[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15316-15336]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      UNITED STATES-KOREA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

   UNITED STATES-PANAMA TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

  UNITED STATES-COLOMBIA TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will consider H.R. 3080, H.R. 3079, and H.R. 3078 en bloc, 
notwithstanding the lack of receipt of papers from the House of 
Representatives.
  Under the previous order, there will be up to 12 hours of debate, 
with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I come to the floor today--thankfully 
for the last time, I hope--in support of the pending free-trade 
agreements with Korea, Panama, and Colombia. For nearly 3 years we have 
heard the administration say the right things. Yet there were countless 
delays. It has been 1,566 days since the U.S.-Korea Free Trade 
Agreement was signed, 1,568 days for the Panama agreement, and 1,786 
days since we completed negotiations with Colombia. Finally, though, I 
believe the waiting has ended, and the administration took action and 
has submitted these agreements for a vote. I am eager to vote for all 
three FTAs this evening and to see their job-creating power in action. 
By the administration's own estimates, these agreements will spur a 
quarter of a million new jobs.
  We should all be able to agree that the benefits of trade are 
significant. In my home State of Nebraska alone, more than 19,000 jobs 
and more than $5.5 billion in revenue were directly tied to exports in 
this last year. With these agreements, these statistics will only 
improve. Nebraska is a big agricultural State, and these three 
agreements eliminate tariffs and other barriers on most agricultural 
products, including beef, corn, soybeans, and pork--all products grown 
in Nebraska. In fact, according to the Farm Bureau and economic 
analysis from the USDA, full implementation of those agreements will 
result in nearly $2.5 billion increases in U.S. agricultural exports 
each year. In Nebraska, this increase in agricultural exports is 
expected to total about $125 million per year and add another 1,100 
jobs to our State.
  The benefits for my home State are not hard to see. In fact, they 
would be hard to miss. As the Nation's fourth largest exporter of feed 
grain and a key beef State, the U.S.-Korea agreement holds great 
opportunity and promise for Nebraska. It immediately eliminates duties 
on nearly two-thirds of U.S. agricultural exports to Korea. U.S. 
exports of corn for feed enter at zero duty--zero duty immediately. For 
the second largest corn State, that is a significant leveling of the 
playing field. And it phases out the 40-percent tariff on beef muscle 
meat and the 18-percent tariff on variety meats.
  The Colombia agreement offers great opportunities to both 
manufacturing and the agricultural sector. Just one example: Nebraska 
manufactures and exports irrigation pivots to customers all over the 
world. Currently Colombia imposes a 15-percent duty on pivots, which 
would be eliminated by this trade agreement. This will allow Nebraska 
manufacturers to compete on a level playing field with European 
companies.
  The Colombia agreement also eliminates barriers for many Nebraska 
agricultural products, including beef, corn, soybeans, pork, and wheat. 
In particular, the agreement immediately eliminates the 80-percent duty 
on some of the most important products to the U.S. beef industry--prime 
and choice cuts of meat. The Colombia agreement eliminates all tariffs 
on wheat and barriers on corn and on soybeans.
  Unfortunately, during these years of delay I referenced at the start 
of my comments this morning, negotiators for other countries saw an 
opportunity. Negotiators from the European Union, Argentina, and Canada 
saw the void the U.S. companies, workers, and farmers should have been 
filling, and they acted. As a result, our exporters now face even 
greater competition in these markets. For example, when the U.S.-
Colombia agreement was signed, American wheat farmers supplied 70 
percent of the Colombian market. In 2010, U.S. wheat growers supplied 
only 45 percent of that market. During that time, the United States 
lost market share in Colombia to competitors such as Argentina and 
Canada that did not wait on the sidelines, and now they enjoy duty-free 
access. Because of unnecessary delays, our farmers have lost out in 
markets they dominated when this agreement was signed. But if we act 
quickly, if we pass these agreements tonight, U.S. producers can work 
to build back market share.

[[Page 15317]]

  I am confident that Nebraska farmers, businesses, workers, and those 
around the country can compete with anybody in the world, and in doing 
so we can create jobs here at home. By the administration's estimates, 
the Korea, Colombia and Panama Free Trade Agreements will create, as I 
have referenced, 250,000 U.S. jobs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce took a 
broader view; they have an estimate of 380,000 jobs to be created. But 
either number is worth celebrating.
  In May, the President called for ``a robust, forward-looking trade 
agenda that emphasizes exports and domestic job growth.'' I am glad the 
President has turned these words into action on these long overdue job-
creating agreements. These three bipartisan votes should have been near 
the top of the agenda 3 years ago. By now, we should be voting on new 
agreements this administration has negotiated, not the leftover work of 
the past administration.
  During the challenging economic times our Nation has endured, we 
should have been exerting every ounce of energy to get our economy 
going. That is not done by heavyhanded government regulation and 
massive, unsustainable new government spending. It is accomplished by 
lowering and removing barriers so our job creators can flourish in a 
global environment. That is what we have today--an opportunity to give 
our job creators a chance to flourish in the global environment. We 
cannot ignore that the fastest growing opportunities for American 
businesses, farms, and ranchers are not in the United States or outside 
our borders, they are overseas in rapidly developing countries where 95 
percent of the world's population lives. I sincerely hope those long 
delays have not hurt our ability to negotiate high-quality trade 
agreements, but more importantly, I hope it has not hurt the ability of 
Americans to compete in these growing markets.
  I look forward to working with the administration over the rest of 
this Congress on forward-looking trade efforts. Real progress forward 
would produce even more opportunities.
  I am optimistic this morning. I am optimistic that my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle will join me in voting in favor of the trade 
agreements with Korea, Panama, and Colombia. Together, we can allow 
hard-working Americans to create jobs here at home.
  I hope these three agreements are the beginning, not the end.
  Following today's vote, we should rejoice in an accomplishment, but 
more work remains to be done. I am prepared to tackle this endeavor, as 
I did when I was Secretary of Agriculture. For the sake of our Nation, 
I hope to find willing partners on these three votes and, in the 
future, more trade agreements and additional opportunities.
  Before yielding the floor, I ask unanimous consent that all time 
during the quorum calls be divided equally.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JOHANNS. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I was on the phone earlier this week 
with a friend in Delaware. We were talking about these free-trade 
agreements negotiated by the Bush administration and fine-tuned by the 
Obama administration. My friend said: Why do we have free-trade 
agreements anyway? I said: Let's go back a little bit in time. At the 
end of World War II, when the baby boomers and my sister and I came 
along, the United States was on top of the world. Our industrial 
infrastructure was strong. We were a vibrant economy. We had come out 
of the Great Depression with all guns blazing, while a lot of the rest 
of the world lay in ruin. Some of the nations that would go on to 
become our greatest competitors, including China, Korea, and some 
others as well, were in the midst of wars of their own, and eventually 
they would be governed--at least in part in Korea--by a Communist form 
of government. So the competition wasn't that great.
  Then things started to change. The competition got a whole lot 
stronger. I remember when I was a kid growing up, at Christmas time we 
were opening presents around the Christmas tree. I grew up in Danville, 
VA. We received a knickknack or something from friends of our family, 
and my father turned it over and it said ``Made in Japan.'' He and my 
mom kind of sneered at that, as if it were unworthy of us--anything 
being made in Japan.
  Things have changed--in some ways for the better and in other ways 
maybe not. For a long time, we were the 800-pound gorilla in the room. 
In terms of auto sales, I think we had about 90 percent of the market 
share in the United States--maybe more than that--well into the latter 
part of the last century. Now we don't. Our market share in cars is 
less than 50 percent. The quality is good, but the market share is 
less. If we look at the amount of cars that come to us from Korea, they 
will roughly export 500,000 vehicles to the United States this year, as 
they did last year and will next year. We will export barely 5,000 cars 
to them. Think about that. Roughly, for every 1 American car we sell 
them, they sell us about 100. That is not free trade. As it turns out, 
it is not fair trade either. They don't put tariffs on their cars. They 
have nontariff barriers--a very clever way to keep our vehicles out. It 
could have to do with the environmental equipment on the car, the fuel 
system, transmissions, you name it. They find all kinds of ways to keep 
our vehicles out. We don't do that or play that game. They take 
advantage of that.
  We wish to sell in a place such as Panama. In this country, a lot of 
people like the white meat of the chicken. Overseas, a lot of people 
eat the dark meat. It is an opportunity to export the dark meat for us. 
If we want to export leg quarters, drumsticks, and thighs in Panama, 
normally, a package of leg quarters costs $10 here, and there is a 260-
percent tariff for those leg quarters going into Panama. They have to 
pay $36. I don't know what that translates into pesos, but they pay $36 
for $10 worth of chicken.
  We allow other countries, whether it is Korea, Panama, Colombia or 
many other nations, to sell their goods and products at will into our 
country, without much at all in the way of barriers, without 
impediment, without tariff barriers or nontarrif barriers. But they 
impose barriers against us. The reason why flows from the situation we 
were in at the end of World War II, when we were such an economic 
juggernaut. Other countries wanted to protect their markets a little 
bit from the 800-pound gorilla in the world, which was us.
  While we are still a strong and vibrant nation, we no longer dominate 
world markets. We want to make sure we have access to other markets in 
ways we have not had in recent years in some countries.
  I would like to think of one of the roles of government, and one of 
the major roles of government, is to provide a nurturing environment 
for job creation and job preservation. That includes a lot of things. 
That includes making sure businesses, large and small, have access to 
the credit; it means that when folks come up with an idea, we have an 
innovative economy and a lot of technology; when people come up with 
new technology and new ideas, they go to the Patent Office to file it 
and they end up getting the patent and they don't end up in years of 
litigation.
  Businesses like predictability, and that is part of the environment 
we need to provide. We need to provide a workforce where the people can 
come out of our schools and can read, write, think, do math, and have a 
good work ethic. We have to have common sense in regulations. 
Obviously, we need regulations, and we need to consider cost-benefit 
relations. As we do those regulations, we can get input from all sides.
  We need predictable tax policies--tax policies that are progrowth. We 
also

[[Page 15318]]

need access to foreign markets. Folks who build products in this 
country need access to foreign markets. In too many cases, we don't 
have that. These trade agreements are attempting to change that. Very 
soon, for that family in Panama who has to pay $36 for the same amount 
of drumsticks and thighs that now cost $10 here, that is going to 
change. We are going to start exporting and selling cars in Korea. They 
will still be able to sell theirs here, but we will sell tens of 
thousands of cars in Korea in a year or two.
  In my State, we used to make a lot of cars. We had a GM plant and a 
Chrysler plant. They are now gone. But starting next year, a new plant 
will start up, and they will make some of the most beautiful cars in 
the world. Some are already being made, called the Karma. It gets about 
70 miles per gallon. It is a drop-dead beautiful vehicle. Starting late 
next year, they will be making it a less-expensive car. We want to make 
sure they use our Port of Wilmington to ship those cars around the 
world. It would be nice to sell some of those in Korea or in Latin 
America and South America, as well as in Europe.
  For my State, 80 percent of our agricultural industry, believe it or 
not, is chickens. I don't know what it is like in Iowa or in Florida or 
New York, but 80 percent of ours is chickens. Agriculture is one of the 
top three sectors of our State's economy--80 percent chickens. One out 
of every five chickens we raise in the Delmarva Peninsula is exported 
to another country. This is not chickenfeed; this is a big deal for us 
in Delaware.
  This is important for our ability to export vehicles, our ability to 
export chemicals, plastics, poultry, and the ability for us to export 
some of our services--the work we do in financial services with banking 
or insurance. A lot of those companies would like to be able to do 
business in Korea or Latin America. This legislation will enable them 
to do that.
  I think a lot of people will vote for the agreements today with 
Panama and with South Korea. Even some of the labor unions--the UAW and 
others--support the South Korea agreement. There is still skepticism 
and concern, understandably, regarding the agreement with Colombia. As 
everybody in the Chamber knows, and a lot of people in this country 
know, for years, labor leaders, organizers have been the target of 
assassinations in Colombia. According to the Colombians, in 2001, I 
believe there were about 205 assassinations in that 1 year alone in 
Colombia. The numbers are a little bit confusing because that includes 
folks who are not necessarily labor organizers but who are educators 
and maybe members of labor unions--205 people in 1 year. Can you 
imagine in this country if 205 labor leaders, organizers, and teachers 
were murdered in a year? That is a much smaller country than ours. The 
numbers have come down.
  In one of our conversations yesterday with some labor unions in 
Delaware, one shared the latest number reported by the Colombian 
Government; I think it was 22 in the early part of this month. That is 
22 too many. About half those folks killed were teachers who have been 
targeted by criminal elements and drug folks, drug gangs, because of 
the threat that teachers and educators pose to the ability of the drug 
folks to destabilize that country. So they are targets as well.
  The Colombian Government has provided almost like a witness 
protection service down there, but it is somewhat different. They don't 
take people and change their identities and move them and hide them. 
They actually provide extra protection for folks who are believed to be 
at risk. That caused a reduction of almost 90 percent in the 
assassinations over the last decade. Even if it is just one or two, we 
know that is too many.
  The question for us is, Do we ignore the progress or do we say, no, 
we are not going to ratify a free-trade agreement with Colombia until 
there are no assassinations? We have a saying: Don't let the perfect be 
the enemy of the good. That may trivialize this particular argument, 
and I would not suggest that is the standard we should use. But 
substantial progress has been made. We have embedded in that trade 
agreement environmental provisions, labor provisions, that are now part 
of the agreement. We have done the same with Panama and Korea. There is 
an implementation schedule that the government is expected to follow 
and has been followed. It has been certified by the President. They are 
taking the steps they are supposed to be taking in order to further 
reduce the level of violence. Overall, rather extraordinary progress 
has been made in Colombia.
  A friend of mine who works there in the Embassy described to me the 
difference is between night and day.
  It wasn't all that long ago when gunmen rounded up 11 supreme court 
justices in Colombia and took them into a room and shot them all dead. 
We know it is not just teachers or labor leaders who are being targeted 
for assassination and have been targeted but people at the highest 
levels of that country's government--government leaders, people who run 
for office, officeholders, law enforcement officers, judges, all kinds 
of people.
  For the most part, it has changed. It is a lot better. The question 
is, Do we reward the improvement made or do we say, no, that is not 
enough, come back when you are pristine clean, pristine pure? For me, 
it is one I wrestled with and others have as well. I think, in this 
case, we can vote with our hopes, and our hope and expectation is that 
this progress has been realized and will continue.
  There is one last thing I wish to mention before I finish.
  Any number of folks have said to me: You know, NAFTA didn't help us 
all that much--Mexico and Canada--and so how do we know these trade 
agreements will help us? We learned some things from NAFTA. One of the 
things we learned is if we have environmental concerns, we ought to 
embed in the agreement the rest of those environmental concerns--
actually addressing them in the treaty. We have done that with all 
these nations. We have done the same thing with respect to labor 
provisions. They are actually embedded in the agreement.
  The other thing I have said to folks who are concerned this isn't in 
our best interest and it will not help us economically, I don't agree 
with that. But think about this. To say this is not going to help us is 
counterintuitive. Think about it. We allow these countries to sell 
their goods and services in our country without impediment. We don't 
keep them out. We don't impose, for the most part, tariff or nontariff 
barriers. But if we want to sell our goods and services there, they 
impose these barriers--tariff or nontariff barriers. Under a free-trade 
agreement, the barriers that others put up to keep our goods and 
services out pretty much go away and in some cases pretty fast.
  It is hard for me to say: Well, if we are going to let them ship 
their goods and services to us--continue to--and they are going to 
eliminate their tariff and nontariff barriers, why shouldn't we do 
better? We will do better. We make great chicken, we build great cars, 
have great chemical products, and excellent financial services. Those 
products will sell and we will be able to grow our economy.
  The last problem is this. For us to come out of this recession--and 
we have come out of the recession officially, but there is still a lot 
of hurt and pain all over the place, including in my own State, but for 
us to come out of it, we need to grow the economy--we need to grow the 
economy--and we need to grow it across the world. We make any number of 
products in this country. Some are products--cars, chickens, chemicals, 
plastics--and others are services. They are as good as any in the 
world. We want to make sure we have access to sell them anywhere in the 
world, including these three countries. Their consumers will be better 
off and our producers and our businesses will be better off. That is 
why I am happy to support these agreements.
  The last thing I want to do is to acknowledge the excellent 
leadership Senator Baucus has provided for us. Senator Grassley is on 
the floor, and I know these are issues he cares a lot about. The 
partnership he and Senator

[[Page 15319]]

Baucus have had over the years is a model for the Senate.
  They are not on the floor now, but I also want to mention Senator 
Blunt and Senator Portman, two of our Republican colleagues, who joined 
with me to make sure at the end of the day we didn't just vote for 
three free-trade agreements but we also had the opportunity to vote and 
put in place trade adjustment assistance to ensure those workers in 
this country who might be negatively affected or displaced would have 
the opportunity to get unemployment compensation and have the 
opportunity to get job training so they will be treated fairly as well. 
It is the personification of the Golden Rule: Treat other people the 
way we want to be treated.
  So we have succeeded in not just passing three free-trade agreements, 
which I think will help our economy overall, but we will also look out 
for the people who might be adversely affected. So I want to thank 
Senator Grassley and the other Republicans who provided the support to 
make that happen too. And again to Senator Baucus: A job well done.
  Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor to anyone 
else who is here and wants to speak at this time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Well, can you believe it, we are finally here. After 
several years of waiting for these trade agreements to come to the 
Congress, it looks as though we are going to be able to vote on them, 
pass them, and send them to the President for his signature, and they 
will become law.
  Quite frankly, I thought soon after May 10, 2007, we would be voting 
on the Colombia trade agreement because President Bush was anxious to 
send it to the Hill. But the Democrats took over the Congress after the 
2006 election, and the way it was negotiated by the Bush administration 
wasn't good enough. There wasn't enough negotiation to go far enough on 
labor and environment, so the new Democratic- controlled Congress said 
we have to do more on those negotiations for environment and labor.
  So more was renegotiated, and on May 10, 2007, there was a news 
conference announcing a bipartisan result between the Bush 
administration and the Democratic Congress on an agreement with 
Colombia on better environment and labor issues that had been reached. 
So a bipartisan agreement, particularly when you have a Democratic 
Congress and a Republican President, you would have expected that right 
away we would be having at least Colombia up here. At that time, South 
Korea wasn't completely negotiated. But the other party turned into a 
protectionist party and so nothing has happened until now. The 
goalposts have been moved several times, but the free trade reality of 
creating jobs has come back to the other political party. So I am glad 
we are here at last, even though it may be 4 years late. We are doing 
the right thing, even though it is being done later than it should have 
been done.
  Everybody knows that every day in this Congress, and rightly so, with 
9.1 percent unemployment, the topic is jobs. And that is as it should 
be. The question gets asked a lot: What policies can we implement here 
in the Congress to create jobs or at least to encourage jobs. With over 
9 percent unemployment in this country, we should, in fact, be talking 
about how to have an environment that creates jobs, and freeing up 
trade is one of the best ways to create jobs. These aren't just 
creating jobs, these are good-paying jobs. On average, jobs related to 
international trade pay 15 percent above the national average.
  The truth is for years we have known one clear and simple way to 
create jobs and stimulate growth in our economy, and that is 
international trade. The Colombia, South Korea, and Panama trade 
agreements will create and support thousands of jobs, and I believe 
even hundreds of thousands of jobs. So we must implement the trade 
deals reached with Panama, South Korea, and Colombia, and we must do it 
today, even though it should have been done, in the case of South 
Korea, a year ago and in the case of Panama and Colombia 3 or 4 years 
ago.
  We entered into these agreements back in 2006 and 2007, and there is 
no excuse why we have had to wait nearly 5 years--until now--to get to 
them. Yet congressional Democrats, and later President Obama, continued 
to move the goalposts, putting up barriers that prevented their 
consideration and passage until this day. There is no clearer or easier 
way of creating jobs in the near term, and good jobs lasting for a long 
period of time, than passing these trade bills and doing it now. Thank 
God the President has said he would sign them.
  According to the National Association of Manufacturers, 100,000 jobs 
will be created by the implementation of these trade agreements. There 
are estimates from other sources that suggest the number of jobs may be 
even higher. The administration--and I believe rightly so--believes 
that the higher number of jobs being created would be in the few 
hundred thousand. The Obama administration estimates in the case of the 
Korea trade agreement alone 70,000 additional jobs for the U.S. 
workforce will be created.
  Not only do these trade agreements expand opportunities for U.S. 
workers, they also present tremendous opportunities for American 
agriculture. It is estimated that the Korean agreement could increase 
the price farmers receive for pigs by $10 per head. So you see in the 
case of Delaware, where Senator Carper says it is good for his poultry 
industry because that is so dominant there, where larger livestock is 
so dominant in the Midwest, in my State of Iowa, it is going to be a 
very good agreement as well.
  The Colombian agreement will level the playing field for U.S. corn 
farmers so they can begin to reclaim some of the market share they lost 
due to high tariffs for our products going down there. We have lost 
markets not just because of the high tariffs but because Colombia, in 
the last 5 years, has reached agreements with other countries that have 
allowed those countries, through their agricultural products--
particularly grain--to take over the share of the Colombian market that 
American agriculture previously had.
  The agreement with the country of Panama will bring about better 
opportunities for a variety of agricultural products, including beef, 
poultry, and pork, to name a few.
  We have been waiting a long time to get to this point, and so, as I 
have said two or three times, because I am satisfied we are going to 
get the job done, I am eager to cast my vote in support of all three 
agreements. But as the finish line nears on these agreements, the 
American people should be asking why President Obama has dragged his 
feet on these agreements for so long. There has been a lot of wasted 
time and tax dollars with stimulus programs that were supposed to 
create jobs but did not produce any measurable amount of jobs; whereas, 
if these agreements had been in place, these jobs we are talking about 
creating from this day forward would probably have already been 
created. The stimulus plan failed to do what President Obama promised 
Americans, but I am telling you these trade agreements will do what 
President Obama promises the American people, they will do in the way 
of creating jobs.
  Of course, the President wants to try it again with yet another 
costly stimulus program, as we were debating yesterday. We don't need 
more government spending to create jobs. We know that doesn't work. 
What we need to do is create an environment so the private sector will 
create jobs. We know what works, and these agreements are part of what 
works to create jobs. We need to continue opening markets for U.S. 
exports, and that is what these agreements will do. We need to pass 
these trade agreements and do it now. American workers need them now 
and the unemployed need the new jobs that will be created as a result 
of these agreements.
  But for the economic future of our country, we should not stop with 
these three trade agreements. The President can provide certainty to 
businesses, farmers, and workers by renewing his

[[Page 15320]]

commitment to expanding trade opportunities. The best way to do that is 
to ask Congress to renew his authority to negotiate free-trade 
agreements through a long-used cooperative process between the Congress 
and the executive branch of government, involving the Congress giving 
the President what is called trade promotion authority so he can work 
further agreements.
  In January of 2010, the President said he wanted to double exports by 
2015, and that was welcome news. But actions speak louder than words, 
Mr. President. The President has repeatedly delayed these trade deals. 
He has routinely dodged the question of when he would request authority 
for trade promotion to negotiate new agreements, and he has not laid 
out a clear strategic plan for in fact reaching the trade goals he 
expressed at the beginning of 2010. We are now nearly 2 years further 
down the road from that discussion he had.
  While it may be tough to reach the goals of doubling exports by 2015, 
we can still push on toward that goal, as we should. The more we do to 
open new markets and then get out of the way, the more we will help our 
struggling economy. There are three steps to continue helping U.S. 
businesses, farmers, and most of all the workers of America--
particularly the unemployed workers of America. First, we need to pass 
these three trade agreements with no more political gamesmanship by 
this administration, and I think we are over that hurdle. Secondly, 
Congress should pass trade promotion authority so the administration 
can responsibly seek opportunities for greater market access for U.S. 
products. Finally, the administration must make it a top priority to 
actually seek more opportunities for opening foreign markets for our 
products.
  We live in a global economy. We once led the way in forming trade 
agreements and expanding trade relationships. The rest of the world 
waited for the United States to take the first step.
  In recent years, we have lost our way. The rest of the world isn't 
going to wait on the United States as they did for the last 60 years. 
That is why we have lost market share in Colombia that I just spoke 
about as one example.
  We need to reestablish our position as a world leader in opening and 
expanding markets. Passing these trade agreements is crucial and long 
overdue, but it is a necessary first step. The next step is for the 
President to seek trade promotion authority and get back in the game 
leading the rest of the world.
  I urge my colleagues to help U.S. businesses, farmers, our workers, 
and, most importantly, our unemployed workers by voting in support of 
the Panama, Colombia, and South Korea trade agreements.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I compliment my colleague for his kind and good words on 
the floor. He is a great leader in the Senate, and the Senator from 
Iowa is one of the truly great people I have met.
  Today, we are finally considering our free-trade agreements with 
Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. It has been 9 long years since the 
authority to negotiate these trade agreements was passed by Congress, 
and it has been over 4 years, as the distinguished Senator from Iowa 
said, since each of these agreements was signed.
  After a burst of international economic engagement under President 
Bush, we witnessed nothing but passive indifference by the 111th 
Democrat-led Congress and then, in more recent years, by the Obama 
administration.
  While purporting to support trade and seemingly acknowledging its 
benefits, the current administration took little concrete action to 
advance these or any trade agreements for years. In fact, the opposite 
was true. Instead of devising ways to gain their approval, President 
Obama used his time to create excuses for not supporting any of the 
three agreements.
  Finally, early this year, under relentless political pressure from 
Congress and from American businesses and farmers who will benefit from 
these agreements, the administration's excuses slowly melted away. 
Then, with every reasonable excuse gone and with bipartisan support for 
passing the agreements building and the end in sight, President Obama 
threw another obstacle in the path of their consideration. This time he 
made new demands for more spending on domestic worker retraining 
programs. Let's consider that at a time when virtually every government 
spending program faces intense scrutiny and many programs are being 
cut, this administration demanded more spending for a program of 
dubious value and with an unproven track record. In doing so, the 
President put his thirst for more spending ahead of the interests of 
the broader American economy that would benefit from these agreements 
entering into force, and he risked the tens of thousands of jobs his 
own administration insists these agreements will create. His reckless 
demands ground any progress we had achieved to pass the agreements to a 
halt. Accordingly, it took months for Congress to unravel this 
substantive and procedural Gordian knot of the President's own making. 
Meanwhile, U.S. workers continued to lose ground as our foreign 
competitors completed agreements to benefit their workers at our 
expense.
  With today's vote, our Nation can hopefully begin to awaken from its 
trade stupor and confront the opportunities and challenges the world 
economy offers once again. Frankly, I am baffled by this 
administration's disregard for trade. They should know better. Our 
country benefits from free-trade agreements, and the reason is simple: 
The tariffs of our trading partners are generally significantly higher 
than are those of the United States. Free-trade agreements even the 
playing field for U.S. exporters by lowering the tariffs of the United 
States and our trading partners to the same level of zero.
  For those who say they demand fair trade, it is hard for me to 
conceive of fairer trade than that--a level playing field where our 
products and services enjoy the same access and protections that 
foreign goods and services enjoy here in the United States. By leveling 
the playing field, free-trade agreements promote U.S. exports. Indeed, 
U.S. exports to our free-trade-agreement countries increased at a 
faster rate than U.S. exports to the rest of the world from 2009 to 
2010. Moreover, in 2010, U.S. exports to our free-trade partner 
countries constituted 41 percent of all U.S. exports. Yet the United 
States has free-trade agreements with only 17 countries, and that is 
out of the 234 countries on which the U.S. Department of Commerce 
collects trade data. So our exports to our free-trade-agreement 
partners--just 17 countries--come close to dominating U.S. exports.
  Let's look at this another way. The combined population of our free 
trade agreement partner countries is only about 310 million, while the 
world population is approximately 7 billion. So almost half of U.S. 
exports go to the less than 5 percent of the world's population that 
lives in countries with which we have free trade agreements. To me, it 
is clear that if we really want to double exports over the next 5 
years, among the best tools available to us are our free trade 
agreements.
  The export numbers under our recent free trade agreements certainly 
bear this out. Staff economists at the U.S. International Trade 
Commission share these observations on the benefits of the recent free 
trade agreements. They wrote last month that ``the United States has a 
significant and sustained trade surplus with recent FTA partners.'' In 
an analysis of recent free trade agreements that excluded oil trade, 
these economists noted that the U.S. trade surplus with these recent 
free trade agreement partners grew from $1.7 billion in 2005 to $16.7 
billion in 2010, and they stated that this expanded trade surplus was 
driven mainly by a $24.5 billion increase in U.S. exports to those 
countries. During this same period, U.S. non-oil exports to the recent 
FTA partner countries increased by 23 percent, while non-oil imports 
from those countries grew by only 3 percent.
  So the facts are clear that the recently implemented U.S. free trade

[[Page 15321]]

agreements have benefited the United States. There is little doubt that 
the pending U.S. free trade agreements will do the same. As with 
existing U.S. free trade agreements, the free trade agreements with 
Colombia, Panama, and South Korea will level the playing field for U.S. 
exporters. They will eliminate the significant disparity between 
tariffs imposed by Colombia, Panama, and South Korea on imports from 
the United States and tariffs that the United States applies im imports 
from those countries.
  According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, U.S. exports to 
these countries may increase by up to $12 billion following 
implementation of these agreements. The U.S. International Trade 
Commission also estimates that these agreements, once implemented, 
could expand the U.S. GDP by over $14 billion.
  Let's take a moment to review the unique benefits of each of these 
agreements. The South Korea FTA is in many ways the gold standard for 
trade agreements. South Korea's economy is worth over $1 trillion, and 
this agreement enables American workers and companies to take advantage 
of it.
  The FTA incorporates state of the art intellectual property rights 
protections, significantly expands services sector market access, opens 
a large agriculture market, and offers new market access for American 
manufacturers. It adopts the most advanced regulatory, non-tariff 
barrier, and investment provisions of any FTA thus far and champions 
the rule of law which is so critical to an effective and fair rules-
based trading relationship.
  For my home State of Utah, South Korea is already an impressive 
market. South Korea imported more than $294 million of goods from Utah 
in 2009 alone. Implementation of the agreement will help boost Utah's 
exports even more, as over two-thirds of our exports to Korea will 
become duty-free immediately.
  The sectors that will immediately benefit from the agreement's tariff 
cuts reflect Utah's economy, including computers and electronics, 
metals and ores, machinery, agriculture, and services.
  But the benefits of this agreement for Utah go far beyond just 
reducing tariffs. By adopting the strongest intellectual property 
rights, regulatory reforms, investment protections, and transparency 
provisions, the South Korea FTA will ensure that our companies, 
farmers, and workers realize the full potential of the South Korean 
market. By protecting the ideas of America's entrepreneurs and 
providing a level playing field, U.S. workers and job creators stand to 
benefit significantly from implementation of this agreement.
  Panama plays a unique and important role in international trade. The 
construction of the Panama Canal bridged East and West, allowing us to 
link economies across the globe. Today, Panama is building towards an 
even more interconnected future as it engages in an ambitious $5.25 
billion construction project to broaden and deepen the canal. The 
Panama FTA will provide our companies and workers with access to this 
and other government procurement projects.
  Panama is one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America, 
having experienced a decade of economic growth that has at times 
reached double digits. Panama's GDP is expected to more than double by 
2020. Passing this agreement will provide significant new access for 
U.S. companies and workers to this growing market.
  Bear in mind that today, 98 percent of Panama's goods enter the U.S. 
duty free. Our trade agreement turns this into a two-way street, 
ensuring that 87 percent of U.S. goods will enter Panama duty free 
immediately once we get this agreement implemented.
  Panama is also one of the world's financial hubs and in recent years 
has taken giant leaps to increase its fiscal transparency. This 
financial industry underpins a services market worth over $20 billion. 
Our services firms will have guaranteed access to this market once we 
the FTA enters into force. Our farmers and ranchers will gain 
additional market access through tariff reductions and a fair and 
transparent, science-based regulatory environment which will enable 
them to sell more products to Panama's growing consumer class. The 
agreement will foster greater customs transparency, which will benefit 
both exporters and importers, including Utah companies who currently 
export almost $4.5 million per year in goods to Panama.
  The Colombia agreement will also help our exporters. Our agreement 
with Colombia will transform a one-way preferential trade relationship 
into a two-way street, giving U.S. exporters fair access to a large and 
growing consumer market. Colombia's economy is the third largest in 
Central and South America. Colombia is also the third largest recipient 
of U.S. exports in Latin America. In fact, in 2010 the U.S. sold more 
products to Colombia--approximately $12 billion--than to Russia, Spain, 
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Chile, Peru, Indonesia, South Africa, 
Thailand, and the Philippines.
  The agreement will affect the lives of farmers and workers across the 
United States in a positive way. A good example of the agreement's 
positive effects can be found in my home State of Utah where workers at 
AC Med, a Salt Lake City company that exports hospital beds to 
Colombia, will see tariffs of 20 percent eliminated immediately upon 
implementation of this agreement.
  Implementation of this agreement will result in over 80 percent of 
U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products to Colombia becoming 
duty free immediately, with the remaining tariffs being phased out over 
10 years.
  The agreement will also provide significant new access to Colombia's 
$134 billion services market, will require the use of fair and 
transparent procurement procedures protecting United States companies 
in Colombia against discriminatory or unlawful treatment, protect 
intellectual property rights, and increase access for U.S. service 
providers, telecommunication companies, and agricultural exporters.
  There are a number of reasons beyond the economic benefits to the 
United States economy to support our trade agreement with Colombia in 
particular. Colombia is a strategic ally of the United States. In a 
part of the world where the United States has too often lacked friends, 
Colombia is a sound and steadfast ally. In fact, I can think of no 
other countries in South America with which the United States has 
closer, stronger, and more positive relations.
  While Colombia has a long democratic tradition, undemocratic forces 
have tried over the years to topple its government. Determined to keep 
these armed entities from destroying their democracy, Colombians fought 
for decades against these forces. Far too many brave men and women lost 
their lives and their livelihoods in this struggle.
  The United States stood by the side of these Colombians, devoting 
significant resources in the fight against drug traffickers and narco-
terrorists through Plan Colombia. The accomplishments of Plan Colombia 
have been significant, but there is more work to be done. Continued 
economic growth will be key to helping Colombia further solidify its 
democratic gains and strengthen the rule of law. This FTA can 
contribute to both our economies while strengthening democracy in 
Colombia and helping our friends.
  Each of these agreements will enhance our economic competitiveness 
and provide new opportunities for our exporters. Our Nation has been 
denied the benefits of these agreements for long enough. As President 
Obama himself has said, it is time to put country before party, and 
support each of these important trade agreements. I urge all my 
colleagues to vote for each of these agreements.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.


                          Iranian Bombing Plot

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wish to speak on the trade 
bills, but first I would like to comment on the fact, as the Senator 
from Utah has reminded us, of the sacrifice a lot of young Americans 
are enduring.
  One of the more difficult tasks that I have is to sign the letters of 
condolence to the families on the loss of one

[[Page 15322]]

of their members anywhere in the world having to do with the armed 
services.
  I might say that another major part of our protection of our national 
security is the young men and women we do not hear about, the men and 
women of the intelligence community all across the globe who likewise 
are protecting our national security interests, many times in direct 
coordination with the U.S. military. From time to time, we have 
casualties in the intelligence community as well.
  I just want to again express my profound thanks and gratitude to 
those across the globe who are protecting the national security 
interests of our blessed country.
  It is interesting because we just learned of a plot that was a threat 
to our security interests. Can you believe--a plot to assassinate a 
diplomat here in our Capital City of Washington; a plot that has 
intrigue like a B novel, that brings in the Mexican drug cartels; a 
plot that, according to the Attorney General, has been hatched by high 
levels of the Iranian Government. Now, the question is, who is in 
control in the Iranian Government? Is it the Supreme Leader? Is it the 
President, Ahmadi-Nejad? Is it what this plot was traced to, which is 
one arm of their governmental apparatus, the Revolutionary Guard, the 
Quds Force? It doesn't seem that Iran has its act together.
  Even though we hear the protestations by the Iranian Ambassador at 
the United Nations that this is all a fabricated lie, this perpetrator 
has already confessed. According to the news reports, they are saying 
this plot included bomb attacks, plotting on the Saudi and Israeli 
Embassies here in Washington, and that is all here in our National 
Capital. It was, according to the Attorney General, conceived, 
sponsored, and directed from Iran. This is obviously a flagrant 
violation of international law.
  An FBI informant, in the transcript the Justice Department released 
yesterday, asked the alleged plotter whether he was worried about 
innocent people being killed by a bombing in a restaurant where the 
supposed plot was to have taken place, where the Saudi Ambassador was 
going to be dining. In a reference to his Iranian superiors, this 
bomber said, ``They want that guy done'' even if ``a hundred go with 
him.'' The people of the United States have every reason to be 
outraged, to view this plot as an outright attempt to assault our 
Nation and our allies. I appreciate the Secretary of State calling for 
tougher sanctions. I want to hear what the administration is going to 
do, to make it very clear that these kinds of actions are not going to 
be tolerated.
  I thank, again, the intelligence community, which is how I started my 
comments. I thank the intelligence community for what they are doing 
around planet Earth, day in and day out, gathering the information that 
protects us.
  I want to comment on the matter at hand, the trade bills. I thank the 
chairman and the ranking member for their hard work in bringing to the 
table and shepherding these trade agreements through the Finance 
Committee and now here to the Senate. I came here to talk about what is 
good about these agreements and other people are coming here to talk 
about what is good, but all you hear is people want to blame the 
administration for something. Why don't we say something good?
  Not only are these agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama 
critical to the U.S. economy, they are certainly critical to the 
economy of my State of Florida, and they send an important signal that 
the United States is not going to turn its back on economic engagement. 
These trade agreements are creating a level playing field for American 
companies by removing foreign barriers to U.S. exports and U.S. 
investment. And, by the way, some of us would not have let these trade 
agreements go forward unless there had been also the passage of the 
trade adjustment assistance, which is assistance for workers who might 
be displaced as a result of the trade bills, especially with regard to 
retraining.
  The bottom line of these trade bills, then, means real jobs for 
struggling American workers. If there is any doubt with regard to an 
economy such as Florida's, there is no question that trade with 
Colombia, trade with Panama, trade in our agricultural sector with 
South Korea, is in the interests of my State. But this is also in the 
interests of the economy of the United States.
  The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American economic 
output will grow more from the U.S.-Korea agreement than from the last 
nine trade agreements of the United States combined; just from this one 
agreement with Korea, more economic output than the last nine 
agreements combined. The administration has taken extra steps to obtain 
these labor protections I talked about and further labor protections in 
the agreement with Colombia and the necessary tax transparency in the 
agreement with Panama. There is no question that free trade, if it is 
done right, creates jobs and opportunities. My State, Florida, is the 
launching point, the gateway to Latin America. Thousands of jobs in 
Florida depend on maintaining a vibrant commerce in the economic 
relations with our trading partners to the south. If we fail to move 
these agreements with Colombia and Panama, we are going to run the risk 
of losing these jobs.
  I often say why does Florida reflect the Nation in a lot of our 
political mood? It is because the country has moved to Florida. But 
what is also reflective of Florida, Florida is increasingly a 
reflection of the Western Hemisphere because of all our ties into 
Central and South America and the Caribbean.
  Under these agreements we are going to pass, emerging industries in 
Florida, such as aerospace, will be able to increase sales abroad while 
we are going to be able to hire more people here at home. In the 
agricultural sector, our ranchers, our farmers, our growers are going 
to significantly benefit from these agreements. Korea's 54-percent 
tariff on certain citrus products is going to be eliminated immediately 
or reduced to zero over 5 years. Do you know who that helps? It helps a 
specialty section of citrus called the Indian River region, the region 
this Senator grew up in, on the banks of the Indian River. The delicacy 
fruit of the world comes from the Indian River region. They are a huge 
exporter of fresh grapefruit, and especially that grapefruit going into 
Korea as a result of this agreement is going to be helpful.
  The changes will create new export opportunities for the entire 
citrus industry and the tariffs on Florida beef exports to Korea will 
also come down. A lot of people do not know--the Presiding Officer 
being from New York, people they do not know that New York is a great 
agriculture State. A lot of folks do not know that Florida is not only 
how they would identify it--citrus--but it is a huge agriculture State. 
A lot of people do not realize how much the beef industry, the ranches 
this Senator grew up on, are so much a part of our economy, and among 
the 50 States Florida is a leader among beef ranches. This is all going 
to benefit as a result of this trade agreement with Korea.
  The Colombia and Panama agreements include important protections to 
prevent Brazil, a major producer of orange juice, from shipping orange 
juice through these other countries to the United States.
  These trading agreements are important for strategic reasons as well. 
Obviously Colombia is a key ally in the region. You have to give credit 
where credit is due to the Colombian Government, the previous 
government of President Uribe and the present government, for the close 
working relationship with the U.S. military, as well as our 
intelligence community. Give credit where credit is due, that the 
Government of Colombia pulled off that ruse that helped us bring our 
three American hostages, who were held by the FARC for years, out of 
the jungles. South Korea and Panama are strategic partners and share 
regional interests in security and economic stability.

[[Page 15323]]

  With all of these trading partners, we are bound by our commitment to 
freedom and the rule of law, and these trade agreements are certainly 
going to help us solidify our converging aspirations.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, it is my understanding we are in 
morning business and I am allowed 10 minutes; is that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no restriction on floor 
time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Marvelous. Before the Senator from Florida leaves, let 
me say, from the banks of the Indian River to the prairies of Kansas 
and Dodge City, I know many people do not quite grasp the fact that 
there are a lot of cowboys in Florida. Obviously we have a lot of 
cowboys in Dodge City. From the wheat we want to export to Colombia, 
despite their trade agreements with other countries, and you want to 
export citrus, beef--the same kind of thing--it just shows you from 
Kansas to Florida, we have similar interests. I thank the Senator for 
his comments and for his comments yesterday in the markup in the 
Finance Committee, and for his support. A lot of my remarks will be 
duplicative of his. That shows you, in regard to Florida and Kansas, we 
have a very strong mutual interest.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. And also in a bipartisan way that we are 
supporting this. Isn't that a wonderful term to suddenly throw around, 
``bipartisanship,'' where we can come together, not as partisans, not 
as ideologs, but in the best interests of the country?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I share the Senator's views, and I am very hopeful this 
will not be the last trade agreement we see. I, again, thank him for 
his comments and his work.
  Madam President, some of my remarks will be duplicative of those of 
Senator Hatch and those of the Senator from Florida, as I have 
indicated, but on behalf of our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and 
manufacturers, service providers, I rise today to add my voice to the 
chorus of strong support for passing the pending trade agreements with 
Colombia, Panama, and Korea.
  I will be candid with you. I am not trying to be a ``bad news bear'' 
here, but I was not all convinced this day would ever come. But after 
learning that the President was sending the trade agreements to 
Congress, I think the word I thought of in my head was ``finally,'' 
maybe five ``finallys,'' because it has been 5 years that the U.S. 
trade agenda has been put on hold and frankly was hostage to demands by 
certain environmental groups, labor groups, and a rewrite of the trade 
adjustment assistance. But yesterday under the perseverance of the 
chairman, Senator Baucus, and others on the committee, finally the 
Senate Finance Committee did pass the trade agreements.
  We had a markup. It was amidst protesters. It was not a unique 
situation, but one that the chairman handled very deftly. I call to the 
attention of Members in regard to their interests in the trade 
agreements, if they have any possible concerns, read the remarks by 
Senator Hatch and by the chairman, by Senator Crapo, Senator Wyden, and 
Senator Kerry--more especially Senator Wyden. He got a little static 
from the audience, undeservedly.
  The good news is, the pending trade agreements add up to $13 billion 
in additional exports and estimated 250,000 jobs.
  A few big picture highlights: Right now, Korea imposes on average a 
54-percent tariff for ag products. Upon implementation, two-thirds of 
current tariffs are immediately eliminated, with most zeroing out after 
a decade. For beef producers--and that is a big thing for Kansas--that 
means the 40-percent tariff on beef products will be phased out over 15 
years. Around 75 percent of the ag and non-ag exports entering Colombia 
will be duty free upon implementation of the agreement. Duties on many 
other tariff lines will be phased out over a 5- to 10-year period.
  For Panama, while reducing import duties is important, the expansion 
of the Panama Canal is not only an important project for U.S. bidders, 
it is geographically key for international commerce and transportation 
and security for the region.
  But from the agricultural perspective, just for the aggies, the three 
pending trade agreements represent $2.5 billion upon full 
implementation; in regard to exports, more than 22,000 jobs. The Kansas 
Farm Bureau estimates the three agreements in total are expected to 
increase direct exports by $130 million for Kansas agricultural 
producers and an additional 1,150 jobs.
  Finally, these trade agreements will help put American workers and 
exporters on a level playing field with our competitors and hopefully--
a tough job--regain lost market share.
  Let me emphasize that in the case of two of these agreements, Panama 
and Colombia, under normal conditions their exports already have duty-
free access to the U.S. market. The pending agreements merely create a 
two-way trade and allow U.S. exporters the same treatment we already 
grant their countries. It makes one wonder what all the fuss was about. 
The 5-year fuss and delay hurt us, not them. That is the point I think 
everybody should finally discern.
  Yet for 5 years, 3 years under this administration, the goalposts 
continued to shift and action was delayed indefinitely--2 years under 
the previous administration, basically with objections by the House of 
Representatives. As a consequence, U.S. producers and exporters lost 
market share to our competitors.
  Let me give an example. Over the past 2 years, U.S. wheat producers 
have already lost market share to Argentina, which receives 
preferential trade treatment based on a regional trade agreement. In 
just 2 years, the U.S. share of the Colombian wheat market dropped by 
30 percent. Including corn and soybeans, the lost market share jumps to 
57 percent.
  In addition, the largest food processor in Colombia--Nutresa--
announced shortly after the Canada-Colombia trade agreement went into 
effect that they were sourcing all of their wheat purchases from 
Canada, accounting for half of all wheat imports. Previously, U.S. 
wheat growers were the largest suppliers of wheat in Colombia.
  In July, the Korea-European Union trade agreement--not U.S. 
agreement, European Union agreement--went into effect, and within the 
first month, according to Korean Customs, European Union exports are up 
34 percent. That is market share going to the European Union, not the 
United States. Notably, aerospace equipment increased a whopping 1,693 
percent. We can see where that is going. Kansas is a major player in 
the aviation sector. We exported $2.7 billion in transportation 
equipment last year. Considering the European Union agreement, we can 
see what happens with lost market share.
  Finally, with regard to the United States and future trade and trade 
in general, the United States must be trusted to stand by its word. 
Trust in our word in trade means everything. The dithering on these 
trade agreements has not been lost on our trading partners or the world 
at large. It is just not economic growth and job creation we have 
gambled with. All the back and forth and increased demands on our part 
calls into question our integrity. Is the United States a dependable 
partner and ally?
  As the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am 
quite familiar with who is a friend to the United States and who is 
not. In the 31 countries and 10 territories that make up the U.S. 
Southern Command, there is a growing sense of anti-Americanism. 
Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez, is a perfect example.
  A decade ago, Colombia was essentially a failed state suffering from 
a war waged between the guerilla groups and the paramilitary groups, 
the FARC and the ELN. Much has changed over 10 years under the 
leadership of then-President Uribe and continued by President Santos--
an amazing job.
  U.S. support during this time has helped establish a firm 
relationship

[[Page 15324]]

and form a key ally in an increasingly hostile area. So strengthening 
our economic relationship just makes sense. The unjustified delay on 
our part is not only embarrassing, it has potentially damaged our 
credibility, in my view.
  As Kansans and the rest of our Nation continue the slow and bumpy 
climb out of these tough economic times, we must do all we can to 
foster economic growth. Opening foreign markets to U.S. goods, 
services, and agriculture is an obvious and long overdue part of the 
solution. But we can't stop with passing these three trade agreements, 
pat ourselves on the back, and call it a day. I assure my colleagues 
that our foreign competitors are not stopping. In fact, it has been 
reported that there are approximately 100 trade agreements being 
negotiated right now, give or take, that do not include the United 
States--100.
  We, the United States, are negotiating one, initiated in the waning 
days of the Bush administration--the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. 
The TPP provides critical access to the ever-growing Asia-Pacific 
region and has the potential to include other countries later in the 
future.
  While negotiations continue, there will soon come a point when talks 
will stall because the U.S. negotiators' hands are tied without the 
protection of trade promotion authority or fast track, as some refer to 
it. Without TPA, negotiating countries will have little reason to 
negotiate much less make any difficult concessions until they know the 
United States is serious. Fast track provides the substance to these 
talks.
  So why is TPA not a priority? I am concerned that as the 
administration quietly defers on seeking trade promotion authority, 
negotiators will be unable to negotiate, and trade will take a back 
seat once again. The signal may well be--and I hope this is not true--
that these trade agreements will be the last under the current 
administration.
  Now, let me get off the ``Bad News Bears'' stuff and the stubborn 
facts and the 5-year delay. Let me give credit to the President for 
finally--yes, finally--sending these trade agreements to Congress. But 
let's not become pacified with the long overdue action. In order to 
stay competitive with our foreign partners, we need to stay in the 
game.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I will speak for up to 10 minutes, but I 
would first defer to the Senator from Michigan for a unanimous consent 
agreement.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I ask unanimous 
consent that immediately after Senator Vitter has completed his 
statement I be recognized for up to 30 minutes, and that I may yield 
time during that 30-minute period to Senators on this side as we 
control the 30 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                                 Energy

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, today is the 1-year anniversary of 
President Obama and Secretary of Interior Salazar finally lifting the 
formal moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico following the BP 
disaster. But simply lifting the moratorium did not solve the problem. 
I return to the Senate floor today to again say that still, a year 
later, that problem is not solved because there is a continuing permit 
logjam.
  It started with a de facto moratorium. Now there has just been a 
trickle of permits, and there is a continuing permit logjam that has 
dramatically shut down and slowed energy activity in the Gulf of 
Mexico. That must change.
  Of course, this is vitally important for my State of Louisiana and 
the livelihoods of tens of thousands of my citizens. That must change 
for the good of the country as well, for our economic well-being and to 
increase our revenues to address deficit and debt.
  As we talk about jobs and various jobs bills and jobs proposals, we 
must focus on the domestic energy sector, and we must change the 
situation. We must reverse this virtual shutdown of the gulf for the 
good of the country, and I hope we do that.
  To that end, I joined Congressman Jeff Landry yesterday in a meeting 
with Obama Director Michael Bromwich and other high-ranking 
administration officials who have to do with this very permitting and 
leasing process. We wanted to sit down with these officials in the 
Obama administration to again make this very point. The formal 
moratorium was lifted a year ago, but the problem persists, and we need 
to do better. We need to issue permits at a much more healthy pace. We 
need to get that important domestic energy activity back up and running 
in the Gulf of Mexico.
  Recently, there was an independent study by HIS Global Insight which 
put some hard numbers on this situation. That study said leasing in the 
Gulf of Mexico is down about 65 percent from pre-formal moratorium 
levels. It also pointed out that the waiting line of people and 
companies to get permits has almost doubled. It has increased 90 
percent.
  So what does that mean? That means far less activity in the gulf, far 
less energy activity for the country, and far fewer jobs--jobs we need 
now more than ever in this horrible economy.
  Let me give some other relevant numbers. As of the end of September--
just a few weeks ago--there were 21 floating rigs in the Gulf of 
Mexico, of which about 18 are currently drilling wells. That compares, 
premoratorium, to 33 floating rigs with 29 drilling wells at that time. 
That is a 37-percent drop in both the number of rigs and those 
drilling.
  Since the moratorium began, 11 rigs have left the Gulf of Mexico. 
Only one of these has returned. In addition, three more are sitting 
idle. Seven of these rigs have left to go to African countries, 
including Egypt, Nigeria, Liberia, and the Republic of Congo. Three 
have gone to South America, mostly to Brazil and French Guiana; and the 
remaining rig was mobilized to Vietnam. This all translates to about 60 
wells lost based on the original contract terms for these rigs.
  The loss of these rigs isn't just loss of equipment; it is loss of 
important energy and economic activity, and it is loss of jobs. It is 
lost spending of $6.3 billion and an annual loss of direct employment 
of 11,500 jobs over just 2 years. When we look at indirect employment, 
it is a multiplier that brings that lost job figure to way more than 
that.
  Again, it started with the formal moratorium. The formal moratorium 
was lifted 1 year ago today, but the problem persists because there was 
a de facto moratorium, and there is still a permit logjam.
  Another example of this enormous problem isn't just permitting. 
Another example is lease activity by the administration. Again, that is 
completely separate and apart from permitting. But the dramatic decline 
in lease sales, lease activity that the administration is putting out, 
shows the same problem mindset. What do I mean?
  Well, in the last fiscal year, the administration had no new lease 
activity--zero, nothing, nada. What that means is--just a few years ago 
the income to the Federal Government from lease sales was almost $10 
billion, and that has fallen like a rock through the floor and is now 
zero. That is another indicator of a problem mindset in this 
administration, leading to a dramatic economic slowdown. We need to 
reverse this. We need to do better for the economy, for jobs, and for 
that important revenue it brings to the Federal Government which could 
lower deficit and debt.
  So as we talk about the need to create good American jobs, as we also 
talk about the need to grapple with our deficit and debt situation and 
dramatically lower deficit and debt, as we talk about the need for 
revenue to be part of that picture, domestic energy has to be part of 
the solution, and it can be a big and productive part of the solution 
to both of those huge problems--the need to create good American jobs 
and the

[[Page 15325]]

need to lower deficit and debt. If we aggressively pursue domestic 
energy production, starting in the gulf, fully reopening the gulf, 
getting the permit process to a pace at least equal to pre-formal 
moratorium levels, get lease activity back online, and then expand to 
other areas of our resources off the Atlantic, Pacific, offshore 
Alaska--we have enormous resources that are now off-limits to energy 
production--if we do that, we can grow jobs, we can grow Federal 
revenue and lessen deficit and debt, and we can help attack both of 
those major economic problems for the country.
  Again, yesterday, I met, along with Congressman Landry, with Director 
Bromwich to make those points, to give specific examples of what we can 
be doing to go down that path in favor of good American jobs and 
lowering the deficit and debt. I hope it made a difference. Ultimately, 
only time will tell. But this needs to be part of our overall economic 
approach. This needs to be part of our deficit and debt reduction 
approach, and it can make a major contribution to solving both of these 
problems.
  I hope in a bipartisan way we will do that, and urge that in the 
Senate, and the administration will break through the negative mindset 
they have had for several years and do that in an aggressive way. Our 
country needs it. Our workers need it. We need it as taxpayers to lower 
the deficit and debt, and this would be a very productive way forward.
  Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           American Jobs Act

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, more than 14 million Americans are 
without work. The American Jobs Act would help up to 2 million 
Americans get work or keep their jobs. It would prevent the layoffs of 
hundreds of thousands of teachers, police, firefighters, and other 
first responders. The jobs bill would give tax cuts to millions of 
small businesses. It would give incentives to those businesses to hire 
new workers. The American Jobs Act would provide a payroll tax cut to 
millions of American families. It would help our returning veterans 
find jobs. The American Jobs Act would put thousands of construction 
workers on the job repairing crumbling schools, building and repairing 
roads and bridges.
  The chief economist for Moody's, Mark Zandi, estimates that this 
legislation would add 2 percentage points to economic growth and would 
reduce the unemployment rate by up to 1 full percentage point. 
Economists surveyed by Bloomberg believe this bill ``would help avoid a 
return to recession.'' Those are their words. That is what the majority 
of our economists say from both sides of the aisle, across the 
political spectrum.
  How does it do this? The bill uses ideas that both Democrats and 
Republicans have supported in the past. It would not add a dime to the 
Federal deficit, and its provisions are overwhelmingly popular with the 
American people, according to all of the public opinion polls.
  We should be debating this bill. We should be offering amendments, as 
the majority leader said we would be doing. We should be improving it. 
We should be preparing to vote on it so millions of American working 
families can get the relief they need. We should do this so we can 
demonstrate to our constituents and to the world that we will come 
together to act in the face of crisis. Yet here we are roadblocked 
again. Why are we roadblocked? Because our Republican colleagues last 
night voted not to allow us to even begin to debate legislation that 
has ideas so many of them have supported in the past.
  Senate Republicans are once again walking down the filibuster road. 
The vote last night was not a vote on the American Jobs Act. Because 
the filibuster rules of the Senate require 60 votes, Senate Republicans 
last night were able to prevent the Senate from proceeding to a bill 
addressing the jobs crisis. We all know the rules of the Senate give 
the minority the power to stop us from holding this debate, but 
exercising that power, as they did last night, is profoundly mistaken. 
What they are doing when they do that is they are using a filibuster to 
prevent the Senate from even debating this bill. What that does in turn 
is elevate partisan interests over the good of the country.
  A number of us are going to be speaking today because we are deeply 
concerned--concerned that Republicans once again have signaled to an 
anxious and skeptical nation that we cannot address a great challenge 
of the day. We are deeply concerned that the single most important need 
in this country--jobs--will not be debated and remedies will not be 
sought because the Republicans once again are walking down the 
filibuster road.
  If Republicans oppose this bill, which is their right, vote against 
it. Better yet, if Republicans oppose this approach, for heaven's sake, 
offer an alternative jobs bill, offer a substitute, an alternative, 
something where the American public can compare what is in our jobs 
bill with what Republicans presumably favor. They oppose ours without 
saying what they favor, except vague references to less regulation. 
Everybody is in favor of eliminating wasteful regulations, but nobody 
believes you can do serious deficit reduction or create serious numbers 
of jobs by just freezing regulation.
  By the way, the small business community does not believe that. The 
surveys which were taken of small businesspeople by their own 
organizations say the biggest problem small business has is not 
regulation, and it is not taxes; it is a lack of demand. This bill 
helps to create demand by putting dollars into the pockets of our 
workers. There is a tax cut here which is very important to help 
stimulate that demand.
  So what is coming across to the American public loudly and clearly 
these days is that the Democrats here in the Senate have an 
alternative. The Republicans are filibustering that alternative without 
offering one of their own. Now, the majority could seek to break this 
filibuster by forcing the Republicans to sustain the filibuster and to 
try to wear them down. That process, however, at this time in this 
Congress is not a practical approach because it takes weeks or even 
months to break a filibuster. It is just simply too late in the session 
for us to practically be able to do that. And, by the way, the American 
people should not have to wait that long in any event for us to act.
  But there is another way to overcome a filibuster. It is not just 
forcing the filibusterers to filibuster--that is one way to do it; it 
takes usually months in order to succeed, but it would dramatize where 
the obstruction is--but the other way to overcome a filibuster is for 
public opinion to wear down the Republican wall of obstruction. That is 
probably the only practical path available for overcoming this 
filibuster at this time of this Congress.
  I hope the President will use his bully pulpit to make clear to the 
American people that it is the obstructionism of filibustering 
Republicans that prevents us from taking action on a jobs bill. The 
President has very effectively gone around the country supporting his 
jobs bill. I commend him for doing that. But what we need him now to do 
is to take that bully pulpit, which is unique to the President and to 
the Presidency, and use that bully pulpit to make it clear to the 
American people that filibustering Republicans are obstructing us from 
even taking up a jobs bill.
  The majority leader has made it clear that this is open to amendment. 
If the Republicans have a better idea, they can offer a substitute. But 
what is going on here now is that, without any alternative of their 
own, they are preventing us from addressing the major issue of this 
country.
  The Republican leader last night repeatedly asked unanimous consent 
to

[[Page 15326]]

send this bill back to the calendar if we did not get 60 votes to 
proceed. The Republican leader wants this bill to go away. Well, this 
jobs bill is not going to go away. It should not go away. And the 
Republican leader is engaging in wishful thinking if he believes that 
because he and his colleagues on that side of the aisle are 
filibustering a jobs bill, that means the filibuster is going to 
succeed and this bill is simply going to be returned to the calendar.
  The majority leader has said he is going to try again. Senator Reid 
said specifically he is going to bring this bill back again by using 
his rights, after he made it clear last night he is going to reconsider 
this bill. He has the right to do that because of the way in which he 
voted last night. He voted with the prevailing side at the end in order 
that he could reconsider this bill--a technical way that he could. He 
already had expressed his view very strongly supporting cloture, but he 
also, in order to bring this bill back under the same cloture motion, 
then filed a motion to reconsider as a Member of the prevailing side at 
the end, after he switched his vote so he could do so.
  I commend the majority leader. I commend him for taking that action. 
I commend him for signaling to the American people, to the media, to 
our colleagues on both sides of the aisle that he is going to try 
again. We are not simply going to fold our tent and go away. The 
majority leader is going to move to reconsider at a time he believes is 
appropriate, and then there will be another effort to break a 
Republican filibuster so we can at least debate this critically 
important legislation.
  Madam President, I am going to read from an analysis on the jobs plan 
by Mark Zandi that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record. 
Mark Zandi is an economist at Moody's.

                   [From Economy.com, Sept. 9, 2011]

                   An Analysis of the Obama Jobs Plan

                            (By Mark Zandi)

       President Obama's jobs proposal would help stabilize 
     confidence and keep the U.S. from sliding back into 
     recession.
       The plan would add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next 
     year, add 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by 
     a percentage point.
       The plan would cost abut $450 billion, about $250 billion 
     in tax cuts and $200 billion in spending increases.
       Many of the president's proposals are unlikely to pass 
     Congress, but the most important have a chance of winning 
     bipartisan support.
       President Obama's much-anticipated jobs plan is a laudable 
     effort to support the struggling economy. The plan would go a 
     long way toward stabilizing confidence, forestalling another 
     recession, and jump-starting a self-sustaining economic 
     expansion. If fully implemented, the Obama jobs plan would 
     increase real GDP growth in 2012 by 2 percentage points, add 
     1.9 million jobs, and reduce the unemployment rate by a full 
     percentage point, compared with current fiscal policy.
       The president's plan includes a wide range of temporary tax 
     cuts and spending increases. Among its widely anticipated 
     provisions are one-year extensions of this year's employee 
     payroll tax holiday and the full expensing of business 
     investment. Surprisingly, the plan would also increase the 
     size of the temporary payroll tax cut and creatively expand 
     it to employers. The president would also help state and 
     local governments pay teacher and first-responder salaries, 
     boost funding for unemployment insurance while meaningfully 
     reforming the Ul system, and launch several infrastructure 
     initiatives.
       The plan has its drawbacks. It isn't cheap, costing 
     taxpayers an estimated $450 billion. Of that, approximately 
     $250 billion takes the form of tax cuts, while another $200 
     billion comes through spending increases. The president 
     proposes paying for his plan with additional deficit 
     reduction beginning in fiscal 2014, but he does not 
     explicitly say how this is to be accomplished. The plan also 
     results in weaker growth in 2013, as most of the tax cuts and 
     spending increases are temporary and fade during the year. 
     Presumably the economy will be strong enough to handle it by 
     then, but that is far from certain. Moreover, the plan fails 
     to address the ongoing foreclosure crisis and housing slump, 
     major impediments to the recovery.
       In the current political environment, it is less than 
     likely that most of the president's plan will pass Congress. 
     Our current baseline outlook assumes that the payroll tax 
     holiday for employees is extended for only one more year. 
     There is a fighting chance that broader payroll tax cuts for 
     employees and employers could become law, but the odds aren't 
     high enough at this time to change our baseline assumptions.


                      Why more support is critical

       There are compelling reasons why the Obama administration 
     and Congress should provide more fiscal support to the 
     economy. Most obviously, the U.S. is struggling to avoid 
     recession as confidence flags. To complicate matters, federal 
     fiscal policy is quickly becoming a significant drag on 
     growth; state and local governments are already a weight. The 
     Federal Reserve has resumed easing monetary policy, but with 
     interest rates near zero, the Fed cannot lift the economy by 
     itself. Moreover, with the government's borrowing costs as 
     low as they have ever been and no indication that public 
     borrowing is crowding out private activity, there is ample 
     room to fund more near-term fiscal support, particularly if 
     it is paid for with additional long-term deficit reduction.
       The U.S. economy is on the cusp of another recession. 
     Businesses have stopped hiring and households are spending 
     more tentatively. Bankers are re-evaluating whether it makes 
     sense to continue easing credit standards and wondering if 
     instead they should be battening down the hatches again. 
     Declining stock prices and widening credit spreads suggest 
     investors are also losing faith.


                          Crisis of confidence

       Recession risks are uncomfortably high largely because 
     confidence is low. The economy has fundamental problems, 
     including the foreclosure crisis, a surfeit of residential 
     and commercial real estate, and yawning government deficits. 
     But even more serious is that investors, consumers and 
     businesses appear shell-shocked by recent events.
       Confidence normally reflects economic conditions; it does 
     not shape them. Consumer sentiment falls when unemployment, 
     gasoline prices or inflation rises, but this has little 
     impact on consumer spending. Yet at times, particularly 
     during economic turning points, cause and effect can shift. 
     Sentiment can be so harmed that businesses, consumers and 
     investors freeze up, turning a gloomy outlook into a self-
     fulfilling prophecy. This is one of those times.
       The collective psyche was already very fragile coming out 
     of the Great Recession. The dramatic loss of millions of jobs 
     and double-digit unemployment have been extraordinarily 
     difficult to bear. Businesses have also struggled with a 
     flood of major policy initiatives from Washington, led by 
     healthcare and financial regulatory reform. The lengthy 
     political battle over raising the nation's debt ceiling and 
     Standard & Poor's downgrade of U.S. debt eviscerated what 
     confidence remained. While the loss of S&P's AAA rating has 
     little real significance--Treasury yields have fallen since 
     the downgrade--it unnerved investors, judging by the plunge 
     in stock prices. Consumer and small-business confidence 
     gauges are as low as they have been since the Great 
     Recession.
       Consumers and businesses appear frozen in place. They are 
     not yet pulling back--that would mean recession--but a loss 
     of faith in the economy can quickly become self-fulfilling. 
     Whether the current crisis of confidence produces a double-
     dip recession depends critically on how policymakers respond. 
     Washington must act aggressively to stabilize sentiment and 
     lift flagging expectations.
       If no changes are made to current federal fiscal policy, 
     the economic impact of that policy will shift from acting as 
     a small drag this year to subtracting 1.7 percentage points 
     from real GDP growth in 2012. For context, at the peak of the 
     federal fiscal stimulus in 2009, federal policy added 2.6 
     percentage points to real GDP growth. Yet as the impact of 
     federal policy shifts from a stimulus to restraint, the 
     private sector must grow faster for the economy to simply 
     grow at its potential. In 2012 that potential is estimated at 
     2.7%; to reach it, private sector GDP would need to grow well 
     above 4%. That seems unlikely given the weak pace of 
     recovery.
       The biggest drag next year under current federal policy 
     comes from the scheduled expiration of two stimulus measures 
     at the end of 2011: the current 2% employee payroll tax 
     holiday and the emergency unemployment insurance program. Not 
     extending the programs will shave 0.9 percentage point off 
     2012 real GDP growth and cost the economy some 750,000 jobs. 
     The end of other fiscal stimulus measures enacted in 2009 
     will further reduce economic growth.
       State and local government actions are already producing 
     serious drags on the economy. Spending cuts and tax increases 
     will shave an estimated 0.5 percentage point from real GDP 
     growth this year and almost as much in 2012. The impact can 
     be seen clearly in the job market. State and local 
     governments have cut close to 700,000 jobs since their 
     employment peaked three years ago and are continuing to shed 
     workers at a stunning rate, averaging nearly 40,000 per 
     month. Many of those losing their jobs are middle-income 
     teachers, police, and other first responders.
       The need for more federal fiscal support is increasing as 
     the Federal Reserve's ability to respond to the weak economy 
     diminishes. The Fed recently took a bold step by stating its 
     intention to keep short-term interest rates near zero until 
     mid-2013. This has brought down long-term interest rates and

[[Page 15327]]

     provided some support to stock prices. The Fed can provide 
     even more help by extending the maturity of the Treasury 
     bonds it owns and by purchasing more long-term bonds through 
     another round of quantitative easing. But these ideas are not 
     without problems, chiefly that they are becoming less 
     effective in stimulating the economy.


                       The Fed can't do it alone

       Acknowledging this in his recent Jackson Hole speech, Fed 
     Chairman Ben Bernanke focused attention on fiscal 
     policymakers. Bernanke explained that Congress and the Obama 
     administration must follow through on plans for long-term 
     deficit reduction but also must provide additional near-term 
     support to the economy. Monetary policy alone may not be able 
     to prevent another recession.
       Additional fiscal help for the economy wouldn't be 
     desirable or even possible if the federal government's debt 
     costs were rising or if government borrowing were tightening 
     credit for households and businesses. But there is no 
     evidence that such crowding out is occurring. Ten-year 
     Treasury yields have fallen below 2%, a near record. This is 
     in part because of the Fed's actions, but the U.S. also 
     remains the global economy's safe haven. Whenever there is a 
     problem anywhere, the investment of choice is a Treasury 
     bond--witness the current flight to Treasuries sparked by 
     financial turmoil in Europe. Borrowing costs for households 
     and businesses also remain extraordinarily low, with fixed 
     mortgage rates closing in on a record low of 4% and Baa 
     corporate bond yields (the lowest investment grade) nearing a 
     50-year low below 5.5%.


                    Assessing the plan's components

       The president's jobs plan includes a wide range of 
     temporary tax cuts and spending increases. The plan would 
     cost close to $450 billion over 10 years, with slightly more 
     than $250 billion coming from tax cuts and $200 billion from 
     spending increases. For context, the plan's cost is equal to 
     about 3% of current GDP and just over half the $825 billion 
     ultimate price tag for the 2009 Recovery Act.
       The largest tax cuts include an extension and expansion of 
     the payroll tax holiday for employees and a creative new 
     payroll tax holiday for employers. Employers would be able to 
     cut their payroll taxes in half on up to $5 million in 
     taxable wages annually. Small businesses, many of whom are 
     cash-strapped, would enjoy a sizable albeit temporary boost 
     in their cashflow. Businesses will also pay no additional 
     taxes on any wages that rise from the year before, up to $50 
     million. This would give firms a substantive incentive to 
     increase hiring and should result in a larger economic bang 
     for the buck--additional GDP per tax dollar--than previous 
     job tax credits such as last year's HIRE Act.
       The president has also proposed a tax credit for businesses 
     that hire people unemployed longer than six months--a group 
     that, astonishingly, includes half the jobless. The longer 
     these workers remain unemployed, the harder finding work 
     becomes as their skills and marketability erode. Structural 
     unemployment thus rises as a long-term threat; it appears to 
     have already risen from around 5% before the Great Recession 
     to closer to 5.5% currently.


                   Doing infrastructure the right way

       The Obama plan's most significant spending increases, 
     totaling more than $100 billion, are for infrastructure. Such 
     development has a large bang for the buck, particularly now, 
     when there are so many unemployed construction workers. It 
     can also help remote and hard-pressed regional economies and 
     produces long-lasting economic benefits. Such projects are 
     difficult to start quickly--``shovel ready'' is in most cases 
     a misnomer--but since unemployment is sure to be a problem 
     for years, this does not seem a significant drawback in the 
     current context.
       More serious concerns are the expense of infrastructure 
     projects and their often political rather than economic 
     motivation. A creative way to address these concerns is 
     through an infrastructure bank--a government entity with a 
     federal endowment, able to provide loans and guarantees to 
     jump-start private projects. These might include toll roads 
     or user-supported energy facilities or airports. Private 
     investors and developers would determine which projects to 
     pursue based on what works financially rather than 
     politically. The infrastructure bank would take time to 
     launch, however, and thus would not produce quick benefits.


                     Unemployment insurance reforms

       The president also proposes more funding for unemployment 
     insurance, but in combination with some much-needed reforms 
     to the UI system. One idea involves scaling up a Georgia 
     program that places unemployed workers at companies 
     voluntarily for up to eight weeks at no charge to the 
     businesses. Along with their unemployment benefits, workers 
     receive a small stipend for transportation and other 
     expenses, training, and a tryout with the employer that could 
     lead to a permanent job. Employers can potentially abuse the 
     program by recycling unemployed workers, but the program 
     seems to have had some success since it began in 2003.
       Another idea to reform UI is to more broadly adopt ``work 
     share'' as an alternative to temporary layoffs and furloughs. 
     Instead of laying off workers in response to a temporary 
     slowdown in demand, employers reduce workers' hours and wages 
     across a department, business unit, or the entire company. 
     The government then provides partial unemployment insurance 
     benefits to make up for a portion of the lost wages. Work 
     share exists in 17 states and several countries overseas, 
     including Germany, where it is credited for contributing to a 
     relatively strong recovery.


                        Saving vital public jobs

       Like the temporary extension of unemployment insurance 
     benefits, work share has a large bang for the buck, since 
     distressed workers are likely to quickly spend any aid they 
     receive. Work share's economic effectiveness even exceeds 
     that of straight UI benefits, because it reduces both the 
     financial and psychological costs of layoffs. Work share can 
     particularly help firms that expect reductions to be 
     temporary, by reducing their costs for severance, rehiring 
     and training.
       Hard-pressed state and local governments would also receive 
     additional relief under the president's plan. While state 
     governments appear to be working through their near-term 
     budget problems, local governments are still struggling with 
     flagging property tax revenues. The biggest casualties are 
     teachers and first responders, and Obama's plan would help 
     with their salaries through the end of the 2013 school year.


                     From a headwind to a tailwind

       The president's plan would provide a meaningful boost to 
     the economy and job market in 2012. Compared with current 
     fiscal policy, the plan adds 2 percentage points to real GDP 
     growth, adds 1.9 million payroll jobs, and reduces 
     unemployment by a percentage point. Federal fiscal policy 
     would go from being a powerful headwind next year to a modest 
     tailwind.
       Of the 1.9 million jobs added in 2012 under the president's 
     plan, the largest contributor would be the extended payroll 
     tax holiday for employees, which adds approximately 750,000 
     jobs. The payroll tax holiday for employers is responsible 
     for adding 300,000 jobs, although this may be understated; 
     quantifying the impact of this proposal is difficult. 
     Infrastructure spending adds 400,000 jobs--275,000 jobs are 
     due to additional unemployment insurance funding and 135,000 
     jobs result from more aid to state and local governments.
       One potential pitfall of the president's plan is that the 
     boost to growth and jobs fades quickly in 2013. Additional 
     infrastructure spending and aid to state and local 
     governments continue to support growth, but the benefits of 
     the tax cuts peter out. The hopeful assumption is that the 
     private sector will be able to hold up as government support 
     abates. While reasonable, it is important to acknowledge that 
     policymakers hoped for the same thing last year when they 
     passed the one-year payroll tax holiday and extended 
     emergency unemployment insurance through 2011.


                     Also needed: Help for housing

       The president's plan is large, but in some key respects it 
     is not complete. Most notably, it does not directly address 
     the foreclosure crisis and housing slump, save for some added 
     funding for neighborhood stabilization. The President did 
     mention in his speech that he would be working with the FHFA 
     (Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's regulator) to facilitate more 
     mortgage refinancing; this would be a significant plus for 
     housing and the broader economy if he is able to break the 
     logjam in refinancing activity.
       With some 3.5 million first-mortgage loans in or near 
     foreclosure and more house price declines likely, it is hard 
     to be enthusiastic about the recovery's prospects. A house is 
     most Americans' most important asset; many small-business 
     owners use their homes as collateral for business credit, and 
     local governments rely on property tax revenues tied to 
     housing values.
       Most worrisome is the risk that housing will resume the 
     vicious cycle seen at the depths of the last recession, when 
     falling prices pushed more homeowners under water--their 
     loans exceeded their homes' market values--causing more 
     defaults, more distress sales, and even lower prices. That 
     cycle was broken only by unprecedented monetary and fiscal 
     policy support.


                            Other criticisms

       The president's plan will be criticized for many other 
     reasons. Some will argue that he should have proposed massive 
     public works, like the Depression-era WPA. Others will say 
     the plan should have included broader reforms to corporate 
     taxes or even immigration. While these suggestions may have 
     merit as policies, they seem like steps too far given what 
     lawmakers need to do and how quickly they need to do it.
       Given the current political environment, it is unlikely 
     that much of what the president has proposed will become law, 
     but nearly all the proposals have some bipartisan support. An 
     extension of the current payroll tax holiday for employees 
     seems most likely to pass and is included in the Moody's 
     Analytics baseline economic outlook. The proposed expansion 
     of the employee tax holiday and the new payroll tax holiday 
     for employers are

[[Page 15328]]

     also possible. The president's spending initiatives, while 
     worthwhile, seem like longer shots.


                     Policymakers need to work fast

       The risk of a new economic downturn is as high as it has 
     been since the Great Recession ended more than two years ago. 
     A string of unfortunate shocks and a crisis of confidence are 
     to blame. Surging gasoline and food prices and fallout from 
     the Japanese earthquake hurt badly in the spring; more 
     recently, the debt-ceiling drama, a revived European debt 
     crisis, and the S&P downgrade have been especially 
     disconcerting. Confidence, already fragile after the 
     nightmare of the Great Recession and Washington's heated 
     policy debates, was severely undermined.
       Whether the loss of faith in our economy results in another 
     recession critically depends on how policymakers respond. 
     Whether they will succeed in shoring up confidence is a 
     difficult call. The odds of a renewed recession over the next 
     12 months are 40%, and they could go higher given the current 
     turmoil in financial markets. The old adage that the stock 
     market has predicted nine of the last five recessions is apt, 
     but the recent free fall is disconcerting. Markets and the 
     economy seem one shock away from dangerously unraveling. 
     Policymakers must work quickly and decisively.

  Mr. LEVIN. This is what Mark Zandi said about the President's job 
proposal:

       [It] would help stabilize confidence and keep the U.S. from 
     sliding back into recession.
       [It] would add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year, 
     add 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by a 
     percentage point.
       The plan would cost about $450 billion, about $250 billion 
     in tax cuts and $200 billion in spending increases.
       Many of the president's proposals [may be] unlikely to pass 
     Congress, but the most important have a chance of winning 
     bipartisan support.

  They deserve bipartisan support. Again, most of these proposals have 
been made by Republicans, not just by Democrats. But even if we cannot 
get the Republicans to support the proposal--because at least on the 
spending side it is the President's proposal; on the revenue side, it 
is now a Democratic Senate proposal in terms of the millionaires' 
surcharge--but if the Republicans will not vote for it, if they will 
not offer a substitute, an alternative of their own, if they will not 
seek to amend it to improve it, for heaven's sake, allow us to take up 
this bill.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I say thank you to Senator Levin.
  Yes, I try to explain this. I was on some radio calls this morning 
with stations in Dayton and Cincinnati and all over the State, and the 
questions they asked were just that: Wait a minute, OK, I understand 
people being against a proposal, but why would the leader of one 
political party say about a jobs bill--when unemployment is this high 
in the Senator's State and my State and millions and millions of 
Americans want jobs and cannot find them--why would they say: Let's not 
even put it on the floor for discussion.
  The rules of this place are peculiar, obviously, but why would you 
say: I am not even willing to bring it up for a vote. I am not even 
willing to debate it. I am not even willing to set the stage so we can 
discuss it.
  People do not want to hear about process. I understand that. But 
people do want us to do something about jobs. The first step is, you 
have a debate--you bring the bill forward, you have a debate, you offer 
amendments, and then you come up with something.
  Last night, as you recall, I say to Senator Levin, right before the 
jobs bill vote, we had a huge bipartisan vote, with 63 votes for the 
China currency bill. To do what? I know the Senator has advocated for 
years that we have a level playing field in our dealings with China so 
that so many Chinese companies do not get an advantage selling here and 
so that so many Michigan and Ohio companies do not get a disadvantage--
a currency tax; a tariff, if you will--when our companies in Michigan 
and Ohio try to sell into China.
  So I guess I am curious as to the Senator's thoughts on why we would 
not even set up ourselves--why Republicans would not want to at least 
come together and say, let's debate it. Then maybe we can make some 
interesting amendments we can come together on, like we came together 
bipartisanly just 24 hours ago--less than that--fewer than 24 hours 
ago, to come up with a real jobs bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wish there was an explanation which was satisfactory or 
an answer which was satisfactory to Senator Brown's question. I am 
afraid the only answer I can come up with is because this started off 
as President Obama's job bill. It has been changed. Now we have a 
different source of funding for it. We have a millionaire's surcharge 
in there which will fund these critically important programs, these 
job-creation programs.
  I cannot think of any other reason, other than they think it will 
simply go away. What is an explanation? Maybe it was in the unanimous 
consent request of the Republican leader last night: I ask unanimous 
consent that this bill not be amendable--no amendments would be in 
order under his unanimous consent proposal--and then when it does not 
get 60 votes, which he knew it would not get, that it be immediately 
returned to the calendar.
  That is what he asked twice last night--immediately be returned to 
the calendar. The Republican leader wants this bill to go away. It 
cannot go away. It should not go away. It will not go away. The 
majority leader has already said he is going to move to reconsider the 
vote last night. I expressed the hope, in my remarks, that the 
President use his bully pulpit not just to support the jobs bill, which 
is critically important--he is doing a good job as he goes around the 
country--but to make it clear where the obstruction is; that the 
Republicans will not allow us to consider a jobs bill, amend it if they 
want to try, substitute their own if they have one, which so far they 
do not. But let us debate this bill. I hope the bully pulpit of the 
President is used, not just to support a jobs bill, which is so 
critically important, but to point out where the obstruction is.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to join Chairman Levin in his plea 
that we be allowed to consider this legislation. The greatest crisis we 
face in the United States, for families all across the country, is 
jobs. The President has proposed a bill that is going to help us begin 
to deal with that job crisis, and he proposed a way to pay for it. An 
overwhelming portion of the country, the polling is definite, supports 
the President's proposal and our proposal, as modified by Senator Reid, 
to have a surcharge on individuals making over $1 million.
  So we have a bill that responds to the greatest need, that is paid 
for by doing what the American people overwhelmingly want us to do, and 
we cannot get it on the floor for debate, for amendment, and finally 
for passage. We are not able to respond to this crisis because we have 
been frustrated by our colleagues who refuse to let us take up the 
bill. The American people are demanding we act--the message is being 
sent far and wide in many different mediums--and we get it directly 
from home, and it is: Do something. It might not be perfect. It might 
not solve the problem immediately. But do something. Do not just stop 
debate, stop progress, stop discussion on the issues that are so 
critical to this country.
  Again, we are in a serious jobs crisis. We have seen the latest job 
report showing some sort of improvement but not enough, and we have to 
do more. If we do not pass the American Jobs Act, then we are going to 
be in a situation where--and this is one of the great ironies--the 
deficit will get worse, not better. One of the most direct ways to 
begin to deal with the deficit is to put people to work so they can 
resume their participation in the economic life of this country and 
contribute not only to their own well-being and that of their family 
but the growth of the country, and the robustness of our economy. In 
that way, we can address the deficit.
  So this refusal to act does not even serve the goal of deficit 
reduction. Again, I wish to emphasize this: We have a bill that has 
measures in it that

[[Page 15329]]

are proven, that are bipartisan, that will put people to work, and that 
are fully paid for by a tax that is overwhelmingly supported by the 
American people. If we do not act, the jobs crisis and our deficit will 
persist.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Michigan 
for bringing us together and making the point, as clearly as we can 
make it, that last night we had a chance to launch maybe the most 
important single issue in debate that we can consider in the Senate. We 
had a chance to bring both parties to the floor of the Senate and ask 
for the best ideas each of us has to move the economy forward.
  The President has a plan. I think it is a good one. I support the 
plan. I think it is a reasonable way to move this economy forward and 
put people to work. But it is the nature of the legislative process 
that some will disagree with one aspect of it, some with others, and 
Members may have their own ideas to bring to the floor. That is what 
this branch of government is all about, that we have this debate, an 
open debate, Democrats and Republicans on the floor, and at the end of 
the day vote on something to move forward with together.
  But last night not one single Republican Senator would join us in an 
effort to bring this matter to a debate on the floor. In fact, the 
Senator from Michigan has made the point over and over that the 
Republican filibuster requiring 60 votes to break the filibuster is 
stopping the majority from acting in the Senate on the issue of 
creating jobs--a Republican filibuster. That is problematic. It is 
troublesome. It is frustrating.
  Because I am sure in Michigan, where they have been wracked for years 
now with unemployment and businesses struggling--we have similar 
problems in Illinois, 14 million Americans unemployed across the board. 
Take a look at what the Senator from Kentucky comes and tells us every 
day as Republican leader. He tells us that one of the big problems with 
this bill, as he sees it, is it is paid for. He does not like the fact 
that President Obama has paid for it and certainly does not like the 
way he paid for it. The way he paid for it is to impose a surtax of 5.6 
percent on people making more than $1 million a year. That generates 
enough revenue, over a 10-year period of time, that we can give a 
payroll tax cut to working families across America, and we can provide 
tax incentives for businesses to hire unemployed veterans and people 
who have been out of work for a long time.
  The money generated from that millionaire's tax is going to end up 
allowing us to save, in my State, 14,000 teacher, firefighter, and 
policemen jobs that otherwise would be lost. It will allow us to put 
money into modernizing our schools--which we need to do in Illinois and 
across the country, in Minnesota, Michigan, in Montana and every State 
and to build the basic infrastructure that America needs to be 
successful. Senator McConnell has said over and over, he will not agree 
to this tax hike.
  Let's take a look at what middle-income Americans are paying as an 
effective Federal tax rate as opposed to the wealthiest in America, the 
point made over and over by President Obama and a point worth repeating 
today. Middle-class families in America, people making between $50,000 
and $75,000 a year have an effective Federal tax rate of 14.9 percent. 
The wealthiest 1 percent, those making over $1 million a year, their 
effective Federal tax rate, 12 percent; 14.9 percent for middle-class 
families, working families; 12 percent for the wealthiest. What is 
wrong with this picture? What is wrong with it is that working families 
across America struggle paycheck to paycheck, and they are paying a 
higher Federal tax rate than the wealthiest people in America.
  I think everyone in America has to sacrifice. Now I know, some of the 
most vulnerable in America cannot. Physically, mentally they cannot 
rise to this challenge. But the rest of us, for goodness' sake, have to 
be prepared to sacrifice. Working families are already sacrificing, 
living paycheck to paycheck. To ask the wealthiest people in America, 
who are comfortable in this country because of the greatness of our 
economy, this open and transparent system, this rule of law we have, to 
ask them to pay a little more so America can move forward is not 
unreasonable.
  I would say this: At the end of the day, when the economy picks up 
and moves forward, and it will, the folks in the highest income 
categories are going to do quite well. It is the bottom line. They are 
going to do well. The ones I have run into, the ones I have talked to 
who are fortunate enough to be in this category--I know a few of them--
say: This is not unreasonable, Senator. Why do the Republicans oppose 
$1 in additional taxes to get the American economy moving forward?
  But that, of course, is the reason the Senate Republicans, not a 
single one of them, would support bringing this jobs bill from the 
President to the floor. A second reason is fairly obvious. It is the 
President's plan. For many of them they are in full campaign mode now. 
They do not want to give this President anything that looks like a 
victory. So they are not going to vote for anything that has his name 
on it. In fact, they will oppose things which historically they have 
supported. When President Bush came forward with his own stimulus plan 
to create jobs, supported by the Republicans, it had a payroll tax cut 
in it--a payroll tax cut for working families. It also had tax breaks 
for businesses to hire the unemployed. That is what President Obama 
proposes, and now the Republicans have said: Oh, we liked it as a Bush 
plan. We do not like it as an Obama plan. What is the difference? The 
name.
  I do not think the American people are going to cut us any slack if 
they believe we are spending more time designing bumper stickers for 
next year's election than we are in designing an economy that moves 
this country forward. I think they expect us--they demand of us--that 
we respond to this. When the Republicans impose a filibuster on 
President Obama's jobs act it is wrong. Let us have, as Senator Reid 
asked for last night, let us have the motion to proceed, let's get on 
this matter, and let's do it this week.
  I wish to say a word as well--Senator McConnell comes to the floor 
frequently and says: Whoa. There is a big jobs bill coming up, the 
trade agreements. Listen, trade agreements can expand opportunity for 
the sale of goods and services. That is a fact. But when we look at the 
scheme of things and look at these trade agreements, the proposal I 
have read says the South Korea Trade Agreement would expand U.S. 
exports by $10 to $11 billion and support up to 70,000 jobs. That is a 
lot of money and a lot of jobs, except when we look at the universe--
$10 to $11 billion in additional exports to Korea at a time when we 
have a $15 trillion economy. Good but not good enough. We need to make 
sure we are expanding jobs at a greater rate to get people back to 
work. The other two trade agreements are much smaller in comparison. So 
to argue that these trade agreements are the engine that will pull us 
out of the ditch and drive the economy forward is to completely 
overstate the positive impact which they might have.
  I would say to my friends on the Republican side, do not believe that 
voting for a trade agreement that generates $10 billion more in exports 
and 70,000 jobs will solve the problems we face in America.
  Yesterday, I went to a place called Career Tech in Chicago, funded by 
the Federal Government, an effort to take people who have been out of 
work for a long time and get them back into the workforce. They are 
introducing workers who had successful careers at businesses that 
closed to a new world, the world of social media, the world of 
information technology. They are learning. With that new education and 
training, they are getting new jobs.
  I asked them about what life was like unemployed. Some of them have 
been out of work for over 2 years. I said to them: The President wants 
to extend unemployment benefits for those out of work. A lot of folks 
on the other side of the aisle are saying: Oh, we already

[[Page 15330]]

tried that. We are not going to try that again. I said: What would 
happen to your family without unemployment benefits? To a person they 
said: I am not sure if we could have survived.
  They are basically making the mortgage payment, paying utility bills, 
putting food on the table--the basics. So if the Republicans are 
opposed to unemployment benefits for those who cannot find a job, no 
matter how hard they try, unfortunately, that is going to have a 
devastating impact on working families across America.
  For a footnote, I asked each one of them: What happened to your 
health insurance when you lost your job? They lost their health 
insurance. Think about it, Mom and Dad. Think about your responsibility 
to one another and to your kids with no health insurance. I mean, that 
is what happens to an unemployed person. Life is not a crystal 
staircase for these folks. They are just basically trying to get by and 
find a job. We need to help them. It is time for the Republicans to 
stop the filibuster and bring the Obama jobs bill to the floor. If they 
have better ideas, present those ideas as amendments. Our people will 
present their ideas. Let's have a full-throated debate about moving 
America forward. But for goodness' sakes, let's not stop the American 
economy cold in its tracks in an effort to preserve a Republican 
filibuster.
  It is time for us to move together in a bipartisan nature as a 
Congress in both political parties. I thank my colleague from Michigan 
for bringing us together for this conversation. There is nothing more 
topical that we face.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Colombia remains the most dangerous country 
in the world for trade unionists and workers seeking to exercise their 
internationally recognized right to organize and bargain collectively. 
The International Trade Union Confederation reported that in 2010 
Colombia had 49 union worker assassinations. That is more than the rest 
of the world combined. To make matters worse, a 2011 ILO report found 
that the majority of the cases of violence against workers in Colombia 
had not been investigated nor had the perpetrators been brought to 
justice. That is simply unacceptable and the United States should not 
enter into a free trade agreement with a country with such an atrocious 
human rights record.
  The Colombian government has failed to enforce its laws, adhere to 
its international commitment on worker rights, or to prosecute those 
who commit acts of violence against workers. This repression of 
fundamental labor rights presents a threat to the lives of the workers 
in Colombia and a threat to the livelihoods of the workers in the 
United States who are forced to compete against a country that doesn't 
play by the rules.
  I have written several letters to the administration expressing 
concerns about entering into a free trade agreement with Colombia until 
these worker rights abuse concerns are adequately addressed. The 
agreement before us does not adequately address them, and as a result I 
will oppose H.R. 3078, the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act.
  The Obama administration recognized the need to address these 
concerns before the free trade agreement could be submitted to Congress 
and reopened the Bush administration-negotiated U.S.-Colombia FTA to 
try to address them. That resulted in the action plan related to labor 
rights agreement reached between the U.S. and Colombia on April 7, 
2011.
  The action plan lists steps Colombia must take to improve its record 
on antilabor violence and, if rigorously implemented and enforced, 
could protect Colombian workers' internationally recognized rights. 
Unfortunately, we gave up any leverage we had to ensure this outcome 
would occur when we failed to link the action plan to the FTA or its 
implementing legislation. Both House and Senate Democrats during 
committee mark up of the bill proposed an amendment that would have 
created a link between the two, but Republicans blocked any reference 
to the labor action plan in the Colombia FTA.
  I disagree with the administration's conclusion that Colombia has 
made enough progress on implementing the Action Plan to send the U.S.-
Colombia FTA implementation act to Congress. Because this free trade 
agreement is being considered under fast-track procedures, Members of 
Congress like me, who would like to amend it to make improvements such 
as linking entry into force of the Colombian FTA to Colombia meeting 
its obligations under the action plan, cannot do so.
  Yes, Colombia may so far have technically met its commitments under 
the action plan. But it has done this only in the narrowest sense, and 
not in a way that really tries to address the labor problem. For 
instance, in Colombia, only workers who are directly employed by a 
company or business can form a union and collectively bargain. To get 
around allowing workers to form unions and collectively bargain, 
Colombian employers have formed cooperatives, or made other 
arrangements to hire their employees as contractors rather than as 
direct employees. The action plan addressed these abuses by requiring 
Colombia to pass legislation and regulations to prohibit such misuse of 
cooperatives and contract employees. Colombia did pass legislation and 
regulations that looked good on paper, but they were undermined when 
Colombia decided to narrowly interpreted the new law and regulations as 
applying only to cooperatives. This is leaves plenty of ways for 
employers to continue the same practice under a different guise.
  Given the lack of full implementation of the action plan to date, and 
without a provision explicitly inking implementation of the FTA to 
Colombia addressing anti-union violence, impunity and fundamentally 
deficient labor laws under the action plan, the legislation is 
fundamentally flawed and I cannot support it.
  I recognize that we currently do not have two-way trade with Colombia 
because most Colombian exports enter the U.S. duty free under the 
Andean Trade Preferences Act. Some might say we should adopt the U.S.-
Colombia FTA so U.S. exports can face lower tariffs in Colombia. But 
Colombia's market is small compared to the U.S. economy and as a result 
the ITC estimates the overall effect of the U.S. Colombia FTA on the 
U.S. economy is likely to be small. To me it is more important to 
insist that any country to which we enter a free trade agreement abide 
by internationally recognized labor standards and that plans to 
implement compliance actions be enforceable.
  Mr. President, I will vote in favor of H.R. 3080, the United States-
Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I will do so because the 
Obama administration has succeeded in improving the automotive 
provisions in the Bush administration-negotiated original agreement. 
The result is that U.S. made vehicles now have a better opportunity to 
gain access to the historically closed South Korean market.
  For too long, trade with South Korea has been a one-way street. The 
American market has been open and South Korea's market persistently 
closed by using a combination of tariff and nontariff barriers 
constructed to keep U.S. products out. This was most pronounced in the 
automotive sector, which makes up the majority of our trade deficit 
with South Korea. For instance, in 2010 South Korea shipped 515,000 
cars to the United States while U.S. automakers exported fewer than 
14,000 cars to South Korea. In 2010, we ran a $10 billion trade deficit 
with South Korea. Our trade deficit with South Korea in the automotive 
sector accounted for all of that $10 billion. Correcting our deficit in 
the automotive sector would go a long way to fixing our overall trade 
deficit with South Korea.
  The original 2007 U.S.-Korea FTA negotiated by the Bush 
administration was fundamentally flawed. The agreement called for 
significant concessions from the United States but would have 
perpetuated a skewed playing field that unfairly disadvantages U.S. 
automotive exports. It would have left in place the ever-shifting 
regulatory regime South Korea has used to effectively bar U.S. autos 
from the South Korean market. For example, South Korea has imposed so-
called auto safety regulations that are unique to Korea and don't have 
anything to do with

[[Page 15331]]

safety such as the location of towing devices or headlights or the 
color of turn-signal lamps. This means that no vehicle built outside of 
Korea can be sold in Korea without special and expensive modifications 
and testing to meet these Korean requirements.
  The failure to address these and other arbitrary, ever-changing 
regulations was one of the main reasons the agreement was not brought 
before the Congress for approval for so long. I was opposed to that 
agreement and as cochairman of the Senate Auto Caucus I spoke out 
against it.
  I am pleased that President Obama recognized the importance of the 
U.S. automotive industry and reopened the agreement to negotiate 
significantly improved terms for U.S. auto exports to South Korea.
  Importantly, the revised agreement will prevent South Korea from 
relying on discriminatory, rotating safety regulations as it has in the 
past to keep out U.S. auto imports. It does this by requiring South 
Korea to recognize 25,000 vehicles built to meet U.S. safety standards 
per automaker per year as meeting South Korean safety standards. This 
is an increase from 6,500 in the 2007 agreement. The revised agreement 
also includes an auto-specific safeguard designed to protect against 
potential surges of South Korean cars and trucks once the applicable 
tariffs are eliminated.
  Under the original 2007 agreement, almost 90 percent of South Korea's 
auto exports to the United States would have received duty-free access. 
But why should we have reduced our few remaining tariffs to South 
Korean auto exports unless we were assured greater access to the South 
Korean markets for our auto exports? For instance, the U.S. auto tariff 
is only 2.5 percent compared to the South Korean auto tariff of 8 
percent. The revised agreement corrected this inequity by reducing 
Korea's 8 percent duty to 4 percent immediately and to zero in year 5 
while delaying elimination of the duty on South Korea's auto exports 
until year 5, giving U.S. automakers the time to build a brand and 
distribution presence that will reverse decades of South Korean 
protectionism.
  The 2007 agreement was flawed also in how it dealt with the growing 
field of electric vehicles. The 2007 agreement would have allowed for a 
10-year phase-out of the 8 percent South Korean tariff on hybrid 
electric passenger vehicles and the 2.5 percent U.S. tariff. That was 
not a fair deal for U.S. electric car exports. It's bad enough that the 
current South Korean electric car tariff is more than three times the 
U.S. tariff. The 2007 agreement would have locked in place for 10 years 
South Korea's electric car tariff advantage. Why in the world would we 
agree to that? Thankfully the Obama administration did not. Under the 
revised agreement, the South Korean tariff on electric cars immediately 
drops from 8 percent to 4 percent. Then the 4 percent South Korean 
tariff and the 2.5 percent U.S. tariff are phased out over 5 years. 
Though the tariffs are still not completely symmetrical, it's a big 
improvement over the original deal. And importantly, this phase-out now 
tracks the EU-Korean FTA, so U.S. automakers will now not be 
disadvantaged compared to European auto makers in the South Korean 
market as they would have been under the 2007 agreement.
  Stakeholders, including Members of Congress, the United Auto Workers 
and U.S. auto companies, pushed hard for improved market access in the 
U.S.-Korea FTA. Thanks to the improvements the Obama administration has 
negotiated, the UAW, Ford, GM and Chrysler as well as the Motor & 
Equipment Manufacturers Association, MEMA, among others, support the 
agreement. They think it will result in their being able to sell more 
U.S.-made vehicles in South Korea. Specifically, Chrysler has stated 
that as a result of the FTA it expects to sell 20,000 units per year in 
South Korea by the end 2014 compared to the paltry 2,638 passenger 
vehicles it sold there in 2010, and that the company plans to expand 
its dealer network to 30 outlets from the current 16.
  These additional U.S. auto exports translate into badly needed 
American jobs. The 2007 ITC report on the expected impact of the U.S.-
Korean FTA estimated U.S. exports to South Korea would increase by $10-
$11 billion annually. The administration estimates that an additional 
$11 billion in exports would mean around 70,000 more jobs annually. In 
an updated ITC report requested by Senator Wyden to assess the impact 
on American jobs of the FTA tariff and tariff rate quota reductions on 
goods based on current economic conditions, the ITC concluded that the 
agreement has the potential to create about 280,000 American jobs.
  The agreement also has strong labor and environmental provisions that 
were agreed to in May 2007 at the insistence of Democratic Members of 
Congress, led by my brother, Congressman Sandy Levin, the ranking 
member of the House Ways and Means Committee. They include the 
enforcement of a commitment to adopt and enforce internationally 
recognized labor and environmental standards and agreements.
  It is high time we insisted on a different trade model that fights 
for a level playing field for American exports and American workers. I 
believe the revised U.S.-Korea FTA moves significantly toward that 
model and I will vote in favor of the legislation to implement it.
  Mr. President, I will support legislation to implement the U.S.-
Panama Free Trade Agreement. The Obama administration has taken 
important steps to address concerns about worker rights and 
environmental protections in Panama that represent a significant 
improvement over the original agreement negotiated by the Bush 
administration. And, after years of pressure from those of us concerned 
about the abuse of offshore tax shelters, Panama has finally removed a 
major impediment to this free trade agreement by agreeing to and 
beginning to implement a tax information exchange agreement.
  For 6 years, the Bush administration failed to conclude a tax 
information exchange agreement with Panama. In 2009, I joined with 
Congressman Doggett in a letter to President Obama making clear that we 
could not support a free trade agreement with Panama unless that 
country upheld its international obligations under the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development's standards for transparency. The 
OECD found in September 2010 that Panama has ``potentially serious 
deficiencies'' in its laws on tax transparency. Thanks to pressure from 
the OECD, the Obama administration and those of us in Congress who 
oppose offshore tax haven abuse, Panama negotiated an information 
exchange agreement that took effect earlier this year.
  Panama also agreed in negotiations with the Obama administration to 
uphold internationally recognized labor rights, making changes in its 
laws to protect collective bargaining rights. These changes have 
removed a major obstacle to approval of this free trade agreement.
  With Panama's agreement to meet international standards for tax 
transparency and labor rights, I believe the agreement before us will 
protect workers in both countries, and the interests of U.S. taxpayers 
who are tired of seeing others dodge their tax obligations using 
offshore tax havens.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to lend 
their swift support to the pending free trade agreements with South 
Korea, Colombia, and Panama that have at last come before this Chamber. 
In approving these FTAs, we have an opportunity to show the American 
people that we in Congress are prepared to set aside partisan politics 
and come together to do something truly important to help our nation at 
a time when our economy is under unprecedented pressure.
  Simply put, free trade agreements like the ones before us today are 
not a choice for the United States--they are a necessity. As President 
Clinton used to point out, only 4 percent of the world's population 
lives in the United States, and there is only so much we can sell to 
each other. Creating new jobs and growing our economy requires tapping 
into the other 96 percent. And

[[Page 15332]]

that requires breaking down trade barriers and lowering tariffs so that 
American goods can reach more consumers at a price they can afford.
  That is precisely what these three FTAs will accomplish. This 
legislation is a jobs bill that won't add a dime to the deficit. 
Instead, it will add $10 to $12 billion to our GDP, grow U.S. exports 
by $13 to $15 billion, and support an additional 100,000 American jobs.
  These FTAs are not only critical for our economic recovery, however. 
They are essential to our global leadership and our national security.
  In the case of the Korea-U.S. FTA, known as KORUS, the success or 
failure of this measure is inseparable from U.S. leadership in the 
Asia-Pacific region. The balance of power in Asia will determine the 
shape of the 21st century and whether it will be an American century or 
a Chinese century. Our friends and allies across this region are 
looking to Washington. In the face of a rising Beijing, they want to 
know if the U.S. is a country they can count on, or whether we are in 
retreat. From Japan to India to Australia, there is no test for 
American leadership today that is more urgent than approving our FTA 
with South Korea.
  That is because the competition for the future in the Asia-Pacific is 
as much about economic power as it is about military power. Since 2000, 
approximately 50 free trade agreements have been put in place in East 
Asia alone, with approximately 80 additional agreements currently under 
negotiation. The United States is party to just four FTAs in the Asia-
Pacific region.
  Passing KORUS is the first step to righting this wrong and restoring 
a balance of economic power that favors America. Doing so will send an 
unequivocal message across the Asia-Pacific of American strength and 
commitment. It will also deepen one of our most important alliances in 
the world, with the Republic of Korea--a dynamic, free market democracy 
that has climbed from the depths of poverty and the devastation of war 
to become a model for the entire planet and a great global ally in the 
cause of freedom.
  The economic benefits of KORUS are also extraordinary. This FTA will 
increase exports of American goods to Korea by around $11 billion once 
the agreement is fully in effect, supporting as many as 70,000 
additional jobs here in the United States.
  The agreement will also grant American firms greater access to 
Korea's $580 billion services market, creating new jobs for American 
workers in sectors from delivery and telecommunications services to 
energy and environmental services.
  While South Korea is on the cusp of becoming our third-largest free 
trade partner after Canada and Mexico, free trade agreements with 
Colombia and Panama also offer enormous opportunities for the United 
States and will open the way for tremendous growth here in our own 
hemisphere.
  Colombia is the oldest democracy in Latin America and one of 
America's most steadfast allies in that region. Like South Korea, 
Colombia is a great global success story--a country that has overcome 
narco-insurgency and terrorism, and a pro-American bulwark against Hugo 
Chavez's corrupt authoritarianism.
  By completing this FTA, the U.S. will strengthen not only our 
Colombian allies, but also our shared values of democracy, rule of law, 
and the free market across Latin America.
  The U.S.-Colombia FTA will also strengthen our own economy--expanding 
U.S. exports by more than $1.1 billion, increasing U.S. GDP by $2.5 
billion, and creating thousands of U.S. jobs. Keep in mind, currently 
Colombia collects $100 in tariffs on U.S. exports for every $1 the 
United States levies on Colombian goods. With this FTA, that will end.
  Similarly, the U.S.-Panama FTA will eliminate tariffs and other 
barriers to U.S. exports, promote economic growth, and expand trade 
with one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America. American 
companies will be granted immediate access to Panama's $21 billion 
services market, including priority areas such as financial services 
and telecommunications. Panama's economy expanded 6.2 percent in 2010, 
with similar annual growth forecasts through 2015. All of this 
translates to more opportunities for American workers.
  Some have argued that free trade agreements threaten to increase our 
trade deficit. However, as the U.S. Department of Commerce recently 
pointed out, in recent years, U.S. manufacturers have run a $47 billion 
trade surplus with our FTA partners; by contrast, we have incurred a 
trade deficit of $823 billion with countries where no FTAs are in 
place.
  Time is of the essence. If we delay any further on these agreements, 
it will cost our country dearly in jobs and growth. The rest of the 
world is not standing still.
  The European Union finalized a free trade agreement with South Korea 
over the summer, and Canada implemented a free trade agreement with 
Colombia just weeks ago. If we do not act, jobs and market share that 
could have gone to U.S. companies will instead head to their 
competitors in Europe and Canada. That is why we must act now.
  In conclusion, let me underscore how important it is that these FTAs 
are the beginning, not the end, of a revived American global trade 
agenda. In order to get our economy back on track, in order to create 
the new jobs we need, in order to lead the world economically, the U.S. 
must have a forward-looking, optimistic trade liberalization vision.
  That is true not only in the Asia-Pacific and Latin America but also 
in the Middle East where millions of people who have long suffered and 
stagnated under thuggish dictators are at last grasping for greater 
political freedom and economic opportunity. More than foreign aid, 
countries like Tunisia and Egypt need the U.S. and Europe to lower 
trade barriers. That is why I believe so strongly that the U.S. should 
immediately begin negotiations for an FTA with Tunisia. Tunisia is a 
small country, but it is the place where the Arab Spring began and 
consequently critical to the future of Arab democracy.
  I strongly urge the Obama administration to begin negotiations on a 
free trade agreement with Tunisia as quickly as possible. The freer the 
flow of world trade, the stronger the tides for economic progress, 
prosperity, democracy and peace will be.
  Beginning today with the passage of these critical free trade 
agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, we take another step 
towards restoring our economy and strengthening our global leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will yield briefly to the Senator 
from Montana, and I ask that we set an order. I thought I was scheduled 
to speak, but apparently it is up in the air. I will defer to the 
Senator from Montana and ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
follow him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the English poet, Thomas Gray, once said: 
``Commerce changes the fate and genius of nations.''
  The United States has always understood that commerce improves our 
fate and sharpens our genius. We know opening the channels of commerce 
creates new opportunity, generates new ideas, and forms new 
partnerships.
  We know global commerce makes us more competitive, more innovative, 
and more productive--but also sometimes more difficult.
  Today, the Senate has a historic opportunity to build on this legacy 
by approving our free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South 
Korea. These agreements will increase exports of U.S. goods and 
services. They will create tens of thousands of good-paying American 
jobs. They will bind us even more closely to the three important 
allies.
  Colombia, especially, has returned from the brink of becoming a 
failed state to being the third largest economy in Latin America and 
one of its most respected leaders. It is astounding just how far 
Colombia has come. It

[[Page 15333]]

has a lot further to go, but considering the state of Colombia 15, 20 
years ago, with the narcotics trade, paramilitary forces, and 
assassinations, it is amazing how far they have come. A lot of this 
goes to the courage of the Colombian people, and especially to the 
leaders. It has not been easy, to say the least.
  Panama is the crossroads of global commerce and among the fastest 
growing economies in the Western Hemisphere.
  South Korea is the world's 15th largest economy, our seventh largest 
trading partner, and a strategic ally in a very volatile region of the 
world.
  Now, more than ever, we need to expand commerce and improve our 
economic fate. Clearly, with unemployment at 9.1 percent, our economy 
is growing too slowly. Consumer demand is too weak, and American 
workers, farmers, and ranchers are desperately seeking new markets and 
customers for their products.
  The Colombia, Panama, and South Korea trade agreements will help U.S. 
exporters gain new customers in three lucrative and fast-growing 
markets. They will increase U.S. exports by up to $13 billion each 
year. They will boost our GDP by more than $15 billion, and they will 
support tens of thousands of urgently needed American jobs. It will 
help the jobs picture--clearly, it will not solve it, but it will help.
  These agreements will help folks such as Errol Rice, a fifth 
generation cattle rancher from Helena, MT. Earlier this year, Errol 
testified before the Finance Committee on the importance of the South 
Korea trade agreement. He told us that South Korea is the fourth 
largest market in the world for U.S. beef, and it is growing rapidly.
  Errol welcomed the commitments I secured to increase funding for 
market promotion and fully implement our bilateral beef import 
protocol. But he underscored that our position in the South Korean 
market is at risk. Australia, a large beef exporter, is racing to 
conclude its own trade agreement with South Korea. By approving our 
agreement with South Korea today, we will help Errol and all American 
ranchers maintain their competitive edge, increase sales, and create 
jobs in their communities.
  Trade agreements improve our economy only if they create a level 
playing field for U.S. exporters. We cannot allow our trading partners 
to gain unfair advantage by failing to respect workers' rights or 
protect the environment.
  That is why the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea trade agreements 
include robust labor and environmental commitments that were basically 
made in 2007, with all the labor and environmental framework included 
in these agreements. These commitments require our trading partners to 
uphold internationally recognized labor rights, including the right to 
organize and bargain collectively. That is in the agreement.
  They also required our partners to protect the environment, and these 
obligations are fully enforceable, just like the commercial obligations 
in the agreements. In many cases, our free-trade agreement partners 
have gone the extra mile to meet our high standards. Colombia is the 
best example. Many of us are concerned about labor violence in 
Colombia. We believe the death of even one union member is one too 
many.
  I urge my colleagues to consider the progress Colombia has made in 
recent years and the commitment of the Colombian Government to continue 
that progress.
  Colombia demonstrated this commitment in April when President Obama 
and Colombian President Santos agreed to the Labor Action Plan. In that 
plan, Colombia made specific and groundbreaking commitments to 
strengthen worker rights, protect workers from violence, and prosecute 
the perpetrators of violence.
  Colombia has fulfilled every commitment to date. It has hired 100 new 
inspectors to enforce workers' rights. It has cracked down on the abuse 
of cooperatives. It has expanded protection of union members. It has 
sentenced to prison 47 people found guilty of killing union members. 
There is still more to be done, but Colombia has demonstrated 
remarkable progress.
  By approving the free-trade agreement, we will be able to enforce 
labor rights in Colombia, including the rights addressed by the action 
plan. If we reject the agreement, however, we lose our ability to 
ensure that labor conditions in Colombia will continue to improve. This 
is a very important point. Other countries' trade agreements with 
Colombia don't have the labor protection provisions. The U.S. one does 
have labor protection provisions that are very strong. If we don't 
ratify this agreement, then workers in Colombia will not be protected 
because other agreements don't protect them.
  These trade agreements will also help us rise to the challenge of 
China. Today, China is the No. 1 trading partner for South Korea and 
No. 2 partner for Colombia and Panama. If we approve these agreements, 
we will give American exporters a leg up on competitors from China and 
other countries. If we reject them, China's advantage and influence in 
these markets will only grow.
  After we approve these agreements, we should begin thinking about the 
next steps for our trade agenda. We should invite our new free-trade 
agreement partners to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, 
negotiations. We need to negotiate a Trans-Pacific Partnership 
Agreement and extend these agreements to better facilitate even more 
jobs in America.
  Colombia, Panama, and South Korea have demonstrated that they are 
willing to make the far-reaching commitments that our trade agreements 
require. Their participation in the TPP negotiations will help us 
achieve a high-standard 21st-century agreement that spans the Pacific.
  Thomas Gray was correct when he said commerce changes the fate and 
genius of nations. There is no better example than the United States. 
We have benefited greatly from trading with foreign nations. In these 
tough economic times, we need to embrace these benefits now more than 
ever. For the sake of American exporters seeking to grow and create 
jobs, let's approve these three free-trade agreements.
  One final point. I think it is fair to say that as we engage in 
commerce worldwide in countries around the world, we are not totally 
pure. We don't wear white hats, and other countries are not Darth 
Vaders and wear black hats. But it is true the shade of gray of our 
hats are a lot lighter shade of gray than the shade of gray of their 
hats, which is a darker shade. That is especially true in the American, 
Asian, and African countries--maybe a little less true in European 
countries.
  These agreements are no-brainers. Why do I say that? Because with 
respect to Colombia and Panama, products, goods, and services coming to 
our country today are virtually duty free, virtually no tariffs, or 
nontariff trade barriers.
  On the other hand, American products going to those countries today 
face very high tariffs and trade barriers, especially with agriculture 
but also in manufacturing goods. The figures are quite startling, 
frankly. So it is a no-brainer. These are, for the first time 
virtually, free-trade agreements. It is a freebie for U.S. exporters 
and American companies exporting products into Colombia and Panama. 
They are really free.
  With respect to Korea, it is very similar. Korean manufacturing 
tariffs, tariffs that Korea has on U.S. goods are more than twice as 
high as U.S. tariffs on Korean-manufactured goods. Tariffs that U.S. 
companies face in trying to export to Korea are twice as high today as 
are the tariffs the Korean manufacturers face when they try to sell 
products in the United States. The average Korean tariff on U.S. 
agricultural goods is 54 percent. The average tariff on American 
agricultural goods that we are trying to sell in Korea is 54 percent, 
about 5 times as high as the tariff on Korean agricultural products as 
they attempt to ship to the United States.
  That is why this is a no-brainer. This is so simple. Everybody should 
be for this agreement. It creates a more level

[[Page 15334]]

playing field. I urge my colleagues to support this agreement. When 
they read the agreement and understand the terms, it should go through 
with no opposition because we are, in fact, helping Americans, American 
jobs.
  The only wrinkle I hear about is Colombia. I have been there. When 
one is in Colombia--and I have known their leaders, the past two 
Presidents--it is clear that they have made huge progress. If we reject 
this agreement, I submit that the progress made thus far will slip, and 
the conditions in Colombia will start to deteriorate.
  We must pass these three trade agreements. Also, the U.S. political-
geopolitical position in South America is critical. If we adopt this 
agreement, that will enhance America's geopolitical position in South 
America. If we don't do it, Colombians are going to say: We have given 
up on the United States. We have been trying to negotiate this for over 
5 years. Then where are they going to go? They will embrace Venezuela 
or China.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I also rise today to speak in favor of 
the pending free-trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and 
Colombia.
  More than 50 million Americans work for companies that engage in 
international trade. Currently, U.S. exporters operate at a distinct 
disadvantage in countries where U.S. goods face high tariffs or 
discriminatory regulations. Passage of these three free-trade 
agreements will erase those disadvantages and allow our American 
businesses to compete on a level playing field in the global 
marketplace.
  For far too long, these trade agreements have sat on the President's 
desk. This delay has hurt our competitive advantage and cost American 
jobs. Moreover, the administration's slow walk of these bills has 
encouraged some of our major trading partners to go forward and quickly 
negotiate their own trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and 
Colombia, putting their workers at an advantage over U.S. workers.
  Canada has already approved trade deals with both Colombia and 
Panama. The European Union has passed agreements with all three 
countries. Canadian and EU workers and farmers are reaping the 
advantages of greater access to these markets.
  Creating jobs, increasing investment, and growing the U.S. 
manufacturing and farming sectors should be our top priority. With a 
9.1-percent unemployment rate, this is a no-brainer: export more, make 
our products more competitive by lowering the tariffs, and create jobs 
in America. What could be more clear?
  If we fail to act, American businesses will continue watching from 
the sidelines as other countries enjoy duty-free trading and continue 
to gain an advantage over American companies and employees.
  It has been estimated that failure to implement just the Colombia and 
South Korea Free Trade Agreements would lead to a decline of $40.2 
billion in U.S. exports. The net negative impact on U.S. employment 
from these trade and output losses could total nearly 400,000 jobs.
  Small businesses in America will be the largest beneficiary of these 
free-trade agreements. These are the businesses that account for the 
largest group of U.S. exporters. Indeed, more than 97 percent of the 
U.S. companies that export are small businesses, and they account for 
one-third of the total U.S. merchandise exports.
  Our farmers and ranchers will also benefit from these agreements as 
the exports of our agricultural products have historically suffered 
from high tariffs and other nontariff barriers.
  South Korea. The South Korea Free Trade Agreement will be America's 
largest free-trade agreement in Asia. South Korea is our Nation's 
seventh largest trading partner and the United States is South Korea's 
third largest trading partner. The White House has estimated that when 
the free-trade agreement with South Korea is fully implemented, U.S. 
exports to South Korea will increase by $11 billion annually and add as 
many as 70,000 U.S. jobs.
  The pending agreement will open the door for increased U.S. exports 
to South Korea of our automobile products, which are among the U.S. 
industries and workers that will benefit. It should also be noted that 
approval of this free-trade agreement will send a strong message that 
we stand with our allies in Asia and will further strengthen our long 
and positive relationship with South Korea.
  Right here in our own hemisphere, the implementation of the U.S.-
Panama Free Trade Agreement will guarantee American companies access to 
Panama's $21 billion in services. This includes priority areas in 
financial, telecommunications, computer, distribution, express 
delivery, energy, environmental and professional services.
  Once implemented, 88 percent of U.S. commercial and industrial 
exports to Panama will become duty free. The remaining tariffs would be 
phased out over a 10-year period. We need to act now in order to 
preserve current exports to Panama and pave the way for more. Panama 
has recently signed free-trade agreements with Canada and the European 
Union.
  Nearly 5 years have passed since the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement was signed by the United States and Colombia on November 22, 
2006. Last year, U.S. exports to Colombia totaled $12 billion, with 
many of those subject to the high tariffs. Our exporters have paid 
nearly $4 billion in duties to Colombia since that agreement was signed 
5 years ago.
  The Colombian Congress approved the free-trade agreement less than 1 
year after it was signed. After 5 years, the Congress is only now 
finally considering this agreement. That is not the way to treat a 
friend.
  With passage of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, 80 percent of U.S. 
exports of consumer and industrial products to Colombia will be duty 
free immediately, with remaining tariffs phased out over 10 years. The 
U.S. International Trade Commission has estimated that this agreement 
will increase the U.S. gross domestic product by $2.5 billion.
  On another front regarding Colombia, they once had one of the worst 
drug cartel problems in our hemisphere. With their determination and 
integrity and with our help, Colombia's Government and law enforcement 
systems have substantially cleaned out the Medillin and Cali drug 
cartels. To acknowledge their sacrifice this should have been the 
easiest of the free-trade agreements to quickly have confirmed.
  We have waited 5 years, as Colombia has done so much for itself to 
clean up the cancer in their system. We should have done this 5 years 
ago. So I hope there is no hesitancy now and there is overwhelming 
support in this Senate for this free-trade agreement.
  In conclusion, with so many American businesses and workers 
struggling during this prolonged economic slump, it should be the 
easiest thing we do to enact these three free-trade agreements. Exports 
support millions of jobs in this country. These agreements will promote 
American sales in markets where we have been at a disadvantage for too 
long.
  It was disheartening that this administration let these agreements 
languish for many months without taking action. We now have the chance 
to approve those before us today--these three--which are good for our 
bilateral relations with these three countries, for working Americans, 
for farmers and ranchers throughout our system, and for our struggling 
economy.
  I am very pleased these votes are being scheduled for today. We know 
the South Korean President is going to address a joint session of 
Congress tomorrow and to have these done and, hopefully, signed by the 
President when the South Korean President comes is the welcome gift he 
has been looking for, for a long time.
  I so look forward to having these three free-trade agreements with 
these countries that have shown they want to do business with America, 
they want to have free and fair access into their country for our great 
products and our great workers, and we should let them have it without 
further delay.

[[Page 15335]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Tribute to Alex Glass

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as every one of our colleagues knows, so 
much of what we do depends on the hard work and commitment of the 
dedicated staffers who toil behind the scenes on behalf of us and the 
constituents we represent. I wish to take a few minutes to recognize a 
member of my own staff who has been with me for many years, through 
good times and bad, and whose work ethic, competence, intelligence, and 
passion for public service is truly deserving of admiration and 
recognition as she now moves on to a new job, after more than 10 years 
of service in my office.
  Alex Glass came to work for me on April 2, 2001. We hired her on as 
the deputy press secretary. She had graduated from Bryn Mawr the year 
before and had gone to work for the Gore for President campaign before 
joining my staff. Alex was similar to many young people who make their 
way to our Nation's Capitol after college. She was passionate about 
public service, wanted to make a difference, and cared deeply about her 
country and the serious issues we faced.
  From the start, I knew Alex was a strong addition to my team. But 
just a few months later, it became clear to me she was much more. It 
was a Tuesday morning. We were right here in the Nation's Capitol. My 
communications director happened to be traveling that week. So even 
though Alex had just joined my staff, she was my only press staffer 
here that day.
  As we all remember, a little bit after 9 a.m., we got word in the 
Capitol that planes had struck the World Trade Center. Shortly after 
that, I looked out the window of the Capitol and saw black clouds of 
smoke filling the sky above the Pentagon. It was September 11, 2001, a 
day of unspeakable tragedy and devastating loss for our Nation. For 
those of us here in Washington, DC, and those in New York, and for 
families across America, it was a day of great confusion, uncertainty, 
and fear.
  On that day, Alex stepped up for me, she stepped up for our office, 
and she stepped up for our constituents. Alex felt the same way every 
one of us did that day. But right away, she realized families in my 
home State of Washington were going to want to hear from their elected 
official in this time of national crisis. She was calm, she was 
collected, and she was already thinking ahead to what we were going to 
need to do that day.
  So before we even evacuated, she quickly scribbled down the phone 
numbers of the major press outlets in Washington State, and then 
throughout that dark day and into the night, Alex and I stayed together 
and, through our State's press, I was able to reach out to families who 
were desperate for news and who needed to know that, despite this 
tragedy, their government remained strong. That day, I knew what Alex 
was made of, and I saw that spirit and dedication again and again over 
the next 10 years because Alex always knew what this job was all 
about--it was about helping people and solving problems.
  I remember so many times I was in the room with my staff, where we 
were discussing one issue or another. Every once in a while, we would 
hear a soft voice from the chair to my left--Alex only talks when she 
has something to say--and in the clearest and most concise way, she 
would help bring our discussion from the theoretical to the practical: 
How does this affect families in our State? How will these policies 
help the people I was sent to represent? These were the questions that 
were always on Alex's mind because she knew those were the most 
important questions to me.
  So many times over the years I would wake and check my e-mail and see 
an article Alex had forwarded to me--stories about veterans who weren't 
getting the care they deserved, workers who couldn't find a job or 
families falling through the cracks. She didn't include a comment with 
those stories. She knew she didn't have to. She just passed them along 
because she knew I would want to see them. She understood it was those 
people, the ones in those stories, whom I came to DC to fight for. Alex 
isn't from Washington State, but she dove into her adopted State with 
gusto, and within a few months she knew more about the issues facing 
our local communities than most people from Washington.
  I remember one time--and I never thought I would tell this story out 
loud--Alex and I were in Port Angeles, and someone thought it would be 
a good idea for us to travel in a helicopter to our next event. It may 
have been a good idea, but Alex and I--5 feet tall, both of us--had to 
put on these huge bright orange flight suits that were made for someone 
much bigger than either of us. I just remember catching her eye and we 
started laughing at each other and at ourselves. She and I had so many 
moments such as that together because Alex is very serious about her 
work, but she doesn't take herself seriously. She is much fun to be 
around, and she has a fantastic sense of humor, which is good for me 
because I don't think there is anyone I have spent more time with in my 
car traveling around Washington State than Alex.
  On a particularly stressful or long day on the road, Alex always made 
sure we had cookies in the car, which I very much appreciated. Once, 
during a busier day than usual, I remember Alex and I having a 
conversation about all the fun places we had to pass by in the car as 
we drove to the next events but never had time to stop and visit.
  We resolved to find the time to visit some of those when things got a 
bit slower, and I haven't forgotten about that. One day Alex and I are 
going to visit that alpaca farm up in Skagit Valley.
  Alex also knew there was nothing I liked more than doing events where 
I could wear my jeans and tennis shoes, and I know she fought hard to 
make sure that happened as often as possible; and, Alex, I appreciate 
that.
  Alex always had my back. She was always ready to get done what needed 
to get done. Back in 2004, I was facing a tough reelection campaign in 
my State. Alex had a life here in DC, but I went to her and I asked her 
to move back to the State to help me. I wanted her there, not because 
she is just good at her job and knows my voice so well--though she 
certainly is and does--but because she shares values, and I had every 
confidence that she would know exactly how I would want to tell my 
story and get my message out to the people in Washington. And Alex, 
without blinking, said yes. She packed up her bags and boxed up her 
apartment, she put her pet bunny in the car--I think this may be one of 
the most well-traveled rabbits in all of America--and she drove all the 
way across the country to fight by my side in Washington State. I don't 
know if I could have done it without her.
  Alex then, after that election, came back here to DC and spent 6 
years as my communication director. Then she did it all over again--
uprooting her life, packing up that bunny, and driving all across the 
State when I needed her out in Washington State again last year. After 
she finished that job, I asked Alex to come back here to Washington, 
DC, to serve as my senior adviser and provide me with counsel and 
advice as I took on new challenges, and I was grateful when she 
accepted and got to work.
  But 10\1/2\ years after Alex Glass first started working for me, the 
moment came that I knew was always going to come but never looked 
forward to. Alex knocked on the door of my office and walked in, and 
before she could say a word I knew exactly what she had come to tell 
me. I gave her a hug. We talked. There may have been a few tears shed. 
But I always knew that Alex has the skills, the talent, and the 
experience to do absolutely anything she wants to do, and I am proud 
that she has chosen to continue working in public service and has 
accepted a job at USAID.
  Although she is moving on, her amazing work and strong influence in 
my office will continue. Her words and her

[[Page 15336]]

ideas have helped shape so much of what I have done and how I have 
communicated with my constituents. I can't tell you how many Washington 
State reporters have come over to me to thank me. They told me how 
helpful Alex was, how responsive and how good she was at connecting the 
policy debates here in Congress to the struggles of families and 
communities in our State.
  Alex didn't just keep this to herself. She helped build and mentor a 
strong team in my office that knows what we are trying to do and 
understands my voice and how I want to communicate with the people I 
represent.
  I have had many members of my staff come and go in my time here in 
the Senate. Many of them have been outstanding. Every one of them has 
added value and done good work for me and my constituents. But there 
are very few I have come as close to as I have to Alex.
  Over the last 10 years, Alex, you have been like a member of my 
family, truly like a daughter to me. You have gone to the mat time and 
time again for me. You have been through thick and thin with us. You 
have sacrificed so much for me and my office, and I can't express 
enough how deeply I appreciate it. I know there is nothing you wouldn't 
do for me, and I hope you know I feel the same way about you. So on 
behalf of everyone in my office, all the constituents I represent, I 
want to thank you for the years of service to Washington State and to 
the Nation. You have been my voice, my adviser, my confidante and, most 
importantly, my friend. It has meant so much to me. And although I know 
it will continue, you aren't going away very far, I am going to miss 
seeing you in the office and hearing your voice almost every day.
  So, Alex, as you start this exciting new chapter in your professional 
life, remember what Rob and I would say to you when times got tough out 
in the State: Shoulders up. Shoulders up. You have helped me keep mine 
up for more than 10 years, and I wish you luck now as you tackle your 
next challenge with the same heart, gusto, and good humor that you 
brought to our office every day.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________