Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. CAMP. I have no further requests for time, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 425, I call up the bill (H.R. 3080) to implement the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CAMP. How much time do I have?

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

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The U.S.-Korea agreement is the most commercially significant trade agreement considered by the Congress in 17 years, and it couldn't come at a better time. With the unemployment rate stuck stubbornly above 9 percent, we must seek out and take advantage of all opportunities to create American jobs. This agreement, known as KORUS, will do just that by supporting hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs in all sectors. Last year, I worked closely with the administration, the major auto makers, auto workers and Mr. Levin to address persistent barriers to U.S. automobile trade with South Korea. The supplemental agreement which is incorporated in the legislation before us today addresses key tariff and nontariff barriers, and includes numerous provisions to ensure that South Korea can no longer use its regulatory system to block U.S. exports. The International Trade Commission estimates that removal of nontariff barriers will add an additional $48 million to $66 million in new exports. This, in addition to the $194 million in expected new exports from lower Korean tariffs on U.S. autos. Inaction on KORUS has allowed the EU and other competitors to step in and steal U.S. market share and has diminished U.S. leadership in Asia. KORUS is key to our engagement in Asia and a critical bulwark to Chinese influence in the region. I call on the President to promptly enter this agreement into force so that our workers, companies, farmers, and ranchers can get off the sidelines and recapture market share. KORUS and the other two agreements we will pass this week will create sustainable and well- paying jobs. Passage of KORUS will also deepen ties with a strong and important ally. The United States and South Korea have stood shoulder-to-shoulder for more than 60 years. KORUS is the next step forward in our bilateral relationship, and today's action could not come soon enough. I look forward to welcoming President Lee during his state visit tomorrow, and to congratulating him personally on passage of this important agreement. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 425, I call up the bill (H.R. 2832) to extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

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

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2832, the bill which renews the Generalized System of Preferences program and also contains the Trade Adjustment Extension Act of 2011. This bill is the cornerstone of a carefully crafted bipartisan, bicameral agreement that prompted the President to send the three trade agreements to Congress last Monday and, in turn, has allowed us to move forward on the long-stalled trade agenda. The bill renews the bipartisan GSP, the largest U.S. trade preference program, which was already passed by the House last month. Not only does this legislation allow duty-free access for specific products from certain developing countries into the U.S. market; it makes U.S. manufacturing more competitive by lowering the cost of inputs. The Coalition for GSP has estimated that over 82,000 U.S. jobs are directly or indirectly associated with this program. This legislation renews the program through July 31, 2013, and applies it retroactively for eligible products imported after the program's expiration date on December 31, 2010. This program is fully offset with spending cuts. This bill also contains a reauthorization of Trade Adjustment Assistance, better known as TAA. Earlier this summer, the White House sprung upon us that it would not send the three free trade agreements to Congress if there was no ``deal'' on TAA. I took this demand to heart and made the decision that I had to do everything in my power to reach agreement on a streamlined, cost-effective, and reduced TAA program to ensure that all three job-creating trade agreements could move forward. I worked with Chairman Baucus and the White House to forge a bipartisan agreement on TAA to do just that. The core principles of our conference--ensuring smaller government and cutting spending--were the foundation of my negotiating stance throughout the TAA talks. As a result, contrary to initial White House demands that we reauthorize the 2009 TAA law that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, cost more than $700 million per year for 5 years, we forced the administration to accept significant cuts to the program. The cost for the final TAA agreement is approximately one-half that amount, according to CBO. The deal costs roughly $900 million total for a 3-year program and is fully offset with spending cuts, including deep cuts below the baseline to the program itself. Moreover, TAA reverts to 2002 levels or below for 2014, and the entire program completely ends after 2014. In order to achieve these savings, we streamlined and scaled back TAA as a whole. I'll note some of the highlights. We reduced the number of weeks of income support under the TAA for Workers program from 156 in 2009 down to 117 weeks, with up to an additional 13 weeks available only if the applicant has met stringent standards and has ``substantially met the performance benchmarks'' of his or her training program. I also want to note here for clarity that TAA benefits run concurrently with unemployment benefits. In other words, there is no double-dipping. We slashed the health care subsidy from 80 percent down to 72.5 percent and completely repeal it after 2013. We denied TAA eligibility for public sector workers. We eliminated half of the allowable justifications for the program's training waivers to ensure that only those who are in training will be eligible for TAA benefits, with only limited exceptions. We consolidated and reduced by $110 million all non-income support expenditures of the program. We slashed funding for TAA for Firms back to 2002 law levels, made TAA for Farmers a discretionary program, and eliminated most of the TAA for Communities program authorized at $190 million in the 2009 law. We also added in enhanced performance measures and accountability into all of the TAA programs. And on top of that, we fully offset this program with spending cuts. Overall, we slashed and streamlined TAA significantly and are today moving forward the most significant trade deal this country has seen in 15 years. For those who are concerned about TAA, let me urge you to recognize that this extension of a scaled back TAA is a small price to pay for the extraordinary promise these trade agreements hold for our economy. I encourage my colleagues to consider the four votes for the three trade agreements and the GSP/TAA bill as a comprehensive package and a model of bipartisanship for creating jobs and enhancing economic growth in this country. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CAMP

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

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I understand that I have 21 minutes remaining. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I urge rapid passage of this legislation to implement the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement. This agreement enjoys broad bipartisan support, and it's clear why. It levels the trade playing field between the U.S. and Panama. It is good for U.S. companies, workers, and farmers; and it advances our national security and leadership in the Western Hemisphere. Right now, Panama enjoys almost total duty-free access to the United States market because it is a beneficiary of various trade preference programs. Given the importance of a stable and prosperous Panama, giving Panama this market access is warranted. However, U.S. industrial and consumer products going to Panama face an average duty of 7 percent, and U.S. agricultural exports face an average tariff of 15 percent. Implementing this agreement will level the playing field for U.S. exporters by drastically reducing or ending Panama's tariff on U.S. goods. Most U.S. consumer and industrial products will immediately become duty-free, as will half of U.S. farm exports. Any remaining tariffs will decrease quickly thereafter. Opening Panama's market will be a boon for U.S. companies, workers, and farmers. The Panamanian economy is rapidly growing and is expected to more than double by 2020. Panama is already one of the largest markets for some U.S. exporters and service firms. The importance of Panama will only grow for these firms and others as we gain greater access to this expanding economy. This is also true for our farmers, whose exports to Panama are expected to significantly increase under the agreement. Not only will American farmers benefit from lower tariffs into Panama, but they will also benefit from the removal of nontariff and regulatory barriers that discriminate against U.S. agricultural products. Best of all, the agreement will create new jobs and greater prosperity in the United States without adding to the deficit. Finally, the benefits of the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement are not only economic. The agreement is critical to fostering our commitment to Latin America, enhancing our leadership in the Western Hemisphere, and reaffirming our relationship with a close friend. Panama is obviously a vital ally in terms of port and maritime security. It is also an important partner in combating drug trafficking and terrorism. Of course there is also Panama's crown jewel, the canal. The United States is the largest user of the canal, and canal security is paramount to our national security and broadly to open sea routes. Panama's cooperation in maintaining the security of the canal has been vital to our security and the region. Madam Speaker, for all of these reasons, the time to wait has passed. We urgently need to pass this important job-creating legislation and move forward on an aggressive trade agenda once again. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen).

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 425, I call up the bill (H.R. 3079) to implement the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today is a good day. Many of us have been working for years for the opportunity to approve our pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. We have called on the President throughout his term to submit all three agreements to Congress, but opposition among some Democrats led many to believe that we would have to settle for just one or two of the agreements. Today, we have all three pending agreements before us. Approving them will resuscitate the U.S. trade agenda, create U.S. jobs, and help get our economy moving again. The U.S. International Trade Commission has estimated that the three agreements will increase U.S. exports by at least $13 billion. By the President's own estimation, that could generate 250,000 new jobs. The ITC has also determined that these agreements will increase U.S. gross domestic product by at least $10 billion, a stimulus that doesn't cost a single dime in government spending. This agreement disproportionately benefits the U.S. because it rectifies the current imbalance in U.S.-Colombian trade. Last year, Colombian exporters paid virtually no tariffs when they shipped goods here, but our exporters paid an average of over 11 percent. The agreement removes that imbalance by eliminating Colombian duties. The need is urgent: Our exporters have paid nearly $4 billion in unnecessary duties since this agreement was signed. We know from experience that these agreements will yield benefits. Between 2000 and 2010, total U.S. exports increased by just over 60 percent, but our exports to countries with which we have trade agreements increased by over 90 percent. Our exports to Peru, for example, more than doubled since passage of the U.S.-Peru trade agreement, from $2.7 billion in 2006 to $6.1 billion in 2010. That's $2.4 billion more than the ITC had forecast. In the face of this major economic opportunity, delay has been costly. Major economies whose workers and exporters compete directly with ours have moved aggressively to sign and implement trade agreements with Colombia, undermining our competitive edge. Our workers and job-creating exporters are falling behind, losing export market share that took years to build. For example, 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 to the Colombian market. And after Canada's trade agreement with Colombia went into effect on August 15, Colombia's largest wheat importer dropped U.S. suppliers in favor of Canadian wheat. Adding insult to injury, Canada signed its trade agreement with Colombia 2 years after we signed our agreement with Colombia. In short, we owe it to U.S. workers and exporters to approve this agreement now and to press the President for prompt implementation. It's not only considerable economic benefits that are at stake. The delay in implementing these agreements has left strong allies out in the cold. Colombia, for example, currently sits with the United States on the U.N. Security Council and chairs its Iran sanctions committee. Colombian troops have served alongside U.S. troops at war, and Colombia has been training militaries and police around the world in counter-narcotics and counter-insurgency. As five former commanders of U.S. Southern Command have said: ``This agreement will meet our duty to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Colombians as they have stood by the United States as friends and allies.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in approving this important agreement, and I reserve the balance of my time.