mr. runyan: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. runyan: madam speaker, h.r. 1025 recognizes those retired from the national guard and reserve component of the united states armed forces by honoring them with the status of veterans under law. representative walz of minnesota, the bill's chief sponsor, recently commented, quote, the failure to recognize those who have served 20 years or more in the reserve and national guard as veterans represents a gross injustice, end quote. these are men and women who showed devotion and dedication, serving their nation in uniform for an entire career of 20 years or more in the reserve and national guard. . they wear the same uniform and subject to the same

code of military justice and receive the same training and called up for active duty service at any time. h.r. 1025 confers status to pay for nonregulatory service. in addition this bill ensures those who receive the honorey recognition of veterans conferred in the bill would not be under statutory benefit under title 38 or any other title of the united states code by reason of such recognition alone. i would like to yield so much time as he may consume to the gentleman from iowa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized. >> i strongly urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1025, which i join my colleagues, the gentleman from minnesota in introducing this bill.

you may not be aware that a member of the guard and reserve can complete an entire career without earning a title of armed service veteran of the united states if they haven't served on active duty other than training purposes. they protect our skies and airports or southern border technically under state orders may retire from the guard but not qualified to be classified as a veteran of our armed forces. our military depends on the national guard and reserve to keep our country safe. men and women who serve our country faithfully for decades deserve full recognition as veterans even if they were never deployed overseas. current law does not consider them to be veterans unless they were deployed over 40 days. it excludes many who were deployed long periods of time

and engaged in frequent and dangerous training exercises and stood ready to risk their lives to protect our nation during military careers that span for decades of the this legislation recognizes the service and sacrifice of national guard and reserve retireys and grants them the full honor of veterans which they have earned. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which is a matter of honor and fairness for our citizen soldiers and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. filner: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the bill before us sponsored by congressman walz would ensure that men and women of our national guard and reserve receive the distinction of being called veterans. it is a simple thing but it is denied them. representative walz introduced

them in the last congress and didn't clear the senate so we have to try again. our guard and reserve comprise a large component of those called to serve and those changing dynamics need to be incorporated. this bill strikes the desired balance and full supporter of the bill and i would yield to the author of the bill, congressman walz as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. walz: thank you to the ranking member as well as being a staunch supporter of this and other legislation to secure the rights and benefits for our veterans and i thank mr. runyan for his support on this and other bills and appreciate all the things that are moving today. special thank you to chairman miller, majority leader and majority whip who scheduled this for this bill to be debated

after we returned from afghanistan visiting our warriors defending freedom and putting their lives on the line and standing there and not being able to tell the difference between navy, marine, national guard, army or reservists, all of the services working together. i'm proud to sponsor this legislation. the honor america's guard and reserve act, it puts veterans' community. you heard mr. latham talk about the honor and dignity. these are folks that serve in so many ways responding to national emergencies, but most importantly, i think, standing ready to be deployed at a moment's notice. they stood there during the cold war. many for 20 years serving this nation training the current warriors and we will honor them

with military pay. but under current law, if they weren't called up for title 10 for more than 179 days the honor we will not bestow upon them is the honor to call them justice. it's an oversight to them and their families to understand the respect. they should have the right and what this bestows upon them, no money, no extra benefits but when the flag comes down on veterans' day they can render a hand salute. it is about honor. may not seem important to some, but for those who wear the uniform subject to the uniform code of military justice and spent years away from their families, this lack of recognition is a gross injustice. this will correct this. including the guard, reserve and

retirey. it will ensure they are not relegated to second-class status. this is to grant status to those who have been denied. it's about honor, not about monetary benefits or privilege. the congressional research service and department of veterans affairs concluded this legislation will provide no additional benefits and is a tribute to their service and reinforced says it has a zero cost to taxpayers. it states that those members of the guard who served for all of their time stood ready to be deployed have earned the right to be considered veterans. i would like to point out this legislation supported by the military coalition, and the national military alliance which represents four million veterans and their families. i thank everyone who has been engaged. we have a companion version in the senate and the time is right to bestow this honor on those who have given so much.

with that, i encounseling my colleagues to use this as an opportunity to stand tall with our guard and reserve soldiers to set this right and to allow them to be able to render their hand salute to our flag. with that, i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. runyan: i would like to yield as much time as he may consume, dr. roe. mr. roe: i want to thank my friend, mr. walz for his leadership on this important issue which is long overdue. i think both sides of the aisle is an injustice that has gone far too long. when you take the oath, you put on the service uniform of our country and you serve your obligation and honorly discharged and a veteran, as much a veteran who served as i

am. congressman walz and others he has mentioned were in germany before we flew home and saw a national guardsman flying planes home to bring our wounded warriors home. i knew this legislation was coming tonight and i felt compelled after meeting these young men and women who are doing an incredible job that they be offered this status of veteran. this bill rights a long-standing wrong and i urge very strong support of this much-needed legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. filner: i have no further speakers and i yield back when they tell me they have no further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields

back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. runyan: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 1025. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. runyan: i encourage all members to support h.r. 1025 and i yield back the balance of my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1025 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

>> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does mr. brady rise? mr. brady: pursuant to house resolution 425, i call up the bill h.r. 3078, the united states-colombia trade promotion agreement implementation act and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill, designate the senate amendment and report the motion.

the clerk will report the this title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 156, h r. 3078, a bill to implement the united states-colombia trade promotion agreement. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to houseres. thrution -- resolution 425, the bill is considered read. the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 45 minutes. the chair regular nices the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. brady: at this time, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it is my privilege to yield four minutes to the gentleman from washington, ranking member on trade, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for four minutes. mr. mcdermott: thank you, madam speaker. tonight, the fat's in the fire and we're starting with the tough one up front. i rise in opposition to the colombia free trade agreement. i believe that trade can have transformative effects on society and -- on a society and its economy. i've seen it firsthand in seattle where one out of three or one out of four people make their living directly from trade. i've seen it in southern africa, i helped write the agoa act and seen the effects it's

had there. when trade is done right, it creates opportunities, it generates jobs, and it lefts -- lifts people up the economic ladder. if it is done right. now, i don't come to this with any kind of ideological knee jerk. i am one that believes that you need to go and look. i've been in colombia on several different occasions, once with commerce secretary gutierrez, we went out to community meetings, we sat down and listened to people talk, president uribe had a community meeting and we saw what was going on. i've been to medellin, which was one of the most dangerous cities in central america, in fact, in the world, and one day, when one of the drug lords was taken out, the people of medellin said, no mas, no more, we don't want anymore. colombia has come a long way from the image that people have

of that country. but there's still are problems, too -- but there still are problems, too many remaining and the efforts to address them have not been really activated. the labor problems are really grave. last year, more union leaders were killed in colombia than the rest of the world combined. nearly every murder has been gotten away with. no one has been arrested. no prosecution. nothing. now, effective organizing would save lives in colombia, just like it has in the rest of the world. but colombian laws compound this culture of impunity by making it easy to deny workers their basic rights. imagine what it does to a worker, thinking about joining a union, to improve his lot or her lot. no wonder only 4.4% of

colombia's labor force dares to unionize. democrats have been clear about this situation from the very start and for the sake of the working people of colombia, for the safety of the colombian workers and their families, and for the working people here in the united states, because the working community around the world is all one, really. what happens to workers in one area is -- has an effect in other areas and if we allow people to take jobs to where the cheapest labor is, where there are no rules or no anything, we then damage our own workers. that's part of the problem in this whole issue as we discuss it here tonight. now, to be sure, we made some important victories in trying to renegotiate this agreement. we were able to, after the bush administration had written these agreement we said no. and then we took over in the house and mr. rangel and mr.

levin negotiated the may 10 agreement with the president of the united states and that recognized international labor standards and it was a crucial step. the regaucheuation of the u.s.-colombia free trade agreement has also produced a labor action plan, which was another part -- the renegotiation of the u.s.-colombia free trade agreement has also produced a labor action plan which sets out -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcdermott: i'll save the rest for tomorrow. we'll debate it more tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: i ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of the time to the chairman of the committee, mr. camp, that he may control time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized and will control the time. mr. camp: thank you, madam

speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: 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 called on the president throughout his term to submit all three agreements to congress but opposition among some democrats led many to believe we'd 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 good u.s. jobs and help get our economy moving again. the u.s. international trade commission estimated that the agreements will increase exports by at least $13 billion. by the president's ownest mation that could generate 250,000 new jobs. the i.t.c. estimates it will kin crease the u.s. gross domestic product by $10

billion, and doesn't cost the u.s. government a dime. it rectifies the current imbalance in u.s.-colombian trade. last year, colombian exporters paid virtually now tariffs when they shipped goods here but our exporters paid 11%. this removes the colombian duties. 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%. but our exports to countries with which we have trade agreements increased by over 90%. 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 i.t.c. had forecast. in the face of this major economic opportunity, delay has been costly. major economies whose workers and exporters compete with ours have worked aggressively to undermine 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 an soybean export fell from 71% in 2008 to 27% in 2010 after argentina's exporters gained preferential access to the colombian market. after canada's trade agreement went into effect on august 15, colombia's largest wheat importer dropped u.s. suppliers in favor of canadian wheat. adding insult to energy, canada

signed its agreement with colombia two 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 consider -- we don't only consider the economic benefits to this. this has left strong allies out in the cold. colombia 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 counternarcs and counterinsurgency. as five former commanders of u.s. southern command have said, and i quote 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, end quote. . i urge my colleagues to support

this important agreement and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i'm privileged to recognize mr. pascrell of new jersey, a distinguished member of our committee for 2 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: i want to challenge just about everything that my very good friend, mr. camp, laid before this house. first, let's talk about the numbers. the updated report that mr. camp referred to in terms of the number of jobs that would be created by this colombian deal contains a very specific disclaimer, that it is not an official estimate.

additionally, any reports estimate that the overall trade deficit will increase, an increase in trade deficit cannot lead to job creation. it's never happened and will never happen. and you throw numbers in front of people. and you know what? you better know what you are talking about. you know what? given the projected changes, the growth of the united states trade deficit with colombia will displace 83,000 jobs in the united states of america by 2015, for a net loss of an additional 55,000 jobs. those are the numbers. i didn't make them up. so when you think that any time you are going to parade a trade deal in front of us and i voted for peru because i thought it was a great step forward -- and anybody is going to have to believe that what you are saying

is really what the truth is, you are over. the american people don't accept these trade deals that have diminished, diminished us. but the worst part of the colombian deal is this. since the new president, mr. sanchez, 38 union people killed. family men, teachers, lawyers, shot in the back of the head. wired up on a tree and one indictment. you want to bring the colombian trade deal here? here we go. and make us believe you aren't only going to create jobs, but these victims are going to be no more. you had an opportunity. here are the numbers, madam chair. here are the numbers, very clear, from 2007 to 2010, 51 murders last year.

no convictions of the 94% of the cases. 130 human rights defenders. this is wrong and the american people -- thank you, madam chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield three minutes to my distinguished colleague on the ways and means committee, chairman of the trades committee, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. brady: thank you for your leadership on trade and your critical role working across the aisle and this administration to bring this free trade agreement and others to the floor. the world has changed. it is not enough to buy american

any more, we have to sell american. we have to go out and sell american products, services and agricultural products. when we do, we find the world is tilted against us. too many countries have an america need not apply sign. these agreements change that and they tear that sign down and level the playing field and create two-way trade with not just sales into america but we compete for new customers in their country and that is critical because many consumers live outside of america. colombia is a critical ally of ours. as a country, they have made progress on human rights, labor rights and rule of law and fought terrorism and created a safer country than a decade ago. if they were a company, we would call them the turn-around of the

decade. colombia is an alleyy. they want to trade first. it opens the door for over $1 billion of new sales from america into colombia and increases our economy by $2.5 billion and creates new standards that allow not just our agricultural community or our manufacturing community to sell two-way but telecommunications and energy management and accounting and other services can sell on an equal-to-equal, plug-in-together as equal trading partners. it's critical that we don't allow america to fall farther behind. it has been nearly five years since this agreement has been signed. president bush signed i think a

very strong agreement. president obama, to his credit, continued to work with both sides of the aisle, i think, to put on some pre-conditions that have been very important to our democrat members and labor rights. this agreement has strong bipartisan support, a strong economic support and it's critical for our national security ally like colombia that we wait no longer, that congress stand up, republicans and democrats together, to pass a bipartisan jobs bill that creates two-way trade, creates real jobs and strengthens our security relationship with remarkable ally in our hemisphere. i strongly support this agreement and urge its passage. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the distinguished representative from ohio, ms. capture.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized. ms. kaptur: it's time for america to negotiate fair trade agreements that create jobs in america and based on a rule of law, respect for life and liberty before profits of the few. i rise in opposition of this view. it is a gnata-like trade accord that are people killers, job killers. there was an accord. this is a picture. a father who was found murdered along a roadside in colombia gunned down as he traveled through the countryside. he had traveled to bogota to raise concerns in his community about the impact of a giant open pit gold mine.

he is one of six catholic priests killed this year alone in colombia in addition to 22 union leaders that have been killed there since january. what kind of a deal is this with a nation that has had dozens and dozens since 2010, 51 people murdered to save union activities in colombia. what is wrong with our country that we cannot stand up for democracy, human rights and job creation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 38 minutes. and the gentleman from, mr. levin, has 37 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to

the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from california, mr. herger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. herger: madam speaker, the trade agreements before us represent a major opportunity for america can small businesses and workers. by leveling the playing field for u.s. goods and services entering colombia, panama and south korea, these agreements will provide a significant boost to our economy and create an estimated 250,000 new jobs. they are commonsense win-win agreements for the american people. here's why. removing barriers to u.s. exports means that our u.s. products become more competitivetive in foreign markets which in turn generate more sales and more business for our farmers, ranchers, manufacturers and service

providers. passing these agreements will mean more jobs, more economic growth and more opportunities both on and off the farm for the men and women in my northern california congressional district and the rest of our nation. perhaps best of all, these trade agreements will provide real, permanent economic stimulus at no cost to the american taxpayers. they represent fundamentally sound economic, getting government-imposed barriers out of the way and letting american businesses and workers do what they do best. as a former ranking republican on the ways and means subcommittee on trade, i urge support for these agreements while i believe this week should have come a lot sooner. these are real job bills. and i urge my colleagues to support all three.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: i rise in opposition to the three trade agreements. it is essential we work to keep jobs here in the united states and i believe the trade agreements with south korea, colombia and panama will cost u.s. jobs. we should be doing everything we can to create jobs and advance economic opportunity here at home. these trade pacts are modeled on the nafta agreement. in the last decade alone we lost 55,000 manufacturing plants and six million jobs with nafta in place. we don't want to repeat. the essential issue at hant is the trade deals between a large economy and smaller economy naturally benefits a smaller economy. in this case, south korea,

panama and colombia. they are a fraction of the size of the u.s. and will stand to benefit greatly by exporting their goods here while i fear u.s. exports will not have the same advantage. we should be focused on passing the american jobs act to hire new workers in the united states and not passing free trailed pacts that will encourage companies to move jobs overseas. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield one minute to a member of the ways and means committee, mr. boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. buse bruce colombia is a -- mr. boustany: colombia is a key alley despite having tariffs in place. this was negotiated years ago.

american credibility is on the line. our correct as to whether or not we will follow through with our commitments. u.s. businesses, farmers and ranchers have been losing market share with the inability to move forward on this agreement. in 2008, u.s. agricultural producers had 71% of that market. by 2010, we were down to 27% and still dropping. and that's because other countries who have fulfilled agreements with colombia after we have already negotiated this have gained that market share. they have picked up the market share we have lost. passing this agreement is a very important step in reversing this trend to our farmers, ranchers and our businesses in this country. colombia is currently the 10th largest export market from my home state of louisiana and stands to grow as a result. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. boustany: pass this

agreement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. woolsey: today, with unemployment in the united states over 9% and the middle class under siege, we are srg a colombian trade bill that would cost, according to the economic policy institute, 55,000 jobs. that makes absolutely no sense. it's bad enough to ship u.s. jobs overseas but particularly to a country that leads the world indeedly violence against union members. in colombia, to band together with your fellow workers is to take your life in your own hands. 23 trade unionists have been murdered so far this year, including one teacher, a teacher, who was hanged with

bashed wire. . -- barbed wire. as the afl-cio put it, if 51 c.e.o.'s had been murdered in colombia, this would be on a slow track indeed. let's put america back to work with a big, bold jobs plan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. gerlalk, a member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gurlalk: i rise in support of the -- mr. gerlach: i rise in support of the colombia free trade agreement and indeed all

three free trade agreements. these agreaments are significant and will unlock new markets for pennsylvania companies to sell products overseas. by eliminating burdensome tariffs, they will improve our ability to sell american-made products overseas. specifically in pennsylvania they will be a boon for farmers and provide new opportunities in other key export sectors of pennsylvania, including primary metal producers. tariffs on more than 90% of metals such as steel, titanium an zinc will be implemented. more than 50% of our exports will be duty-free and similar trade agreements exist in the colombia and panama free trade agreements as well. as we continue to lose shares in the flobal market, we cannot afford another delay in the agreements. i yield back an thank the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves.

the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield a minute and a half to the very active member on these issues, mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. mcgovern: the colombia f.t.a. is bad for jobs, bad for colombian workers. colombia is a country in conflict that kills thousands every year. it suffers from over four million internally displaced, second only to sudan. over a million colombians are refugees in neighboring countries, fleeing terrying, crippling violence from guerrilla and even the country's own military. after they leave, wealthy drug words take over. this will increets that vicious cycle.

every study shows that it will push small farmers off their land and they will be forced to join the ranks of the displaced or grow coca. they won't be buying american goods, madam speaker. when colombian workers have no rights, then there's no level playing field for american workers and that costs jobs this f.t.a. is set up to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. it's the last thing america's workers and human right defenders need. let me ask my colleague, do human rights matter anymore? if so, we should not be debating this f.t.a., we should be waiting until we see real, honest to goodness result thops eground. when it comes to human right the united states of america should not be a cheap date. we should stand firm and we should be unabashed in our support for human rights and madam speaker, that is why i urge my colleagues to vote no on this f.t.a. agreement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan,

mr. levin, reserves the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield one minute to the member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from nebraska, mr. myth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: i stand in strong support of the trade agreement that will open up trade production to over 40 million consumers close off our shores. while the national economic and strategic impact of the agreement is important, the increased marketing opportunity for nebraska is tremendous as well. specifically for agriculture, the agreement with colombia will lead to garnse nebraska's major commodities such as soy bones and white. currently all ag exports to colombia face tariffs. 3/4 of colombia's tariff lines will become duty-free for u.s. exports. they place a 40% tariff on u.s. beef exports, making it one of the highest tariffs on u.s. beef in the world, this

adwreement changes that. colombia has also lifted unscientific restrictions. they will recognize the equivalence of the american food safety system, a significant viggetry for u.s. food pr deucers. i want to make sure they make the most provided by international sales. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you. madam speaker, i rise in opposition to the colombia free trade agreement. i support trade that's fair. trade that protects labor rights, trade that protects the environment, trade that key ates american jobs. unfortunately, these trade agreements before us fail at all three. labor leaders continue to be murdered in colombia, simply for standing up for base exrights and the colombian

government has failed to act. how in the world can those who support these deals turn a blind eye to the thousands of colombians killed by right wing death squads? are we really rewarding the death squads with this agreement? also, free trade agreements are supposed to ep o-- to open up foreign markets and create more good-paying american jobs. instead, these agreets will only increase our trade deficits and cost other 190,000 american jobs. we cannot create american jobs by doing more of the same. we have to put american workers first and stop shipping jobs overseas. in addition to being fair, these trade agreements must be free and fair and until they are, i can mot support this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized.

mr. camp: i yield one minute to the distinguished chair of the foreign relations committee, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the speaker an thank my good friend the charel of the committee. i'm astounded but pleased to hear my good friends from the other side speak so eloquently about support for human rights and support for labor leaders and workers' rights, yet some of these folks are the same ones who want to lift sanctions against communist totalitarian cuba where labor unions are jut lawed, where workers have no rights and where human rights are not respected at all. i don't think the castro brothers can even spell human rights in either language. on to the point of human rights and free trade and big ty -- dignity for workers in colombia, i am so pleased that finally we're going to pass this agreement. in south florida, mr. chairman,

colombia is already south florida's second largest trading partner and our two largest economic engines are the port of miami and the miami international airport, both of which will benefit tremendously from the increase in trade with a free democratic colombia so i welcome this and i hope that this -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has education pyred. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman veck niced for one minute. mr. lynch: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the only thing i have agreed with so far on the other side is that america's credibility son the line. i do believe that. we've had 2,697 trade unionists killed other the past two decades in colombia.

94% of these murders go unprosecuted. you know, i was -- i was an iron worker at the general motors plant when we signed nafta. mexico was 4% of the u.s. economy and not long after that, they closed the plant that i was working at, moved it other the border into mexico. colombia's 3% of the u.s. economy. this is all about shifting american jobs down to colombia. that's what this is all about. give me a break. the reason we have 9% unemployment in this country is because we keep shipping jobs overseas. when you find yourself in a ditch, it's time to stop digging. ok? this is a bad deal. we should be ashamed of ourselves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves.

the gentleman from plch, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: at this time, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. manzullo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. manzullo: i rise in support of all three market opening agreements. over the past three years, the united states posted a surplus of over $70 billion in manufactured goods with our free trade agreement partners. these free trade agreements we are discuss having the potential to generate more exports to create or sustain 250,000 jobs. last year, the brookings institute released a study of the metropolitan area of rockford, illinois, and stated that the area exported a whopping $3.3 billion in 2008. making rockford the most exported city in all of illinois. over 16,000 jobs in the rockford area are directly related to these exports.

but the passage of these three free trade agreements, we can have even more exports coming from northern illinois to the rest of the world. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: let me ask, this is somewhat unusual structure here, each of us were going to take 15 minutes of our total allotment, i want to talk to mr. camp, i think we have used all but two of our minutes. and i want to use those two minutes to close the 15 minutes. so i'm not quite sure where you are on your 15 mins. mr. camp: i have two more speakers at a minute each. so my plan is to have those be

the conclusion of our time. mr. levin: why don't you call on one, i'll take one and then you'll have one more person. mr. camp: at this time, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. rivera. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has one minute remaining. 31 minutes remaining. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. rivera: the colombia free trade agreement represents a critical juncture in our trade rellses. it's about economic security. it means squob, thousands of jobs for america. in my community and for our national economy in particular, international commerce is important to creating those jobs.

but it's also about national security because the colombia free trade agreement will send a message to our allies an just as importantly, it will send a message to our enemies. all of latin america and indeed the world will be watching to see if we are going to stand up with our allies. those that are fighting for democracy and fighting against narcoterror. vote yes on this trade agreement and stand up for our best allies in latin america, colombia. vote yes on this agreement and stand up for jobs in america. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. levin: we have three f.t.a.'s before us. each one of those should be taken on their own. let me express my strong views about the colombia f.t.a. based

on my three trips there. trade is more than about tariffs or flow of goods. it is -- as important as they are. it's about people. and where workers have no rights, increased trade with another country can work against us and can work against the other cupry. colombia in that regard has presented a special case. violation of basic rights has gone on for decades. and not only those violations of laws, but violation of persons, violence and death. the santos administration came to power and said it wanted to

do it differently. our two governments sat down and worked on an agreement on worker rights. it was a step forward. but there is a serious set of problems. first of all the implementation of that and important instances has been spotty, especially as to the very hement misuse of cooperatives in colombia and so-called collective pacts. and secondly, there was an absolute resistance, refusal on the part of the republican majority to have any reference in the implementation plan to this action plan, to implementation bill. that is a serious, serious flaw . for that reason i am very much opposed to support -- opposed

to this agreement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized and the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 30 minutes remaining. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 3078 is postponed. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, seek recognition? mr. camp: madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 425 i call up the bill h.r. 3079, the united states-panama trade mo pro-motion agreement implementation act and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 157, h.r. 3079, a bill

to implement the united states-panama trade promotion agreement. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 425, the bill is considered read, the bill shall be debatable for 90 minutes with 30 minutes controlled by the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, 30 minutes controlled by the gentleman from michigan,

mr. levin, and 30 minutes controlled by the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: and, madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: 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 of its beneficiary -- because it is the 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%. and u.s. agricultural exports face an average tariff of 15%. 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 boone 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, 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 drug trafficking and terrorism. of course there is also the 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 security of the canal has been vital to our security in the region. madam speaker, for all of these reasons, the time to wait is past. 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: thank you, i yield myself one minute. as i said, as to colombia, each of these agreements should be taken on their own. the panama f.t.a. as originally negotiated by the bush administration failed to address serious concerns about panama's labor laws and status as a tax haven. it has been changed through the

efforts of congressional democrats and the obama administration and it now deserves our support. fully enforceable labor and environment standards are included in the core of this agreement. panama has brought its laws into full compliance with standards. and late last year panama signed a tax exchange information agreement and they have changed their laws to implement this agreement. republicans negotiated a flawed agreement, it has been fixed. it now deserves its support. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: thank you very much, madam speaker. i yield to myself such time as i may consume. may i proceed? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. kucinich: i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3079, the united states-panama trade implementation act. with our nation's unemployment continuing to hover around 9%, it is unconscionable that we're considering a nafta clone free trade agreement. this agreement would further facilitate the outsourcing of american jobs and undermine the rights of american workers. proponents of free trade agreements like to report that they're good for the american economy and will create jobs. but history is on the side of those of us who oppose nafta, capta -- cafta and other damaging trade agreements over the last decade. free trade agreements play a significant role in exacerbating the negative effects of globalization including the rapid privatization of vital public resources. they've resulted in the loss of domestic jobs and manufacturing industries and in significant decreases to labor and

environmental standards. in addition, free trade agreements result in significant job loss and privatization of labor intensive industries for countries we enter into the trade agreements with. unionizing in countries like mexico and colombia has resulted in death or imprisonment of union leaders. every state in this country has been affected negatively by our destructive trade policies. the economic policy institute estimates that nearly 700,000 u.s. jobs have been displaced since the passage of nafta in the 1990's. the majority of the jobs displaced, 60% were in the manufacturing sector. my home state of ohio is one of the top 10 states with the most jobs displaced by nafta, having lost 34,900 jobs. our rapidly increasing trade deficits with countries like china has resulted in the loss of over five million jobs in the last decade. of that five million the state of ohio has lost 103,000 jobs, as a result of the increase in our trade deficit with china.

this is not a debate about being for trade or against trade, as some of my colleagues have framed it. this is a debate about learning from the free trade policies we've pursued over the last decade that have proven to be significantly damaging to the american economy and american workers. the numbers speak for themselves. i urge my colleagues to oppose this agreement. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the trade subcommittee, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. brady: thank you, madam speaker. i rise strongly in support of this bipartisan legislation to create jobs in america and to strengthen our relationship with the strong, long standing ally in our hemisphere, panama. why wouldn't we sign this sales

agreement? panama is a growing market, almost a 9% growth in their economy, in a major way in our backyard. they are an economy that matches up beautifully with america. most of its services, most of its economy is service sector, like the united states, it providing brand new customers, not just for manufacturing and agriculture, but our services sector which is critical to so many communities across this country. it's time to act now because we're falling behind. while america's been off the trade agenda, other countries have moved forward very aggressively and panama, recognizing its strategic importance and its economic growth, has signed similar sales agreements with taiwan and singapore. and with europe and canada and many more in the line so every day we wait, american manufacturers, american famplers -- farmers, american technology companies lose out. and, finally, panama has done

so much to tackle issues, labor rights. their strong commitment to labor rights, having recently passed under the president, nearly a dozen laws strengthening labor rights in panama. and to address the issue of tax avoidance and tax haven, panama has signed many agreements including with the united states to be transparent to the point where they are now recognizing internationally as being as committed to open tax treaties and tax treatment as the united states is today. mr. speaker, there's no reason to wait implementing the panama agreement -- waiting. implement -- to wait. implementing the panama agreement will strengthen our economy and keep america from falling further behind. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: madam speaker, since i came to congress, i've worked together with congresswoman capture in

challenging these -- captur in -- kaptur in challenging these unfair trade agreements. i am proud to yield to the gentlelady from ohio for her presentation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for four minutes. ms. kaptur: i want to thank my good friend from ohio for yielding me the time and for his steadfast opposition to these free trade agreements and i rise in strong opposition to this proposed panama free trade agreement. who in their right mind could believe any free trade agreements modeled on nafta would create jobs in our country? i remember during the 1990's fighting the first nafta accord here and newt gingrich saying at that time, nafta would help the united states and i quote, by increasing american jobs through world sales. sure. here's what nafta yielded. a trillion dollars in accumulated trade deficit and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of lost american jobs that moved from cleveland and

moved from avon lake and moved from toledo to other places in this world, south of the border. why do we go bant -- why don't we go back and fix this? let's be honest. panama's entire g.d.p. equals 6% of the economy of the washington, d.c., metropolitan area. so what could this panama agreement actually be about? well, letters we've received give us some insight into what it might be about. with panama we know that the country has a longstanding money laundering problem and that it is a tax haven for corporations. how convenient. in 2008 the government accountability office included panama on its 50 country tax haven list. get the picture? starting to clear some of the fog? we all know about some of these kaman island accounts, well,

why don't we add panama right to the stack? panama was long on the oecd's gray list of countries that failed to implement internationally agreed upon tax standards. ooh, these guys have got something really good going. but you know what? in this country it would be illegal. according to public citizen, approximately 400,000 firms and numerous wealthy individuals use panama's offshore financial services industry to dodge paying their taxes. i thought we were supposed to be for returning those tax dollars to the united states, not giving them another escape hatch. . panama has a history of failing to protect workers and labor rights. and the sierra club said the panama agreement has the same agreements that allow foreign investors and corporations to directly challenge public interest laws for compensation before international tribunals

bypassing domestic courts. in other words, the rule of law gets shredded piece by piece by piece. as the building and construction trades at the afl-cio noted, the panama agreement, quote, undermines the buy america policies that re-invest in our communities. you know, it's really sad when an institution and an administration keeps doing the same thing over and over and over again that is hollowing out the jobs in the united states of america. we want to make it in america, we don't want to outsource more jobs, provide more escapes. and when you represent the people of ohio, and every time you keep 100 jobs, they snatch

away 300 and they say to the workers, you earning too much money, $14, you are going down to $9, you don't like that? there are 7,000 workers lined up for a part-time job. this congress better wake up and renegotiate these trade deals have cost the middle class across this country their ability to earn a living in america. i thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp is recognized. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the distinguished from illinois, mr. kinzinger. mr. kinzinger: america is talking so much right now and there is such a need for jobs. over 9% of this country that is

begging every day for the opportunity to go out and work and earn a living. we have a middle class that is feeling the squeeze because we feel disappearing manufacturing. and i'm concerned about that in my district in illinois. we have a very heavy manufacturing base and when you look at that heavy manufacturing base and the fact that they produce a lot of goods that have to be exported, you have to find a consumer base in order to sell it. and 95% of the world's consumers live outside of our country, it makes sense to create an environment where we could take our goods and in a fairway export them to other countries. panama, an allied of the united states, can charge tariffs on our imports. that would bring this to a level playing field and the people in my district wondering if they are going to have a pay check,

the opportunity to enhance their exports, enhance those american goods made in america and we have a very agricultural district in my area, too. and when i look at the farmers and opportunities to sell their products, that's very important. as you know in business, the ability to be successful means you have to be on the cutting edge and constantly finding markets in places to sell your goods at. this does that for us. i think it's sad for us to get to this point and we have lost a lot of opportunities in the process. but i'm pleased today that we are taking up these three agreements and pleased we are taking up this trade agreement with panama and have the opportunity to strengthen a band with a strong ally and strengthen our exports and the

tens of thousands of people who rely on trade in my district will have the opportunity to sell more goods. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield four minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from washington, ranking on our trade subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for four minutes. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i agree with the last gentleman. we ought to be talking about the jobs bill. the president put a bill out here and the republican leadership won't bring it up. this is a break from trade policies in the past. it reflects hard work of many of us to change u.s. trade policy. there are five reasons to support this agreement. first, it has strong enforceable labor and environmental obligations. many of us fought for years to get these commitments into our trade agreements. we lost those battles in 1995.

i was here when nafta passed. and the debate six years later, which is why in that agreement, 15 democrats voted for it because it wouldn't take care of workers. that all changed in 2007 when the democrats took over the house. the last administration finally accepted our demands on labor, the environment and other issues, such as access to medicine. this agreement includes all of those. we have used the leverage of this agreement to eliminate a tax haven. no one denies that panama is a great tax haven but modified the tax agreement with us, which the "wall street journal" says, quote, the most significant step to date on the road to ending four decades of virtually water-tight banking secrecy laws. we asked them to bring their labor standards. and this does more to regulate

those found in past agreements such as chapter 11 in nafta. this agreement clarifies that the environmental regulations are not -- finally, the united states is consistently maintained a trade surplus with panama for over 20 years and this agreement is expected to increase. i support the agreement. panama has done what we have asked and they should than joy the benefits of a free trade agreement. but make no mistake, we need to do more than improve our u.s. trade policy. we have to get the republican leadership in the house and senate to admit that we are going to have to have a jobs bill. we have been in session for 300 days after an election which all we heard, the democrats didn't get jobs, jobs, jobs. and now 300 days, excellence --

silence, silence on the republican side. no one single bill. when is it coming, folks? that ought to be the next bill coming up on the floor. i urge my colleagues to vote for this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the foreign relations committee, ms. ros-lehtinen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the speaker and the chairman for the time. madam speaker, i rise in strong support of the u.s.-panama free trade agreement. panama is already in my home district, miami-dade's top 25 trading partners and florida as a whole, ranks number one in all of the states in exports to that country, incredible numbers. and these figures will only

increase once the f.t.a. has been approved and american businesses no longer face heavy tariffs and other artificial barriers to trade. in addition to the potential economic growth stemming from this agreement, panama is a key strategic ally in the region. ever since the panama canal was completed, panama's importance to the u.s. has only increased as a major transportation route with 2/3 of its traffic between a west and east coast. for this reasons, expanded exports, increased jobs, closer ties with a strategic ally, i hope we pass this free trade agreement. madam speaker, we have been waiting for this agreement for far too along. years of lost opportunities. now we have a chance to repair that damage. panama's economy has grown 6.2%

making it one of the fastest growing in latin america and opportunity for american businesses. u.s. industrial exports face an average tariff of 7%, but some tariffs go as high as 80%. once this agreement goes into effect, 87% of all u.s. goods exported to panama will become duty-free. since the free trade agreement was signed, american companies have paid millions upon millions of tariffs to the government of panama. these dollars are spent by u.s. companies to foreign governments when they could have been paid here to the united states. i thank the speaker for the time and thank the chairman for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. levin: could you tell us how

much time is for each of us, make sure we are in sync. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin has 26 minutes remaining. the gentleman from ohio has 23 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp has 21 minutes remaining. mr. levin: i now yield 2 1/2 minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. cuellar: by leveling the playing field with panama, colombia and south korea, we will spur job creation. the u.s. needs trade to create job growth as a leader of the great economy.

i represent a region of texas where trade is important. i realize the importance and supporting the local economy. as the chairman of the pro-trade caucus, i support all three pending trade agreements. today, trade supports over 50 million american jobs according to the u.s. department of treasury. this will create a quarter of a million new jobs in industries like manufacturing, agriculture and service sectors, according to the u.s. chamber of commerce. last week, the "wall street journal" reported it would boost u.s. exports by $13 billion. to grow we must be an export powerhouse. and american groups entering into panama, over 87% of the u.s. exports of consumer industrial products to panama will become duty-free immediately and remaining tariffs paid over 10 years.

u.s. international trade commission estimates passage would increase u.s. exports by over $10 billion and create 70,000 american jobs. according to the national association of national manufacturers, the exports to korea would grow by one-third. it would expand exports by $1.1 billion with tariff reductions according to the international trade commission. without the u.s.-colombia f.t.a., it will have unnecessarily paid over $14 million in tariffs. lawmakers have a choice, pass the deal, pass the deal and miss a chance to create 250,000 american jobs, pass the deal to allow american businesses to sit on the side lines while foreign countries forge ahead. america must pass the colombia,

korea and panama trade deals or we will fall behind. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from new york, who has made a real impact on this congress in her first year, mishoachull. . ms. hochul: first the jobs went south, then they went overseas. jobs gone forever. as he left for my flight, she

said to me, said, keep fighting for our jobs, don't forget us. well, i won't forget her. if i thought any of these free trade agreements would help that woman or others in my district, i'd be all in favor. but in western new york, we know better. we were promised prosperity with earlier trade agreements. but while the companies became more prosperous, the jobs were sucked away from our community to foreign shores, lost forever. as they say in the song made famous by the who, we don't get fooled again. i encourage my colleagues to oppose these agreements and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, madam chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: at this time i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: thank you. i now yield one minute to the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. baldwin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute.

ms. baldwin: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in opposition to this trade agreement with panama and to the two others that we are considering this week, with south korea and colombia. trade agreements should be in the best interests of our nation and its people. but sadly this has not been the case with the past free trade agreements. have some of our wealthiest corporations profited from them? indeed. but the rest of america, especially the middle class, has struggled with job loss, closed factories and economic and emotional anguish across the country. i hear from wisconsin families every day that are struggling mightily. struggling to pay the mortgage, put food on the table and send their kids to college. especially during these uncertain economic times, the solution is to put our people back to work and preserve american jobs. when done right, trade

agreements can help bolster our manufacturing and high-skill technology industries, and create jobs as they increase exports and help our economy recover. done wrong trade agreements send these same jobs offshore, leaving americans out of work. unfortunately i believe these trade agreements with south korea, panama and colombia will exacerbate the u.s. trade deficit and further erode our manufacturing base. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich is recognized. mr. kucinich: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: the u.s.-panama free trade agreement requires the u.s. to waive by america requirements for all panamanian

incorporated firms and even many chinese and other foreign firms incorporated in panama in order to exploit the tax system. this means that work that should go to u.s. workers can be offshored because of the rules which forbid buy america preferences, requiring u.s. employees to perform contract work by a federal agency in the federal procurement process. according to the global trade watch, the u.s. would be waiving buy america requirements for trillions and u.s. government contracts for any corporations established in panama and in exchange would get almost no new procurement contract opportunities in panama for u.s. companies. this trade deal is in the nafta tradition, of weakening offshore protections, limiting financial resource service regulations, banning buy america procurement preferences, limiting environmental, food and product safety safeguards and undermining u.s. workers and our economy. we have to defeat this.

we have to be able to buy america or it's bye-bye america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: let me ask mr. camp, you have -- mr. camp: i have one minute remaining with one additional speaker. mr. levin: and one additional speaker? mr. camp: one minute with one speaker. mr. levin: shall we follow the order i think we set? you want to do that? i'll use my remaining time and mr. kucinich will finish? mr. camp: all right. then, madam speaker, then i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. bilbray. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. bilbray: thank you, madam speaker. first of all, this is not offshore. this proposal is next door. these are our neighbors. second of all, this is not just about great opportunities economically for america. we hear people talk about the

environment. when you recycle so-called replace your cell phones, where do you think they go? they get rebuilt and shipped down to our neighbors to the south so they can have the economic opportunities, they can have the learning opportunities. this is the kind of cooperation we want to see in our hemisphere. but to attack panama, which is the leader of showing how they can stimulate an economy with almost 10% growth, to attack panama, showing, allowing the working class access to recycled material, environmentally friendly, but economically uplifting, to attack that kind of agreement on this floor and then say that you're for the environment and you're for helping the poor, don't come to this floor and say you care about the environment, you care about the needy and you care about our neighbors and oppose this proposal. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: could i request how much time i have remaining?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 22 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. levin: so i will now use -- i yield myself 2 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields himself 2 1/2 minutes. he's recognized. mr. levin: i voted against nafta. i led on this floor the battle against cafta. i did so because in those agreements there were not enforceable international worker rights. we face this in panama. as originally negotiated, there was not the implementation of those rights in panama. they had certain provisions relating to newer businesses,

they also had restrictions in terms of trade zones and what we said to the panamanians was, bring your laws up to international standards. that's exactly what they did. this is the opposite in that respect of nafta and cafta. so it is not accurate to say this is a nafta-type agreement. it simply is not. in terms of government procurement we want access for our companies and workers to the construction that's going on in the panama canal zone. it's vital for our companies. and so essentially in this agreement there is a provision

that we can have access there with limits as they can with limits to us. it's mutually beneficial. lastly, there's been reference to the tax haven. panama was a tax haven, one of the most striking in the world. and we insisted that they pass, that they enact something. they've done exactly that. so, if we take these one at a time, this is an agreement that meets our standards, that changes the agreement from the way it was negotiated by the bush administration. we should support this agreement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, yields back. the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: panama is one of the world's worst tax havens, allowing u.s. individuals and corporations to skirt their responsibility to pay taxes that are vital to the local communities that depend on these revenues. this agreement does nothing to address this issue. at a time when austerity measures are being proposed to balance the budget, we should not be considering a free trade agreement that fails to deal with an issue critical to addressing our deficit. this free trade agreement includes provisions that undermine our own laws to combat tax haven activity. public citizens global trade watch reports that the f.t.a. services, financial services and investment chapters include provisions that forbid limits on transfers of money between the u.s. and panama, yet such limits are the strongest tools that the u.s. has to enforce policies aimed at stopping international tax avoidance. the agreement fails to hold

panama and corporations accountable for tax evasion. the agreement only requires panama to stop refusing to provide information especially if u.s. officials know to inquire who is telling. there's a significant exception that allows panama to reject requests for information if it's contrary to the national interest. do not reward corporations to offshore jobs and practice international tax avoidance. do not hurt american workers -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kucinich: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. -- pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 37 -- 3079 is postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, rise? mr. camp: madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 425, i call up the bill h.r. 3 to 80, the united states-korea

free trade agreement implementation act, and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 158, h.r. 3080, a bill to implement the united states-korea free trade agreement. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 425, the bill is considered read. the bill shall be debatable for 90 minutes with 30 minutes controlled by the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, 30 minutes controlled by the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, and 30 minutes controlled by the gentleman from maine, mr. michaud. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: 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% we must seek out and take advantage of all opportunities to create american jobs. this agreement, known as koras, will do that by supporting hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs in all sectors. last year i worked closely with the administration, the major automakers, 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 $44 million in new export. this in addition to the $194 million in expected new exports from low lower korean tariffs

on u.s. autos. inaction on this has allowed the e.u. and other competitors step in and steal u.s. market share and has diminished u.s. leadership in asia. it is the key to our engagement in asia and a critical work 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. this and the other two agreements we will pass this week will create sustainable and well-paying jobs. passage of this 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. this 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 and i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my distinct pleasure to yield four minutes to our whip, mr. hoyer from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of the free trade agreements that are spending -- pending before us and in support of the trade adjustment assistance for working men and women in this country. . there is no doubt as so many of my colleagues have observed that globalization of the marketplace and growth of competitors around the world has put a real stress on america and on american workers. as one of those who has fought very hard to have this floor consider legislation to facilitate making it in america,

making sure that american workers are making american goods and selling them here and around the world, it seems to me that in that process, what we need to do is to bring down barriers to exports around the world. i perceive these agree agreements accomplish this objective. i want to congratulate my dear friend, sandy levin, as well as the chairman of the ways and means committee, mr. camp, for working hard on all of these agreements. i particularly want to congratulate mr. levin, who has given careful consideration and care to the development of agreements that he feels he can support. he is supporting korea and panama, as am i. he has concluded that the protections in colombia are not yet sufficient to protect workers that we all want to protect. i share his concern there. i have transmitted that to the

administration, as has mr. levin. i would like to read a portion of the submital correspondence from the president of the united states referencing colombia. the agreement contains state of the art provisions to protect intellectual property rights, reduce regulatory red tape and barriers to u.s. exports. the agreement also contains the highest standard for protecting labor rights, carrying out environmental agreements and ensuring that labor and environmental laws are enforced, combined with strong remedies for noncompliance. colombia has made significant reforms related to the obligations it will have under the labor chapter. a number of these steps have been taken in fulfillment that colombia has made. i want to say that mr. levin has gone to colombia and spent time there and overseen the action plan and its implementation. but the important sentence for

me and others is, colombia must enact key elements of the action plan before i will bring the agreement into force. there is a bipartisan consensus, madam speaker, in favor of reducing trade barriers. those who support expanded trade wleeve so because americans can compete globally. at the same time, through trade agreements bring changes, which may cause and do cause some workers to lose their jobs. that is why president kennedy in 1962 introduced the trade ajudgment assistance program to mitigate the negative effects of changes in trade policy. under this program, it provides job retraining, job relocation and assistance to those whose jobs are affected by international trade. for companies who lose business, the federal government lends a

hand to help development recovery plans. it is a program to afford time for american initiative, american adapt built and resilience to assert themselves. i believe these agreements give us that continuing opportunity, but we must protect our workers in the process. as we engage in measures designed to strengthen exports, at the same time, congress must continue -- mr. camp, might i have a minute? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. camp: how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 28 minutes. mr. camp: i yield the gentleman a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has an additional one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding one minute. as we engage in measures to strengthen exports at the same time, congress must continue to provide assistance to those whose jobs may be lost in the

process. we need to do whatever we can to help get our people back to work and safeguard american jobs. i urge a vote in favor of the trade ajudgment assistance that will be the last item we will consider and i indicate my support of all three of the agreements. in may of 2007, we made some definite progress with mr. levin's leadership and leadership in a bipartisan way of saying, workers' rights were going to be recognized in these agreements. in my view, that is the case in these three agreements. are they perfect? i think no agreement is ever perfect. but do they move us in a position where the united states will be better able to make it in america and sell it abroad? i think they do. and therefore, i will support these agreements. i thank the gentleman for yielding me the additional minute. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. michaud -- maine is recognized. mr. michaud: i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: thank you, madam speaker. this agreement is based on the nafta-style trade model that has displaced and cut hundreds of thousands of jobs in the u.s. over the last decade. according to the economic policy institute, this agreement is expected to increase our trade deficit with korea by $16.7 billion and cost the u.s. 159,000 jobs within the first seven years of its implementation. global trade watch states that it is expected to increase our trade deficit in autos and auto parts by 700 million zeff stating an economic industry that has been in decline.

i'm tired of visiting places where there is grass growing in parking lots in this country where they used to make steel and auto products. it is time we drew the line on behalf of american jobs and american workers and defeat this trade agreement. reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: at this time, i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the trade subcommittee, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. brady: i thank chairman camp and ranking member to work with this president and senate to improve this agreement to ensure we sell more american cars into korea. this is why this agreement has strong bipartisan support.

as i have said tonight, i'm excited to be here. this trade agreement includes as well as strengthening our relationship, security relationship, our strongest ally, this is the strongest trade agreement that the united states has signed since i have been in congress. the delay has been felt across america. if our exporters can't compete because of high tariffs, they can't grow their businesses and put americans back to work. expanding opportunities finding new customers is so critical to our workers and putting our economy back on the right track and creating good, paying american jobs right here in the united states. for example, this agreement turns one-way trade into the united states into two-way trade. the average south korean tariff on our exporters more than four times what is when south korea exports to us.

this agreement addresses that imbalanceance. the job-creating benefits will be enjoyed by manufacturers, agriculture, service and technology companies. the u.s. i will -- will increase money. 90% of american companies selling to south korea are small and immediate-sized enterprises in our neighborhoods and communities and will lead to an additional $3 billion in exports for these small businesses. it's no longer enough to buy america, we have to sell america. and this agreement is essential if we are to get our economy back on track. i strongly support it and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine is recognized. mr. michaud: i yield one minute to the the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman from maine in yielding and rise in opposition to the south korea trade accord. its market is closed and can't see any other cars on the road there other than korean cars. american policy has allowed jobs to be whittled away through a trade agenda that outsources american jobs. every single year we have a trade deficit with south korea. why do we want to make it worst. the american people are living it and want us to fix it. they are telling us. last year our trade deficit with south korea was over $10 billion and translates into more lost jobs here at home. rather than stopping this

outsourcing, the executive branch and their allies are coming up with more trade agreements that increase our trade deficit and even more with sought korea now. the economic policy institute analysis present difficulties this proposed agreement will cost us 159,000 more lost jobs net and the international trade commission verifies that. isn't it time that we put americans back to work here inside our country rather than giving them more of the same red ink. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: at this time, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: we only have two more

speakers. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. the gentleman from maine is recognized. mr. michaud: i yield one minute to the gentleman from iowa, mr. braley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. braley: i call on my colleagues to oppose george bush's job-killing trade deal with korea. listen to the american people. only 18% of americans believe that free trade has created jobs in the united states. that's from the conservative "wall street journal" poll. the same poll says that 53% of americans say trade deals have hurt our country. 61% of the tea party supporters say free trade has hurt the united states. facts don't lie. the simple truth is, during the last decade of so-called free trade, the united states has lost 54,000 manufacturers, over five million manufacturing jobs,

43,000 manufacturing jobs in my state. 1,370 factory jobs lost every day at an average of $55,000. wake up, america. we need to get serious about passing this. we have a trade deficit that has created a job deficit. that's what we need to solve. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield one minute to a member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. reed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. reed reed i rise in strong support of the three pending agreements before this great body. this is a great day. this is a great day for america in the sense that we have before us an opportunity to create 250,000 jobs. that's the administration's own

number. that is the number that has been verified. and i am a supporter of that number in creating jobs for americans across this entire nation. when i came here as a freshman member of congress, there was a question about the freshmen's thought about free trade. 67 out of 87 republican members signed a letter to the administration saying we support free and fair trade, because when it's free and when it's fair, the american workers will outcompete anyone in the world. and that is exactly what these agreements will do. and in particular, the u.s.-korea relationship, not only will we be strengthening a strategic relationship but hundreds of thousands of jobs. with that, i support and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from maine i recognized. mr. michaud: i yield three minutes to the the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. sutton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. ms. sutton: i rise today in opposition to all of the raw trade deals coming to the floor tomorrow, because our families cannot afford the loss of any more jobs. base odd a myth that there is some sort of world free market, they call these deals free trade agreements. but madam speaker, there i nothing free about them. these nafta-type deals are not free to our workers who will lose their joobs, not free for our communities as factories are boarded up and more careers are boarded up and shipped overseas as some of our multinational corporations with no allegiance search the world over for the

lowest wages to be found. low wages paid to workers in other countries, like low wages here, will not empower people to buy our products. enough is enough, madam speaker. some of the same people here on the floor claiming these deals level the playing field for american manufacturers and jobs supported nafta, too. and how has thanking worked for us? since nafta was signed according to the bureau of labor statistics, we have seen approximately five million manufacturing jobs lost, over 350,000 of those jobs from my state of ohio. these are not free deals. these are raw deals for the american people. make no mistake, the fact that we are seeing more assistance for passage alongside these deals is an admission that more americans are about to lose their jobs with these deals. at a time when so many are struggling to find a job, why

would we pass a deal that we know will result in job loss? it's unconshabble to pass a -- unconscionable to pass a deal with south korea and if we pass a deal with korea, accord toing the economic policy institute we could see our trade deficit increase by $4 billion and another 159,000 jobs lost. . this would be particularly bad for my district and districts around the country that support our domestic auto industry, auto suppliers and trademakers, partsmakers. right now korea has the largest trade imbalance when it comes to cars, only importing 5% of cars sold and this won't change that. in fact, it will only make it worse by allowing korea to keep out american cars that they don't meet certain standards. madam speaker, enough is enough. this bad trade deal pours salt into the wound, already

festering with an american manufacturing sector and it will destroy opportunity for people right here in the united states. the american people don't want more bad free trade deals that aren't free. i encourage all of my colleagues to vote against this horrible, horrible package of trade deals and i yield back my time. enough is enough. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield one minute to the distinguished chair of the foreign relations committee, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank my good friend from michigan. madam speaker, at a time when millions of american families are struggling and so many people are looking for work, passage of this u.s.-south korea free trade agreement should be a top priority for all of us. but there's more at stake than

just increased exports. south korea is a key u.s. ally in an unstable region of the world where tens of thousands of our u.s. troops stand on guard against aggression and where u.s. interests are increasingly under threat from china and other countries. at a time where much of the world is waiting to see if the u.s. will retreat from our responsibilities, passage of this free trade agreement will serve as a clear demonstration of our enduring commitment to our ally -- our ally, south korea, and our determination to defend our interests throughout east asia. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this u.s.-south korea free trade agreement and for the creation of tens of thousands of american jobs, for the american families who are desperately in need of them. i thank the gentleman for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from maine is recognized. mr. michaud: thank you, miami -- mr. speaker.

at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from caling california, mr. sherman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. sherman: looks like the only thing congress is going to do this year about jobs is to ship them overseas. trade adjustment assistance is being authorized tomorrow. but not a penny is being appropriated tomorrow and any penny that is appropriated will no doubt be taken from health and education spending necessary without the trade agreements. this south korean free trade agreement will increase our trade deficit by tens of billions of dollars and every billion of dollars of increase in our trade deficit costs us tens of thousands of jobs.

the agreement is being sold as if goods made in south korea are the only goods that are going to come into our country. that's wrong in three ways. first, if goods are 65% made in china, 35% finished in south korea, they come into our country duty-free. and that 35% of the work done in south korea can be done by chinese workers living in ber acs in south korea -- barracks in south korea. so the goods may never be touched by a south korean. we are going to be talking in this congress, i hope, about chinese currency manipulation. there are proposals that would impose tariffs on chinese goods. this south korean agreement, is a prebuilt loophole in anything we try to do with china over currency manipulation. they manipulate their currency, they make 65% of the goods in china, they ship them to south korea, they come in free into the united states.

without having to worry about our tariffs or our sanctions against their currency manipulation. second, goods that are 65% made in north korea, 35% made in south korea have a right to come in under this agreement. but we have an executive order that will bar them at our ports. so we will be in violation of this agreement on the first day. that means south korea can impose sanctions and take away whatever benefits you think we're going to get under this agreement. i ask the gentleman for no additional time and i thank the gentleman for his time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i just have one speaker remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: we have two. let's see, next is -- i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. berman, the ranking member on the foreign affairs committee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. berman: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank my friend from -- for yielding. and i rise in support of the korea trade agreement. the agreement will lead to increased california exports of manufactured goods, agricultural products, raw materials, thereby creating a large number of new jobs and it provides rigorous intellectual property protections for the creative industries in los angeles and throughout the nation. but i like to use the remainder of my time to address the allegation that the agreement would undermine our sanctions against north korea. there is no truth to those allegations. we will continue to enforce our sanctions against north korea just as we do now. the first allegation is that the agreement would allow north

korean goods produced at an industrial complex in north korea or elsewhere in that country to be imported into the united states. i raise this issue with ambassador kirk, his response in writing, i quote, neither the rules of origin, nor any other provision of this changes u.s. sanctions on north korea, including the prohibition on direct or indirect importation of goods, services and technology from north korea. he went on to say that south korean firms cannot avoid u.s. sanctions by including parts from north korea in their exports to the u.s. and claiming preferential tariff treatment. the second allegation is that south korean firms might have recourse against u.s. sanctions targeted at north korea. either under this or the w.t.o. kirk's response, u.s. sanctions are fully consistent with this

and therefore south korea would not be able to obtain remedies against u.s. sanctions using dispute settlement procedures. nor does it provide south korea with any recourse to w.t.o. according to the -- i ask unanimous consent for one additional minute. do you have that? mr. levin: 30 seconds. mr. berman: according to the congressional research service, article 2.8.4-a explicitly permits the u.s. to prohibit imports from third countries, north korea. the fact is we passed this, our north korean embargo stands. we defeat this, our embargo stands. there are legitimate issues to debate regarding this. but what should not let -- one should not let a bogus argument determine our vote. i yield back and thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maine is

recognized. mr. michaud: thank you. i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. lipinski: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, i cannot imagine a worse time with this job-killing trade agreement with south korea. expanding a nafta-style trade agenda that is has already destroyed five million manufacturing jobs would make no sense in the best of times. but with 25 million americans unemployed or underemployed, it is totally absurd now. economists estimate that 159,000 american workers will lose their jobs over seven years if we pass this agreement. most of these good-paying manufacturing jobs. in exchange we likely get not only more chinese imports but we open up our country to imports from north korea.

manufacturers in my district know this, workers in my district know this, it only seems that washington is blind to this. it is well past time that washington puts american workers and american manufacturers first. we can start by rejecting this trade agreement so we can no longer hang out our middle class to dry. we need to support our american workers now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. camp: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to a member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. paulsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for his leadership because this is an exciting day, an important time for our economy. i strongly urge passage of all three of these free trade agreements which promote exports with new sales to new customers, giving our economy more jobs. and while some in washington have put these trade agreements on the back burner, other countries have been moving full

speed ahead on trade. the european union signed their own agreement with south korea which put american companies at a disadvantage in one of the great emerging asian markets. standing still on trade is moving our economy backwards. mr. speaker, passing the south korea trade agreement is the quickest and most effective way to level the playing field for american companies, small, medium and large. one of minnesota's major employers with lots of jobs connected to trade is 3-m who manufactures everyday products from post-it notes to scotch tape to road signs to medical devices. and south korea's this company's fourth largest export market and the passage of this trade agreement will lower the rate on these by $20 million. this is about selling american. this will free up additional capital to create new jobs and reinvest in innovation and research and development to create new products. mr. speaker, we must remain focused on creating jobs and helping our economy.

i strongly encourage the passage of the south korea free trade agreement as well as the agreements with panama and colombia. marking the largest expansion of trade in 15 years. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: could i inquire how much time remains for the three of us? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 23 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 21 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from maine, mr. michaud, has 21 minutes. mr. levin: if i might ask mr. camp -- mr. camp: we have no further speakers so i'll reserve. mr. levin: so you'll save that extra minute and a half for tomorrow? i guess so. i yield myself 3 1/2 minutes, i may use only 2 1/2. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: first i want to emphasize each of these agreements should be on their own merit. trade is so polarized it's easy

to lump things all together. we won't carve out a new trade policy if that's the way we proceed. secondly there's been reference to nafta. this is really kind of an antinafta agreement. the labor standards are the new standards that we put into peru and are incorporated here. the reference to job loss in e.p.i., it bases its assumption that what happened after nafta in terms of trade will happen as to korea, they're very different situations and that's why many suggestions are that there will be major increases in jobs. . there has been reference to this as the george bush

f.t.a. this is the f.t.a. renegotiated by the obama administration. and why was it renegotiated? to open up the markets of korea. to change one-way trade to two-way trade. that's jobs. and that's exactly what this agreement does. and tomorrow, we will outline how it does it in all respects. it will make sure that the korean market at long last is open to american auto products, which is the major source of our trade deficit. that's why the auto companies issued this statement, i quote. as representatives of the largest exporting sector, this f.t.a. will help open an market for chrysler, ford and g.m.

exports. our companies make the best cars and trucks on the road and we are excited for the export opportunity this agreement represents. that's why it's supported by the u.a.w. it will open up markets -- that's why ford sat down today and described how they are going to penetrate the market of korea . they're determined to do that, as the other companies are. so, this is a market opening provision at long last. in that sense, a major change from the bush-negotiated agreement. i strongly urge support for the korea f.t.a. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin reserves. the gentleman from maine is recognized. mr. michaud: i yield one minute to a leader of the china

currency manipulation legislation, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. crit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. critz: i rise in opposition to the korea free trade agreement. i represent a manufacturing district and we need trade policies that put american workers first. i seen firsthand the negative effects that trade agreements have had on our manufacturing sector and this one estimated to dispolice 159,000 jobs and increase our trade deficit by $16 billion. every trade dollar we lose as as result of international trade is our blow. we can prevent the outsourcing and offshoring of american jobs in the ballooning of our trade deficit by basing trade agreements on a level playing

field and rebuilding our manufacturing strength. we must oppose agreements like this one that are founded on policies that have a record of failure. with an unemployment rate hovering around 9% and 11 million job shortfall we cannot afford a trade agreement that drives more americans out of work. oppose the korea free trade agreement as our workers and businesses need to know that we are standing up for them in the global marketplace. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1-c of 19, further consideration of h.r. 3080 is postponed. mr. camp: pursuant to house resolution 425, i call up h.r. 2832, with the senate amendment thereto and i have a motion. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: an act to extend the

generalized system of purposes and information other purposes. senate amendment, mr. camp of michigan moves that the house concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 2832. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 425, the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member on the committee of ways and means. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp and the gentleman from levin will each control 30 minutes. mr. camp: i ask unanimous consent that members have unanimous consent to revise and extend their remarks. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 2832, the bill which renews the generalized system of preference program and also contains the trade adjustment extension act of 2011. this bill is the cornerstone of a 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 g.s.p., largest program which was already passed by the house last month. not om does this legislation allow duty-free access on certain products into the u.s. market, but makes u.s. manufacturing more competitive by lowering the cost of input. the coalition has estimated that over 82,000 u.s. jobs are directly or indirectly society wd this program. this legislation renews the program through july 31, 2013 and applies it retroactively for products imported after the expiration date on december 31, 2010. this program is fully offset with spending cuts. this bill contains a reauthorization of trade

adjustment assistance. earlier this summer, the white house sprung upon us it would not send the free trade agreements to congress if there was no deal on t.a.a. i took this demand to heart and made a decision to reach agreement on a streamline, cost effective and reduced t.a.a. program to make sure all three trade agreements could move forward. i forged a bipartisan agreement on t.a.a. to do just that. the core principles of our conference ensuring smaller government and cutting spending were the foundation of my stance. as a result nchingts contrary to nands that we authorize the 2009 t.a.a. law that according to the congressional budget office cost over 700 million for five years, we forced the administration to accept significant cuts. the final cost is one half that amount. the deal costs roughly $900

million for a three-year program and fully offset with spending cuts and cuts to the baseline program. it reverts to 2000 levels and the entire program completely ends after 2014. in order to achieve these savings we scaled back t.a.a. as a whole. we reduced the number of weeks of income support under the t.a.a. 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 standards and has met the performance of benchmarks of his or her training program. t.a.a. benefits run concurrently with unemployment benefits. we slashed the health care subsidy from 80% and repeal it after 201. we deny t.a.a. eligibility for

public sector workers and eliminated half of the allowable training waivers to ensure that those in training will be available for benefits. we consolidated and reduced by $110 million all nonincome support expenditures for the program. we slashed it to discretionary programs and eliminated for community programs authorize dollars at 1 0 million in the 2009 line and enhanced performance measures in all of the t.a.a. programs and we offset the program with spending cuts. overall, we slashed and stream declined t.a.a. significantly and are moving forward the most significant trade deal this country has seen in 15 years. for those concerned about t.a.a., let me urge you to recognize this is a scaled-back t.a.a. and small price to pay

with the promise these trade agreements hold. i encourage my colleagues to consider the four votes for the three trade agreements as a comprehensive package and a model of bipartisan for creating jobs and enhancing economic growth. i urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield as much time as he shall consume to the ranking member on the trade subcommittee, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, finally we come to the most important of the bills that we are going to deal with tonight, this should have been the first bill and dealt with a long time

ago, back in february, when it expired, because this is a bill that extends two programs that have had strong bipartisan support in the past. the trade adjustment assistance program and generalized assistance program. the leadership in the senate decided that the only thing that they were going to do was stop president obama from having ag second term, they recognized this trade issue was a very sensitive one and the most sensitive issue was what does it do to american workers. do we help people that are displaced when jobs go overseas or go or just disappear generally, then are we going to help our workers? and the democrats said we got to do that. if we don't do that, nothing else is going to happen.

finally the republican leadership in the senate said, well, ok, because we want something, we'll finally give a little something to the workers. you heard about the reduction that have been made. this bill started in 1962 under john kennedy. and it was done to help workers who were laid off because of increased competition in trade. in 2009, we finally had a reform, bipartisan spofert. the congress made -- support. and the congress made significant changes in t.a.a. and many were to deal with past criticisms in the bill. it didn't help enough people. health care benefits. a lot of things problematic since 1962. when the recovery act became the recovery vehicle in 2009. t.a.a. was put on it and never any expectation that it would just disappear in 2011.

senator grassley, nice conservative, nice solid conservative senator from iowa said, quote, today's achievement is a culmination of years of efforts and i'm confident that the result will serve to benefit america's workers in iowa and across the united states for years to come, not ending in 2011. for years to come. don't forget those words and yet the house leadership made the unfortunate choice to let those critical reforms expire last winter. washington state workers benefited immensely from those 2009 reforms. in the past couple of years, 35% of all the workers certified for t.a.a. in washington state were certified under the eligibility criteria and the expansion of

work program. today's bill protects and the 2009 reforms and provides trade impact workers with the support they need to get back on their feet. when you lose a job, it used to be that unemployment was set up that if your construction job went away because of wintertime, springtime game and away you went. in this economy, the jobs go away and they don't come back, so you have to learn some new skill to make a living for your family. now, that concept is one that we should have for all workers in this country, not just for those affected by trade. workers in washington and all across the country have suffered because of the delay in the implementation of this bill. this bill also extends the general systems preferences program, which is the oldest of

the u.s. assistance programs for our business people in this country that has played an important role in our nation's trade and development efforts for decades. sometimes i ask myself if anybody on the republican side ever had anything to do with a business. i'm not a businessman, but i know that the most important thing to a businessman or business woman is to be able to plan, to know that the program is going to be there and that you can quote a price to somebody because you know it will be there, but the g.s.p. program, which has been important to a lot of our small businesses has simply been unreliable because the republican leadership couldn't seem to figure out to extend something that has been bipartisan for years. . businesses have relied on g.s.p. about 65% to 70% of u.s.

imports under g.s.p. are imports used to support u.s. manufacturing. we're getting things from outside to bring into this country. as a result of the delay in extending g.s.p. and -- in the u.s. and in developing countries that rely on these preferences, they have distribute business deals have ended, there have been all kinds of problems. we hear about them in our office from our little businesses in our district. now we are finally considering this important legislation. i urge my colleagues to pass it. i understand that the senate is tomorrow going to pass it at exactly the same time we pass it in here. it will be a historic moment that we extend the program that started in bipartisan in 1962. it is essential that we as a congress think about our workers and their jobs. we're not worried about the rest of the world. a big problem in this country is that we haven't paid

attention to our workers and what happens to them when they lose their job. they have unemployment maybe for 99 weeks. we haven't extended unemployment benefits either. there's another issue hanging around here that's going to ultimately hurt our workers. and the leadership on the other side knows it. why they sit there and dangle our workers that way, why do you want to make them angry and upset and uncertain? you watch this tea party in the street, you watch what's going on down on wall street, you got to say to yourself, there's something brewing out there and if you don't deal with unemployment insurance and what happens to workers, we're going to have a very turbulent year in the next year. i yield back the balance of my time by urging all the members to vote for this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to the distinguished chairman of the trade subcommittee, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i join my colleagues in strongly supporting passage of this legislation which renews the generalized system of preferences program. and also re-authorizes the smaller trade ajudgment assistance program. this bill is the key part of the bipartisan trade package before us today and it's crucial to letting the world know the united states is back on the trade field again. the legislation has two very important parts. g.s.p. and trade adjustment assistance. with regard to preferences, this program provides preferential access to certain imports from selected developing countries. as importantly it also benefits u.s. manufacturers and creates u.s. jobs. nearly 3/4 of all the eligible imports are raw materials, components, parts or machinery and equipment used by american companies to manufacture goods in america. that means our manufacturers can make things here in the

united states more cheaply and employ more americans in the process. as far as i'm concerned that is a real win-win, however i must note this program is fully offset with spending cuts. on trade adjustment assistance, i applaud chairman camp for his scaledback version of t.a.a., that he was able to negotiate with the white house and chairman bachus from the senate. the outset, the white house demanded that there be a straight extension of the 2009 law for five years. and held the trade agreements, frankly, hostage. chairman camp, however, refused to accept that ultimatum. he instead negotiated strong agreement and forced the white house to accept deep cuts to the programs as well as other significant spending cuts including cuts to other unemployment benefit programs. overall according to the congressional budget office the trade adjustment assistance package cost 1/2 of what the

administration had originally demanded and is fully offset with spending cuts. now, there is fair criticism of trade adjustment assistance. it is expensive, not especially efficient and has grown over the years to not really serve the people that it needs to and in this tight fiscal situation those are fair concerns. in an ideal world the president would have needed no persuading to send up the trade agreement to congress, we would have considered them long ago. however, the reality is different and we were told in order to move forward bipartisan legislation on trade , we had to work with the senate and the white house on this issue. in this case chairman camp on behalf of republicans in the house, in the senate, secured significant reforms to the programs, including key spending cuts, consolidations and other concessions. the program has been cut in some cases below the 2002 trade adjustment levels, all setting

the stage for sunset of the program at the end of 2014. all in all our constructive bipartisan work on trade has yielded a victory for the american people, both through the trade agreements and this bill. i urge my colleagues to support this measure and consider this to be part of a comprehensive package, a comprehensive bipartisan jobs package for america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: how much time is there on both sides on this? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 23 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 22 minutes remaining. mr. levin: i think, mr. camp, should we both reserve the balance of our time? ok. i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, both

reserve. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of the motion is postponed. the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. nunnelee of mississippi for today. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, rise? mr. camp: mr. speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for mor

>> the obama administration accused agents of the iranian government of being involved in a plan to assassinate the saudi ambassador to united states. we will get an update next. leon panetta warned lawmakers today that some of the pentagon budget cuts over the next 10 years could affect military projects in their congressional districts. his remarks are coming up. later, new jersey governor chris christie endorses mitt romney for president. >> i am delighted but not

surprised by the final repeal of the 18th amendment. i have said that when this matter was properly submitted to the rank-and-file they would readily see that it has no place and our constitution. >> he served as governor of new york four times, although he never attended high school or college. he became the first catholic nominated by a a major party to run for president. he is remembered by the alfred e. smith memorial dinner, a fund raiser for various catholic charities and a stop for the two major presidential candidate is each election year. live from the state assembly chamber in albany, friday, at endicott p.m. eastern. authorities uncovered a plot to kill the saudi arabian ambassador to the united states and to bomb the saudi embassy.

the attorney general along with the fbi director announced the charges against two men linked to the a ronnie and government. -- to the iranian government. >> good afternoon. today the department of justice is announcing charges against two people who allegedly carried out a deadly plot that was directed by factions of the iranian government to assassinate a foreign ambassador here in the united states. a naturalized united states citizen was arrested last month in new york is accused of working with members of the iranian revolutionary armed court to target the saudi arabian ambassador to united states.

according to the complaint, he is alleged to have orchestrated a $1.5 million assassination plot with another person, a member of the force and other iranian co-conspirators. this group is a unit of the revolutionary guard corps. it is suspected of sponsoring attacks against coalition forces in iraq and was designated by the department of the treasury in the 2007 for providing support to the taliban and other terrorist organizations. the complaint alleges a conspiracy was conceived, sponsored, and was directed from iran and constitutes a flagrant violation of u.s. and international law, including a convention that explicitly protect diplomats from been harmed. in addition to holding these conspirators accountable, the united states is committed to holding around accountable for

its actions. the men are charged with conspiracy to murder a ford official, conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, and a candid -- and conspiracy to commit an act of international terrorism. at large.een i according to the complaint, one meant what an informant up from the truck administration imposing as an associate of a cartel. the meeting was the first of a series that would result in the international conspiracy by elements of the iranian government to pay the informant $1.5 million to murder the ambassador on united states soil. according to the complaint those discussions led the man to

facilitate the wiring of approximately $100,000 into a bank account in the united states as a down payment for the attempted assassination. the complaint states that in the days since the arrests, he has confessed to his participation in the plot as well as provide other vital information about elements of the iranian government's role in it. the destruction of this plot marks is of an achievement by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies as well as the cooperation of our partners in the mexican government. i want to commend the outstanding work of the agencies involved in this investigation, including the fbi as well as the drug enforcement administration. their agents and analysts worked closely with prosecutors here as well and the southern district of new york over these many months to monitor this alleged

conspiracy, obtained liable information, and bring one of the primary plotters to justice. i want to thank them for their remarkable work and i will now turn it over to director mueller. >> good afternoon. this case illustrates that we live in a world where borders and boundaries are increasingly irrelevant. a world where individuals from one country sought to conspire with a drug-trafficking cartel in another country to assassinate a former official on united states soil. it reads like the pages of a hollywood script, and the impact would have been a very real and many lives would have been lost. these individuals had no regard for their intended victims, no regard for innocent citizens who might have been hurt or killed. they had no regard for the rule

of law. with these charges we bring the full weight of that law to bear on those responsible, and we send a clear message that any attacks on american soil will not be tolerated. this was not a typical place -- case for any of us. given the global ties we unraveled and the scope of the plot itself, it represents the full range of threats we face and it illustrates the need for continued collaboration, collaboration between agencies, departments, collaboration between countries. we have said it many times before, but it does bear repeating -- it is only working side-by-side that we are able to stop plots like this before hold. we will continue to work together to find and stop those who seek to do us harm, let it distract overseas or here at home. whether it is a conspiracy to kill a ford official on u.s.

soil, a terrorist attack on united states citizens, or street crime in our communities. that we turn it over to lisa. >> thank you very much. i want to echo the remarks of the attorney general and others here today in thanking those involved in this operation. this is a significant milestone and achievement in our national security efforts. as you have heard about the facts as alleged today into the's criminal complaint shed light on an assassination plot that was conceived and sponsored by elements of the iranian government. thanks to a coordinated law enforcement effort, we were able to penetrate and thwart the plot before a could result in harm to get ambassador or anyone else. i want to thank the men and women of the national-security division, in particular, those from the counter-terrorism section and other sections within the division for their

efforts in helping to shepherd this case. and for their efforts in the extensive coordination that was required to arrive at today's results. this case perhaps more than any in recent memory involved an incredible amount of collaboration with partners over several months. were it not for the hard work of the division and its many partners, we would not be standing here today. i want to thank our partners in the u.s. attorney's office for the southern district of new york for their hard work on this matter. i will want to acknowledge the work of the prosecutors in the u. s. -- of the houston office and the many investigators that the fbi, the dea, and the new york joint terrorism task force. they deserve a commendation for 14 this, and obtaining information behind it. i want to thank the intelligence community for its critical role in this matter.

the national security division was designed to serve as the place where intelligence and law-enforcement come together at the justice department. i am proud to say that we served that purpose here. this case demonstrates exactly how the division is supposed to work and should serve as a model for future cases. thank you, and i would like to introduce the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. >> thank you. as has been described, the complete unsealed today reveals a well-founded and pernicious plot first priority the assassination of the saudi ambassador to the united states. the details of that murder plot are chilling to say the least. as the defendants no care of inflicting mass casualties on innocent americans on american soil. as set forth in the complete,

when a confidential source noted that there could be up to 150 people in a fictional restaurant where the bombing would take place, including possibly members of the united states congress, the lead defendant acting on behalf of the component of iran, said no problem and no big deal. as we allege, the defendants showed they were more than willing and able to carry out their plan by causing $100,000 to be wired to a new york bank as a deadly down payment for their hired guns. it's not stop there. he saudi ambassador's assassination was supposed to be the first in a series of attacks. like the speakers before me, i want to thank the partners responsible for unraveled this plot before it ever got off the ground. our work as has been said is a product of a clever to of effort from agencies that share an unflagging commitment to

keeping americans save, both at home and abroad, at protecting representatives of foreign governments of while they are guests in our country. when the command a director of the fbi for its outstanding work on this unprecedented investigation, specifically also, the houston fbi office for its work and the joint terrorism task force the assistant director in charge there in the new york office. i want to thank the houston office of the dea in their role in the investigation and the attorney general and his staff and the assistant attorney general and our close colleagues at the national security division for their tremendous leadership and support. i want to acknowledge the dedicated career prosecutors in my own office in new york, with their supervisors, the deputy u.s. attorney, and the acting chief of the criminal division. none of the people that have been mentioned by me and others

have gotten much sleep lately and we are all safer because of it. the charges that they should make cluster clear the we will not let other countries use our soil as their battle ground. thank you. >> will take any questions you might have. >> you say you will hold iran accountable, what do you mean? >> we will be working with colleagues at the white house, the state department, at the treasury department, and they will be taking further action, which they will be making known in the relatively -- over the next few hours. >> to what degree are you saying the iranian government was implicit? did they know this at the outset of what exactly are you saying? >> the organization i reference is a component of the iranian government.

as we have alleged in the complaint, we say that this was directed and approved by elements of the iranian government, specifically senior members of the group that is part of the islamic revolutionary guard corps and the islamic military. i up officials in this agencies were responsible for the plot. >> the upper reaches of the iranian government knew about this and blessed this? >> we're not making that charge at this point. >> what about other attacks that were to follow, and what is the motivation or purpose behind the overall plot? >> we are restricting our comments to the to that which we have charged in the complaint. >> why workers -- what were the charges brought in york, and were there any charges to be brought in d.c.? >> when you have an international plot, the cases can be brought in a lot of

jurisdictions, and one of the bases for the jurisdiction to be in your was that there was a $100,000 payment on the alleged assassination attempt, and that travel to a bank in the southern district of new york. >> signs the wiring of the money, what were the other over acts? did anybody obtain any explosives? >> answer to that is no. the complaint alleges a couple of overt acts. there were discussions of conversations that took place, a meeting that took place. as the complete lays out, the entire time this operation was being investigated, the confidential source was operating over the guidance of fbi and other law enforcement agents. no explosives were ever placed anywhere and no one was actually in any danger. >> what was their role of the

mexican government in playing in the investigation of this? [unintelligible] katie tell something about how they were involved? >> as we have commended the mexican government for their cooperation, in helping us uncover the pot, helping us ultimately to unwind it, i do not want to go into detail as to what the nature of the corporation was about but it was significant, and without it we were not have been able to accomplish what we have today. >> are there any other suspects at large in the united states? there is reference here to others who were composite -- compass at -- -- complicit? >> we do not believe there are other co-conspirators in the united states.

>> did the iranians know the ambassador's favorite restaurant? was that discussed? why is the other person still at large? >> >> i am not going to comment on the second question. in response to the first question takoma the complaint lays out there was no identified restaurant. i refer to it in my remarks as a fictional restaurant. a confidential source was providing information to people who were paying to engage them in the assassination plot. as to the way he was going about setting up what was requested of him, after the payment of money that was made. >> could you elaborate on one kind of attack this was supposed to be? >> it is not a very long

document, so i direct you to comply. there is a discussion as to the way in which the plot would go off, and there is a discussion between the defendant and the source about the best way to do it, endorse, outdoors, whether it should be a bomb or otherwise, and it is laid out in the complaint. there is a discussion about explosive devices, which is why one of the charges in the complaint is the use of a mass destruction device. >> there were negotiations to get the hikers release. was there discussion to their case? >> this case was brought as the facts warranted, as the facts dictate it. we have been at this matter for a number of months, and the attorneys in the office in the southern district of new york, the colleagues in the national

security division, worked on this matter your respective of the things that were going on. [unintelligible] i am not exactly sure when they were notified, but they have been notified and they will be reacting as well. >> are there ambassadors of other countries that are endangered? >> one has to be concerned about the chilling picture of what the iranian government attempted to do here, and one of the things that our state department will be doing will be getting in touch with other of our allies and nations around the world to make them aware of exactly what it was that was thwarted today. >> i asked you a about the fast and furious investigation. naming top officials of the

justice department, apparently the people of the hill, they do not believe her testimony, in essence. what do you have to say about that? >> we have sent thousands of pages of documents up to the hill. i am sure we will comply with subpoenas. of what the american people to understand that in dealing with that inquiry we will not be detracted from the important business that we have to do here at the justice barbara, including matters like we have dealt with today. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next, leon panetta outlines pentagon efforts to cut more than $450 billion from its budget over the next 10 years, and is demanded by the august debt ceiling agreement. he spoke at the wilson center and is introduced by the former

congressman who is now president of the wilson center. this is about an hour. >> good afternoon. the afternoon, everyone. i am jane harman, president and ceo of the wilson center, and we're delighted to welcome you to the second lee elkton lecture. last week, madeline albright i weren't proud to celebrate the replacement of a huge statue of woodrow wilson that had been destroyed by the nazis in 1941. he is said to have provided crucial support. at the base of the new statute, he said the world must be made

safe for democracy. almost a century later, it resonates. the confluence of security challenges is more of a threat. leadership is needed everywhere. surely at the helm of the department of defense. not only was he convinced that a congressman cannot agree on the time of day, a little more response. he even had ahat record of its time by every senator. a master of the budget process, may he cheered -- he chaired the house budget committee.

a consummate politician and nine term member of the house, he is familiar with the workings of capitol hill and the white house and respected by republicans alike. the former army intelligence officer that included directing the takedown of osama bin laden. it would be his voice that i want to hear on the other end of the line. as a recovering politician, -- let's try that again. as a recovering politician, i know how paralyzing the gridlock has become. how hard it is in the shrinking center.

this is what i am so pleased to welcome the secretary today. i brought a problem with me. it is something i can in my office in dire right. it hit a crane to get us down here from the eighth floor. it is the institute award for bipartisanship. and i received in 20084 my word in congress. i think this cup may hold all of the bipartisanship left in washington. woodrow wilson said i have been in politics. it is a common business.

it is something we owed to each other to discuss. we agreed and worked to a creek that say political safe about the tough issues. today is our second signature lecture. it is his first major policy address as defense secretary. thank you for honoring us with their presence. no doubt the secretary will think i will want to do personal privilege. many of these are deployed as we speak.

their patriotism and selfless service are unmatched. protecting them as they protect us on top of priorities. i want to thank one other person. that is my fifth child who served as my council on the house intelligence committee for five years. he is the chief of staff at the cia. he has been well trained on this mission. we expect magic. the decisions you make will be life or death. i am supremely confident that president obama has chosen the right person at the right time for the huge task ahead. please join me in welcoming my good friend and secretary of

defense. [applause] thank you jane for that introduction and for your leadership, thank you for the commitment to serve this nation that you've demonstrated throughout your career -- as an outstanding member of congress from my home state of

california, and now as president of the woodrow wilson center. you and sidney always represented the very best in citizenship and the very best in commitment to america. i am also pleased to be able to participate in this lecture series named in honor of my dear friend, lee hamilton. i had the privilege of working very closely with lee during my time as a member of congress and in the clinton administration, and then i had the opportunity to work with lee as a member of the iraq study group in 2006. his leadership on issues of national security -- in particular the tireless efforts to ensure that our government drew the necessary lessons from the 9/11 attacks and took the

steps necessary to make sure that would never happen again -- have rightfully earned lee hamilton a place among the great statesmen of our time. it is appropriate that the theme of this lecture series is "civil discourse and democracy" because, over the course of lee hamilton's extraordinary career, lee developed a reputation as someone who speaks thoughtfully, directly, clearly, and honestly about his views. it is in that spirit that i come here today, to share my views on the challenges and the

threats, the choices and the risks, and the opportunities, facing the united states and the institution charged with defending it, the armed forces. the wilson center has brought together for this event a large number of familiar faces, many of them foreign policy experts, strategists and leaders in the national security arena. in speaking to you, i'm reminded of a great story i often tell of the nobel prize winner from the university of california who was going throughout the state of california giving exactly the same lecture on a very

intricate area of physics law -- the area that he won his nobel prize in. one day, he was heading toward fresno and his chauffeur leaned back and he said "you know professor i've heard that lecture so many times that i really think i could give it by memory myself. "well the professor said look "well look why don't you put on my suit and i'll put on your uniform and you give the lecture. they don't know me that well in fresno." they did that and the chauffeur got up for a standing room

audience and gave the lecture word for word, talked for an hour and he gave the lecture perfectly and he got a standing ovation and the professor who was seated in the audience just couldn't believe what had happened. but then, people began to raise their hands. somebody raised their hand and said "professor, that was an outstanding address on a very complex area of physics law, but i have a question,"so he went into a prolonged question about three paragraphs long that included some mathematical formulas and equations and he said "now, what do you think of that?" there was this long pause and the chauffeur said, "you know. that's the stupidest question i've ever gotten and just to show you how stupid it is i'm gonna have my chauffeur answer it." well, there are a lot of chauffeurs in this audience when it comes to issues of national security -- and i look forward to having a good discussion here today with you, a conversation that contributes to

the thoughtful debate the entire country needs to have on how to sustain the nation's strength, and protect our security in a time of growing fiscal constraint at home, and at a time of increasing concern about america's future prosperity and its place in the world. there is no doubt that we are going through a very challenging time in this country -- "an era of transformation." we are beginning to emerge out of a decade of war, but facing economic hardship, record debt, and a partisan paralysis in our political system that is threatening our ability to

tackle these problems and find the solutions that have to be found if we are to maintain our leadership in the world. meanwhile, we live in a world that is rapidly changing. a world that is growing in complexity and uncertainty. we continue to face threats -- both old and new. from terrorism to nuclear proliferation, from rogue states to cyber attacks, from revolutions in the middle east, to economic crisis in europe, to the rise of new powers like china and india. all of these changes represent security, geopolitical, economic and demographic shifts in the international order that make

the world more unpredictable, more volatile and, yes, more dangerous. during this time of change abroad, and adversity at home, questions are being raised about america's strength and its influence, about whether we can sustain our place as a leader in the world.

as someone who has seen america overcome great challenges in the past and yet prevail, i reject the idea that somehow america is in decline. my immigrant parents made very clear to me that in america, there is no challenge that cannot be overcome by people willing to work and to fight for what is right. we are strong today because of our people, because of our constitution. strong because we are hardworking and we are productive. and we are strong because we are still a country of promise, a country of opportunity for people throughout the world, with the most dynamic economy on the face of the earth.

and finally, we are strong because of our willingness to invest body and soul in a military that can defend our country, protect our values, and advance our interests in the world. as secretary of defense, and as someone who has dedicated my life in service to this country, i refuse to simply be a witness to fate. our job is not to accept destiny, our job is to create destiny. i am determined to do my part to ensure that america emerges from this time stronger than before, with a military of unmatched strength that can protect america's interests, deter conflict, and reassure our allies.

we need to build the military force that the country needs, but also help ensure that the country maintains its economic strength. the changing international security landscape and the new fiscal constraints are framing my defining challenge as secretary of defense: how do we build the military of the 21st century, the military that we need to confront a wide range of threats and at the same time, how do we responsibly reduce deficits in order to protect our economy? i promised, and said

continually, as a former chairman of the budget committee and as a former director of omb, that i do not believe that we have to choose between national security and fiscal security. what i cannot promise is that this can be achieved without making some very difficult choices. those choices are essential if we are not to hollow out the force and at the same time meet the threats we confront. to that end, we are adjusting our strategy and rebalancing our military to better confront the most pressing security needs. as a department, we have to seize the moment as an

opportunity to think long and hard about the future security environment and the kind of military we need in order to confront that challenge in the future. as we look ahead, our overriding priority must remain to succeed in current operations. in iraq, thanks to the sacrifices and dedication of our men and women in uniform, we will be bringing the current mission to a close this year. iraq now has a chance -- its going to be difficult, its going to be challenging -- to emerge as a sovereign, stable, self-reliant nation and a positive force for stability in a vital region of the world. in afghanistan, a tough fight remains underway, but we have weakened the taliban and made

substantial gains in building afghan forces that are allowing us to begin transitioning to afghan security lead. still, we must build an enduring relationship with afghanistan, to maintain pressure on al- qaeda and its affiliates, and to ensure we continue to deny them safe haven. more broadly, we must continue to maintain the relentless pressure we've applied on al- qaeda and its affiliates everywhere in the world. al-qaeda has spawned branches in yemen, somalia and north africa that are both deadly and destabilizing.

we have aggressively gone after their key leaders, damaging their ability to plan and conduct attacks. meanwhile, the situation in pakistan is likely to remain volatile and fragile as we try to reduce terrorist safe havens in a nation that continues to expand its nuclear arsenal. we are going to have to maintain a whole of government effort in order to achieve the president's goal of dismantling, disrupting and defeating al- qaeda. we face the dangers of nuclear proliferation with countries like north korea and iran -- and we have to be able to deter their nuclear ambitions. north korea has already tested a weapon, and iran continues to

pursue nuclear enrichment far beyond its needs. these countries refuse to respect their international obligations and risk destabilizing vital regions and threatening key allies with their nuclear ambitions. alongside this nuclear danger is an entirely new kind of threat we have to be better prepared to confront -- the threat of cyber attacks. cyber has become a major concern as we face large numbers of attacks from non-state actors and large nations alike, and the prospect of a catastrophic disruption of critical infrastructure that would cripple our nation.

the potential to paralyze this country from a cyber attack is very real. and then we must contend with rising powers, and rapidly modernizing militaries, particularly in the asia- pacific region -- where the security and economic future of our nation will largely rest in the 21st century. the rise of china will continue to shape the international system, and we will have to stay competitive and reassure our allies in the region.

that means continuing to project our power and maintaining forward-deployed forces in the asia-pacific region. while all these challenges are significant, the american military today is without question the finest fighting force that has ever existed. it turned the tide in iraq. it is putting afghanistan on a path to stability. it has seriously weakened al- qaeda and its militant allies. it helped nato achieve its mission in libya. and it has been a bulwark against aggression around the world. still, the military needs to constantly adapt and to constantly change to remain at its best -- and that is true, frankly, regardless of the budget situation we face. the strategy that we are developing as a department, one

that i am working closely with the chiefs of the services on, one that we are in discussions with the president on, is to achieve a roadmap for the military, a roadmap we need for the future as the wars begin to wind down. there are without question things that we know we are going to have to see as we go through this process. we know that the military of the 21st century will be smaller. but even if smaller, it must be supremely capable and effective as a force to deal with a range

of security challenges. a military that, as president obama has said, "will remain the greatest force for freedom and security that the world has ever known." this will be an extremely agile, deployable force capable of responding to a growing variety of threats -- from counterterrorism to major combat operations anywhere in the world. it will also be a force capable of quickly reacting to surprise, a reality that we have seen time and again throughout our history, and unforeseen contingencies, and constantly adapting enemies that seek to frustrate our advantages. it will also remain a force that is globally engaged.

as fiscal constraints grow, so too will the value and importance of our international partnerships. i've just returned from a week of consultations with key allies in the middle east and at nato headquarters in brussels. my conversations made clear to me that the desire for military partnership, and american leadership, remains very strong. even as we encourage our partners to take on more of the burden for providing their own security, we need to maintain the ability to provide reassurance to our allies in vital regions of the globe, particularly the arc extending from the western pacific and east asia into the indian ocean.

the volatility and importance of the middle east will demand that we remain engaged and capable of deterring and responding to conflict in this region too. in an era where new technologies are empowering potential enemies -- state and non-state actors alike -- our military must maintain its technological edge. over the past two decades, our military has made particularly striking advances in precision- guided weapons, unmanned systems, cyber and space technologies -- but our advantages here could erode unless we maintain a robust industrial and science and technology base. if we lose that base, it will impact on our ability to

maintain a strong national defense -- it's that simple. our enduring military advantage comes not from technology alone, however. the most important ingredient in our national defense is found in the extraordinary men and women who comprise our all- volunteer force. men and women who represent less than 1% of our nation, but who have shouldered the burden of protecting the american people and who have shown the strength of the american character in their willingness to put their lives on the line to defend our values, our interests, and our freedom.

the toughest thing i do in this job as secretary of defense is the responsibility to write condolence letters to the families of those who have lost, and in meeting those families at dover. and yet every family i've met, whether its at dover, at arlington, or at bethesda, makes the point that we have to continue the mission for which their loved ones gave their lives. and, more importantly, as i write those notes, i make very clear that although there is no word with which i can comfort them with their loss, i want

them to know that their loved one gave his or her life for america, and that makes them a hero and a patriot. those values, that strength, is what makes us strong. over ten years of war, these men and women, and the families who support them, have shown their adaptability, versatility, and patriotism in the face of a new combination of threats and unexpected operating environments. we now have the most- experienced, battle-hardened all-volunteer force in our nation's history -- a generation that learned and institutionalized new concepts and new capabilities in irregular warfare. they are, quite simply, our greatest strategic asset and they are as far as i am

concerned the new "greatest generation"in our history. we need to preserve the intellectual and battlefield capital of our military -- the innovative and battle-hardened leaders who pushed the force to adapt to changing circumstances and enemies. we need to ensure that the force we have is sufficiently trained to be ready and deployable. and we need to ensure that they and their families have what they need to meet their needs, at home as well as on the battlefield. maintaining the quality and experience of the force -- an

invaluable asset that we have today -- in the face of budget constraints and declining operational demands will be a challenge, but it is essential to our ability to have this effective military force of the future. opportunities for full spectrum training that have been neglected due to the demands of the wars, and further opportunities for defense cooperation with key allies, will need to be pursued. i am committed to building this force while meeting our obligations to help get our nation's economic house in order. as i said, doing so will involve some very hard choices -- the department will be required over the next 10 years to reduce its projected spending by more than

$450 billion as a result of the debt ceiling agreement reached by congress in august. given the nature of today's security landscape, we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of past reductions in force that followed world war ii, korea, vietnam and the fall of the iron curtain -- which, to varying degrees, as a result of across the board cuts, weakened our military. we must avoid, at all costs, a hollow military -- one that lacks sufficient training and equipment to adapt to surprises and uncertainty, a defining feature of the security environment we confront. we cannot and we must not repeat the mistakes of the past. the department is following a different course in

implementing these spending reductions -- driven by strategy rather than expediency, and looking at all areas to achieve savings. let me describe some of those areas. first, efficiencies. we are first looking at ruthlessly pursuing efficiencies and streamlining efforts designed to eliminate overhead infrastructure, waste and duplication. we are also aggressively pursuing efforts to improve the department's accountability, and its ability to stand up to the scrutiny of an audit. to do that we shouldn't have to wait until 2017, and we won't. the ability to audit our books ought to be something we do on a faster track, and we will.

but these efforts can only go so far to achieving our savings requirements. the department is already implementing more than $150 billion in savings from efficiency and streamlining initiatives launched by secretary gates last year. while we are considering an aggressive target of $60 billion in additional efficiencies over the next five years, that still only represents a small fraction of total savings required to accommodate the budget reductions that we confront. secondly, personnel costs. the fiscal reality facing us means that we also have to look at the growth in personnel

costs, which are a major driver of budget growth and are, simply put, on an unsustainable course. the government as a whole has instituted a two-year freeze on civilian employee pay and made other proposals, and we must, at the same time, look at what reforms we can make in military pay as well. just since 2001, costs for military compensation and health care have risen by about 80 percent while military end strength has increased less than 5 percent. this will be an area of extreme challenge, because my highest priority is obviously to maintain the vitality of our all-volunteer force -- and keep faith with the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend the country and been

deployed time, and time, again. the 1% of the country that has served in uniform, and their families, have borne the heavy costs of war for ten years. they cannot be expected to bear the full costs of fiscal austerity as well. nevertheless, we need to make sure our men and women in uniform are fairly compensated, that they get the benefits they have earned, but at the same time we must recognize that the growth in personnel costs must be addressed. if we fail to address it, then we won't be able to afford the training and equipment our troops need in order to succeed on the battlefield.

there's a tradeoff here. my approach will be to try to grandfather benefits when i can in order to try to implement future reforms in these areas. thirdly, force structure. we will have to look at force structure -- and the size of the ground forces after iraq and afghanistan -- recognizing that a smaller, highly capable and ready force is preferable to a larger, hollow force. while some limited reductions can take place, i must be able to maintain a sufficient force to confront the potential of having to fight more than one war. what can be helpful here is maintaining a strong national guard and reserve that can help respond to crisis. and fourthly, modernization and procurement reforms.

the largest area to look at will be targeted changes at modernization and operating costs. in this fiscal environment, every program, contract and facility will be scrutinized for savings that won't reduce readiness or our ability to perform essential missions. these cuts will need to be carefully targeted, again to avoid a hollow force, to ensure that we maintain a robust industrial base, and to protect the new military capabilities we need in order to sustain military strength.

but we will need to consider accepting reduced levels of modernization in some areas, carefully informed by strategy and rigorous analysis. in addition, we will look to procurement reforms that improve competition, cost control and delivery. looking at all these areas, the potential exists, if we make the right strategy-based decisions, to build a modern force that sustains our leadership in the world, and underwrites our security and prosperity. but as i said, to accomplish this will require that we navigate through some very perilous political waters -- there are serious dangers ahead and very little margin for error. as we implement the changes we need in order to preserve the force capable of protecting our country with fewer resources, we above all will need the full cooperation of congress, my former colleagues, to protect defense.

congress must be a responsible partner in this effort. they have as much responsibility for the defense of this country, as we in the executive branch. this must be a partnership. republican and democrat alike. they must be a responsible partner in supporting a strong defense strategy that may not always include their favorite base or weapons system. congress, in particular, must prevent disastrous cuts from taking effect, particularly with the mechanism that was built into the budget control act known as sequester.

it is important to a national security. to sequester would be wrong. it is wrong because it would have congress ignore 2/3 of the federal budget made up of revenue spending that must be addressed to reduce the deficit. going forward, we rolled the american military and the 21st century. the american people are safer,

more stable and more prosperous because of our global leadership and the strength of our military. debates about our proper role in the world are a natural part of any time of sweeping change and uncertainty. we experienced it during the period after world war ii, when our country took on the burden and challenge of global leadership. summoning a nation to confront this new world, president truman said, "the process of adapting ourselves to the new concept of our world responsibility is naturally a difficult and painful one. the cost is necessarily great." but, he said, "it is not our nature to shirk our obligations.

we have a heritage that constitutes the greatest resource of this nation. i call it the spirit and character of the american people." that spirit and that character remains, and we must summon it to do what's necessary to build our national defense, the kind of national defense that we need to meet our responsibilities to in order to provide for the safety and security of the american people -- now and into the 21st century. thank you.

>> thank you, secretary panetta, for a very thorough and very thoughtful address. as one who represented what i called the aerospace center of the universe in our state of california, i was listening carefully to every word. it's a long, tough road ahead. but i think working together and with congress as partner, it seems to me there is a sensible way forward. we have time for three questions. and i'm going to get blamed for not calling on people, but there's somebody very eager right over here. please state your name and use the microphone.

>> for the pakistani spectator. my question is very simple. i've been living in washington for 25 years, in ghetto part of washington. if i start saying something stupid or write something stupid, would you recommend a drone attack for me? and my second question is -- >> whoa, whoa, whoa -- >> ok. >> say the first question again. >> ok. the second is more important. >> ok. >> i asked this question to -- see, i have tremendous respect for you. i used to work for cynthia mckinney when you were -- when you helped bill clinton balance the budget. really, i mean it, i have tremendous respect for you. but i asked this question to mike mullen, like -- carnegie. he told public that -- >> could you state your question, please? >> afghanistan issue is very regional. and unless we resolve two other issues -- for example, kashmir, if we resolve kashmir issue -- there would be -- . what is your -- . >> thank you. so i think the question has to do with kashmir.

>> well, look, obviously, in dealing with both afghanistan and pakistan, and india, these are all part of a very vital area, a very vital region. and, you know, the challenge has always been to try to get these nations to try to come together to confront the common challenges and the common threats and the common issues that they face. but we're dealing with an awful lot of history here that has created incredible complexities and difficulties as they try to deal with these issues.

the reality is that we cannot resolve the issues of afghanistan without resolving the issues of pakistan, that as we try to draw down and transition to a stable and secure afghanistan, in many ways we have to also have a stable and secure pakistan. and so it will require that we continue to pursue the efforts, the diplomatic efforts, to try to work with pakistan, to be a good partner. this is a complicated relationship in pakistan for the united states, and admittedly, there are a lot of reasons for that. i mean, we are fighting a war in their country. and they have in fact given us cooperation in the operations of trying to confront al-qaida in the fata, and they continue to work with us. but at the same time, obviously, we have great differences, particularly with regards to the relations they maintain with some of the

militant groups in that country. in addition to that, we have urged them to try to work with india to try to resolve the issues along the border area, because ultimately, until that is done, we are going to continue to have a great deal of instability. in many ways, pakistan focuses on india as the primary concern, and so in many ways it's been difficult to get them to focus on terrorism and militancy within their own country because they have faced that threat that they consider to be more prominent. if we're going to resolve the issues of that region, yes, we have to find a solution to afghanistan. yes, we have to try to continue to work with pakistan. but more importantly, we have to bring all of these countries together to resolve the larger

issues that had divided them for so long. >> thank you. how about on this side? ok. how about in the middle? yes. >> thank you, mr. secretary. geoff dabelko from the woodrow wilson center. sir, perhaps you could talk about how you see investments in diplomacy and development helping you achieve some of the defense outcomes that you're talking about. >> yeah. no, i mean, it goes to the point i made about, you know, as these cuts are made, i mean, the reality is that it isn't just the defense cuts, it's the cuts on the state department budget that will impact as well on our ability to try to be able to promote our interests in the world.

i mean, national security -- national security is a word i know that we oftentimes use just when it comes to the military, and there's no question that we carry a large part of the burden. but national security is something that is dependent on a number of factors. it's dependent on strong diplomacy. it's dependent on our ability to reach out and try to help other countries. it's dependent lity to try to do what we nspire development. i mean, if we're dealing with al-qaida and dealing with the message that al-qaida sends, one of the effective ways to undermine that message is to be able to reach out to the muslim world and try to be able to advance their ability to find opportunity and to be able to seek a -- you know, a better quality of life. that only happens if we bring all of these tools to bear in the effort to try to promote national security. in addition to that, i mean, look, you know, we've learned the lessons of the soviet union, the old soviet union and others that if they fail to invest in their people, if they fail to promote the quality of life in their country, they -- no matter how much they spend on the military, no matter how much they spend on defense, their national security will be undermined. we have to remember that

lesson: that for us to maintain a strong national security in this country, we've got to be aware that we have to invest not only in strong defense, but we have to invest in the quality of life in this country. >> a final question in the back -- i'm pointing to you there. yeah, there you go. it's your question. yes. >> mr. secretary, how important is continuing draft registration -- >> identify yourself, please. >> i'm sorry? >> identify yourself. >> oh, steven -- my name is steven shore how important, mr. secretary, is continuing draft registration for national security? >> well, you know, i think it's important to be able to continue that, because we don't know what's going to happen in the future. we really don't. we don't know what surprises there will be, we don't know what crises we are going to confront.

and as we reduce the size of the military, we are going to have to always maintain the capability to mobilize quickly if we have to. now, i have to say that the national guard and the reserve i think has performed a very important role over these last 10 years, for several reasons. number one, we've taken the national guard and the reserve and we've actually put them into operations, we've put them into combat. they've drawn tremendous experience. they've performed well, and i think they have really developed a tremendous capability as a -- as a reserve force. that's important. secondly, having the national guard, having the reserve, to be able to use those units to

rotate in and out reaches into the grassroots of america. it makes every community in this country bear some responsibility for our national defense. yes, overall, it's been 1 percent, you know, that have -- that have served. but the fact is, when i write these notes, when i talk to the troops, they're from everywhere across this country: from the east to the midwest to the west to the south to the north. everyone in some way is participating in our national defense, and that's good. look, i came out of the draft era. i went to rotc, but the draft was on at that point. and going into the military gave me the opportunity to meet everyone from everywhere in this country who was bearing a responsibility to serve this country. right now the volunteer force has been very effective, and i think it's one of the best volunteer forces in the world. but i think at the same time, that we always need to have the capability to reach out if we have to if we face a major crisis in this country. and for that reason, i would continue that process of having everyone continue to register. ok, thank you very much. >> on behalf of the wilson center board, sitting in our

front row, and our able chairman, joe gildenhorn, on behalf of the wilson center council and our staff, and on behalf of myself: leon panetta, you have a huge assignment ahead. lee hamilton -- i'm volunteering him now -- will be happy to help you with it. and together, we will solve this most serious problem. we will have a strong country and a strong defense at the same time. thank you so much. and thank you to the reagan center for hosting us. >> to meet the threats. in must remain the finance. it can deter conflict, project power and win wars. this challenge will bring about

difficult times. it is an opportunity to change this in the fiscal constraints and better meet the challenges that we know we will face. >> he discusses how the army could shrink. watch this online at the c-span video library. it >> we will be an update. we will talk with house intelligence committee member jane. then we will talk about the congressional investigation into

the justice department. later, newsweek talks about the survey in the treatment of women. it is live each morning on c- span. >> c-span radio is another way to keep up with politics and public affairs. it is the most relevant events. and some exclusives. if you are washington, listen to us. it is on our iphone and blackberry at. it is created by the television industry. >> crisscrossed the endorsed mitt romney for president earlier at a campaign event.

he said america cannot survive another four years with barack obama. it came before the tuesday night presidential debate. >> thank you. it is good to see some my friend here today. thank you. it is an honor to be joined. i have behind me a man who is in american hero. he is a real hero.

he has been clear in his holding down debt and getting new jersey working again for the people of new jersey. he has a following of a lot of folks across this country. when he indicated a willingness to join my team, i could not been more pleased or happy. he came in at a time when new jersey was facing higher deficits, calls for higher taxes, and a lot of the people in the middle class wondering if they can make in new jersey. now they have a much different view about the future, and i am pleased and proud to announce that my friend chris christie is joining our team. i am delighted to have him here today. thanks, chris. [applause] >> thank you. i am here for one simple reason, america cannot survive another four years of barack obama, and mitt romney is the man we need to lead america and we need him now. that is why i am here.

[applause] if you look at governor romney's experience in the private sector, running businesses, turning them around, telling the people the truth about what needed to be done, and coming up with a plan to get it done, and looking at his experience as an elected official, we know he brings the best of both to what we need for america right now. he brings a great private sector experience, and he brings experience of the governor of massachusetts, and knowing how government works. not a legislator trying to use legislative power, but an executive who will use power to make america's lives betters. that is why i am endorsing mitt romney for president of the united states. [applause] and as republicans, our number one goal this year has to be to preserve our american way of

life. and that american way of life was built by entrepreneur ship, allowing and unleashing the american spirit and american inventiveness on the economy, and growing a bigger and bigger pie. the biggest difference between mitt romney and the president of the united states. the president of united states has unleased his campaign strategy already, to divide america. tell americans who are scared right now, he was to tell them that of pie is only so big, and if you want more, we have to take it from others. i know that mitt romney believes that the american pie can be bigger, that can be an infinite size because of the infinite size of american i ingenuity and effort and character. that is what this election will be about. the american people will decide

that they want to believe an american optimism over american division, that they believe in someone who believes america's future can be greater, not someone who is trying to divide an ever shrinking pie among the american people. it has really been in the end an easy decision for me. i know that america needs a new course and i wanted to be with a person who i believe will be the best person to lead america on that course, and that as governor mitt romney. i am so pleased to be here. hindemith, thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you, chris. let me turn to questions that you have. [inaudible] >> governor perry was introduced by someone the question the mormon faith. what he think of the tactics of attacking some one's faith? and governor romney, you have

been silent to now. what do you think? >> my answers the same as those in new jersey who disparage both parties my position -- my appointing a muslim judge. these types of religious matters have nothing to do with someone's ability to lead. you have to evaluate their record, their character, and their integrity. it is not based upon their religious beliefs, but who they are. any campaign that associates itself with that type of comment is beneath the office of the president, in my view. >> gov. parris elected to the individual to introduce him who then use religion as a basis for which he said he would endorse governor perry, and a reason to not support me. governor. then said that introduction hit it out of the park. i do not believe that type of divisiveness based on religion has a place in this country.

i believe in the spirit of the founders, when they suggested in this country that we believe would be a nation that tolerated other people different faiths, that we would be a place of their -- of religious diversity. in that respect, they embodied in the constitution itself, article vi, a religious test would not become part of selecting a candidate in the united states. i believe in the spirit of that environment, and the nation that has been crafted. and i would call upon gov. harry to repudiate the sentiments and remarks made by that -- gov. harry to repudiate the sentiments and remarks made by that pastor -- perry to repudiate the sentiments and remarks made by the pastor. any more questions? no, thank you. [laughter] [inaudible] >> what i have seen is that governor romney over the course

of his entire career, whether in the private public-sector, as that -- has had to bring people together to get things done. he brought people together in the private sector, turning around businesses, creating jobs, and you do not do that by dictating. you did by forming consensus, giving a clear vision, and then form a consensus appeared on the political side of things, the governor understands and we certainly discussed that in a country like ours, you never compromise your principles. but you do understand that you cannot get everything that you want. it is a good space between getting everything you want and compromising your principal's. that is the space i have operated in in new jersey, and it will be the same space that he operates and when he is president romney. >> senators are about to vote on

china and trade. would you support the bill that imposes sanctions on china if they do not release their currency? >> i would have to look at the specific case of legislation. i can tell you that if i am president of the united states, on day one i will designate china as a currency manipulator, opening the door to apply tariffs to their products brought into this country on an unfair basis, as a result of stealing electric intellectual property or that manipulation. we will see what develops in the senate and house, but i know that people wonder, are you concerned about trade? in the answer is, guess, i like free trade. i want with china and the other nations of the war. i propose higher free trade than we have under the deputy of. but i do not want people to cheat. china has been cheating. it has been to the disadvantage to american employers and american jobs. we keep talking about that and not doing anything about it.

i will if i am president. >> what you think about the individual mandate on the state level? >> first of all, i've been clear on what i stand on the federal level. i'm opposed to on to it because we should not have a one-size- fits-all program for the entire country. as for individual states, each governor should have the opportunity to make a decision about works best for their state. i will tell you this -- any attempt to try to compare what happened in massachusetts and what the president has done to the united states of america with his plan is completely intellectually dishonest. governor brown did not raise one tax in doing what he did in truck -- governor romney did not raise one tax in doing what he did. i am proud for him doing what he believed was right. may not be right for new jersey or montana or california. those governors make that decision. but do not try to equate what happened in obamacare with what

governor romney did in massachusetts. he raised taxes over and over again to pay for this plan he still will not pay for. what governor romney did was what he thought was responsible to allow people have access to health care. all the governors should make the opportunity -- should have that opportunity to make that decision on iran. we should not have people for political purposes be disingenuous about what governor romney did and compare that to what is happening with federal health-care legislation supported by the president. it is intellectually dishonest to do that. on not let them compare what governor romney did in massachusetts with what was done here. when he gets on the stage with present obama, he will make it clear how the health care system would look better and different with mitt romney as president rather than barack obama. >> i do not believe that they

were aids. there were people who were consultants and so forth. but i'm sure the president got a lot of ideas. the one person he should have taught to that he never did was me. if he had talked to me, i would told him that the plan he was crafting would not have work. we cannot afford another trillion dollars of federal spending. one of the first acts i will take as president of the united states will to direct the secretary of human services to grant a waiver to obamacare, and then make sure that we repeal obamacare and replace it with the model i described in mrms. again a few months ago. >> gov. christie, what about mitt romney makes you want to support him? >> i believe he is the best person to articulate republican

values and to beat barack obama in november 2012. the fact is, this is someone that over the course of his entire career has shown people that he is willing to put a plan full word and to talk about the plan and answer questions about his plan. he has let out the most detailed economic plan of anybody in the race, and is willing to stand behind it for you just heard him mention that he went to michigan and laid out a detailed plan of what he would do with health can -- health care in in america. he did not decide to run for president of the back of the envelope, who wandered into it and said, hey, this looks like a good idea, let's see how it goes. this one has thought and listened and plan for a good long period of time about what he would do if given the honor of being president of united states, and the responsibility of being president. i have said many times, people who won for president because they think in their minds, i

think that can win, i hope they ready -- which is what the president of the united states did four years ago -- are acting irresponsibly. mitt romney says i hope i can win, i know i am ready. that is the difference that americans will see in november and that is why they will elect him president of the united states. [applause] [inaudible]

>> nothing that special. thanks. i'm sorry? [inaudible] chuckled. [laughter] hi, how are you? >> watch more video of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying, and track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's website for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns. candidate bios and the latest polling data, plus links to c-

span media partners in the early primary and caucus states, all at -- c-span.org/campaign2012. >> a startup wireless carrier said that it would take up action if they do not get the ok for their plan, which would interfere with gps receivers according to the government. the mark, the small business committee will look into those plans. -- tomorrow, the small business committee will look into those plans. live coverage at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> of course i am delighted, but not surprised by the final repeal of the 18th amendment. i have said all along, when it was properly submitted to the

people, they would readily see that it had no place in our constitution carried >> if the served as governor of new york four times, though he never attended high school or college. in 1928, al smith became the first catholic nominated by a major party to run for president. although he lost the election, he is still remembered to the state by the poverty smith memorial dinner, an annual fund- raiser for various catholic charities and a stop for the two major presidential candidates every year. he is one of the 14 men face featured in our new series, q q the contenders," friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> the government accused two man of being involved in a terror plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador to the united states. if we would get an update from the justice department later on c-span. both the house and senate are working on free trade agreements

with colombia, panama, and south korea. the senate finance committee moved to measure out of committee today. here is some house floor debate on the trade deals. speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one hour. mr. dreier: for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend from worcester, mr. mcgovern, and yield myself such time as i might consume and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. mr. speaker, during consideration of this measure, all time yielded will be for debate purposes only and also, i would like to ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognize dollars. mr. dreier: on november 6 of 1979, ronald reagan announced his candidacy for president of the united states. and in that speech he saw an

accord of free trade among the americas. he wanted to eliminate all barriers for the free flow of goods, services and products among all of the countries in this hemisphere. on october 3 of 2011, president obama sent three trade agreements to capitol hill for consideration. it's been a long time -- i mean 32 years, i guess this coming november 6, which we will mark the anniversary of president reagan announcing his candidacy for the presidency which he saw this accord and been a difficult struggle to get here, but, mr. speaker, today marks the first step in this last leg of what, as i said, has been an extraordinarily lengthy journey towards passage of our three free trade agreements with

colombia, panama and south korea. for four years, workers and consumers in the united states and in all three f.t.a. countries have waited for the opportunities that these three agreements will create. republicans and democrats alike and let me underscore, republicans and democrats alike have worked very hard to bring us to this point. we have done so first and foremost for the sake of job creation and economic growth. we are regularly hearing discussion on both sides of the aisle about the imperative of creating jobs and getting our economy on track. the president of the united states delivered a speech here to a joint session of congress in which he talked about the need to pass his jobs bill. and mr. speaker, this is a very important component of that proposal that the president talked about when he was here. as i hear a great deal of

discussion about lack of willingness on capitol hill to address the president's jobs bill, it's not an all or nothing thing. we are taking the important components that the president is proposed to addressing and we have worked in a bipartisan way and this measure before us is evidence of that. we've done, as i said, passage of these agreements will allow us to have the opportunity to create good jobs for union and non-union americans, who are seeking job opportunities. together, mr. speaker, these agreements, these agreements will give u.s. workers, businesses, farmers access to $2 trillion, $2 trillion of economic activity and we will, mr. speaker, our workers, union workers and non-union workers, people across this country, will

have access to 97 million consumers in these three countries. now, president obama in his address here made it very clear and has said it repeatedly the independent international trade commission has said that in the coming months, we will add a quarter of a million new jobs right here in the united states of america. again, union and non-union jobs and independent international trade commission has projected we will see a quarter of a million, 250,000 new jobs for our fellow americans seeking job opportunities. jon to explain to anyone in this place why this is so critical for our ailing economy. but those of us who have joined together to finally pass these agreements are working towards something that is even bigger. we are working to restore the bipartisan consensus on the issue of open trade.

mr. speaker, eradicating partisan politics on the debate of economic globalization is essential to move our quest forward. these three agreements are enormously important, but, mr. speaker, as you know, there is still much work that remains to be done. i understand that the opponents of economic liable ralization are very well inextension tensioned and i don't fault fl. we are in the midst as we all know very well, deeply troubling economic times. and it's easy and we want to point the finger of blame and trade is a natural target. i often argue that i have constituents in southern california when they get a hangnail they blame north american free trade agreement on that hangnail.

this is a natural target for frustration. and i know there are people who believe that passage of these trade agreements, which according to the i.t.c. would create 250,000 new jobs right here in the united states of america. . . trade is the wrong argument, mr. speaker. the worldwide marketplace, as we all know, is a big, dynamic and complex operation. it offers tremendous opportunity for those who engage in tremendous peril for those who follow the isolationist path. those who innovate, who aggressively pursue new ideas and new opportunities are able to compete and succeed. the u.s. has proven this, mr. speaker, time and time again. the american entrepreneurial spirit has enabled us to not just succeed but as we all know

we are the largest, most dynamic economy on the face of the earth. these agreements will allows us to reaffirm and strengthen that. we all know this, mr. speaker, our country, the united states of america, is the birthplace of google and facebook, of ford and i.b.m., of caterpillar and whirlpool and of coca-cola and ebay. unfortunately over the last several years while the three free trade agreements have lange wished, the united states of -- languished, the united states of america has stood still. we have let our competitors to chip away at our market share. if we compete, mr. speaker, if we compete the united states of america wins. if we compete we win. but what happens when we take ourselves out of the game, which has been the case for the

last several years? we've literally taken ourselves out of the game of breaking down barriers, allowing for the free flow of goods and services and capital. what happens? we lose jobs. we lose market chair and, mr. speaker, we lose our competitive edge. now, i'm not going to say we would not have gone through the terrible economic downturn that we've suffered over the past few years if we had several years ago passed these freegget -- free trade agreements. if we stepped up to the plate when the negotiations began, mr. speaker, back in 2004 for these agreements, if we stepped up to the plate i think we would have mitigated the pain and suffering the americans are going through the ailing economy that we have. getting our economy back on

track and reasserting our american leadership role in the worldwide marketplace will require far more than simply pacific these free trade agreements. -- passing these free trade agreements. mr. speaker, it's a key and very important step. the agreements will open new markets for, as i said, workers and job creators in the united states. and perhaps even more important, it will send a signal to the world that the united states of america is back, open for business. we are once again choosing to shape -- the united states of america is once again choosing to shape the global marketplace rather than to allow ourselves to be shaped by it. because, mr. speaker, if we don't shape the global marketplace, we will continue to be shaped by that global marketplace. we will also send the very powerful message to our allies

that the united states of america is living up toth commitments. you know, mr. speaker, it is utterly shameful, utterly shameful that we have forced three close friends of the united states, two of our own neighbors right here in the americas and one in an extraordinarily strategic region to wait for four long years. our friends and allies who negotiated with us to wait as long as they have. mr. speaker, one of the things we observed is that the world has taken note. our would-be negotiators, not only on trade agreements but on other issues as well, our would-be trade partners and negotiating partners, as i said, on issues beyond trade have taken note. i don't believe that our

credibility will be immediately restored with the passage of these free trade agreements. but, mr. speaker, we will at least begin the process, we'll begin the process of demonstrating credibility on the part of the united states. we will signal that the u.s. is recommitting itself to its partnerships that our word at the negotiating table can be trusted. very sadly over the past several years our partners could come to no other conclusion other than our word cannot be trusted at the negotiating table because of action taken a few years ago rejecting an opportunity for consideration of these agreements. mr. speaker, this rule puts in place a lengthy debate process during which the tremendous economic and geopolitical benefits of these three trade agreements will be discussed

and the misinformation, the misinformation surrounding these agreements will be able to be refuted. that's why i think this is a very important debate. it's vitally important that we have this debate so that the facts can get on the table and the ability to refute specious arguments can be put forward and that's what's going to happen this evening and tomorrow leading up to the votes that we are going to cast. this rule provides, also, for the consideration of trade adjustment assistance, a modest program that has helped to build that bipartisan consensus that i've been talking about and i believe is essential to our economic recovery. now, i don't believe that the t.a. program is perfect -- t.a.a. program is perfect. meaningful reforms have been incorporated. and most important, most important, mr. speaker, the passage of trade adjustment

assistance will in turn help us not just pass the f.t.a.'s but it will help us maintain what i have had as a goal going back two decades ago when we put together a trade working group that has had bipartisan participation. it will allow us to where he build the bipartisan consensus that i think is so important. mr. speaker, that will send a powerful message to the markets, to job creators, to workers in this country, to americans who are seeking job opportunities and it will send a very important message to our allies and we hope future allies throughout this world. so, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to come together in a strong bipartisan way and support the rule that will allow us to have a very, very rigorous debate and the underlying agreements and trade

adjustment assistance. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from california for providing me the customary 30 minutes, and i yield myself five minutes of that time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, today we consider up several trade bills. the rules committee guaranteed sufficient time on each agreement and ensured that the time would be equally divided for those who support and those who oppose each bill. that's the way we should be debating these bills. it's the fair and the right thing to do, but farpse was not part of the discussion -- fairness was not part of the discussion in the rules committee. instead, we have a rule that gives more time in support of these bills and those who have less legitimate concern about them. if that were not bad enough, this bill waives cut-go. mr. speaker, i strongly for the t.a.a. and g.s.a. bills.

it provides companies and workers with fairness and stability and some minimum resources because of those trade agreements. they have earned our support. but i cannot say the same about the free trade agreements and i'd like to focus my remarks on one of them, the colombia f.t.a. mr. speaker, i've gone to colombia seven times over the past 10 years. nearly every one i talk to, the poor, the most vulnerable, those who defend the most basic human rights and dignity, they all believe that the united states stands for human rights, that we stand for justice, and i'd like to believe that's always true, but not if we pass this f.t.a. colombia is still the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist. each year more labor activists are killed in colombia than the rest of the world combined. a staggering 2,908 union members murdered since 1986. that's about one murder every

three days for the past 25 years. 150 in just the past three years. if 150 c.e.o.'s had been assassinated over the past three years, would you still think colombia is a good place to invest? in 2010, 51 trade unionists were murdered. 21 survived attempts on their lives, 338 received death threats and seven disappeared, their bodies may never be found. 40 had been murdered since president santos took office. as for justice, well, in colombia that's still just a dream. human rights watch just released a study that looked at convictions in cases of murdered trade unionists in the past 4 1/2 years. they found virtually no progress in convigs in these killings. just six out of 195 cases and not a single solitary conviction for more than the 60 attempted murders and 1,500 death threats during that same period.

there's a name for them, mr. speaker. it's called complete and total impunity. mr. speaker, just look at the faces of six of the 23 unionists murdered so far this year. this man at the top right here, luis diaz. he was a regional leader of the university workers union and a security guard at the monterria in cordaba. it's controlled by paramilitaries, drug traffickers and many local officials, judges, prosecutors and police are corrupt or benefit from the violence. they are also the most likely parties there to profit from the colombia f.t.a. another fellow here, jorge de los rios. he exposed damage to

communities by open pit mining. on june 8, he was shot several times on the campus school. this young man right here, dionis vergara. carlos castro, over here, murdered on may 23. shot in the neck by two armed men. he was 41 and the father of three. here is hernan pinto drinking a cup of coffee. he took the lead in the farm worker struggle. and silverio sanchez, just 37 years old, mr. speaker. a school teacher. he died from burns on 80% of his body from an explosive. mr. speaker, these men were husbands, fathers, brothers and sons. if we don't stand up for them then we also abandon the children, families, workers and communities they left behind, those who continue to fight for labor rights, human rights and basic human dignity.

as the old song goes, mr. speaker, which side are you on? i ask unanimous consent to enter the human rights watch study into the record, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much. mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 second to say colombia has gone through incredible tragedy over the past several years. it's been absolutely horrible and the suffering that my colleague from worcester has just shown is very, very disturbing. i think we should note that we have seen an 85% decline of the murder rate. there are cities in this country that has a higher murder rate that exists in colombia today and we should also observe and i yield myself 15 seconds, mr. speaker, we should also make it very, very clear that it is safer to be a union member, a union leader in colombia because of the protections provided by the government than it is the

average citizen. let's solidify those gains and that's exactly what these agreements will do. with that i'm happy to yield two minutes to a very, very thoughtful individual committed to the trade agenda, my good friend from illinois, mrs. biggert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the chairman for yielding to me. today i rise with great enthusiasm because at long last the house and senate are poised to act on the most bipartisan economically compelling jobs bill of the obama presidency. by supporting this rule and ratifying these agreements we are taking a huge step towards leveling the playing field for u.s. goods and services and in doing so we can create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs right here in america. and thanks to the pending free trade agreements with colombia, panama and south korea, the tariffs on many american products will come down immediately. giving a massive boost to our economy at a time when we need

it more than ever. all told, these free trade agreements would support an estimated quarter million american jobs and increase exports by 13 million dollars. in my home state of illinois will be among the first to benefit. illinois ranks sixth in the nation in terms of total exports. 109 companies in my district alone export abroad and local exports support nearly 65,000 jobs in just dupage, cook and wilkes county. this is not just boeing, navastar and kraft, there is also a handful of employees. exporters are small businesses exporting everything from computer chips to financial services. . trade with south korea supports 1,137 jobs and that number has the potential to rise dramatically after this week's agreements go into effect. imagine that impact multiplied

hundreds of times across congressional districts throughout the nation. mr. speaker, passing these agreements is one of the commonsense, low cost and one of the most economic sound things congress to do now to boost job growth and now that the president has september the agreements to capitol hill, we must act immediately. i urge my colleagues to support this rule and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i want to give myself time to respond. in 2009, the total number of murder in mexico was 23 labor leaders and six priests were targeted and murdered in los angeles so far this year because of the work in their community. and the gentleman would be up in arms about that, but that's the reality in colombia.

i yield to the gentleman from new york, mrs. slaughter. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: i cannot state strongly enough i'm opposed to the three free trade bills we are considering today. on behalf of the businesses in western new york i implore to vote against this. none of the free trade bills we voted on in the last 20 years were designed to protect american manufacturing and american jobs. they were designed to protect multinational corporations operating in the towers of new york, london and shanghai. these companies care less where the goods are made so long as we sell them all over the world. we have different responsibilities. we must care where goods are made. we must care to do everything we can to make sure they are made in the u.s.a. and i think many people would be

shocked to know that there is little in the current trade agreement to present our own trading partners from developing new regulations that we have done all these years making it harder for us to sell goods in their country. using the nontariff barriers they could place restrictions on american-made cars and they do in order to stop them from being sold until south korea. do you know how many american-made car dealers sell cars in south korea? >> 26. there is something wrong with that picture. this is not free-flowing trade. we are restricted. but under these proposed free trade agreements, we can't do a thing. and they call it a good deal. currently, the barriers are playing a vital role in preventing u.s.-made cars being

sold in japan. for every one car that the u.s. exports to japan, japan exports at least 180 vehicles to the united states. that is one to 180. u.s. exporters in japan were limited to 8,000 cars. that's all we could sell in japan. quote, a variety of nontariff barriers have impeded assets to japan's markets. sales remain low and is a serious concern. but despite that, the government's right hand is going to sign more trade deals that do exactly the same thing. it defies common sense. instead of voting for a new trade bill that will ensure a fair playing field for american manufacturers, h.r. 1479, that

will require the u.s. government to have tariff and nontariff barriers in negotiating agreements with another country and not reduce our tariffs until that has been done. this would guarantee that american manufacturers have the same opportunity as foreign competition. may i have another minute? mr. mcgovern: i yield an additional minute. ms. slaughter: it's time to have a snap-back provision. it's a no-nonsense approach and bipartisan in the house and has been endorsed by american trade coalition, united steel workers and auto workers even though they are the only union that will benefit somewhat by the korean pact. congress needs to wake up and make countries like china and

germany who is going to dominate the green manufacturing. we pioneered here. over and over again we have waited and watched and most recent ones that trouble me is general electric, giving away the -- the intellectual property, airplane engines to china and gm forcing to give its technology of the volt to be able to sell there. mr. speaker, the time is now. we aren't going to maintain superpower status if we give each other hair cuts and serve each other dinner. we have to make things here at home so our businesses can benefit from fair trade. i yield back. mr. dreier: i yield myself 15 seconds, free trade is fair trade and interesting to note that the united auto workers support the agreement that exists and i concur with my friend from rochester in arguing that we must enforce the agreements that we have,

including on intellectual property issues. with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, ranking democrat on the education and work force committee, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. miller: mr. speaker, members of the house, one of our most important responsibilities as elected officials is to promote and protect american jobs and values. when it comes to trade, jobs and values go hand in hand. to promote american jobs, we must promote american values. we do this by ensuring our workers are protected with countries who keep wages artificially low and suppressing the democratic rights, to speak out, the right to organize, the right to bargain, a better life without fear. and so as we now consider the trade agreement with colombia, what do you get when you

exercise your right in colombia today? death threats and death squad activities against you and your family. colombia is the most dangerous place on earth for workers to cheers their rights. during the last eight years, 570 union members were assassinated. 10% of the thousands of killings over the last 25 years have been resolved. the frontier is undenable. i appreciate that they have brought labor rights into the equation and agreed to a labor action plan requiring them to change labor laws and fight violence. but the plan is flawed. it only demands results on paper, it does not demand real change. colombia could have a record year for assassinations and still meet the requirements of the plan. and sure enough, real change is yet to come to come yeah. since president santos took office last year, 48 trade

unionists have been murdered, 16 since the labor action plan was announced. this past june, i met with union leaders about his concerns with the free trade agreement and told me that he was not provided protection. that the system was still in place despite commitments made by the colombian government to remedy both. and two weeks later, this leader received death threats. the message said if you continue to continue problems, you will die. under these conditions that we are asked to approve this deal. if we approve the deal now, any incentive for colombia to truly improve will vanish. now is not the time to reward violence with impunity with the sale of approval by the united states. the deal with colombia is neither fair nor free. if they seek out for higher wages, they will die.

that's not freedom. telling american workers to compete, that's not fair to our workers or values. stand for american values and reject the colombian free trade agreement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: at this time, i'm happy to yield two minutes to one of our thoughtful, hard working new members, the gentleman from from kansas, mr. huelskamp. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. huelskamp: every day that goes by without these agreements is a missed opportunity. hundreds of missed opportunities have passed because of years of delay, which is why we cannot afford to waste one more day. the fact is today in south korea, for example, beef costs nearly $24 a pound.

pork costs nearly $10 a pound. these facts can only work to the benefit of u.s. producers and korean consumers. when america is starved for jobs and economic growth, agreements with colombia, panama and south korea present an occasion for washington to address these challenges. up to a quarter million new jobs and $100 billion boost to the country's g.d.p. which is a glimmer of hope and not a dime has to be spent to create good american jobs. for america to be part of the 21st century economy, it is not enough to simply buy american, we have to sell american. america's he ag, energy production makes america a trading partner. americans can compete and we can win. when the ambassador of vietnam toured a hog farm in my district, he was impressed and

astonished by the safety and cleanlyness of our facilities. that anything naled to me that america and kansas in particular, has much to offer the world. this is an opportunity for nations seeking more affordable safe and goods with jobs and economic growth. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and underlying agreements. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this rule and the trade agreements underlying it, particularly the agreement with colombia. nothing is more important to our economy right now than creating jobs and putting america back to work. and yet, we have now before us

three nafta-style trade agreements with south korea, colombia and panama, that we know from experience will lead to more jobs being shipped overseas and greater trade deficits. in fact, the economic policy institute has estimated this agreement with colombia will result in the loss of 55,000 american jobs. the colombia deal is particularly gentleladying because it will do more than just destroy american jobs, but bring into question whether our nation is a defender of human rights and workers' rights around the world. more unionists are killed every year in colombia than in the rest of the world combined and last year, saw 51 murders as the afl-cio noted if 51 c.e.o.o had been murdered last year in colombia, this deal would be on

a very slow track indeed. this year, we have seen 23 more men and women killed. human rights watch reviewed these and hundreds of other cases of anti--union violence there and concluded that colombian authorities have, quote, made no progress in obtaining convictions in killing in the past 4 1/2 years, end quote. only 6% of the 2,860 murders since 1986 have there been any conviction. that means 94% of the killers are walking away. worse, 16 of the murders this year have occurred after the labor action plan put forward by the administration and the colombian government was put into effect. this action plan is a if anything leaf, pure and simple. it is not legally binding and makes promises that the colombian government will step up its protections but demands no concrete results before this free trade agreement is

implemented. according to the national labor school, if congress passes the free trade agreement, quote, the limited willingness for change will be further reduced and action plan will be turned into a new frustration for colombian workers in addition to causing other serious consequences, end quote. more violence and murders against trade unionists and will be the cost of doing business. we should not be sanking such a system of violence, terror and abuse. we have a responsibility to protect working families in colombia who are exercising and only exercising their fundamental rights and we have a responsibility to stand up for our american working families who do not need to see any more good, well-paying jobs shipped overseas. i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this unconscionable agreement and i

yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself one. we are going to respond to these arguments that have been made. we've been dealing with the armed forces, the farc, the revolutionary armed forces of colombia, the paramilitary's and serious, serious problems that have existed in colombia. no one is trying to white wash or dismiss the serious challenges that exist there. but it is important to note that nearly 2,000, nearly 2,000 labor leaders in colombia, mr. speaker, have around-the-clock bodyguards protecting them and in colombia it is safer to be a unionist than it is the average citizen. so i'm not saying that things are perfect. no one is making that claim. but when we've seen an 85%

decrease in the murder rate since 2002, when we've seen more murders take place, tragically in some of our cities, than have taken place in some areas of colombia, that is something that has to be seen as progress. i yield myself an additional 15 seconds, mr. speaker. to say that i believe we can in a bipartisan way work to address these very important issues. and we are going to do just that. we are going to ensure that this kind of agreement effectively addresses these problems. my friend, mr. farr, and i have sat together in the office of the fiss -- fiscalia in colombia, i yield myself an additional 15 seconds, we have sat and pain stakingly, with several of our colleagues, democrats and republicans alike, we have gone through these pending cases to bring about a resolution on this issue and in just a few minutes i'm going to be yielding to my friend, mr. farr, to talk specifically about this and the

challenges we had. with that, mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield a minute and a half to my very good friend, the chair of the committee on foreign affairs who represents what she calls the gateway to the americas, i think los angeles comes pretty close to that, too, but miami, mr. speaker is the gateway to the americas and they're very ably represented by my colleague, ms. ros-lehtinen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the speaker and i thank the esteemed chairman of the rules committee for highlighting what a transformation colombia has made in recent years, thanks to the strong leadership from the top down to the cop on the beat. if the american people are listening to this debate they would think that colombia's a war zone equal to iraq and afghanistan. and i believe that those members have not gone to colombia in many a year. but i rise in strong support of the free trade agreements with colombia, panama and south korea. i thank my good friend from

california for his strong leadership on these three trade deals that we've been waiting so many years, mr. speaker, for them to be sent to congress. i'm pleased that at last we have the chance to vote on them. because their passage will mean american businesses will finally have a competitive, level playing field. and to give you just one example. american industrial exports to panama, one of our sister countries to south florida, we have so many panamaan-americans living in our -- panamaan americans living in our area, now face tariffs as high as 81%. but almost all of these will be eliminated thanks to this drade agreement. by the administration's own estimate, mr. speaker, the u.s.-south korea free trade agreement, that one alone will generate around 70,000 new american jobs and as the rules committee chairman pointed out, south florida is indeed the gateway to latin america.

if i could ask for an additional -- mr. dreier: i would like to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. we will see significant benefits in south florida and not just for large companies but for small and medium sized ones as well. let's talk about colombia. flower importers in the area estimate that they will save $2 million per month in duties that they now are paying on imports for colombia. and also we should point out how important these trade agreements are, because these three allies are of great importance to our national security. you can't ask for a better partners, for peace and making sure that we have democracies in the region than south korea, colombia and panama. i thank the gentleman for the time and i'm pleased to support the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself 20 seconds. mr. speaker, if colombia is so safe, then why do 2,000 labor

leaders need round-the-clock protection? why are there nearly five million internally displaced people? and over one million colombian refugees in neighboring countries? it's because they're fleeing the violence and civil unrest. i yield to mr. michaud. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. mitchell: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to -- mr. michaud: thank you, mr. speaker, and i want to thank my friend for yielding to me. this makes in order three nafta-style free trade agreements. one with korea, one with panama and one with colombia. all of which -- all of which i opposed. i want to focus my remarks at this time on the trade agreement with colombia because it hits so close to me at home. you will hear from members that feel passionate by will colombia from their experience in that country. they support the free trade

agreement and i respect their perspective. but there are some of us who feel just as passionately about our brothers and sisters who are killed in colombia just because they are members of a union. and we oppose the agreement. i am a proud card-carrying member of the united steel members union, a member of the union for over 39 years and served as vice president of local 152. workers in colombia are being killed for the exact same thing. since january 23 unionists have been assassinated. 51 were killed last year. more than the rest of the world combined. just for carrying a union card like mine. nearly 3,000 workers have been killed in colombia or the past 25 years -- over the past 25 years. the administration's labor action plan is intended to address some of the decade's old problem of violence against unionists and a lack of unionists and a lack of impunity