[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13250-13252]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         FREE-TRADE AGREEMENTS

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last night we gathered in the House 
Chamber for a joint session to listen to President Obama speak about 
our Nation's dire need to get our economy growing more strongly, to 
create jobs, and to get millions of Americans back to work. All 
Americans share this goal, even as we may have some disagreements over 
the best way to do it.
  I think one way to create jobs most of us would agree on is opening 
new markets overseas to American workers, products and trade. U.S. 
products are the finest in the world, and we must lower barriers that 
impede free trade. To that end, we heard the President repeat, as he 
has previously on numerous occasions in speaking to

[[Page 13251]]

Congress and the American people, that we must lower barriers that 
impede free trade. To that end, we heard the President say last night 
that he wants Congress to pass the three free-trade agreements, with 
Korea, Colombia, and Panama, that were concluded many years ago. I 
could not agree more.
  Indeed, the International Trade Commission estimates that passing 
these three trade agreements could increase U.S. exports by $13 
billion, creating approximately 250,000 new jobs.
  So Republicans in Congress and many Democrats are ready to pass these 
trade agreements. I believe if we had a vote on the merits of those 
agreements they would pass with strong bipartisan support just as 
previous trade agreements have. The problem is, they continue to sit on 
the President's desk where they have been since the day he took office. 
Until he sends those agreements to Congress, there is nothing we can do 
to pass them.
  Why does the President continue to urge Congress to pass agreements 
that we cannot pass until they are submitted to Congress?
  Considering that the President wants these agreements passed, and 
considering that Congress has the votes to pass them, and considering 
the overwhelming benefits that each of these free-trade agreements 
would bring to our workers and our economy, the obvious question, then, 
is, Why hasn't the President chosen to send these agreements to 
Congress for final approval?
  The answer, I am afraid, has much to do with electoral politics. My 
friends on the other side of the aisle have long insisted that the 
price of getting trade agreements through Congress is passage of 
domestic spending bills geared to assist U.S. workers who have been 
adversely affected by foreign trade. For this reason, in 2002, Congress 
passed the trade adjusted assistance legislation that provided short-
term support for worker retraining and other assistance. Many 
Republicans were skeptical about whether this program and others like 
it achieved their goals. But we went along for the sake of our national 
interest in expanding free trade.
  However, in 2009, without any action taken on our three pending trade 
agreements, my friends on the other side of the aisle dramatically 
increased the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program as part of the 
stimulus bill, raising spending on this program annually by more than 
$\1/2\ billion.
  I might add that the stimulus bill was supposed to be a temporary 
stimulus. Now my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
want to make that increase permanent. In essence, a program that was 
designed to assist workers who had been adversely affected by free 
trade was transformed into a domestic slush fund for reasons that had 
nothing at all to do with expanding free trade.
  What is worse, after repeatedly claiming it supports the free-trade 
agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea, earlier this year the 
White House announced that the cost of its support was reauthorization 
of the new trade adjustment assistance, with funding not set at the 
original 2002 level but the 2009 stimulus level.
  So here we had a program that had been expanded from its original 
cost under the dubious guise of a temporary economic stimulus, and then 
we were told this temporary funding increase, which was designed to 
expire along with the stimulus, should, in fact, be turned into a 
permanent domestic spending program.
  My friends, this is why Americans are so angry with Washington and 
with Congress. It is this mentality that has led to the explosion of 
government spending and national debt in this country, and it is 
unsustainable.
  I acknowledge that expanding trade does temporarily put some of our 
workers at a disadvantage. I remember being roundly criticized during 
the 2008 Presidential campaign when I had the audacity to tell Michigan 
workers the truth--that many of the jobs that had left their State for 
cheaper labor markets overseas were never coming back.
  So I understand that trade can create difficulties for some American 
workers. I am not opposed in principle to supporting those workers 
temporarily so they can develop new skills, find new jobs. I don't 
oppose, nor do I seek to kill, trade adjustment assistance--just to 
restore it to its original 2002 levels. That said, for a minute let's 
look closer at how the Federal Government has been going about 
employment and worker training programs such as this.
  Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office released a 
study entitled ``Multiple Training and Employment Programs: Providing 
Information on Co-Locating Services and Consolidating Administrative 
Structures Could Promote Efficiencies.'' A translation from the 
bureaucrats is, How is the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program working 
out? Here is what the GAO reported on Federal employment and retraining 
programs, including trade adjustment assistance:

       The number of employment and training programs and their 
     funding have increased since our 2003 report when we last 
     reported on them. For fiscal year 2009, we identified 47 
     employment and training programs administered across nine 
     agencies. Together, these programs spent approximately $18 
     billion on employment and training services in fiscal year 
     2009, according to our survey data. This is an increase of 3 
     programs and about $5 billion from our 2003 report. Adjusting 
     for inflation, the amount of the increase is about $2 
     billion.

  They went on to say:

       We estimate, based on survey responses, that this increase 
     is likely due to temporary funding from the Recovery Act for 
     14 of the 47 programs we identified. In addition to 
     increasing funding for existing programs, the Recovery Act 
     [the stimulus package] also created 3 new programs and 
     modified several existing programs' target population groups 
     and eligibility requirements, according to agency officials. 
     For example, the Recovery Act modified the Trade Adjustment 
     Assistance program by expanding group eligibility to include 
     certain dislocated service workers who were impacted by 
     foreign trade.

  So, according to the GAO, many of our multiplying employment and 
training programs are duplicative of other such programs funded by the 
Federal Government. But that is not all. The GAO continues:

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

  I will repeat that last sentence:

       The five impact studies generally found that the effects of 
     participation were not consistent across programs, with only 
     some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to be small, 
     inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.

  Not only are many of these employment and training programs 
duplicative, the GAO has found very little empirical evidence to 
support whether these programs are even accomplishing their intended 
goals, and what empirical evidence they have found is, I repeat, 
``small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.''
  Trade adjustment assistance is among these programs. So my question 
is simple: At this time of crushing Federal debt and increasing fiscal 
austerity, why should we increase spending on a program that is likely 
duplicated by other Federal efforts and of which we cannot even say for 
sure it is working?
  The real tragedy is, because our trade agenda has ground to a halt 
over this disagreement, the people who are suffering most are our 
workers and America's international economic leadership. The United 
States may not be doing much to advance free trade, but that is 
definitely not the case with other countries which are vigorously 
competing to get their workers and businesses into new overseas 
markets, often to the detriment of the United States of America. While 
we stand still, the world is moving past us.
  In the 5 years we have failed to ratify the Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement, U.S. companies have paid more than $3.2 billion in Colombian 
import tariffs. That would disappear under the free-trade agreement. 
Since 2008 the United States has lost more than $800 million in 
agricultural exports to countries that trade freely with Colombia. 
Although less stark, the same story is true with Panama.

[[Page 13252]]

  The people most disadvantaged by our failure to ratify these trade 
agreements are U.S. workers. What is more, Colombia, Panama, and Korea 
are not waiting on us. Our allies are not dependent upon us. They are 
confidently pursuing their own interests--with us if possible but 
without us if necessary. Colombia and Panama and many other Latin 
American countries are concluding their own trade agreements often at 
our expense. Since 2006 U.S. exporters lost 10 percent of their market 
share in Panama. From 2008 to 2009, our main agricultural exports to 
Colombia declined by more than 60 percent. These jobs are going to 
Europe, Canada, and China, but not because their workers are 
outcompeting ours but because Washington is forcing our exporters to 
compete with one hand tied behind their backs.
  Indeed, Colombia recently began implementing its trade agreement with 
Canada, further disadvantaging our workers and what should be a natural 
market for us. Just this summer, South Korea's free-trade agreement 
with the European Union took effect.
  We are losing ground and we need to get moving on trade immediately. 
I recognize the cost of doing so again will be Republicans' 
acquiescence to a vote to reauthorize Trade Adjustment Assistance. The 
Senate minority leader has repeatedly said he will support holding such 
a vote. So there is literally no reason why the White House should not 
send our trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea to Congress 
for an immediate vote. But as the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, 
has correctly insisted, these trade agreements should not be linked to 
a reauthorization of Trade Adjustment Assistance at their artificially 
inflated stimulus funding level.
  I would remind my colleagues that in the first speech the President 
gave to Congress in early 2009, he advocated the passage of free-trade 
agreements. Again, last night, he mentioned the importance of the 
passage of free-trade agreements and called on Congress to pass these 
agreements. Our message back is: Mr. President, send us those 
agreements. Let us have open and honest debate. Let us have amendments. 
Let us have votes. But let us move forward. I am confident we can pass 
these free-trade agreements, but they have to be submitted to Congress. 
It seems fairly simple. Please, then, Mr. President, don't call on 
Congress again to pass these agreements unless you send them over to 
the Congress so we can ratify these agreements.
  It is terrible what has happened in Colombia--losing billions of 
dollars we have had to pay in import tariffs for our goods going into 
Colombia, which should not have happened. By the way, Colombian goods 
come into the United States free of tariff because of the Andean trade 
preference agreements. So we are now at a disadvantage, where we pay 
tariffs on American goods going into Colombia but no tariff on 
Colombian goods coming into the United States. It makes no sense. South 
Korea--I believe it was last July--ratified a free-trade agreement with 
Europe. We are losing market share, and we are losing billions of 
dollars and thousands and thousands of jobs because we have not 
ratified these agreements.
  The only way we can ratify them is for the President to send them 
over. Send them over, Mr. President. Send them over. Last night, he 
said: Pass these bills now. I am saying: Send the free-trade agreements 
over now. I will be glad to debate, amend--with time limits--and pass 
these free-trade agreements. I am confident there will be an 
overwhelming majority of bipartisan support for these agreements. We 
can work out the Trade Adjustment Assistance issue. We can debate and 
vote on it. But we have to have the agreements before us so we can move 
forward on it.
  The people in my State are hurting. People all over America are 
hurting, as the President acknowledged at the beginning of his remarks 
last night. We can act. This is one area where I am confident we could 
move forward. So let us have those agreements sent over, and let us 
take them up as our first and most important priority in the coming 
weeks.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________