Floor Statements

I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Lewis of Georgia.

I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Trade Subcommittee of Ways and Means, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

How much time remains on each side, please?

It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to a very active member of our committee from the great State of Texas (Mr. Doggett).

It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to our distinguished leader, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).

I yield 2 minutes to another member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from Nevada, a member of our committee, Ms. Berkley.

How much time remains, please, on both sides?

I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Kind from the great State of Wisconsin.

(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California, Maxine Waters.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I think not. I'm going to sum up myself.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me be clear what's at stake here on the Colombia FTA. 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 extensive flaws in Colombia's labor law and its practices.

These conditions and the insistence of Democrats that they be effectively and fully enforced are what held up 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 has taken 5 years because most of those years were taken up by inaction by the Bush administration, and by the administration previous to Mr. Santos.

Earlier this year, an Action Plan on 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. Very 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 workers of their rights. The ILO 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 collectively bargain. Colombia committed to stop such abuses in the action plan. It passed far- reaching legislation and proposed effective regulations. But, unfortunately, it then backed away.

Through loopholes in the law it has allowed 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, pushed the Colombians for months to try to stem this problematic shift. But even a clarification it 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 FTA we're voting on today. But very regrettably, the Republicans blocked any reference at all to the Labor Action Plan in the implementation bill, and unfortunately, the administration acquiesced in that position.

I just want to emphasize: Explicitly linking the action plan to entry into force of the Colombia FTA 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 has made. I also want to emphasize it provides no context and meaning for the enforcement of the FTA worker rights standard in the future.

The language in the FTA is the basic international worker rights language. It is general in its provision. It has to be given meaning. The Action Plan would help to give it meaning if in the future action is needed to be taken under the dispute settlement system. And so 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 pacts,'' to thwart workers from organizing. And I saw firsthand the use of those collective pacts when I was in Colombia on one of my three visits.

Another pervasive problem was highlighted earlier this month by Human Rights Watch: Little progress in investigating and prosecuting murders of people trying to exercise their rights--even those cases designated as priorities. Colombia authorities obtained just 6 convictions of 195 union murders that occurred in the 4-plus years leading up to May, 2011. It's told that the ILO left Colombia off its priority list. That's because employers vetoed Colombia being on the list.

Notwithstanding clear commitments under the Action Plan to improve the situation through reforms and investigatory policies and methods, Colombia did not take the first step to do this--namely, the publication of an analysis of closed union murder cases--until the eve of the markup, even though the action plan called for its completion. Even with this, it is clear that additional leverage is necessary. Interviews by Human Rights Watch with Colombian prosecutors reveal that 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 implemented the commitments under the

Action Plan to date, and very significantly, vitally, that the legislation incorporated the Action Plan and conditioned the FTA'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.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of our committee.

I yield 5 minutes to a member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of our committee, Mr. Kind of Wisconsin.

(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a new parent who is bringing a picture of his new son with him to the podium, Mr. Polis of Colorado.

I will close on our side.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

First, let me speak as someone who opposed, actively, the NAFTA agreement and led the effort in this House in opposition to CAFTA. This is, in terms of worker rights, the opposite of NAFTA and CAFTA. What this does is to embody the basic international worker rights enforceable in the trade agreement. Peru was the breakthrough, and Panama continues along that pioneering path.

Secondly, on Panama, why are we here? Panama acted to change its labor laws before we voted, as was true for Peru. We pointed out the deficiencies in their laws and I discussed them with the previous administration in Panama. But neither it nor the Bush administration was willing to make sure action occurred.

Now those changes have been made as to companies less than 2 years. Those changes have been made in terms of the economic processing zones, and they have prohibited bypassing unions by direct negotiations with non-unionized workers--unfortunately, not true in Colombia. Look, on the tax haven, they signed the TIEA. We asked them to do that, and that's precisely what they have done.

In terms of investment, this bill strengthens the present status quo in terms of investment protections for the United States communities.

So, in a word, we have a bill before us that meets the requirements that we set out when we said to the Bush administration, we will not take up Panama until changes have been made. Those changes have now indeed been made in terms of worker rights, in terms of strengthening investment, in terms of ending Panama as a tax haven. Those changes having been made, I urge support of this FTA.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), ranking member on Trade.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another distinguished member of our committee.

First, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Washington.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another member of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

It is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, would you tell us each our remaining time?

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

This is an important discussion, and I want to be clear what is really at stake here. It's the automotive industry of this country, but it's more than that. There's a basic principle involved in the Korea FTA issue, and that is whether we will replace one-way trade with two-way trade.

When this was negotiated by the Bush administration, it failed to take the most important step relating to Korea. They were shipping hundreds of thousands of cars to the United States. We were shipping, at that time, less than 10,000. So this, indeed, while it mainly involved automotive--and that was 75 percent of our deficit--it was even more than that, opening up markets for our goods produced in the United States of America. This was a Make It in America issue. And there was a Korean iron curtain against our products--by the way, not only automotive, but refrigerators and others.

The number one priority of the Koreans was to eliminate the 2.5 percent U.S. tariff, because if you ship 600,000 to 700,000 cars, that's a lot of money. We said to the administration, no way, we were not going to let the Korea free trade agreement be approved if it continued to embody one-way trade.

The Korean Ambassador met with Mr. Rangel and me often, and the Trade Minister, and they said, We aren't going to talk about it. And we said, Well, if you don't talk, there will be no agreement.

And then what happened was that the new administration came into being, the Obama administration, and it began to work on this issue. And what happened was there were major changes in the agreement. Instead of the elimination of the tariff on most vehicles, immediately it was delayed to the 5th year, and on trucks it was delayed for 8 years to give time to make sure that the one-way street became a two- way street. That has been accomplished, and to make entirely sure of this, there were provisions to make sure that they could no longer use their tax provisions and their environmental standards to keep out our products.

And to make it even safer, we made sure that there was a safeguard, so if there's a surge of automotive products into the United States, we could defend ourselves. That was unique.

And that's why the big three are saying the following: ``As representatives of the largest exporting sector, this FTA will help open up an important auto market for Chrysler, Ford, and GM exports. Our companies make the best cars and trucks on the road, and we are excited for the export opportunity this agreement represents.'' And that's why the UAW has indicated its support, because workers making their cars will now be able to see that their cars can be shipped to Korea. And Ford has said they're going to use Korea as a base to penetrate, with American products, the markets of the rest of Asia.

So that's what this is all about. No, it won't be China getting into the U.S. It will be the U.S. getting into Korea. That's really what this is all about.

I want to say a word about the issue relating to issues of transshipment. We insisted in the FTA that there be provisions relating to transshipment, and I want to quickly refer to them.

If Customs has any doubt about a shipment, it can require Korean exporters to provide documentation showing that the goods qualify for FTA treatment. If a Korean exporter refuses or the document is not acceptable, Customs can deny FTA treatment to the good.

U.S. Customs can also do site visits--this is something different--to Korean factories to verify information. And if our Customs officials are denied access or the visit shows problems, they can deny entry to the Korean goods. And exporters who intentionally or repeatedly make false claims are subject to penalties.

I have a letter embodying this from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection that I would like to insert in the Record. I would also like to insert in the Record the letter that I referred to from the automobile association and from the UAW.

I also want to quote the statement from the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association. It says as follows: ``The pending FTAs offer real opportunities for parts manufacturers and our employees in two of the fastest growing regions: Asia Pacific and South America. We can ill afford to neglect these and other markets as key competitors.''

I would like to insert this letter from MEMA into the Record.

So that's what the issue is here today. We faced a one-way market with impenetrable barriers. These are now being torn down.

This is a jobs bill. This is a jobs bill. We have to be able to compete, and our auto industry can now compete. In order to be able to compete effectively, we have to tear down the markets of other countries and make sure that our markets are not only open to them, but their markets are open to us.

We worked very hard to make this happen. It wasn't an easy job. There were times when the administration, perhaps, the new one, the Obama administration, was going to settle for something less than was necessary. We pressed. We pressed effectively.

The Obama administration rose to the occasion and, in the end, said to Korea, You must agree to open the market or we will not send this agreement, this revised agreement to the U.S. Congress.

This revised agreement has now been sent here. I urge its support.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: CBP's Enforcement Mechanisms

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) plays an integral

role in the implementation and enforcement of free trade

agreements, which provide duty-free or reduced duty access to

the U.S. market for qualifying merchandise. CBP is

responsible for assessing and collecting duties, taxes, and

fees and ensuring compliance with all import laws. CBP works

to ensure that the benefits afforded by

Trade Agreements accrue only to eligible importations.

CBP will utilize its layered trade enforcement approach to

ensure compliance with the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement's

(KORUS) provisions. If CBP finds violations, CBP will take

action to recover duty losses, pursue penalties when

necessary, and establish enforcement criteria to prevent

future potential fraudulent claims.

CBP will use the various enforcement mechanisms listed

below to implement KORUS. Many of these mechanisms are used

in the enforcement of all Trade Agreements, but will be

tailored to take into consideration factors that are unique

to Korea and the provisions listed in KORUS.

Targeting High-Risk Imports

CBP will conduct trend analysis to spot unusual trade

patterns such as U.S. imports of products that South Korea

does not produce.

CBP will monitor the emergence of new importers or changes

in importer behavior.

CBP will review intelligence provided by other governments

or industry.

Under KORUS, CBP can also take several other courses of

action, including but not limited to: conducting

comprehensive cargo exams or importer audits and performing

laboratory analysis on the contents of imports.

Trade Agreement Verifications

Under KORUS, CBP will conduct extensive verifications as

warranted of imports that seek preferential duty treatment to

ensure that they legitimately qualify under the agreement.

CBP will request documentation from importers to

substantiate their preference claims, as needed. If an

importer cannot substantiate its preference claim, CBP will

bill the importer for the duty amount owed, as well as other

associated fees.

Under KORUS, CBP can visit South Korean factories to

validate a factory's production capability as well as

compliance of the goods with the requirements of KORUS. If a

factory does not have the facilities to produce goods or

documentation to support a KORUS claim, CBP can deny duty-

free treatment under KORUS on future shipments.

CBP can also visit South Korean exporters or any other

individuals or companies that may have evidence relative to

the verification of a KORUS claim.

CBP can deny the preferential treatment granted under the

agreement to any good when verification can not be completed

because of a lack of cooperation from the foreign entity.

Textiles and Apparel Goods

KORUS includes provisions similar to other Trade Agreements

that allow CBP to address major concerns of the U.S. business

community, such as the transshipment of textile or apparel

goods from China or other countries to take advantage of the

duty preference.

Under KORUS, CBP can visit South Korean textile factories

to validate a factory's production capability as well as

compliance of the goods with the requirements of KORUS. If a

factory does not have the facilities to produce goods or

documentation to support a KORUS claim, CBP can deny duty-

free treatment under KORUS on future shipments.

CBP can also visit South Korean exporters or any other

individuals or companies that may have evidence relative to

the verification of a KORUS claim.

CBP can deny the preferential treatment granted under the

agreement to any textile or apparel good when verification

can not be completed because of a lack of cooperation from

the foreign entity.

Korea is required to provide CBP with an annual report

detailing those factories that are involved in textile and

apparel production. This information will be used to validate

legitimate yarn, fabric, and apparel producers to assist CBP

with their targeting.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I rise in strong support of this proposal, this bill. It restarts TAA and the GSP program. You know, this should have happened long ago. The Republican decision to let it lapse over 8 months ago was very wrong. And as a result, and we're not sure of the exact numbers because that isn't public, but hundreds of service workers were completely shut out. Fewer manufacturing workers became eligible, and those who did qualify for TAA received less assistance and support. So now we're taking action today that's long overdue.

I heard last night somebody said that the trade agreements were being held ``hostage'' to the TAA program. They just got it 180 degrees wrong. It was the TAA program that was being held hostage to trade agreements, and that never should have happened.

Well, now we can act. I just want to say, some people, I think, look upon TAA as kind of the teaspoon of sugar to make the trade agreements go down. That could not be more incorrect. What TAA does is to help those who are thrown out of work because of trade, through no fault of their own. And if we're going to have a competitive workforce, people need to be able to be retrained. And interestingly enough, if you go to any place where TAA operates, you'll see a wide variety of people who have become eligible and who are being helped.

So I very, very much support this bill which preserves the integrity, although not all, of the TAA program, and the 2009 reforms.

I close by saying I also support the GSP provisions in this bill. I think there is a misconception. It does help, indeed, developing countries who rely on the GSP. But as our ranking member knows from all of his work, it also benefits American companies and the workers they employ. In fact, the majority of GSP imports are inputs used to support U.S. manufacturing, including raw materials, parts and components, and machinery and equipment. So not only did failing to extend GSP hurt developing countries, it hurt American businesses and their employees.

A wide spectrum supports this bill, and I hope all of us on this side of the aisle will vote in favor of it.

I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am.

I want everybody to know what this is. This is a bill on currency. This is the opportunity for people to once again stand up and be counted. This is the bill that passed last year 349-79, with 99 Republicans supporting it. This is the House bill that has 225 cosponsors. More than 60 are Republicans.

It's clear that China's currency manipulation is a major cause of hundreds of thousands of lost manufacturing jobs, and imports from China are about half of that. So we're talking about 1 million jobs, at the least. What is also clear is that the manipulation of currency tilts the playing field in favor of China at least 25 percent, and it's not getting better.

China's currency manipulation isn't the only cause of that deficit and loss of jobs. But because it's not the only cause doesn't mean we should address it. It's a major one. It's clear we haven't been effectively confronting China on this issue, and China pushes ahead.

So in a few words, the time has come for action. Eight years of talk have yielded very meager results.

As said, this has broad bipartisan support. And to make it utterly clear, last night the Senate passed a bill on currency by 63-35. Sixteen Republican Senators supported it.

This will not kill the bill. It will not send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately go to passage.

So, as I said, now is the moment for all of us to be counted, to stand up and be counted. No excuses. As Robert Samuelson said in The Post last weekend, there's already a trade war between them and us, but only one side is fighting. Now we'll make sure that both sides are in this effort.

I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania who is so active on this issue.

How much time do I have remaining?

That's all it will take.

The issue is clear: Act. Act. You must stand up and be counted. This is the moment on currency for every Member of the House.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

The Bush administration negotiated three seriously flawed FTAs. The key flaw in the South Korea FTA was that it violated a fundamental principle of sound, overall trade policy: two-way trade. It locked in one-way trade for Korea in the automotive sector, the source of three-quarters of the American trade deficit with Korea. Last year, urged by congressional Democrats, the Obama administration negotiated specific provisions opening up the Korean market for automotive products made in America.

These vital changes would not have happened if, as the Republicans continually insisted, the FTA had passed as originally negotiated. The Panama FTA as originally negotiated by the Bush administration failed to carry out another key provision of sound trade policy, incorporating international standards on worker rights. Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration successfully worked with the Panamanian Government to correct these flaws, and it also took the necessary concrete steps to change its role as a tax haven.

The Colombia FTA, as originally negotiated, fell far short of addressing the longstanding concerns about the specific challenges in Colombia to worker rights and the persistence of violence and impunity. The Obama administration and the new Santos administration undertook the important steps of discussions on these issues, culminating in an action plan relating to labor rights. Unfortunately, there remains serious shortcomings in the plan's implementation. What's more, giving in to congressional Republican insistence, there is completely lacking any link in the implementation bill to the action plan, necessary to assure its present implementation and future enforcement actions under the FTA.

In view of those conditions, I oppose the Colombia FTA.

It is now my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on Trade.

I am now privileged to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a very distinguished member of our committee.

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Representative from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a very active Member on these issues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

This is a somewhat unusual structure here. Each of us is going to take 15 minutes of our total allotment. I want to talk to Mr. Camp.

I think we have used all but 2 of our minutes. I want to use those 2 minutes to close the 15 minutes, but I'm not quite sure where you are on your 15 minutes.

So why don't you call on one. Then I'll take mine, and then you'll have one more person.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

We have three FTAs before us. Each one of those should be taken on their own. And let me express my strong views about the Colombia FTA based on my three trips there. Trade is about more than tariffs or the flow of goods. As important as they are, it's about people. And where workers have no rights, increased trade with another country can work against us and can work against the other country. Colombia, in that regard, has presented a special case. A violation of basic rights has gone on for decades, and not only those violations of laws but violation of persons, violence, and death.

The Santos administration came to power and said it wanted to do it differently. Our two governments sat down and worked on an agreement on worker rights. It was a step forward, but there is a serious set of problems. First of all, the implementation of that in important instances has been spotty, especially as to the vehement misuse of cooperatives in Colombia and so-called collective PACs. And, secondly, there was an absolute resistance, refusal on the part of the Republican majority to have any reference in the action plan to the implementation bill. That is a serious, serious flaw. For that reason, I am very much opposed to this agreement.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

As I said with regard to Colombia, each of these agreements should be taken on their own. The Panama FTA, as originally negotiated by the Bush administration, failed to address serious concerns about Panama's labor laws and status as a tax haven. It has been changed through the efforts of congressional Democrats and the Obama administration, and it now deserves our support.

Fully enforceable labor and environmental standards are included in the core of this agreement. Panama has brought its laws into full compliance with ILO standards. And late last year, Panama signed a tax exchange information agreement, and they have changed their laws to implement this agreement. Republicans negotiated a flawed agreement. It has been fixed. It now deserves our support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on our Trade Subcommittee.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Could I ask how much time is remaining?

I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Madam Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

I voted against NAFTA. I led the battle against CAFTA on this floor. I did so because in those agreements there were not enforceable international worker rights. We face this in Panama.

As originally negotiated, there was not the implementation of those rights in Panama. They had certain provisions relating to newer businesses. They also had restrictions in terms of trade zones. And what we said to the Panamanians was, bring your laws up to international standards. That's exactly what they did. This is the opposite, in that respect, of NAFTA and CAFTA. So it is not accurate to say this is a NAFTA-type agreement. It simply is not.

In terms of government procurement, we want access for our companies and workers to the construction that's going on in the Panama Canal zone. It's vital for our companies. And so essentially in this agreement there is a provision that we can have access there, with limits, as they can, with limits, to us. It's mutually beneficial.

Lastly, there has been reference to the tax haven. Panama was a tax haven, one of the most striking in the world. And we insisted that they enact a TIEA. They've done exactly that. So if we take these one at a time, this is an agreement that meets our standards and changes the agreement from the way it was negotiated by the Bush administration. We should support this agreement.

It is now my distinct pleasure to yield 4 minutes to our whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Could I inquire how much time remains for the three of us?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes, but I may use only 2\1/2\.

First I want to emphasize each of these agreements should be on their own merit. Trade is so polarized, it's easy to lump things all together. We won't carve out a new trade policy if that's the way we proceed.

Secondly, there's been reference to NAFTA. This is really kind of an anti-NAFTA agreement. The labor standards are the new standards that we put into Peru and are incorporated here. The reference to job loss and EPI, it bases its assumption that what happened after NAFTA in terms of trade will happen as well with Korea. They are very different situations. And that's why many suggestions are that there will be major increases in jobs.

Thirdly, there's been reference to this as the George Bush FTA. No, this is the FTA renegotiated by the Obama administration. And why was it renegotiated? To open up the markets of Korea, to change one-way trade to two-way trade. That's jobs. And that's exactly what this agreement does. Tomorrow we will outline how it does it. In all respects, it will make sure that the Korean market at long last is open to American automotive products, which is the major source of our trade deficit. That's why the automotive companies issued this statement: ``As representatives of the largest exporting sector, this FTA will help open an important auto market for Chrysler, Ford, and GM exports. Our companies make the best cars and trucks on the road, and we are excited for the export opportunity this agreement represents.'' That's why it's supported by the UAW. It will open up markets. That's why Ford sat down today to describe how they're going to penetrate the market of Korea. They're determined to do that, as the other companies are. So this is a market-opening provision at long last, in that sense a major change from the Bush-negotiated agreement. I strongly urge support for the Korea FTA.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member on the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

How much time is remaining on both sides?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the TRAIN Act and urge the House to reject it.

The Clean Air Act is one of this nation's most important laws. Over the last 40 years, it has greatly reduced pollution across the length and breadth of this country, allowing all Americans to live longer, healthier lives. There is a tendency to take the steady air quality improvements our country has made for granted. In the course of my trade duties on the Ways and Means Committee, I have visited many countries. I've been to foreign cities where the air is so thick with smog that some days you can't see buildings that are just a few blocks away. The air is hard to breathe because it is thick with ozone and particulate pollution. This is not what we want here in America.

The legislation before the House today has many shortcomings. I especially object to the provisions of this bill that delay two important Clean Air rules. The bill would delay the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule as well as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule until at least 2013, and very likely much longer than that since the bill eliminates all statutory and court-ordered deadlines for both rules.

Congress ordered EPA to take action to curb mercury and other air toxics 21 years ago, and more than two decades later we're still waiting for action. This is particularly a problem in the Great Lakes region. Mercury is thrown into the air by coal-burning power plants hundreds of miles away and bioaccumulates in Great Lakes fish. Mercury is especially a health risk for pregnant women and infants because exposure to mercury has been linked to nervous system damage.

The cost of further delay of the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule is high. For each year we delay, there will be up to an additional 17,000 premature deaths; 11,000 non-fatal heart attacks; 120,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 12,200 hospital and emergency room visits. The Republican leadership of the House appears to be comfortable with continued inaction on air toxics. I am not. We should vote this bill down.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 20th anniversary of Ukraine's independence from Soviet rule.

Since August 24th, 1991, the people of Ukraine have remained steadfastly focused on securing a stable democracy and a free market economy in Ukraine, and I commend them on their democratic achievements. During the 2004 Orange Revolution, I was proud to stand with hundreds of Ukrainian Americans demonstrating in front of the Embassy in Washington, wearing our orange scarves and demanding that democracy required rejection of a rigged election.

I also rise to express my deep concern over the erosion of democracy under the current Yanukovych Administration, which places the successes of the Orange Revolution in jeopardy. Reports from the April 2011 Freedom House assessment are alarming, particularly the anecdotes of the Administration's use of violence, intimidation, and selective prosecution of opposition leaders and suppression of the media.

We in the United States must continue to stand with those living under oppressive and tyrannical regimes as they struggle for their freedom.

Last week, members of the Congressional Caucus on Ukraine introduced a bipartisan resolution to commemorate Ukraine's independence and to express strong and continued support to the Ukrainian people in their efforts toward ensuring democratic principles.

Well, here we go again. You tried to cut jobs last night. You lost. Now, you're trying it again. When Americans need jobs, the Republicans are pushing an anti-jobs bill. Here's what the NAM said about this program that you want to curtail: ``The ATVM program is an example of what government-industry partnerships can accomplish. It has helped create and preserve thousands of auto sector jobs. The NAM believes defunding ATVM will hurt manufacturers and their employees.''

So you listen to nobody except your empty rhetoric and, I think, dangerous action. If that wasn't enough, here's what the Chamber of Commerce said: ``The ATVM program promotes manufacturing in the U.S. and is an important component of America's energy security.''

So yesterday, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we sent him a letter citing his reference to the ATVM loan program as a ``government subsidy for failing industries.'' GM failing? Chrysler failing? Ford failing? How misguided.

Well, now you're on your rampage to kill jobs and you've proposed to cut another program, section 1705, the loan program to help investments in new energy technology. This is a dangerous precedent. It's also, let's be frank, a dangerous smokescreen so some Republicans can change their votes. That's what this is all about.

Well, you don't want to listen to Warren Buffett on taxes, and now you're thumbing your vote at Bill Gates. They issued a report yesterday--Bill Gates and a number of other technology leaders--and I quote from the report about energy programs like what you're trying to cut:

``If the U.S. fails to invent new technologies and create new markets and new jobs that will drive the transformation and revitalization of the $5 trillion global energy industry, we will have lost an opportunity to lead in what is arguably the largest and most pervasive technology sector in the world. However, if the U.S. successfully innovates in clean energy, our country stands to reap enormous benefits.''

It goes on:

``Unfortunately, the country has yet to embark on a clean energy innovation program commensurate with the scale of national priorities that are at stake. In fact''--and I interpolate here this is what you're doing--``rather than improve the country's energy innovation program and invest in strategic national interests, the current political environment is creating strong pressure to pull back from such efforts.''

That's exactly what you're doing today. This bill is dangerous mindlessness.

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield?

Look, no one is saying the total program would be obliterated.

I was.

I was.

Will the gentlelady from New York yield me 30 seconds?

How much time is there on both sides, please?

Will the gentleman from California yield to me?

No one has said that the program will be eliminated. What we have said is what the Manufacturers Association has said. It believes defunding ATVM will hurt manufacturers and their employees.

You don't want to hear the facts.

It is not true.

We've heard a lot of rhetoric the first 10 minutes, or whatever, on the majority side, but rhetoric cannot mask, cannot obscure reality. The reality is this is an antijobs bill.

In '07, we put forth the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program. It has worked. Tens of thousands of jobs have been created as a result of that program in Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Louisiana, and Florida. And so now the majority says they're going to pay for this bill. How? By ending a program that has created jobs. That's the reality. It cuts it off, even though there are applications pending that will create thousands of more jobs in the manufacturing base of this country, in Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, California, Michigan, and other States.

It's inexcusable. It's inexcusable.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

You've been misinformed. There are millions and millions of dollars that are already in the pipeline to be spent and applications for the balance of that money. That's a fact.

So if you've been misinformed, I suggest that you go back to the Rules Committee and take another look at this. This is an anti-jobs bill when we need jobs in the United States of America.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Will the gentleman yield?

There is nothing in that decision, nothing in that action that paid for a continuing resolution that will take away jobs from the businesses and workers of the United States of America, purely and simply.

Will the gentleman yield?

So now you're saying we're paying for it by taking away jobs from businesses and workers. That's what this does. You can't hide that fact.

Mr. Speaker, 75 years ago the National Labor Relations Act was passed to give workers a say in the workplace--the right to organize and bargain collectively. It was a key to the building of the American middle class: a decent wage, health care, a pension.

The Republicans want to repeal the legislation of the last half of the 20th century--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And now with the bill before the House, the majority party begins to repeal the National Labor Relations Act.

This bill's scope is monstrous. It prohibits the National Labor Relations Board, in cases where an employer illegally acts against an employee's right to organize, to ``rescind any relocation, transfer, subcontracting, outsourcing'' anywhere.

This bill is part of the Republican effort to destroy the rights of workers to be represented in the workplace. It is an open invitation to the further outsourcing of jobs. It is vital to defeat this dangerous piece of legislation.