first lady, and as a senator. as first lady, she fought for healthcare reform for children of working families and travel to more than 80 countries around the world as a champion for human rights, democracy, civil society, and empowering women and girls. as a senator, she did something seemingly impossible today, as we watched the work of the senate. she actually worked against the party divide to expand economic opportunity, to make the u.s. stronger and more secure. her historic campaign for president created 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling, and made it clear to every girl in america that anyone can be president of united states. and, of course, as secretary of

state at the moment of great change in the world, secretary clinton reasserted and redefine america's global leadership, and secured it for the 23rd century. she saw sustained american leadership as a key to advancing our values and creating a world where more people can live up to their potential, "we still call the american dream. she has elevated the role of economics in foreign policy and has transformed the way america conduct development, partnering with new institutions and actors in emerging power. she championed civilian national security institutions and worked to make them effective partners with our military. she is our rock star diplomat. secretary clinton, welcome.

[applause] >> thank you, john. thank you all. it is wonderful to be here with a lot of familiar faces. it is also good to see some new ones here on behalf of the values and ideals c.a.p. advocates for. i want to thank my longtime friend john and everyone at the center for american progress, because this organization has grown dramatically. i remember when c.a.p. was literally a twinkle in john's eye. not every day, you are contributing to our national debate, and increasingly global debate. you are helping those of us in government, which include a lot of cap alumni, to see the trend

lines beyond the headlines. i think everyone of you for being in support of this important mission. before i begin to address some of these trendlines, which are really part of america's leadership and how we define it and promoting it, i want to say a few words about the conspiracy to assassinate the saudi ambassador in washington, which was directed by elements of the iranian government. this plot was very fortunately disrupted by the excellent work of our law enforcement and intelligence professionals. it was a flagrant violation of international and u.s. law. it was a dangerous escalation of the iranian government's longstanding use of political violence and sponsorship of terrorism.

this is not just about iran and the united states, or even just about saudi arabia. targetting and ambassador violates dp protection and punishment of crimes against internationally protected person is, which includes diplomats. iran is a signatory to this convention. iran is also in agreement with the security council resolution to implement it. this kind of reckless act undermines international norms and the international system. iran must be held accountable for its actions. in addition to the steps announced by the attorney general yesterday, the united states has increased our sanctions on individuals within the iranian government who are associated with this plot, and

iran's support for terrorism. we will work closely with our international partners to increase iran's isolation and the pressure on its government. we call upon other nations to join us in condemning this threat to international peace and security. now i want to thank you for thinking about tomorrow, and for devoting this day and many other days as well to discussing the sources of america's greatness, the power of our ideals, and the prospects for our future. at the state department, we work in a framework of leadership from both parties, rooted in our most precious values, which put the common good first and rallied the world around a

vision of a more peaceful and prosperous future. securing and sustaining that leadership for the next half century is the organizing principle behind everything i do. that is because our global leadership holds the key not only to our prosperity and security at home, but the kind of world that is increasingly interconnected and complex. whether it is opening new markets for american businesses or breaking up terrorist plots or bringing the wars of the last decade to a successful close, we have to be guided by the responsibilities of leadership and the values that would divert us. american leadership also continues to be a uniquely powerful force for advancing human freedom and universal rights around the world. i recognize these are difficult

times. as we grapple with significant challenges at home and abroad, many americans are understandably wondering what lies ahead for their families and for our country. but everything i know tells me that the united states has the talent and ingenuity to come through our current difficulties and emerge stronger than ever. if you live long enough, and i see my dear friend sarah here, you know we have lived through times of exile to before. even when i was growing up, the fear was that we were falling behind the soviets in technology and ambition. when i began practicing law, our country faced stagflation and oil shocks. when i became first lady, it was outsourcing a growing deficit and the apparent decline of american competitiveness. each time, america rose to the

challenge before us. our entrepreneurs and innovators approved the naysayers wrong. our leaders found ways to work together at home and abroad to advance our interests and values around the world. we outworked and out competed every rival. when it mattered most, we put the good of the country ahead of ideologies, party, or personal interest. today, the sources of america's greatness are more durable than many realize. yes, our military is still by far the strongest. and yes, our economy is by far the largest. but our workers are also the most productive in the world, and our universities set the gold standard. our core values of freedom and opportunity are inspirations to people everywhere. you have been talking here about the american middle-class, which

remains the greatest economic engine and the history of the world, and the heart of the american dream. this is where our values, our economic strength, and our global leadership converge. every country has rich people and poor people. that is the way it has historically been. but america pioneered something different, a middle-class. american leaders from all walks of life have invested in the american life, expanded in opportunity, rewarded hard work, and focused on the common good. that commitment made america strong, prosperous, and exceptional. the success of the middle-class is rooted in the basic bargain that if you work hard and play by the rules you will prosper. if you innovate, create, and

build, there is no limit on what you can achieve. renewing this promise will go a long way toward shoring up an american future not just here, but everywhere. last week, we lost one of our 21st century giants, steve jobs. but the american dynamism that he embodied lives on. somewhere in the united states today, two young engineers are in their garage, developing the next great breakthrough, an idea that has the potential to grow into a multibillion-dollar business, create thousands of jobs, and change the way people live. yet i feel and sense there are those among us, and i hear their voices, who are filled with doubt. if i can in any way a switch that doubt, i would like to do so. that is who we are and what we do.

that is what we represent to the rest of the world. this is a core strength to build on. people everywhere share the hunger for opportunity, and the urge to create. wherever they live, entrepreneurs are not just a catalyst for growth. the a catalyst for positive changes. they are natural allies to the united states. it is easy to forget how important the idea of america really still is to people around the world. over the past 2.5 years, i have traveled more than 600,000 miles. i have visited -- i lost count, but i think 90 countries. i can report that american leadership is both respected and required. president obama and i hear this when we sit down across the table with foreign leaders from nation's big and small. they look to america to help meet the challenges they are

facing, from responding to natural disasters to resolving aged conflict and spurring sustainable growth. in the town hall meetings i hold in so many countries, citizens stand up and talk about the importance of american leadership to their daily lives and hopes for the future. let me hasten to say they do not always agree with the choices we make, but they recognize that nobody else can do what we do. no other nation even comes close to our reach or resolved. -- or resolved. they see what we sometimes miss amid all the noise in washington. america remains a beacon of freedom. it is a true opportunity society. we do have real charges, it is true. we can solve our problems and

continue our global leadership, but this outcome is not inevitable. last year at the council on foreign relations, i said that the complexities and connections of today's world have yielded a new american moment that must be seized through hard work in bold decisions. a moment when our global leadership is essential, even if we must often lead in new ways. a lot has happened in the last 12 months, from revolutions in the middle east and north africa to the death of osama bin laden, and renewed fears over economic default in europe. these changes have only reinforced my conviction. we will pair this with fresh thinking and new strategies that

match the circumstances of today. and yes, there will be real consequences if we fail to live up to our own promise and potential. our adversaries will be emboldened and other powers will fill the vacuum. if we retreat from the world or refuse to invest in america's global leadership, our values and interests will be undermined across the board. our economic recovery will slow and our security will suffer. this is something america and i would argue the world cannot afford. the to meet this challenge and laid the foundation for sustained global leadership for decades to come, the obama administration is working to strengthen the sources of american power here at home. we are living in a time of

complex challenges and scarce resources. we are our investments in the areas of greatest consequence. each of these lines of action is critically important. i will leave the domestic discussion, as painful as that is, to others, except to say that as we debate the choices ahead we must resist the temptation to turn inward and undercut our leadership by slashing investments in diplomacy and development, which account, after all, for only 1% of the federal budget. it is important to remember there are serious international consequences to the decisions we make in washington.

this summer, when i was traveling through europe and asia, as the debt ceiling crisis dominated the news, some global leaders were unnerved and asked me tough questions. they count on us, the united states, for security and stability. they understand that our leadership abroad depends on our strength at home. that is why the national security strategy emphasizes the link between our investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure, and our ability to protect strategic and economic power abroad. at the same time, we have to find new ways to lead in a changing world. that begins by understanding the current international landscape and the demand it places on american leadership. today, the major powers are at peace, but global centers are emerging. these countries have benefited

from the stability and security long provided by american leadership, and from the dynamic and open global economy we pioneered and continue to protect. their rise is a sign our leadership works not just for americans, but for people around the world, in every country. working with these new players in the years ahead, encouraging them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence, and integrating them more fully into the international order is a key test for american diplomacy. non-state actors, good and bad, are increasingly shaping the agenda, from corporations to cartels, ngos to individuals using twitter. political and technological changes are allowing huge numbers of people around the world to influence events like never before. even as power becomes more

diffuse, the challenges we face are growing more complex. the financial crisis, climate change, and terrorism spill across borders and the fiat unilateral solution. as president obama has said, the old international architecture is buckling under the weight of these new threats. in such a complex world, it is no longer enough to be strong. you also have to be smart and persuasive. the test is our ability to mobilize disparate people and nations together to solve common problems and advance shared values and aspirations. we do this, as my husband likes to say, both through the power of our example and the example of our power. america's founding documents -- the idea that our implements are advanced by widening our

influence. we do not have to inspire the burden alone. let me give you an example of how this works in practice. in libya, we saw a leader who will lead to slaughter his people. the crisis threatened the democratic transition under way in egypt. we began a diplomatic offensive. along with our allies, we put in place an embargo and sanctions that froze billions of dollars worth of assets. when gaddafi refused to stop his attacks, which led an effort in the united nations security council authorizing a no-fly

zone in libya, and all necessary measures to protect the libyan people. the libyan opposition, the arian league -- the arab league, and members of the security council all supported this resolution. brazil, china, india, and russia abstained, yet they did not veto. when gaddafi threatened to destroy been gauzy, military action to protect civilians became necessary. only the united states could quickly eliminate gaddafi's air defenses. we ensured that just 12 days later nato would assume command and control of the operation, and the united states moved into an essential but supporting role. we continued to provide unique capabilities when necessary, including logistics and intelligence. other countries, including arab

countries, flew the vast majority of the air missions, and put the forces and services on the ground to work with the libyan opposition. although it is not yet finished, the battle for sirte must be resolved. the libyan people succeeded in ousting a dictator. now they are in the process of fostering a new democratic government. this does not represent a one size fits all solution. that is part of what we are arguing. there are no more one-size-fits- all solutions. we have to be more agile. we have to be smarter in analyzing problems and seeking ways of addressing them. we know the story in libya is far from finished and a stable democracy is far from assured. but we can still look at the successful part the united states has played endicott important lessons. president obama promised our

front-line involvement in military action would last days, not weeks, and it did. we promised no american ground troops would be sent into libya, and they were not. not a single american died, and we kept costs down. by building a coalition and sharing the mission, we demonstrated smart and effective leadership. it is more sustainable and cost- effective. it increases economic with the tennessee and strengthens the architecture of cooperation that is crucial to our broader interests. now there will be times when the united states must act boldly, directly, and alone. the operation in pakistan that resulted in the death of osama bin laden is a good example. but that is no contradiction. our ability and willingness to

do what is required, alone if necessary, makes us a more credible partner and negotiator. there will be time when the threats are more complicated, when legitimate threats compete, and we find cooperation is blocked or insufficient. that is the reality of the world in which we live today. american leadership must be as dynamic as the challenges we face. we must be ready to innovate. that might mean leveraging nations to work on specific issues, like the global counter- terrorism form we launched this past september. it might mean going beyond traditional diplomatic channels, and negotiating directly with the private sector. it might mean using markets to attack problems in new ways. in the 21st century, the most important players in international affairs will be the one who makes things happen, who gets results, not those who

block progress. the united states will stand with the problem solvers, because that is who we are. this model of leadership, both forceful and flexible, it is designed to help us continue to lead in this changing world. to succeed, we need to think just as carefully about where and why we lead as how we lead. for the last decade, our foreign policy has focused by necessity on the places we have faced the greatest dangers. responding to threats will always be central to foreign policy, but it cannot be our foreign policy. in the decade ahead, we need to focus as intensely on the places we have the greatest opportunity. that must be a hallmark of our leadership. that means engaging with emerging powers, finding places our interests aligned so we can work together. often, these will not be

relationships that fit neatly into a category like friend or rival. we have more to gain from cooperation and confrontation. focus in on opportunities mean supporting democratic transitions speaking the middle east and north africa. we know the people of the region itself must be those who charge their new course. there will be setbacks along the way. there should be no doubt that we see can support stable democracies that are able to give life to the aspirations of their people and play constructive roles on the world stage. probably the greatest opportunities in the world ahead will be in the asia pacific, which is why we have renewed america's leadership there. i will speak more about this next month in hawaii, when the united states hosts apec there. then president obama and i will have to indonesia to

participate with the first time in the east asian summit. i know there are those in washington who discount the value of face-to-face meetings and multilateral institutions, but everyone else in the world invests in them. if we fail to do so, we will fail in asserting our power and bring about our influence. in asia and around the world, focusing on opportunities means elevating the role of economics but opening new markets to american exports and attracting new investment to american communities. our economic statecraft is spurring growth at home. i am delighted that the free- trade agreements are up for a vote today. from what i am told, they are likely to pass. look at the new agreement with south korea. it is expected to create 70,000 american jobs. we will discuss in greater detail what economic statecraft means in a speech i will give in

your office friday. those of you who know me know i cannot avoid any speech on american leadership without saying we have to work to empower women and girls around the world. perhaps the most -- [applause] the most consequential long-term opportunity to promote sustainable development, democracy, and economic growth. we have to change the way we do business in foreign policy so we use the 21st century tools of smart power to produce results as well. as we look to the future, let us invest in these opportunities to sustain and invest our leadership. half of life is showing up. the united states cannot sit on the sidelines. this is the time to press forward, not pull back. leadership is in our dna. we have to remember who we are

as americans. in the last decade, we lived through terrorist attacks, long wars, and the global financial crisis. through it all, america remains an exceptional country. we are exceptional for the creativity and openness that draws people from everywhere, here to our homeland. our unwavering commitment to securing a more just and peaceful world, and our willingness to serve and sacrifice for the common good. president truman, in his first speech to congress after the death of franklin roosevelt, said today the entire world is looking to america for enlightened leadership to peace and progress. such a leadership inspires vision, courage, and tolerance. and it can be provided only by a united nation, deeply devoted to the highest ideals. these words are just as true

today. and i am confident that when it is all said and done, as i told people in asia, it is not pretty to look at, but eventually we will get a debt deal. i believe on all these other issues, we will rise to our challenges. we will continue to lead the world. we will make the hard choices necessary to keep the promise of america alive, here and across the globe. thank you for your contribution to making sure that we do it. [applause] can i call on people? [applause]

>> the secretary has a packed schedule. i think we will have time for one or two questions. there are microphones in the audience. if you could keep it a brief question, that would be great. >> jim moody. madam secretary, within the context you laid up, which is excellent, how do we balance our commitment to israel, and take advantage to what is happening in the country's around that area? >> first, i think it is absolutely true that our support for israel is rooted in the very values that i was just speaking about.

we have so many of the same values that motivate and inspire us. our democratic conditions, both of which are a little noisy -- it is part of who we are to be stalwart lee, steadfastly supportive of israel and israel's security. at the same time, we also are trying to see more countries in the region have the same opportunities to experience noisy, messy democracy. we work closely with tunisia as it is going through its transition. we are working with egypt. we are trying to support the libyans. we are doing it by advocating for political and economic reform, because we think they go

hand in hand. the real core issue is whether these inspiring democracies will be carried through on a reform agenda that will deliver results to people. that is what we are betting on and working toward. it is challenging, because we do not have the kind of resources that might have been available in a prior time. i have spoken of this before. if we look at the opportunities the arab awakening provide -- it is really unfortunate that we do not have the kind of economic resources that could really be a miniature marshall plan. if you think about the marshall plan, a lot of people do not remember this. it was investing in the private sector in the destroyed economies of europe. this could make a huge difference, because it would deliver to the private sectors of tunisia, egypt, libya, and

others the capital they so desperately need to build themselves. we see no contradiction. we think that being in favor of democracy and human rights, providing as much support as we can for those who are trying to make this transition, is very much in keeping with our values. >> the microphone is right behind you. >> if we invest in building this pipeline, it is game over. from a climate change standpoint, our resources are going toward fossil fuels as opposed to the renewable energy market. do you have a thought on that and can you help with that? >> as you probably know, the state department is in the midst

of a process to determine a recommendation about that. i cannot really speak about it in any detail, other than to say that we have tried to not only listen to the experts, but also listen to people who have opinions, and often very well informed opinions, about this particular project. we are also in the midst of soliciting views from the eight relevant federal agencies that have to comment on the national security aspect of this. it is a very emotional issue, which i am very respectful of. people's opinions and feelings are on opposite ends of nearly any spectrum you can name. but what we are trying to do in the state department is follow the law, first and foremost,

pursue the process that we are obligated to pursue, and make a recommendation based on the evidence as it has been assessed. we will try to do that before the end of the year. >> i think we have one quick question, and then secretary clinton will have to leave. >> thank you, secretary. i have a question about the peace and reconciliation process. you said last july in india that pakistan had an essential role and interest in the reconciliation process. given the events so far this year that have undermined our relationship with pakistan and afghanistan's relationship with pakistan, how you see pakistan patrol, going forward? >> that is a question i and others i work with spend a lot of time analyzing. i think if you look at the statements of president karzai,

since the terrible assassination of former president roh bonnie -- rabani, you can see how he and those around him have struggled with the difficult path forward. how do you in the conflict, try to create for the first time in more than three decades a semblance of normalcy for the people in afghanistan, if you do not continue to pursue the peace and reconciliation track? we have always said that we wanted to support an afghan-led, afghan-owned a reconciliation process. i think after a lot of very deep thought and consideration, president karzai believe this we have to follow through on that, and that it is essential to see

whether there is an opportunity within the red lines we agree upon to bring at least some of the taliban and related insurgents to the peace table. it is always difficult in the midst of conflict, because we are continuing to kill them, as many as we can. we take them off the battlefield. we try to neutralize them and the role they play in killing afghans, americans, and other members of the coalition. and they are continuing to fight us. there is no agreed upon and point here. -- end point here. we are not saying let us stop everything and talk. we believe, because i think the evidence is clear, that the decision president obama made when taking office, and the second decision to first stop

and then reverse the momentum of the taliban, has actually succeeded. it is a very difficult path forward. what we are trying to do is, with the afghans, explore every possible route for any legitimate negotiation. as we were reminded with the rabani assassination, he was meeting with someone who had convinced everybody he was there as a legitimate representative of the taliban to pursue reconciliation. he was there as an assassin. there is nothing easy about this for even the afghans, and it is their culture. it is also very difficult for us to try to be supportive of them. which brings me to pakistan. everybody knows pakistan has a great stake in the outcome of what goes on across their border. they're going to be involved,

one way or the other. part of what we have done is to continue to push forward on what our expectations are from pakistan, and hold them accountable on a range of issues that we have laid out for them. this is a very difficult relationship, but i believe strongly that it is not one we can walk away from and expect that anything will turn out better, because i do not believe that would be the case. therefore, we are deeply engaged in finding ways to enhance cooperation with pakistan, and to further the afghan desire for a legitimate peace and reconciliation process. i am sure there will be more to see develop in the months ahead, but we are aiming toward to milestones. -- two milestones.

there is a conference in istanbul. the united states put on the table a positive vision for the region. i believe it is not just enough to tell people what we are against -- terrorism -- but to tell them we are for economic integration so that afghans, pakistan is, uzbeks, and others can make money and get into the indian market as well. we have put forward this vision of the new silk road, which we are working very hard on. there has been a positive response to that in the region. there is a lot we are moving simultaneously, as we obviously begin to draw down our troops, as we abide by the schedule set out at the nato summit at lisbon. we explore what the afghans -- what our strategic partnership will be after 2014. that is a long way of saying

that this test -- that pakistan has to be part of the solution, or that they will be part of the problem. as frustrating as it is, we keep going at it. i think we've made very slow, sometimes barely discernible progress, but we are moving in the right direction. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> the association of the u.s. army had a delaware award -- gave an award to the ambassador to afghanistan, ryan crocker. he spoke for 10 minutes afterward at the gala in washington. >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your kind words. general petraeus, general dempsey -- you are all at table 314, which has been a source of trouble throughout the evening. general of the are now --

odierno, sergeant major chandler, all of you -- all the stars in the crowd this evening, it is like the academy awards, except it is definitely the wrong guy at the podium. i am truly humbled by this honor, which is an honor as well for the foreign service of the united states. i've been privileged to represent that service for almost 40 years, and am delighted to see here tonight several of my colleagues, who served with me in beirut. ambassadors reece in the foreign service. a couple can both rise to the rank of ambassador. both left embassies where they

were in charge to serve our country together with general petraeus and so many others, in a common effort for american interest. i am going to be very brief tonight. i know you have had a very successful, but a very intense, several days here. the kind of convention that, over the last 14 years, the chairman and the president have brought to distinction for the ausa. actually, i was ordered to be brief. [laughter] but that is a good thing. in the entire recorded history of public speaking, there has yet to be a complete of after dinner remarks that were too short. i stand before you this evening a diplomat among warriors.

that i am here is a statement at several levels. one of them would be the stunning lack of judgment on the part of the selection committee. [laughter] more fundamentally, i think it reflects the changed nature of the national security environment we face. in afghanistan, in iraq, in libya, in pakistan, in yemen, the challenges to our security and are interested do not divide themselves neatly into military and diplomatic lines of operation. divisions are blurred. the issues are blurred. we live in a political-military world. we have to learn to work together to form partnerships, to understand each other's culture. general petraeus -- it is always

going to be general. we pioneered this in iraq. we had joint working groups, interagency task forces, engagements cells. when a new challenge arose for which we did not have an immediate solution, we brought another joint entity into being and let them figure it out. when command in iraq passed to general odierno, and our strategic agreements went into effect, which convened joint committees to oversee every aspect of implementation. now in afghanistan, general allan and i continue that process, with civilians across the government call located with military counterparts throughout the country. there is no goldwater nichols for the interagency, as some

have urged, but we have found a way to make it work in the field. simply put, like iraq, it is a very tough fight in afghanistan. we can only succeed if we bring all elements of our smart power approach to bear. defense, development, and diplomacy, in a coordinated fashion. no one would have understood the complex challenges we have today and the complex responses they necessitate more than the person whose name graces this medal, george marshall. a general in war, he, more than any other single individual, built the postwar peace through the marshall plan as secretary of state. the plan that he enunciated in 1947 stabilized western europe.

he understood that economic growth was vital in building stable democracies, and that growth required investment. $13 billion was pumped into 17 countries over a four year period, including our former adversaries, germany and italy. our military and both of our allies won the war. the marshall plan won the peace. the cost was very high. the lives in war, the dollars in peace. at $13 billion, that translates to about $120 billion now. after sacrificing during the war years, americans were asked to sacrifice again through taxes to rebuild former enemies, among others, and americans did it.

we face similar challenges to date in afghanistan, in pakistan, and in iraq. in egypt and tunisia, the roots of revolution late in economic grievance as much as they did in public to "oppression. the principles of the marshall plan are as valid today as they were when george marshall articulated them 64 years ago. the need for resolve, commitment, and sacrifice are equally great. i hope that as a nation we understand both the opportunity before us and the consequences of turning our back. tonight, i cannot help but wonder what george marshall would make of the debate we're having today.

if there is one institution in this country that understands resolve, commitment, and sacrifice, it is the united states army. [applause] you are the finest military in the world. as millions of young men and women returned from iraq and afghanistan, they are building america's newest, greatest generation. the country owes them a debt the can never repay. [applause] general sullivan, the marshall metal is an award that is truly beyond my merits.

but each sunday morning in a couple -- in kabul, i convene the assembly team, the heads of all sections and agencies in the mission. it is a pretty big crowd. each sunday, i begin by reading the names of those killed in action the previous week. followed by a moment of silence. they come from all our services, including my own. but every week, the majority are from the united states army. it is in their memory, and to honor their sacrifice, that i accept this metal with my most profound thanks. -- medal with my most profound thanks. [applause]

>> we will hear more about afghanistan and iraq tomorrow, from defense secretary leon panetta and joint chiefs of staff chairman martin dempsey. there will testify at a hearing of the house armed services committee, beginning at eastern time on c-span 3. up next, the senate commerce committee holds a hearing on subsidies for broadband internet access.

the house debates free-trade agreements with columbia and south korea -- with columbia and south korea -- with colombia and south korea. >> the telecommunications act founded the universal service fund a. money for this fund comes from telecom companies and is charged on consumers' phone bills. the fcc plans to shift the focus to providing broadband internet access. the senate commerce committee looks into this proposal. it is two hours and 20 minutes. >> it is not going to be started off by me, but by john kerry, who has to leave immediately for that wonderful thing called the super committee, which is solving all the problems of eastern, western, and north and south countries, plus he is the subcommittee chairman.

go-ahead, mr. kerry. >> thank you. i did not realize you had put me ahead of yourself, and i appreciate it very much, and my colleagues, especially senator warner, who made extra efforts to get here before me. an article that appeared in my home town pointed out an inequity. massachusetts telephone companies paid $1.47 billion in surcharges to the universal services, but draw only $140 million in benefits in return. at a time when household budgets are squeezed and working-class families throughout the state are subsidizing phone companies in other states in very large

amounts, people are obviously concerned about the why and wherefore of that, the inequity between my state and others. it might be ok if you had a usf you could say was really efficient at targeting only those communities that need it the most. you can make an argument for that. but that is not what is happening. it might be ok if massachusetts did not have large pockets of geography without access to broadband and with spotty wireless service. we do. we need to start getting a fair share of the fund, and the fund needs to target areas of need in a financially responsible way. in a speech last week, the chairman said this. the universal service fund is outdated. it's still focuses on the telephone, while high-speed internet is rapidly becoming our essential platform. usf is wasteful and inefficient.

the fund pays some companies almost $2,000 a month, $20,000 a year for a single home phone line. usf is unfair. some parts of rural community are connected to state of the art broadband, while others are left behind because the money does not get directed where it is needed. usf is broken. the related into a carrier compensation system, a complex system of payments from companies make to each other, does not work either. those are all the chairman passwords. i agree with that assessment. i do not want my constituents' money to be spent this way any longer. specific details of the proposal for reform are in circulation at the fcc and not yet public. none of us can judge them yet, but i support the chairman's intent. i have written two letters to the fcc over this.

when was with senator warner, asking the fcc to focus on efficiency in deployment. another focused on providing greater equity in distribution. today's hearing is focused on the potential for these reforms to the fcc. they are the most costly of the universal fund programs. i support universal service as a concept. this committee, when we were struggling with it, i remember in 1996, when we wrote the telecommunications act, which we learned in six months was outdated almost before the ink was dry. all we did was talk about the entire system moving to data transmittal. we have a huge opportunity to learn the lessons, to recognize that modern communications systems pose new challenges in a time of fiscal constraints. we need to make sure we fund

with the end user in mind. i thank you very much for letting me make this statement. >> thank you for your work not only here, but at what you spend all day, every day at. with the permission of the ranking member of the getting redder and redder mark warner, i would like to say something. >> i appreciate this very much. i wish to commend the fcc for its efforts to reform the universal service fund and compensation programs, to support broadband growth and implement the goals of the national broadband plan. when the draft reform was circulated by the fcc, based on the scares' details available, it appears to be a concrete step

forward in the effort to help sustain the investments that have already been made, and will encourage investment in broadband infrastructure in underserved areas. i am pleased the proposal recognizes the adjustments that must be made to recognize unique needs. but i am concerned the proposal will not go far enough to help native communities in remote areas. for example, although the chairman's proposal will dedicate special funds for tribal areas, the amounts appear inadequate. further, the american -- the native american, native alaskan, and native hawaiian communities face similar challenges when it comes to deploy in broadband

we should be eligible for any funds. with respect, many of my colleagues have heard me speak about the unique challenges facing these communities to assure the availability. to this end, during day of deliberation on 1996, i advocated the inclusion of a provision to recognize the needs of remote areas including the state of hawaii and the american territories. there is no question there are severe and geographic and at -- economic obstacles to providing broadband in these areas, including isolation, a volcanic activity, difficult terrain, severe weather, high transportation costs.

they are challenged by the limited capacity of a microwave links and the need for inter island and distribution facilities. i have been disappointed the fcc never completed this study to identify how to give meaning to the term in similar -- insular. i appreciate the need to target remote areas. " i question whether sufficient resources will be dedicated to meet these needs. for many of us in the pacific, satellite is not a viable option hawaii has been subject to discrimination for satellite video services. this results in the services

that are inferior to those available to the rest of the united states. reform is a difficult task and i wish to thank all of the witnesses for being here to share their thoughts with the members of this committee on how best to reform this program. it is my hope that at the end of the day, reforms to the program will result in the promised benefits to consumers throughout this land. thank you for this consideration. >> haven't you chaired every committee? >> i try not to. >> i want to make a statement and then we will go to the senator from texas and virginia. i will repeat the some of what has been set but it needs to be said again.

as far back as 1934, this country had a history of making sure that all of us have the opportunity that comes with access to modern communications. that is why universal service is a cherished principle. in years past, it meant that we connect every community with basic telephone service. in the years ahead, it means that we connect our communities with something called broadband. let me start by saying that i applaud, and have told them so, which fcc chairman for his efforts to reform the system. it is a huge effort and complicated. it will help bring broadband to all americans.

he wants to do this. he is working at it. he is good at it. we have been talking about reform for a decade. it is time to do something about it. this committee understands the challenge is not an easy one. it is going to pit sector against sector. reform almost always means and that some stakeholders will be unhappy because they prefer the status quo. that is the definition of reform. there are going to be unhappy people, customers, constituents. who are not as happy as they

might otherwise be. our nation's communications infrastructure is the background of everything we do. we cannot put this off until we get everybody happy. never will. mr. chairman wants to move ahead. let me tell you why this is important. for too long our universal service has in me upon the challenges of the last century. -- leaned upon the challenges of the last century. we are analog. obviously it is the digital age. we have not made the switch. to the extent it has been made, it has not been made psychologically or formulas typically. broadband is not just a technology, it is the essential infrastructure of our day. the essential infrastructure of our day. it is how we will grow in america, expand businesses and foster innovation, increased access to education, even

transform entertainment. there is no doubt that having access to high-speed service is what this country requires to compete internationally. something we do poorly. if we get this right, we can close the digital divide in rural america. we can provide the access that is essential for every community to have a fair shot at prosperity in this century. reform will require hard choices. the fact is, there are big sections of this country that universal service policy barely benefits today. the fact of the matter is that in some places, reimbursement is based upon the company rather than the constituency.

the fact is, most people are unhappy about what they are getting, especially for the size of their bills. we have to start targeting universal support to areas of the country without service that need it. not just to them. this is not just about west virginia. some states are underpaying, some are overpaying. as long as those people hold onto the status quo, we will not progress. they can block it and from getting out of this committee and onto the floor. the american people deserve better than an inefficient system that was designed to support the technologies of another era. to many members of this committee, many have had

experience. they know it well. making hard choices means developing a universal system that works for the entire nation. it's not equally, a movement in that direction. insular is an important word for alaska and hawaii. that is in our bill. that can be taken seriously. he said there will not be enough money. probably true. the way things are these days. does that mean we do not make changes? we do not set the framework? no, it does not. there is no one right reform plan. there is not any perfect one. more work needs to be done and is being done. i know there are questions about how to provide support in areas of the question where the towers are too few. west virginia is among those. i know there are questions about

the impact on consumer bills. i look at mine at very closely these days. it is very interesting. consumers need to get more value for what they pay, not less value. i know there are questions about how state commissions and the role they play fit into the reform. i know that more accountability of the system is critical. i know that the deployment is the focus of this effort. we would be remiss if we did not also consider efforts to promote broadband adoption. that is an essential part of our mission. we have an opportunity now that we had that trustees. -- better seize. how people get tired of this stuff.

senators will lobby. somewhere there has to be a breakdown so that we can reach a common purpose and pass a bill, out of here and that of there. waiting only relegates to many communities to the wrong side of the digital divide. haven't we waited long enough? this is not just my clarion call. comparable services at comparable rates in a matter of law. i look forward to hearing from the witnesses. i turned to my co-chairman. >> thank you. thank you for calling this hearing. clearly so much good has happened since we had the universal service fund started in 1996.

just about every area of our country is covered by telephone. now is the time, with all the other options available, for a clear reform. the fcc has recognized the problem and i am pleased that their reform efforts seem to be beginning to move forward. i do not know what -- i am glad they are seeing this issue was something that needs reform. i am going to lay out of the things i hope are in the reform bill. i believe we need to ensure that the fund does not keep growing unsustainably. consumers cannot afford the increasing fees and i hope that we will be able to utilize what is there without further raising the rates. the high cost program is to focus on supporting carriers only where no one else is providing unsubsidized service.

that should be clear that we do not want to get in the way of free enterprise. while we have been subsidizing broad band 4 years, it is time for the universal service funds to become a broadband high fixed center program. we are in a digital age. we need to adapt to that. this will lead to more efficient and effective use of the usf dollars. americans get broadband from a variety of technologies. the usf these to be technology neutral so that reflects the

marketplace. the rates telephone companies charge each other needs to be rationalized. the transition has to be done in a gradual manner. providers who have made investment under the current system must have time to plan for and adapt to a new system and use what they have invested in. otherwise consumers could get a disruption during the transition. i hope that the fcc will stay on course and will be measured and the reforms they put forward. i look forward to working with you, our experts, but also the fcc to address this problem in the right way. >> thank you very much. this is such an important hearing that i am torn. but not for long. senator warner said, let me put mine in the record. that is an amazing thing for him to say. he has strong ideas for a very good reasons about everything we are discussing.

what i would like to do, what we should do here is those who want to say something, let them so do. those who want to put it in the record, let and so do. -- them so do. >> can i keep my time for the questions? i want to commend the chairman and ranking member for doing this. we know where we are at. we need $23 billion. $55 billion if we have to do fiber to the home. we have to figure out a smarter way that did this technology -- that is technology neutral.

we have to figure out a smart your way. it that is technology neutral. my concern and why i am so anxious to get to the question is there have been some good faith efforts to together by the industry already. i would like to thank all of our members who like to see this reform take place in a timely way. they are still under serb. they get that. it is absolutely critical. are minimum standards -- does this sound that's not? we need to lock in on standards that can move. thank you.

>> i can be updated and humiliated. it is without even consulting. >> i want to welcome him to the washington utilities commission. >> it is unique needs of rural america. these are points that need to be made. we need to make sure it does not embrace one technology over the other.

many to ensure the best technology receive support. carriers willing to invest, a primary goal of 20 a century. it is not impeded by anti- competitive regulatory framework. i thank you. thank you for this hearing. i will put my statement in the record. >> eyewitnesses is the chief legal officer. i think this is your first appearance here.

it has been noted. i will just go down this list as it is an start. >> >> thank you very much. it is a privilege to appear before year with my fellow panelists discussed the universal service. there is broadband deployment. it is a commissioner. they are the law this region largest provider of broadband. during the last century, at the mission was ensuring that everyone in area had access to this. it is the main means of this. it has become the essential communications technology. they are committed to employ in broadband. we have been deploying this across our real foot print. to phyllis 6% broadband. we invested heavily in the network with the goal of

extending it to 85%. we are well aware of our customers. this is exponentially higher than in the most densely populated areas. even given the phone network, we recognize this. it also forms a compensation scheme. they announced that they are moving ahead with this proposal. we have been working with our other characters in support of what we call the broad bank connectivity plane. it forms key areas.

it better direct the resources. i want to stress that this is necessary to u.s. reform. it has been a critical component of how they recover their costs. it is outdated as technology has shifted. they offer up a constructive solution of charges with replacing revenue schemes and greater targeting. this reform will limit coverage shanties that make no sense. the plan meets the four principles articulated. it transitions the current voice support mechanism to 14 broadband. it does not increase the size of the funds. it requires accountability funding.

it has market-driven policies. it reflects the compromising consensus. it is balanced to provide ongoing workability.

it has become outdated. the abc plan offers a solution that combines a face down with replacement revenue strainstrea. this will eliminate opportunities which make no sense and simply undermine the goals of universal service funding. it meet the four principles. it transition for the current voice support mechanism to 14 broadband. it is fiscally responsible.

a target support to the most important parts. it requires accountability. they are required to define results. it has market-driven policies. the abc plan xxx uncompromising consensus and is balanced -- plan gives an uncompromising consensus and is balanced. >> thank you very much for inviting me here on this issue of great importance. we are working hard to reform and free purpose. we believe that they deliver affordable access to high-speed broadband.

it appears to favor this. wireless would be reduced only 300 to 400 million. carriers would see it increased. it is the makes sense. consumers are moving rapidly. business productivity is expanding. this has been noted. it is not complete.

everybody experiences the dead sons. given the importance of the public safety and economic development, it is simply not enough. there are additional benefits. it shows that for every billion dollars invested 15,000 jobs are created. they can deliver high-speed even faster than what was there. there is a transition from the old program to the new. i strongly believe that every participant should be held accountable. it will affect the development of broadband for a decade or more. it is probably the most important thing they will do for a long time. it must put the interests of consumers purse.

mobil broadband is critical to our nation's ability to compete in global marketplace. it insures our citizens have access to tools they need. thank you very much.

>> is a privilege to be sitting at this again. thank you for posting this hearing today. as you have no doubt ascertains, it is downright mind-numbing. the subject is important. the getting it right will advance our communicating goal. getting it wrong will retard it. despite the deaths of detail, there is one overarching principle that can guide them to the right place. focus on the consumer.

it is not designed to protect any business model. it is meant to give service. it brings us complex issues. because it is the public interest that is paramount, they have to what the plan. no one would expect to drafted this. they haven't viable starting points. what companies get the money, is consumers and give the check. it is a fund that would jeopardize public support with this critical program. we expect the goals are critical. it becomes clear when understand that consumer share the cost.

do not collect our spend any more that is necessary. their areas that need support for our citizens. they have pressed for a fund to require target team and areas. it dispelled by an american consumer. competition is what favors consumers. policy-makers except it the

market was best served by government supported monopoly. this was claimed in 1907. it is justifying the efficiencies. the government accepted this at a time when only 35% of american homes have phone services. they did this for nearly 80 years. it was not without regret. 90 aids terms -- 98% of homes have telephone services. competition is not a risky experience.

is more prudent and a monopoly business model. it is the leading competitive industry. it is a leading provider of broadband. it brought it to 93% of american homes without government subsidies.

we want universal reform to give us a fair chance to compete to bring broadband to those remaining areas where it is economically difficult to do so. we are not competing with companies. this is why we project propose ideas. why should it be that only an incumbent. they want broadband. i would note that all the devices he developed become magical 20 put and i -- magical when he put an "i" in front of them. people without access are being left out of the information age. the matter what can be serviced, the regulatory regime to treat all technologies equally. they should be able to share equally. we recognize this stuff is hard and complex.

i have faith that the fcc has the expertise. we're working to get it on the right path. adobe another decade before it forms again. -- it will be another decade before it forms again. it to be a travesty and a lost opportunity. it pays expensive homage to our past. thank you for your time. i look forward to your questions. >> as thank you very much. thank you for allowing us for this discussion. remarks are here.

we represent the vast majority. they hold a deep commitment. these be tarnation and create americans to the rest of the world. it has a multiplier effect. they create sam to this. it is a benefit to urban economies. with that backdrop in terms of this, we are eager for reformis. it allows them to deploy this when possible. it deters even the most optimistic business. our members have leverage this

investment they have made. they have taken these speeds. they have got them available to over 92%. even as revenues have declined. this is a good option program. what it does is keep these prices affordable to americans. not withstanding success. we have our trust that is undermining the system. things are needed to ensure there is predictability. they have to be done where it is surgical. it has taken many terms. they tried to assess the cost of providing broadband. there have been discussions that have generated. it has created a great deal of uncertainty. we have seen that.

it is modernizing the accountability. and wanting me the old cement objective. with these principles, they cemented a very detailed proposal to redefine the cost system. they promote budgetary goals. we made good efforts. we're reaching agreement on changes to the plan as part is the free market. it provides a very good reform. a few days ago there were 15 days ago. medical groups included the literacy organization. if called upon them to give consideration to the plans. the devil is in the details. it reflects substantial compromise. this brings me to one final issue.

the privately managed and funded problems. it would constitute a new tax. bedewed undermined the reforms -- it would undermine the reforms.

we took up the challenge to develop the details. our members to cut the challenge to provide data to create a reform. we hope they'll be able to enable it. this is a broad band 1. i represent myself. i think this means to be represented to me. i will make a few remarks. this is key. the time to do something about this is now. we agree.

i've been grappling with the other panelists. the focus on targeting is good. we will find these subsidies. fighting a budget is a good thing and a bad thing. the need for broadband is great. we're making a big transition from telephone service to broadband. if we impose a budget of $4.5 billion it becomes a limiting factor.

the issue of competitive neutrality becomes less important than living within that budget. it is the abc plan. they would prefer to go with the same members plan. i broke my testimony into the good, bad, and ugly. the ugly part is mandatory. as some of the you know, there were two ways proposed. one was voluntary. one was mandatory. he appears to have gone with the mandatory approach.

it will have a maximum of one. it cries out for an answer. congress designated the carrier's and having them be accountable.

we have done that. it is whether they are wireless. we think this is a mistake. if they decide to preempt states, they need to provide this with the role of protecting consumers. it does all the other things that we currently do. we believe that it is a service that acts like a telephone service. it is being used as an information service.

they should have an ability to do with that. we get complaints of a time. we have been switching to sopped switches. can the carriers' sever the traffic and identify it? it appears that they can do its. we are wary of the attempt to not allow us to have any jurisdiction. semifinished with call termination. -- let me finish with call termination. these are not being terminated to washington state patrol officers. the terminating access rate is too high. the carriers are using a system of call to use the best and cheapest way to terminate a call.

sometimes they do not terminated. it is creating a public safety hazard. it gets that the basis of the public telephone network. what are the duties of carriers to originate and terminate traffic? says there a few points i would make. the rest is in my testimony. to correct thank you. -- >> thank you. i spoke about opposition to reform. i decline to glorify this. they want to keep the status quo.

the status quo is not acceptable. to many areas are untouched. it requires them to do the broadband access. i have been served in the state of the represent. there are endless numbers of companies. it is nothing personal. they have a thing on a tv ad that i see. it is most interesting that the only places west virginia. what are the attributes of

something called a fair system. >> the support is targeted to the high cost areas. there is a document to see how you are spending the money. because these are high cost areas, they cannot support multiple areas. some will be benefit. we cannot support multiple entities. that has to be targetted. you have to except a regular exception. >> fairness means the role of wireless is recognized. to their plenty part of the country. the current proposal dramatically reduces funding that is not go without businesses look at it. accountability is critical. we're not asking for funding to go higher. i think the consumer is the one

that pays the price. it is important to have both. it is very important for people to work and have the ability to look wirelessly.

>> this focuses on consumers and not real companies. it is a subsidy program. we achieve a social theme. or make sure you have fiscal restraint. these would keep to a bare minimum. with cannot emphasize the importance of what we attribute to competitive focus. that companies do what they do best. let them be part of any plan. we would be very unfair if we

did not support this. we do this to ensure we are incensing investment. it will grow and migrate. they all have the ability to benefit. >> thank you. >> i would be remiss if i did not tell you you have this in west virginia. he brought in the penetration.

this is a lot of this. we do have a coverage area. >> a couple of things. this is a list says if you're getting funding quassia taken on the obligation that you will risk every one of the subscribers. he will not cherry pick. -- you will not cherry pick. he make sure a bit this is viable. it becomes very targeted. there's no accountability. they hope that you're able to continue.

>> i will keep this short. we do not want to create a moral divide. systems need to be interconnected. this is a carrier based system. he made a point about the equity of that. when it comes up on terminating, state commissions played a role. consumers should have one body. few want to make it fair to all americans you could put a charge per telephone number or address or whatever.

that would make it more fair in my opinion. >> thank you. >> i thank you. i think you really cover the waterfront. my question is what impact it would have on rural communities. it would abruptly reform. there are three places where they get their funding from this is a big portion of that.

you talked about reform. we are agreeable to reform. that will mean a financial hit for our company. they'll have to find ways to make it up. we knew it was the only way to find reform. we make sure that it be thoughtful and these low enough so someone can figure out. the companies can and just this. he can find that balance.

>> you have mostly gone into the urban areas. ellen like to ask you how you invasion -- how you envision bringing it into the world. >> i would emphasize the first thing you said. we're very proud of this. where do we come from? began in rural america? the cannot receive service from broadcasts. we look for opportunities to extend. what they may be big companies, they're very much a part rural america. we have companies a small as these. if towns with 67 people in them. they're offering up to 11 megabits.

there are as hard to serve. they looked economical. the key here is going to get the fund to be mutual. they try to participate. i have been to lots of places. i hope we can provide insights to the proposals. we could act in this area of free wanted to. we have a little bit of a work. >> the thought popped into my head. >> the fcc was not thrilled. it is very important that it happened. wouldn't that mean that the house would do it? of that strikes me as missing things. we're very much behind the effort. it is about a full complement.

what i want to emphasize that it is very important we hear each other.

they should hear us. i support what they're doing. these of the things we have authorized them to do. revenue doing other areas, i would be there. >> on that note i completely agree with that. this is really important. it is an important focus.

we keep it out to the millions. we do not have that broadband. i think it is great that you have started an approach. i have some questions. i agree. there's a limited amount of money. we talked about the tax reform.

there's a difference in terms of what we need to roll out. we should make sure that we do not sprinkle it around so much that we do not get quality service. i get the idea of what was behind here. it seems a blunt instrument. it is not within the spirit of competitiveness care if you're one to hit that, you get a right of first refusal. why not let the market play out? if there needs to be a way to acknowledge previous investments, would it then allow ntleman from north

dakota, mr.burg. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr.burg: mr. speaker, we have been waiting for this trade agreement for a long time. it has been a missed opportunity. at a time when our economy is struggling, these trade agreements means more opportunities for americans. they mean more american exports

and most importantly they mean more american jobs. we've already seen the benefits of trade in north dakota. our exports have more than doubled over the last five years. because of our renewed commitment to free trade. these trade agreements before us today could increase exports by $23 million in north dakota alone and $13 billion nationwide. if we're serious about creating jobs, if we're serious about getting our economy back on track and allowing the u.s. to stay competitive in a fast-moving global market, passing these trade agreement is a critical first step. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting them. thank you and i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the very distinguished the gentlelady from california, mrs. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. capps: i rise in opposition to the colombia free

trade agreement. first, colomboa does not meet the high standards we should be demanding of our trading partners. while colombia has made progress, trade unionists continue to be brutally murdered and attacked. we can't look the other way and hope things will get better. it makes permanent the trade preferences that has hurt california's cut flowers industry. it has millions of dollars in subsidies for colombia flower growers but has no support for our domestic growers. now, california's growers have planned to cut costs and compete globally but they can't do it alone. it's only fair that our domestic growers get a little help from their government too. this f.t.a. is a huge missed opportunity to help this valid domestic industry. for these and so many other reasons i urge my colleagues to vote no on the colombia free trade agreement, and i yield

back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: well, thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield a minute to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentlewoman from kansas, ms. jenkins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jenkins: thank you, mr. chair, for yielding, and thank you for your leadership in this area. it's been five years since we signed our trade agreement with colombia and although i'm disappointed it took this long i am so pleased we will be ratfying this agreement today. once this trade deal is passed we will finally have what our trade subcommittee chairman, representative brady, has correctly labored as sell american agreement with the third largest agreement in south and central america. exports of american goods will increase by more than $1 billion, and the i.t.c. expects our stagnant g.d.p. will get a boost of at least $2.5 billion. not to mention kansas wheat

farmers can look forward to an even larger share of the colombia green market. it is five years in the making but we are finally here. i urge my colleagues to come together and support the pro -jobs, pro-growth colombia free trade agreement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to mr. lewis of georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i want to thank my friend and colleague, mr. levin, for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the united states-colombia free trade agreement. now, some of my colleagues do not believe that the issue of human rights and the issue of the rule of law should be addressed through our trade

policy. some believe it is not about stolen land, ran shacked homes. it is not about activists whose family and friends were harassed and disappeared. it's not about murders of labor leaders, it's not about a crisis that is only akin to sudan. trade for the trade, money for the money, let someone else care, let someone else do it. let someone else work on human rights. let someone else fight for justice. let someone else worry about peace, order and tranquility. all we need to do is find the cheapest, fastest and easiest way to make a buck. my friends, we're mistaken to

believe that this is not about us but the crisis in colombia affect every part of our region. it affects millions forced from their homes. it helped create the drug cartels and international gangs. it impacts the costs of crack and cocaine on every single street in america. we cannot ask someone else to address the violence. we cannot lead the question of corruption and impunity to another leader, another generation. we must demand these answers now. if we don't who will? it is up to us. we can do better. it is on our watch. mr. speaker, today is a very sad day. we could have taken our time and done it right. today, we are banning our duty

to the -- abandoning our duty to the people who elected us and to the millions of colombians who now know that their cries fell on deaf ears and cold hearts. we can do better. we must do better. . this congress this administration must have the courage to stand up and do what a right and be the right side of history. it is a missed opportunity for change, for good, to do what is right. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. schock: let me say thank

you to the chairman for his leadership in support of these agreements and let me say, i agree with the president. the passage of the colombia, panama, and free trade agreements will mean 250,000 new jobs at a time when our economy needs them most. but these trade agreements, mr. speaker, aren't just about new jobs. they're about the millions of americans who rely on new markets and new customers. in my district in central illinois alone, illinois' farmers depend on customers in south korea, in panama, and in colombia. and when the united states of america does nothing, we lose market share. since the five years that this agreement was negotiated, five years ago, colombians purchased 60% of their wheat from united states farmers. today that number is 30%. it's costing jobs, and it's

costing opportunities here in our country, in manufacturing in my home area, caterpillar, one of the major manufacturers of our country, employs a lot of high wage, union jobs, manufacturing jobs, eight out of 10 of the tractors built in my district are sent to customers around the world with only 5% of the world's population in this country, it takes a pretty defeatist mentality to believe our country would be better off not selling to the other 95% of the world. mr. speaker, today the house of representatives will pass a jobs bill. a jobs bill that can pass the house a jobs bill that can pass the senate and a jobs bill, mr. speaker, that the president of the united states has already said he'll sign into law. this jobs bill, mr. speaker, does not require a tax increase. it does not require us to go into debt. this jobs bill has bipartisan support and is good not only for current americans, but more importantly, it's good for future americans and the future

generation of america. i urge passage of these three bills and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the ranking member on the trade subcommittee ways and means, mr. mcdermott of washington. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, we are all proud members of the united states congress. we consider this the preeminent legislative body in the world that sets the standard for how the world should create laws an how we should govern or country. we believe in the rule of law, we talk about it all the time. we're for the rule of law. well that is the nub of this argument about why so many of us will vote against the colombian free trade agreement. now, we all know the horrors,

we'll hear them repeated again and again, but the fact is, we forced the government of colombia, president obama did, to sit down and write a labor action plan in which they said what they would do. we didn't listen for a couple of years to the previous administration, the uribe administration, promise, promise, promise, nothing happened. so this president said, i want it in writing, write down a a labor agreement. it set out the precis -- resice steps colombia had to take to address the problems faced in that country. for example, steps colombia could take to detect sham subcontractors and punish employers for using them to suppress worker rights. we went down to very special -- very specific things. why was that? many of us who have been here a while were here when we passed and a half tasm we thought we'd read it and understood what it meant but we didn't understand a lot of what happened.

because we agreaed that we wouldn't put the labor into the agreement, we'd write a side letter and we wouldn't put the environment into the agreement, we'd put it in a side letter. maquiladores would be taken care of, the rio grande would be cleaned up, but it department happen, it wasn't in the agreement. it did not have the force of law behind it. when it came to this, we didn't seal the deal. we said to the president, we want that in there. the president talked to republicans, back and forth it went, and the republicans were absolutely implaqueably opposed to putting in any mention of the colombia action plan. now if somebody says they're going to do something, you take them at face value. sure they're going to do it. then write it down here. put it there so there's never any confusion about what it was

you said you were going to do. but the republicans insisted that this be as wide open as the nafta agreement. that it not have built into it the one thing that makes this so difficult for us to deal with. if we believe in workers' rights and we believe in human rights in this place and we talk about it all the type, we talk about it for every country in the world, but when we write a trade agreement for colombia, we're unwilling to write in the demands for the colombian workers. that's what's wrong with this and that's why most of us will vote against it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. quayle: i want to thank the chair for his excellent leadership in this. it's taken fiviers too long but

finally the house will have the opportunity to vote on three pending free trade agreements. we have to understand that america competes in a flobal economy. if we ignore this we ignore it at our own peril. while these trade agreements have been languishing on the president's desk for five years, we have lost market share to the e.u., to canada. those will keep the economy from growing again. look at the colombia free trade agreement, since we have drafted that agreement, $3.85 billion in unnecessary tariffs have been put on american products. when we have these agreements in place, we're going add to our economy and add to the jobs here in the united states. in my home district, we have a very robust high tech sector, depends heavily on trade. last year we had $10 billion of free trade going out in exports. a will the of -- a lot of them have been going to countries we have free trade agreements for.

35,000 jobs are directly related to that. i think this is a jobs bill. i urge my colleagues to support all three free trade agreements and i urge its passage. the speaker: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: how much time on each side, please? the speaker pro tempore: mr. levin has 23 minutes, the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 25 minutes. mr. levin: how many? the speaker pro tempore: he has 25, you have 23, sir. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp is recognized. mr. camp: at this time, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, mr. ryan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank the gentleman, mr. camp, for his leadership. this is long overdue. this creates jobs. there is an issue that comes to the floor that has bipartisan support rarely these days. the obama administration

estimates that will create 250,000 new jobs, and we agree. with respect to colombia in particular, they have free access to our markets, but we don't have free access to theirs. this gives us a level and equal playing field. colombia is our strongest ally in the region. colombia has done so much to help stop the proliferation of drugs coming into this country. they've helped us at the u.n. more importantly, they want to buy our products. where i come from, mr. speaker, we make things and we grow things. 20% of all the manufacturing jobs in wisconsin require exports. $16.7 billion of our agricultural products in wisconsin in 2009 were in exports, creating 200,000 jobs in wisconsin alone. 95% of the world's consumers,

they're not in this country, they're in other countries. if you're standing still on trade, you're falling mind. all our trade competitors are going around the world, getting better agreements and better deals for their exporters, freezing us out. it's high time we pass these agreements to break down barriers so we can make and grow things in america and sell them overseas so we can create jobs and that's exactly what these tree three agreements, especially colombia, does. i urge its passage. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to a very active member of our committee, mr. doggett, of the great state of texas. mr. doggett: i thank the gentleman. we need a new 21st century trade policy that encourages more trade without encouraging a race to the bottom in conditions for our workers and the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink.

trade agreements should not be measured solely with regard to how many tons of goods move across a border. but they must consider the impact on how our workers are treated, how our environment is treated. and that's the very kind of trade policy that president obama has said repeatedly he's committed to. trade adjustment assistance is just not a substitute for a new trade policy that recognizes too often american jobs, too often american jobs have been a leading american export. all three of these bush-cheney trade agreements are deficient. but this one in particular shows just how far those who think that the only thing that matters in trade policy is the volume of goods from one country to another to the exclusion of everything else, how that narrow view insists today that we must have totally free trade with the trade union

murder capital of the world. yes, supporters of this free trade agreement have forgotten, it's not free. it's not free to those who attempt to represent workers in colombia. last year, 49 trade union members were murdered in colombia and this year it's already up to 20. human rights watch has just reported that there is virtually no progress in securing murder convictions. they got six out of 195 union member murders that were actually convicted. in nine of 0 cases, the colombians have haven't -- haven't even identified a suspect in these murders. you can talk to have an action plan an that's fine. but it's just like talk of a new trade policy. it's just talk and nothing else. this agreement denies any enforcement provision on the action plan that would make it actionable.

lulac, the league of united latin american citizens opposes this agreement, quite rightly calling for a new american trade policy that promotes living wages and sustainable jobs, encourages human rights, labor standards and a healthy environment, not only here but among each of our trading partners. instead, today's agreement emplaces the principle that those making the goods being traded willing disregarded, will be overlooked, if we can increase the trade volume of what they make. reject this misguided agreement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume to clear the record up. obviously the murder of any citizen in any country is something to be avoided but let's set the record straight that the homicide rate since 2002 against union members has declined 85% in colombia.

this is an example that the efforts of the colombian government are succeeding. the homicide rate for the general population has declined by 44%. and it's now -- kidnappings as well have declined. the i.l.o. has removed colombia from their labor watch list they did that in 2010. and recognizing their collective bargaining rules, recognizing the measures they've adopted to combat violence against trade union members, we have a different picture being painted by the reality there. i would also point out that three main labor confederations have called the labor action plan the most significant social achievement in colombia in 50 years. with that, i yield a minute to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. diaz-balart. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize. mr. diaz-balart: i want to thank chairman camp not only for that great explanation he

did but for bringing this bill to the floor. i keep hearing a lot about the horrors of colombia. a couple of facts. because of the trade pact renchable act, colombian goods that come to the united states already basically come almost tariff free this would even it out so our products, created by american labor here, can go to colombia with the same preferential treatment. fact numb one. fact number two, the chairman talked about this, i keep hearing about this colombia which is really frankly a caricature, an offensive caricature of what colombia really is. . as if we can throw these things out there, pretending it doesn't mean anything. colombia is a democratic ally, mr. speaker. they have taken incredible steps to move forward to lower violence, to lower crime, to lower narcotrafficking. they are even now training police forces across the world,

including mexico, in their fight against narcoterrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. camp: an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: a democratic ally, a place that is fighting for democracy and for freedom and due process and the rule of law, we should recognize it, commend them, thank them for being such an ally. for being a democracy. mr. speaker, isn't it ironic a lot of people that want to do business with castro's cuba where labor unions aren't permitted complain about colombia because they are a democracy, because they are an ally, because they are doing the right thing. let's pass this commonsense thing. let's also thank the president for finally doing what he said he was going to do a long time ago when he said it was time to pass this. it's better late than never, mr. president. thank you for finally sending it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. levin: i do. it's my privilege to yield one

minute to our distinguished leader, the gentlelady from california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his great leadership on protecting american workers while promoting the global economy which we are proudly a part of. mr. speaker, i rise today as we consider the colombia free trade agreement to make the following statement. much has been said about this agreement creating 6,000 jobs in the united states. 6,000 jobs. now, we want to fight for every single job for the american people, but it is ironic or strange to hear a big fuss about we have to do this because it's going to create 6,000 jobs when

this, the leadership of this body is totally ignoring the fact that we are losing one million jobs, one million jobs because of the china currency bill. when it was discussed that these bills would be brought to the floor, many of us said we shouldn't even be considering these bills. 6,000 for colombia, perhaps 70,000 for korea, maybe 1,000 for panama. 77,000 jobs, that's significant. if in fact those numbers really bear out. let's assume they do for a moment. we are making a big deal out of 77,000 jobs which are a big deal, but how much bigger a deal is it to say we are ignoring the fact that we are losing over one million jobs per year because of the china man national park

plays of their currency? the distinguished speaker has said if we push this bill, we will start a trade war with china. my, have i heard that song before. many of us have been fighting for a better relationship with china in terms of our trade relationship, and for at least two decades we have been fighting for opening of our markets to china to stop the piracy of our intellectual property, the list goes on. but this manipulation of currency, ok, the speaker says we are going to start a trade war, 20 years ago when we started this debate following tiananmen square, our trade deficit with china was $5 billion a year. we tried to use our leverage with most favored nation status to get the chinese to open their markets, stopping pirating

intellectual property, etc. and everybody said if you do that you will start a trade war. just let the national course of events -- natural course of events take place. well, we didn't start a trade war, but do you know what china's surplus with the united states is today? what our deficit is with china? $5 billion a year two decades -- 20 years ago when we fought this fight and lost, it's now $5 billion per week. over, more than $5 trillion a week. over a quarter of a trillion dollars in surplus does the chinese government enjoy in their relationship with the united states. so you're telling me that if we say we want you to act fairly in terms of your currency that they are going to give up a quarter

of a trillion dollars in surplus? much bigger export to the united states, but in surplus. this man national park plays of currency is a subsidy of the chinese government for their product. by subsidizing their exports, they make it uncompetitive for us not only in the u.s.-china bilateral trade relationship, but also in the global marketplace. where we have to compete, our exports have to compete with china's exports and they have subsidized their exports on the man national park plays of about 25% -- on the manipulation of about 25% on the currency. this is not fair, a million u.s. jobs. so when our colleagues make a fuss about 6,000, every one of them is precious to us, yes. but why are we missing in action when it comes to a million jobs, if 6,000 jobs are so important?

i agree they are. last night in the senate they passed this legislation, they passed legislation to take action if china continues to man niche plate their currency -- manipulate their currency. we shouldn't even be talking about any trade bills until we do the same. they are not voting on china -- excuse me, on colombia, korea, and panama before they voted on china. they did that. they made their -- they staked their claim for the american workers. the speaker says we are going to start a trade war. the chinese government started a war with america's manufacturing sector a long time ago. they undervalued their currency as i have said, they violated intellectual property rights, they subsidized target industries, they dumped our products into our country. this is a one way street to the

disadvantage of american workers. look, many of us when we grew up we dug a hole in the sand at the beach and we said we were going to reach china if we dig, we were digging far enough. we dug far enough. it's a country we want to have a brilliant relationship with, culturally, economically, politically, and every possible way. economically, too. but when are we going to call a halt to something that is so obvious? we are talking about not an 800-gound gorilla, an eight ton gorilla lying on the floor of this house that we want to ignore so we can talk about 6,000 jobs and 70,000 jobs which are important. i don't want to minimize that. but why are you minimizing a million jobs at least that would be affected? it's funny to me because when we were having the fight on most favored nation status for china,

we were winning, we just couldn't override the presidential vetoes. and so they had to change the name. you have heard the expression pntr, do you know what that means? it went from most favored nation, which they said that sounds -- we can't win that argument, to permanent, permanent normal trade relations . you know what that means? surrender all your leverage in the trade relationship. surrender. this is a permanent -- permanent normal trade relations. so when specific things come up like manipulation of currency, by the way other asian economies peg their currency to china's currency, so we are getting an onslaught of this, is really, really important for us to say, who are we here for? who are we representing? we have a make it in america agenda to grow and to strengthen

our industrial and manufacturing base in our country. exports are essential to our success economically. small businesses are essential to the success of our economy. small businesses want to export as well, but why are we saying to small businesspeople, to our industrial workers, to our manufacturing base, you are now going to go into an arena which we have subscribed to that makes it -- you engage in unfair -- an unfair relationship because we will not speak out against this manipulation of currency. 61 republicans are co-sponsors of the bill, it has bipartisan support. the senate has passed the bill overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. they took it up first as a premise, planting a flag, staking a claim for the american

worker before they went on to consider other trade agreements. why can't we do that in the house? i think we should call a halt to voting on any of these things until we say to the american worker we are on your side, we are on your side when it comes to these trade agreements. we recognize that trade is very important to us. president kennedy is part of the legacy of all of us here talking about america as important in the world economy and free trade, fair trade i'd like to think as part of that. but after 20 years of violation of our intellectual property, subsidizing their products, the list goes on and on. we just sit by and say we are going to start a trade war if we do something about the war on america's manufactures that the chinese already have done. remember 20 years ago the -- they made the same claims, $5

billion a year. how did that work out for us? today, $5 billion a week at least. so the chinese are going to walk away from a quarter of a trillion dollars in profits? i don't think so. let's stop riding that tiger. let's do the right thing for our workers. let's not even consider any of these trade agreements. since we are talking about colombia i want to say the following. i really wanted very much to be able to vote for this legislation. i was very hopeful when the two governments, colombia and the u.s., negotiated the u.s.-colombian action plan related to labor rights. they addressed labor concerns and to start the process of ending the abuses. but the commitments made -- but that didn't happen. the administration was

advocating for this, but the leadership in the congress said no. and the leadership in this house said no. we are not going to put in language in the bill of a language that the two governments negotiated to address the labor concerns. if it's not in the bill, it doesn't exist. if we are going to implement these -- this action plan, it has to be part of the legislation. or else we are just saying, it's an incidental. it's something on the side. that's not fair to the workers in colombia or to the workers in the united states. so when the commitment made by -- our government and colombia to each other was not included in the bill, i lost my faith in the legislation. i hope that today we can get a vote on china, manipulation of

currency, get a colombia free trade agreement that can work for colombian workers and u.s. workers and get a trade policy that recognizes that it's a competitive world. we intend to be number one. we intend to be innovative. we intend to educate our work force so that we are -- our entrepreneurial spirit can prevail. it could be a very exciting time. something new, something fresh, instead of we are diverting to the same old, same old ways. i urge my colleagues to urge the leadership of this house to take up the china currency bill before we consider any other trade bills and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield three minutes to the lead chief democrat co-sponsor of the bill we are considering today, the colombian trade promotion agreement, mr. farr from

california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. farr, is recognized for three minutes. mr. farr: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. farr: thank you very much, mr. speaker. . mr. farr: thank you so much, mr. speaker, thank you for yielding. colombia is an important country to us. it has incredible potential. colombia is a big country, the 20th largest trade partner with the united states, it's our best ally in latin america, the first country to accept peace corps, allowed an air force base to be built in colombia, other cupries haven't allowed that. they are now fighting alongside us in afghanistan, help us with mexico and the drug cartels by teaching the mexican national police and military how to handle those drug cartels. it's the first country to adopt a labor action plan. let me speak to that. that labor action plan was adopted this year, april 11. you'll hear a lot of

complaints, it hasn't moved fast enough. it's already organized deprosers into youngs in six months. it's the stroppingest labor plan ever adopted in the history of the united states trade agreements. that's not my opinion, that's the preponderance of the secretary of labor of this country, it's the opinion of the congressional research office and frankly a lot of people say, this is another and a half tasm it's not nafta. nafta didn't have the i.l.o. declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work and the followup provisions. this is the peru free trade agreement we passed that has that, right here, under article 17. s the colombian free trade agrement, exactly the same, the principles are the same, number two reads effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining. effective recognition. that means anything that stops that can be brought under this agreement and action against the country.

so look, you'll hear arguments today that it's a loss of jobs. it's going to be a loss of jobs if we don't do this. we have made a free trade agreement wever single country in latin america except colombia, panama, and ecuador. these will be the strongest. but if we don't lift those trade barriers, all the products we send to colombia have a tariff on them. all those other countries, don't. all those other countries entering into ageements don't have it, canada doesn't have it. we're going to lose jobs to people who make things there and send them here pause it's going to be too expensive to buy them. we don't want to lose jobs, we want to grow more jobs. there's a great market in colombia to d that. say say union workers are not protected, not aloud to organize. the only country that counts crimes against labor union is is clomyasm it's the only

country that set up ministry to have prosecute those crimes. you say they haven't prossculetted enough, but some of those happened in the 1960's, 1970's, they worked it out with the unions, a lot of unions are in support of the free trade agreement because of the labor standards we required them to adopt. i submit to you, mr. chairman, that the provisions in this colombian free trade agreements are the longest -- strongest labor provisions in any free trade agreement. mr. camp: i yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds. mr. farr: if we're going to encourage progress, we're investing in colombia, we have peace corps volunteers in colombia, if we are going to encourage growth in u.s. industries if we're going to deal we this culture of poverty, we have to encourage a strong future for both countries. the only way to do that is to

ensure the adoption of this agreement. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from california has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, rise? mr. levin: i now yield to another member of our committee, mr. thompson, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding me time. i rise in opposition to the colombian trade bill. trade agreements must be balanced, facilitating reciprocal, two-way trade between nations. it's necessary that we also take into consideration small family-owned domestic industries that are sensitive to cheap foreign imports. unfortunately, the colombia trade bill falls flat in accomplishing these goals. for more than 20 years, colombia has benefited from the duty-free eaksessdz to the u.s. market under the andean trade preferences act. at the same time, some colombia

industries have received big government subsidies from the colombian government and often time our own u.s. foreign aid dollars fall to them, benefiting them. these policies have slowly eroded one of california east most unique and innovative industries. california is home to the vast majority of domestic cut flower growers in the united states of america. they account for more than 10,000 jobs across our state. and represent hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity every year. because of these failed trade policies, colombia now has a strangleholded on 75% of the u.s. cut now every market. creating a marketplace dominated by cheap foreign flowers, produced with cheap, unregulated labor. this put ours small family-owned businesses at an extreme disadvantage you can't tell me that it's cheaper to

import nowers from colombia than it is to grow them in our own backyard. i drive through northern california on a very regular basis and see collapsed, dilapidated an unused greenhouses, literally littering the small towns and rural communities of california. it's clear this industry has taken a major hit over the last few decades due to this flawed trade policy. as we see more and more flower farms and greenhouses closing all over california, -- the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. levin: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: this reminds us of the last time we did business with colombia. this is anti-family business an anti-american jobs. i urge a no vote on the colombia trade bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from michigan rise? mr. camp: i yield one minute to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. davis: i i want to thank chairman camp and chairman brady for moving the three free trade agreements that are long overdue for our consideration. i urge my cloogs to support passage of all three free trade agreements. pass the -- passing the colombian agreement would signal our dedication to a faithful and strategic ally. in my service in the u.s. army, i ran operations serving jointly with the colombian military. watching the changes that have taken place, colombian troops are still serving in peacekeeping roles and serving internationally in counterinsurgency and countermarkets roles arneds the globe. they have gone through an economic and social change. their region -- they're in a

region that includes increasingly anti-american government, especially venezuela, let's strengthen our ties by ratifying the colombia free trade agreament. i urge my colleagues to support the colombian free trade agreement. thank you, chairman camp. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the distinguished member from nevada, a member of our committee, ms. buerkle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. buerkle: -- ms. berkley: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to talk about what should be congress' top priority, jobs, jobs, jobs. the economic downturn has hit my state of nevada particularly hard and tamlies are still struggling with record unemployment. instead today we are debating the job-killing colombia free trade agreement that will

result in more gad-paying american jobs being shipped overseas. in fact, this trade agreement taken together with panama and the korean trade agreement will cost our nation over $2 -- over 200,000 more jobs. how much more job loss can nevadans be expected to absorb before we stand up and say, enough is enough. congress needs to get our priorities straight. job creation needs to be our top priority. we must create a level playing field for the american worker. last night, the senate took a step in that direction by voting to stand up to the chinese government whose unfair currency manipulation has cost our nation over three million jobs in the last decade including over 14,000 jobs in the state of nevada alone. the house should be following suit. instead of focusing on a trade agreement that will send more nevada jobs to foreign countries at a time when we can least afford it, we should reject the job-killing trade

agreements, pass the china manipulation bill and -- currency manipulation bill and let's get on with the job of congress to create jobs for the american people, the american worker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two mins to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia plrning moran, is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i to understand the concern that my very good friends express on the democratic side about the threat of violence in colombia and the loss of jobs in america. but what i don't understand is how voting against this trade agreement helps on either front. a no vote does nothing to create more jobs in america, nor in fact to reduce the level of violence in colombia. the fact is that the rate of vibles in colombia has been cut in half. the murder of trade union members is down by 80%.

college enrollment is up by 50%. 90% of children are in school now. poverty is down 25%. why? in large part because of the $8 billion in plan colombia we provided. the colombian government wants to show their appreciation for our investment in colombian -- in colombia's future by letting us share in their new prosser pity. it's difficult to do that when they have arch tariff barriers of 9%, agriculture at 17%. the u.s. has virtually no tariff barriers. s that one-way street in our direction. the imports to colombia as a total of imports has dropped from 21% to 9%, pause of the agreements colombia has signed with brazil, canada and others. they are about to further eat into american jobs by signing a trade agreament with the european union. we in america made the

investment to help colombia become less violent, more democratic and more prosperous and now we want to disengage. rather than reap the benefits of producing jobs, products and services in america for export to colombia. seems to me my very good friends on the democratic side should support our president who is doing everything he can to create jobs here and he understands when we don't have tariff barriers we have to overcome in other countries we can better produce other services to sell to those countries and more jobs in this country. it seems to me on a yes vote on all three trade agreements is the right thing to do. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, seek recognition? mr. levin: how much time is there on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman michigan, mr. levin, has 15 minutes remaining.

and the gentleman -- 14 1/4 remaining and the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp has -- i think i got it straight now. the two gentlemen from michigan, that makes it challenging. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 14 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 15 minutes remaining. mr. levin: i guess this gentleman from michigan goes next. i now yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. kind of the great state of wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind is recognized for two minutes. mr. kind: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i'm grateful for the gentleman from michigan's allotment of time and rise in strong support of the three trade agreements

before us today, colombia, panama and south korea. for too long i feel the united states has been standing on the deadlines while other countries are moving on without us, opening up market share, establishing bilateral agreements with them, in the case of colombia because of our inability to come together and pass a trade agreement, in the last year alone, we've lost close to 50% market share with agricultural products that we'd normally be exports into the colombian market. being from wisconsin, the agriculture sexor is immensely important. the longer we delay, the more we're precluded from the market. i rise and share the concern of so many in regards to colombia. i think the colombia of today is not the colombia of 10 years ago or even five years ago. much to the credit of mr. levin who worked tirelessly to make sure we had a labor action plan to work with colombia, to improve labor rights and protections, he thinks it

should be a part of the body of the agreement. i think it's being implemented as we speak now and it's not necessary but the santos administration realizes it's in their best interest to do more to enhance labor rights in colombia and i think a large part of the credit goes to the gentleman seated next to me, mr. levin, but we're just 4% of the world's population. of course we have to have a proactive trade agenda the question is whether we'll be a member of a ruled-based trading system or not. these trade agreements now have core international labor and environmental standards in the bulk of the agreement, fully enforcement with -- enforceable with every other agreement of that's an attempt to elevate standards upwards rather than seeing the race to the bottom so many of my colleagues are concerned about. that's the question before us today, involving clom ark panama and the larger market, south korea. whether we're going to move forward on trade agreements that have been much improved by

the current administration, having inherited from the last or whether to continue to move forward withouty ewell -- without any rules with those countries have virtually unlimited access to ours and that's not reciprocal. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the yom from north carolina, ms. foxx, rise? . . ms. foxx: i send to the desk two privileged reports from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the tilele of the resolution. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 430, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 358, to amend the patient protection and affordable care act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such act. report to accompany house resolution 431, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2273, to amend subtitle d of the solid waste disposal act to facilitate recovery and beneficial use and

provide for the proper management and disposal of materials generated by the combustion of coal and other fossil fuels. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the agriculture committee, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee on agriculture, mr. lucas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i rise to voice my support for this free trade agreement on behalf of america's farmers and ranchers. all three free trade agreements under consideration today are essential for our nation's agricultural industry. out of every $100 in agricultural sales, more than $25 comes from exports. so market access is critical to the success of our farmers and ranchers. colombia's particularly important to our producers because without a free trade agreement we have begun to lose market access. tariffs on american goods have made them more expensive and:ians are choosing to buy

other countries' products instead. lost market access means lost income, lost jobs, and we cannot afford that. right now colombia imposes duties on all american agricultural products. they range from 5% to 20%. yet we still sell more than $830 million in agricultural products there. that's because america's farmers and ranchers produce high quality crops and livestock and those goods are in demand. under this agreement colombia will eliminate tariffs on 70% of our exports. we can be sure that when american agricultural products are no longer subject to tariffs and become more cost competitive, we'll see substantial benefits. in fact, the farm bureau estimates we'll see 370 million more dollars in farm exports to colombia annually. while our farmers and ranchers will benefit from increased market access, they will not be alone. farm exports create jobs throughout the economy in processing, packaging, transportation, just to name a few industries. a vote to pass the colombia free

trade agreement is a vote for job growth in all sectors. it's a vote to create income and opportunity for our farmers and ranchers. i strongly urge my colleagues to support this free trade agreement, keep america's agricultural industry competitive. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from oklahoma has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the yeal from california, maximum -- gentlelady from california, maxine watt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, is recognized for two minutes. ms. waters: i thank the gentleman from michigan, congressman sander levin, for the time. i rise to oppose this so-called free trade agreement. i find it deeply disturbing that the united states congress is even considering a free trade agreementle with a country that holds the world's record for assassinations of trade unionists, and would cause a loss of 55,000 jobs in the united states. the congressional black caucus has been working hard to create

jobs. we held job fairs in five cities in the country. we have been working hard to create jobs because the unemployment rate in this country is unacceptable. 9.1 throughout the country. 11.3 for latinos, 16% for african-americans. we need jobs. not an unfair trade agreement. additionally according to colombia's national labor school 51 trade unionists were assassinated in colombia in 2010. that's more than the rest of the world combined. in addition, 21 unionists survived attempts on their lives. 338 unionists received death threats. 35 were forcibly displaced. 34 were arbitrarily detained. and seven just disappeared in 2010. another 23 unionists have been assassinated so far this year. and a total of 2,908 union members have been murdered in colombia since 1986. and the colombian attorney general's office has not

obtained any convictions for these murders for the past four years. the people of colombia don't need a free trade agreement. they need a government that respects the rights of all of its citizens. let's vote down this trade agreement and tell the government of colombia that there can be no free trade without human rights and human dignity. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. camp: at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. meeks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks, is recognized for two minutes. mr. meeks: i thank the chairman. i thank the chairman for his work. i thank the ranking member. let me start off by thanking mr. levin also, because indeed i know he's been back and forth to colombia. he made this a better trade bill by -- with the action plan. and it's your hard work and dedication, mr. levin, i thank you for doing that. yesterday i had a chance to talk briefly on the floor in regard

to the economics of it, but i'm hearing about a lot of people talk about the past of colombia but not something that's taking place on the ground right now. i have heard a lot of individuals talk about how it may be devastating in its reference specifically to the african-american community. let me bring facts to the issue because i think oftentimes when i look and talked to president santos and the civil rights struggle here in america, i see some similarities we have to think about. there are positive things. a lot of positive things happening on the floor. for example for the first time we have the victim land restitution law passed by the government of colombia. we have the development projects. we have the mining and consultations law. we have addressing discrimination, anti-discrimination laws that have been passed. we have the african-american colombia and indigenous program that has been passed by the colombia legislature. the leadership and scholarship program. the martin luther king scholarship program. we have the equal opportunity --

employment opportunities initiative. all of this is done by the santos government. we have the pathway to pros parlte. women and entrepreneurs mentoring network. we have scholarships for african-colombian police. we have the humanitarian assistance program. these are just some of the programs that is happening on the ground right now that are benefiting african colombians. when you talk about the leadership there, there is a devout leadership in -- diverse leadership in colombia just like here in america. just as the goal is to make sure that we enact certain things into laws so that we can make changes to make it better for people for tomorrow. that is what president santos has been doing. that's what has happened and that's what is happening. and so i say with, some say, santos is not going to carry out. in my estimation when lyndon baines johnson became president -- mr. camp: yield additional 30 seconds.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. meeks: he did. he came with some of the most landmark legislation with reference to civil rights and voting rights in the history of this country. the same thing i see happening right now on the ground with president santos. landmark for the first time ever legislation addressing the rights of african colombians, and because of the work of mr. levin also landmark rights addressing the rights of all in labor. i think it's a positive thing we should pass this colombia free trade agreement because the right thing, we are moving in the right direction. we are not there yet but we are moving in the right direction. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from new york has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, rise? mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, the distinguished member from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, is recognized for two minutes. mr. kucinich: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i have listened carefully to this debate and i know that my good friend, mr. levin, and my

friend, mr. camp, have worked to try to craft an agreement they feel is in the best interest of this country. but this debate cannot pass without pointing out some facts that concern those of us who are opposed to this. and according to the global trade watch, colombia's the world capital for violence against workers, with more unionists killed every year than in the rest of the world combined. unionist murders have been growing from 37 in 2007 after the deal was signed to 51 in 2010. even though colombia has been under maximum security. only 6% of the nearly 2,680 unionist murders that have occurred have been prosecuted to date. the deal doesn't require colombia to end the unionist murders or bring past perpetrators to justice to

obtain special trade privileges. colombian unions oppose the deal and agree with u.s. unions that a recent action plan will not fix this horrific situation. colombia has the highest number of displaced persons in the world. outpacing even sudan because of forced displacement and land grabs often with colombian military involvement. i know there's been an attempt to try to address these, but i think that we have to get the government of colombia to answer these things first before we pass a trade agreement. don't believe that they have sufficiently done that. in particular they haven't brought to justice those who are responsible for the murder of all these unionists. i think that as a country which supports the right of people, freedom of association, right of free speech if we do not stand for it in these trade agreements, then we can expect the same kind of conduct to occur. this is a concern that i have notwithstanding what i know are

the honest good faith efforts by my colleagues who support this even though i don't. i urge the bill's defeat. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from ohio has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from kansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, is recognized for one minute. mr. yoder: i thank the chairman for the time, and i thank the speaker. if my colleagues listen to this debate today, if we listen to our states at home the constituents are asking to vote on one thing, jobs. we have talked about a lot of issues today, we talked about unions, all sorts of issues. at the end of the day the american people are asking us to focus on jobs. these trade agreements allow concern companies to export more products to colombia. they level the playing field. and they create jobs back here at home in america. colombian is the third largest u.s. export market in latin america and for farmers and companies and places like kansas exports have grown 667% in the last 1 years, even with the one-side tariffs colombia is imposing. if we level the playing field,

allow companies in kansas and across the country equal access to colombian markets, exports will go up, as will the jobs those exports create. mr. speaker, every day we don't pass these agreements we are falling behind in our companies and workers are at a disadvantage. our top priority is jobs, then it's time to open up these markets. put our businesses on a level playing field and crealed jobs -- create jobs at home as opposed to exporting them overseas. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from kansas has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, rise? mr. levin: how much -- how many speakers do you have left, mr. camp? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is asking the gentleman from michigan -- mr. camp: we have several speakers left. we were trying to determine the number. mr. levin: i reserve the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr.

camp, rise? mr. camp: does the gentleman from michigan have any additional speakers? mr. levin: i think not. i'm going to sum up myself. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves the balance of his time. mr. camp: at this time i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. canseco. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. canseco, is recognized for one minute. mr. canseco: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to be able to cast my vote in support of the colombia free trade agreement. even though it's taken almost five years to get a vote on it, and i thank chairman camp, chairman dreier, and chairman brady for their leadership in this cause. the colombia free trade agreement is important for several reasons. first, it will create jobs here in the united states. the international trade mission has estimated this will increase -- commission has estimated this will increase exports by more

than $1 billion. it will grow our nation's economy by over $2 billion and create thousands of new jobs here at home. in the case of the 23rd district of texas, the colombia free trade agreement is of particular importance as i have a great deal of agriculture in my district and more than half of current u.s. agriculture exports to colombia will become duty free immediately and almost all remaining tariffs gone after 15 years. . this common strait ours commitment to a steadfast ally in latin america against oppressive regimes like chavez's venezuela. fundamentally it's about the freedom of the american people to have a wide array of choices and to have those choices because of a power trade composition. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, continue to reserve in mr. levin: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr.

camp, is recognized. mr. camp: at this time, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. flake: i rise in support of all three free trade agreements that will be on the floor today . in an era when we have a near constant supply of bailouts and federal spend, it's refreshing that the congress is doing today what it should be doing, that is creating an environment in a bipartisan way, under which businesses can create jobs and the economy can flourish. it's the appropriate role of congress to take these kinds of steps to simply create an environment and then step out of the way and let business create these jobs. arizona alone had more than $15 billion worth of merchandise exports aloan in 2010. more than half of this was exported to countries with which we have free trade agreements. these will expand the opportunities for that to increase. these arrangements will allow

the private sector to create yous of new jobs an strengthen the economy in the long-term. again, that's the appropriate role for government, to create an environment where the private sector can create jobs. that's what free trade agreements do. that's why i'm pleased to support these agreements today. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from arizona has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp rise? mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, rise. mr. levin: you're going to close after i do? i yield myself the plans of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized for nine minutes. mr. levin: let me be clear what's at stake here on the colombia f.t.a. i feel so deeply about it. free trade agreements set the

terms of competition between nations. it's more than about the mathematical flow of goods, the conditions for workers in the country we trade with are fundamental to that competition. workers in colombia have long been without their basic worker rights. more than any other democracy in the globe, there have been extreme levels of violence against workers and their leaders. there's been a universal, really a universal lack of justice for murders of union activists. and there have been extension -- extensive flaws in colombia's labor law and practices. these conditions and the insistence of democrats that they be effectively and fully enforced are what held hundred

consideration of the colombia free trade agreement. what has been long overdue was work on these conditions, and there wasn't by the bush or the uribe administrations. yes, it's taken five years, because most of those years were taken up by inaction by our administration, the bush administration, and by the administration previous to mr. santos. so earlier this year, an action plan of labor rights was negotiated between the new american and colombian administrations and it included some commitments and deadlines at long last for colombia to address issues of worker rights, violence, and impunity.

regretfully, some key obligations have not been met in a meaningful way. let me give you one example about a condition that i saw firsthand in visits to colombia. their employers have a history of using sham cooperatives and other contract relationships to camouflage true employment relationships and thereby to rob to rob workers of their rights. the i.l.o. has long identified this type of practice as among the most serious problems facing colombian workers. in colombia, only workers who are directly employed can form a union and checkively bargain. colombia committed to stop such abuses in the action plan. it passed some far-reaching

legislation and proposed effective regulations. but unfortunately, it then has becomed -- has backed away. it's allowed -- aloud employers in colombia, including a major beverage company and palm oil producers to begin converting cooperatives to other contract forms to continue denying workers their basic rights. so we privately, we democrats in the house, push the colombians for -- pushed the colombians for months to try to stem this problematic shifflet. but even a clarification issued on the eve of the markup last week, after public pressure had been brought to bear, fell short. so this problem highlights precisely why it was vital to

link the action plan to the f.t.a. we're voting on today. but regrettably, the republicans blocked any reference at all to the labor action plan in the implementation bill and unfortunately, the adnrgs -- administration acquiesced in that position. i just want to emphasize, explicitly linking the action plan to entry into force of the colombia f.t.a. was necessary as a vital step to ensure effective, meaningful implementation of the action plan. without such a linkage, we have no leverage to ensure that colombia lives up to the commitments it's made. i also want to emphasize, it provides no context and meaning for the enforcement of the f.t.a. workers' rights

standards in the future. the language in the f.t.a. is the basic international worker rights language. it is general in its provision. it has to be given meaning. and the action plan would help to give it meaning. if in the future action needed to be taken under the dispute settlement system system of when there's no linkage between the implementation bill and the action plan, it takes away the context for future action. other obligations under the action plan have not been meaningfully met. despite minimal requirements set in the action plan, colombian employers continue to use direct negotiations with workers referred to as collective packages to thwart workers from organizing and i saw first hand the use of those

collective packs -- p.a.c.s on up with of my three visits. another pervasive problem was highlighted, the problem of investigating an prosecuting murders of people trying to -- trying to exercise their rights. even those cases designated as priorities. colombian authorities obtained just six convictions of 195 union murders that occurred in the four-plus years leading up to may, 2011. it's told that the i.l.o. left off clma on its list. that's because ememployers vetoed colombia being on the list. and notwithstanding clear

commit. s under the action plan to improve the situation through reforms and investigatory policies an methods, colombia did not take the first step to do this, namely the analysis of union murder cases, on the eve of the markup, even though the action plan called for its compleags, it's clear that additional leverage is necessary. interviews by human rights watch with colombian prosecutors reveal there's been no clear direction to implement the new policies and methods as committed to under the action plan. i wish i could stand here today and say that colombia had fully. mented the commitments under the action plan to date and very significantly, vitally, that the legislation incorporated the action plan and conditioned the f.t.a.'s

entry into force on its effective implementation. i cannot in good conscience do so. therefore, i urge my colleagues to oppose the colombia free trade agreement. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, rise? mr. camp: i yield myself the hance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i would say, mr. speaker, that well before the labor -- labor action plan was signed by president obama and president santos, colombia had raised their labor standards and aided union members in the exercise of their rights well before the action plan ever occurred. colombia now has implemented all eight of the i.l.o. core conventions, six more than the united states. the statute of limitations for murder was raised from 20 to 30 years. the minimum prison sentence was raised from 13 to 25 years and the maximum raised from 25 to

40. the authority to declare the legality of strikes is now in the purview of the judiciary, not the executive branch. which depoliticizes these decisions and shows the transition and progress that colombia has made in this area. employers no longer have a unilateral right to force a strike to arbitration. the constitution reforms in 2004 shortened by 75% the time it takes to prosecute a homicide case. as i mentioned earlier, the murder rate in clom ark the murder rate against union members, has declined by 85% since 2002. as my democrat colleagues in support of the colombian trade agreement have said, the action plan, the labor action plan is the most stringent labor action plan anywhere in the world. that has ever occurred. and with regard to the cooperative issue, the u.s. trade representative testified in the ways and means committee

when we marked up this legislation that that loophole has been addressed and has been closed by the colombian government. this is something the administration agreed has occurred as well, not just myself. let me aggress the -- address the issue of the labor action plan being placed inside the trade agreement. i would just say that to force the entry -- to condition entry into force of the trade agreement with compliance with the labor action plan is completely inappropriate. that's why there was bipartisan opposition to doing that. i certainly welcome the gentleman's statement that i was able to get the administration to acquiesce to not having the labor action plan put into the agreement. frankly, there was bipartisan agreement, the administration agreeing as well on that point. but let me just say, the trade agreement's labor chapter, there is a labor chapter in the agreament itself, that

addresses the labor issues that appropriately fall within the scope of the agreement and the labor action plan goes well beyond that scope. let me say why. the much of the implementing will -- bill. the pup of the bill before the house today is to make changes to the united states laws necessary to implement the agreement the labor action plan doesn't require any changes to u.s. law so therefore it should not and is not in the bill. apart from being inappropriate, it's really unnecessary to condition entry into force on a labor action agreement that the colombiaen -- colombians have agreed to. they have demonstrated their agreament to fulfilling the terms of the labor action plan, they have satisfied, and on time, every single action item that's come due this far and the administration, our administration, has certified they have satisfied those conditions. there's only a few conditions that remain which are due at

the enof the year and a few due in 2012, which we fully expect they'll completely agree to. let me just say that it is high time we took up this agreement. last year, colombian exporters paid virtually no tariffs on goods coming into the united states but our exporters paid a tariff on an average of 11% trying to enter into their marget. this agreement removes that implans by eliminating the colombian duties. this need is urgent. our exporters have paid nearly $4 billion in unnecessary duties since this agreement was signed and has been pending over the years and we know from experience these agreements will yield the benefits that we say they will. between 2000 and 2010, total u.s. exports increased by just over -- just over 60% but our exports to cupries in which we have to trade agreements increased by over 90%. .

our exports to peru have more than doubled sips the passage of that agreement and those are very important statistics in these tough economic times. this is a major economic opportunity, delay has been costly. there are major economies whose workers and exporters compete directly with ours. they have moved aggressively to sign and implement trade agreements with colombia, canada, argentina, brazil. those undermine our competitive edge for our nation and our workers and our families. we have been falling behind. we have been losing export market share that took years to build, frankly, and for example just a u.s. share of colombia's corn, wheat, and soybean imports it fell from 71% in 2008 to 27% in 2010. after argentina's exporters gained preferential access. obviously we have seen also a

decline in our exports of wheat since canada signed its trade agreement with colombia two years after they entered into their agreement with colombia which was signed two years after ours. we owe it to u.s. workers. we owe it to our exporters to approve this agreement now and press the president for prompt implementation.r. boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman om louisiana is recognized for two minutes. ms. hanabusa: thank you, madam speaker. i -- mr. boustany: i rise in support of these three agreements because they promote u.s. agreement in strategic countries around the world. also, they promote u.s. leadership. they open new markets for farmers, american farmers, ranchers and businesses. this means american jobs, good-paying american jobs. these agreements constitute a signature jobs bill, a jobs promotion bill. south korea is a critical u.s. ally in asia and one of the fastest growing economies in the world. multiple agreements have

occurred throughout asia over the past fewears while american workers have sat on the sidelines. this agreement is the largest free trade agreement for the u.s. and could have an increase in our exports by $9.7 billion according to the international trade commission by lowering tariffs to goods and services. we must pass this agreement in order to gain leverage in asia and to show support for one of our key allies in asia. this expansion of u.s. engagement will serve as a platform to build further commercial relationships, creating more jobs for american workers by opening more markets. upon implementation, more an 1/3 of louisiana's exports will be duty-free and that's just a starting point. this alone will give louisiana companies a significant advantage over consumer products made in countries that don't have an f.t.a. with south korea. we know small and medium-sized businesses are the key to creating new jobs. over 18,500 companies of this

size, small and medium companies, export to south korea and they will be able to gr and hire new workers here in the united states. right here at home. these agreements are about creating jobs. in fact, president obama's estimates that the passage of these bills will create over 250,000 new jobs right here at home as a starting point. madam speaker, i urge voting to promote all of these aeements because it will promote american competitiveness and american jobs. it will promote american credibility with our trading allies. it will promote american confidence in our international engagement. it will promote american leverage as we work with our trading partners. and most importantly, it will promote american leadership in the 21st century. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michin, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from washington, ranking on trade, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for three minutes.

without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the korea free trade agreement. we should all be proud of korea. we created korea. our troops went to korea in the -- at the beginning of the korean war and saved south korea from becoming north korea. that's how the koreans look at it. i took a trip with the commerce secretary, gary locke, who's now the ambassador to china, and the koreans said we're very grateful and we want to have this relationship with you. and because we opened our markets to them they are the most successful country in asia to have an income of about

$33,000. making an agreement is making an agreement with more thaa equal. from seattle we know about our regional relationship with them. they -- we are the third largest state exporter to korea. in 2010 washington state exported more than $55 billion worth of goods, more than half of all that went to asia. hundreds of thousands of jobs in my state depend on this trade relationship. so this is not something where we're going to lose jobs. i believe it's important to move ahead because i think it's equally important to move ahead right. and what is amazing is how the bush administration went into this thing and never figured out the biggest problem that it was a one-way trading operation. we said to them, send us anything you want, and they did and now we're going to go for an agreement where we are going

to turn it around and say we're going to send some things to you. the bush administration ignored that. had it not been for charlie rangel and sandy levin and the democrats, we would never have gotten them to sit down and renegotiate. they didn't want to reopen. they had actually passed iand felt bad and kind of -- because we didn't respond. but we said, no, it's not good enough. so we brought this agreement back and got an agreement that is much fairer and much more equitablely deals with our economy, particularly our automobile industry, but also beef and some other things. and this is an agreement between equals. this is not looking for cheap labor. they were tha once back in the mid 1950's when we said, send us anything, they made all the

textiles. they were the textile bunch. that's not what they're dealing. they're dealing with high end exports and we have to have an agreement with them that makes it possible for us to have a level playing field. this agreement does it. and from that point of view i think this is one that everyone n support, and i urge my colleagues to support this free trade agreement with the people's republic of korea. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. michaud: in response to the two previous speakers, i just want to highlight at this time the lunch bucket i rried with me over 29 years at the paper mill. it's bad for the workers who carry a lunch bucket similar to this. at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman

from california, ms. sanchez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: madam speaker, i rise today to speak in opposition to this fatally flawed trade agreement. during a time when our top priority should be job creation, congress is instead considering free trade agreements that will ship more american jobs overseas. making matters worse, we need to make sure that our current trade laws are being enforced. this korea f.t.a. will allow china to dump even more cheap goods into the u.s. without paying proper duties. and we're not talking about just a couple dollars here either. they fraudulently label their products made in korea to a tune of $53 million last year. this fraud will mean lost jobs and lost revenue here in the

united states. if this agreement passes, more chinese companies will ignore our trade laws. i think what we can all agree that we should be working towards supporting our manufacturing sector, not making it easier for china to cheat us. working families in th country deserve better than this flawed agreement, and for that reason i am urging my colleagues to vote against it. thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you. at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. marchant. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. marchant: the trade agreemts create more jobs, increase exports and broaden economic growth at a time when the united states' unemployment hovers around 9%, including 8.5% in texas, engines of job growth are needed.

as the independent international trade commission points out, the three trade agreements would increase u.s. exports by $13 billion. while more jobs are good news for a country a whole, texas in particular stands to benefit from increased trade. in today's globalized economy, texas depends more than -- more than ever on world exports. sinesses in the dallas-fort worth area are positioned for big gains. d.f.w. airport, one of the nation's leading trade gateways, already handles almost 60% of international air cargo in texas. the trade agreements will increase shipments of goods from d.f.w. to one of the most lucrative latin america and asian markets. they have five dirt flights every week to south korea.

madam speaker, i'm in support of the trade agreements. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlen's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. blumenauer of the great state of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. unbalanced the package of measures moving forward is a constructive balance for the country and my state of oregon. the people i represent will increase sales of machinery, agricultural products. this in turn will lead to increased activity at our ports. beef exports will help our state's farmers and ranchers. engineering, design, legal sector all will increase. the free trade agreement means jo for oregonians. some people have complained this proce took too long, but i commend the administration and particularly my colleag, mr. levin, who didn't wish -- rush to approved trade deals that weren't good enough.

dramatic improvements have been made to the korean free trade agreement where blatant unfairness to american automobile sales in korea ha been addressed. indeed, this agreement is supported by the american workers who make cars. and i commend mr. levin for his untiring efforts. in total, these agreements represent improvements that we can build upon but do not signal we can relax our effort. there is more that can be done. we need to ensure the benefits of trade are more widely distributed and the spirit with which we discuss today that they are in fact enforced. i've been encouraged to the renewed commitment to use the tools as they're supposed to be i'm pleased the senate acted on chinese currency manipulation and that the administration's decision to impose tariffs on the illegal chinese activity in the tire market was sustained by the w.t.o. i look forward to helping ensure a continued focus on appropriate trade enforcement. our economy has grown increasingly interdependent around the world, especially in

oregon. our best efforts are needed to make sure we realize the promise of trade is not a one-way street. the years spent to improve these agreements was an important step in that direction. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: thank you, madam speaker. the korea trade agreement is bad for workers who carry a lunch bucket like this one. at this time i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from north korea, mr. kissell -- north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. . mr. sis el: i rise in strong opposition -- mr.cy sell: north -- mr. -- mr. kissell: if you look at our

trade receive did you have to figure out we don't know how to get our exports higher than our imports. i want to talk about the textile industry. i spent years of my life working in sex tile -- textiles. the only mistake the americans made was that their dream could be fulfilled in an industry our government decided to give away in trade deals. now we're at it again this will eliminate around 40,000 textile jobs. how much more can one industry be asked to give? they give good, solid jobs and once again we give those jobs away. we heard last week the average american working family is now effectively down to a standard of living of the mid 1990's. i simply ask this question. how much more of the american dream of our merp working familieshould they have to give up, have to delay, until we figure out how to get this right, until we quit rying to give our jobs away to other

parts of the world and concentrate on this great american economy and make it here in america. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i would note that in country we was trade agreements with, we have a surplus in manufacturing exports. with that, i yield to the gentleman from georgia, such time as he may consume. the speaker: the wrelt is recognized. mr. westmoreland: we have been blessed to have a robust manufacturing industry, we have kia motors and a large textile presence in my district. i would like to ask the chairman to enter into a colloquy. mr. camp: i would be glad to. mr. westmoreland: mr. chairman, what will the congress do to make sure no jobs are lost due tohe free trade ageement? mr. camp: the agreement includes a robust safeguard that allows the united stes

to raise tariffs if imports from south korea surge. includes a number of provision to prevent shipment from china and other countries to ensure that u.s. countries are comping only against south korean imports. third, we use a yarn forward rule of origin requiring that yarn production and all operations forward happen south korea or the united states. the agreement will open up significant new commercial opportunities for u.s. textile and apparel exporters. south korea is the 10th largest market for textiles. it's estimated that tex -- textile exports will crean 85% to 92% and apparel exports will increase 39% -- 39 million to 45 million, 129 focht 147%.

u.s. textile exporters are at a diadvantage vis-a-vis european textile and apparel exporters. as a result of the e. pumplet-south korea f.t.a. entering into force, e.u. textile and apparel exporters face an avepblg tariff of just .1%. mr. westmoreland: further, mr. chairman, what has the ways and means committee done to ensure textiles from china do not illegal enter the u.s. through cree in a? -- korea? mr. camp: we are working with u.s. customs and the koreans to address this problem. in addition, u.s. customs an south korean customs have worked closely to develop state of the art procedures including advanced risk management techniques. for example, textile products

are automatically characterized as high risk and subject to greater scrutiny. it also emphasizes textile-specific trade protection. they are required to share information about textile manufacturers in south korea, including capacity, suppliers and machinery. this allows us to flag suspicious shipments and coanies. it allows u.s. customs to send inspectors to south korea to conduct on site verification. these inspectors are allowed to make unannounced visits and if the south korean firm allows -- refuses to allow them to inspect, we can suspend eferential tariffs for that company. we maintain a liaison who focuses closely on these issues. south korea has dramatically

increased resources to address transshipment including tasking 157 customs employees to work excollusively to verify country of origin information for products going to countries with which korea has a trade agreement. i'll continueo work with them to make su it remains a high priority. mr. westmoreland: i thank the gentleman and i apeciate your commitment to closing trade loopholes that have negatively impacting u.s. textiles including taking up the textile security act which i'm surthe chairman would do. it's my understanding that korea's tariffs are subject to a phi-year phaseout but the u.s. tariffs will go to zero immediately, allowing free entry for korean textiles. what is your committee doing and will do to ensure an equal playing field for u.s. textiles

in korea an there's not a flood of korean textile into the u.s. market. mr. camp: actually the tariff asymmetry works the other way around by value, 73% of u.s. textile exports to south korea would receive duty fee treatment immediately upon entering boo force. in contrast, only 5% -- 52% of south korean exports to the u.s. by value would become duty-free immediately. it's worth noting that south korean exports to the united states have fallen by 50% over the last phi years while u.s. exports to south korea have nearly doubled. mr. west morland: and i ask the chairman, will you work with the textile caucuso ensure the provisions of the free trade agreements are not used as a model in future free trade agreements? mr. camp: i look forward to continuing to work together with you and your colleagues in the textile caucus to work to address your concerns and

ensure that customs adequately prioritizes its trade enforcement responsibility particularly as it relates to this. mr. west morlan: also i would like to insert two articles into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. westmoreland: i yield back. the speaker: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield 10 seconds to the gentleman. mr. mcdermott: in a letter to support u.s. trade law, the ambassador, the trade representative, said there's nothing in the trade agreement that would weaken the international rules or u.s. laws to address unfairly traded imports that injure u.s. industry and workers. the specific trade remedies provisions y raised are carefully crafted by our

negotiators to mean that they will not adversely affect the efficacy of relief under u.s. anti-dumping laws. ski unanimous consent to enter this into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> madam speaker, i rise in strong support of the u.s.-korea trade agreement as i have for the colombia and panama agreements as well. this is another example of president obama and his team at usti inheriting what i thought were three pretty good trade agreements when they assumed office but realizing there was room for improvement. mr. kind: we got that crucial improvement with korea over two vital sectors of the u.s. economy, automobiles and beef. more specifically for the state of wisconsin which is the largest cranberry producing state in the nation, this enables us to get back in the

game with meaningful exports into the korean market. each day we wait to passhis agreement, chea lie captures more market share. it's also true for one of the largest manufacturers an therefore one of the largest employers in my district in western wisconsin, located in my hometown of lacrosse. right now the goods and products they're making at that lacrosse plant faces an 8% tariff barrier. with the passage of this agreement that goes down to zero. that's the point of all these trade afwreems. wear leveling the playing field for our workers and businesses so they can compete more effectively and fairly in gaining greater market access to korea, to colombia, and to pama. these won't be the panaceas to the job creation we need at home but ey are important steps in the right direction. they all contain vital international labor d environmental standards in the bulk of the agreement fully

enforcement with -- enforceable with other provisions. that's been a gnificant improvement as far as the elevation of standards globally and the levels of the playing field for our businesses and workers at home which cannot be discounted. again, i commend the members of the ways and means committee, the leadership there, but especially president obama and his usti team in taking these trade agreements, improving upon them and making sure that when the open for business sign is over the united states of america, so we can pursue a meaningful economic engagement throughout the rest of the world. i do subscribe to carnell hua's theory on trade. may i have 30econds? mr. levin: 15 seconds. mr. kind spg i thank the gentleman. -- mr. kind: i thank the gentleman. he stated trade is more than just goods and products crossing borders because when that occurs, es