more for every hog they sell. she noted that while $11 are may not sound like a lot it sure seems like a lot when they were losing $20 for every hog they sold from 2007 through 2010. that difference makes the difference in whether that family stays on the farm or not. chris urged do think pass these agreements because this -- quote -- "increased the revenue that will help us meet increased expenses and help us ensure our family farm will be there to pass on to my kids," according to to her who she said would be the sixth generation of farmers in her family. barbara wilson noted that agriculture fuels the economy in our small town of mexico, missouri. she told me that the passage of these free trade agreements would lead to an increased demand for our corn, soybeans and stressed that when the

agricultural economy is good, the economy in our small town benefits. and that means increased jobs in all sectors of that small-town economy. brian hammonds in stockton, missouri, told me significant government trade barriers are hurting his attempts to compete and develop markets for american black walnuts which are harvested by hand in missouri and other midwestern states. brian noted that if these trade deals pass, our company could buy more black walnuts from thousands of people in missouri and 11 other states providing cash to those rural areas. and even more importantly, the increased production activity from processing these walnuts would allow us to provide more employment for people in our rural missouri community. these are just a few of the farmers and job creators in missouri who have been calling on congress to pass these trade agreements. i look forward to voting for these agreements tonight.

i hope a huge majority of my colleagues join me in voting for the south korean agreement, the panama agreement, the columbian agreement, and we send a message to the world that we intend to compete in a world economy. and if we're given the chance to compete, american workers can compete with anybody, and these trade agreements provide an opportunity to do that. i yield back the floor. mr. sanders: madam president, i enjoyed the remarks -- the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i enjoyed the remarks from my friend from missouri. unfortunately, i can't quite agree with the thrust of his statement. in my view, the current trade policies in this country are a disaster. the evidence is very clear that they have cost us many millions

of jobs. and to continue that same unfettered free trade philosophy in terms of trade agreements with korea, panama and colombia makes absolutely no sense at all. when you have a policy that is failing, you change it. you don't continue it. madam president, let us be very clear, as i think most americans understand, our economy today is in a disastrous shape. our middle class is disappearing. recent statistics told us that poverty levels are at an all-time high. and the gap between the very, very rich and everybody else is growing wider. and in my view, one of the reasons -- not the only reason -- but one of the reasons for the collapse of the middle class has to do with the loss of millions of good manufacturing jobs, attributable to these disastrous trade policies. and if we are serious as a

nation in wanting to rebuild the middle class, lower our poverty rates, what we have got to do is move forward in a new direction in trade based on fair trade principles and end this unfettered free trade which has been such a disaster for american workers. madam president, over the last decade, we as a nation have lost 50,000 manufacturing plants in our country. i want to repeat that because that is such a staggering number that it needs to be said over and over again. 50,000 manufacturing plants in this country have shut down over the last ten years alone. we have lost during that same period 5.5 million factory jobs, and many of those jobs are

good-paying jobs. they are jobs that provided people with good wages and good benefits. those jobs are gone, and in many cases have been replaced by wal-mart, mcdonald-type jobs, low wages, minimal benefits. madam president, to give you an extent about how significant the decline in manufacturing in this country is, the reality is that in 1970 -- 1970 -- 25% of all jobs in the united states were manufacturing jobs, and today that number is just 9%. 9%. in july of 2000, there were 17.3 million manufacturing workers in this country. today there are only 11 million manufacturing workers. in my small state of vermont -- vermont is not ohio, it's not

michigan. it has never been one of the great manufacturing centers in the country. but even in a small state like vermont, what we have seen is a huge decline in good-paying manufacturing jobs which have certainly impacted our middle class. ten years ago we had approximately 45,000 manufacturing jobs in vermont. last year we had 31,000 manufacturing jobs. we've lost about a third of our manufacturing jobs. and i should tell you, mr. president, that 7,800 of those jobs were lost as a result of the trade agreement with china and another 1,300 were lost as a result of nafta. the key issue here today, mr. president, is whether we continue our disastrous trade policy which includes nafta, permanent normal trade relations with china and cafta. do we add on to trade policies

which have failed? and for the love of me, i cannot understand why anybody would want to do that. and the facts are very clear, our current trade policies have failed, have been a disaster for working families. according to a recent study conducted by the well-respect economists at the economic policy institute, the pntr, permanent normal trade relations with china, has led to the loss of 2.8 million american jobs. 2.8 million american jobs. and i remember because i was in the house when that debate took place, and i heard the same they think then as i hear now. members of congress getting up and talking about all the new jobs that were going to be created. well, it wasn't true then. it is not true now. how can you defend a trade policy based on the same

principles as pntr with china when that policy has cost us 2.8 million jobs in the last year alone? and then we got nafta. many of us remember all the rhetoric around nafta. my goodness, we're going to open up the entire mexican economy for products made in the united states of america. we're going to be selling it in mexico. does anybody in america believe that that policy has worked, that nafta has worked? the facts are very clear, again according to the e.p.i., they found that nafta has led to the loss of 680,000 jobs. so the simple reality is you don't have to be a ph.d. in economics to figure out that if a company has the option of hiring somebody in a low-wage country at 50 cents an hour, 70 cents an hour, don't have to deal with unions, don't have to

deal with environmental standards, why would you not go to those countries? well, the answer is you would go. the answer is they have gone. and that's what these trade policies are about. not selling american-produced products abroad, but creating a situation where companies can shut down in america, move factories abroad and bring those products back into this country tariff-free. now, mr. president, we have quote after quote after quote from members of congress who have got up on the floor during the nafta debate, during the china debate, and they told us about all the jobs that were going to be created. and it is astounding to me that i keep hearing that rhetoric when in fact nothing said in the past has proven to be true. let me just quote my good friends -- that's in quotes.

they're not really good friends -- from the u.s. chamber of commerce. they tell us, u.s. chamber of commerce tells us -- and i quote -- "this is th -- this is the discussion about korea, panama and colombia. "this is foremost a debate about jobs. at a time when millions of americans are out of work, these agreements will create real business opportunities that can generate hundreds of thousands of new jobs." end of quote. that's the chamber of commerce. wait a second, is this the same chamber of commerce that on july 1, 2004, according to the associated press, said -- and here's the headline on that article: "chamber of commerce leader advocates offshoring of jobs." end of quote. here's what the article stated about the u.s. chamber of commerce, who is such a strong advocate for these trade policies. quote -- "u.s. chamber of commerce president and c.e.o.

thomas donohue urged american companies to send jobs overseas as a way to boost american competitiveness. donohue said exploiting high-paid tech jobs to low-cost countries such as india, china and russia saves companies money, et cetera, et cetera, sets." chamber of commerce is leading the effort for these trade agreements, but their leadership tells us outsourcing of jobs is a good thing. maybe, maybe you might want to think twice before you accepted the advice of the chamber of commerce. mr. president, the united states department of commerce has reported -- and this is really very interesting not only as information unto itself but about the politics of this whole trade agreement. you've got the chamber of commerce. you've got every major multinational corporation in the country telling us how good this

unfettered free trade policy is. but now we have the u.s. department of commerce has reported that over the last decade, u.s. multinational corporations slashed 2.9 million american jobs. let's digest that. large corporations, multinationals come in here and tell us those trade agreements are great. they're good going to create amn jobs. but at the same time over the last decade they have slashed 2.9 million american jobs. tkpwu here is -- but here is the other side of the story. the truth is that these same multinational corporations were telling members of congress to vote for these trade agreements, the truth is they are creating jobs. the only problem is the jobs they are creating are not in the united states of america. they are in china and other

low-wage countries. over this last same period, over this last decade, while they laid off 2.9 million american workers, these same multinational corporations created 2.4 million new jobs abroad. lay off 2.9 million american workers. create 2.4 million jobs in china and other low-wage countries. and that in a nutshell is what these trade agreements are about. enabling corporations to shut down in america, move to low-wage countries and bring their products back into our country. and the results are very clear. the results are very clear. you don't need a great study done by the department of commerce or the economic policy institute. all you have to do today is walk into any department store in

america, and when you buy a product, you know where that product is manufactured. it's not manufactured in vermont. it's not manufactured in california. it is, often it's manufactured in china, mexico or other developing countries. that has been the whole goal of these trade agreements. shut down plants in america. move them abroad. hire low-wage workers there. bring the products into this country. and the idea that we would be extending this concept to korea, panama and colombia makes no sense to me at all. mr. president, since the year 2000, 2.8 million american jobs have been eliminated or displaced as a result of the

increased trade deficit with china. and after all of the talk on the floor of the senate and on the floor of the house and the editorial boards of major newspapers, and by leading politicians about how the china trade agreement would create jobs in america, it is very interesting to hear what these corporations had to say a few years after the trade agreement was passed. in other words, before it is passed, they will tell you about how we're going to create all these jobs in america. the day after it's passed, there are changes. the china free trade agreement was passed around the year 2000. a couple of years later, jeffrey immeld, the c.e.o. of general electric, was quoted on this subject at an investor meeting just one year after china was admitted to the world trade organization. this is after china -- the

chinese american free trade agreement. this is what immeld said and i quote -- "when i am talking to go managers, i'm talking china, china, china, china, china. that's him, not me, five chinas. you need to be there. you need to change the way people talk about it and how they get there. i am a nut on china. outsourcing from china is going to grow to five billion. we are building a tech center in china. every discussion today has to center on china. the cost basis is extremely attractive. you can take an 18 cubic foot refrigerator, make it in china, land it in the united states and land it for less than we can make an 18 cubic foot refrigerator today ourselves. this is the head of general electric -- who by the way i guess is president obama's great advisor of creating jobs in america -- two years after the china agreement was signed, and

on and on it goes. it's not just mr. immeld. it is major corporation after major corporation. before the agreement, it's jobs are doing great in america. after the agreement, it's all of the advantages of outsourcing. and let me tell you how bad the situation is. i think most americans know that not only it is a disaster for our economy that we're not producing the products we consume, but it is really an embarrassment. i will give you an example. mr. president, last year, the holiday season, i walked into the smithsonian museum's very beautiful american history museum. it's a great museum and i urge everybody to come to washington to visit. i walked into the gift shop of the smithsonian museum owned by the people of america, paid for by the people of america. you know what their gift shop had? most of the products in the gift shop were not made in america. turns out, they were made in

china, other countries, low-wage countries around the world. i went to a section where they had little busts of presidents of the united states, george washington, thomas jefferson, barack obama. you turn it up. do you know where these busts of presidents of the united states were made? yeah, you guessed it. in china. well, we have since been having some discussions with the smithsonian. they are in the process of changing their policies. we're in the process of working with other people as well. but that's how bad the situation is that busts of american presidents made in a museum owned by the people of the united states of america, talking about the history and culture of america, are made in china. that's just one example of how pathetic this whole situation is. and on and on it goes. by the way, mr. president, when we talk about trade, we often focus on blue-collar jobs, on manufacturing jobs, but it is also increasingly information technology jobs and white-collar

jobs. just think for a moment, mr. president, that during the past four years, the cumulative trade deficit with china in advanced technology -- i'm not talking about sneakers -- advanced technology products totaled more than $300 billion. last year, our trade deficit with china on advanced technology products was a staggering $92 billion in one year alone. i just bought one of these very nice iphones. it is very, very nice. do you know where that product is made? and the ipad is made in china and the ipod and dell computers and xbox and big-screen tv's. none of these american inventions. we pride ourselves. steve jobs just recently passed away. great businessperson. but we pride ourselves on developing these technologies, but where are they made?

more often than not, they are made in china. according to a december 15, 2010, article in "the wall street journal" -- quote -- "one widely touted solution for current u.s. economic woes is for america to come up with more of the high-tech gadgets that the rest of the world craves, yet two academic researchers estimate that apple's iphone, one of the best-selling u.s. technology products, actually added $1.9 billion to the u.s. trade deficit with china last year. so we develop these products but we can't manufacture them here because these companies prefer low wages in china. and on and on it goes. not just blue-collar, white-collar jobs as well. mr. president, -- and today, we're not talking about china, we're not talking about mexico. we're talking about korea, we're talking about panama, we're

talking about colombia, but it's the same old story. chamber of commerce is back again, creating all of these jobs, until the day after the agreement is signed, and then we talk about how they could throw american workers out on the street. you know, it's interesting, mr. president, poll after poll shows that to say the least, the american people do not have an enormous amount of respect for the united states congress and see congress living in a very different world than working class people are living in, and i don't know of any example where that schizophrenia is greater than in terms of trade. you go back home, i don't know what it's like in rhode island, tell you what it's like in vermont. you ask people, what do you think about these trade agreements with china? do you think they are creating jobs in america? are you cuts? of course not. everybody knows that. and the polls tell us that. in december, 2010, an nbc news/"wall street journal" poll, 69% of americans believe that --

quote -- "free trade between the united states and other countries cost the u.s. jobs" -- unquote. i think every group in america except the united states congress seems to get that point. but then again, the united states congress is surrounded by lobbyists and campaign contributors that come from big money interests, and they like these unfeather -- unfettered free trade agreements. the economic policy institute has estimated that the korean free trade agreement will lead to the loss of 159,000 american jobs and will increase the trade deficit by nearly $14 billion over a seven-year period. why do you want to go forward in a trade agreement that will cost you jobs? now, president obama has estimated that the korea free trade agreement will -- quote - "support at least 70,000 american jobs" -- unquote -- but the headline of a december 72010 article in " the new york times "says it all -- quote -- " few

new jobs expected soon from free trade agreement with south korea." according to this article, the korean free trade agreement is likely to result in little if any net job creation in the short run, according to the government's own analysis, our government's own analysis. this analysis was done by the u.s. international trade commission which projects that our overall trade deficit will increase, not decrease, if korea free trade is implemented. this is our own international trade commission. what are we doing? what are we doing? now, mr. president, let me just touch on one aspect of the korea free trade agreement which deserves a lot of focus and i fear very much that it's not, and that is that the korean free trade agreement will force american workers not just to compete against low wage workers in south korea but also to

compete against the virtual slave labor conditions that exist in north korea, a country which is certainly one of the most undemocratic countries in the world, and to add insult to injury, not only are our workers going to be competing against slave labor in north korea, some of the proceeds from this free trade will go to the dictatorship of kim jong-il, certainly one of the more vicious dictators in the entire world. and what that is about, mr. president, is that a number of companies in south korea, including hyundai and many others own companies that are doing business in a large industrial area in north korea, and what this agreement will allow is products made in north korea to go to south korea and then come back into the united

states of america. and i know there has been a little bit of confusion on this but there shouldn't be. according to a january, 2011, report from the congressional research service -- quote -- " -- i hope everybody who plans on voting for this free trade agreement with korea hears this. this is c.r.s." there is nothing to prevent south korean firms from performing intermediate manufacturing operations in north korea and then performing final manufacturing processes in south korea. for example, as much as 65% of the value of a south korean car coming into the united states could actually be made in north korea if this trade agreement goes into effect." and today we have over 47,000 north korean workers that are currently employed by more than 120 south korean firms including hyundai at the kaesing complex

in north korea. what an agreement, what an agreement. slave labor in north korea manufacturing products which go to south korea and then come into the united states of america, and meanwhile, the dictatorship of north korea gets a piece of the action, a significant piece of the action on top of the pennies an hour that the north korean workers get. in 2007, the then-prime minister of south korea, is now the current south korean ambassador to the united states said, and i -- quote -- "-- ambassador to the united states said --" the planned ratification of the south korea-u.s. free trade agreement will pave the way for the export of products built in kaisong, north korea, to the u.s. market." end of quote. isn't that wonderful, isn't that wonderful? bad enough for the workers of our country to have to compete against people in china and vietnam, people making 20 cents an hour, 30 cents an hour. now we're asked to compete

against slave labor in north korea. that's the treaty that people will be voting for today. mr. president, i think a lot of folks have mentioned in terms of colombia the assault on trade unionists there. since 1986, some 2,800 trade unionists have been assassinated. less than 6% of these murders have been prosecuted by the colombian government. and last year alone, last year alone in a small country, more than 50 trade unionists were assassinated in colombia, up 9% from 2009. now, i would ask you, mr. president, if in colombia 50 c.e.o.'s of companies were killed last year, were murdered last year. do you think that people here would be voting for a free trade agreement with colombia? or would they say why would we want an agreement with a company -- with a country which is so unlawful, which is so brutal, where so many c.e.o.'s

are being killed? but it's not c.e.o.'s, it's just trade union leaders, so i guess it is okay to have an agreement there. i would also tell you, mr. president, that president obama had a different view on colombia when he was a candidate for president in 2008. in october of 2008, candidate barack obama said that -- quote -- "the history in colombia right now is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis and there have not been prosecutions." end of quote. candidate obama in 2008 was right to oppose this trade agreement. unfortunately as president he is wrong to support it right now. let me say a word about the panama free trade agreement. panama is a very small country. its entire annual economic output is only $26.7 billion a

year or about .2% of the american economy, so i think no one is going to legitimately stand up here and say that trading with such a small country is going to significantly increase american jobs. then why would we? why would we be considering a trade agreement with panama? what's going on there? well, it turns out, mr. president, that panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy americans and large corporations to evade u.s. taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens. the panama free trade agreement would make this bad situation much worse. i'm a member of the budget committee, as you are, mr. president, and we have heard testimony time and time again that our country is losing up to $100 billion every year as corporations stash their money in postal addresses in the cayman islands, bermuda and in

panama, and this trade agreement makes that situation even worse. according to citizens for tax justice, "a tax haven has one of three characteristics. it has no income tax or a very low rate. in tax, it has bank secrecy laws, and it has a history of noncooperation with other countries on exchanging information about tax matters. panama has all three of those, and they are probably the worst "end of quote, according to citizens for tax justice. the trade agreement with panama with effectively bar the united states from cracking down on illegal and abusive off-shore tax havens in panama. combating tax haven abuse in panama would be a violation of this free trade agreement exposing the u.s. to fines from international authorities. well, at a time when we have a

$14 trillion plus national debt and at the time when we are frantically figuring out ways to try to lower our deficit, some of us believe that it is a good idea to do away with all of these tax havens by which the wealthy and large corporations stash their money abroad and avoid paying u.s. taxes. the panama trade agreement would make that goal even more difficult. i want to say another word on issues that is i think important as we look into the future. the proposed korea free trade agreement threatens both the 340-b drug program which requires drug companies to provide discounts on covered outpatient drugs purchased by federally funded health providers such as community health centers and other safety net provider and the ability of

medicare part b to hold down the prices of outpatient drugs. the korean free trade agreement would potentially allow korean drug manufacturers to challenge the pricing under these programs on the grounds that the prices are not market driven. in other words, forcing prices up in this country. and that is something that was pushed by the way, by our trade -- our trade representative, not theirs. in essence, the parliament industry's lobbyists with complete indifference to the plight of millions of the most frail and vulnerable americans, have succeeded in inserting provisions into the korean trade agreement that would allow korean companies to maximize their -- maximize their profits by challenging the cost control measures under the 340-b and medicare part b programs. unfortunately, mr. president, this is just the tip of the iceberg. right now the pharmaceutical lobby and they are a very, very

powerful lobby, and the united states trade representative are negotiating a new trade agreement, the so-called trans-pacific partnership that i fear very much will make a bad situation in terms of drug access for the developing world, for poor people all over the world much worse than it already is. their aim yet again is to maximize drug company profits at the expense of the most vulnerable populations by tying the hands of health authorities here and in other developed and developing countries abroad who seek to provide access to low-cost generic pharmaceutical drugs for their citizens. in negotiating the trans-pacific partnership, our government is actively pushing intellectual property laws for medicines that are more restrictive than we impose even here in the united states with the effect of making it far more difficult to get

generic drugs on the market in those countries. one of them, vietnam, is a good example. vietnam obviously is a very, very poor country. vietnam has received more than $320 million from the president's emergency plan for aids relief, created on the president -- under president george w. bush and continued under president obama since 2004. the function of this program is to make sure that the poorest people in the world who have diseases like aids are able to get the drugs they need at a price they can afford to pay. and that means generic -- making generic treatments available. the pet far program has had significant success. as somebody who was not a great fan of president george w. bush this is an area where he actually did something quite positive and that program is credited with saving millions of lives in 15 developing nations over the last seven years.

in the face of one of the most severe humanitarian crises in modern history the united states put billions of dollars into doing something about it and we are doing that today. so why in the face of this success by one arm of our government would another arm work to pull the rug out from underneath it? yet that is what the u.s. trade representative's office is doing just now. in other words, on one hand what we are trying to do is the right thing, the humanitarian thing, and make sure that poor and sick people around the world are able to get the medicines that they desperately need to stay alive at a price they can afford to pay. and on the other hand, another part of the united states government is saying wait a second, we got to protect the interest of the drug companies, make sure they can make as much money as possible, that they can charge and force poor companies to pay outrageously high prices for drugs even if that means that many, many

people die because they can't afford those drugs. so this is a contradiction, this is what our new trade policies are about. i will be back on the floor at some point in the not-zoo-distant -- not-too-distant future to talk more about this but let me conclude, mr. president, by saying this. the country is in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the 1930's, millions of americans have seen a decline in their standard of living, the gap between the rich and everybody else is going wider. that is the reality of the american economy today. one of the reasons for the collapse of the middle class is the loss of millions and millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs. and one of the key reasons -- not the only reason but one of the key reasons that we are losing millions of manufacturing jobs are disastrous trade policies designed, designed to allow american corporations to

shut down here, move to low-wage countries, hire people there, pennies an hour, bring their products back. that is a policy, i suppose you can say that has worked if you're the c.e.o. of a large corporation. you make a lot more money paying people 50 cents snow shower than $20 an hour. you make a lot more money working in a country where there are no environmental standards rather than a country where you have to have some standards protecting air and water. that's what our trade policy has been. and it seems to me to be enormously foolish for us to continue this failed policy of nafta, of cafta, of permanent normal trade relations with cheap and extend them to korea, panama, and colombia. i urge, i urge my colleagues to stand up to the big-money interests who want to us pass these trade agreements, stand up for american workers and say no, trade is a good thing but

it has to be based on principles that protect ordinary americans, working people, not just the c.e.o.'s of large corporations. with that, mr. president, by yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today in the wake of another very sobering jobs report. unemployment remains stalled at 9.1%, 14 million americans are out of work. another nine million have been forced into part-time jobs because they simply cannot find full-time employment. these challenging economic times demand that congress and the administration put aside

partisanship and work together in earnest to address the prolonged jobs crisis. many of the decisions that will come before congress in the next few months will be difficult ones, including those that must be made to restore fiscal order to our nation's books. but there are bipartisan measures that we know will create and preserve jobs now. we must work together to advance them. one such measure before us today is the free trade agreement with south korea. as president obama stated last week, this agreement will make it easier for american companies to sell their products in south korea, and provide a major boost to our exports.

south korea is our country's seventh largest trading partner. the u.s. international trade commission estimates -- estimates that implementation of this agreement would increase our gross domestic product by $10 billion to $12 billion, and annual merchandise exports by $10 billion. the i.t.c. further estimates that the agreement will reduce the u.s. trade deficit with korea by between $3 billion and $4 billion. and analysis of the korean agreement conducted by the staff of the i.t.c. at the request of the senate finance committee concludes that the agreement could create up to 280,000

american jobs. including more than 650 jobs in my home state of maine. mr. president, just this week there were announcements of 130 jobs lost at a paper mill in maine, and 65 jobs eliminated at a call center. so these new jobs, potentially 650 new jobs, would be welcome indeed. south korea is the fifth largest international market for maine products. last year, the value of maine exports to south korea reached nearly $100 million, including $31 million in chemical products, $29 million in wood pulp, $15 million in civilian aircraft and engine parts,

$7 million in electrical machinery, and $5 million in coated paper and paper board. upon implementation of the u.s.-korean free trade agreement, more than 95% of maine's exports to south korea would be duty-free. let me repeat that. 95% of our exports from maine to south korea would be duty-free. that means that the elimination of these barriers to maine's exports would expand markets for maine's manufacturers and agricultural producers. and that, mr. president, translates into saving jobs and creating jobs. korea is the fourth largest and fastest-growing market for

america's frozen potatoes, a major industry in my state. in 2009, the u.s. share of the korean market was 81% compared to 2% market share for the european union. but with the implementation of the european union-korean trade agreement this past july, the european union frozen potatoes now enter the korean market duty-free. that obviously gives european union growers a significant competitive advantage over american exporters who face an 18% tariff for shipping their products into korea. the u.s.-korean agreement would eliminate this tariff immediately, leveling the playing field for our producers.

according to the maine potato board, which has endorsed this agreement, passage of this free trade agreement is expected to translate into a $35 million annual increase in u.s. frozen potato exports to korea. more important, in the long term it will allow american potatoes to be the product of choice in the korean market because, as the presiding officer well knows, maine potatoes taste better than those grown by the european union countries. in all seriousness, we do need to eliminate these discrepancies in tariffs that give our competitors an advantage over our american producers. exports are essential to a

strong industrial manufacturing base throughout our country and in the state of maine. i want to read an excerpt from a letter that i recently received from the plant manager of the general electric energy plant in bangor, maine. the plant manager had this to say about the potential impact if this free trade agreement were approved. he wrote, as follows: "g.e.'s continuing act to pursue expanding international opportunities for our aviation, energy, and financial services exports is critical to our more than 700 workers in the state of maine. in fact, 100% of the new steam turbine units coming out of our bangor plant this year and next

will be exported." that just shows how critical that export market is to maintaining those 700 jobs in maine. the bangor plant as, in addition, recently producing components for gas turbines. to this end, we have invested roughly $30 million in bangor to expand capacity. "these gas turbines under current law face tariffs of 8% in korea. if the u.s.-korean free trade agreement is passed, the g.e. plant manager in bangor told me that the tariff on the gas turbines produced at the bangor plant would drop from 8% to zero. and that obviously would make those g.e. products and g.e.'s

employees in maine all that much more competitive. for maine's wood pulp producers, korea is already the second-largest international market that they have. exports to korea account for nearly 17% of the total production coming out of the pulp mill in woodland, maine. in an e-mail to my office, burt martin, a director of the pulp mill in washington county, had this to say about the importance of the korean market to his business operation in maine: he wrote. "free trade with asian countries means that we have an operating pulp facility in woodland, maine. koreans are good-paying customers, high revenue, and they are an important part of our market markets" maine's bluy

growers also will benefit from the phase-out of tariffs on wild blueberry products. while i would have preferred to see the tariffs of blueberries eliminated immediately, the way that they are in many other products that i've mentioned, the tariff reductions that would come about as a result of this agreement will help our blueberry growers compete in an increasingly important market. this agreement will also unlock new market opportunities for maine's iconic lobster industry. live lobster exports to korea currently face a 20% tariff. under the agreement, this tariff would be phased out over five years, making it far easier for maine to compete in the marketplace in korea.

fairchild semiconductor in portland, maine, is another strong supporters of this agreement. the manager of fairchild cites the benefits of tariff elimination, regulatory improvements, stronger intellectual property protection, and simplified trade clearance procedures, measures that will help streamline customs procedures and help u.s. companies cut down on the costs of doing business as advantages that would be brought about by this agreement. mr. president, the bottom line is that exports to korea support maine jobs. passage of this agreement is critical to ensuring not only that we can expand export opportunities but also that we do not lose market share in one

of the world's largest economies because our foreign competitors are more aggressive in their pursuit of trade liberalization agreements. on balance, i believe that the u.s.-korean free trade agreement is good for america and good for the state of maine, and i will vote for it. i am convinced that the elimination of tariffs will create jobs and help us save jobs at this critical time in our economy. i also plan to vote for the agreement with panama, a country with which the united states had a $5.7 billion trade surplus last year. but, mr. president, i cannot support the free trade agreement with colombia. this was a difficult decision

for me to reach, and i've given is iit considerable study and thought. burkes unfortunately, the violence against labor unions continues at an unacceptably high rate in that country. i do appreciate and recognize that the colombian government has taken steps to improve in this area, but i think that it's simply too soon to declare the labor action plan a success. i think more time is needed to assess progress in this area, and i wish that the president had brought forth the two agreements that i can support -- those are south korea and panama -- and held back on the colombian agreement until we had a better sense of the direction of the country and where we are

going in making progress with the labor action plan. mr. president, the benefits of free trade are not spread evenly over all sectors. and with any trade agreement, there is the poe tension that some u.s. workers and industries may be harmed. that is why i've looked at each agreement individually over the years, and i've supported some and i've opposed others, and frankly the criteria that i apply are whether the agreements benefit the people of my state and the workers of this country. it is also why i have been such a strong supporter of a robust trade adjustment assistance program, and i have also

strongly supported tough enforcement of trade laws to protect u.s. workers against unfair trade practices. i've testified before the i.t.c. in cases involving the paper industry, where there has been illegal dumping; i've also been a cosponsor of the bill that we just passed yesterday to crack down on currency manipulation by the chinese government. but if the united states does not adopt policies to expand trade opportunities in a fair way, we will lose out on market opportunities, and that means we will lose out on the creation of jobs. the jobs that would be created or sustained here at home will instead be created and sustained

in other countries that are aggressively pursuing trade agreements. with nearly 95% of the world's customers living outside of our borders, we simply must seize opportunities to expand our exports, to look for new markets for our products. our competitors in europe, canada, and other nations are actively working to tear down barriers to trade and promote their exports. we dmows the same for our industries and for our workers. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, seeing no one seeking recognition, i would suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: resident?

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i know we'll soon be voting on these trade agreements, but i have an issue that i think has immediacy in nature and needs to be brought up now, something i've been pursuing for some time. mr. president, we have heard f.b.i. evidence of an alleged plot by iran to assassinate a u.s. diplomat on u.s. soil.

an act of terrorism that demands an immediate action of the most robust sanctions against iran. were it not for the vigilance of the american intelligence community, the f.b.i. and all of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies working together, this plot -- could have not only taken the life of saudi arabia's ambassador to the united states but potentially hundreds of innocent americans here in washington. think of the mack i don't see very wellannism -- machiavelli ism, what that would mean in terms of lives lost and the inevitable response it would provoke from the saudis and the united states. in the coming weeks we will hear the exact details of this incredible plot and the extent of the involvement of members of the iranian revolutionary guard. we know the revolutionary guard in iran is at the highest levels

of the iranian government. that is why i specifically targeted the revolutionary guard in the iran sanctions law that is now law. the new legislation i call on my colleagues to support that now has 76 bipartisan cosponsors will consolidate our original sanctions law. mr. president, iran's actions demand that we move this legislation in the congress as we simultaneously go to the united nations, to the international community, and bring to bear whatever pressure we can to convince the chinese and the russians to agree to tighter sanctions against iran. the fact is clearly we must do all that we can to end iran's exportation of terrorism, which is already taken lives around the globe from lebanon to argentina, is responsible for attacks on coalition forces of

our own soldiers in iraq and now threatens innocent americans in our nation's capital. i for one am not shocked at the revelations we have heard in the last 24 hours. i have known what this regime is capable of, what it intends and what it will do to achieve its goals. the time has come for this do think take the first step -- for this do think take the first step in response to this egregious plot to conduct an assassination in a downtown washington restaurant. since i took federal office in 1993, then in the house of representatives, i have raised for some time this issue of iran and its aming -- ambitions. i have advocate phaoeud concern on behalf of the jewish people and the state of israel against the threat of a radical iranian

regime. now that threat has been directed here towards american soil, where even american citizens could have died in a plot that defies the imagination in its brashness, boldness and irrationality. mr. president, what specifically do we do? our first act must be to immediately respond with tougher sanctions that isolate iran politically and economically, sanctions that will freeze the assets of the iranian revolutionary guard corps members and allies and shut down the irgc's sources of revenue, expedite the imposition of sanctions, force companies to decide whether they want to do business with the united states or iran, and ensure that the united states is an iranian oil-free zone by banning imports of refined petroleum made with iranian crude. to that end, along with senators

lieberman and kyl and gillibrand, casey, kirk and collins, we've introduced in the senate the iran-north korea and syria sanctions consolidation act of 2011. it is a bill that recognizes that if iran's principal goal is to acquire weapons of mass destruction and apparently conduct brazen attacks on american soil against international officials, then it must be the policy of the united states to prevent the islamic republic of iran from acquiring the capability to threaten its neighbors and to threaten nations around the world. the time has come to take that first step and move this legislation. this legislation closes the remaining loopholes in our sanctions policy. in essence, it is perfecting the sanctions policy that we helped pass here in the senate.

it ensifts on a comprehensive diplomatic initiative within the united nations to qualitatively expand the u.n. security council sanctions regime against iran so that iran cannot find a financial safe harbor or a willing partner anywhere in the world. it imposes immigration restrictions on senior officials from iran, north korea, and syria, and their associates who seek to enter our country. and it complements those sanctions by reaching out to the iranian people, facilitating democracy assistance and developing a comprehensive strategy to promote internet freedom and access to information inside of iran. these sanctions will help deter the threat iran poses to u.s. national security because of its suspected nuclear weapons program and will have an impact on iran's ability through the revolutionary guard and its intelligence arm to carry out

another plot like the one we have uncovered. what have we learned in the last 24 hours? we have learned that the iranian regime is a growing threat not only to its neighbors, not only to the region, but to the world. and potentially to our own homeland. we have learned that it is in the interest of the world to apply maximum pressure to the arhinian regime. we have learned that we must tighten the screws on the iranian regime to genuinely advance the cause of stability and peace in the middle east and clearly around the world. these sanctions are an essential means to that end. we need the ban on trade with iran to be strong, significant and as humanly possible airtight. a band that does not have america subsidizing the very regime that seeks to harm us by purchasing gasoline and diesel that are made of iranian crude.

iran's actions have made it a rogue nation that must be dealt with in the strongest terms. we cannot wait for another plot like this to be uncovered. we cannot take the chance that the next one will not be uncovered. passing the new sanctions i have proposed with, as i said, 76 of our colleagues here, is a start and we cannot as a nation falter. the time to act is now. now, i applaud the white house for its quick action this week in imposing new sanctions against the people responsible for the planned attack on the saudi ambassador and other targets in washington. i appreciate the administration's effort to implement and multilaterallize sanctions on iran. this administration has done more to isolate iran than any prior administration, republican or democratic, including their quick response this week designating individuals involved in the plot as well as today's sanction of iran's on air.

the news this week, however, has confirmed our worst fears -- that iran will not hesitate to advance its interests, regardless of the political costs. iran, given its history of exploiting terrorism against coalition forces in iraq in places like argentina and lebanon and its continued drive to advance its nuclear weapons program despite being slowed by u.s. and international sanctions clearly with the alleged plot uncovered this week remains undeterred. it is time to take the next steps, to isolate iran politically and financially. mr. president, we must enact sanctions now to exert the unyielding pressure of the united states government against the iranian regime and to bring to bear the condemnation of the international community so that the regime fully understands that the world will not tolerate such actions if carried out.

these sanctions will prevent us from having to face that situation in the future. they are in our national security interests. they are in the interests of iran's neighbors, in the interests of the region, and they are in the interests of the security of every nation that wishes to secure in its borders it's safe from the terrorist acts of a rogue state. that is what is at stake. that is why i look forward to a hearing that we will be having tomorrow in the banking committee on the effect of the sanctions legislation we already have. i believe that hearing will deduce testimony that clearly shows that because of the sanctions legislation that we already passed in the congress, signed by the president, that in fact we have made a significant dent in iran's commercial

activities, but it has not ceased or desisted from its march to nuclear weaponry, and obviously by this latest plot it has not ceased or desisted from its willingness even on u.s. soil to carry out such an assassination. therefore, mr. president, the time to act is now. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, only a few people in your lifetime stand out as -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. manchin: i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, only a few people in your lifetime stand out as people of the highest caliber, people who truly care about making the world a better place, not only for the present generation but also for the next generation and many generations to come. my dear friend, mike pushkar was

one of those people. my wife gail and i consider ourselves extremely lucky to have even known a man of his caliber, let alone be friends with him for many, many years. mike passed away on saturday after a long battle with cancer. i first met mike in the early 1980's before the start of a football game in the then-gravel parking lot at the stadium, a place we truly loved. the generator in his motor home wasn't working, and luckily the generator in my brother's r.v. that i was using did work, so mike plugged into our r.v. that day, and we have been plugged in ever since. mike was a man whose friendship was unconditional. it wasn't about whether you lined up exactly with his beliefs, but he supported you as a person. mike dedicated his life to help others and to make a real lasting impact in west virginia. he had a tremendous heart and a strong sense of giving.

mike truly epitomized the word friend at every level. we can see mike's handprint everywhere -- at west virginia university, at myland park, and at charitable organizations throughout west virginia that served those in need. mike loved to build things, whether it was his company or the waterfront in morgantown. he gave the largest gift in the history of west virginia university because he truly believed in making our state, our schools and our hospitals the best in the country. in fact, that gravel parking lot where we first met at the w.v. stadium is now the site of the tailgate tent. but the thing that mike was most proud of building is when he helped people build their own lives, and those people who knew mike know exactly what i'm talking about. mike was a pioneer who started myland parmts to give people access to affordable medicine. myland is a home-grown west

virginia company that he started with his army buddy don panos in 1961. he led myland until 2002, and myland has continued to grow and has now become the third largest generic and specialty pharmaceutical manufacturer in the world. there are so few people like mike whose legacy will echo for generations to come. on thursday, his friends and family will gather together to pay the last tribute to his legacy when he is laid to rest in morgantown, west virginia, a town that he loved and gave so much to improve. tomorrow and every day, our thoughts and prayers will go out to the entire pushgar family. mike's friends and colleagues and everyone whose life he touched as all of them mourn the loss of this great man. while every one of us is truly going to miss mike, he truly will never leave us. we all have beautiful memories

of mike that will last a lifetime, and his legacy to west virginia and its people will remain in our hearts forever. thank you, mr. president, and i notice the absence of a quorum. i'm sorry. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. kirk: mr. president, i'd like to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. kirk: mr. president, i rise in support of three free trade agreements with colombia and panama and south korea that will be before us shortly here in the senate. few states need these agreements more than the state of illinois. this week, i released a report on the state of illinois debt. we now have the worst credit rating in america. our state has fallen to 47th for a healthy business climate, with only half of the state's pension and health care promises actually funded.

instead of continuing our state's debt spiral, these agreements will help the bottom line of illinois exporting employers that hopefully will create thousands of new jobs without adding to the borrowing of our state or any new taxes. now, since 1997, illinois exports to colombia have increased by 164% and exports to panama increased 196%. collectively, the three nations represent more than a billion dollars worth of illinois export sales in 2010. we will see the benefits of these agreements across a wide spectrum of jobs, from high-tech companies to manufacturers to farmers. illinois-based caterpillar in peoria, which in 2010 exported

$13 billion worth of products to other countries will see tariffs reduced on hundreds of thousands of dollars of goods through these -- reduced through these free trade agreements. the panama canal expansion project alone represents a $300 million opportunity for caterpillar. trade deals are particularly important for illinois-based navistar, which has one of the best name truck brands in colombia and panama. illinois agriculture also reaps a windfall from the pending free trade agreements. trade deals are expected to create about $2.5 billion in new agricultural exports, and over 22,000 jobs nationwide. expanding export markets for illinois farmers and the increased demand for agricultural products and

equipment manufacturing in illinois will allow employers like a.d.m. indicator, john deere in moline and as i mentioned caterpillar in peoria to reinvest in their companies and to hire more citizens of our state. illinois farmers and ranchers are expected to see about $90 million in increased direct exports. as a result of the senate's approval of these trade deals. mr. president, these deals represent the direction that the senate should take overall on job creation. no tax increase, no borrowing, but opening up new markets for american-made products. i think next the congress should build on this bipartisan job-creating vote and move to reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses, reform the tax code so that u.s. businesses can better compete globally. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: over the past several weeks the senate has focused closely on international trade. we've debated trade adjustment assistance, a bill to penalize china's currency policies, and are pending free trade agreements. these have been robust debates. it is an appropriate capstone that we will soon be approving our trade agreements with colombia, panama and south korea. the relate city that these agreements should have passed long ago. they were first blocked in the 111th congress by a democratic

majority in the house of representatives. they were then delayed by our own president who devised excuse after excuse for not acting to implement them. this spring after the excuses related to the agreements themselves were addressed by our trading partners, the president made a new demand. this time it was trade adjustment assistance spending. the president made it clear that if this domestic spending program was not expanded and approved, he would abandon our allies in colombia, panama, and south korea and cede these growing mashts to our growing -- markets to our growing competitors t took congress months to untie this gordian knot that president obama and his administration created. throughout this long period of delay, u.s. workers and exporters were denied the benefits of these agreements. at the same time, these allies began to doubt the commitment of the united states to our friendship as well as our ability to deliver on our promises. i am concerned that going forward the president will put even more new conditions on his

support for trade and trade agreements. i hope not. as a nation we cannot afford to hold our economic international competitiveness hostage to demand for more spend or to a liberal social agenda. if our dmi going grow and our workers prosper then we need to do better. trade is good for the united states. today the united states is the world's largest economy. contrary to the views of many americans, the united states exports more in goods and services thank any other country. it is imperative that the united states continue to open foreign markets. after all, 95% of the world's population lives outside of the united states. the economists estimate that almost 83% of growth over the next five years will take place outside of the united states. simply put, most of our future customers are located in foreign countries. u.s. exporters face foreign barriers that limit our ability

to sell u.s. goods and services in foreign markets. often foreign tariffs on our exports tend to be much higher than our own tariffs. u.s. trade agreements level the playing field. they reduce or eliminate tariffs and other barriers to u.s. exports. the math is pretty simple. lower tariffs and fewer barriers mean more exports and more exports mean more jobs. but we cannot reduce these tariffs or eliminate these barriers without the right tools. in my mind, renewing trade negotiating authority is the key to our future success. i was frankly dismayed when our colleagues across the aisle just a few weeks allege rejected an amendment to provide their own president with the authority to negotiate new trade agreements. we call that trade promotion authority. we all know that the authority to negotiate trade agreements expired years ago. since therntion the united states has been sitting on the sidelines while other nations

negotiate agreements all around the world. and there's no doubt about it -- even with the approval of these three f.t.a. -- three free trade agreements -- the united states is already far behind. it is my understanding that there are 2 09 free trade agreements around the world. the united states is a party to just 12 such agreements with 17 countries. we should be expanding the number of our free trade agreements and the number of our free trade partner countries. everyone knows that if you are not in the game, you cannot win. but right now the united states is not in the game. while it is true that the president is in the process of negotiating and agreement to create a transpacific partnership, we all know that the chances of it actually succeeding are almost nonexistent without trade negotiating authority. let's keep in mind in the trade negotiating authority has been the norm rather than the exception for much of this past century.

congress first authorized recy proi procal trade negotiating authority in 1934 to help pull the u.s. economy out of the great depression. that authority was renewed 11 times between 1934 and 1962. in 1974, the congress first authorized the president to negotiate tariff and nontariff barriers and bring them back for congressional consideration on an he can expedited basis without amendment. every president since 1974 has sought that authority from congress. president ford argued that the legislation -- quote -- "enables the united states to play a leading role in multilateral negotiations." unquote. president carter said that the legislation -- quote -- "solidifies america's position in the international community." ronald reagan extolled the virtues of t.p.a. noting this when properly used it -- quote -- "manifestly serves our

national economic interests." president george h.w. bush noted that extension of t.p.a. was -- quote -- "in the vital national interests of the united states and absolutely fundamental to our major foreign policy objectives." inquote. president clinton argued strenuously for t.p.a. making the case that -- quote -- "the legislation will give us the authority to increase access to foreign markets. if we don't seize these opportunities, our competitors surely will." and when quote within a quote, "strategy is unacceptable." president george w. bush successfully made the case that t.p.a. was critical to opening up markets around the world. once he achiefd its reniewcialtion he made open, informed markets a key private his administration. to give credit where it is due, if it wasn't for president bush's leadership in seeking t.p.a. in negotiating agreements with colombia, panama, and south korea, we wouldn't have any agreements to consider here

today. unfortunately, president obama while touting the importance of exports has been virtually silent on the need for t.p.a. instead of leading on t.p.a., this president has consistently ducked the issue. aavoided the debate and continue to let america fall behind. this leading-from-behind strategy is unacceptable. we need strong vision and leadership in the global economy. we can start by approving these three free trade agreements. the fact is, tariffs on our exports to colombia, panama, and south korea are much too high. these agreements will eliminate these tariffs, but the benefits of each agreement go far beyond tariff elimination. the agreements also guarantee fair access for u.s. service providers, reduce unfair barriers to our agriculture exports, provide high levels of protection for our intellectual property rights, and ensure high levels of investment protection. in short, each of these

agreements helps u.s. workers compete and win in these growing markets. make no mistake, if we don't take advantage of these new markets, other countries will and it is the u.s. worker who will lose. we cannot afford to allow nations to trace ahead -- to race ahead while our workers stay behind. i urge my colleagues to join with senator baucus and me in supporting each one of these trade agreements. their approval can be the first good step toward reigniting a vigorous international trade agenda that puts america first and enables the united states to once again lead the world in opening markets and expanding economic growth. in that regard, i want to pay tribute to my colleague on the finance committee, senator baucus. he's done a great job in working on this. he's been a wonderful partner to me and a wonderful leader on our commit. -- on our committee. when it comes to trade, i believe that he is certainly -- he servely serves a lot of

credit here in helping to push this through and i am grateful to be able to work with quality person like him. i would ask unanimous consent that my further remarks concerning his loyal and very dedicated staff by name and my loyal and dedicated staff by name be placed in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, i'm ready to vote. i certainly yield the floor at this time. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i suggest that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: i ask that all remaining time be yielded back with the exception of 15 minutes, with senator baucus controlling the first seven and a half minutes. upon completion of the remarks, the senate proceed to vote on imagine of h.r. 3080, 3079, and

3078. and all after the first vote be 10-minute votes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, my remarks will be brief because we're at a point here finally where we're passing the free trade agreements. the colombia, panama, and south korean free trade agreements will increase u.s. exports by by $13 billion, boost gross domestic product by more than $15 billion and support or create tens of thousands of american jobs. these agreements will provide an economic boost at a time when our country sorely needs it. but the value of these agreements goes well beyond dollars and cents. in recent years, critics of the united states have argued that we have surrendered our leadership role on international trade. they claim that our government with its divided powers and narrow and changing powers of the majorities is incapable of forming a consensus for expanding trade let alone a consensus on other critical

matters, including reducing our national debt. today we have the opportunity to prove our critics wrong. these agreements were negotiated by a republican president, improved by a democratic president, and will be supported by strong bipartisan majorities in the house and the senate. they demonstrate the best of american values, open markets, transparent regulation, respect for labor rights, the environment will set the standard by which all trade agreements will be judged, and they put to rest any doubt the united states will engage as global partners to establish trade rules that are both free and fair. by approving these agreements, we will also bind ourselves even more closely to three of our most important allies, and we will demonstrate to countries around the world that the united states is a good and dependable partner. a decade ago, colombia was on the brink of collapse. armed conflict raged, drug traffickers flourished, violence against workers flared, the

economy stagnated. the united states pledged its support for plan colombia. under that plan, we provided more than $7 billion to colombia to fight drug trafficking, spur development and protect human rights. with our assistance, colombia has achieved amazing progress. it is healing from the wounds of conflict. it has demobilized 50,000 former combatants, stemmed the flow of illegal drugs and violence associated with it, reducing labor violence and strengthening worker rights. we approve our free trade agreement with colombia, we will help colombia solidify and build on these gains and we will reap for ourselves the benefits of our significant investment in this important country. panama has been a friend and ally since its earliest days as a nation. in the early 20th century, the united states built the panama canal, which means the world's greatest commercial hub. we help the panamanian people restore democracy in 1989 after

20 years of military rule. today, panama is among the fastest growing countries in the western hemisphere. it is both a crossroads of international trade and a global financial center. it is also a close partner in the fight against illegal drug trading. the panama free trade agreement will further strengthen our relationship for decades to come. south korea is a strategic ally in the region, clearly vital to u.s. national interests. despite living under the threat of a serious and dangerous neighbor, south korea has become the 15th largest economy in the world and last year served as president of the g-20 group of countries. this agreement included south korea as our largest bilateral agreement in two decades and ensure our commercial relationship is as strong as our 60-year security partnership. these three agreements would deliver significant economic benefits to our good people. let us renew a bipartisan consensus on trade, reaffirm

u.s. leadership in global economy and cement ties with our three important partners. let's approve our free trade agreements with colombia, panama and south korea. i might add, mr. president, before i yield to the republican leader, that the order of the agreement is first a vote on panama, then colombia and south korea. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, we are on the verge of doing something very, very important for our country tonight, and we're going to do it on a bipartisan basis. i want to congratulate the chairman of the finance committee, senator baucus, for the role he played in this, for the constructive efforts by senator portman and senator blunt to move to this evening, but i want to single out for special praif the leader on this issue, nor hatch of the finance committee, who has been a stalwart on behalf of free trade over the years. i think it's appropriate to take a moment before the vote to note

the importance of what we're doing. the first point is to make these arguments is that we'll help american businesses create new jobs right here in the united states. the second point to make is there is strong bipartisan support for all three of these agreements. in other words, anyone who said the two parties can't agree on anything isn't really telling the whole story. i mean, consider this. on the very day that democrats and republicans were planning to come together to vote in favor of these trade agreements, democrats spent the entire morning talking about what a shame it is that it never happens, that we never get together, so clearly this vote is getting in the way of the political message, and that message is really kind of absurd to watch. and frankly, i think it would be a lot less confusing for anybody who is watching at home, not to mention a lot better for job creation, if our friends on the other side would just agree to work with us more often on a bipartisan basis just like we

have on the bills before us. our friends on the other side may think it helped them politically for americans to think we don't cooperate, but what i'm saying is that the vote we're about to take shows that it's simply not true. and we could get a lot more done up here if the president and our friends who control the senate would move away from the left fringe and stop insisting on partisan bills that are designed to fail. if they agreed to that, then this democrat-led senate would be a lot more productive. now, here's why these trade agreements are so important. first, they lower the barriers to selling american-made goods to consumers in other countries. on a variety of agricultural and manufactured goods, those tariff barriers are completely and totally eliminated. increasing exports is crucial to growing the economy in states like kentucky where nearly 1/5 of manufactured workers -- manufacturing workers depend on exports for their jobs.

and it isn't just manufacturing that will benefit. america's service and technological sectors where we're global leaders will gain greater access to these foreign markets and strong assurances that the legal environment will not change to disadvantaged u.s. firms. so passing these trade agreements will mean more u.s. exports and more u.s. jobs. the total value of exports just from my own state of kentucky currently totals more than $19 billion. with these trade agreements, that number will only grow, increasing demand for kentucky-made goods even more. what's more, the vast majority of kentucky companies that export goods overseas, 80% of them are small and medium sized businesses. so the question is, do we want small businesses in kentucky and other states finding new customers for their goods in theirs growing economies or do we want to cede them to other

countries who are only too happy to exploit the advantages they had before today? these agreements are good news for american businesses looking to expand the market for their goods and they're good news for all the american workers who benefit when those businesses are able to compete on a level playing field with workers in other countries. while we've waited to pass these agreements, america's competitors overseas have increased their share of the markets in panama, in colombia, and in south korea. and operated without the barriers american job creators have faced prior to tonight. today we're leveling the playing field and when the playing field is level, we know american workers and american businesses and farmers will come out on top. they just needed us to clear the way. personally, i've never voted against a free trade agreement, and i hope we'll consider others in the near future. now that we have finally finished the business of the

last administration's trade efforts, president obama needs to think about what the trade agenda of his administration is going to be moving forward. will he let america fall behind our competitors or will he embrace a proactive free trade agenda he knows will help create jobs here at home and project american influence around the world? for our part, senate republicans are ready to work with him on an even more robust trade agenda, one which involves reauthorizing a stronger t.p.a. and which helps him help the economy in a bipartisan way just as we are doing tonight. so this is a very important vote. it shows the two parties can in fact work together to help american businesses create jobs and i hope it leads to a lot more of the same. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: h.r.

3008, h.r. 3078, h.r. 3079, having received from the house are considered to have been read three times. the question is on passage the passage of h.r. h.r. 3080. a senator: i ask the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing, hearing none, h.r. 3080, 83 yeas, 15 nays. the bill has passed. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on passage of h.r. 3079. the senate will be in order. who yields time? the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senate will be in order. the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, what's the regular order? the presiding officer: two minutes of debate equally

divided. mr. baucus: i thank the chair. mr. president, we're now voting on the panama f.p.a., to provide lucrative new opportunities for america's farmers. panama -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. take your conversations out of the chambers. the senator from montana. mr. baucus: it will level the playing field for american exporters. it will do a lot of stuff. let me tell you what it is all about. basically, mr. president, we have -- we accept virtually all of panama's products duty free, virtually. panama has significant tariffs on u.s. products going into panama. this is really a free trade agreement. it's a freebie. i urge members to vote for this. it's good for america so now we can export more products to panama with this agreement. the presiding officer: who yields time? the senator from iowa. mr. brown: i rise to speak

against this agreement. if we just wanted to get rid of tariffs and level the playing field, we would pass about three pages of tariff schedules and build in labor rights so that all of us would pass this by a voice vote. this is 1,600 pages of rules to help insurance companies, to help drug companies, to undercut american sovereignty. it's also based on the same nafta trade model that doesn't work with investor state relations. the same promises we hear in every trade agreement. the clinton administration and the first bush administration promised 200,000 jobs plus for nafta we have lost 600,000 jobs. vote no on panama. it's more of the same. it doesn't work for american small businesses, and it doesn't work for our workers. i ask a no vote. the presiding officer: who yields time? the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i appreciate the senator from ohio showing us that big long stack. those are all the tariffs that panama is going to get rid of

and reduce so we can sell more products to panama. i appreciate the senator pointing that out to us. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: