Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. CAMP. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chair of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say, this agreement will create new market access for U.S. exporters of consumer and industrial products. Over 87 percent of our exports to Panama will become duty-free immediately, with the remaining tariffs to be phased out that are left over a 10-year period. This will cut by more than half the average 8 percent tariff that our exporters face. This will provide U.S. firms with an advantage over major competitors from Europe and Asia. And because Panama recently signed an agreement with the EU, our advantage is dependent on having our agreement enter into force immediately. So it's not just about what the U.S. and Panama are doing in a vacuum; it's about what the rest of the world is doing as well. As I said, there are key export sectors that get immediate duty-free treatment: aircraft, construction equipment, fertilizers, medical and scientific equipment. This levels the playing field for our exporters versus importers from Panama, and this agreement will create new opportunities for our farmers and ranchers. More than half of the current U.S. farm exports to Panama will become duty-free immediately. It gives our U.S. farmers an advantage over our EU and Canadian competitors. Our exports in agriculture to Panama now face a 15 percent average tariff. Our exports of pork, rice, soybeans and wheat, and most fresh fruit will receive immediate duty-free treatment, while our competitors in Asia and Europe will continue to face tariffs on those commodities as high as 90 percent. And that's why you've seen great support, both bipartisan, for this agreement. The American Farm Bureau estimates that the increase in farm exports to Panama alone could increase our agricultural exports by $46 million a year. Obviously, this agreement also provides our access to Panamanian services markets. It will give our U.S. service firms market access, national treatment, regulatory transparency, and that is going to be very helpful as we continue to try to grow our economy and create jobs here in the United States. I would agree with my friend from Massachusetts, Panama has improved their tax transparency; and because of the cooperation, adoption of the Tax Information Exchange Agreement, as well as other numerous double taxation treaties that I won't repeat that he referenced, they have been removed by the OECD from the so-called ``gray list'' to join countries such as the United States that meet internationally-agreed-to tax standards. So by almost any measure, this agreement is positive, and it is something that we should strongly support. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I advise my colleague that I have no further requests for time.

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself the balance of my time. I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that well before the Labor Action Plan was signed by President Obama and President Santos, Colombia had raised their labor standards and aided union members in the exercise of their rights well before the action plan ever occurred. Colombia now has implemented all eight of the ILO core conventions--six more than the United States. The statute of limitations for murder was raised in 2009 from 20 to 30 years. The minimum prison sentence was raised from 13 to 25 years and the maximum was raised from 25 to 40. The authority to declare the legality of strikes is now in the purview of the judiciary, not the executive branch, which depoliticizes these decisions and shows the transition and progress that Colombia has made in this area. Employers no longer have a unilateral right to force a strike to arbitration. The constitution reforms in 2004 shortened by 75 percent the time it takes to prosecute a homicide case. As I mentioned earlier, the murder rate in Colombia against union members has declined by 85 percent since 2002. As my Democrat colleagues in support of the Colombian Trade Agreement have said, the Labor Action Plan is the most stringent Labor Action Plan anywhere in the world that has ever occurred. With regard to the cooperative issue, the U.S. Trade Representative testified in the Ways and Means Committee when we worked up this legislation that that loophole has been addressed and has been closed by the Colombian government. This is something the administration has agreed has occurred as well, not just myself. Let me just address this issue of the Labor Action Plan being placed inside the trade agreement. I would just say that to condition entry into force of the trade agreement with compliance with the Labor Action Plan is completely inappropriate, and that's why there was bipartisan opposition to doing that. I certainly welcome the gentleman's statement that I was able to get the administration to acquiesce to not having the Labor Action Plan put into the agreement. Frankly, there was bipartisan agreement, with the administration agreeing as well on that point. Let me just say there is a labor chapter in the agreement itself that addresses the labor issues that appropriately fall within the scope of the agreement. The Labor Action Plan goes well beyond that scope. Let me say why. The purpose of the implementing bill, the purpose of the bill before the House today, is to make changes to the United States laws that are necessary to implement the agreement. The Labor Action Plan doesn't require any changes to U.S. law. So therefore it should not and is not in the bill. Apart from being inappropriate, it's really unnecessary to condition entry into force on a labor action agreement that the Colombians have agreed to. They have demonstrated their commitment to fulfilling the terms of the Labor Action Plan. They have satisfied, and on time, every single action item that has come due thus far. And our administration has certified that they have satisfied those conditions. There's only a few conditions that remain, which are due at the end of the year, and a few due in 2012, which we fully expect they will completely agree to. And let me just say that it is high time we took up this agreement. Last year Colombian exporters paid virtually no tariffs when they shipped goods to the United States, but our exporters paid a tariff on an average of 11 percent trying to enter into their market. This agreement removes that imbalance by eliminating the Colombian duties. This need is urgent. Our exporters have paid nearly $4 billion in unnecessary duties since this agreement was signed and has been pending over the years. We know from experience these agreements will yield the benefits that we say they will. Between 2000 and 2010, total U.S. exports increased by just over 60 percent, but our exports to countries in which we have trade agreements increased by over 90 percent. Our exports to Peru, for example, have more than doubled since the passage of the U.S.-Peru trade agreement, and those are very important statistics in these tough economic times. So this is a major economic opportunity. Delay has been costly. There are major economies whose workers and exporters compete directly with ours. They have moved aggressively to sign and implement trade agreements with Colombia, Canada, Argentina, Brazil. Those undermine our competitive edge for our Nation and our workers and our families. So we've been falling behind. We've been losing export market share that took years to build, frankly. For example, just the U.S. share of Colombia's corn, wheat, and soybean imports fell from 71 percent in 2008 to 27 percent in 2010 after Argentina's exporters gained preferential access. Obviously, we have seen, also, a decline in our exports of wheat since Canada signed its trade agreement with Colombia, 2 years after. They entered and enforced their agreement with Colombia, which was signed 2 years after ours. So we owe it to U.S. workers. We owe it to our exporters to approve this agreement now and to press the President for prompt implementation. I would urge strong support for this agreement, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. CAMP. Does the gentleman from Michigan have any additional speakers?

Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco).

Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I would just note that in countries that we have trade agreements with, we have a surplus in manufacturing exports. With that, I would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. CAMP. Yes, I would be glad to.

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, the implementing bill before us reflects a carefully negotiated agreement that involved the White House, the U.S. Trade Representative, and bipartisan staffs and members from both Ways and Means and Finance. All four offices were consulted at every step of the process and all sides were fully involved. This provision was not part of that negotiation. In fact, it was not even raised during negotiations. This threatens to undue the carefully negotiated terms of this compromise and set our trade agenda back. This motion is a true poison pill. Any change, even moving a single comma, would strip the bill of fast-track protections under Trade Promotion Authority in the United States Senate. Thus, this motion really isn't about Chinese currency practices. It's an effort to kill the Colombian free trade agreement. In fact, the irony is that the only reason the minority is even allowed to offer this motion is because then-Speaker Pelosi took the unprecedented step of turning off the clock on TPA 3 years ago on the Colombian free trade agreement. Passing this or any other motion would reward that decision to put our trade agenda on ice--a decision that hurt our economy, cost us jobs, as U.S. farmers and exporters lost out on opportunity in that fast-growing country. Finally, with respect to the substance of this motion, everyone agrees that China's currency is undervalued. China must let its currency appreciate and commit to allowing market supply and demand to determine its value. But at the same time, we need to recognize that currency is not the only barrier that U.S. businesses face in China and that legislation on currency is not a silver bullet. I plan to hold a hearing in the Ways and Means Committee this month on all of these issues, including currency; but this is the wrong vehicle for such legislation and would kill the very important Colombian trade agreement. I therefore urge defeat of this motion and passage of this important trade agreement. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I support H.R. 2832, the bill that renews the Generalized System of Preferences, known as GSP, and also contains the Trade Adjustment Assistance, also called TAA. This bill really is the cornerstone of the carefully crafted bipartisan and bicameral agreement that then prompted the President to send the three trade agreements to the Congress last Monday. So this has allowed us, this legislation today, has allowed us to move forward on a long-stalled trade agenda. The bill renews GSP, which the House passed last month, and that is the largest trade preference program and is estimated to account for 82,000 U.S. jobs that are directly or indirectly related to that program. The second portion of this bill, the bill that reauthorizes Trade Adjustment Assistance, is absolutely critical because it is one of the core items that has allowed these trade agreements to come forward. And this legislation really does ensure smaller government and less spending on an important program in these difficult economic times where we have a growing debt and deficit. This program was streamlined and scaled back, and just quickly I'll note some of the highlights. There is no TAA for public sector workers. The number of weeks was reduced from 156 in the 2009 law down to 117 weeks. Also, there is no double-dipping. These benefits run concurrently with current unemployment insurance, or UI benefits, and the health care subsidy was reduced in this legislation. We also eliminated half of the allowable justifications for the program's training waivers to ensure that those who are eligible for TAA are in those training programs with only limited exceptions. We also consolidated and reduced all the non-income support expenditures. We reduced funding for the TAA for firms, and also added enhanced performance measures. Now, no worker will qualify for this unless certified by the Department of Labor. This is an important attempt to bring some reform and integrity to our unemployment programs, particularly by strengthening the job training provision where 80 percent of the waivers were used to waive people out of the requirement they job train. This is an important reform; and it's going to be an important reform in this bill to make sure we implement it so as we move forward on the employment insurance debate later this year, as the gentleman from Washington State alluded to, we actually have a track record on some of these items and can see how they're at least beginning to work. So I urge my colleagues to support not only all three trade agreements, but also what really was the cornerstone for bringing those three trade agreements to the floor, H.R. 2832. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. CAMP. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.