[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15255-15264]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   UNITED STATES-PANAMA TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 3079) to implement the United States-
Panama Trade Promotion Agreement will now resume.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. One hour of debate remains on the bill. The 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) each will control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of the pending trade agreements, all three trade agreements, 
with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama.
  In my home State of Washington, where one in three jobs is dependent 
on international trade, we understand the importance of expanding 
foreign markets for economic success. There is no question, Mr. 
Speaker, that these agreements will increase jobs. Let me give you an 
example on a parochial basis in my district. Today, potato growers and 
processors face an 18-percent tariff when sending their product to 
South Korea. This agreement will end the tariff immediately, allowing 
our growers to fairly compete in this very important market.
  It is critical to my constituents that we act now on all three of 
these trade agreements. Let me be parochial again, Mr. Speaker. Apple 
sales in Colombia dropped 48 percent last year because Chile had duty-
free access to the Colombian market while my growers in my State did 
not--in fact, they had a 15-percent tariff. The passage of this 
agreement is expected to increase apple sales by 250,000 boxes a year, 
allowing us to regain a market share or at least to compete on a level 
playing field.
  As our economy is struggling to recover, I encourage all of my 
colleagues to act now to support all three of these trade agreements 
because all three of these trade agreements will expand an opportunity 
for our economy to grow, and especially, Mr. Speaker, the diverse 
agriculture economy I have in central Washington.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett), a member of our committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. While this agreement, based upon the flawed framework of 
the Bush-Cheney administration, offers no model for the future with 
regard to workers or environmental protection, I am supporting today's 
measure because of a successful response to a longstanding concern that 
I have had, that is, Panama's status as a notorious tax haven, a place 
where taxpayers who refuse to pay their fair share of the cost of our 
national security and vital public services could go to hide their 
assets and dodge taxes.
  About 2 years ago, Senator Carl Levin and I urged the administration 
to postpone the approval of this trade agreement until Panama first 
signed a Tax Information Exchange Agreement, where we could get 
information about assets hidden there and for Panama to change its laws 
regarding bank secrecy and other matters to assure that this agreement 
was meaningful. Panama has now met these conditions.
  For the first time ever, we can obtain information from the 
Panamanian Government on U.S. taxpayers who have Panamanian assets or 
income. Though the Treasury Department should have secured a stronger 
automatic information exchange similar to the one we have with Canada 
and 24 other countries--and I would much prefer also to see an actual 
record of Panamanian compliance--we need to accept this as a victory in 
the fight against offshore tax cheats. This would not have been 
possible had it not been for the strong Panamanian desire to get the 
trade agreement approved.
  By also agreeing to 12 other exchange agreements on tax information, 
Panama was recently removed from the OECD gray list of tax havens. Now 
we must ensure that Panama's newfound openness and transparency does 
not end with approval of today's agreements.
  I support this trade agreement, knowing that while it could have been 
much better, the dangers have been mitigated with an agreement that has 
a very modest scope.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The rights of workers, which have increasingly come under attack in 
this country, are also at risk under these NAFTA-style trade 
agreements.
  In Panama a 2010 State Department Human Rights Report notes that 
``the government lacked sufficient mechanisms to ensure that laws 
prohibiting employer interference in unions and protecting workers from 
employer reprisals were adequately enforced.''
  So the government lacked sufficient mechanisms to make sure that they 
were adequately enforced. We shouldn't be entering into a trade 
agreement with a country that has yet to demonstrate its ability to 
uphold international standards for labor rights and financial 
regulation.
  Panama's track record on fulfilling its promises is clear: Just as it 
failed to adequately address its status as a tax haven wonderland, it 
has failed in its promise to adequately protect its workers.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

[[Page 15256]]


  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank both Chairman Camp and Chairman Brady 
for their leadership on the pending trade agreements with Colombia, 
Panama, and South Korea. All three countries have seen incredible 
transformation take place over the last generation, especially Panama 
and Colombia.

                              {time}  1410

  In the last 25 years, they have revolutionized their economies. 
They've revolutionized socially, and their democracies are robust.
  I rise in support of the pending trade agreement with Panama and 
encourage my colleagues to support passage of this important agreement. 
It's critical, not just to our economy but also for our national 
security. Passage of this agreement will mark renewed U.S. engagement 
with the region, while countering anti-Americanism and China's 
increasing economic prominence in South America.
  Additionally, the U.S. is the largest user of the Panama Canal and 
works closely with the Panamanian government to ensure the safety of 
the canal itself and to enhance regional, maritime, and port security. 
For this critical asset alone and maintaining that relationship, it 
would be essential to passing this agreement.
  I'd like to comment on one other aspect of security that's been 
enhanced in all three trade agreements, and that's the security of 
intellectual property rights. These agreements, all three of them, 
Korea, Panama, and Colombia, make significant improvements to IPR 
protections for U.S. companies. In all categories of intellectual 
property rights, U.S. companies will be treated no less favorably than 
companies in the partner countries. That's a great step forward.
  The agreements establish tough penalties for piracy and 
counterfeiting. They include state-of-the-art protection for U.S. 
trademarks. The agreements include enhanced protection for copyrighted 
work and, ultimately, the agreements include stronger protections for 
patent and trade secrets.
  As we look at the changing demographics of the world and the face of 
relationships, it is important that we turn our eyes to the south and 
to the east, strengthening our ties with Latin America and with South 
America, strengthening our ties with Asian democracies and republics 
through the Korean Free Trade Agreement. What we're doing with Panama, 
Colombia, and Korea is critical to our future, to our children's 
future.
  I strongly urge passage of the Panama Free Trade Agreement. It's a 
great step forward. It's a great step in our alliance.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 5 minutes to a member of our committee, the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for the nice words of 
introduction.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement is an example of 
how to do a trade agreement right. This agreement will improve the U.S. 
trade surplus, emphasis on the word surplus, with Panama, and help with 
U.S. job creation and economic growth. And thanks to the FTA, Panama 
has brought its labor laws up to international standards and addressed 
Panama's status as a tax haven.
  Let's start with economics. In Massachusetts, which exported a total 
of over $8 billion worth of merchandise in 2010, the total number of 
jobs created in my district supported by exports is over 26,000.
  New exports help to support new jobs, and that's why I support the 
Panamanian free trade agreement. Panama is one of the fastest growing 
economies in Latin America. This FTA will eliminate tariffs and other 
barriers to U.S. exports, promote economic growth, and expand trade 
between our two countries.
  For example, most goods from Panama currently enter the U.S. duty-
free, whereas U.S. exporters face import duties in Panama ranging from 
5 to over 35 percent. This FTA will level the playing field by 
eliminating Panama's import duties on U.S. goods. As a result, U.S. 
passenger vehicle exports are expected to increase by 43 percent, and 
machinery exports are expected to increase by 14 percent.
  Furthermore, Panama is currently free to discriminate against U.S. 
suppliers in government procurement, including the ongoing $5.25 
billion Panama Canal expansion project. The FTA will require Panama to 
treat U.S. suppliers the same as Panamanian suppliers. There is going 
to be an explosion of opportunity with the opening of the Panama Canal 
after its expansion.
  Now let's go to labor rights. Over the course of several years, House 
Democrats, myself included, have identified a variety of deficiencies 
in Panama's labor laws, and we insisted that the Panamanian FTA not be 
considered until those issues were addressed. In April of this year, 
Panama's President signed into law the last remaining changes needed to 
bring Panamanian laws into compliance with labor obligations of this 
agreement.
  Furthermore, when we took the majority in 2007, House Democrats 
insisted that the FTA be negotiated or renegotiated to include the May 
10 agreement. Among other things, the FTA was renegotiated to require 
Panama to comply with international labor standards and key 
international environmental agreements. Labor rights, environmental 
concerns, human rights. We insisted that those be undertaken, and we 
were told at one time that the agreement offered had to be all or 
nothing. House Democrats changed that with our insistence on those 
basic issues.
  Now let me highlight how Panama has addressed its tax haven issue. 
And I would submit to you today there is no Member of this House that 
has a stronger credential on cracking down on tax havens than I do. I 
have stayed at it through the course of a career, and we've had some 
success, with more guaranteed to come.
  In 2000 the OECD listed Panama as a tax haven, but since that time, 
Panama has worked to adopt international standards of transparency and 
effective exchange of information. In 2010, the U.S. and Panama entered 
into a tax information exchange agreement, and this past July the OECD 
placed Panama on its white list of countries who have substantially 
implemented international standards for exchange information. These are 
substantial advancements.
  This would not have been possible without Democrats in this House who 
insisted that the FTA not be submitted to Congress until the tax haven 
issue was addressed. This FTA is a better agreement because House 
Democrats insisted on those basic human rights issues.
  There is no question but labor agreements, human rights agreements, 
and environmental agreements have been included because of work that 
the minority in the House has done. And at the same time, we understand 
that these trade agreements are not necessarily panaceas. But by and 
large, the ones that I know that I've supported over a career, and some 
I've opposed, have had a net impact on economic growth.
  These are very difficult issues for Members of this body to 
undertake. But we argue that the genius of opportunity is what Steve 
Jobs promoted through much of his life, with many setbacks along the 
way. But understand that many of the products that Steve Jobs and his 
genius succeeded in implementing ensure that people across the globe 
use those products today, and I think this an example of those 
opportunities.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say, this agreement will create new market access for 
U.S. exporters of consumer and industrial products. Over 87 percent of 
our exports to Panama will become duty-free immediately, with the 
remaining tariffs to be phased out that are left over a 10-year period. 
This will cut by more than half the average 8 percent tariff that our 
exporters face.
  This will provide U.S. firms with an advantage over major competitors 
from Europe and Asia. And because Panama recently signed an agreement 
with the EU, our advantage is dependent on having our agreement enter 
into

[[Page 15257]]

force immediately. So it's not just about what the U.S. and Panama are 
doing in a vacuum; it's about what the rest of the world is doing as 
well.
  As I said, there are key export sectors that get immediate duty-free 
treatment: aircraft, construction equipment, fertilizers, medical and 
scientific equipment. This levels the playing field for our exporters 
versus importers from Panama, and this agreement will create new 
opportunities for our farmers and ranchers.
  More than half of the current U.S. farm exports to Panama will become 
duty-free immediately. It gives our U.S. farmers an advantage over our 
EU and Canadian competitors. Our exports in agriculture to Panama now 
face a 15 percent average tariff. Our exports of pork, rice, soybeans 
and wheat, and most fresh fruit will receive immediate duty-free 
treatment, while our competitors in Asia and Europe will continue to 
face tariffs on those commodities as high as 90 percent. And that's why 
you've seen great support, both bipartisan, for this agreement. The 
American Farm Bureau estimates that the increase in farm exports to 
Panama alone could increase our agricultural exports by $46 million a 
year.
  Obviously, this agreement also provides our access to Panamanian 
services markets. It will give our U.S. service firms market access, 
national treatment, regulatory transparency, and that is going to be 
very helpful as we continue to try to grow our economy and create jobs 
here in the United States.

                              {time}  1420

  I would agree with my friend from Massachusetts, Panama has improved 
their tax transparency; and because of the cooperation, adoption of the 
Tax Information Exchange Agreement, as well as other numerous double 
taxation treaties that I won't repeat that he referenced, they have 
been removed by the OECD from the so-called ``gray list'' to join 
countries such as the United States that meet internationally-agreed-to 
tax standards.
  So by almost any measure, this agreement is positive, and it is 
something that we should strongly support.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Public Citizen is an organization that dedicates itself to an 
impartial economic analysis of trade agreements. They looked at the 
Panama trade agreement, and here's what they came up with. They said 
that it includes extreme foreign investor privileges and offshoring 
protections and their private enforcement in international tribunals. 
It includes limits on financial and other service sector regulation, a 
ban on Buy America procurement preferences, limits on environmental 
safeguards and imported food and product safety and limits on drug 
patent rules that limit generics.
  The AFL-CIO is one of the most important workers' organizations in 
the history of this country. They've analyzed the Panama free trade 
agreement, and here's what they have said. They've said it's the wrong 
trade model at the wrong time. Instead of helping workers here or in 
Panama, it rewards a country that has a history of repressing labor 
rights and has achieved much of its economic growth by making it easy 
for money launderers and tax dodgers to hide their income from 
legitimate authorities.
  Moreover, this agreement, which was negotiated by the previous 
administration, contains too many flawed trade policies of the past, 
rather than laying out a new and progressive vision for the future. 
President Obama should not waste valuable time and effort advancing 
this inadequate agreement, but should instead focus on effective job 
creation measures, including currency reform, infrastructure 
investment, and robust training and education, and reforming our trade 
model so that it strengthens labor rights protections for all workers, 
safeguards domestic laws and regulations, and promotes the export of 
goods, not jobs.
  The AFL-CIO noted that due to the small size of Panama's economy, the 
economic impact of the Panama free trade agreement is likely to be 
small. Panama's gross domestic product is tiny in comparison to that of 
the United States, and Panama accounted for less than \1/2\ of 1 
percent of total U.S. exports in 2010. Thus, any demand for U.S. goods 
and services is likely to be minuscule. This is simply not an agreement 
that will substantially increase net exports or create American jobs.
  While the Panama FTA contains--and we have to say it contains--
improved labor and environmental provisions, these provisions need to 
be further strengthened, and our government needs to invest more 
resources and energy in more consistent enforcement across the board; 
and President Obama should work to further improve the labor, 
environment, investment, financial services and government procurement 
provisions contained in the Panama free trade agreement to build a new 
trade model for the future.
  The AFL-CIO also pointed out another thing, Mr. Speaker. They said 
that Panama is not a part of any meaningful U.S. jobs plan. Even the 
Obama administration is not selling the Panama free trade agreement as 
a job-creating measure. Panama's economy is so small that the U.S. 
International Trade Commission was unable to quantify any job-creation 
effects of the Panama free trade agreement.
  While economists routinely predict that trade agreements between the 
U.S. and developing countries will create jobs and improve our trade 
imbalances, the fact is that these rosy predictions repeatedly fail to 
pan out. The current U.S. approach to trade agreements has tended to 
destroy jobs, not create them.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the three free trade 
agreements that we are considering today. Free trade is good for 
America. These agreements will increase our products flowing to other 
countries that currently get to send their products for free here. We 
live in a world where products flow freely around the world. It's time 
for us to get American jobs to produce some of those goods moving 
abroad.
  I would note that the President has asked us to pass pieces of his 
legislation, his jobs-creating legislation. I would compliment the 
chairman that we've waited 2\1/2\ years to get this particular proposal 
from the administration, and in less than 9 days, now we have it on the 
floor of the House. We're serious about doing the things to fix the 
economy. While the President lectures us, he fails to follow through on 
regulatory relief and tax relief. He fails to follow through on those 
things which would actually create jobs.
  So we in the House appreciate the opportunity to vote on these 
particular bills today, because it is our way of saying that we will 
agree with the President when he's right, and we'll steadfastly 
disagree with him when he's wrong. We've got many areas that we can 
move forward together on, and I would recommend that the President come 
and sit down with us, come back to this floor of the House and sit and 
discuss with us the way to move forward instead of pushing a plan that 
says ``my way or the highway.''
  We have generally a great threat from American Government on American 
jobs. The overregulation is killing jobs in the electrical utility 
field, it's killing jobs in oil and gas, and it's killing jobs in 
manufacturing. We can protect workers, we can protect the environment, 
and we can protect species and create jobs simultaneously. It is up to 
us, the policymakers, to find those balance points and to move forward 
with commonsense legislation that will effect these.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of our 
committee, Mr. Kind of Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Panama trade 
agreement, as well as the Colombia and South Korea agreements before us 
today. And in the matter of Panama, to Panama's credit and to Panama's 
Parliament's credit, they realize that in order for this trade 
agreement to be fully considered by the Congress, they

[[Page 15258]]

had to make improvements in regards to the tax havens of their country. 
And as the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee pointed out, they 
did that. They took that additional step removing them from the ``Gray 
List'' of tax havens internationally.
  But that brings me to the larger point. When President Obama took 
office, I believe he inherited three pretty good trade agreements at 
his desk negotiated by the previous administration; but he knew that 
they could be improved upon, which they immediately set out to do. And 
to the credit of many members of the Ways and Means Committee, 
especially the chairman and the ranking member both from Michigan, and 
the tireless efforts they put into improving these trade agreements, we 
finally reached the point where we could get back in the game.
  At just 4 percent of the world's population, we have to be engaged 
with a proactive trade agenda; but the last time we had a trade 
agreement before this Congress has been roughly 6 years ago while other 
nations have been moving on with bilateral and multilateral agreements. 
That's too long when we have a floundering economy. Not that these 
trade agreements are going to be the panacea to rapid and significant 
job growth, but they will be helpful. In fact, countries like Panama 
and Colombia have virtually duty-free access to our country's markets 
already.
  So the question is whether or not we want to try to level the playing 
field for our workers, for our businesses, and for the jobs being 
created here in the United States. And in the specific case of Panama, 
tariff reductions will be significant that will lead to further job 
growth in both the manufacturing, the service and the agricultural 
sectors alone.
  But I commend the Obama administration and the team at the USTR led 
by Ambassador Kirk with the work they did in improving this Panama 
trade agreement, along with Colombia and South Korea, putting them in a 
position where there can be bipartisan support, and more importantly, 
to get us back into the arena of active trade which will help create 
jobs here at home.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from 
Maine, a champion of workers' rights, Ms. Pingree.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my colleague and friend from Ohio for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the proposed trade 
agreement. The Panama free trade agreement is structured exactly like 
NAFTA, a trade policy that resulted in the loss of millions of 
manufacturing jobs all over America. In Maine alone, we have lost 
31,000 manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was ratified in 1994. In addition 
to manufacturing jobs, it has hurt our agricultural and fishing 
sectors, and has had a huge impact on the economy of our State.
  I have a perfect example. Steve White of Brewer, Maine, comes to 
mind. He worked in a factory for 22 years, making components that were 
used by GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Now those parts are being made in 
Mexico. Steve wrote this in the Bangor Daily News:
  ``We were given the opportunity, if we wished, to travel to Mexico 
and further train our replacements. My coworkers who went said that the 
conditions for the Mexican workers were very poor and far below the 
American standard. The pay rate was very low, and they would work long 
hours every day of the week.''
  Here we are today, voting on three more trade agreements that could 
have the same devastating consequences for American jobs. Why would we 
do this at a time when we desperately need these jobs right here in the 
United States?
  This week, in addition to the three free trade agreements, we will 
also vote on the extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance, a program 
that was created for those adversely affected by trade agreements. For 
several years and for probably many more, we have and will spend 
millions of dollars retraining people who have been put out of work by 
misguided trade agreements.
  And for what? So that big companies can get a better deal on cheap 
labor and loose environmental standards in other countries?
  What our workers want today, what the people in my State, the State 
of Maine, want are jobs, not readjustment assistance, not retraining, 
not some idea of another job to come in the future. They want a job 
today. They don't want these trade agreements, and they don't want to 
lose any more jobs in our State.
  Mr. Speaker, America has a long history of supporting our hardworking 
families, but this policy does not invest in our workforce. It is not 
what is right for America's future, and I cannot support it.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chair of the Trade 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I thank the chairman for yielding time.
  I first want to thank Chairman Camp and Speaker Boehner for insisting 
that the White House submit the Panama trade agreement along with those 
of Colombia and Korea to ensure that we open all three markets equally 
to American farmers, manufacturers, service, and technology companies. 
But for your work, we would not be here today.
  This agreement is long overdue. As families know, the world has 
changed. It's not simply enough to buy American; we have to sell 
American all throughout the world. Panama is a dynamic new market for 
America with almost 9 percent a year in economic growth--far stronger 
than our own. Panama is important to our manufacturers in America, it's 
important to our farmers, it's especially important to our service 
companies because so much of Panama's economy matches up beautifully 
with America's economy. With the expansion of the Panama Canal, you're 
going to see increased cargo at our ports, increased jobs along our 
coasts, and lower prices in products in America as well.
  Critics will say, Panama is too small an economy. Why do we bother?
  In this dismal economy in America, every sale, every job counts. From 
Europe to Canada, to Thailand, to Singapore, and many more, our 
competitors negotiate sales agreements with Panama because they know 
those customers matter.
  Critics say, Panama is a tax haven. Why are we doing this agreement? 
But those simply aren't the facts. They also often say that labor 
rights aren't what they ought to be.
  Panama has passed more than a dozen labor laws that dramatically 
commit to raising the standard of labor protections in that country. 
They have passed tax information agreements with America and with other 
countries around the world, so much so that they are now considered in 
standing on tax transparency equal to the United States.
  This is a valued ally in a strong and growing part of the world that, 
frankly, has waited far too long. It is embarrassing that it has taken 
4 years to bring this agreement to the floor. But today it is here. 
Today, we will signal we are going to open those markets, that we are 
going to strengthen our ties, and that we are going to pass this sales 
agreement with Panama.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Michaud) be permitted to manage the remainder of the 
time.
  The SPEAKER. Without objection, the gentleman from Maine will control 
the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to another 
distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, Panama will be the only trade deal that I 
will vote for because they import very little to the United States in 
the first place. More importantly, this allows for, as I see it, new 
opportunities for the U.S. gulf and east coast ports. Over 60 percent 
of the goods shipped through

[[Page 15259]]

the canal sail to or from the United States. I think they've corrected 
what needed to be corrected. There is no indication of a loss of 
American jobs, and I think that's what we should be all about.
  As for Colombia, I don't know how anyone could stand in front of the 
American people and say that Colombia is making progress in terms of 
stopping the concerted, conspiratorial effort, proven time and time 
again, of the murder of trade unionists in that country. In fact, there 
have been no convictions in 94 percent of the cases from 1986 to 2010--
6 percent of convictions. I don't know how anybody could stand on this 
floor, Mr. Speaker, and compare the system of justice there to the 
system of justice of the United States. Some have suggested, well, we 
have murders here in this country, too. Of course there are. This is an 
absolute disgrace. We've lost our soul on this deal, no question about 
it.
  Also, a number of multinational companies didn't want the China 
currency fixed because it doesn't help their big businesses and their 
purposes. So let's come to the crux of the issue:
  If we'd have put together all the promises that were made to the 
American workers for the past 25, 30 years on trade deals, we would be 
very, very disappointed. This deal has come a long way, perhaps, since 
the last administration, but neither party is privy to perfection here. 
This is not a one-party rap.
  I've read every one of these deals as much as I could, and there are 
good aspects of the deal, but let's take, for instance, that the United 
States International Trade Commission does not believe this bill will 
create jobs. Let me repeat that over and over again.
  The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. In fact, the updated report they provided to Congress 
contains a very specific disclaimer that is not an official estimate.
  When are we going to stop the hemorrhaging of American jobs? It is 
part of what we've gone through, both parties, but more importantly, 
the entire Nation, over the last 4 or 5 years.
  Every trade deal does not mean that there are jobs created in this 
country. In fact, 90 percent of the trade deals have led to a lessening 
of jobs in the United States of America. So you can't have high hopes, 
and you don't have the evidence to show it. Let's bring jobs here to 
this country.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee and a champion of new markets, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support for this free 
trade agreement with Panama.
  Trade agreements open market access to our farmers and ranchers, 
which brings in valuable income and creates jobs. In my home State of 
Oklahoma, agricultural exports support more than 10,000 jobs. Across 
the country, agriculture exports support more than 1 million jobs 
total. Those jobs aren't confined to the farm either. They stretch 
across a variety of industries, including processing, manufacturing, 
and transportation.
  In fact, for every dollar of farm products that we export, we add 
another $1.31 to our economy from those nonfarm industries. That's why 
it's so important to continue opening markets for American agricultural 
products.
  More than 60 percent of our agricultural exports to Panama face some 
sort of duty or tariff. Those tariffs average 15 percent; but they can 
be as high as 70 percent on meat, 90 percent on grain, and a staggering 
260 percent on poultry. Meanwhile, more than 99 percent of Panama's 
farm exports enter the U.S. duty free.
  So this agreement will not only create new opportunities for 
America's farmers and ranchers but it levels the playing field for our 
exporters. As soon as this agreement is implemented, more than half of 
our farm exports will become duty free. So we can expect to see 
immediate opportunities once this agreement is in force.
  America's farmers, ranchers, processors, manufacturers and shippers 
can all benefit from those opportunities. Let's help them expand their 
businesses and create more jobs. Let's pass this agreement.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman from Maine for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today voicing the concerns of 
America's workers and rise in opposition to the Panama free trade 
agreement, as well as the South Korean and Colombian.
  Like many others, in terms of Panama, I have expressed concerns about 
Panama's long history of being a tax haven. Supporters of this NAFTA-
style trade deal claim that the Tax Information and Exchange Agreement, 
or TIEA, that Panama ratified in April of this year wiped away decades 
of secrecy as a tax haven there. We've been told that Panama's recent 
removal from the OECD's gray list indicates that it's a fresh start.
  Well, I ask, when have the promises made in other NAFTA-style trade 
deals that have brought us these trade deficits since NAFTA was first 
signed, when have they ever made good on their agreements?
  Public Citizen notes that the 2001 Panama tax agreement, called TIEA, 
includes a major exception, a major exception that allows Panama to 
reject specific requests if it's contrary to the public policy of 
Panama. Now, that's an interesting concept for a country that derives a 
significant national income from activities related to being a tax 
haven.
  Time has proven those who oppose these NAFTA-type trade accords 
correct. They have all been job losers.
  Otherwise, America would have a trade balance, but we have a half a 
trillion dollar trade deficit. Sure we might sell a few more pork chops 
and a few more soybeans. But, you know what, overall America loses 
almost all of its GDP growth simply because the growing trade deficit 
just squashes down the opportunity for job creation in our country. 
We've seen millions and millions of jobs outsourced.
  Let me say a word about the U.S.-Korea trade agreement. It's modeled 
after NAFTA too; and, again, it's one of these copy-cat agreements. In 
the last decade alone, these agreements have cost Americans over 6 
million jobs, 55,000 plants have been lost, so many outsourced. I mean, 
what world do you live in if you don't even understand what's happening 
with job outsourcing to our country between our borders from Atlantic 
to Pacific.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. MICHAUD. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman.
  I'm from northern Ohio. Just to clarify what this means for one of 
America's lodestar industries, here's a little graph that shows how 
many Korean cars are coming into the United States today, over half a 
million.
  This little dot here represents what the U.S. is selling into the 
Korean market right now: 7,450 of our cars in that market versus over 
half a million of their cars sold here. This agreement basically says 
maybe America could sell 75,000 cars--but there's no guarantee, no 
guarantee--and if you go to Korea today, you see less than 5 percent of 
the cars on their streets are from anywhere else in the world. So, you 
think they're going to be reciprocal?
  Theirs is a closed market. When is America going to stand up in its 
trade policies to state-managed capitalism in these other countries and 
give our workers and our companies an even break? All this deal says is 
we might sell--it doesn't say must sell--it says we might sell up to 
75,000 cars in that economy, but they're already eating our lunch.
  The Economic Policy Institute estimates this agreement will cost us 
another 159,000 net jobs. And you know, Mr. Speaker, I sure hope they 
don't come out of Ohio again. I hope they come out of the districts of 
every single person here who's going to vote for this agreement and 
cause more job hemorrhaging to this economy.

[[Page 15260]]


  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me 
some time.
  Madam Speaker, I find that sometimes when we talk about issues around 
here, we hear the same thing we've heard for years and years and years, 
and sometimes that's a good thing.
  But sometimes it's also important to acknowledge that the world is 
changing. Things are happening. Globalization is a mixed bag, 
globalization creates opportunities, but it also creates a lot of 
challenges. As policymakers, what we need to do is look for where we 
can best position this country to compete in that changing environment.
  I rise in support of all three of these agreements, and I will tell 
you what's going on compared to years ago. The rest of the world's 
moving on. The rest of the world is opening markets to each other, and 
U.S. products and U.S. opportunities are being limited by that 
phenomenon.
  For example, in Colombia, 2008, the United States was responsible for 
46 percent of all the goods coming into Colombia. But what happened 
after 2008? Well, Colombia entered into bilateral trade agreements with 
Argentina and with Brazil, and just 2 short years later, in 2010, the 
U.S. only had 20 percent of the products that were being shipped into 
Colombia. That's a pretty big drop. About 25 percent of all the 
materials coming into that country, the U.S. used to have that market 
and then we lost it.
  We should seek out the fairest deals, the best deals for this 
country; but we should not be in denial for what's going on in the rest 
of the world. We should not be in denial about markets opening up 
elsewhere and the U.S. sitting on its hands and doing nothing.
  Now, mind you, in the case of Colombia, in particular, it's already 
had an opportunity for markets in the U.S. due to the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative. Their goods have been coming here duty free for years. We 
have an opportunity now to level that playing field.
  So I encourage my colleagues to recognize where we are in 2011 and 
the circumstances we are in and what other countries in the world are 
doing to respond to the opportunities presented by globalization and 
dealing with mitigating the problems. I encourage you to vote for all 
three of these trade agreements.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I would point out in manufacturing we actually run a trade surplus 
with our trading partners, including NAFTA, selling much more products 
there. It's our trade deficit with our nontrade agreement partners that 
we have troubles with. Panama is a surplus for America.
  I now yield 2 minutes to a key member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, who has helped lead the freshman class in opening new 
markets and finding new customers, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reed).

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of all three 
free trade agreements we will be voting on this evening. This is a 
great day. We are talking about, with the passage of these free trade 
agreements, approximately 250,000 new jobs across America. Those are 
new jobs that will put families back to work. They'll put roofs over 
their heads, put food on their tables, and allow them to enjoy the 
American Dream.
  I rise in particular in regards to the U.S.-Panama agreement. Some of 
my colleagues, Madam Speaker, have argued that free trade has forced a 
lot of our manufacturing and industrial jobs to go overseas. Well, one 
of the facts of the circumstances can be illustrated by what's going on 
with U.S.-Panama. Right now our goods, as they go into Panama, face up 
to a 260 percent tariff at its borders. Yet the imports coming from 
Panama to America, because of the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the 
Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, come to us duty free. That is an 
uneven playing field.
  What these free trade agreements do, in my humble opinion, is even 
the playing field so that American workers can compete on an equal and 
level playing field. And if that is the case, I'm confident that the 
American worker and American families will always win in that 
competition. So I strongly support these trade agreements.
  It's amazing to me that it has taken 5 years to get these agreements 
to this Chamber; but rather than point fingers at who caused what and 
what the reasons for those delays were, I always will look to the 
future. And what these agreements will represent is a step in the right 
direction of getting America back in a position where it competes in 
the world market and once again rises up and says we are the strongest, 
we are the best, and we will create 250,000 new jobs.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a new parent who is bringing a 
picture of his new son with him to the podium, Mr. Polis of Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
  Today I am pleased to see that Congress is finally focused on 
America's top priority, jobs. As economic experts from across the 
ideological spectrum have made clear, these trade agreements with 
Panama, Colombia, and South Korea will create jobs for Americans. In 
fact, the White House has said these deals will create 70,000 new jobs 
for Americans at a time when we need them. That's why I intend to vote 
for all three agreements.
  I'm also going to vote ``yes'' because these trade pacts will help 
put money back in the pockets of hardworking Americans. By lifting the 
aggressive tariffs on many commonly purchased clothing and household 
items, we can cut the prices of essentials that every family needs. 
Tariffs are essentially like a sales tax on imported goods, and like 
sales taxes in many States, they're regressive.
  Most U.S. imports today come into this country duty free, but a small 
amount of items that many Americans use, like sneakers and clothing and 
other household items, come with a tariff that's much higher than many 
luxury items. For example, a pair of fancy Italian loafers has a tariff 
of only 8.5 percent, but a pair of affordable sneakers that moms and 
dads buy for their kids when they're heading back to school carry a 
tariff that increases their price by 50 percent. Thrifty cotton and 
polyester work shirts carry a 16 and 32 percent tariff, but a silk 
Armani shirt comes with only a 1 percent tariff. Not only are these 
regressive tariffs hard on the middle class, but they hurt American 
businesses.
  Many businesses in my district can expand their operations and hire 
more workers with these three trade agreements. For example, in my 
district alone, four businesses that export electronics, building 
materials, and foods pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in tariffs 
just to the Colombian Government. That translates into jobs in my 
district.
  Most importantly, as the gentleman from Michigan mentioned, as a new 
father, I think about the kind of world I want my son to grow up in. I 
want a world that reduces barriers between ideas, between people, and 
between the flow of goods and services so that we can fully embrace our 
brothers and sisters in Colombia, our brothers and sisters in South 
Korea, our brothers and sisters in Panama and, indeed, across the world 
to build a common greatness of humanity that manifests itself 
economically through the flow of goods and services, culturally, and of 
course to better establish the greatness of global culture.
  Congress should pass these three trade agreements. I'm proud to 
support all three of these job-creating free trade agreements. I 
compliment President Obama on his leadership for bringing these deals 
before us, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to create jobs 
in America.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how 
many speakers we have remaining, if I may.
  Mr. MICHAUD. I have one more, plus I will be closing.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will close on our side.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. We have two more and then closing.
  At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New

[[Page 15261]]

Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee for Appropriations.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the three free trade 
agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Frankly, it is about 
time they have come to the House for action. Studies have shown that 
further delays on these three trade agreements would put 380,000 
American jobs at risk; whereas, passing them will create over a quarter 
of a million new jobs and add $13 billion to our gross domestic 
product.
  The latest data shows 130,000 jobs in New Jersey depend on 
international trade. Of these, 50,000 are manufacturing jobs. 
Approximately one out of every six manufacturing jobs in New Jersey is 
directly related to global trade. We need more activity on the trade 
export agenda, and these free trade agreements will produce many, many 
hundreds of thousands of jobs. We need to get about it. Let's act on 
it. I strongly support it.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on 
all sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maine has 9\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from Michigan has 3 minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Texas has 3\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MICHAUD. I now would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. The United States of America has failed trade policies. 
They are unlike any other in the world. And I guess the question before 
this body today should be: Will these trade policies create jobs? The 
answer is yes. Will they create jobs in America? The answer is no.
  Like all the other free trade agreements we've entered into, these 
are designed to benefit multinational companies seeking cheap labor and 
fewer restrictions in terms of the environment and labor protections 
and other things overseas. That's what these are about. They're also 
about transshipment of goods with the low content requirement in Korea. 
Yeah, goods will be cheaper. Made in China, maybe made by slave labor 
in North Korea, those will be really cheap.
  American consumers who don't have jobs will benefit from this. No, 
American consumers would benefit a heck of a lot more if their 
neighbors had jobs, if they had jobs and if our kids had a future. 
Passing more of these free trade agreements, which has led to this sea 
of red ink, isn't going to fix the problem.
  Directly before us now is Panama. Now, Panama has a very interesting 
economy, mostly bolstered by being a tax haven and money laundering 
center. Now, the agreement that we're voting on doesn't prohibit that, 
but there's a separate agreement entered into by the administration 
that will go into effect a year from now. It doesn't require an 
automatic exchange of tax information between the U.S. and Panama, 
unlike other countries where we have these sorts of agreements. We must 
know what we want and submit detailed information to Panama, and Panama 
might or might not honor that request; i.e., we submit a request for 
drug money laundering. They say, ``You have to be more specific.''
  ``Name the drug money people's deposits.''
  ``Well, we can't do that.''
  ``All right. Forget about it.''
  We can name them. Good. But then Panama says they won't give us the 
information if it is contradictory to their public policy; i.e., the 
way they make a living, by being the largest Western Hemisphere haven 
for the laundering of drug money, as a tax haven, and also terrorist 
money in recent cases. We're going to facilitate that with this 
agreement.
  Somehow, a country with 3.5 million people, about the same size as my 
State but a much lower income per capita, has 400,000 corporations 
domiciled there, almost one for every Panamanian.

                              {time}  1500

  No, these aren't really domiciled there. They're very conveniently 
avoiding our laws and the laws of other advanced nations around the 
world.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MICHAUD. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. As I said yesterday on Colombia, the noted economist 
Joseph Stiglitz says that our agriculture--yes, we'll get a few 
agriculture jobs--will displace traditional agriculture in Colombia, 
causing huge disruptions in that country, driving people to produce 
more coca. But don't worry. Right next door, the Colombian drug lords 
will be able to deposit their money and not have to worry about the 
U.S. finding out about it--right next door in Panama. How convenient.
  This is really a great series of trade agreements.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to a 
freshman lawmaker who represents a region of Texas where international 
trade means jobs, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco).
  Mr. CANSECO. I rise in strong support of the Panama free trade 
agreement. Like the Colombian agreement, this agreement has been 
pending for far too long. And I thank the leadership of Chairmen Brady, 
Dreier, and Camp.
  At a time when unemployment is hovering above 9 percent, the Panama 
free trade agreement will be a welcome shot in the arm to help the U.S. 
economy. The International Trade Commission's analysis shows that the 
Panama agreement will boost U.S. exports to Panama for key products 
between 9 percent and 145 percent. This will mean thousands of new jobs 
here at home. The Commerce Department has estimated that every $1 
billion in exports creates 6,000 new jobs.
  This agreement will benefit all sectors of the American economy, from 
agricultural to financial services to manufacturing. It does so by 
leveling the playing field for American exporters who currently face 
tariffs of up to 260 percent while Panama exports face virtually no 
tariffs in the United States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. CANSECO. Fundamentally, this agreement is about the economic 
freedom of the American people to be able to have a wide array of 
choices and pay less for those choices because of the power of trade 
and competition.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, is the chairman prepared to close?
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Yes, I am.
  Mr. MICHAUD. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maine is recognized for 
up to 6 minutes.
  Mr. MICHAUD. On the House floor today, we are considering three trade 
agreements: the FTA with Korea, which manipulates its currency; the FTA 
with Colombia, the labor unionist murder capital of the world; and the 
FTA with Panama, which has one of the smallest populations in Latin 
America.
  At a time of 9 percent unemployment, why are we even considering 
these trade agreements? We should not be advancing the failed NAFTA-
style trade policy when millions of Americans are still out of work. 
Instead, we should be considering legislation that will create jobs 
here at home.
  The American people were pretty clear in 2008 when they voted for 
hope and change, and they were even clearer in 2010 when they voted in 
a new generation of lawmakers to set Washington straight. Both times, 
Americans voted against the inside-the-beltway perspective and for 
Representatives and a President they thought would take the country in 
a different direction. Both times, despite these signals from the 
American people, the White House and Congress have ignored them, and 
Washington remains as beholden to Wall Street and as detached from Main 
Street as ever.
  In a poll done by NBC and the Wall Street Journal last year, the 
majority of Americans said that they thought the FTAs had been bad for 
the country. Given that they're so unpopular, why

[[Page 15262]]

on Earth would the President send these agreements up to Congress right 
now? Well, you only have to look at the President's economic advisers 
to find out.
  Since elected, the President has surrounded himself with advisers 
from Wall Street banks, with CEOs from companies that don't pay taxes, 
and with staffers who pushed the NAFTA-style trade agreement under 
Clinton. Those advisers don't bring fresh perspectives to the White 
House. They bring more of the same corporate priorities that have 
caused the current and previous White House administrations to turn a 
blind eye while the big banks played roulette with our pensions and 
mortgages and then asked for a taxpayer bailout.
  The Panama free trade agreement is another example of Washington's 
corporate priorities. Panama's GDP is about $25 billion. That's about 
the same GDP as the city of Portland, Maine. The entire country has a 
population of 3.4 million. We have three times as many people in the 
United States on unemployment lists alone. And this agreement does 
nothing for those 14 million Americans without jobs.
  Panama simply isn't a significant market opportunity for U.S. 
exports, and this FTA won't do anything to reduce our 9 percent 
unemployment. But the big companies and the big banks want it, so 
President Obama is going to give in to the Washington elites once 
again.
  The working people and the middle class don't want these trade 
agreements--not with Panama, not with Korea, and not with Colombia. 
They want good-paying jobs that allow them to provide for their 
families. They want a government to pass laws to help get the economy 
going again. They don't want another NAFTA-style trade agreement, and 
they definitely don't want any more Wall Street-centric, beltway-based 
policies from the White House or Congress. They want Washington to wake 
up and they want the hope and change that they voted for. How much 
clearer could the American people be? They want policies written by 
citizens, not by chief executives. They want leaders to listen to town 
halls, not wealthy tycoons. They want change, not more of the same.
  I call on my colleagues who were sent here in 2010 with a mandate of 
change to work with me. Vote against these trade deals, which will cost 
us more than $7 billion. I call on my colleagues on the Democratic side 
to remember we have always been the party of the working people. We 
must vote against these NAFTA-style trade agreements. These agreements 
are unjust to the American people.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on all three of these trade agreements.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for up to 3 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. First, let me speak as someone who opposed, actively, the 
NAFTA agreement and led the effort in this House in opposition to 
CAFTA. This is, in terms of worker rights, the opposite of NAFTA and 
CAFTA. What this does is to embody the basic international worker 
rights enforceable in the trade agreement. Peru was the breakthrough, 
and Panama continues along that pioneering path.
  Secondly, on Panama, why are we here? Panama acted to change its 
labor laws before we voted, as was true for Peru. We pointed out the 
deficiencies in their laws and I discussed them with the previous 
administration in Panama. But neither it nor the Bush administration 
was willing to make sure action occurred.

                              {time}  1510

  Now those changes have been made as to companies less than 2 years. 
Those changes have been made in terms of the economic processing zones, 
and they have prohibited bypassing unions by direct negotiations with 
non-unionized workers--unfortunately, not true in Colombia. Look, on 
the tax haven, they signed the TIEA. We asked them to do that, and 
that's precisely what they have done.
  In terms of investment, this bill strengthens the present status quo 
in terms of investment protections for the United States communities.
  So, in a word, we have a bill before us that meets the requirements 
that we set out when we said to the Bush administration, we will not 
take up Panama until changes have been made. Those changes have now 
indeed been made in terms of worker rights, in terms of strengthening 
investment, in terms of ending Panama as a tax haven. Those changes 
having been made, I urge support of this FTA.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, to close, I am proud to yield the 
balance of my time to a champion for job creation in America, the 
majority leader of the House, Mr. Cantor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for up to 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Madam Speaker, our current economic environment has left millions of 
Americans without the hope of a brighter future. The constant threat of 
tax increases and the continued threat of excessive regulations coming 
from this administration sends the wrong signal to our entrepreneurs, 
our investors, and our small business people, the very people we need 
to create jobs. It sends the signal that America is not open for 
business. And there is a sense that we may be falling behind other 
nations in the global marketplace.
  We face big challenges, but America has always stood up when times 
were tough. We are a country of entrepreneurs and innovators. Madam 
Speaker, it is time to energize our small businesses and job creators 
and get the economy growing again.
  When House Republicans released our plan for America's job creators, 
we outlined our ideas to get our economy back on track, to promote an 
environment for job creation, and to ensure America remains the land 
for opportunity without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. And 
part of that plan was passage of the free trade agreements with 
Colombia--yes, Panama, and yes, South Korea.
  But our support for passing these agreements is not new. On December 
22, 2009, I, along with other House Republican leaders, wrote to 
President Obama outlining what we called the ``No Cost Jobs Plan.'' In 
that letter, we noted that passage of these trade agreements would, 
according to experts, increase exports by 1 percent. That 1 percent 
increase in exports equates to a quarter of a million new jobs. We 
noted in our letter that the only thing standing in the way of creating 
those jobs was for the President to submit the trade agreements to 
Congress for approval. Since then, we have repeatedly called on the 
President to move forward with these agreements so we can clear the way 
for thousands of new jobs and create an environment for economic 
growth. Nearly 2\1/2\ years later, on October 3, the President finally 
submitted all three agreements.
  I am glad that the administration has recognized the importance of 
expanding market access for American companies, both small and large. 
As majority leader, I introduced all three agreements the very same day 
the President submitted them, and I am pleased today that the House 
will approve all three agreements.
  By moving forward on these agreements, Madam Speaker, we will help 
manufacturers in my home State of Virginia and those across the country 
increase exports and increase production. The more manufacturers 
produce, the more workers they need, and that means more jobs.
  Our action today is proof that when we look for common ground and 
work together, we can produce results. I'd also like to note that 
today, Madam Speaker, the House is acting on another bill that is part 
of the President's jobs plan. The House will pass the VOW Act, the 
Veterans Opportunity to Work Act, to help our soldiers and veterans 
with the challenges of reentering the workforce.
  Madam Speaker, there is no more time to waste. We have said over and 
over again that we should not let our

[[Page 15263]]

differences get in the way of producing results, and we want to find 
common ground so that we can work together to improve the economy. I 
hope today's action will encourage the Senate and the President to join 
us in helping to pass these trade agreements and other pro-growth 
measures to help the American people get back to work.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement.
  We have been waiting to vote on this agreement since it was first 
signed in 2007, which means four years of lost opportunities.
  But now we have a chance to repair that damage.
  In the past year alone, Panama's economy grew 6.2 percent, making it 
one of the fast growing in Latin America and an expanding opportunity 
for American exporters.
  Panama is already among Miami-Dade county's top 25 trading partners, 
and Florida as a whole ranks number one among the 50 States in exports 
to that country.
  These figures will only increase once the FTA has been approved and 
American businesses no longer face heavy tariffs and other artificial 
barriers to trade.
  Currently, U.S. industrial exports face an average tariff of 7 
percent, with some tariffs as high as 81 percent.
  Once this agreement goes into effect, 87 percent of all U.S. goods 
exported to Panama will become duty-free immediately.
  In the past 4 years since the U.S-Panama Free Trade Agreement was 
signed, American companies have paid millions upon millions of dollars 
in tariffs to the Panamanian government.
  Those are dollars needlessly spent by U.S. businesses, which they 
could have used for investments and expansion here in the U.S. instead 
of paying fees to a foreign government.
  Approval of the U.S.-Panama FTA will eliminate this transfer of 
wealth, increase U.S. exports, and create new jobs here at home that so 
many Americans are desperately searching for.
  The agreement also has many other provisions of importance to U.S. 
businesses, especially strengthening intellectual property rights, 
which are under assault around the world.
  In addition to the potential economic growth stemming from this 
agreement, Panama is a key strategic ally in the region.
  Ever since the Panama Canal was completed a century ago, Panama's 
importance to the U.S. has only increased as a major transportation 
route, with two-thirds of its traffic consisting of shipments between 
our west and east coasts.
  For these many reasons--expanded exports, increased jobs, and closer 
ties with a strategic ally--I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to vote in favor of the U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
3079, the United States-Panama Trade Implementation Act.


                  opposing NAFTA-style trade policies

  With all the talk this Congress about addressing the deficit, you 
might think that Democrat and Republican supporters of these agreements 
would be even more concerned about a larger deficit that is responsible 
for the displacement of thousands of American jobs--the trade deficit.
  Our rapidly increasing trade deficits with countries like China and 
Mexico have displaced millions of jobs over the past decade. According 
to Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the U.S.-China Free Trade Agreement 
resulted in the displacement of over 2.3 million American workers 
between 2001 and 2007, as a direct result of the increase in China 
trade deficits. U.S. producers of apparel, steel and technology (parts) 
have been the industries most significantly impacted by imports from 
China. Two-thirds of those jobs displaced were in the manufacturing 
sector--resulting in the outsourcing of hundreds of thousands of 
American jobs in the computer and electronic parts, apparel and 
accessories and fabricated metal production sectors.
  It is these same industries that will be further affected by the 
proposed trade deals with Korea, Panama and Colombia.
  Yet today we are considering NAFTA-style free trade agreements that 
are projected to continue in this tradition. Those of us who were in 
Congress during the debates on NAFTA and CAFTA have heard the promises 
of more jobs and economic opportunity from supporters of free trade. 
These promises have never materialized.
  NAFTA's record is clear: it is negative for jobs, negative for 
democracy and negative for the environment.


 Panama Free Trade Agreement: Good for Multinational Corporations, Bad 
                          for the Rule of Law

  Madam Speaker, the Panama trade agreement is good for multinational 
corporations and bad for the rule of law.
  An April 2009 report by Public Citizen on the Panama trade agreement 
found that it would undermine U.S. efforts to stop offshore tax-haven 
abuse and undermine financial regulations.
  Among the key findings: some of the corporations who were the largest 
recipients of U.S. federal procurement contracts and money under the 
Troubled Asset Relief Program--including Citigroup--have dozens of 
subsidiaries in Panama that would be granted expansive new rights under 
this trade agreement. So firms that were bailed out with U.S. taxpayer 
dollars, like AIG and Citigroup, are being rewarded with a trade 
agreement that undermines U.S. efforts to stop offshore tax-haven 
abuse.
  As Public Citizen notes, ``Panama's tiny economy provides no 
prospects for significant U.S. economic gains. Panama's total annual 
GDP is about 6 percent of Washington, D.C.'' Like NAFTA, this trade 
agreement includes provisions that allow investors to challenge the 
U.S. government in international courts--and demand U.S. taxpayer 
compensation--for U.S. policies that conflict with their expansive 
rights under the FTA to ``free transfers'' (i.e.: conflict with their 
bottom line).
  At a time when we should be focusing on strengthening worker's rights 
and investing in domestic manufacturing and infrastructure and job 
creation, a trade deal with Panama that is unlikely to have any 
significant effect at all on creating jobs or increasing imports is the 
wrong way to go.
  It is abundantly clear that this trade agreement is not about 
expanding opportunity for the American worker, but about expanding 
opportunity for multinational corporations and their subsidiaries. Just 
like NAFTA.


  Rewarding Panama for its Failure to Abide by International Tax Norms

  With the Panama trade agreement, we are rewarding a country for 
failing to abide by even the minimum transparency standards for tax 
norms. An April 2009 tax-haven watch list by the Organization of 
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) cites Panama as one of 
thirty countries that agreed to conform to international tax norms but 
failed to do so. The OECD reports that Panama made such a commitment in 
2002 and has not since completed a single agreement to fulfill its 
commitment.
  According to Public Citizen, Panama is ``one of only 13 countries--
and the only current or prospective FTA partner--that is listed on all 
of the major tax-haven watchdog lists that does not also have U.S. tax 
transparency treaties.''
  If you're still not convinced to vote against the Panama trade 
agreement, this laundry list from Public Citizen may help: The Panama 
trade agreement ``includes extreme foreign investor privileges, and 
offshoring protections and their private enforcement in international 
tribunals, limits on financial and other service sector regulation, a 
ban on Buy America procurement preferences, limits on environmental 
safeguards and imported food and product safety, and drug patent rules 
that limit generics.''
  The AFL-CIO correctly notes that with this agreement, we are 
rewarding ``a country that has a history of repressing labor rights and 
has achieved much of its economic growth by making it easy for money 
launderers and tax dodgers to hide their income from legitimate 
authorities.''
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Panama free trade 
agreement.


                         Labor Rights in Panama

  The rights of workers, which have increasingly come under attack in 
this country, are also at risk under these NAFTA-style trade 
agreements.
  In Panama, a 2010 State Department Human Rights report notes that 
``the government lacked sufficient mechanisms to ensure that laws 
prohibiting employer interference in unions and protecting workers from 
employer reprisals were adequately enforced.''
  We should not be entering into a trade agreement with a country that 
has yet to demonstrate its ability to uphold international standards 
for labor rights and financial regulation. We cannot afford to reward 
corporations for offshoring jobs and tax-evasion at a time of historic 
budget constraints.
  Panama's track record on fulfilling its promises is clear: just as it 
failed to adequately address its status as a tax-haven wonderland; it 
too has failed in its promise to adequately protect its workers from 
reprisals due to union activity.


                         Jobs loss under NAFTA

  It is undisputable that NAFTA has led to widespread job loss across 
this country. In a report titled ``Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and 
job displacement after NAFTA,'' EPI

[[Page 15264]]

estimates that the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico totaling $97.2 
billion has displaced nearly 700,000 U.S. jobs. This number takes into 
account any jobs that were created through U.S. exports to Mexico. Like 
NAFTA, the Korea and Colombia FTAs are expected to result in the loss 
of over 200,000 jobs and increase our trade deficit by $16.9 billion.
  The majority of those jobs were in the manufacturing sector. Like 
Korea, much of our trade with Mexico is in the same industries that 
took a big hit under NAFTA.
  We cannot have a strong economy without a strong manufacturing base. 
Any investments this Congress makes to rebuild our infrastructure and 
our domestic manufacturing sector would be significantly undermined by 
the passage of the three free trade agreements we are considering 
today. NAFTA-style free trade agreements that rapidly increase our 
trade deficit and lead to the further diminishment of our manufacturing 
employment base are not the answer.


      ``White-Collar Service Jobs'' Vulnerable to being Offshored

  NAFTA-style trade policies are not just destructive to our domestic 
manufacturing and textile sectors. So called ``White-Collar'' service 
jobs are now some of the jobs most vulnerable to offshoring.
  Alan S. Binder, a former Clinton advisor and member of the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve--and supporter of free trade--came up 
with a list of the top 100 jobs that are most likely to be offshored 
over the next 10-20 years as a result of our free trade policies. Those 
jobs include computer programmers, mathematicians, editors, actuaries 
and even economists. A 2007 paper by the Economic Policy Institute took 
the research one step further and found that the demographic most 
vulnerable to offshoring are persons with at least a four-year college 
degree.
  Since the era of the WTO and NAFTA, U.S. wages have been stagnant and 
barely increased since 1973. Workers in the manufacturing sector 
displaced by our trade policies and looking for new work will be forced 
to go into service fields with even lower wages where jobs are not 
threatened to be offshored, such as in food service and hospitality.
  Our $776 billion trade deficit has already displaced hundreds of 
thousands of American workers. It is time to end expansion of NAFTA to 
other countries. We have over a decade of evidence and the evidence is 
clear: this free trade model is damaging for our economy, our workers, 
the environment and for global economic security. It is time for fair 
trade, not free trade.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
3079, the United States-Panama Trade Implementation Act.
  With our nation's unemployment rate continuing to hover around 9 
percent, it is unconscionable that we are considering NAFTA-clone free 
trade agreements that will further facilitate the outsourcing of 
American jobs and undermine the rights of American workers. Proponents 
of free trade agreements like to purport that they are good for the 
U.S. economy and will create jobs. But history is on the side of those 
of us who opposed NAFTA, CAFTA and other damaging trade agreements over 
the last decade.
  Free trade agreements play a significant role in exacerbating the 
negative effects of globalization, including the rapid privatization of 
vital public resources. They have resulted in the loss of domestic jobs 
and manufacturing industries and in significant decreases to labor and 
environmental standards. In addition, FTAs result in significant job 
loss and privatization of labor-intensive industries for the countries 
we enter in trade agreements with. Unionizing in countries like Mexico 
and Colombia has resulted in death or imprisonment of union leaders.
  Every state in this country has been affected negatively by our 
destructive trade policies. The Economic Policy Institute estimates 
that nearly 700,000 U.S. jobs have been displaced since the passage of 
NAFTA in the 1990s. The majority of the jobs displaced--60 percent--
were in the manufacturing sector. My home State of Ohio is one of the 
top ten states with the most jobs displaced by NAFTA, having lost 
34,900 jobs. Our rapidly increasing trade deficits with countries like 
China has resulted in the loss over 5 million jobs over the past 
decade. Of that 5 million, the State of Ohio has lost 103,000 jobs as a 
result of the increase in our trade deficit with China.
  This is not a debate about being for trade or against trade as some 
of my colleagues have framed it. This is a debate about learning from 
the free trade policies we have pursued over the last decade that have 
proven to be significantly damaging to the American economy and 
American workers. The numbers speak for themselves.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this agreement.


                         Panama is a Tax Haven

  Panama is one of the world's worst tax havens, allowing rich U.S. 
individuals and corporations to skirt their responsibility to pay taxes 
that are vital to the local communities that depend on those revenues. 
The U.S.-Panama free trade agreement does nothing to address this 
issue. At a time when potentially damaging austerity measures are being 
proposed to balance the budget, we should not be considering a free 
trade agreement that fails to deal with an issue critical to addressing 
our deficit.
  This FTA includes provisions that even undermine our own laws to 
combat tax haven activity. Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch reports 
that the ``FTA's Services, Financial Services and Investment Chapters 
include provisions that forbid limits on transfers of money between the 
U.S. and Panama. Yet, such limits are the strongest tools that the U.S. 
has to enforce policies aimed at stopping international tax 
avoidance.''
  Many have cited a tax treaty signed by Panama earlier this year as a 
reason to support the Panama-FTA and dismiss the concerns of Panama as 
a tax haven. In reality, the agreement (the ``Tax Information Exchange 
Agreement'') fails to hold Panama and corporations accountable for tax 
evasion. The agreement only requires Panama to stop refusing to provide 
information to U.S. officials in specific cases if U.S. officials know 
to inquire. It also includes a significant exception which allows 
Panama to reject requests for information if it is ``contrary to the 
national interest.''
  By passing this free trade agreement, we are rewarding and condoning 
corporations who offshore jobs and practice international tax 
avoidance--practices that significantly hurt American workers and the 
American economy.


         Buy American Provisions--and U.S. Workers--Undermined

  The U.S.-Panama FTA requires the U.S. to waive Buy America 
requirements for all Panamanian-incorporated firms, and even many 
Chinese and other foreign firms incorporated in Panama that are there 
to exploit the tax system. This means that work that should go to U.S. 
workers can be offshored because of rules which forbid Buy America 
preferences requiring U.S. employees to perform contract work by a 
federal agency in the federal procurement process. According to Global 
Trade Watch, the U.S. would be waiving Buy America requirements for 
``trillions in U.S. government contracts for any corporations 
established in Panama and in exchange would get almost no new 
procurement contract opportunities in Panama for U.S. companies.''
  If you support the NAFTA tradition of weakening offshore protections, 
limiting financial service regulations, banning Buy America procurement 
preferences, limiting environmental, food and product safety 
safeguards, and the undermining U.S. workers and our economy, than this 
is your agreement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 425, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________