal with a longtime
ally will help.

They are right.
Another important agreement is the U.S.-Colombia trade promotion
agreement. Colombia is a growing economy in Central and South America,
to which the United States exported over $121 million in goods last
year. This agreement with Colombia is a clear victory for U.S. workers.
Due to preference programs that are already in place, nearly 90 percent
of the exports from Colombia to the United States have entered our
market tariff free. So we largely have a one-way free-trade agreement
with Colombia already. Due to these preference programs, this agreement
will be a huge benefit to U.S. workers and U.S. businesses, because
U.S. exports to Colombia have faced an average tariff of about 14
percent. So, historically, 90 percent of their goods come in duty free
while ours face much higher tariffs when they enter Colombia. This
isn't fair trade, and this agreement will fix that. It will assure that
the one-way trade that advantages Colombian exports instead of American
exports is balanced.
The agreement will lower the 14-percent average Colombian tariff to
zero, allowing over 80 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial products
exported to Colombia to become duty free immediately. The agreement
also immediately eliminates duties on about 70 percent of U.S. farm
exports, including

[[Page S6420]]

soybeans, wheat, barley, flour, and beef.
The Colombia agreement also establishes new transparency rules on
nontariff barriers to trade; in other words, not a higher tariff, but
other barriers in the country, so-called nontariff barriers, that keep
our products out.
Further, it establishes new commitments on the environment and labor,
an area on which Colombia is improving and proactively addressing.
The agreement also protects U.S. intellectual property with enhanced
protection for copyrighted entertainment products, software, and U.S.
trademarks.
Finally, we have an important agreement with Colombia's Latin
American neighbor, Panama, another key ally to the United States.
Panama is one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America. Last
year, $46 million worth of Ohio goods were exported to Colombia. Panama
is a vital strategic partner for the United States, since nearly two-
thirds of the Panama Canal's annual transits are either from or to U.S.
ports.
Moreover, the ongoing $5 billion Panama Canal expansion project
presents unique opportunities for American exporters such as Rockwell
Automation, which employs nearly 3,000 Ohioans. At Rockwell's Twinsburg
facility in northeast Ohio, they produce controllers and automation
systems that open and close the doors of the Panama Canal's locks and
divert the water. They are bidding on more work in Panama. However,
they say they are currently working with one hand tied behind their
back because their competitors have an advantage in Panama, because we
don't have a trade agreement. So this Panama export agreement will help
companies such as Rockwell by cutting tariffs, protecting their
intellectual property, and giving them more investment certainty.
Upon entry into force, Panama will immediately eliminate its tariffs
on over 87 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods and
on more than half of U.S. agricultural exports. Eighty-five percent of
U.S. exporters to Panama are small and medium-sized companies. That is
over 7,000 American small and medium-sized companies that export to
Panama and will thus benefit from this agreement.
Let me speak about a couple of Ohio products that are exported to
these markets. The Step2 Company, headquartered in Streetsboro, OH, is
the largest American manufacturer of preschool and toddler toys. They
employ over 800 Ohioans. They like to export to Korea and Panama, and
they want to take advantage of these agreements. Lincoln Electric's
3,000 employees in Euclid and Mentor export welding products and
equipment to Korea, Colombia, and Panama from northeast Ohio. These
agreements don't just help Lincoln Electric export more, they also will
help Lincoln's customers export more.
Another Ohio company is PRO TEC Coating, a U.S. Steel joint venture
company located near Findlay. PRO TEC Coating employs about 250 Ohioans
and creates steel that meets the most demanding specifications of U.S.
automakers. The Korean agreement will open a big potential market for
U.S. auto exports, which will help companies throughout the automotive
supply chain to be able to get more business, and PRO TEC Coating is
one.
Gorilla Glue, one of my favorite named companies in Cincinnati, OH,
my hometown, has over 100 employees and they export their premium line
of adhesives and tapes to Panama, Colombia, and Korea. They want this
agreement because they will be able to expand their exports and create
more jobs in Cincinnati.
While these agreements bring large economic benefits, those
responsible for our national security also recognize the geopolitical
benefits of building economic ties with key regional allies. In
testimony earlier this year before the Senate Armed Services Committee,
GEN Douglas Fraser, who is Commander of U.S. Southern Command,
described the Colombian agreement as ``a very positive, beneficial
aspect for our cooperation because of a growing capacity to support the
capabilities of the armed forces and law enforcement.''
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
strongly support these agreements, noting the importance of an effort
that leverages all elements of national power to protect our interests
overseas. Secretary Panetta confirmed the role these increased economic
ties have on promoting regional security, with Colombia as a prime
example of a key ally in a continent with ever changing political
dynamics. When it comes to international economics and security, there
is no question of the critical role Panama plays. With 20 percent of
our trade to Asia passing through Panama, building on this historically
strong relationship will signal our commitment to engaging with Central
America.
When President Obama submitted these agreements to Congress last
week, he said, ``The agreements I am submitting to Congress today will
make it easier for American companies to sell their products in South
Korea, Colombia, and Panama and provide a major boost to our exports.
These agreements will support tens of thousands of jobs across our
country. . . .''
While these agreements are late, the President is right. These are
important job-creating and export-opening agreements. They have strong
support from Members of both parties and, more importantly, they are
supported by American workers and businesses.
Again, the lesson we should learn here is that we need to give the
President the authority he has yet to ask for to negotiate further
agreements. Because in these last 4 years while these agreements have
been pending, while the President has not sent them during his
administration--and prior to that when President Bush was blocked by
the House from moving them forward--we have not been negotiating
additional agreements. I am told there are over 100 bilateral trade
agreements being negotiated right now. The United States is not a party
to any of them. That is not acceptable because we are losing out. Our
workers, our service providers, and our farmers are losing out and we
will not have the sustained recovery we all hope for unless we engage
more in these international markets.
I wish to commend so many in this body who have been patient,
persistent, and even passionate in promoting these agreements over the
years. When I was U.S. Trade Representative, I worked closely with then
Chairman Grassley, with Chairman Baucus, with Senator Hatch, and others
on the Finance Committee to promote these agreements. Those Senators
are to be commended today. We will hear a lot from Senator Baucus and
Senator Hatch, I am sure, about the importance of these agreements, but
I want to underscore the key role they played even early on in ensuring
that these agreements could be here before us today.
I commend the staff of the Finance Committee, who have worked
tirelessly over the years to ensure that we could be here with this
opportunity today. Other Senators played a key role--Senator Blunt,
Senator Kerry, and others whom I should be naming but I am not--to make
sure we have this opportunity to move our country forward by enacting
these agreements.

Finally, I wish to thank the dedicated staff at the Office of the
U.S. Trade Representative who make these agreements possible. Again, I
had the privilege to lead this nimble and effective agency, comprised
of remarkable public servants who relish the agency's mission, which is
to knock down barriers to U.S. products so we get a fair shake. They
balanced this challenge with aggressively enforcing our international
trade laws, which is also part of the mix. We need to both expand
exports in open markets and ensure that trade is fair, and that we are
enforcing both the international standards and U.S. laws with regard to
trade. They do it very well. Without our negotiators' commitments to
resolving some of these very complex and sometimes controversial
economic issues, we would also not be here today. So I commend them.
For all of those professionals with whom I have had the honor to serve
and for those who are there now serving under Ambassador Ron Kirk, who
has also been a strong promoter of these agreements, I thank you for
your efforts.
Finally, I urge my colleagues who are on the fence--and some of them
have talked to me--to take a strong look at the economic and
geopolitical benefits of these agreements. We don't do much around here
that is bipartisan these

[[Page S6421]]

days. Yet we have a country that is crying out for it. This is an
example of where we can come together as Republicans and Democrats,
realizing that for 14 million Americans out of work, we need to move
our economy forward. This is a clear example of where we can indeed
take steps that are bipartisan, where we have a consensus to be able to
create jobs and opportunity in the United States of America.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak for a couple
of moments about the three pending trade agreements that the Senate is
considering, those with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. I wish to
start by highlighting what I believe the American people are most
concerned about right now--certainly the people I represent in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Wherever I go, other than sending us a
message that they want us to work together to solve problems they
confront in their lives, the No. 1 issue, the No. 1 priority in terms
of the work we can and should be doing, and thankfully are starting to
move forward on, is a series of steps to improve the job market and to
reduce the unemployment rate.
As we have so often said, we have more than 14 million Americans out
of work. In Pennsylvania, we were on the way last year of lowering the
rate of that number substantially. We went from approaching 600,000
people out of work to going below 500,000. Now, unfortunately, the
number has shot back up to above 500,000 people out of work. So the No.
1 issue, bar none, is jobs, and that is why this debate about trade and
these agreements is so important.
Jobs are the key consideration for Americans. They should be the key
consideration for us, and they are, in short, the biggest challenge we
have. So we need to ask a series of questions, and I have at least
three major questions about these trade agreements, but all center on
that issue of jobs.
We have had a series of debates in the last couple of weeks which I
think have been pretty instructive on both jobs and on efforts to
achieve bipartisanship. We had a significant period of time we spent on
trade adjustment assistance legislation. I was one of the leaders of
that, and, thankfully, we were able to pass trade adjustment assistance
to help workers who are displaced by unfair trade and, in many cases,
have tremendous challenges getting from here to there--getting from a
position of joblessness because of unfair trade to training and
education and preparation for a new job or a new career.
We also just completed a debate about China's currency policy. We
know our recent history proves that when China cheats on its currency,
which it has over a long period of time, we lose American jobs. So the
Senate spoke in a loud voice, in a bipartisan way, to indicate that we
are overdue. It is long past time to get tough with China. If they are
going to cheat, there will be consequences when they cheat on their
currency. So we have had some interesting debates, and we have focused
on jobs and we have focused on working together.
Finally, let me make a point before I get to the three basic
questions I have. The Joint Economic Committee, which I chair, released
a report today, and the report is entitled ``Nowhere to Go: Geographic
and Occupational Immobility and Free Trade.'' It is dated today,
October 12. I commend to my colleagues this report by the Joint
Economic Committee. I won't go through the whole report, but here is
the conclusion of the report itself:

Given the already high national unemployment rate and
depressed home values still evident in most states, policies
that seek to liberalize trade may impose even larger costs
on--

older workers and workers who don't have a college education,
therefore--

bolstering the need for additional investments in training or
other forms of trade-adjustment assistance.

So when people lose their jobs as a result of unfair trade and
because of the ravages of what happens in the international
marketplace, what happens to an individual, to a company, and to a
community, if they are older workers and if they don't have an
education level that is commensurate with allowing them to adjust and
to be able to respond to those dramatic changes, they will be much
worse off. I think that is why these trade agreements are so important
to debate.
We have limited time for debate and we have limited time for full
consideration, but I think we are going to have a number of hours to
put some questions on the table. The first question I have is will
these trade agreements protect and create jobs in Pennsylvania, the
State I represent, and across the country?
We know manufacturing is the core or probably the most important part
of our job creation analysis. If we are making things, producing goods,
engaged in advanced manufacturing, in new manufacturing--that we are
seeing all over the country--if we are doing that at high levels and
with big job numbers, we are moving in the right direction. But,
unfortunately, economic policies and trade policies have inhibited and
badly damaged our ability to create manufacturing jobs.
I know in Pennsylvania manufacturing is especially critical to what
is still the largest source of jobs in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania--that sector of our economy. The benefits to manufacturing
jobs, of course, extend beyond individual companies, individual
businesses. The economic benefits of a strong manufacturing sector are
experienced throughout the economy. They have a ripple effect,
multipliers beyond just that company.
In Pennsylvania, according to research commissioned by the
Pennsylvania Industrial Resources Centers, for every $1 increase in
demand for products manufactured in this country, that leads to a gain
in gross value to the economy overall of $2.52. So $1 in by way of
manufacturing and $2.52 in return.
Furthermore, manufacturing jobs create and support middle-income
families. We know the wage level is higher and, therefore, those
families can benefit tremendously. In 2008, the average annual
compensation of a worker in the manufacturing sector was over $65,000.
The average pay for the rest of the workforce was $10,000 less. Each
good-paying job in the country allows for more money to flow back into
the economy. We know that.
Given the importance of protecting these critical manufacturing jobs,
we must ask ourselves: Will the trade agreements with South Korea,
Colombia, and Panama create jobs, especially in the manufacturing
sector? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is no. All we need
to do is look at the history. This is not theory. All we need to do is
look at recent history.
Trade-related job expansion has been, unfortunately, an unfulfilled
promise to the people of Pennsylvania and across the country. In 1993,
the United States entered into the so-called NAFTA agreement, North
American Free Trade Agreement, which promised to deliver hundreds of
thousands of jobs across the United States. Those gains were not
realized, especially in a State such as Pennsylvania. From 1993 to
2002, 525,094 workers were certified as displaced under NAFTA,
according to the Department of Labor.
Overly optimistic job creation estimates were not the only flawed
projection. At that time, leaders suggested that NAFTA would expand
demand for American exports. That never came to be. In 1993, the United
States had a small trade surplus with Mexico. Let me say that word
again: We had a ``surplus'' in our trade with Mexico. By 2010, just 17
years later, according to Census Bureau statistics, we had amassed a
trade deficit of $66.4 billion with Mexico. Our trade relationship with
Canada tells the same story--a widening trade deficit from $10 billion
in 1993 to $28.5 billion in 2010.
So we know and everyone knows this, that a trade deficit does lead to
job losses. In Pennsylvania, we have seen a dramatic decline in
manufacturing employment since NAFTA was implemented, losing a total of
308,100 manufacturing jobs. That is one State in that time period; so
more than 300,000 jobs lost just in Pennsylvania.
With this experience, we need to take a close look at the
government's projections for the pending agreements that are before us
right now. While the International Trade Commission predicts our
bilateral trade with Korea will improve--that is the assertion--the
total U.S. trade deficit is predicted

[[Page S6422]]

to get larger which, if past experience is any gauge, will mean job
losses, not job gains.
According to the International Trade Commission, the agreement with
Colombia means--and I am quoting--

There is likely to be minimal to no effect on output or
employment for most sectors in the U.S. economy.

That is according to the International Trade Commission.
About the Panama agreement, the same commission concluded that the
impact of the Free Trade Agreement ``would likely be small because of
the small size of the Panamanian market relative to total U.S. trade
and production.''
Simply put, even the always optimistic International Trade Commission
does not see these agreements as job-creating measures. That is
question No. 1, a direct question on jobs.
Question No. 2: Will this agreement create a level playing field? I
would assert the answer is no to that question.
Panama, while a very small economy, has one advantage to lure foreign
investment. It remains a tax haven for companies that incorporate
within its borders. As recently as 2009, Panama was listed on all major
tax haven lists maintained by the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, the so-called OECD; Global Forum on Taxation; the
National Bureau for Economic Research; and the Internal Revenue
Service. While the tax information exchange agreement signed since then
may address these issues, this same organization, the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, has yet to evaluate whether
Panamanian law will allow for effective enforcement pursuant to these
agreements. Given the lack of definitive progress, I am concerned that
the Panama trade deal remains silent on this very basic issue.
Let me move to the question of what happens as it relates to Colombia
on this basic question about a level playing field.
Additionally, as it relates to Colombia, despite efforts to move that
country toward a regime that tolerates workers' rights, Colombia
remains one of the most dangerous places in the world for union workers
to be working. While it has been greeted with great fanfare, nothing in
the so-called labor action plan negotiated between the United States
and the Colombian Government--nothing--has required Colombia to
establish a measurable system for enforcement of these labor rights
prior to ratification or implementation of the agreement. In fact,
Colombian companies can skirt many of the provisions in the so-called
action plan--for example, by forcing new hires to sign a pledge
offering higher salaries based upon a number of conditions, including
not joining a union.
Given the weakness of this plan, it is not surprising that violence
against union workers remains commonplace in Colombia. Twenty-two union
members and organizers have been killed in Colombia this year. Six
Catholic priests known for working for the rights of the poor have also
been targeted for assassination this year, leading the Catholic Bishops
Conference of Colombia to call for protection of its clergy. Imagine
that: union workers and priests needing protection in a country such as
Colombia.

Additionally, a June 8 study by the International Trade Union
Confederation condemned the ongoing problems for labor organizers in
Colombia.
One simple comparison speaks volumes. In total, 49 union members were
murdered in Colombia in the year 2010--49 people. All other countries
combined had 41 killings of this kind. I do not think that needs any
more emphasis.
I am going to move now to a couple of comments as they relate to this
level playing field question as it relates to South Korea.
We had a long debate and a good debate and a good consensus on a
bipartisan basis as it relates to China's currency policy. I believe we
took a positive step forward in passing through the Senate a bipartisan
bill to get tough with China when they cheat on their currency.
All the while, we did not say much about another country that has had
currency problems, and that is South Korea. We know they have their own
record on currency, and I am troubled by South Korea's currency
manipulation over time. They devalued their currency at least in very
specific time periods that we are aware of at least twice--once in 1998
and once in 1988. In fact, the most recent Treasury ``Report to
Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies''--a long
name for a currency report--this report is dated May 27, 2011. It noted
that South Korea intervened ``heavily'' in its currency market during
the financial crisis and has continued uninterrupted since. So it has a
history, but we also have current information, current evidence, recent
evidence that South Korea has been intervening heavily in its currency
market. Treasury urged--urged--South Korea to ``adopt a greater degree
of exchange rate flexibility and less intervention.'' I think we could
get a little tougher than that, be a little more direct and maybe have
some consequences, but that is the extent that Treasury is willing to
go.
So as we debate a trade agreement with a major country such as South
Korea, we ought to know something about their currency policies,
especially in the aftermath of bipartisan currency legislation as it
relates to China.
I am pleased the Senate has passed this currency legislation this
past week, and we are all hoping the House of Representatives will move
quickly to consideration and passage of the currency legislation. But
we should not be entering into a trade agreement with South Korea at a
time when we know their currency policies are at best suspect and I
think worse than that.
Finally, let me lead to the last question of the three. The third
question I have is: Does the agreement provide new opportunities for
manufacturers in Pennsylvania as well as other States to export their
goods?
The benefits of the agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama
have been, in my judgment, overstated, while the risks have been
largely ignored. Rather than opening a new market for Pennsylvania
farmers or Pennsylvania manufacturers, I fear the benefits to the
United States are likely to be minimal at best.
There are specific reasons the South Korea deal fails to deliver for
Pennsylvania exporters as well. First, the most recent benefits are
based upon an overly optimistic projection for agriculture. These
projections, compiled by supporters of the agreement, assume that a cut
in tariffs will immediately equal a growth in market share. We know
from past experience that Asian markets, including South Korea, have
come up with a host of unjustified nontariff restrictions to keep U.S.
goods, particularly beef, out of their country. These barriers to free
trade are likely to limit export potential and are largely unaddressed
in the agreement.
There are other troubling clauses, as well, dealing with, in this
case, the beef industry. The South Korea agreement will allow American
beef packagers to use Canadian or Mexican cattle and then export the
packaged Mexican and/or Canadian beef as ``American'' beef. This
policy, while great for beef packagers, undercuts U.S. ranchers.
Another problem with the Korea deal is which goods will qualify for
the ``Made in South Korea'' designation or sticker. Which will qualify
for that? And therefore, if they have that, they are allowed to enter
the U.S. duty free. Under the rules of origin in annex 6-A of the
agreement, 65 percent of the value of many goods, including
automobiles, shipped duty free to the United States can come from
outside--just imagine this--outside of South Korea and still be
considered ``Made in South Korea.'' That defies description. It is
internally inconsistent at best, and it is contradictory for sure. This
standard is lower than the European Union agreement, where only 55
percent of content can be foreign and once again places our companies
at a comparative disadvantage to international competition.
Furthermore, this policy opens the door for products primarily made
from Chinese parts to enter the United States duty free. That makes no
sense at all.
Earlier I posed these questions. The first I posed was: Will these
agreements create a substantial number of new jobs? They will not. If
previous agreements are any indication at all, the South Korea,
Colombia, and Panama agreements will not create jobs in the

[[Page S6423]]

way they are projected to and will, in fact, lead to job losses,
especially in manufacturing.
The second question: Will the agreements help create a level playing
field? They will not. The agreements fail to address critical issues
such as violence against union members, as well as currency
manipulation by, for example, South Korea.
The third question: Does the agreement provide new opportunities for
American manufacturers to export? Proponents have overstated the
benefits. Certain industries and firms are likely to benefit for sure,
while others will not.
While it is clear that in its failure to address nontariff barriers
to trade, the agreement leaves American firms unprotected on an unlevel
playing field.
Finally, based upon this set of questions and, more importantly, the
answer to those questions, I will vote against the agreements with
South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.
It is my job as a Senator from Pennsylvania to fight for Pennsylvania
jobs, and for too long the needs and the concerns of the jobs of
Pennsylvania's workers have been last on the list when it comes to
trade agreements. The fact is that past trade agreements have failed
Pennsylvania and our workers, and I refuse to support new foreign trade
agreements without reasonable debate and adequate answers for the
questions that I pose and especially as it relates to jobs and the
impact on workers.
Instead of moving ahead quickly with what is a broken model, we need
to focus on the biggest picture: formulating a strategy that helps
American manufacturers, that leads to job creation, and that creates a
stronger middle class. We need a trade policy in the United States of
America. We do not have one right now. We need one that is bipartisan
in nature.
To make real, sustained progress, Washington needs to have a
strategy. We must develop and commit ourselves to a national
manufacturing strategy as part of a trade policy that includes job-
creating trade agreements, not job-killing trade agreements.
Manufacturing is the heart and soul of our Commonwealth and our
country. Our future's success depends upon developing policies that
allow our people to create jobs and compete in the global production of
goods. I know our workers are up to it. If we give them the tools and
the agreements and the policies to do just that, they will outcompete
anybody in the world, any country in the world.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Let me begin by concurring with much of what the Senator
from Pennsylvania has said. I think he is right-on. Like him, I rise
today in strong opposition to the unfettered free-trade agreements with
Korea, Colombia, and Panama. Let's be clear. One of the major reasons
why the middle class in America is disappearing and why poverty is
increasing and why the gap between the very wealthy and everybody else
is growing wider is directly related to our disastrous, unfettered
free-trade policy. If the United States is to remain a major industrial
power, producing real products and creating good-paying jobs, we cannot
continue the failed, unfettered free-trade policies that have been in
existence for the last 30 years.
We need to develop trade policies--I know this is a radical idea--
that work for working people and not just the CEOs of large
corporations. What we must do is rebuild our manufacturing sector and
once again create millions of good-paying jobs where workers are
producing real products made in the United States of America.
Over the last decade, more than 50,000 manufacturing plants in this
country have shut down. Let me repeat that. In the last decade, more
than 50,000 factories in this country have shut down. Over 5.5 million
factory jobs have disappeared.
Back in 1970, 25 percent of all jobs in the United States were
manufacturing jobs, often paying workers a living wage, decent
benefits, pensions. Today, that figure is down to just 9 percent.
In July of 2000, there were 17.3 million manufacturing workers in
this country. Today, there are only 11.7 million.
According to a recent study conducted by a well-respected economist
at the Economic Policy Institute, permanent normal trade relations with
China has led to the loss of 2.8 million jobs. In fact, the United
States has lost an average of about 50,000 manufacturing jobs per month
since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.
I was in the House of Representatives when PNTR with China was
passed. I can remember all of the fine speeches from the President on
down, Republicans, Democrats: Permanent normal trade relations with
China is going to open up that great market, going to create millions
of jobs in America. It was not true. Free trade with China ended up
costing us 2.8 million jobs. You don't have to be an economist to
understand that; all you have to do is walk into any department store
in America and buy a product. Do you know where that product is made?
It is not made in the United States of America, it is made in China.
We all now understand what that trade agreement was about. It was not
to open markets in China for American products, it was to open China so
corporations in this country could shut down here, throw American
workers out on the street, and move there in order to pay workers
pennies an hour. That is what those trade agreements are about. There
is no doubt in my mind that--certainly to a much lesser degree because
they are smaller trade agreements--trade agreements with Korea, Panama,
and Colombia will continue that same process.
The U.S. Department of Commerce has reported that over the last
decade, U.S. multinational corporations slashed 2.9 million jobs. Now
the biggest advocate of unfettered free trade, of NAFTA with Mexico, of
PNTR with China, of these trade agreements, is corporate America. It is
the chamber of commerce, it is the National Association of
Manufacturing. They spend huge sums of money on lobbying and campaign
contributions in order to make Congress vote for these great trade
agreements.
Let me repeat. Over the last decade, these very same corporations
that want us to pass these disastrous trade agreements slashed 2.9
million American jobs. Furthermore, what we have learned is that during
that same period of time--and here is the kicker--these same
corporations have created 2.4 million jobs. The only problem is that
those jobs were created in China, Mexico, and other low-wage countries.
What we have here is that key advocates for continuing this
disastrous trade policy are precisely the people who have been slashing
jobs in America, closing down factories, and hiring people abroad. And
I would suggest that Members of the Senate might want to think twice
about listening to the advice of people who have been laying off
millions of American workers.
Oddly enough, again we have one of the leading advocates for these
disastrous trade agreements--it is the chamber of commerce. Well, some
years ago, the chamber of commerce, to its credit, was pretty up front.
They said outsourcing is a good idea. They recommended to American
corporations: Shut down in America and move abroad. It is good for your
stockholders.
Do you really want to take the advice of people who believe that
outsourcing and throwing American workers out on the street is a good
idea? I do not think so.
Today we are hearing all of this talk about how these trade
agreements are going to create new jobs. We heard it before. It is the
same old movie. The American people understand it is a bad movie. It is
an unfactual movie.
During the Clinton administration, we were told by Republicans and
Democrats and then-President Clinton that NAFTA would create 100,000
American jobs over a 2-year period. That is what we were told about
NAFTA. Well, results are in on NAFTA. Instead of creating 100,000
American jobs, the Economic Policy Institute has found that NAFTA
destroyed more than 682,000 American jobs, including the loss of
150,000 computer and electronic jobs.
I do not understand why, when you have a policy that has failed and
failed, you want to continue that policy. Football teams that have
coaches with losing records get rid of those coaches. When you have a
trade policy that has

[[Page S6424]]

resulted in millions of American workers losing their jobs, you do not
continue that same philosophy.
The issue here is not just Mexico and NAFTA, it is not just PNTR with
China, it is obviously what is going to happen with the trade
agreements that are before us today, Korea, Panama, and Colombia.
The Economic Policy Institute has estimated that the Korea Free Trade
Agreement will lead to the loss of 159,000 American jobs and will
increase the trade deficit by nearly $14 billion over a 7-year period.
Why would you want to go forward with those ideas? Why would you want
to go forward with a trade agreement that will increase our trade
deficit?
President Obama has estimated that the Korea Free Trade Agreement
will support at least 70,000 American jobs. But the headline of a
December 7, 2010, article in the New York Times says it all: ``Few New
Jobs Expected Soon From Free-Trade Agreement With South Korea.''
According to this article, the Korea Free Trade Agreement ``is likely
to result in little if any net job creation in the short run, according
to the government's own analysis.''

Let me touch on one particular aspect of the Korea Free Trade
Agreement that I find especially troubling and that I think the
American people, to the degree they understand this and learn about it,
will also find troubling; that is, this particular free-trade agreement
will force American workers to compete not just against the low-wage
workers in China or Vietnam or Mexico, they are going to be forced to
compete against the virtual slave labor that exists in North Korea, the
most undemocratic country in the world and a country itself whose
government will financially benefit from this, with the dictatorship of
Kim Jong Il.
We all know that under current law the United States has an embargo
on all North Korean goods--for a very good reason. Workers in North
Korea are the most brutalized in the world, have virtually no
democratic rights, and are at the mercy of the most vicious dictator in
the world. But after the South Korea Free Trade Agreement is signed
into law, the United States would have a new obligation to allow South
Korean products to come into our country tariff-free that contain major
parts made by North Korean workers who make pennies an hour.
According to a January 2011 report from the Congressional Research
Service, ``There is nothing to prevent South Korean firms from
performing intermediate manufacturing operations in North Korea and
then performing final manufacturing processes in South Korea.'' In
other words, there is a huge industrial park in North Korea. South
Korean companies own that park. Workers there are paid horrendously low
wages, and some of those wages go right to the North Korean Government.
Products made in that industrial park in North Korea will go to South
Korea and then will come back into the United States as part of that
so-called free-trade agreement.
Today, over 47,000 North Korean workers currently are employed by
more than 120 South Korean firms, including Hyundai, at the Kaesong
Industrial Complex in North Korea.
This facility is located just 6 miles north of the demilitarized
zone, with direct road and rail access to South Korea and just an
hour's drive away from Seoul.
These North Korean workers officially make a minimum wage of 35 cents
an hour, but they actually make less than that.
Instead of paying these workers directly, Hyundai and the other South
Korean firms pay the North Korean Government. How is that? South Korean
companies--major companies--pay the North Korean Government. They take
a piece of the action, which is going to the most undemocratic, vicious
dictatorship in the world. The products then go to South Korea, and
they are part of the free-trade agreement with South Korea.
In 2007, Han Duck-soo, who was then the Prime Minister of South Korea
and is the current South Korean Ambassador to the United States, said
this:

The planned ratification of the South Korea-U.S. free trade
agreement will pave the way for the export of products built
in Kaesong [North Korea] to the U.S. market.

So what we have now is American workers being forced to compete
against desperate people all over the world, who are making a tiny
fraction of the wages that are paid in America, and forced to compete
against countries where there are no environmental standards, where
worker unions are not recognized or respected.
But now it gets even worse. American workers are now being forced to
compete against the virtual slave labor in North Korea as part of this
trade agreement.
What about the Colombia Free Trade Agreement? It is understandable
why the CEOs of multinational corporations would like this free-trade
agreement. After all, Colombia is one of the most anti-union countries
on the planet.
Since 1986, over 2,800 trade unionists have been assassinated in
Colombia--more than the rest of the world combined. Think about it for
a moment. If we found out that 50 CEOs had been assassinated in
Colombia last year instead of trade leaders, do you think we would be
on the verge of approving a free-trade agreement with that country?
Frankly, I don't think so.
Lastly, let me say a brief word about Panama and the Panama free-
trade agreement. Panama's entire economic output is only $26.7 billion
a year or about two-tenths of 1 percent of the U.S. economy. Nobody can
legitimately claim that approving this free-trade agreement will
significantly increase American jobs.
Then why would we be considering a stand-alone free trade agreement
with Panama? It turns out that Panama is a world leader when it comes
to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade U.S.
taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens. The Panama Free
Trade Agreement will make this bad situation much worse.
Each and every year, the wealthiest people in our country and the
largest corporations evade about $100 billion in U.S. taxes through
abusive and illegal offshore tax havens in Panama and other countries.
According to Citizens for Tax Justice:

A tax haven . . . has one of three characteristics: it has
no income tax or a very low rate income tax; it has bank
secrecy laws; and it has a history of non-cooperation with
other countries on exchanging information about tax matters.
Panama has all three of those. . . . They're probably the
worst.

Let me conclude--and I will be back on the floor later to amplify on
these remarks. I will conclude by saying this: If you go out to any
community in America and you ask the people in those communities--
especially working people--do you think our current free-trade
agreements, such as NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with
China, have worked, and have they been creating jobs in your community
or have you seen factories shut down, I suspect that in almost every
instance people will say these free-trade agreements are not working
for American workers. They are costing us jobs.
That is what the American people understand to be true because it is
true. So it seems to me that when you have a history of failed trade
policies--policies that have enabled and encouraged large corporations
to shut down in this country and move abroad, it is insane to continue
that policy if you are serious about creating jobs in America,
rebuilding our manufacturing sector, and trying to address the crises
facing the middle class today.
We need new trade policies. Trade unto itself is a good idea.
Everybody believes in trade. But you need trade policies that are
designed to help ordinary working people and not just wealthy CEOs.
I feel very strongly that the policies we are debating today--trade
policies with Korea, Panama, and Colombia--are nothing more than
extensions of disastrous trade policies of the past. They should be
defeated. We should come together and develop new approaches to trade,
which will benefit all our people and not just CEOs or multinational
corporations.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S6425]]

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator Sanders has raised some
questions about our trade policy. I do believe we need to examine our
trade policies more carefully. As I have said in the last few days, we
need to defend our legitimate interests as a nation, and I have
supported legislation that would curtail China's ability to manipulate
its currency to gain a trade advantage over us.
Trade agreements are not a religious thing with me. I think some of
the free traders are accused of believing it is a religious thing--that
whatever you do to further trade, even if we are at a disadvantage,
somehow it is still better for us to sign these agreements; that we
should just do this and not worry about it--cancer will be cured, peace
will occur in the world, we will all be better friends, and things will
happen good.
Things do tend to happen good when you have a trading relationship
with a nation. I will support all three of these trade agreements. But
I believe it is healthy to have Senators examine and make sure that
these are the kinds of agreements that advance our national interest.
Is this the kind of trading partner we feel comfortable signing an
agreement with? Will they honor it? Do we have prospects for improved
trade over the years that could help both our countries?
Any business that does business with another business presumes it
will be beneficial to them, and the other company that agreed to do
business with this other company assumes it will be good for them.
Certainly, any kind of contract, any kind of agreement that is a
legitimate agreement of value benefits both parties. That is very
achievable. It can be achievable in the trade world.

I believe that with regard to Colombia, South Korea, and Panama, we
have reason to believe they will be good trading partners. Colombia is
the longest democracy in South America. They had to go for over a
decade dealing with narcotrafficking, a Communist guerrilla force, and
we were able to help them defeat their enemy. They are now prospering.
They have elections. The Congress is doing a good job. They are
honoring their agreements. The people of Colombia are positive about
the people in the United States. I have been there and I appreciate
that.
As a native of Alabama and on the gulf coast, it is a direct shot
south to Colombia. We have every reason to believe we can have a
positive trading relationship with Colombia.
Panama is much smaller, but they have done well. A lot of people
doubted their ability to function successfully as a government. I think
Panama has been doing very well, and they believe in trade and want to
be good trading partners. All of these will have to be watched. South
Korea is one of our best allies in the world. We have huge amounts of
soldiers there and basing in Korea. We do many things together. Korea
has invested billions of dollars in the United States of America.
The Hyundai plant that makes the Sonata automobiles--one of the most
popular automobiles in America today--is in Montgomery, AL. There are
3,000 workers, plus additional suppliers, many of which are Korean
companies that have invested here and hired Alabamans--Americans--to
work in their plant, and they do this around the country. They are
honorable and when they sign agreements, you can expect them, as well
or better than most nations, to adhere to it. They are disciplined
people with integrity and they are smart and well educated. They are
allies--strategic allies.
So in each one of these agreements, it is my best judgment that it
will be beneficial to us. For example, with regard to Colombia, under
the Andean Trade Agreement, basically, they can import products into
the United States with no duty, for the most part. But this agreement
is critical to them producing their tariffs on the products that we
ship to Colombia. Colombia buys a lot of our products. They are one of
the best customers we have in South America. They have a positive view
of the United States. I have a very positive view of Colombia.
My thought on these agreements would be that, yes, I think each one
of these agreements has been negotiated sufficiently well to ensure
that we will have a beneficial relationship. It will help us be more
economically strong than we would be if we did not have these
agreements. We are in a world economy. It makes no sense to me to think
we can just build a wall around the United States and stop trade from
occurring. That doesn't make sense to me. But I do believe that each
and every trade agreement has to be carefully considered, and I expect
the USTR to enforce the laws we pass.
We need to be sure we have the mechanisms in place to assure that
those with whom we agree to trade will follow fair trade, will follow
the terms of the contract, and will otherwise follow the requirements
of a decent trading partner. I believe all three of these countries
will do that. I think all three of these countries represent decent
governments.
All three of these countries are allies of the United States. With
regard to all three of these countries, I believe the signing of these
treaties will enhance our economic vitality and will be good for us. I
suggest, however, that it is not going to be an overnight boom. Trading
is a two-way street. We will have economic advantage, and that is
sufficient to me. It will be felt over decades. It has been said by
someone--and I see Senator McCain and he can probably remember who said
it--that there has never been a war between two countries, both of
which have a MacDonald's.
Now, I don't know if that is accurate anymore or not, but most of the
wars we get into are with countries that are isolated, backward, and
insular. Trade can reduce the chance of war and hostile relations
between nations. It can build positive relations.
So from that point of view, Mr. President, I think these trade
agreements are agreements I can support. I believe my colleagues, if
they analyze them, will reach the same conclusion. We are showing
substantial increases in our exports to all three of these countries,
and I do believe our exports would increase more with these agreements
if they are ratified.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Ohio, Mr. Brown, be next to speak following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the Senator.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support ratification of the three free-
trade agreements we are debating. They are long overdue, and they are
important to job creation in this country. While we have waited around,
these countries have concluded free-trade agreements with other
countries, much to the detriment of American exports.
The best example I can cite of that is several years ago, 40 percent
of the imports of agricultural products into Colombia were from the
United States of America, while today only 20 percent of their
agricultural imports are from the United States because while we have
been waiting, Colombia has concluded free-trade agreements with other
nations which have given them access to their markets while we were not
able to expand. One of the ironies of all this is, thanks to a rather
complicated process that took place during President Clinton's
administration, the results of the Andean trade preference agreements
meant there were tariffs on U.S. goods going into Colombia but no
tariff on Colombian goods coming into the United States.
But why I am here this afternoon, Mr. President, is because what has
been unremarked on--and which was outrageous about this whole process
we have been through in these times of fiscal difficulties--is that
roughly $1.3 billion is going to be spent on the so-called TAA, trade
adjustment assistance. I would like to remind my colleagues the TAA was
adopted in order to satisfy many of the concerns of labor and others at
the time of the passage of other free-trade agreements, and like other
government programs, spending on the TAA has grown and grown and grown
and grown.
By the way, this was supposed to be for individuals, and, originally
at least, individuals who have lost their jobs as a result of jobs
going to the countries which free-trade agreements were entered into.
In 2006, it was $735 million; in 2007, $779 million; and in 2008,
$791 million.

[[Page S6426]]

But following the so-called stimulus package--and the stimulus was
supposed to be temporary--it ballooned to $1.1 billion.
Additionally, according to the Department of Labor, Congress
allocated more than $975 million to fund other TAA services, including
$575 million for job training. In all, the annual TAA spending for the
stimulus expansion totaled approximately $2 billion.
Three weeks ago, the Congress passed an agreement to reauthorize the
TAA through 2014. This paved the way for these free-trade agreements to
be considered today. The agreement pares back some of the expansions
from the 2009 stimulus and funds the program somewhere between the
prestimulus and poststimulus levels. This ``compromise,'' which, by the
way, was negotiated by Republicans in the House of Representatives,
will increase the annual TAA spending by at least $460 million above
the prestimulus levels before 2012 and 2013. Therefore, the total cost
to taxpayers for the deal to allow these trade agreements to be
considered by the Senate will be $1.3 billion through 2014.
According to the Heritage Foundation, the TAA spending legislation
passed by this body 3 weeks ago does the following: No. 1, it keeps the
2009 stimulus expansion for service sector workers. The stimulus, by
the way, was supposed to be temporary. TAA was originally intended to
provide income maintenance and job training to workers from the
manufacturing sector. The stimulus bill expanded eligibility to include
workers from the service and public sectors. This expansion expired in
February, but the agreement restored TAA eligibility for service sector
workers.
No. 2, it restored the stimulus expansion of benefits for job losses
that are unrelated to free-trade agreements. The agreement retained the
stimulus expansion of providing TAA benefits to any workers who lost
their jobs to overseas production, not just TAA-certified jobs that
were lost to free-trade agreements.
No. 3, it reinstated the stimulus's 160 percent increase in trade
adjustment assistance for workers' job training spending. The proposal
cemented the stimulus spending expansion of TAA for workers' job
training at $575 million a year from $220 million, an increase of $355
million a year.
No. 4, it continued the stimulus's creation of a new and duplicative
job-training program. The agreement kept the TAA Community College and
Career Training Program, which will dole out $2 billion over the years
2011 through 2014.
So this program cries out for significant reform. The previous
administration's agency leader called for FAA deficiencies to be
addressed for the displaced workers who need the TAA benefits. In
testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee on June 14, 2007,
the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor called on Congress to take the
``opportunity to improve the current TAA program to help workers gain
the skills needed to successfully compete in the global economy.'' The
administration didn't listen and neither did Congress.
Let's look at an example of excess created in the temporary stimulus
expansion of the TAA program that taxpayers are still on the hook for.
According to a February 2011 study by Senator Coburn entitled, ``Help
Wanted: How Federal Job Training Programs are Failing Workers,''
quoting from the study that Senator Coburn brought to this body:

Taxpayers may have a case of indigestion when they learn,
nearly 2 years after the stimulus was enacted, their money is
paying lobstermen, shrimpers and blueberry farmers $12,000
each to attend job training sessions on jobs that they are
already trained to do. The stimulus reauthorized the Trade
Adjustment Assistance for the Farmers program administered by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a program that provides
subsidies to producers of raw agricultural commodities and
fishermen so they can adjust to import competition. Under the
stimulus, TAA benefits were enhanced to focus more on
employment retraining.
Recently, the Department of Labor issued a report on the TAA program
which indicated that only approximately 50 percent of the TAA training
participants were actually placed in new jobs. While we can be happy
for the 50 percent that used the training for new employment, a 50-
percent success level is, of course, dismally low. Our obligation
should have been to reform and fix the flaws in the program. Instead,
we expanded it.
I am a big supporter of America's community colleges. One of the best
community college networks happens to be in my home State of Arizona.
It has been suggested that the TAA for Community Colleges Program,
which was vastly expanded in the stimulus bill, has become nothing but
a vehicle to funnel scarce tax dollars to community colleges around the
country whether they need the money or not, with no performance
reviews, no standards for graduation, and no oversight.
In March 2010, the Senate and House leadership, together with the
administration, funded the TAA for Community Colleges Program $2
billion over 4 years. Just last month--conveniently, right before the
end of the fiscal year--the Department of Labor rolled out the money to
individual community colleges and consortiums of community colleges.
The money started flowing without regard to how well the community
colleges did at graduating their students or whether there was
sufficient TAA need.
Several of the community colleges have received grants of over $2\1/
2\ million of taxpayer funds while having extremely low graduation
rates. Shouldn't we ensure that an institution can actually graduate
its students before funneling money to it?
For example, Oklahoma City Community College received $2.7 million.
This institution had a graduation rate of 11 percent. If there was any
doubt that the administration was using this program to funnel money to
community colleges without regard to need or their ability to help
dislocated workers receive training, let me just read from the
Department of Labor grant announcement issued last week.

The following is a list of the entities in each State that
will be receiving funding. The Department of Labor's
Employment and Training Administration is continuing to work
with these institutions to develop final performance
operating and spending plans.

Earlier this year, the GAO released a study entitled ``Multiple
Training and Employment Programs: Providing Information on Collocating
Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could Promote
Efficiencies.'' Here is what the GAO reported on Federal employment and
retraining programs, including trade adjustment assistance.

Based on our survey of agency officials, we determined that
only 5 of the 47 programs have had impact studies that assess
whether the program is responsible for improved employment
outcomes. The five impact studies generally found that the
effects of participation were not consistent across programs,
with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to
be small, inclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.

So what are we doing? We are going to spend at least $1.3 billion,
part of it on programs that clearly the Government Accountability
Office says have not been productive in any way and are small,
inclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.
There are a lot of questions about the TAA Program. Does the TAA
Program provide overly generous benefits to a narrow population?
According to an analysis from the Heritage Foundation, based on
statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the third quarter of
fiscal year 2009 only 1 percent of mass layoffs were the result of
import competition or overseas relocation.
Is there evidence that TAA benefits and training help participants'
earnings? An analysis by Professor Kara M. Reynolds of American
University found ``little evidence that it [TAA] helps displaced
workers find new, well-paying employment opportunities.'' In fact, TAA
participants experienced a wage loss of 10 percent. The same study
found that, in fiscal 2007, the Federal Government appropriated $885.1
million to TAA programs. Of this amount, funding for training programs
accounted for only 25 percent.

In 2007, the Office of Management and Budget rated the TAA programs
as ``ineffective.'' The OMB found that the TAA Program fails to use tax
dollars effectively because, among other reasons, the program has
failed to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of achieving its goals.
Let me close by reminding my colleagues how we got to our current
predicament. It is mid-October of 2011, 2\1/2\ years since President
Obama took office, and we are just now considering

[[Page S6427]]

these important trade agreements that were finalized half a decade ago,
all because of the White House's insistence on making a temporary
stimulus program--the dubious extension of TAA--into a permanent
domestic spending program.
This is how George Will summed it up, writing in the Washington Post,
on June 8, 2011:

President Obama is sacrificing economic growth and job
creation in order to placate organized labor. And as the
crisis of the welfare state deepens, he is trying to enlarge
the entitlement system and exacerbate the entitlement
mentality.
On May 4, the administration announced that, at last, it
was ready to proceed with congressional ratification of the
agreements. On May 16, however, it announced it would not
send them until Congress expands an entitlement program
favored by unions.
Since 1974, Trade Adjustment Assistance has provided 104,
and then 156, weeks of myriad financial aid, partly
concurrent with the 99 weeks of unemployment compensation, to
people, including farmers and government workers and firms,
even whole communities, that can more or less plausibly claim
to have lost their jobs or been otherwise injured because of
foreign competition. Even if the injury is just the loss of
unfair advantages conferred, at the expense of other
Americans, by government protectionism.

This process should be appalling to the average American who is
looking for an improving economy, not special favors to certain special
interest groups.
Our national debt has reached unsustainable levels. Congress and the
American people face some truly painful choices about how to cut our
Federal budget. At a time when some are even considering enormous and
dangerous cuts to our defense spending as a way to get our fiscal house
in order, we shouldn't be throwing more and more scarce money at a
Federal program that, as the GAO points out, is duplicative and
possibly ineffective.
There is guilt on both sides of the aisle for the extension of this
program. It has not had proper scrutiny, it has not had proper
oversight. The studies that have been done have shown that it is
practically useless--or certainly not useful--and ineffective; and now,
as a price for these free-trade agreements, which I strongly support,
we will be laying another $2 billion on the taxpayers of America,
unfortunately.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to briefly explain my position
on the free trade agreements/trade adjustment assistance package.
I support the free trade agreements, FTAs, with Panama, Colombia, and
South Korea, and only wish these agreements had been taken up sooner.
The FTAs represent true, bipartisan jobs legislation, and I am pleased
they will soon become law. Free trade agreements have proven to be one
of the best ways to open up foreign markets to American exporters.
These agreements will create tens of thousands of new jobs by boosting
American exports to three nations. The FTAs will also strengthen
America's interests in two strategically important regions.
I do not, however, support the trade adjustment assistance, TAA, deal
that was negotiated as part of the compromise to pass the FTAs. Nor do
I think it should have been included in the FTA negotiations.
I have several key objections. First is the enormous costs. Over the
next 3 years, the TAA deal adds over $1.15 billion in new costs to the
baseline TAA costs. Together, baseline TAA and these provisions will
cost almost $6 billion for the 2011-2013 fiscal years.
Second, the TAA deal does not represent a true compromise. The
proposal was made only by three of the strongest TAA supporters. No
critic of TAA was included in the negotiations.
Third, the umbrella of TAA programs deserved greater scrutiny than
the process allowed. Instead of a moving a reauthorization with some
rudimentary changes, fundamental reform should have been completed.
There is little evidence that the TAA programs are actually effective,
and, under this deal, we are going to spend billions of dollars on
these programs without knowing whether they actually help Americans.
Moreover, no work was done to reform the TAA training funding to
reflect the fact that there are already over 40 programs dedicated to
worker training.
Fourth, the TAA deal represents false reform. Proponents try to take
credit for eliminating two grant programs within TAA for communities--
programs which were already repealed. Proponents also cite the
elimination of the mandatory nature of TAA for farmers/fisheries, which
were already defunded for other purposes. Only in Washington would
someone try to take credit for ``ending'' programs that no longer exist
or that have no funding.
Proponents also claim that the size of the TAA for firms program was
reduced. But that program represents a status quo authorization and is
one already targeted by President Obama for elimination. How does level
funding and rejecting a repeal recommendation constitute reform?
For these reasons, and others, I voted against the trade adjustment
assistance legislation when it was considered a few weeks ago. The FTAs
are sufficiently meritorious on their own accord without tying in a
poorly designed and operated social welfare program such as TAA.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I would like to speak in opposition
to these three pending free-trade agreements.
The bills look like they are about this size. These are the actual
implementing of the three free-trade agreements. But one of the bills,
and not the largest one--the one, in fact, of the three countries we
are probably today passing trade agreements with, Colombia, South
Korea, and Panama--the smallest by far in terms of its economy is
Panama, and this is the trade agreement with Panama.
I remember all these conservative talk radio people saying: Have you
read the bill? Have you read the bill? Have you read the bill? Every
time it is a bill they don't agree with, they ask: Have you read the
bill? This isn't just to eliminate the tariffs we have with the
Republic of Panama. If these agreements were about eliminating tariffs
with labor standards--and I know the Presiding Officer from Oregon
shares that view about labor standards. If these agreements were about
eliminating tariffs and labor standards, they would be about this big.
They wouldn't be anything like this. But these are chock-full of
special interest deals. It is what this body always does: the North
American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico; the PNTR with
China, a different kind of situation but leading to even more problems;
the Central American Free Trade Agreement with six countries in Central
America and the Dominican Republic. Rules that help the drug companies,
rules that help the insurance companies, special interest provisions
that help the banks, special interest provisions that undermine public
health and undermine safely, that is what these free-trade agreements
are about.
I get it. I get it that this is greased. I get it that this will pass
with overwhelming numbers. I get it that this White House is only this
much better than the last White House in pushing for these trade
agreements. These are Bush trade agreements, Korea, Colombia, and
Panama. President Obama inherited them, but he doesn't get off the hook
because he has improved these slightly. We have a little bit of an
improvement with Korea so a few more American cars can be sold into
Korea, nothing like the number of Korean cars that can be sold in the
United States because we didn't want to be that tough when we
negotiated, so we just make slight changes. This President made slight
changes, and I have seen this. I was in the House for 14 years, and in
my first term in the Senate I have seen this kind of game played by
administration after administration. This is technically my fourth
administration I have worked with, third at some length, and I have
seen this over and over and over again.
When I hear of these trade agreements coming forward, every President
says this is going to create tens of thousands of jobs. NAFTA was going
to create 200,000 jobs, almost immediately, the first Bush
administration said. The Clinton administration said: Yes; that is
right. It is going to create more or less 200,000 jobs immediately. Do
you know what it has created? It has created a loss of 600,000 jobs
under the North American Free Trade Agreement. We gain some jobs; we
lose some jobs, but the net is always lost jobs.
How many times is an administration going to come forward and how

[[Page S6428]]

many times are we going to believe them? Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me. This body continues, as the House of
Representatives does--they are a little smarter in the House; they
don't pass these with quite the same numbers in the overwhelming
margins, but they continue to do the same thing over and over and over.
The American public doesn't like these trade agreements. The American
public, in large numbers, under poll after poll after poll--the
American people don't like NAFTA, don't like CAFTA, don't like PNTR
with China. Why do you think last night, finally, this body stood--63
Members of the Senate, almost 20 of them Republicans, voted to finally
stand up on currency and try to create a level playing field in our
trade with China? But we don't do it on these other trade agreements.
With the lobbying efforts on NAFTA, on CAFTA, on PNTR with China, on
the Panama Trade Agreement, on the Colombia Trade Agreement, on the
Korea Trade Agreement, the lobbying is overwhelming. Special interest
groups line up because they are so excited about passing these free-
trade agreements. In the end, we lose jobs every single time.
When I came to the Congress 20 years ago, we had a trade surplus with
Mexico and, if I recall, a small trade deficit with Canada. That means
we sold more to Mexico than we bought from them. We bought more from
Canada than we sold to them. Today, it is tens of billions of dollars'
trade deficit we have trilaterally with those two countries.
The China trade deficit 10 years ago, when China got into the World
Trade Organization because we passed PNTR in part--that is part of the
reason they got in--our trade deficit with China was something like $80
billion; today, it is almost $300 billion, more than three times the
trade deficit with China. So our answer is, let's do more of it.
So China undercuts our manufacturing. NAFTA takes away American jobs.
CAFTA costs us jobs. Yet the geniuses around here, the people--and the
majority leader has been wonderful in this, opposing trade agreement
after trade agreement because he gets it--the geniuses around this
place, in the White House, in the House leadership, in some of the
Senate leadership, Senate Republican leadership, and far too many of my
colleagues on my side of the aisle, the geniuses around here are
saying: Let's pass more trade agreements because it is working.
Give me one other issue where people in this body en masse, in huge
numbers, say: This trade policy isn't working so let's try more of it.
That is exactly what we have done. We continue to pass trade agreements
that look a lot like NAFTA. We continue to pass trade agreements that
get us in this situation that cost us jobs.
I am for more trade. Like most Americans, I want to see us trade more
with other countries. But like most Americans, I have a problem with
many of the rules that govern our trade policy because these aren't
simple--eliminate tariffs. This is a trade policy that time after time
favors corporate or investors' interests, and, in some cases, actually
undermines our national security and undermines our national interests.
When we see the kind of job loss that NAFTA caused and CAFTA caused
and PNTR caused, and these trade agreements with Panama and Korea and
Colombia cause, we know this is not good for our national interests.
That is why I object to these trade agreements: They are more of the
same broken promises, the same promises about: Oh, yes, it is going to
create jobs. The same promise about: Oh, yes, it is going to expand our
markets.
It may expand our markets a little bit, but it costs. We may sell
some more, but we are buying a lot more from these other countries
because the trade agreements simply aren't working.
Trade agreements are permanent. They often handcuff Congress and
State legislatures from setting new priorities. North American Free
Trade Agreement. I have heard Presidential candidates in campaigns say:
Yes, they would work to renegotiate or even repeal NAFTA. Then they
raise their right hand, get sworn in to be President of the United
States, and they kind of forget they promised that.
These trade agreements undermine ``Buy American'' policy. How does
that work? Because when we pass free-trade agreements, our FTAs,
bilaterally or trilaterally with other countries, it doesn't give the
same standing to our ``Buy American'' provisions. Do you think
countries around the world don't have buy whatever their country is?
You don't think the Chinese give special preference to ``Buy China''?
You don't think other countries ever give special preference? But we
couldn't do that here because that would mean we aren't practicing free
trade.
Every country in the world practices trade according to their
national interests. But what do we do in the United States of America?
What do we do in the Senate? What do they do in the House? What do they
do in the White House? They practice trade according to some economic
textbook that was printed before these pages sitting in front of me
were even born.
These trade agreements lack any meaningful way to withdraw if the
promised benefits don't materialize. We passed these trade agreements
in Ohio communities from Springfield to Chillicothe to Portsmouth to
Ashtabula to Toledo. These Ohio communities can't understand why they
are so buffeted by these trade winds that so often undermine their
ability to make a living.

These trade agreements were originally negotiated by the Bush
administration. I don't blame President Obama for that. But to the rest
of the country, hearing the Obama administration talk about these trade
agreements sounds like a continuation of the incoherent approach to
America's engagement in the global economy that we saw with the Bush
trade agenda.
Many of us on this floor have criticized the Bush trade policy. The
Obama trade policy--I am a Democrat, he is a Democrat. The Obama trade
policy is better than it was under the Bush trade agreement. The Obama
administration has made these three trade bills a little better--at
least Korea a little better than it was--a little better. The Obama
administration has actually enforced trade laws when the Chinese cheat
on tires, when they cheat on oil country tubular steel, when they cheat
on glass, when they cheat on aluminum, when they cheat--not on glass;
when they cheat on paper. We have made some progress.
There is a new steel mill in the Mahoning Valley in Youngstown, in
large part, because President Obama enforced trade rules, trade laws
with the Commission Department of the International Trade Commission.
It is interesting, though. When the President went to Youngstown to
talk about the opening of the steel mill, he talked about the Recovery
Act, and the Recovery Act put some dollars and infrastructure around
the steel mill, but he neglected to talk about trade policy, which he
had enforced for these agreements. That is all behind us.
But these trade policies ignore the elephant in the room, which is
our trade relationship with China. Last night, as I said, the Senate
did the right thing on a strong bipartisan vote on Chinese currency.
But, unfortunately, some of the opponents of cracking down--
unfortunately, I guess. Opponents of cracking down on China's currency
manipulation are the same supporters of these trade agreements and, on
both issues, respectfully, they miss the point. People have heard the
same promises from NAFTA and CAFTA and China PNTR: Businesses promise
more jobs from increased exports. Yet no one talks about the increased
imports that pale in comparison.
So when I used to hear President Bush, Jr.'s predecessor, Bill
Clinton, always talk about look how NAFTA and these agreements are
increasing exports, well, they do increase exports, but they increase
imports so much faster. It was President Bush, first, who said some
years ago that for every billion dollars of trade, either surplus or
deficit, it translated into 13,000 jobs. I don't know if that number is
exactly correct--it probably is a little less than that now with
inflation what a job is worth in dollars. But if $1 billion in trade
surplus creates 13,000 jobs, that means $1 billion in trade deficits
costs us 13,000 jobs.
So when I hear people say: Oh, these trade agreements, they are
increasing exports, we have to tell the whole story.

[[Page S6429]]

It is akin to a sports reporter on the 11 o'clock news reading the
baseball scores and saying: The Yankees scored seven runs tonight. That
means maybe they won? Well, it turns out the Indians scored nine so the
Yankees lost, which is a good outcome. But the fact is, when we are
talking about trade, we don't just brag about exports. We have to look
at what the value of the imports was too. We are not talking about
that. No one likes to talk about the communities that are left cleaning
up after a plant is abandoned, moved to somewhere else. No one likes to
talk about the families who are devastated when the plant closes and
they lose their jobs. Nobody wants to talk about what happens to our
national security when a steel mill closes and the jobs go elsewhere.

To keep up, each month the economy must add 150,000 new jobs, just to
keep up with population growth. There are 14 million who are unemployed
and another 15 million who are underemployed or who have stopped
searching for work. What do Korea, Colombia, and Panama trade
agreements have to do with that? We did a great thing last night by
standing up to China on currency, but then we are giving it away with
trade agreements such as these that cost us jobs rather than increase
jobs. I do not get it. A good week? It was not such a good week for
international trade and for us creating jobs in this country.
Most people, when they think about trade, think about goods and
tariffs, but these agreements are not just about tariffs. If they were
just about tariffs, as I said, these agreements would be relatively
short, a simple declaration of tariff rates. Instead, as I said, these
agreements are hundreds of pages on procurement rules and financial
services and investor-state dispute resolution. What does that mean?
What it means is a whole lot of corporate lobbyists lobbied the
administration--the Finance Committee, the Ways and Means Committee,
the Senate and House committees that work on these things--and struck
gold. It means these corporate lobbyists had their way in Washington
again, that these corporate lobbyists never lose on these trade
agreements. In the end, they almost always get their way, but it so
much and in so many ways undermines our public interest and certainly
undermines jobs.
These are complex agreements. They do not have to be that complex.
But then some of my colleagues say we are falling behind when Brazil
and Korea and the European Union sign trade deals. What they do not say
is that these are not the same kinds of agreements. If they were just
about lowering tariffs in a reciprocal way--but they are not--if they
were not the United States giving away the store for a little access,
if they were just about tariffs, as I said earlier, and strong labor
standards, we probably would have had a voice vote and passed them
already. But these are not the same deals Brazil or the European Union
signs with Korea. Let me explain that for a moment.
The European Union-Korea agreement does not have investor-state
dispute resolution. Most countries have strong legal systems, and the
EU and Korean negotiators decided they did not need to create a new
privileged process under the trade deal to resolve disputes. In other
words, if Korea has a food safety rule and the European Union has a
food safety rule, they do not have to come into conflict because they
do not have this dispute resolution that we do in our agreements. Then
what happens when it is food safety or product safety? Do you know what
happens? The country with the weaker rules wins.
What these trade agreements with the investor-state provisions--
something the Europeans and Brazilians didn't do with Korea--with these
provisions, it means we are weakening food safety laws, weakening
consumer protection laws, weakening the kind of sovereignty that I
thought people--particularly conservatives in this body--cared about.
When an investor can challenge a law in Korea or the United States
under the special privilege process, outside the normal legal system,
it can have the effect of chilling nondiscriminatory safety rules. But
having a special privilege system outside the normal legal process is
exactly what some companies want in these trade deals. In other words,
if a company in the United States cannot find a way--if they are
unsuccessful at lobbying the Senate, the House of Representatives, and
the President, unsuccessful in weakening consumer protection measures
or undermining a food safety rule, if they have been unsuccessful doing
that directly here, through these trade agreements they are able to do
that.
If Panama has weaker rules on investor protections, has weaker rules
on financial consumer protection, weaker rules on food safety laws,
then, through these trade agreements, it gives these corporate
interests a back door to weaken our safety rules.
We fight like crazy around here to have strong consumer protections,
to have safe pharmaceutical rules, to have good, strong pharmaceutical
safety rules. We fight for those things, but then we are going to allow
these trade agreements to undermine that.
These agreements affect investment dynamics and corporate
decisionmaking. They affect how a company makes decisions in 2 years, 5
years, 10 years, so these are important long term for these companies.
Yet Congress has a few hours to debate these and vote up or down, with
no amendments. These agreements are permanent. They affect the flow of
goods and services on a permanent basis across the world for decades to
come. These agreements are hundreds of pages, and here we are fitting
them into the workweek, voting them up or down. The vote tonight is at
6:30.
I don't hear Rush Limbaugh, I don't hear the Washington Post, I don't
hear others--conservatives on the other side of the aisle say: I can't
believe you are jamming this through so fast, which is what they said
on health care, which took months and months. They jammed this through
in 48 hours, but that is OK because it is a trade agreement, even
though it is this long and nobody has read it. I am almost sure that
there is not one Senator out of 100 and maybe none in the 435 in the
House of Representatives who actually read this bill. And this is the
least consequential. This is the Panama trade agreement. This is not
Korea, which is much bigger. This is not Colombia, which is
significantly bigger. Yet we decided it is OK to fit this because fast
track--the way we do trade agreements--has a whole special set of
rules.
In my mind, nothing I know of in this body has this special set of
rules that trade agreements get. They have to be debated quickly. There
is a time limit once they are sent up by the President. There is no
hold allowed on a trade agreement. There is no filibuster allowed on a
trade agreement. There is no 60-vote threshold. There is a 60-vote
threshold on confirming a Federal judge out of Toledo, OH. There is a
60-vote threshold on an Under Secretary of Interior. There is no 60-
vote threshold on an agreement of hundreds of pages that will last
forever with the Republic of Panama or Colombia or Korea, no 60-
vote requirement, no hold, none of the rules of the Senate that might
slow this down. Do you know why? Because these are chock-full of
special interest provisions that every insurance company and drug
company and bank can get their way and get this in permanent law. No
scandal there, not with that. We will do it on every other bill but not
trade agreements.

Two things, and then I want to close with a story.
Think about what fast-track authority does. I want to pursue that
with a little more detail, about how we have these special rules in the
Senate only for trade agreements, for nothing else.
First of all, with fast-track authority, in addition to having rules
in the Senate that are very different from other rules in order that
these pass quickly, we also delegate authority to the executive
branch--something we normally don't do. We allow the executive branch
to set the substance of the negotiations. The executive branch is only
required to notify Congress 90 days before signing the agreement. The
executive branch writes the implementing legislation for each trade
pact without the committees of jurisdiction having actual markups. In
other words, it circumvents the normal committee process. Once the
executive branch has submitted the bill, we have to vote for the
implementing bill within 90 days. The votes in both Chambers are highly

[[Page S6430]]

privileged. Normal congressional floor procedures are waived, including
unanimous consent. Debates are limited, and no amendments are allowed.
The result is that Congress is given little time. In the present case,
the Senate has 4 hours to debate each agreement.
I am amazed. I mean, where are the conservatives in this country who
said: Don't give Barack Obama so much power. You just did when you
passed this. Why? Because it is a trade agreement. The rules are always
different. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, said his No. 1 goal
in 2011 and 2012 is to make sure Barack Obama is a one-term President.
We don't want to give him any power, we want to criticize him on
everything--except, Mr. President, we would like to give you this, and
you do whatever you want on these special trade agreements. Just the
hypocrisy here on trade is beyond belief.
Let me close with what I think may tell the story of the importance
of how we practice trade around the world. Some years ago, I flew into
South Texas at my own expense, rented a car, and with two friends
crossed the Texas-Mexican border just to follow up on what had happened
with NAFTA. This was the mid- to late 1990s. I wanted to see how NAFTA
was working out for the United States and Mexico along the border where
there were so many manufacturing plants.
Right near the border, there was an auto plant, a GM plant. This GM
plant looked just like a General Motors plant, not much different from
Lordstown near Youngstown, not much different from the GM plant in my
hometown of Mansfield, which unfortunately is now closed, not much
different from any other auto plant. It was modern, the floors were
clean, great technology. But there was one difference between the two
plants, one major difference: The GM plant in Mexico didn't have a
parking lot because the workers were not paid enough to buy the cars
they made. That may tell you something.
I didn't do this, but go around the world, and in Malaysia, in the
Motorola plant, the workers didn't get paid enough to buy a lot of the
Motorola electronics they made. Then go back to Central America and go
to Costa Rica, and the workers in the Costa Rica Disney plant were not
making enough to buy the toys for their children that they made. Go to
China, go almost anywhere in the world in these developing countries
where we either have trade agreements or where our trade policy has
such impact, where companies in the United States shut down--never in
world history have companies in one country, to the degree they do
here--they shut down in the United States and move to China, move to
Mexico, move to Malaysia, move to Indonesia, and then they sell their
products back to the United States.
How do you build a country's wealth when you do that? And the reason
they do is because these workers in Mexico who are building cars, in
Malaysia making electronic equipment, in Costa Rica making Disney
toys--these workers don't share in the wealth they create. They are not
making enough from the jobs they do to buy the things they make.
The beauty of our system and what has made the United States a
prosperous country with a strong middle class is--partly because of
unions, partly because of democracy--is our workers typically earn
enough that they can buy the products they make. In other words, if the
workers are creating wealth for the company, for their bosses, they get
paid enough, they can extract enough of that wealth that they can have
a decent standard of living. Not in Mexico, China, Malaysia, or many of
these countries that are part of this free-trade regimen.
Let me take you to one more place on this little tour around the
world. Let me take you to a midwestern meatpacking plant. Most of these
meatpacking plants were union plants. They had very little turnover.
Workers were making very good wages, and they were safe, by and large,
because the workers had demanded safety and the U.S. Government had
enforced it.
Well, what has happened in the last 10 or 15 years in these
meatpacking plants is the union has been busted. Many of the workers
are immigrants. They are immigrants who--probably some of them are not
legal, but certainly these immigrants who are there are not about to
form a union. They do not speak English, sometimes, very well. They are
not so certain they are going to be able to stay in this country. They
are just not going to speak out. They are hardly ever going to talk
back to their boss and will never form a union.
Here is what happened. It used to be in those plants--pardon me if my
numbers are not precise here because it has been a while since I
thought about this--it used to be in these meatpacking plants that the
workers would stand there, they would have the vinyl aprons and a sharp
knife because they were processing beef, and the carcasses would be
hung on the big hooks, and the carcasses would slowly go by, about 150
an hour, something like that. So these workers would be standing there
and they would make their cut as the carcasses went by slowly, 150 an
hour. After they busted the union, they sped up the line. When it is
150 an hour, that is about the right speed for them to do this work.
They almost doubled the speed of the carcasses as they went by, and two
things happened: Workers had to hurry, so they were more likely to hurt
themselves because they would aim the knife, and because it was moving
fast, they might end up glancing off the bone and cutting their leg.
The other thing that would happen is workers were much more likely to
drop their knives, quickly pick them up, wipe them on their apron, and
go back to work. Here is the interesting thing. The line had sped up to
300, more or less, an hour. On Thursdays they slowed the line back. Do
my colleagues know why? Because Thursday was the day these meatpacking
companies were shipping those carcasses, that processed meat, to
Europe, and Europe has higher food safety standards than the United
States does. So if these workers could work fast, and if they dropped
the knife and wiped it off, the meat might get a little contaminated.
That is OK for U.S. food safety standards, but the Europeans, who had
higher food safety standards, said, We are not buying your beef unless
you slow the line down and make it safer.

That is what globalization would be. It is not just workers in Mexico
who can't buy the cars; it is not just Motorola workers in Malaysia or
Disney workers in Costa Rica who can't buy the products they make; it
also undermines our food safety and drug safety and consumer
protection.
These agreements are not trade agreements. They are special interest
laws that never see the light of day because of the peculiar rules of
the Senate.
We should be ashamed of ourselves for passing these agreements,
period, and especially passing them under these provisions. I hope the
administration learns something from this. I hope the administration
decides, on these trade agreements, instead of being on the side of the
largest corporations in the country and in the world, which don't
always look out for American interests--I hope the administration and
the Members of the House and Senate will decide they want to be on the
side of American families, of American communities, of American
workers, of American small companies that make goods and want to sell
all over the world.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, international trade has always been
controversial. That has been true since the days of the Smoot-Hawley
effort--Hawley, by the way, was an Oregon Congressman--and it continues
to be true today. It is important to our country and important to my
home State that I made a special priority, when I was given the honor
of serving on the Senate Finance Committee, to queue up to be able to
chair the Subcommittee on International Trade and Global
Competitiveness, because I think it important that we continue our work
here in the Senate to keep pushing to keep our trade policy on the
right track.

[[Page S6431]]

I wish to describe today three aspects of this debate that are
indisputable. In other words, we have lots of differences of opinion
with respect to past agreements--did they create jobs, did they not
create jobs, and how did they affect various parts of the country--and
suffice it to say reasonable people can differ with respect to these
analyses. But I have been able, as the chair of this subcommittee of
the Senate Finance Committee--the Subcommittee on International Trade
and Global Competitiveness--to dig deeply into this issue.
I believe there are three indisputable positions with respect to the
agreements we will be voting on tonight that the Senate ought to take
into consideration that are at the core of why I will be voting later
this evening in favor of the agreements.
The first position is there is a huge appetite all around the world
for American goods and services. We are the gold standard. People
around the world want to buy Brand USA. They want to display it. They
want to feature it. There is no question that we have an opportunity to
feed this huge demand for American goods and services. I think we ought
to go forward and tap this opportunity. The bottom line is if we don't
take this opportunity to burnish this Brand America and get our goods
and services around the world, we can be very sure that somebody else
will be right there, and it is most likely to be China. That is point
No. 1. I think it is indisputable.
Point No. 2 is the challenge today in global markets is to capture
the entire supply chain. That means everything from raw materials to
component parts to the finished good. When I talk about this
opportunity to capture the global supply chain, what it means to me in
Oregon, and I think it means the same thing in North Carolina or South
Dakota--I see my friend and colleague, who is the ranking member on the
trade subcommittee, and it has been a pleasure for me to work with
him--and I think all over the United States, capturing this supply
chain in the global economy means the same thing, and that is what we
ought to do--what I say at home in Oregon and I am sure my friend in
South Dakota says exactly the same thing, let us grow it in Oregon, let
us make it in Oregon, let us add value to it in Oregon, and then let us
ship it somewhere. It is a huge opportunity we have in front of us to
tap this global supply chain where, once again, if we walk away from
this kind of opportunity, we can be very certain that China will be
right there to fill the void.
The third issue involves the question of tariffs. I have heard people
say, well, these agreements have lots of other things in them, lots of
other provisions that are unrelated to tariffs. There is no question
that is accurate. But at the end of the day, if American import tariffs
are in low and American goods are faced with very high tariffs when
they arrive into foreign markets, that is a very substantial advantage
for our trading partners. As I highlighted yesterday in the Senate
Finance Committee, when we want to send our beef, Oregon beef, to
Korea, we sometimes face a 40-percent tariff. When Korea sends their
beef to us here in the United States, it can be as low as 4 percent.
That is a tenfold difference.
I could go through a whole host of other products.
Oregon wine faces a tariff in Korea that is fifteen times higher than
wine that is imported into the U.S.
Value-added wood products. I know the Presiding Officer, the Senator
from North Carolina, cares an awful lot about wood products. Well, the
fact of the matter is, if we want to send finished wood into Korea--not
the raw materials. We all know what we want to do, again, is add value
to wood products, a key component of the Pacific northwest's economy,
of the southern economy. We want to add value to it. Well, the fact is,
the tariffs are four times as high for finished wood products in Korea
as they are here in the United States.
These are indisputable facts: the question of the tariffs, the
question of the global supply chain, and the Brand USA opportunity I
have described as this huge appetite for American goods and services
that exists around the world that I think we will be making a grave
mistake to pass up an opportunity to level the playing field by
dismantling foreign trade barriers to U.S. goods and services, whether
they are tariffs or otherwise. The free trade agreements with Korea,
Colombia, and Panama provide us an opportunity to level the playing
field for U.S. producers who would like to feed the appetite for
American goods and services in Korea, Colombia, and Panama.
There are a lot of other issues associated with the votes we are
going to have to cast. I feel very strongly about the trade adjustment
assistance program because I want to make sure, in an economy that is
constantly changing, our workers have a trampoline, in effect, to get
the training and the skills they need to succeed, which may mean moving
into new careers. People think the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program
is just about workers. This is a crucial program for employers, and
that is why it has so much support among employers. Employers need
workers with the types of skills that enable them to be competitive in
global markets, and trade adjustment assistance helps in this regard.
By the way, one of the concerns business is continually citing, and
increasingly so, is the mismatch they often face where they need
workers who have one sort of skill but the workers in their community
do not have what they need. So, with the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Program, we can close that skills gap, we can do more to ensure
businesses can get the type of workers they can rely on to be efficient
and competitive. So, the idea that trade adjustment assistance is just
for workers is a mistake. It is a major plus to our employers.
Oversight over trade adjustment assistance is going to be one of the
things that the subcommittee on trade, which I chair, is going to zero
in on.
Worker issues: Another one we will be looking at on the subcommittee
involves issues relating to workers rights under the U.S.-Colombia Free
Trade Agreement. There, our concern is violence--demonstrable, serious
violence against Colombian union members and the impunity the
perpetrators of such violence have enjoyed.
This situation does seem to be getting a bit better. The Santos
administration understands the concern. There is an agreement with
Colombia on an action plan on labor that sets in motion a series of
steps the Colombian Government is taking to provide workers with more
adequate labor rights and protection from violence. But there is a lot
more to do, and I intend to conduct meaningful oversight over the labor
situation in Colombia and Colombia's adherence to its commitments to
the Obama administration. As far as I am concerned, that is going to
start as soon as these agreements have been voted on. Senator Stabenow,
Senator Cardin, and Senator Menendez will be joining me, and we are all
going to be doing more to make sure the Obama administration provides
the Congress with annual reports on the labor situation in Colombia and
the impact of the labor action plan that was reached by the Obama
administration and the Santos administration.
I have mentioned trade adjustment assistance. I have mentioned labor
rights. I want to close in terms of future work that is related to this
topic by talking about China because certainly these trade agreements
and the ability to tap the opportunity, particularly in our country,
for family wage employment through more exports is going to require
tougher enforcement of our trade laws and, particularly, the Obama
administration getting serious about enforcing the laws on the books.
We have had a series of investigations looking at cheating--cheating,
Madam President. I use that word specifically. I guess you could call
it merchandise laundering because some foreign producers, when they are
faced with U.S. trade remedy laws, like anti dumping and countervailing
duties, instead of doing the right thing and coming into compliance,
decide to ship their U.S.-bound merchandise through another country in
order to falsify the country of origin import documents. This is going
to be an even more important challenge when the trade agreement with
Korea goes into force. Fortunately, we have bipartisan legislation in
order to stop this type cheating, to strengthen the enforcement of our
trade laws. It is going to be even more important to pass that effort
to eliminate this kind of cheating because

[[Page S6432]]

with respect to the agreement and Korea, Chinese suppliers have a long
history of laundering their goods through Korea in order to avoid U.S.
trade laws by suggesting the Chinese merchandise is from Korea.
On the question of cheating, we have documented the problem in our
hearings of the Finance Subcommittee on International Trade. And we
have a bipartisan bill with, I believe, four Democratic Senators and
four Republican Senators. It's called the Enforce Act and we are ready
to move it forward. I was very pleased, in the discussion in the
Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus and Senator Hatch, the ranking
minority member, said this effort to fight these practices, this kind
of cheating--which potentially could get worse unless you strengthen
enforcement--Chairman Baucus and Senator Hatch said it was going to be
a priority for them, and they wanted to make our anticheating
legislation a must-pass effort before the end of this year, that they
would attach it to a must-pass piece of legislation.
I could go on.
Even today, the administration is going forward with the anti-
counterfeiting trade agreement, or ACTA, without doing it with the
approval of the Congress. I think that is a mistake. I think that may
be misreading of the law that the executive branch can do it of its own
accord, and many legal scholars agree. We are going to tackle that in
the days ahead because those issues are important now. They will be
even more important, given the expansions of trade and commerce when
these agreements are approved.
So there is a lot to do to keep the country's trade agenda on track.
Level the playing field for U.S. producers. Ensure we have a
competitive workforce. Advance labor rights, and enforce the trade laws
to combat unfair trade. At the end of the day, if we miss one
opportunity to do more to market our brand around the world in order to
enable Americans to make things here and grow things here and
continually add value to them, dominate that supply chain--which I
think is going to be the overriding issue for global competitiveness in
the days ahead--if we walk away from those issues, and enabling U.S.
producers to export--to feed the foreign appetite for our goods and
services--we are walking away from the opportunity for American workers
to get the good-paying jobs in the private sector that they need.
In my home State, international trade is a very significant barometer
of our economy, with estimates even being that one out of six jobs in
Oregon depends on international trade, and the trade jobs pay better
than do the nontrade jobs. I want America to be the leader in seizing
the opportunities that exist to sell goods and services in foreign
markets. I want Oregon producers of high-value goods and services to
benefit from our efforts here in the Senate to level the playing field
in global markets. These trade related jobs that we can help create--I
call them red, white, and blue jobs--these are the kinds of jobs I want
for this country that I know the Presiding Officer wants, where we do
allow American productivity and American ingenuity to continually
innovate and compete.
There are other issues. I know the Presiding Officer cares a great
deal about tax policy, global tax policy. Senator Coats and I have a
bipartisan tax reform proposal. We look forward to working with the
Presiding Officer on that issue.
But today is a chance to expand our opportunity to get the American
brand, the USA brand for goods and services, in markets that are
growing, in markets that you can bet China wants.

I know this is controversial. Trade policy always is. But I think,
for our workers to get the chance to get our goods and services into
growing markets--growing markets that China wants--that my colleagues
support the trade agreements that are before us today.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I, too, rise in strong support of the
pending trade agreements with America's allies, Colombia, South Korea,
and Panama.
These agreements hold great promise for American farmers,
manufacturers, service providers, and American consumers. I would echo
my colleague from Oregon, who chairs the Subcommittee on Trade on the
Finance Committee; that is, these trade agreements position American
businesses to capture more of that supply chain to enable us to create
jobs here at home and to grow the economy, to generate economic
activity out there that otherwise we would not see happening. At a time
when we need to focus our efforts on measures that will promote
economic growth and job creation, these agreements are exactly the type
of legislation we ought to be considering.
There is broad consensus these agreements are going to benefit our
economy. The Obama White House estimates that enactment of these three
trade agreements will boost exports by at least $12 billion, supporting
over 70,000 American jobs.
The Business Roundtable estimates that passage of these trade
agreements will support as many as 250,000 American jobs. These are not
only jobs at large businesses but increasingly at smaller companies
that are accessing international markets.
As an example of that, more than 35,000 small and mid-sized American
businesses export to Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, and these firms
now account for more than one-third of U.S. exports to these countries.
Passing these three trade agreements will provide export opportunities
to American businesses of all sizes, creating good-paying jobs here at
home.
The benefits to U.S. agriculture from passing these agreements are
especially compelling. These three agreements are estimated to
represent $3 billion in new agricultural exports that will support
22,500 U.S. agricultural-related jobs.
My State of South Dakota is a good example if you look at the export
potential for U.S. agriculture represented by these agreements.
According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, these agreements will
add $52 million each year to South Dakota's farm economy. South Dakota
is projected to gain $22 million from increased beef exports, $25
million from increased exports of wheat, soybeans, and corn, and $5
million from increased pork shipments each year.
America's market is already largely open to imports from many of our
trading partners. In fact, almost 99 percent of agricultural products
from Colombia and Panama, for example, already enters the United States
duty free. Without trade agreements to ensure similar treatment for our
exporters, American businesses will continue to face high tariff and
nontariff barriers abroad.
Consider just one example, the market for agricultural products in
Korea, which is the world's 13th largest economy. Korea's tariffs on
imported agricultural goods average 54 percent compared to an average
of 9 percent tariff on their imports into the United States. So passage
of the Korea Free Trade Agreement will level this playing field. Think
about that. Fifty-four percent for our exporters to get into the Korean
market, 9 percent tariff for their exports coming here. That is a huge
discrepancy that will be rectified by passage of this agreement.
Korea's market for pork products in particular underscores how
removing barriers to trade can benefit U.S. farmers and ranchers. U.S.
pork exports to South Korea have increased 130 percent from January to
July of this year because Korea temporarily lifted its 25 percent duty
on pork imports due to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Korea.
During this period, the Korean market surpassed Canada to become the
third largest export destination for U.S. pork producers after Japan
and Mexico. Korea's tariff on pork imports is expected to return but
would be permanently eliminated by 2016 under the terms of the United
States and South Korea Free Trade Agreement.
We know when we eliminate barriers to U.S. exports, American
producers will compete and win in the global marketplace. However, if
we fail to act and continue to delay implementation of these
agreements, the cost to our

[[Page S6433]]

economy will also be substantial. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce study
warns that failure to enact the three pending free-trade agreements
could threaten as many as 380,000 American jobs and the loss of $40
billion in sales. The cost of inaction on trade is high because today
we live in a global economy where American producers rely on access to
foreign markets.
Consider that in 1960, exports accounted for only 3.6 percent of our
entire GDP. Today exports account for 12.5 percent of our entire GDP.
Exports of U.S. goods and services support over 10 million American
jobs. When America stands still on trade, the rest of the world does
not. Today there are more than 100 new free-trade agreements that are
currently under negotiation around the world. Yet the United States is
only party to one of those negotiations; that is, the Trans-Pacific
Partnership.
If we do not aggressively pursue new market-opening agreements on
behalf of American workers, we will see new export opportunities go to
foreign businesses and foreign workers. Unfortunately, that is exactly
what we have experienced under the current administration. The three
trade agreements we are considering today were signed over 4 years ago,
and this administration had more than 2\1/2\ years to submit them to
Congress for consideration but failed to do so.
Instead, the President chose to sit on these agreements and not send
them to Congress for nearly now 1,000 days. We cannot quantify
precisely the cost of this unfortunate delay, but we know it put
American exporters at a competitive disadvantage in the Colombian,
Korean, and Panamanian markets. For example, on July 1 the European
Union-Korea trade agreement went into effect. In just the first month
after this agreement took effect, EU exports to Korea jumped nearly 37
percent, while U.S. exports to Korea rose by only 3 percent.
Let's be clear about what this means. Korean consumers are choosing
to buy German, French, and British cars, electronics, and agricultural
products rather than American-made products because those European
products now have a price advantage. This would have been entirely
preventable if we had acted on the U.S-Korea trade agreement sooner.
Likewise, the Canada-Colombia agreement went into effect on August 15
of this year. This is resulting in an advantage for Canadian goods such
as construction equipment, aircraft, and a range of other industrial
and agricultural products. Colombia is now reporting that since the
Canada-Colombia trade agreement took effect, there has been an 18.3-
percent increase in Colombian imports of Canadian wheat.
Much as with Korea, U.S. businesses are finding themselves
disadvantaged because the President waited so long before sending these
agreements to Congress. Unfortunately, the negative impact of the
Canada-Colombia agreement on U.S. exporters is just a continuation of
the lost export opportunities we have seen over the past few years as
these trade agreements have lingered.
Just a few years ago, American wheat producers dominated the market
in Colombia with a 73-percent market share, as of 2008. Today we are
facing a situation where U.S. wheat producers are likely to be
completely shut out of the Colombian market if we do not act.
Hopefully, by passing this agreement today and by swiftly implementing
the U.S.-Colombia trade promotion agreement, our wheat producers will
be able to recover much of their lost market share. But they should
never have been placed in this position to begin with.
In 2010, for the first time in the history of U.S.-Colombia trade,
the U.S. lost to Argentina its position as Colombia's No. 1
agricultural supplier. Now, consider the story of three of the major
crops that we grow in South Dakota: soybeans, corn, and wheat. The
combined market share in Colombia for these three U.S. agricultural
exports has decreased from 78 percent in 2008 to 28 percent as of 2010,
a staggering decline of 50 percentage points in our market share.
U.S. corn sales to Colombia fell from 3 million metric tons in 2007
to 700,000 metric tons in 2010. This is the high cost of delay while
our trading partners pursue new regional and bilateral trade
agreements. There has also been the cost of duties that have been paid
on U.S. exports while these agreements are waiting. U.S. companies have
paid more than $5 billion in tariffs to Colombia and Panama since the
trade agreements with these nations were signed more than 4 years ago.
Let's consider the cost of delay to just one American company,
Caterpillar. We all know Caterpillar is a leading producer of large
construction and mining equipment and a major U.S. exporter.
Caterpillar exports 92 percent of its American-made large mining
trucks. Caterpillar's large truck exports to Colombia face a 15-percent
duty which adds about $300,000 to the cost of each of these trucks
exported to Colombia.
I mean, how does that work? Think about that. Every truck that
Caterpillar sends into the Colombian market, it is an additional
$300,000 on top of the cost of that piece of equipment for the tariff
that has to be paid. Just imagine the advantage that Caterpillar could
have had for the last several years over its Japanese and Chinese
competitors if the House of Representatives--at the time was controlled
by the Democrats back in 2008--had not refused to consider the Colombia
agreement when President Bush submitted it or if the current
administration had acted sooner, and that is just one example of
countless others out there with American businesses.
So I am glad we are here today. I expect all three trade agreements
to pass with what I hope is broad bipartisan support. I hope we also
have learned an important lesson. We cannot afford to delay when it
comes to international competition in trade. I hope the White House has
learned an important lesson as well rather than submitting to Congress
divisive measures where there are fundamental disagreements, such as
new tax increases. This administration should identify measures such as
these trade bills that will spur our economy and where there is broad
bipartisan agreement.
The President sent his American Jobs Act to Congress exactly 1 month
ago today. Yet we only, just last night, voted on whether we should
consider this bill--a vote that did not get a single Republican vote,
and it did not get every Democratic vote either. Contrast that approach
with these free-trade agreements which were submitted to Congress by
the President on October 3, just 9 days ago. Within about a week and a
half, these trade agreements will have passed the relevant committees
in the House and the Senate with large bipartisan votes and will be on
the President's desk awaiting his signature.
Clearly, reaching across the aisle on measures where both parties can
find agreement is a much more effective approach. So I would urge my
colleagues to support these job-creating trade bills based upon their
merit. I would also urge my colleagues to support these bills to send a
message that when this administration is willing to send us
commonsense, progrowth legislation, we are ready and willing to pass
it.
We can only hope our votes on these trade agreements will set that
precedent. I look forward to voting for these long overdue agreements
on behalf of American businesses and consumers. I look forward,
hopefully, to being able to act on what are truly progrowth job
measures in the coming weeks and months.
We have an economy that continues to struggle with over 9 percent
unemployment. Month after month we continue to see a lot of Americans
who are without jobs, and this is one example of something we can do to
address that concern. But there are lots of other things out there we
can be doing as well if we are willing to identify those things on
which there is agreement and those types of policies that actually do
create jobs that are about getting Americans back to work and not about
making some sort of a political statement.
I hope this will set a pattern and a trend that will be replicated in
the future and that we can do some things that are good for our
American economy and for American jobs.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today to speak on final passage of
the implementing language for the South Korea, Colombia and Panama free
trade agreements. I support passing these three agreements. I supported
them as they made the long and arduous journey from the negotiating
table,

[[Page S6434]]

through the Senate Finance Committee and now to the Senate floor. As
has been stated by my colleagues, these agreements are far overdue. Our
government and industries have long shared with Congress the positive
job impact these trade deals would have on the American economy. In the
case of both Korea and Colombia, other nations have not hesitated to
adopt similar agreements and I just hope that inaction by the White
House has not resulted in U.S. manufacturers and agricultural producers
losing market share that can be difficult, if not impossible, to
regain.
I can say that Wyoming will benefit directly from these agreements.
Disodium carbonate, also known as soda ash, is Wyoming's largest export
to South Korea. This agreement would immediately remove, upon
ratification, the 4 percent tariff on U.S. soda ash exports to that
country. This will not only increase U.S. exports of soda ash to Korea
by millions of dollars annually but will also increase job
opportunities in and around Green River, WY where natural soda ash is
found.
Wyoming's agricultural producers also stand to gain with the passage
of these agreements. In the case of Korea, we know that a strong market
for beef will be opened which will help Wyoming ranchers increase the
value of their cattle heading to the sale barn. The standards in the
Korea agreement will also set the stage for future negotiations in
gaining market share for U.S. beef in other Asian markets. Consumer
tastes are changing all over the world and our trading partners in Asia
offer the largest potential market for American produced meat products.
Colombia will do the same for Wyoming's wheat growers by reducing trade
barriers and helping that country meet its growing demand for grain
products.
I stand today in support of these important free trade agreements
with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. Not only are these nations our
economic allies but strategic allies as well. These agreements solidify
our relations with these countries and help promote U.S. job growth
through our export markets. It is finally time Congress pass these
agreements and fulfill the commitments we have made to our trading
partners.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I join with my good friend from South
Dakota and the comments he made about the disadvantage we have created
for ourselves in the last 3 years by not moving forward with these
trade agreements long ago. But we are going to move forward today.
Jump-starting America's economy is going to require bipartisanship.
If we are going to compete in a global economy, it means we are all
going to have to work together to help create economic opportunities
for Americans who are looking for work, help to create those private
sector jobs that are the difference in a prosperous economy and an
economy that is struggling.
Last night the motion to open debate on the President's so-called
jobs bill was amended by his own party and was defeated then by a
bipartisan vote in the Senate. That is not the kind of bipartisanship
we need. We need bipartisanship moving forward not bipartisanship
walking away.
The bill was defeated because it does not make economic sense--as the
President said in August of 2009--to raise taxes on job creators. In
fact, the administration, by its own accounting, said roughly 80
percent of the people who would be impacted by the surtax imposed by
the bill that was set aside last night would be defined as businesses,
the very businesses that need to create jobs in an economy where that
should be the No. 1 priority.
The President's first $800 billion stimulus plan failed to stimulate.
It did not create the private sector jobs we needed and, simply, my
view of the $450 billion we were talking about yesterday was that it
was more of the same. But today is not more of the same. Today is a
bipartisan opportunity to move forward with a bipartisan bill to help
jump-start our economy.
If there is low-hanging fruit in job creation, it is exporting
products to markets that want to buy them. This is not about labor
conditions in Colombia or whatever might happen in Korea or Panama.
This is about products that American workers make and whether they can
get into those markets.
I would also say that for well over a decade now Colombian products
have come into our country without a tariff under something called the
Andean Free Trade Agreement. Well, so this can't be about Colombian
labor. It must be about American labor and what we can do for American
workers. We can open markets for American products, and that is what we
are going to do today, I hope, as we move to agree to these trade
bills.
These trade agreements would mean an additional $2.5 billion per year
in agricultural exports. Every billion dollars' worth of agricultural
exports means an estimated 8,000 new jobs in Missouri. In Missouri, the
trade-related jobs grew more than three times faster than other
employment from 2004 to 2008.
I recently asked Missourians on Facebook and Twitter to share some of
their personal stories about how they thought these trade agreements
would impact their lives. Glen Cope, a young full-time farmer from
Aurora, MO, noted:

Agriculture is not drawing young people to stay on the
farm. . . . because it is difficult to make land payments
based on what little we get for the products we produce--
Versus the inputs--

and this has been the case now for generations.

Glen called on Congress to help farmers by creating ``more demand for
our products if we are going to get young people to stay and take over
the farm.''
Their parents and grandparents have produced food for our country and
for much of the world for a long time. Glen Cope's generation can
continue to do the same.
Chris Chinn, who runs a family farm in Clarence, MO, in northeast
Missouri, told me if these trade deals pass, her family ``could receive
almost $11 more for every hog they sell.'' Now, she noted, while $11
may not sound like a lot, it sure seemed like a lot when they were
losing $20 for every hog they sold from 2007 through 2010. That makes
the difference in whether that family stays on the farm.
Chris urged Congress to pass these agreements because ``this
increased revenue will help us meet expenses and help us ensure our
family farm will be there to pass on to my kids, who will be the sixth
generation of farmers in our family.''
Barbara Wilson noted that ``agriculture fuels the economy in our
small town of Mexico, Missouri.'' She told me that the passage of these
free-trade agreements would lead to an ``increased demand for our corn
and our soybeans,'' and she stressed that ``when the agricultural
economy is good, the economy in our small town benefits.'' That means
increased jobs in all sectors of that small-town economy.
Brian Hammons, president of Hammons Products Company in Stockton, MO,
told me that ``significant government-mandated trade barriers are
hurting'' his attempts to compete and develop markets for American
black walnuts, which are harvested by hand in Missouri and other
Midwestern States. Brian noted, if these trade deals passed, ``our
company can buy more black walnuts from thousands of people in Missouri
and 11 other States, providing cash to those rural areas. And even more
importantly, the increased production activity from processing those
nuts would allow us to provide more employment for people in our rural
Missouri community.''
These are just a few of the farmers and job creators in Missouri who
are calling on Congress to pass these free-trade agreements.
I look forward to voting for these agreements tonight. I hope a huge
majority of my colleagues will join me in voting for the South Korea
agreement, the Panama agreement, and the Colombia agreement. We will
send a message to the world that we intend to compete in a world
economy. If we are given the chance to compete, American workers can
compete with anybody. These trade agreements provide an opportunity to
do that.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the three
pending trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama.
Let me say at the outset that I am in favor of free trade, if that
term is allowed its true meaning. I have great confidence in the
American worker and American businesses to compete and succeed in the
global marketplace if given a free and level playing field. For
generations, our country has shown

[[Page S6435]]

that hard work and ingenuity are the engines of progress and economic
prosperity. The innovations that have shaped our 21st century economy
were, in great measure, conceived and produced here in the United
States. And in return for allowing other countries to benefit from our
hard work and innovation, America was rewarded with a strong middle
class.
Unfortunately, however, in a post-NAFTA world, being the best is no
longer good enough. Instead, we have engaged in a race to the bottom,
where to succeed you have to be the cheapest. And so, through our trade
policy, we have too often put our workers at a real disadvantage.
Indeed, since 1994, when NAFTA went into effect, manufacturing sector
employment across the country has fallen by over 5 million jobs,
including over 42,000 in my State of Rhode Island. Contributing to
these staggering losses are our trade agreements with Mexico, Central
American and Caribbean countries, as well as the entry of China into
the WTO.
That is why I cannot support the three trade agreements that are
before the Senate today.
The Korea Free Trade Agreement is especially troubling for Rhode
Island, particularly with respect to its treatment of textiles.
According to the U.S. International Trade Commission's report, the
textile industry is expected to lose jobs because of the favorable
tariff reductions Korean manufacturers would receive under the
agreement.
Rhode Island has a long history in textiles. In fact, the modern
textile industry in this country can be traced back to Slater Mill in
Pawtucket, RI, in 1793. Textiles were an important part of the State's
economy throughout the Industrial Revolution and into the 20th century.
But many of the business owners I have been talking to have told me how
hard it has been for them, shrinking, laying off workers, and watching
as factory after factory closed their doors around them.
I am working with what's left of the textile industry in Rhode
Island--a small group of companies that are making really great
products. Darlington Fabrics in Westerly, for example, makes
performance athletic-wear, including products for our military. Coated
Technical Solutions, based in Newport, works with coated fabrics for
things like inflatable boats and tarpaulins. Northeast Knitting makes
specialized medical fabrics, and Hope Global exports shoelaces.
I have heard from some textile companies that their sole competition
comes from manufacturers in South Korea. These foreign competitors will
disproportionately benefit from the tariff reductions in the Korea FTA.
This is just another in a long line of examples of how our trade policy
has failed American manufacturers.
With respect to the Colombia agreement, Colombia has a history of
violence toward trade unionists, with 51 labor members murdered last
year alone. Although the Obama administration negotiated a labor action
plan with the Colombian government, there are no guarantees that its
provisions will be enforced, and in fact, indications are that the
violence has continued.
In short, I see no reason why we should put American jobs at risk to
benefit a country that cannot provide its citizens the most basic
rights that we offer to ours. The Colombia free trade agreement is a
bad deal for Americans, and it may be a worse deal for Colombians.
Panama has its own labor abuses, but its status as a tax haven is
perhaps most troubling. Approximately 400,000 multinational
corporations are registered in Panama, many of which have license to
conduct business without reporting or paying taxes. While the Obama
administration stepped in and negotiated a tax information exchange
agreement, this agreement lacks the transparency required to assure
compliance.
The benefits of a trade agreement with Panama barely register by any
economic measure. I believe it would be a mistake to encourage trade
with a country that offers little to the United States but that so
brazenly facilitates the breaking of our tax laws.
I will object to these agreements until we make a wholesale revision
of our trade policy and put enforcement at the forefront. Representing
a State that may have suffered the most from unfair Chinese
competition, I can't support more of these agreements until I see
serious and sincere enforcement. We should refrain from passing further
free trade agreements until we can ensure that American workers and
businesses are protected.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Vermont is
recognized.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I always enjoy the Senator's remarks.
However, I cannot quite agree with the thrust of his statement.
In my view, the current trade policies in this country are a
disaster. The evidence is very clear that they have cost us many
millions of jobs and to continue that same unfettered free-trade
philosophy, in terms of trade agreements with Korea, Panama and
Colombia, makes absolutely no sense at all. When we have a policy that
is failing, we change it; we don't continue it.
Let us be very clear. I think most Americans understand that our
economy today is in disastrous shape. Our middle class is disappearing.
Recent statistics have told us poverty levels are at an alltime high,
and the gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider.
In my view, one of the reasons--not the only reason--for the collapse
of the middle class has to do with the loss of millions of good
manufacturing jobs, attributable to these disastrous trade policies. If
we are serious as a nation in wanting to rebuild the middle class,
lower our poverty rate, what we have to do is move forward in a new
direction in trade, based on fair trade principles, and end this
unfettered free trade, which has been such a disaster for American
workers.
Over the last decade, we as a nation have lost 50,000 manufacturing
plants in our country. I will repeat that because that is such a
staggering number that it needs to be said over and over. Fifty
thousand manufacturing plants in this country have shut down over the
last 10 years alone. We have lost, during that same period, 5.5 million
factory jobs. Many of those jobs were good-paying jobs. They were jobs
that provided people with good wages and good benefits. Those jobs are
gone and, in many cases, have been replaced by Walmart and McDonald's-
type jobs, with low wages and minimal benefits.
To give us a sense about how significant the decline of manufacturing
in this country is, the reality is, in 1970, 25 percent of all jobs in
the United States were manufacturing jobs. Today, that number is just 9
percent. In July of 2000, there were 17.3 million manufacturing workers
in this country. Today, there are only 11 million manufacturing
workers. In my small State of Vermont--which is not as big as Ohio or
Michigan and has never been one of the great manufacturing centers in
the country, but even in a small State such as Vermont, what we have
seen is a huge decline in good-paying manufacturing jobs, which have
certainly impacted our middle class.
Mr. President, 10 years ago, we had approximately 45,000
manufacturing jobs in Vermont. Last year, we had 31,000 manufacturing
jobs in Vermont. We have lost about one-third of our manufacturing
jobs. I should tell everyone that 7,800 of those jobs were lost as a
result of the trade agreement with China and another 1,300 were lost as
a result of NAFTA.
The key issue is whether we continue our disastrous trade policy,
which includes NAFTA, permanent normal trade relations with China, and
CAFTA. Do we add on to trade policies that have failed? For the love of
me, I cannot understand why anybody would want to do that.
The facts are very clear: Our current trade policies have failed,
have been a disaster for working families. According to a recent study
conducted by well-respected economists at the Economic Policy
Institute, permanent normal trade relations with China led to the loss
of 2.8 million American jobs--2.8 million American jobs. I remember
because I was in the House when that debate took place. I heard the
same thing then as I hear now--Members of Congress getting up and
talking about all the new jobs that were going to be created. It wasn't
true then and it is not true now.
How could we defend a trade policy based on the same principles as
PNTR

[[Page S6436]]

with China when that policy cost us 2.8 million jobs in the last year
alone?
Then we have NAFTA. Many of us remember the rhetoric around NAFTA. My
goodness, we were going to open the entire Mexican economy for products
made in the United States of America. We were going to be selling it in
Mexico. Does anybody in America believe that policy has worked--that
NAFTA has worked? The facts are very clear. Again, according to the
EPI, they found that NAFTA has led to the loss of 680,000 jobs. So the
simple reality is--and one doesn't have to be a Ph.D. in economics to
figure this out--that if a company has the option of hiring somebody in
a low-wage country at 50 cents or 70 cents an hour and they don't have
to deal with unions or with environmental standards, why would they not
go to those countries? The answer is they would go. The answer is they
have gone.
That is what these trade policies are about--not selling American-
produced products abroad but creating a situation where companies can
shut down in America, move factories abroad, and bring those products
back into this country tariff free.

We have quote after quote after quote from Members of Congress who
got up on the floor during the NAFTA debate, during the China debate,
and told us about all the jobs that would be created. I keep hearing
that rhetoric, when, in fact, nothing said in the past has proven to be
true.
Let me quote my good friends--and they are not good friends--from the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They tell us this, and this is the discussion
about Korea, Panama, and Colombia:

This is foremost a debate about jobs. At a time when
millions of Americans are out of work, these agreements will
create real business opportunities that can generate hundreds
of thousands of new jobs.

But wait a second. Is this the same Chamber of Commerce that, on July
1, 2004, according to the Associated Press, said this--this is the
headline: ``Chamber of Commerce leader advocates offshoring of jobs.''
Here is what the article stated about the Chamber of Commerce, a
strong advocate for these trade policies:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donahue
urged American companies to send jobs overseas as a way to
boost American competitiveness. . . . Donahue said that
exporting high-paid tech jobs to low-cost countries such as
India, China and Russia saves companies money. . . .

Let's see, the Chamber of Commerce is leading the effort for these
trade agreements, but they tell us the outsourcing of jobs is a good
thing. Maybe we want to think twice before we accept the advice of the
Chamber of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce has reported--and this is very
interesting, not only as information unto itself but about the politics
of this whole trade agreement. We have the Chamber of Commerce and we
have every major multinational corporation in the country telling us
how good this unfettered free trade policy is. But now we have the U.S.
Department of Commerce reporting that over the last decade, U.S.
multinational corporations slashed 2.9 million American jobs.
Let's digest that. Large corporations and multinationals come in here
and say the trade agreements are great and will create American jobs.
At the same time, over the last decade, they have slashed 2.9 million
American jobs.
Here is the other side of the story. The truth is, these same
multinational corporations that are telling Members of Congress to vote
for these trade agreements--the truth is, they are creating jobs. The
only problem is, the jobs they are creating are not in the United
States of America; they are in China and other low-wage countries.
Over this last same period, the last decade, while they laid off 2.9
million American workers, these same multinational corporations created
2.4 million new jobs abroad. So they laid off 2.9 million American
workers and created 2.4 million jobs in China and other low-wage
countries.
That, in a nutshell, is what these trade agreements are about--
enabling corporations to shut down in America, move to low-wage
countries, and bring their products back into our country. The results
are very clear. We don't need a great study done by the Department of
Commerce or the Economic Policy Institute; all we have to do is walk
into any department store in America. When we buy a product, we know
where that product is manufactured. It is not manufactured in Vermont,
it is not manufactured in California, and it is often manufactured in
China, Mexico or other developing countries.
That has been the whole goal of these trade agreements--shut down
plants in America, move them abroad, hire low-wage workers there, and
bring the products back into this country. The idea that we would be
extending this concept to Korea, Panama, and Colombia makes no sense to
me at all.
Since the year 2000, 2.8 million American jobs have been eliminated
or displaced as a result of the increased trade deficit with China.
After all the talk on the floor of the Senate and the floor of the
House, at the editorial boards of major newspapers and by leading
politicians about how the China Free Trade Agreement would create jobs
in America, it is very interesting to hear what these corporations had
to say a few years after the trade agreement was passed. In other
words, before it is passed, they will tell us about how we are going to
create all these jobs in America. The day after it is passed, their
line changes. The China Free Trade Agreement was passed in the year
2000. A couple years later, Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General
Electric, was quoted on this subject at an investor meeting, just one
year after China was admitted to the World Trade Organization. This is
after the Chinese-American free-trade agreement. This is what Mr.
Immelt said:

When I am talking to GE managers, I talk China, China,
China, China, China.

That is him, not me--five Chinas.

You need to be there. You need to change the way people
talk about it and how they get there. I am a nut on China.
Outsourcing from China is going to grow to $5 billion. We are
building a tech center in China. Every discussion today has
to center on China. The cost basis is extremely attractive.
You can take an 18 cubic foot refrigerator, make it in China,
land it in the United States, and land it for less than we
can make an 18 cubic foot refrigerator today, ourselves.

This is the head of General Electric, who, by the way, I guess is
President Obama's great adviser on creating jobs in America. So that
was 2 years after the China agreement was signed.
And on and on it goes. It is not just Mr. Immelt, it is major
corporation after major corporation. Before the agreement, it is jobs
were doing great in America. After the agreement, it is all of the
advantages of outsourcing.
Let me tell you how bad the situation is. By the way, I think most
Americans know that not only is it a disaster for our economy that we
are not producing the products we consume, but it is really an
embarrassment. I will cite an example. Last year, during the holiday
season, I walked into the Smithsonian's very beautiful American History
Museum. It is a great museum, and I urge everybody who comes to
Washington to visit. I walked into the gift shop of the Smithsonian
museum, owned by the people of America, paid for by the people of
America, and do you know what their gift shop had? Most of the products
in the gift shop were not made in America. It turns out they were made
in China or made in other low-wage countries around the world. I went
to a section where they had little busts of Presidents of the United
States--George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Barack Obama--and when you
turned them over, do you know where these busts of Presidents of the
United States were made? Yes, you guessed it--in China.
We have since been having some discussions with the Smithsonian. They
are in the process of changing their policies. And we are working with
other people as well. But that is how bad the situation is, that busts
of American Presidents, sold in a museum owned by the people of the
United States of America, talking about the history and culture of
America, are made in China. That is just one example of how pathetic
this whole situation is. And on and on it goes.
By the way, when we talk about trade, we often focus on blue-collar
jobs and manufacturing jobs, but it is also increasingly information
technology jobs and white-collar jobs. Just think for a moment that
during the past 4 years the cumulative trade deficit with China in
advanced technology--not talking about sneakers but advanced technology
products--totaled more than $300 billion. Last year,

[[Page S6437]]

our trade deficit with China on advanced technology products was a
staggering $92 billion--in 1 year alone.
I just bought one of these very nice iPhones. It is very nice. Do you
know where that product is made? It is made in China. And the iPad is
made in China, and the iPod and the Blackberry and IBM computers and
Dell computers and the Microsoft X-Box and big-screen TVs. None of
these American inventions we pride ourselves on inventing, none of the
technologies we pride ourselves on developing--and Steve Jobs recently
passed away, a great businessperson--none of these are made here. Where
are they made? More often than not, they are made in China.
Let me quote from a December 15, 2010, article in the Wall Street
Journal:

One widely touted solution for current U.S. economic woes
is for America to come up with more of the high-tech gadgets
the rest of the world craves. Yet two academic researchers
estimate that Apple's iPhone--one of the best selling U.S.
technology products--actually added $1.9 billion to the U.S.
trade deficit with China last year.

So we develop these products, but we can't manufacture them here
because these companies prefer the low wages in China. And on and on it
goes--not just blue-collar jobs but white collar jobs as well.
Today, we are not talking about China and we are not talking about
Mexico. We are talking about Korea and Panama, and we are talking about
Colombia, but it is the same old story. The chamber of commerce is back
again suggesting the creation of all of these jobs, until the day after
the agreement is signed, and then they will be talking about how they
can throw American workers out on the street.
It is interesting that poll after poll shows that, to say the least,
the American people do not have an enormous amount of respect for the
U.S. Congress and they see Congress as living in a very different world
than working-class people are living in.
I don't know of any example where that schizophrenia is greater than
in terms of trade. I don't know what it is like in Rhode Island, but I
will tell you what it is like in Vermont when you ask people what they
think about these trade agreements with China. When you ask
constituents if they think they are creating jobs in America, they
reply: What, are you nuts? Of course they are not. And the polls tell
us that. In a September 2010 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 69
percent of Americans said they believe ``free trade between the United
States and other countries cost the U.S. jobs.'' I think every group in
America except the Congress seems to get that point. But then again,
the Congress is surrounded by lobbyists and campaign contributors who
come from big-money interests, and they like these unfettered free-
trade agreements.
Let me say a word or two about Korea. The Economic Policy Institute
has estimated that the Korea free-trade agreement will lead to the loss
of 159,000 American jobs and will increase the trade deficit by nearly
$14 billion over a 7-year period. Why would we want to go forward in a
trade agreement that will cost us jobs?
President Obama has estimated that the Korea Free Trade Agreement
will ``support at least 70,000 American jobs.'' But the headline of a
December 7, 2010, article in the New York Times says it all: ``Few New
Jobs Expected Soon From Free-Trade Agreement with South Korea.''
According to this article, the Korea Free Trade Agreement ``is likely
to result in little if any net job creation in the short run, according
to the government's own analysis''--our government's own analysis. That
analysis was done by the U.S. International Trade Commission, which
projects our overall trade deficit will increase, not decrease, if the
Korea Free Trade Agreement is implemented. This is our own
International Trade Commission. So what are we doing? What are we
doing?
Let me touch on one aspect of the Korea Free Trade Agreement that
deserves a lot of focus, and I fear very much it is not getting it;
that is, the Korea Free Trade Agreement will force American workers not
just to compete against low-wage workers in South Korea but also to
compete against the virtual slave labor conditions that exist in North
Korea, a country which is certainly one of the most undemocratic
countries in the world. To add insult to injury, not only are our
workers going to be competing against slave labor in North Korea, some
of the proceeds from this free-trade agreement are going to the
dictatorship of Kim Jong Il, certainly one of the more vicious
dictators in the entire world.
What that is about is that a number of companies in South Korea,
including Hyundai and many others, own companies that are doing
business in a large industrial area in North Korea. This agreement will
allow products made in North Korea to go to South Korea and then come
back into the United States.
I know there has been a little confusion on this, but there shouldn't
be. Let me quote from a January 2011 report from the Congressional
Research Service, and I hope everybody who plans on voting for this
free-trade agreement with Korea hears this:

There is nothing to prevent South Korean firms from
performing intermediate manufacturing operations in North
Korea, and then performing final manufacturing processes in
South Korea.

For example, as much as 65 percent of the value of a South Korean car
coming into the United States could actually be made in North Korea if
this trade agreement goes into effect.
Today, we have almost 47,000 North Korean workers currently employed
by more than 120 South Korean firms, including Hyundai, at the Kaesong
Industrial Complex in North Korea. What an agreement. What an
agreement. Slave labor in North Korea manufacturing products that go to
South Korea and then come into the United States of America. Meanwhile,
the dictatorship of North Korea gets a significant piece of the action
on top of the pennies an hour the North Korean workers get.
In 2007, Han Duck-soo, who was then the Prime Minister of South Korea
and is now the current South Korean Ambassador to the United States,
said:

The planned ratification of the South Korea-U.S. Free Trade
Agreement will pave the way for the export of products built
in Kaesong [North Korea] to the U.S. market.

Isn't that wonderful. Isn't that wonderful. Bad enough for workers in
our country to have to compete against people in China and in Vietnam--
people making 20 cents, 30 cents, or 40 cents an hour--but now we are
asked to compete against slave labor in Korea. And that is the treaty
people will be voting for today.
Mr. President, I think a lot of folks have mentioned, in terms of
Colombia, the assault on trade unionists there. Since 1986, some 2,800
trade unionists have been assassinated. Less than 6 percent of these
murders have been prosecuted by the Colombian Government. Last year
alone--last year alone, in a small country--more than 50 trade
unionists were assassinated in Colombia. That is up 9 percent from
2009. I ask, if in Colombia 50 CEOs of companies were killed last year,
were murdered last year, do you think people here would be voting for a
free-trade agreement with Colombia or would they say: Why would we want
an agreement with a country that is so unlawful, that is so brutal,
where so many CEOs are being killed? But it is not CEOs, it is just
trade union leaders, so I guess it is OK to have an agreement there.
I would also say that President Obama had a different view on
Colombia when he was a candidate for President in 2008. In October of
2008, candidate Barack Obama said:

The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders
have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent
basis and there have not been prosecutions.

Candidate Obama in 2008 was right in opposing this trade agreement.
Unfortunately, as President, he is wrong to support it right now.
Let me say a word about the Panama Free Trade Agreement.
Panama is a very small country. Its entire annual economic output is
only $26.7 billion a year or about two-tenths of 1 percent of the
American economy. So I think no one is going to legitimately stand here
and say that trading with such a small country is going to
significantly increase American jobs. Then why would we be considering
a trade agreement with Panama? What is going on there? Well, it turns
out Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy
Americans and large corporations to evade U.S. taxes by stashing their
cash in offshore tax havens. And the Panama Free Trade Agreement would
make this bad situation much worse.

[[Page S6438]]

I am a member of the Budget Committee, as is the Presiding Officer,
and we have heard testimony time and time again that our country is
losing up to $100 billion every year as corporations stash their money
in postal addresses in the Cayman Islands, in Bermuda, and in Panama.
This trade agreement makes that situation even worse.
According to Citizens for Tax Justice:

A tax haven . . . has one of three characteristics: It has
no income tax or a very low-rate income tax; it has bank
secrecy laws; and it has a history of noncooperation with
other countries on exchanging information about tax matters.
Panama has all three of those. . . . They're probably the
worst.

That is according to Citizens for Tax Justice.
The trade agreement with Panama would effectively bar the United
States from cracking down on illegal and abusive offshore tax havens in
Panama. In fact, combating tax haven abuse in Panama would be a
violation of this free-trade agreement, exposing the United States to
fines from international authorities.
At a time when we have a 14-trillion-plus national debt and at a time
when we are frantically figuring out ways to try to lower our deficit,
some of us believe it is a good idea to do away with all of these tax
havens by which the wealthy and large corporations stash their money
abroad and avoid paying U.S. taxes. The Panama trade agreement would
make that goal even more difficult.
I want to say another word on an issue that I think is important as
we look into the future. The proposed Korea Free Trade Agreement
threatens both the 340B drug program, which requires drug companies to
provide discounts on covered outpatient drugs purchased by federally
funded health providers, such as community health centers and other
safety net providers, and the ability of Medicare Part B to hold down
the prices of outpatient drugs. The Korea Free Trade Agreement would
potentially allow Korean drug manufacturers to challenge the pricing
under these programs on the grounds that the prices are not market
driven--in other words, forcing prices up in this country. That is
something that was pushed, by the way, by our trade representative, not
theirs. In essence, the pharmaceutical industry's lobbyists, with
complete indifference to the plight of millions of the most frail and
vulnerable Americans, have succeeded in inserting provisions into the
Korea Trade Agreement that would allow Korean companies to maximize
their profits by challenging the cost control measures under the 340B
and Medicare Part B programs.
But, unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Right now,
the pharmaceutical lobby--and they are a very powerful lobby--and the
U.S. Trade Representative are negotiating a new trade agreement, the
so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership, that I fear very much will make a
bad situation in terms of drug access for the developing world, for
poor people all over the world, much worse than it already is. Their
aim, yet again, is to maximize drug company profits at the expense of
the most vulnerable populations by tying the hands of health
authorities here and in other developed and developing countries abroad
who seek to provide access to low-cost generic pharmaceutical drugs for
their citizens.
In negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership, our government is
actively pushing intellectual profit laws for medicines that are more
restrictive than we impose even here in the United States, with the
effect of making it far more difficult to get generic drugs on the
market in those countries. One of them, Vietnam, is a good example.
Vietnam obviously is a very poor country. Vietnam has received more
than $320 million from the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief,
PEPFAR, created under President George W. Bush and continued under
President Obama since 2004. The function of this program is to make
sure the poorest people in the world who have diseases such as AIDS are
able to get the drugs they need at a price they can afford to pay, and
that means making generic treatments available.
The PEPFAR program has actually had significant success. As somebody
who is not a great fan of President George W. Bush, this is an area
where he actually did something quite positive, and that program is
credited with saving millions of lives in 15 developing nations over
the last 7 years. In the face of one of the most severe humanitarian
crises in modern history, the United States put billions of dollars
into doing something about it, and we are doing that today.
So why, in the face of this success by one arm of our government,
would another arm work to pull the rug out from underneath it? Yet that
is what the U.S. Trade Representative's Office is doing now.
In other words, on the one hand what we are trying to do is the right
thing, the humanitarian thing, to make sure that poor and sick people
around the world are able to get the medicines they desperately need to
stay alive at a price they can afford to pay; and, on the other hand,
another part of the U.S. Government is saying, wait a second. We have
got to protect the interests of the drug companies and make sure they
can make as much money as possible so they can charge and force poor
countries to pay outrageously high prices for drugs even if that means
many people die because they can't afford those drugs. So this is a
contradiction. This is what our new trade policies are about.
I will be back on the floor at some point in the not too distant
future to be talking about this very important issue, but let me
conclude by saying this country is in the midst of the worst economic
crisis since the 1930s; the middle class is disappearing; poverty is
increasing; millions of Americans have seen a decline in their standard
of living; the gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing
wider. That is the reality of the American economy today.
One of the reasons for the collapse of the middle class is the loss
of millions and millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs, and one of
the key reasons--not the only reason but one of the key reasons--we are
losing millions of manufacturing jobs is disastrous trade policies
designed to allow American corporations to shut down here, move to low-
wage countries, hire people there for pennies an hour, and bring their
products back. That is a policy I suppose you could say has worked if
you are the CEO of a large corporation. You make a lot more money
paying people 50 cents an hour than $20 an hour. You make a lot more
money working in a country where there are no environmental standards
rather than in a country where you have to have some standards
protecting air and water.
That is what our trade policy has been, and it seems to me to be
enormously foolish for us to continue this failed policy of NAFTA, of
CAFTA, of permanent normal trade relations with China, and extend them
to Korea, Panama, and Colombia. I urge my colleagues to stand up to the
big money interests which want us to pass these trade agreements, stand
up for American workers, and say: No. Trade is a good thing, but it has
to be based on principles that protect ordinary Americans, working
people, not just the CEOs of large corporations.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in the wake of another very
sobering jobs report. Unemployment remains stalled at 9.1 percent; 14
million Americans are out of work; another 9 million have been forced
into part-time jobs because they simply cannot find full-time
employment. These challenging economic times demand that Congress and
the administration put aside partisanship and work together in earnest
to address the prolonged jobs crisis.
Many of the decisions that will come before Congress in the next few
months will be difficult ones, including those that must be made to
restore fiscal order to our Nation's books. But there are bipartisan
measures that we know will create and preserve jobs now. We must work
together to advance them.
One such measure before us today is the free-trade agreement with
South Korea. As President Obama stated last week, this agreement ``will
make it easier for American companies to sell their products in South
Korea and provide a major boost to our exports.''

[[Page S6439]]

South Korea is our country's seventh largest trading partner. The
U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that implementation of
this agreement would increase our gross domestic product by $10 billion
to $12 billion, and annual merchandise exports by $10 billion. The ITC
further estimates that the agreement will reduce the U.S. trade deficit
with Korea by between $3 billion and $4 billion.
An analysis of the Korean agreement conducted by the staff of the ITC
at the request of the Senate Finance Committee concludes that the
agreement could create up to 280,000 American jobs, including more than
650 jobs in my home State of Maine. Just this week there were
announcements of 130 jobs lost at a paper mill in Maine and 65 jobs
eliminated at a call center. So these new jobs, potentially 650 new
jobs, would be welcome indeed.
South Korea is the fifth largest international market for Maine's
products. Last year, the value of Maine exports to South Korea reached
nearly $100 million, including $31 million in chemical products, $29
million in wood pulp, $15 million in civilian aircraft and engine
parts, $7 million in electrical machinery, and $5 million in coated
paper and paperboard.
Upon implementation of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, more than
95 percent of Maine's exports to South Korea would be duty free. Let me
repeat that. More than 95 percent of our exports from Maine to South
Korea would be duty free. That means the elimination of these barriers
to Maine's exports would expand markets for Maine's manufacturers and
agricultural producers, and that translates into saving jobs and
creating jobs.
Korea is the fourth largest and fastest growing market for American
frozen potatoes, a major industry in my State. In 2009, the U.S. share
of the Korean market was 81 percent, compared to 2 percent market share
for the European Union. But with the implementation of the European
Union-Korea Trade Agreement this past July, the European Union frozen
potatoes now enter the Korean market duty free. That obviously gives
European Union growers a significant competitive advantage over
American exporters, who face an 18-percent tariff for shipping their
products into Korea. The U.S.-Korea agreement would eliminate this
tariff immediately, leveling the playing field for our producers.
According to the Maine Potato Board, which has endorsed this
agreement, passage of this free-trade agreement is expected to
translate into a $35 million annual increase in U.S. frozen potatoes
exports to Korea. More important, in the long term it will allow
American potatoes to be the product of choice in the Korean market
because, as the Presiding Officer well knows, Maine potatoes taste
better than those grown by the European Union countries.
In all seriousness, we do need to eliminate these discrepancies in
tariffs that give our competitors an advantage over our American
producers. Exports are essential to a strong industrial manufacturing
base throughout our country and in the State of Maine.
I want to read an excerpt from a letter I recently received from the
plant manager of the General Electric Energy Plant in Bangor, ME. The
plant manager had this to say about the potential impact if this free-
trade agreement were approved:
He wrote as follows:

GE's continuing ability to pursue expanding international
opportunities for our aviation, energy and financial services
exports is critical to our more than 700 workers in the State
of Maine. In fact, 100 percent of the new steam turbine units
coming out of our Bangor facility this year and next will be
exported.

That just shows how critical that export market is to maintaining
those 700 jobs in Maine.

The Bangor plant has, in addition, recently started
producing components for gas turbines. To this end, we have
invested roughly $30 million in Bangor, to expand capacity.
These gas turbines [under current law] face tariffs of 8
percent in Korea. . . .

If the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement is passed, the GE plant
manager in Bangor told me the tariff on the gas turbines produced at
the Bangor plant would drop from 8 percent to 0, and that obviously
would make those GE products and GE's employees in Maine all that much
more competitive.
For Maine's wood pulp producers, Korea is already the second largest
international market they have. Exports to Korea account for nearly 17
percent of the total production coming out of the pulp mill in
Woodland, ME. In an e-mail to my office, Burt Martin, a director of the
pulp mill in Washington County, had this to say about the importance of
the Korean market to his business operation in Maine. He wrote:

Free trade with Asian countries means that we have an
operating pulp facility in Woodland, ME. . . . Koreans are
good paying customers--high revenue--and they are an
important part of our markets.

Maine's blueberry growers also will benefit from the phaseout of
tariffs on wild blueberry products. While I would have preferred to see
the tariffs on blueberries eliminated immediately, the way they are on
many other products I mentioned, the tariff reductions that would come
about as a result of this agreement will help our blueberry growers
compete in an increasingly important market.
An agreement will also unlock new market opportunities for Maine's
iconic lobster industry. Live lobster exports to Korea currently face a
20-percent tariff. Under the agreement, this tariff would be phased out
over 5 years, making it far easier for Maine to compete in the
marketplace in Korea.
Fairchild Semiconductor in Portland, ME, is another strong supporter
of this agreement. The manager of Fairchild cites the benefits of
``tariff elimination, regulatory improvement, stronger intellectual
property protection and simplified trade clearance procedures, measures
that help streamline customs procedures and help U.S. companies cut
down on the costs of doing business'' as advantages that would be
brought about by this agreement.
The bottom line is, exports to Korea support Maine jobs. Passage of
this agreement is critical to ensuring not only that we can expand
export opportunities, but also that we do not lose market share in one
of the world's largest economies because our foreign competitors are
more aggressive in their pursuit of trade liberalization agreements.
On balance, I believe the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement is good for
America and good for the State of Maine, and I will vote for it. I am
convinced the elimination of tariffs will create jobs and help us save
jobs at this critical time in our economy.
I also plan to vote for the agreement with Panama, a country with
which the United States had a $5.7 billion trade surplus last year. But
I cannot support the free-trade agreement with Colombia. This was a
difficult decision for me to reach, and I have given it considerable
study and thought. But, unfortunately, the violence against labor
unions continues at an unacceptably high rate in that country.
I do appreciate and recognize that the Colombian Government has taken
steps to improve in this area, but I think it is simply too soon to
declare the Labor Action Plan a success. I think more time is needed to
assess progress in this area, and I wish the President had brought
forth the two agreements I can support--those with South Korea and
Panama--and held back on the Colombian agreement until we have a better
sense of the direction of the country and where we are going in making
progress with the Labor Action Plan.
The benefits of free trade are not spread evenly over all sectors.
With any trade agreement there is a potential that some U.S. workers
and industries may be harmed. That is why I have looked at each
agreement individually over the years. I have supported some, and I
have opposed others. Frankly, the criteria I apply is whether the
agreements benefit the people of my State and the workers of this
country. It is also why I have been such a strong supporter of a robust
trade adjustment assistance program, and I have also strongly supported
tough enforcement of trade laws to protect U.S. workers against unfair
trade practices. I have testified before the ITC in cases involving the
paper industry where there has been illegal dumping. I have also been a
cosponsor of the bill we just passed yesterday to crack down on
currency manipulation by the Chinese Government.
But if the United States does not adopt policies to expand trade
opportunities in a fair way, we will lose out on market opportunities,
and that means

[[Page S6440]]

we will lose out on the creation of jobs. The jobs that would be
created or sustained at home will, instead, be created and sustained in
other countries that are aggressively pursuing trade agreements.
With nearly 95 percent of the world's customers living outside of our
borders, we simply must seize opportunities to expand our exports, to
look for new markets for our products. Our competitors in Europe,
Canada, and other nations are actively working to tear down barriers to
trade and promote their exports. We must do the same for our industries
and for our workers.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about one of the
greatest job-creation measures this body has considered in a long time.
The three long-awaited trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and
Colombia that the Senate will soon receive will create more real, long-
term jobs than any stimulus approach advocated by the President.
While many of us are concerned about the role of government in job
creation--an issue that will continue to be debated by this body--we
can all agree that it is imperative to create a fair and efficient
platform on which businesses can grow. The trade agreements before us
will do just that.
Some economists believe that we are doing perpetual harm to our
manufacturing, agricultural and export sectors by not passing these
agreements. For instance, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has previously
calculated that delaying the passage of the Colombia Free Trade
Agreement alone may have resulted in the direct loss of more than
20,000 jobs in the United States.
Our trading partners have looked elsewhere for goods and services to
power their growing economies. When Canada and Colombia completed their
trade agreement in August, within 15 days there was an 18-percent
increase in wheat exports from Canada to Colombia.
The U.S. Trade Representative completed negotiations in 2006 with
Colombia for the agreement we will soon have before us. Nearly 5 years
of delays on this agreement alone have caused us irreparable damage.
While America was once the envy of the world for our trade
agreements, we are now losing ground.
According to some estimates, the South Korean Free Trade Agreement
has the potential to create 280,000 jobs in America alone. South Korea
once called the United States its largest trading partner. We have
since lost that distinction to China.
We are not simply creating jobs by passing these agreements, we are
invigorating America's economy.
The Panama agreement will pack a significant economic punch for the
United States. While it is a smaller country than South Korea or
Colombia, the International Trade Commission estimates that U.S. grain
and meat exports to Panama will increase 60 percent.
In the past several years, my State of Georgia has experienced a 327-
percent increase in exports to Panama. While these exports have
increased despite the tariffs exporters are burdened with, a fair and
free trade agreement will allow these firms to export duty-free,
increasing the capital available to them and giving them more
opportunity to grow.
This agreement will have major implications for Georgia's
agricultural producers. In fact, all three of these trade agreements
will give major benefits to Georgia's agriculture sector.
With the South Korea agreement, we will see gains in poultry, eggs,
beef, cotton, and pecan exports as tariffs on these items are phased
out. We will see the same benefits with the Columbia pact, and that
agreement will also eliminate peanut tariffs over the next 15 years.
I am proud to say that agriculture is not the only sector where
Georgia will see gains. I would like to highlight a couple of local
companies that stand to benefit from these agreements.
Sasco is a third-generation family-owned business based in Albany,
GA. Sasco produces and distributes worldwide more than 1,200 chemical
products, but it faces a 5-percent tariff in Colombia.
For Sasco to remain competitive in South America, it must be able to
export duty free. While the company's president, Mark Skalla, continues
to seek partnerships and contracts in the region, the delays he has
experienced are hindering Sasco's expansion.
Payne Hughes, CEO of Thrush Aircraft, a manufacturer of agricultural
aircraft in Georgia, says he has already seen big gains in Panama and
Colombia, where these markets continue to grow. As these countries'
economies expand, American business will be able to take advantage of
the increased needs for our quality products.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has calculated that for every $1 billion
in agriculture exports, some 8,000 U.S. jobs are created and supported.
Every $1 billion in manufacturing exports supports nearly 7,000 U.S.
jobs.
The large-scale manufacturers in Georgia, including General Electric
and IBM, will also see major benefits that translate to growth and job
creation.
As we continue to look for areas where we can enhance American
competitiveness, increase job creation, and boost economic development,
free-trade agreements are a sure-fire way to make big gains. They are,
quite simply, good for American business.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I support the approval of free trade
agreements for one simple reason: they create jobs across America. And
they especially create jobs in my home State of Texas.
Last year, Texas companies exported lots of products to South Korea,
Colombia, and Panama, including chemical and energy products, heavy
machinery and electronics, cotton and grain crops, and many others.
Unfortunately, all of these products faced trade barriers in these
countries through foreign tariffs amounting to hundreds of millions of
dollars. These free trade agreements will level the playing field in
America's favor by eliminating foreign tariffs. Each of these trade
agreements also strengthens a key strategic relationship for our
country. And so I would like to say a word or two about each one.
The Korea Free Trade Agreement is of strategic importance because it
reminds the world that America is a Pacific nation, and that America
will continue to deepen our relationships with our allies and not
abandon East Asia to China or anybody else. The Korea Free Trade
Agreement is the most significant on the table in terms of U.S.
exports. South Korea is the most prosperous nation to sign a free trade
agreement with the United States since Canada and Mexico in the 1994
NAFTA. Currently, Korean tariffs on U.S. products can be as high as 13
percent. The White House estimates that the Korean Free Trade Agreement
will generate up to $11 billion in new U.S. exports and 70,000 U.S.
jobs.
And a lot of that economic activity will be in Texas. Texas exported
$6.4 billion in products to South Korea last year--second only to
California. Our State's leading category of exports to Korea is
computers and electronics, which include integrated circuits, magnetic
tape, and navigational equipment. Texans also export a variety of
chemicals and machinery to Korea.
The Colombia Free Trade Agreement will solidify our relationship with
a crucial ally in a volatile region of our own hemisphere. Colombia has
been a leader in the fight against drug trafficking and narcoterrorism.
Colombia has also resisted the regional ambitions of Venezuela's Hugo
Chavez. The White House estimates that the Colombian Free Trade
Agreement will generate $1 billion in new U.S. exports and thousands of
U.S. jobs.
In Texas, my state exported $4.4 billion in products to Colombia last
year more than any other state. Those products include petroleum
products, coal, chemicals, electronics, and agricultural products.
Texas ranchers will especially welcome this agreement as beef currently
faces the single highest tariff in Colombia at 80 percent and this
trade agreement will reduce that tariff to zero. Also cotton, wheat,
and almost all fruits and vegetables will become duty free immediately.
The Panama Free Trade Agreement is important because Panama is
conducting one of the largest public works projects in history:
expanding the Panama Canal. This project will cost $5.25 billion and
provide many opportunities for construction firms and heavy equipment
manufacturers in the U.S. Construction equipment and infrastructure

[[Page S6441]]

machinery used in such projects accounted for $280 million in U.S.
exports to Panama in 2010. The agreement will end tariffs on these
exports, providing U.S. firms an almost immediate 5 percent price
advantage on procurement contracts.
Texas exported $1.8 billion in products to Panama last year--more
than any other State. Texas top exports to Panama are petroleum, coal,
chemicals, and computers and other electronics.
It is clear why Congress should approve these trade agreements. What
is not clear is why it has taken us so long to act. The Colombia Free
Trade Agreement was signed in November 2006. The Korea and Panama
agreements were signed in June 2007. Why has it taken more than 4 years
to act on them?
The answer is that the leadership of Congress changed in 2007, and
that leadership has been listening too much to union bosses and other
special interests. Every time we seem to be close to approving these
agreements, these liberal special interests have come up with a new set
of demands. On May 10, 2007, the Bush White House and Congress agreed
on new and more stringent labor and environment provisions. This action
was supposed to allow approval for four trade agreements; however, only
a pact with Peru was approved at that time. The Obama administration
could have submitted the three remaining trade agreements at any time
since January 2009. But new conditions kept coming.
In November 2010, we learned of new conditions regarding taxation
policy in Panama. In February 2011, we learned about new conditions
placed on the Korea deal regarding auto emissions standards. In April
2011, we learned about new and strikingly detailed conditions bordering
on micromanagement--on the Colombian judiciary and law enforcement
agencies.
And in May 2011, we learned about new demands for a little-known
program called trade adjustment assistance, including the demand to
dramatically expand trade adjustment assistance to cover nations the
U.S. has not signed agreements with.
The time is up for demands from Washington special interests. The
time is now to make U.S. jobs and U.S. exports our priority. Let's send
a message of friendship to the people of South Korea, Colombia, and
Panama. And let's send a message to U.S. exporters that real jobs
legislation is on its way.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for
the free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama.
These agreements will eliminate tariffs and nontariff barriers to
U.S. exports and protect intellectual property and investment with
three key trading partners.
At a time when the national unemployment rate stands at almost 10
percent--and tops 12 percent in my home State of California--I believe
it is vital that we promote job growth by securing new opportunities
for U.S. manufacturers, farmers and service providers in expanding
foreign export markets.
These three agreements are a good place to start.
They are critical to the President's goal of doubling exports over 5
years, which could create 2 million new jobs. This is from a L.A. Times
editorial of August 12, 2010.
It is simple: export growth as a result of these trade agreements
will mean more jobs.
And we have no time to lose. Other trading partners have signed or
are in the process of negotiating free trade agreements with South
Korea, Colombia and Panama.
The European Union has already signed free trade agreements with
South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. The EU-South Korea agreement came
into effect in July.
Korea now has or is negotiating 13 free trade agreements involving 50
nations.
Canada concluded a trade agreement with Panama in 2010 and will gain
preferential access to Colombia's market in August 2012.
Argentina and Brazil already have preferential access to the
Colombian market.
We cannot afford to let our exporters lose market share to our
competitors.
If we are left out, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that we
could lose up to 380,000 jobs and $40 billion in exports.
The best estimate is that these agreements will, in fact, create
jobs.
According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, these
agreements will create at least 70,000 U.S. jobs.
U.S. exports to South Korea will increase by $11 billion and raise
U.S. GDP by $12 billion.
The Colombia trade agreement will increase U.S. exports by more than
$1.1 billion and increase U.S. GDP by $2.5 billion.
U.S. exports to Panama grew by 41 percent in 2010 to $6.1 billion and
will continue to rise with passage of the free trade agreement.
The Business Roundtable puts the number even higher at 250,000 jobs
created with passage of the three agreements.
Let me speak to the effects these agreements would have on my home
State of California.
As one of the 10 largest economic engines in the world with a $1.9
trillion economy, California is a leader in U.S. and global markets
with products ranging from agriculture to high-tech products and
manufacturing.
In 2008, approximately 60,000 California companies exported products
abroad, with manufactured good exports supporting 738,000 California
jobs.
South Korea, Colombia and Panama already represent growing markets
for California exporters. In 2010, South Korea was California's fifth
largest export market with exports totaling more than $8.1 billion, up
from $5.9 billion in 2009. In 2010, Colombia was California's 34th
largest export market with exports totaling $408.7 million--a 24-
percent increase over the previous year.
In 2010, Panama, with a growth rate of 7.5 percent, was California's
42nd largest export market with exports totaling $252 million.
Passage of these agreements will provide important openings for
California exports which will help create jobs.
According to Business Roundtable, more than 66 percent of California
exports to Colombia will be duty-free after passage of this agreement,
saving $27.2 million for California businesses and farmers, and more
than 80 percent of California exports to South Korea will be duty free
following implementation of the agreement, saving exporters $66
million.
In Panama, California high-quality beef, other meat and poultry
products, soybeans, wines and most fresh fruit and tree nuts will
become duty free upon enactment.
According to the California Chambers of Commerce Council for
International Trade, California manufacturers will also gain
significant access to the $5.25 billion Panama Canal expansion project
as the agreement eliminates the 5 percent duty on construction
equipment and infrastructure machinery. The project will ultimately
reduce transportation costs for California exports.
Make no mistake, South Korea, Colombia and Panama represent
significant opportunities for all U.S. exporters.
South Korea is our 7th largest trading partner, our 8th biggest
export market and the 15th largest economy in the world.
The agreement represents the largest free trade agreement since the
North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA.
While Colombia and Panama have smaller economies, they are both
emerging trading partners. In 2010, U.S. exports to Colombia grew by 34
percent to $12 billion, while exports to Panama grew by 41 percent to
$6.1 billion.
Again, export growth will lead to job growth.
Some critics of these agreements argue that benefits gained by
lowering tariffs and nontariff barriers to U.S. exports will be offset
by benefits gained by our trading partners.
The fact is, our trading partners already have substantial access to
the U.S. market while our exports continue to face significant
barriers.
Currently, the average Korean applied tariff on U.S. non-agricultural
products is 7 percent. In contrast, the average U.S. tariff on Korean
nonagricultural imports is 3.7 percent.
The average Korean applied tariff on U.S. agricultural products is 52
percent. The average U.S. tariff on Korean agricultural products is 12
percent.

[[Page S6442]]

Approximately 90 percent of Colombian exports and 98 percent of
Panamanian exports enter the United States duty free under existing
trade preference programs.
In contrast, over 90 percent of U.S. exports to Colombia face tariffs
averaging 12.5 percent, and less than 40 percent of U.S. exports to
Panama enter duty free with industrial exports facing an average tariff
of 7 percent and agricultural exports facing an average tariff of 15
percent.
So, these agreements will only serve to enhance U.S. competiveness by
leveling the playing field for our exporters and give them
opportunities our trading partners already enjoy here in the United
States.
And I know our manufacturers, farmers and service providers can
compete and succeed against anyone.
Let me briefly discuss the key benefits of these agreements.
Upon enactment of the agreement with South Korea, approximately 95
percent of bilateral trade in industrial and consumer products will
become duty-free within 5 years of the enactment of the agreement,
including industrial and consumer electronic machinery, most chemicals,
motorcycles and certain wood products. Most remaining tariffs will be
eliminated within 10 years.
More than half of current U.S. agricultural exports to Korea will
become duty free immediately, including wheat, feed corn, soybeans for
crushing, hides and skins, cotton, almonds, pistachios, bourbon
whiskey, wine, raisins, grape juice, orange juice, cherries, frozen
French fries and pet food.
Approximately 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial
products to Colombia will be duty-free upon the enactment of the
agreement. Most remaining tariffs will be removed after 10 years.
Both parties will grant certain farm products duty-free treatment
immediately upon enactment of the agreement including high-quality
beef, cotton, wheat, soybean meal, apples, pears, peaches, cherries and
processed food products.
Colombia will phase out quotas and over-quota tariffs on standard
beef, chicken leg quarters, dairy products, corn, sorghum, animal
feeds, soybean oil and rice within the next three to 19 years.
Over 87 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products
to Panama will become duty free upon enactment of the agreement, with
the remaining tariffs phased out within 10 years.
Panama will provide immediate duty-free access for more than half of
U.S. agricultural exports including high-quality beef, poultry
products, soybeans, cotton, wheat, fruits and vegetables, corn oil and
many processed foods.
I understand the concern some of my colleagues have about the effects
free trade agreements may have on domestic jobs.
While I firmly believe that past free trade agreements have an
overall positive impact on the economy and job growth, there is no
doubt that some Americans have lost jobs due to increased trade.
That is why I remain a strong supporter of the Trade Adjustment
Assistance, TAA, Program, which has helped these American workers
transition to new opportunities in emerging job markets.
TAA has proven to be a wise investment by ensuring that workers who
lose their jobs remain productive and tax-paying members of our
society, free of government assistance.
I am pleased that we voted to renew this critical program before the
vote on the three trade agreements.
Now, I would like to address specific concerns raised about the
agreements with Colombia and Korea.
Critics have argued that, given Colombia's weak labor laws and
violence against labor leaders and union organizers, it should not be
rewarded with a free trade agreement.
First, under the terms of the free trade agreement, Colombia has
agreed to: reaffirm its obligations as a member of the International
Labor Organization, ILO, and adopt and maintain in its laws and
practice core labor rights and ILO labor standards; refrain from
waiving or otherwise weakening the laws that implement this obligation
in a manner affecting trade or investment; effectively enforce labor
laws related to the fundamental rights, plus acceptable conditions of
work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational
safety and health; and ensure that workers and employers will have
fair, equitable and transparent access to labor tribunals or courts.
All labor obligations are subject to the agreement's dispute
settlement procedures.
Colombia in April also agreed to an action plan related to labor
rights to prevent violence against labor leaders, prosecute antilabor
violence and protect internationally recognized worker rights.
Among other things, this plan requires Colombia to: create a
specialized Labor Ministry to improve the enforcement of labor rights;
criminalize actions or threats that could affect fundamental workers'
rights including the right to organize; eliminate the backlog of
requests from union members for protection; expand the scope of a
protection program for union leaders to additional labor activists and
union organizers; assign 95 police investigators to support the
prosecution of crimes against union members; double the number of labor
inspectors by hiring 480 inspectors over the next 4 years including 100
new inspectors in 2011; and seek the assistance of the International
Labor Organization to implement and enforce these pledges.
Colombia has met the first two deadlines for implementation of the
action plan and I look forward to the successful completion of the
remaining commitments.
There was also great concern about the auto provisions in the
original 2007 U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.
Currently, South Korea maintains an 8-percent tariff on U.S. autos.
The United States maintains a 2.5-percent tariff on Korean autos and a
25-percent tariff on Korean trucks.
Under the 2007 agreement, South Korea and the United States agreed to
eliminate their respective duties on priority passenger vehicles
immediately, to phase out their duties on other cars over 3 years and
to phase out their duties on trucks over 10 years. In addition, South
Korea agreed to eliminate the discriminatory aspects of its special
consumption and annual vehicle taxes; not impose any new engine
displacement taxes and to maintain non-discriminatory application of
its existing taxes; and address several other non-tariff barriers to
ensure that they do not impede the market access of U.S. autos.
The U.S. auto industry and labor unions argued that the United States
should not expand Korean access to the U.S. market until U.S.
manufacturers are able to significantly increase their market share in
South Korea and South Korea makes more concrete assurances that it will
dismantle nontariff barriers.
President Obama responded to their concerns and secured additional
concessions from Korea that will expand U.S. access to the Korean auto
market.
Under the terms of the December, 2010 agreement the U.S. will keep
its 2.5-percent tariff on Korean imports until the 5th year following
enactment of the agreement while Korea will immediately cut its tariff
on U.S. autos in half--from 8 percent to 4 percent--and fully eliminate
the tariff in the fifth year; and the U.S. will keep its 25-percent
tariff on trucks until the 8th year and eliminate it by year 10 while
Korea will keep its original commitment to eliminate its 10 percent
tariff on U.S. trucks immediately.
The agreement also contains new provisions to eliminate nontariff
barriers to U.S. auto exports to Korea and increase protection against
surges of Korean auto imports in the U.S.
I applaud the administration for listening to the concerns of U.S.
automakers.
These additional provisions strengthen the overall agreement and will
provide new benefits for U.S. autos in an expanding foreign market and
create more jobs. Due to President Obama's efforts, the United Auto
Workers union and U.S. automakers now support the Korea agreement.
In these difficult economic times, our constituents are sending us a
clear message: they want Congress to focus on jobs.
In this effort, we should leave no stone unturned.
Expanding access for U.S. exports to the growing markets of Korea,
Colombia and Panama will help create new jobs and increase economic
growth.

[[Page S6443]]

I urge my colleagues to support these agreements.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I support all three pending free trade
agreements, FTAs. They will be good for our country and good for
Virginia. They will create jobs by opening markets for high quality
American products.
Trade with Korea was worth $379 million to Virginia in 2010. Colombia
was worth $80 million and Panama was worth $30 million. The
Commonwealth stands to benefit from expanded opportunities for
agriculture, chemicals, information technology, services, and other key
sectors.
The success of FTAs for Virginia can be seen in the 13 other
agreements entered into over the past decade. The 2004 U.S.-Singapore
FTA enabled Singapore to become the fastest-growing market among the
major buyers of Virginia's goods, rising from $300 million to over $1
billion last year, mainly in computers and electronics.
All told, Virginia did $17.1 billion in exports last year, including
$14 billion in manufactured goods, $1.2 billion in agriculture, and a
host of other products.
Nonetheless, it is very important to me that we do more as a country
to make sure the benefits of trade agreements and international
commerce are more evenly distributed across this country.
In the past, some States have done really well under trade deals.
Others have not. Most of Virginia has been lucky to be on the winning
end of trade. But there are areas, like southside Virginia, that have
not seen the same benefits from earlier trade deals.
That is why I am a strong advocate for onshoring initiatives and
greater economic engagement between foreign-owned companies and rural
America. I have joined my Virginia colleague, Representative Frank
Wolf, in sponsoring bipartisan legislation called America recruits,
which would support new inbound investment into the United States.
The United States is one of the few countries without a national
policy of supporting the recruitment of new companies. As a former
Governor, I can tell you that this hamstrings the States when they
compete head-to-head with foreign countries that can match or exceed
support for individual State recruitment efforts.
Looking forward, I hope the President and the Administration will be
ambitious in working to complete the nine-country Trans-Pacific
Partnership, TPP, as soon as possible.
I commend our Trade Representative for the ongoing work on TPP. It is
an innovative new type of trade deal, which aims for a high-standard,
broad-based regional free trade agreement with Australia, Brunei
Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.
It is critically important that we not lose sight of the fact that
many of our competitors, ranging from Canada and the European Union to
China, India, and Brazil are signing market access agreements and trade
deals as quickly as possible. They understand the value of securing
favorable terms for their goods and services in an increasingly
globalized world. We cannot sit back and do nothing when 95 percent of
the world's consumers live outside the United States.
Therefore, while new trade agreements and efforts to remove market
barriers are crucial, I conclude by urging Congress to reauthorize
Trade Promotion Authority, TPA, which expired 4 years ago.
TPA is often just referred to as ``fast track'' authority to pass
trade agreements. But it is much more than that. TPA sets the direction
of U.S. trade policy and guides the work of our trade negotiators.
We need to have clear national objectives for trade and economic
engagement. We need a greater focus on development and maintenance of
global supply chains. We need strategies to address intellectual
property issues and emerging concerns about the effects of state-owned
enterprises as we focus on expanding market opportunities for U.S.
goods and services.
Trade is a key aspect of U.S. competitiveness. It is difficult to get
completely right, but it is important to acknowledge our progress. The
U.S. House of Representatives has just passed the three free trade
agreements this evening. I hope the Senate will do the same in the next
few hours so that we can continue to work together in support of an
international economic agenda that benefits the United States to the
greatest extent possible.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to welcome the imminent
arrival of free trade agreements that are long-overdue in this Chamber.
Our Nation grew to be the leader of the free world through trade and
commerce, and we must not lose sight of the fact that safeguarding our
access to world markets is essential to maintaining our economic
preeminence.
These free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama
which I look forward to supporting this evening, represent real
measures that will produce jobs and provide better opportunities for
our manufacturers to sell their goods abroad. Given our faltering
economy and the continuing high rate of unemployment, it is significant
that today we can vote to implement policy that will put Americans to
work and let our businesses compete on a level playing field with
foreign competitors. Gaining access to hundreds of millions of
consumers across the globe will have a monumental effect on our local
economies.
For years, most goods from Colombia and Panama have entered the U.S.
duty-free, and it is about time that the President submitted these
agreements to Congress so that American businesses can enjoy equal
treatment. Despite having successfully negotiated treaties on his desk,
the President stood by as other countries signed free trade pacts with
these nations, forcing American exporters to watch as international
competitors benefited. As the global economy continues to evolve, the
submission of these agreements for congressional consideration is an
important step to spur further trade and contribute to the growth of
our economy at a time when it is so badly needed.
During these challenging economic times, American businesses should
not have to face trade barriers, such as high tariffs, which put them
at a competitive disadvantage. Since 1997, New Hampshire's exports to
Colombia have increased by nearly 1,300 percent, nearly 200 percent to
Panama, and by 324 percent to South Korea. However, U.S. exporters pay
billions of dollars a year through tariffs on industrial goods. After
these free trade agreements go into effect, 95 percent of those tariffs
will be eliminated, meaning that American businesses will benefit by
expanding payroll and consumers will benefit by lowered costs for goods
and services.
With the highest growth rate in the Northeast and the fourth highest
growth rate in the country, New Hampshire in particular stands to
benefit from these agreements. New Hampshire exported $4.4 billion
worth of merchandise in 2010, a major component of our State's
approximately $60 billion total GDP. We have 15,000 New Hampshire jobs
supported by exports, which represents a quarter of our manufacturing
sector. The improved access to foreign markets brought about by these
agreements will allow our industries to continue to grow and contribute
to the economic environment that has made New Hampshire an attractive
place for entrepreneurs to come to build their businesses.
We need these free trade agreements because we need to commit to
economic policies that will create jobs and grow our economy.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the three
pending agreements that the Senate will be considering later today.
But before I address these agreements, I first want to express my
strong support for the reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Program.
Three weeks ago I joined a bipartisan group of colleagues in passing
an expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program to support
workers in Minnesota and across this Nation who have lost their jobs or
seen their hours reduced as a result of global exchange.
I made clear then that I believed it was essential that we act on
trade adjustment assistance before turning to the pending agreements
and--with the House passing this legislation today--that is exactly
what we have done.
As chair of the Senate subcommittee on export promotion, I have long
been

[[Page S6444]]

a proponent of increasing U.S. exports and helping U.S. producers reach
new markets overseas.
Ninety-five percent of the world's customers live outside our
borders. So it is without exaggeration that I say our future prosperity
hinges on our ability to reach those customers.
As we continue to work to move our country out of this current
economic downturn, we must take every available step we can to increase
the competitive edge of American producers, farmers, and workers in the
global economy.
I will therefore be voting for both the South Korea and Panama
agreements. While these agreements are not perfect, after hearing from
Minnesota farmers and businesses, I believe they can help open new
overseas markets for Minnesota producers and increase U.S. exports.
The South Korea agreement is projected to increase U.S. exports to
South Korea by an estimated $10 billion and increase U.S. GDP by $11
billion.
The agreement will have key benefits for my home State of Minnesota.
Of Minnesota's top 10 exports to South Korea--such as machinery and
electronics, medical equipment, and animal feed and meats--9 are
expected to gain under the agreement.
Many of those gains are expected to be in our State's agriculture
industry, where South Korea is the fifth largest trading partner for
Minnesota farmers. This agreement will reduce tariffs on dairy, corn,
soybeans, pork, and other food products, allowing our Minnesota
producers increased access to Korean markets.
The Korea agreement will also eliminate tariffs on processed food,
helping to increase exports and promote job growth for Minnesota's
processed food producers like General Mills, Schwan's, and Hormel.
The Korea agreement will also benefit the workers in our state's
strong medical device industry. South Korea is currently the fifth
largest market for U.S. medical equipment exports.
Under the pending agreement, South Korea will immediately eliminate
tariffs on 43 percent of medical equipment exports and eliminate
tariffs on 90 Percent of the remaining medical equipment products in 3
years.
Finally, I support the Korea agreement because it includes
unprecedented provisions to defend intellectual property rights,
promote transparency in Korea's trading and regulatory systems, and
ensure full and equitable protection and security for American
investors in Korea.
Unfortunately, too many foreign nations engage in illegal trade
practices, and too often they get away with it.
I have long said that in order to ensure a level playing field for
U.S. businesses and workers in an increasingly competitive global
environment, we need enforceable standards in our agreements and we
need to hold other nations accountable to those standards.
Over the years, I have consistently fought to expose these illegal
behaviors and worked hard to support several Minnesota industries such
as our coated paper producers, steel producers, honey producers, and
alternative energy producers. And just this week the Senate came
together on a bipartisan basis to crack down on China's currency
manipulation that is undermining our businesses and workers.
As we move forward, I will continue to do everything I can to ensure
that the standards included in the Korea agreement--and all other
agreements--are strongly and fairly enforced.
I would also like to briefly discuss the Panama Free Trade Agreement.
Like the Korea agreement, I believe the Panama agreement will promote
U.S. exports and strengthen market access for Minnesotan and U.S.
companies.
The United States already runs a trade surplus with Panama. Through
the immediate elimination of tariffs on 88 percent of U.S. exports to
Panama, and the elimination of remaining tariffs within 10 years, that
surplus will only increase.
The Panama agreement presents new opportunities for Minnesota
manufacturers and their workers and, like the Korea agreement, also
promotes greater transparency and enforcement in Panama.
Finally I will oppose the Colombia agreement which does not do enough
to address the country's endemic corruption and violence directed
toward labor.
Increasing U.S. exports will bring many opportunities to our
businesses and workers, and implementation of the Korea and Panama Free
Trade Agreements, as well as the Trade Adjustment Assistant Program,
will help our Nation stay competitive in the global economy.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the trade agreements
pending before the Senate.
I first want to note how pleased I am that a full extension of trade
adjustment assistance will be sent to President Obama for his
signature. This important program provides much-needed job training,
health care, and income support to workers whose jobs are affected by
trade.
As we seek to grow our economy and increase exports we must take
steps to train American workers and provide them with continued job
opportunities.
I am supporting the free trade agreement with South Korea because of
its impact on California's economy. This agreement is not perfect, but
on balance I believe it will benefit California.
South Korea is California's 5th largest trading partner. California
companies export more than $7 billion in goods there every year. This
agreement will reduce tariffs and other trade barriers for California
businesses that export goods to South Korea, resulting in greater
productivity in my State. In addition, the South Korean economy is
advanced, with per capita GDP equal to $30,000 year and a well-
developed middle class, which will provide a substantial market for all
types of U.S. exports.
The South Korea Free Trade Agreement also includes strong
intellectual property rights that protect U.S. patents and trademarks
and copyrights for films and other recorded works. These provisions are
very important for California's entertainment sector. The agreement
also reduces tariffs on U.S.-made machinery and high-tech products,
increasing export potential for California industries.
The agreement also includes carefully negotiated rules for
automobiles, to protect our auto industry from unfair treatment. I am
pleased that the United Auto Workers were able to support the final
version.
The free trade agreement opens the Korean market to the large number
of agricultural products we produce in California. In February 2011, I
wrote to the administration to urge better market access for two
important California products: rice and fresh oranges. While I am
disappointed that California rice is not part of the FTA, I was pleased
that the Obama administration will continue working to expand market
access for California rice and for California citrus. As the agreement
is implemented I will continue to press for fair treatment for all
California agricultural commodities.
I am also supporting this agreement because South Korea is a close
friend and strategically-important ally for the United States in East
Asia. Strengthening our trade relationship will bring economic and
national security benefits to both nations, and will help to ensure
that the U.S.-Korea relationship remains strong in the future.
The South Korea FTA is supported by the California Chamber of
Commerce, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the Motion Picture
Association of America, the California Association of Port Authorities,
the California Manufacturing and Technology Association, the Pacific
Merchant Shipping Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation,
the Wine Institute, the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership, the
California Table Grape Commission, the California Walnut Commission,
the California Strawberry Commission, the California Fig Advisory
Board, the California Dried Plum Board, and the Western Growers
Association, among many other groups.
Mr. President, as chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee
responsible for human rights, I cannot support a free trade agreement
with Colombia. In short, Colombia's human rights record is appalling.
More than 2,800 union members have been murdered in Colombia in the
last 25 years, including 51 last year, and many more so far in 2011.
The conviction rate for union murders and other

[[Page S6445]]

violence is shockingly low, and the Colombian government continues to
support policies that deny workers the right to join unions and bargain
collectively.
I am pleased that under a labor rights action plan negotiated between
the Obama administration and the Colombia government that steps are
being taken to provide more protection for union members and to
investigate crimes, but I have major concerns that these reforms do not
go far enough to provide real changes for workers in Colombia.
This summer trade unionists from Colombia came to the United States
to discuss the environment for working people in their country. Their
stories are chilling.
A Colombian port worker described how he is one of the few union
members at the ports because so many trade unionists have been fired
for joining unions. He talked about how the unsafe working conditions
have caused dozens of deaths at ports, how those who are injured on the
job receive no compensation from their employer, and how older workers
are routinely fired.
A math and science teacher discussed how teachers who participate in
organizing efforts have their salaries withheld, and that the threat of
violence against teachers with union ties forces many to flee their
homes and their jobs to protect their families.
Human Rights Watch recently released a report that concluded that
Colombia has made ``virtually no progress'' in securing convictions for
killings that have occurred in the last 4 years. Until Colombia's labor
and human rights record shows significant long-term improvement, I
cannot support a Free Trade Agreement, especially when U.S. producers
stand to gain little from market access.
When the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, was approved, we
were told that the U.S. would run a trade surplus with Mexico and gain
hundreds of thousands of jobs. But instead, our trade deficit with
Mexico increased to almost $100 billion, displacing an estimated
682,900 U.S. jobs.
The economic situation in Mexico when NAFTA was passed is similar to
the current climate in Colombia--a very low per capita GDP and a large
percentage of the population living in poverty. A free trade agreement
with Colombia under these conditions will result in the displacement of
U.S. manufacturing jobs and few consumers for U.S. exports, just like
what happened with Mexico after implementation of NAFTA.
I also oppose the free trade agreement with Panama.
For many years, Panama has failed to implement international tax
standards. It has been a haven for those who seek to avoid their tax
obligations. More than 400,000 multinational corporations register
businesses in Panama, a nation with a population of 3.4 million people.
That is one corporation for every seven persons. Although the recent
Tax Information Exchange Agreements entered into by Panama are a step
in the right direction, I will continue to have significant concerns
about Panama's tax policies until they have fully implemented an
accountable system.
I hope that Panama will eventually develop a well-functioning tax
system and cooperate with the international community, but I cannot
support a Free Trade Agreement until a higher standard is reached.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, since World War II the United States has
traded away American jobs in the name of foreign policy by entering
into bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.
With a 9.1 percent national unemployment rate, 14 million Americans
looking for work, and 10.6 percent unemployment in Rhode Island, there
are no more jobs to give. As such, I cannot support these trade
agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama that the Senate is
considering today.
I am not convinced these trade deals will result in net job growth
for the United States. The International Trade Commission's analysis of
the agreements finds negligible changes to aggregate employment and
output. Analysis from The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the
Korea FTA would lead to a loss of 159,000 jobs--much of this in the
manufacturing sector. It must be stressed that, according to these
analyses, any potential job gains associated with increases in American
exports will be offset by job losses resulting from increased imports
to the United States.
Moreover, as a recent economic study has shown, my State is one of
the most susceptible to labor-intensive imports. And as the
International Trade Commission's sector analysis of these free trade
agreements found, industries that are based in Rhode Island align with
those foreign industries that will have the most access to U.S.
markets. I am very concerned that Rhode Island businesses will feel the
brunt of this import pressure while realizing little of the potential
gains from exports.
It is likely that U.S. job losses associated with the Korea FTA will
be disproportionately felt in Rhode Island, particularly in the textile
sector. The nature of the agreement and the change in tariff schedules
pick clear winners and losers. U.S. agriculture and passenger vehicles
will be winners, while manufacturing industries central to my State
like textiles will be losers. I have heard from Rhode Island businesses
opposed to the Korea agreement for this very reason.
I, also, have serious reservations about the Colombian and Panama
agreements. These agreements will have a relatively small impact on the
U.S. economy, but present basic questions of accountability. Colombia
has one of the highest rates of anti-union violence in the world.
Panama has its own duty free zone and there are concerns about whether
there are enough resources being dedicated to deter illegal
transshipment of goods, which could lead to other nations taking
advantage of our trade agreement with Panama by skirting customs and
violating ``rules of origin'' requirements. Additionally, despite
Panama's recent tax information exchange agreement, questions remain
about the degree to which transparency and bank secrecy laws will
continue to be obstacles to enforcing U.S. tax law.
Both Colombia and Panama have made efforts to correct these issues.
However, the results of these efforts are not clear and more work
remains to be done to ensure that accountability is built into the
system.
I do want to stress that my opposition to these agreements is not
meant to undercut the good work of our partners and allies in Korea,
Colombia, and Panama. Korea is one of our most vital partners in Asia
and a democracy that shares our values. Colombia is an important Latin
American ally that has made enormous progress in strengthening the rule
of law and combating extremist organizations and drug traffickers. And
the United States has a singular relationship with Panama that has
progressively strengthened over time.
However, at this time, I think we should stop and pause and think
about our domestic needs and how to get our economy back on track. The
United States needs to enter into trade agreements that will
unequivocally benefit Americans workers--these trade deals do not. So,
I will vote against the Korea, Colombia, and Panama trade agreements,
and continue working to find a better way to promote bilateral trade
that will lead to job growth here at home.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, our country continues to struggle with the
aftereffects of the housing bubble and the economic mistakes of the
previous decade. There has been a great human cost to this economic
slump--families forced out of their homes, shameful increases in child
poverty, and a shrinking middle class.
President Obama has offered a number of steps to help heal our
economy and put people back to work. One such plan includes a doubling
of U.S. exports within five years. Exports are good for America and
good for American jobs. They strengthen our manufacturing and
agriculture sectors and in turn create good paying jobs. Quite simply,
to help create more jobs here at home, we need to be able to access new
markets and eliminate trade barriers for U.S. exporters.
At the same time, we must ensure that we engage not just in free
trade, but fair trade--trade that upholds our values on labor, human
rights, and environmental protections, fair treatment of U.S. products,
and supports transparent markets.

[[Page S6446]]

That is why in my time in Congress I have always considered each
potential trade agreement on a case by case basis.
This year, it was clear to me that we could not approve further free
trade agreements if the trade adjustment assistance programs were not
extended. We can't expand free trade without helping workers who may be
displaced because of trade agreements. I strongly support and voted to
extend the benefits under trade adjustment assistance. Since 2009, TAA
has provided assistance to 447,235 workers--119,772 in Illinois--
displaced due to trade agreements. It has provided training for workers
as they transition to a new career, help with income, and health care
tax credits to ease the transition.
Overall I believe in trade. I believe trade creates jobs. Illinois is
the country's sixth largest exporter. Exports grew 19.6 percent from
2009 and totaled over $50 billion in 2010 and supported 540,000 jobs.
In 2008 alone, nearly 17,000 companies exported goods from Illinois
locations. Iconic Illinois companies like Caterpillar, John Deere, and
Boeing rely on trade to grow their business and support workers in
Illinois and across the country. Other industries, including Illinois
agriculture, have used trade to expand markets and feed more and more
of the world. Motorola, ADM, Illinois Tool Works, Navistar, Abbott,
Fortune brands and many others rely on trade to help grow business here
at home.
I also believe trade keeps America engaged in the world. It gives us
economic and diplomatic leverage around the world. Too often in recent
years we have sat on the sidelines while countries with emerging
markets sign bilateral trade agreements with our competitors in the EU
and elsewhere--too often at America's loss.
Last year, U.S. exports supported 9.2 million good paying American
jobs. Every $1 billion in new exports supports 6,000 additional jobs
here at home. The free trade agreements now being considered by
Congress similarly offer the potential to open new markets for
agricultural, consumer and industrial exporters.
The South Korea Free Trade Agreement alone is estimated to support
70,000 additional jobs by opening up Korea's $560 billion market to
U.S. companies. South Korea is Illinois' 16th largest export market. We
exported $788 million in goods and services in 2010. Illinois Pork
Producers will gain improved access to a market that is constantly
growing. With this trade agreement, 66 percent of tariffs on
agricultural products will be eliminated immediately, allowing us to
better compete with imports from Europe. Chemical manufacturers
accounted for an average of $97 million per year of Illinois'
merchandise exports to Korea between 2008 and 2010. This deal will mean
that 50 percent of U.S. chemicals exports by value will receive duty-
free treatment, immediately creating opportunities for Illinois
exporters. And many of those exports were moved through the Port of
Chicago, which supports and strengthens our transportation
infrastructure.
Profile Products is a company based in Buffalo Grove, IL, with
offices and plants in five other States. This company makes products
that help establish turf and accessories to control erosion on sports
fields, golf courses, and landscaping. It has been exporting to South
Korea for over 15 years. The company faces tariffs up to 14 percent.
Passage of the South Korea FTA would eliminate tariffs on the company's
exports to South Korea, allowing the company to grow and to hire more
American employees.
The Panama Free Trade Agreement also provides opportunities for
several Illinois companies and industries. As Panama continues with the
$5.25 billion expansion of the Panama Canal, Illinois companies like
John Deere and Caterpillar will see almost all tariffs eliminated for
equipment and infrastructure machinery with this trade deal. Ninety-two
percent of large mining trucks shipped from Caterpillar's Decatur, IL,
location are exported. Eighty-two percent of Large Track Type Tractors
shipped from the East Peoria, IL, plant are exported. With the
elimination of tariffs on exports into Panama, Caterpillar's American
jobs are more secure.
Passing these two free trade agreements with growing free market
democracies is an important step in meeting the President's goal of
doubling exports in five years, creating more American jobs, and
staying engaged in the global community.
On the third proposed agreement--the one with Colombia--I have
wrestled with whether this is the time to support such a step. Colombia
is a strong American ally in an often turbulent region. It will remain
our strong friend and partner.
Last year, as chairman of the Senate Human Rights and the Law
Subcommittee, I held a hearing that examined the human rights situation
in Colombia.
Colombia has made progress on protecting human rights, activists and
indigenous populations and providing reparations and returning land to
those who have been displaced during the decade long civil war.
Colombia has worked with the U.S. to develop and implement the ``Action
Plan Related to Labor Rights'' in an attempt to address issues that
have allowed more than 2800 union members to be murdered since 1986.
But the action plan is not included in this trade agreement and,
given the history of violence and human rights abuses, I worry that its
omission leaves us without an enforcement capability to ensure it is
followed to completion.
While Colombia's steps to mitigate human rights abuses should be
noted, the trend remains troubling. In 2010, 51 unionists were murdered
and many cases have not been brought to justice. Too often perpetrators
of violence do so with impunity. So far this year, 22 unionists have
been killed in Colombia--10 since the action plan on labor rights was
agreed to. Too often workers who try to unionize are fired and
blacklisted. Some continue to receive death threats.
There are other examples, including the baseless prosecutions of
human rights defenders, and the ``false positives'' cases, where
innocent civilians were executed by the military and passed off as
rebel fighters killed in combat.
Simply put, these problems remain unacceptable. More needs to be
done. The Colombian government needs to utilize every available
resource to ensure that unionists, indigenous populations, and their
allies are protected. Colombia also needs to ensure that victims are
treated fairly, human rights violators are brought to justice, and that
laws are enforced.
I support trade with Colombia and hope such an agreement is in our
near future, but I cannot in good conscience ignore the fact that my
vote for this Colombia Free Trade Agreement would indicate my approval
that enough has been done to stem human rights abuses in Colombia. It
hasn't.
Mr. President, seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Iran Sanctions

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I know we will soon be voting on these
trade agreements, but I have an issue that I think has immediacy in
nature and needs to be brought up now. It is something I have been
pursuing for some time.
We have heard FBI evidence of an alleged plot by Iran and its elite
Quds Force to assassinate a foreign diplomat on U.S. soil--an
extraordinary act of international terrorism that demands, at a
minimum, immediate enactment of the most robust sanctions against Iran
possible. Were it not for the vigilance of the American intelligence
community, the FBI, and all our law enforcement and intelligence
agencies working together, this plot could have not only taken the life
of Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the United States but potentially
hundreds of innocent Americans here in Washington.
Think of the Machiavellianism of taking out the Saudi Ambassador at a
downtown Washington restaurant and what that would mean in terms of
lives lost and the inevitable response it would provoke from the Saudis
and from the United States.
In the coming weeks, we will hear the exact details of this
incredible plot

[[Page S6447]]

and the extent of the involvement of members of the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard. We know the Revolutionary Guard in Iran is at the
highest levels of the Iranian Government. That is why I specifically
targeted the Revolutionary Guard in the Iran sanctions legislation that
is now law. The new legislation I call on my colleagues to support and
which now has 76 bipartisan cosponsors will consolidate our original
sanctions law.
Iran's actions demand that we move this legislation in the Congress
as we simultaneously go to the United Nations, to the international
community, and bring to bear whatever pressure we can to convince the
Chinese and the Russians to agree to tighter sanctions against Iran.
The fact is--clearly--we must do all we can to end Iran's exportation
of terrorism, which has already taken lives around the globe from
Lebanon to Argentina, is responsible for attacks on coalition forces in
Iraq, our own soldiers in Iraq, and now threatens innocent Americans in
our Nation's Capital. I, for one, am not shocked at the revelations we
have heard in the last 24 hours. I have known what this regime is
capable of, what it intends, and what it will do to achieve its goals.
The time has come for this Congress to take the first step in
responding to this egregious plot to conduct an assassination in a
downtown Washington restaurant.
Since I took Federal office in 1993, then in the House of
Representatives, I have raised, for some time, this issue of Iran and
its ambitions. I have vociferously and passionately advocated my
concern on behalf of the Jewish people in the State of Israel to
protect them from the threat of a radical Iranian regime. Now that
threat has been directed here, toward American soil, where even
American citizens could have died in a plot that defies the imagination
in its brashness, boldness, and irrationality.
What specifically do we do? Our first act must be to immediately
respond with tougher sanctions that isolate Iran politically and
economically--sanctions that will freeze the assets of the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps members and allies and shut down the IRGC's
sources of revenue, expedite the imposition of sanctions, force
companies to decide whether they want to do business with the United
States or Iran, and ensure that the United States is an Iranian oil-
free zone by banning imports of refined petroleum made with Iranian
crude.
To that end, along with Senators Lieberman, Kyl, Gillibrand, Casey,
Kirk, and Collins, we have introduced in the Senate the Iran, North
Korea, and Syria Sanctions Consolidation Act of 2011. It is a bill
which recognizes that if Iran's principal goal is to acquire weapons of
mass destruction and apparently conduct brazen attacks on American soil
against international officials, then it must be the policy of the
United States to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring
the capability to threaten its neighbors and to threaten nations around
the world.
The time has come to take that first step and move this legislation.
This legislation closes the remaining loopholes in our sanctions
policy. In essence, it is perfecting the sanctions policy we helped
pass in the Senate. It insists on a comprehensive diplomatic initiative
within the United Nations to qualitatively expand the U.N. Security
Council sanctions regime against Iran so Iran cannot find a financial
safe harbor or a willing partner anywhere in the world. It imposes
immigration restrictions on senior officials from Iran, North Korea and
Syria and their associates who seek to enter our country, and it
complements those sanctions by reaching out to the Iranian people--
facilitating democracy assistance and developing a comprehensive
strategy to promote Internet freedom and access to information inside
Iran. These sanctions will help deter the threat Iran poses to U.S.
national security because of its suspected nuclear weapons program and
will have an impact on Iran's ability, through the Revolutionary Guard
and its intelligence arm, to carry out another plot such as the one we
have uncovered.
What have we learned in the last 24 hours? We have learned that the
Iranian regime is a growing threat not only to its neighbors, not only
to the region, but to the world, and potentially to our own homeland.
We have learned it is in the interest of the world to apply maximum
pressure to the Iranian regime. We have learned we must tighten the
screws on the Iranian regime to genuinely advance the cause of
stability and peace in the Middle East and, clearly, around the world.
These sanctions are an essential means to that end. We need the ban
on trade with Iran to be strong, significant and, as humanly possible,
airtight--a ban that does not have Americans subsidizing the very
regime that seeks to harm us by purchasing gasoline and diesel that are
made of Iranian crude.
Iran's actions have made it a rogue nation that must be dealt with in
the strongest terms. We cannot wait for another plot such as this to be
uncovered. We cannot take the chance that the next one will not be
uncovered. Passing the new sanctions I have proposed with, as I said,
76 of our colleagues here is a start, and we cannot, as a nation,
falter. The time to act is now.
I applaud the White House for its quick action this week in imposing
new sanctions against the people responsible for the planned attack on
the Saudi Ambassador and other targets in Washington. I appreciate the
administration's effort to implement and multilateralize sanctions on
Iran. This administration has done more to isolate Iran than any prior
administration, Republican or Democratic, including their quick
response this week designating individuals involved in the plot as well
as today's sanction of Iran's Mahan Air.
The news this week, however, has confirmed our worst fears that Iran
will not hesitate to advance its interests regardless of the political
cost. Iran, given its history of exporting terrorism against coalition
forces in Iraq, in places such as Argentina, in Lebanon--and its
continued drive to advance its nuclear weapons program, despite being
slowed by U.S. and international sanctions--clearly, with the alleged
plot uncovered this week, remains undeterred.
It is time to take the next steps--to isolate Iran politically and
financially. We must enact sanctions now, to exert the unyielding
pressure of the U.S. Government against the Iranian regime, and bring
to bear the condemnation of the international community so that the
regime fully understands the world will not tolerate such actions if
carried out.
These sanctions will prevent us from having to face that situation in
the future. They are in our national security interest. They are in the
interest of Iran's neighbors, in the interest of the region, and they
are in the interest of the security of every nation that wishes to be
secure in its borders, safe from the terrorist acts of a rogue state.
That is what is at stake. That is why I look forward to a hearing we
will be having tomorrow in the Banking Committee on the effect of the
sanctions legislation we already have. I believe that hearing will
deduce testimony that clearly shows that because of the sanctions
legislation we already passed in the Congress, signed by the President
that, in fact, we have made a significant dent in Iran's commercial
activities. But it has not ceased or desisted from its march to nuclear
weaponry. And, obviously, by this latest plot, it has not ceased or
desisted from its willingness, even on U.S. soil, to carry out such an
assassination. Therefore, the time to act is now.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Manchin are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the three free-trade
agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea that will be before
us shortly here in the Senate. Few States need these agreements more
than the State of Illinois.

[[Page S6448]]

This week, I released a report on the State of Illinois's debt. We
now have the worst credit rating in America. Our State has fallen to
47th for a healthy business climate, with only half of the State's
pension and health care promises actually funded.
Instead of continuing our State's debt spiral, these agreements will
help the bottom line of Illinois exporting employers who hopefully will
create thousands of new jobs without adding to the borrowing of our
State or any new taxes.
Since 1997, Illinois exports to Colombia have increased by 164
percent, and exports to Panama have increased by 196 percent.
Collectively, the three nations represented more than $1 billion worth
of Illinois export sales in 2010.
We will see the benefits of these agreements across a wide spectrum
of jobs--from high-tech companies to manufacturers to farmers.
Illinois-based Caterpillar, in Peoria, which in 2010 exported $13
billion worth of products to other countries, will see tariffs reduced
by hundreds of thousands of dollars on goods through these free-trade
agreements. The Panama Canal expansion project alone represents a $300
million opportunity for Caterpillar. The trade deals are particularly
important for Illinois-based Navistar, which has one of the best named
truck brands in Colombia and Panama.
Illinois agriculture also reaps a windfall from the pending free-
trade agreements. Trade deals are expected to create about $2.5 billion
in new agricultural exports and over 22,000 jobs nationwide. Expanding
export markets for Illinois farmers and the increased demand for
agricultural products and equipment manufactured in Illinois will allow
employers such as ADM in Decatur, John Deere in Moline, and, as I
mentioned, Caterpillar in Peoria to reinvest in their companies and to
hire more citizens of our State. Illinois farmers and ranchers are
expected to see about $90 million in increased direct exports as a
result of the Senate's approval of these trade deals.
These deals represent the direction the Senate should take overall on
job creation--no tax increase, no borrowing, but opening new markets
for American-made products.
I think next the Congress should build on this bipartisan job-
creating vote and move to reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses
and reform the Tax Code so U.S. businesses can better compete globally.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, over the past several weeks, the Senate has
focused closely on international trade. We have debated trade
adjustment assistance, a bill to penalize China's currency policies,
and our pending free-trade agreements. These have been robust debates.
It is an appropriate capstone that we will soon be approving our trade
agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.
The reality is, these agreements should have passed long ago.
Although completed over 4 years ago, they were first blocked in the
111th Congress by a Democratic majority in the House of
Representatives. They were then delayed by our own President, who
devised excuse after excuse for not acting to implement them.
This spring, after the excuses related to the agreements themselves
were addressed by our trading partners, the President made a new
demand. This time it was trade adjustment assistance spending. The
President made it clear that if this domestic spending program was not
expanded and approved, he would abandon our allies in Colombia, Panama,
and South Korea and cede these growing markets to our foreign
competitors.
It took Congress months to untie this substantive and procedural
Gordian knot that President Obama and his administration created.
Throughout this long period of delay, U.S. workers and exporters were
denied the benefits of these agreements. At the same time, these allies
began to doubt the commitment of the United States to our friendship,
as well as our ability to deliver on our promises.
I am concerned that going forward the President will put even more
new conditions on his support for trade and trade agreements. I
certainly hope not. As a nation, we cannot afford to hold our
international economic competitiveness hostage to unrelated demands for
more spending or to a liberal social agenda. If our economy is going to
grow and our workers prosper, then we need to do better.
Trade is good for the United States. Today, the United States is the
world's largest economy. Contrary to the views of many Americans, the
United States exports more in goods and services than any other
country. It is imperative that the United States continues to open
foreign markets. After all, 95 percent of the world's population lives
outside of the United States. Economists estimate that almost 83
percent of growth over the next 5 years will take place outside of the
United States. Simply put, most of our future customers are located in
foreign countries.
U.S. exporters face foreign barriers that limit our ability to sell
U.S. goods and services in foreign markets. Often, tariffs on our
exports tend to be much higher than our own tariffs. U.S. trade
agreements level the playing field. They reduce or eliminate tariffs
and other barriers to U.S. exports.
The math is pretty simple. Lower tariffs and fewer barriers mean more
exports, and more exports mean more jobs. But we cannot reduce these
tariffs or eliminate barriers without the right tools. In my mind,
renewing trade negotiating authority is the key to our future success.
I was, frankly, dismayed when our colleagues across the aisle, just a
few weeks ago, rejected an amendment to provide their own President
with the authority to negotiate new trade agreements. We call that
trade promotion authority. We all know the authority to negotiate trade
agreements expired years ago. Since then the United States has been
sitting on the sidelines while other nations negotiate agreements all
around the world.
There is no doubt about it, even with the approval of these three
free-trade agreements, the United States is already far behind. It is
my understanding that there are 209 free-trade agreements around the
world. The United States is a party to just 12 such agreements, with 17
countries. We should be expanding the number of our free-trade
agreements and the number of our free-trade partner countries.
Everyone knows if you are not in the game, you cannot win. Right now,
the United States is not in the game. While it is true the President is
in the process of negotiating an agreement to create a Trans-Pacific
Partnership, we all know the chances of it actually succeeding are
almost nonexistent without trade negotiating authority.
Let's keep in mind that trade negotiating authority has been the norm
rather than the exception for much of this past century. Congress first
authorized reciprocal negotiating authority in 1934 to help pull the
U.S. economy out of the Great Depression. That authority was renewed 11
times between 1934 and 1962. In 1974, the Congress first authorized the
President to negotiate tariff and nontariff barriers and bring them
back for congressional consideration on an expedited basis, without
amendments. Every President since 1974 has sought that authority from
Congress.
President Ford argued that the legislation ``enables the United
States to play a leading role in . . . multilateral negotiations.''
President Carter said the legislation ``solidifies America's position
in the international community.''
President Ronald Reagan extolled the virtues of TPA, noting that when
properly used, it ``manifestly serves our national economic
interests.''
President George H.W. Bush noted that extension of TPA was ``in the
vital national interest of the United States and absolutely fundamental
to our major foreign policy objectives.''
President Clinton argued strenuously for TPA, making the case that
``the legislation will give us the authority to increase access to
foreign markets . . . if we don't seize these opportunities, our
competitors surely will. An `America last' strategy is unacceptable.''

[[Page S6449]]

President George W. Bush successfully made the case that TPA was
critical to opening markets around the world. Once he achieved its
renewal, he made opening foreign markets a key priority of his
administration. To give credit where it is due, if it wasn't for
President Bush's leadership in seeking TPA and negotiating agreements
with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, we would not have any
agreements to consider today.
Unfortunately, President Obama, while touting the importance of
exports, has been virtually silent on the need for TPA. Instead of
leading on TPA, this President has consistently ducked the issue,
avoided the debate, and let America continue to fall further behind.

This America-last--or, as some put it, leading-from-behind--strategy
is unacceptable. We need a strong vision of leadership in the global
economy. We can start by approving these three free-trade agreements.
The fact is, tariffs on our exports to Colombia, Panama, and South
Korea are much too high. These agreements will eliminate these tariffs.
But the benefits of each agreement go far beyond tariff elimination.
The agreements also guarantee fair access for U.S. service providers,
reduce unfair barriers to our agricultural exports, provide high levels
of protection for our intellectual property rights, and ensure high
levels of investment protection. In short, each of these agreements
helps U.S. workers compete and win in these growing markets.
Make no mistake, if we don't take advantage of these new markets,
other countries will, and it is the U.S. worker who will lose. We
cannot afford to allow nations to race ahead while our workers stay
behind.
I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Baucus and me in supporting
each one of these trade agreements. Their approval can be the first
good step toward reigniting a vigorous international trade agenda that
puts America first and enables the United States to once again lead the
world in opening markets and expanding economic growth.
In that regard, I pay tribute to my colleague on the Finance
Committee, Senator Baucus. He has done a great job in working on this
issue. He has been a wonderful partner to me and a wonderful leader on
our committee. When it comes to trade, he certainly deserves a lot of
credit for helping to push this through. I am grateful to be able to
work with a quality person like him.
I also would like to acknowledge a few of the many people who made
these agreements happen. First, I would like to thank the talented
members of the Bush administration who were instrumental in negotiating
these agreements. Of course, first there is our colleague, Senator Rob
Portman, U.S. Trade Representative for President George W. Bush;
Ambassador Susan C. Schwab, U.S. Trade Representative; Warren Maruyama,
General Counsel; Ambassador John Veroneau, Deputy U.S. Trade
Representative; Rob Lehman and Tim Keeler, Chiefs of Staff to the U.S.
Trade Representative; Karan Bhatia, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative;
Justin McCarthy, Special Assistant to President Bush for Legislative
Affairs; and Andy Olson, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for
Legislative Affairs. I would also like to recognize the hard work and
commitment of USTR's professional staff, especially Wendy Cutler,
Bennett Harman, Michelle Carrillo, Maria Pagan, and Leigh Bacon--
without their efforts we would not have achieved conclusion of these
historic agreements.
Next, I would like to thank my staff--they have been relentless in
pressuring the administration to send these long-completed FTAs to
Congress so we can pass them in order to create American jobs and grow
the American economy. This is a huge success and I am happy to share it
with them. In particular, I would like to thank the Staff Director of
my Finance Committee staff, Chris Campbell; my Chief International
Trade Counsel, Everett Eissenstat, both for serving as a chief
negotiator for the Colombia and Panama agreements while at USTR and for
his efforts in implementing the agreements here on Capitol Hill;
International Trade Counsels Paul DeLaney, Greg Kalbaugh, David
Johanson, Maureen McLaughlin, and Ryika Hooshangi; Staff Assistant
Rebecca Nasca; and Legislative Counsel Polly Craighill. I would like to
also thank prior Finance Committee trade staff including former Chief
Counsel Stephen Schaefer, International Trade Counsel David Ross, and
Claudia Poteet. The multi-year effort to pass these FTAs succeeded
because of their hard work, expertise, and tenacious pursuit of the
public interest.
Senator Baucus had a good staff helping him as well. I would like to
thank them for their hard work and long nights that went into making
this happen. I would like to thank Russ Sullivan, majority Staff
Director of the Finance Committee; Chief Trade Counsel Amber Cottle;
International Trade Counsels Ayesha Khanna, Michael Smart, and Gabriel
Adler; and professional staff member Chelsea Thomas. Their work is to
be commended.
We can all be proud of these accomplishments and I look forward to
the President signing these agreements into law.
Mr. President, I am ready to vote. I yield the floor at this time.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining
time be yielded back, with the exception of 15 minutes, to be equally
divided between Senator Baucus and the Republican leader, with Senator
Baucus controlling the first 7\1/2\ minutes; that upon completion of
their remarks, the Senate proceed to votes on passage of H.R. 3080,
H.R. 3079, and H.R. 3078 as provided under the previous order; that
there be 2 minutes, equally divided, in the usual form between the
votes; and that all after the first vote be 10-minute votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, my remarks will be brief because we are at
a point, finally, where we are passing these three trade agreements.
The Colombia, Panama, and South Korea Free Trade Agreements will
increase U.S. exports by $13 billion, boost gross domestic product by
more than $15 billion, and support or create tens of thousands of
American jobs.
These agreements will provide an economic boost at a time when our
country sorely needs it. But the value of these agreements goes well
beyond dollars and cents. In recent years, critics of the United States
have argued we have surrendered our leadership role on international
trade. They claim our government, with its divided powers and narrow
and changing partisan majorities, is incapable of forming a consensus
for expanding trade, let alone a consensus on other political matters,
including reducing our national debt.
Today, we have the opportunity to prove our critics wrong. These
agreements were negotiated by a Republican President, improved by a
Democratic President, and will be supported by strong bipartisan
majorities in the House and in the Senate. They demonstrate the best of
American values--open markets, transparent regulation, and respect for
labor rights and the environment. They set the standard by which all
trade agreements will be judged, and they put to rest any doubt the
United States will engage its global partners to establish trade rules
that are both free and fair.
By approving these agreements, we will also bind ourselves even more
closely to three of our most important allies, and we will demonstrate
to countries around the world that the United States is a good and
dependable partner.
One decade ago, Colombia was on the brink of collapse. Armed conflict
raged, drug traffickers flourished, violence against workers flared,
and the economy stagnated. The United States pledged its support for
Plan Colombia. With that plan, we provided more than $7 billion to
Colombia to fight drug trafficking, spur development, and protect human
rights.

[[Page S6450]]

With our assistance, Colombia has achieved amazing progress. It is
healing from the wounds of conflict. It has demobilized 50,000 former
combatants, stemmed the flow of illegal drugs and the violence
associated with it, and it is reducing labor violence and strengthening
worker rights. If we approve our free-trade agreement with Colombia, we
will help Colombia solidify and build on these gains, and we will reap
for ourselves the benefits of our significant investments in this
important country.
Panama has been a friend and ally since its early days as a nation.
In the early 20th century, the United States built the Panama Canal,
which remains the world's greatest commercial hub. We helped the
Panamanian people restore democracy in 1989 after 20 years of military
rule.
Today, Panama is among the fastest growing countries in the Western
Hemisphere. It is both the crossroads of international trade and a
global financial center. It is also a close partner in the fight
against the illegal drug trade. With the Panama Free Trade Agreement,
we will further strengthen our relationship for decades to come.
South Korea is a strategic ally in a region clearly vital to U.S.
national interests. Despite living under the constant threat of a
dangerous and erratic neighbor, South Korea has become the 15th largest
economy in the world. Last year, it served as President of the G20
group of countries.
This trade agreement we have concluded with South Korea is our
largest bilateral agreement in nearly two decades. It will ensure our
commercial relationship is as strong as our 60-year security
partnership.
These free-trade agreements will deliver significant economic
benefits to the American people. Let us renew a bipartisan consensus on
trade, reaffirm U.S. leadership in the global economy, and cement our
ties with three important partners. Let us approve our free-trade
agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.
I might add, before I yield to the Republican leader, that the order
of the agreements is, first, on Panama, then South Korea, and then
Colombia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are on the verge of doing something
very important for our country tonight, and we are going to do it on a
bipartisan basis. I wish to congratulate the chairman of the Finance
Committee, Senator Baucus, for the role he played and for the
constructive efforts by Senator Portman and Senator Blunt to help us
get to this evening. But I wish to single out for special praise our
leader on this issue, Senator Hatch, the ranking member of our Finance
Committee, who has been a stalwart on behalf of free trade over the
years.
I think it is appropriate to take a moment before the vote to note
the importance of what we are doing. The first point to make about
these agreements is that they will help American businesses create new
jobs in the United States. The second point to make is there is strong
bipartisan support for all three of these agreements. In other words,
anyone who says that two parties can't agree on anything isn't telling
the whole story.
Consider this: On the very day Democrats and Republicans were
planning to come together to vote in favor of these trade agreements,
Democrats spent the entire morning talking about what a shame it is
that it never happens--that we never get together. Clearly, this vote
is getting in the way of their political message, and that message is
kind of absurd to watch.
Frankly, I think it would be a lot less confusing for anybody
watching at home--not to mention a lot better for job creation--if our
friends on the other side would agree to work with us more often on a
bipartisan basis, as we have done on the bills before us. Our friends
on the other side may think it helps them politically for Americans to
think we don't cooperate, but what I am seeing is that the vote we are
about to take shows that is simply not true.
We could get a lot more done up here if the President and our friends
who control the Senate would move away from the left fringe and stop
insisting on partisan bills that are designed to fail. If they agreed
to that, then this Democratically led Senate would be a lot more
productive.
Here is why these trade agreements are so important. First, they
lower the barriers to selling American-made goods to consumers in other
countries. On a variety of agricultural and manufactured goods, those
tariff barriers are completely and totally eliminated, and increasing
exports is crucial to growing the economy in States such as Kentucky,
where nearly one-fifth of manufacturing workers depend on exports for
their jobs.
It isn't just manufacturing that will benefit. America's service and
technological sectors--where we are global leaders--will gain greater
access to these foreign markets and strong assurances that the legal
environment will not change to disadvantage U.S. firms. So passing
these trade agreements will mean more U.S. exports and more U.S. jobs.
The total value of exports just from my own State of Kentucky
currently totals more than $19 billion. With these trade agreements,
that number will only grow, increasing demand for Kentucky-made goods
even more. What is more, the vast majority of Kentucky companies that
export goods overseas--80 percent of them--are small- and medium-sized
businesses.
So the question is, Do we want small businesses in Kentucky and other
States finding new customers for their goods in these growing economies
or do we want to cede those customers to other countries that are only
too happy to exploit the advantages they had before today?
These agreements are good news for American businesses looking to
expand the market for their goods, and they are good news for all the
American workers who benefit when those businesses are able to compete
on a level playing field with workers in other countries.
While we have waited to pass these agreements, America's competitors
overseas have increased their share of the markets in Panama, in
Colombia and in South Korea and operated without the barriers American
job creators have faced prior to tonight. Today, we are leveling the
playing field, and when the playing field is level, we know American
workers and American businesses and farmers will come out on top. They
just needed us to clear the way.
Personally, I have never voted against a free-trade agreement, and I
hope we will consider others in the near future.
Now that we have finally finished the business of the last
administration's trade efforts, President Obama needs to think about
what the trade agenda of his administration is going to be moving
forward. Will he let America fall behind our competitors or will he
embrace a proactive free-trade agenda that he knows will help create
jobs here at home and project American influence around the world? For
our part, Senate Republicans are ready to work with him on an even more
robust trade agenda, one which involves reauthorizing a stronger TPA
and which helps him help the economy in a bipartisan way, just as we
are doing tonight.
This is a very important vote. It shows that the two parties can, in
fact, work together to help American businesses create jobs, and I hope
it leads to a lot more of the same.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. H.R. 3080, H.R. 3079, H.R. 3078, having been
received from the House, are each considered to have been read three
times.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on the passage of H.R. 3080.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders),
is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) would vote ``no.''
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 15, as follows:

[[Page S6451]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 161 Leg.]

YEAS--83

Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Burr
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--15

Blumenthal
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Casey
Hagan
Harkin
Leahy
Manchin
Merkley
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Snowe
Tester
Whitehouse

NOT VOTING--2

Coburn
Sanders
The bill (H.R. 3080) was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on passage of H.R.
3079.
The Senate will be in order.
Who yields time? The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes of debate equally divided.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, we are now voting on the Panama TPA to provide
lucrative new opportunities for American farmers. It will level the
playing field for American exporters and do a lot of stuff.
Let me say this. Basically, we accept virtually all Panama's products
duty free--virtually. Panama has significant duties on products going
into Panama. This is a free-trade agreement. It is a freebie. I urge
Members to vote for it so now we can export more products to Panama.
Vote for this agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I rise to speak against this agreement. This, my
friends, is the Panama trade agreement. There are 1,600 pages. If we
want to get rid of tariffs and level the playing field, we would pass
about three pages of tariff schedules and build in labor rights so that
all of us would pass this by a voice vote.
This is 1,600 pages of rules to help insurance companies, to help
drug companies, to undercut America's sovereignty. It is based on the
same NAFTA trade model that doesn't work with investor-state relations.
The same promises we hear in every trade agreement--the Clinton
administration and the first Bush administration promised 200,000-plus
jobs for NAFTA. We lost 600,000 jobs.
Vote no on Panama. It is more of the same. It doesn't work for
America and small businesses, and it doesn't work for our workers.
I ask for a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Ohio showing
us the big, long stack. Those are all the tariffs Panama is going to
get rid of and reduce so we can sell more products to Panama. I
appreciate the Senator pointing that out to us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 22, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]

YEAS--77

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Bennet
Bingaman
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--22

Akaka
Begich
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Casey
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Manchin
Merkley
Mikulski
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Whitehouse

NOT VOTING--1

Coburn

The bill (H.R. 3079) was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on passage of H.R.
3078.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are now on the Colombia Free Trade
Agreement. I am not going to take a lot of time. I think most Senators
know how they are going to vote.
Let me say I have visited Colombia. I am extremely impressed with the
progress Colombia has made. Colombia was a failed state, a failed
country about 10 years ago. With America's Plan Colombia and the
assistance we have given, the narcotraffic is dramatically down, the
labor killings are dramatically down. Clearly, we don't want one labor
member killed or anyone killed in Colombia. But the fact is there is
tremendous progress in Colombia. Colombia is so important to America's
geopolitical future and to South America. If we cut and run, Colombia
is going to run away from the United States. We will not be trusted.
They will go to other countries, including Venezuela, China, and so
forth.
I urge my colleagues who are on the fence--who are on the fence--to
vote for this because that is a vote for the future. The glass is half
full.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time? The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, this is the same story. This is
Panama's agreement, but Colombia's is even longer--hundreds and
hundreds of pages of rules.
I admire the Colombian people. They are our allies, but the Colombian
Government not so much. Colombia remains the most dangerous place in
the world to be a trade unionist. There were 23 trade unionists killed
in 2011, and 51 were killed in 2010. What is happening to them is
working. Over the past 20 years, unionization rates in Colombia have
been cut in half.
When you threaten trade unionists, when you actually murder them, of
course, unionization rates are going to go down. The Labor Action Plan
commits the Colombian Government to get better, but what we are doing
by a ``yes'' vote is rewarding promises, as we always do in trade
agreements. But we are doing nothing to establish and enforce concrete
results.
If you care about human rights, if you care about workers having the
ability to freely organize and collectively bargain, you will vote no
on the Colombian trade agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the
bill pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?

[[Page S6452]]

The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 33, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 163 Leg.]

YEAS--66

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Bennet
Bingaman
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kirk
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--33

Akaka
Begich
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Casey
Collins
Coons
Durbin
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Whitehouse

NOT VOTING--1

Coburn

The bill (H.R. 3078) was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think this is a great day. It shows
America is moving forward, is forward-leaning, forward-looking. I thank
the countries with whom we have reached these agreements. They, too,
have shown courage. I hope this is a good model we can pursue in the
future.
In that vein, I would like to thank some people who worked extremely
hard on this agreement. They are members of my staff, beginning with my
chief trade person, Amber Cottle; Mike Smart, Hun Quach, Chelsea
Thomas, Gabriel Adler, Rory Murphy, Danielle Fidler, Sarah Babcock, and
Jane Beard.
I also very much thank the staff who works for my good friend and
colleague, Senator Hatch, beginning especially with Everett Eissenstat.
We have been a real team, and I believe very strongly that not much is
accomplished in this body if you try to go it alone, if you try to do
it by yourself. Rather, much is accomplished with teamwork and working
together, and I thank very much my team, and very much I thank the team
from Senator Hatch. It is nice to see Everett over there nodding his
head. He knows teamwork really works.
Mr. President, I thank you, also, very much.

____________________