U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–469 2011

THE PENDING FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS 

WITH COLOMBIA, PANAMA, AND SOUTH KOREA 

AND THE CREATION OF U.S. JOBS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JANUARY 25, 2011

Serial No. 112–02 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan, Chairman 

WALLY HERGER, California 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

CHRIS LEE, New York 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

RICK BERG, North Dakota 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JON TRAUB, Staff Director 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Staff Director 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of January 18, 2011 announcing the hearing ........................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Roy Paulson, President, Paulson Manufacturing Corporation, on behalf of 

the National Association of Manufacturers ....................................................... 8 

Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation ............................ 18 

Michael L. Ducker, Chief Operating Officer and President, International, 

FedEx Express ...................................................................................................... 30 

William J. Toppeta, President, International, MetLife ........................................ 42 

Stephen E. Biegun, Corporate Officer and Vice President of International 

Governmental Affairs, Ford Motor Company .................................................... 56 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association ...................................... 102 

Emergency Committee for American Trade .......................................................... 113 

National Oilseed Processors Association ............................................................... 120 

California Table Grape Commission (Colombia) ................................................... 126 

California Table Grape Commission (Korea) ......................................................... 127 

American Forest & Paper Association ................................................................... 128 

USA Rice Federation ............................................................................................... 131 

National Grain and Feed Association .................................................................... 134 

Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, Inc. .............................................. 141 

National Pork Producers Council ........................................................................... 146 

PepsiCo ..................................................................................................................... 150 

American Natural Soda Ash Corporation .............................................................. 151 

Campbell Soup Company ........................................................................................ 152 

ConAgra Foods ......................................................................................................... 155 

American Association of Port Authorities .............................................................. 159 

International Dairy Foods Association .................................................................. 161 

Intel Corporation ..................................................................................................... 165 

Corn Refiners Association ....................................................................................... 169 

Herbalife Ltd. ........................................................................................................... 171 

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association .................................................................. 173 

National Potato Council .......................................................................................... 174 

Council of the Americas .......................................................................................... 175 

California Coalition for Free Trade ........................................................................ 176 

Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch ..................................................................... 179 

American Meat Institute ......................................................................................... 189 

Financial Services Roundtable ............................................................................... 193 

National Milk Producers Federation & U.S. Dairy Export Council .................... 194 

Retail Industry Leaders Association ...................................................................... 197 

American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, National Textile Association, U.S. Industrial Fabrics Institute, American Fiber Manufacturers Association .................................................................................................................... 206 

Association of Colombian Flower Exporters .......................................................... 210 

Advanced Medical Technology Association ............................................................ 211 

American Apparel & Footwear Association ........................................................... 220 

Consumer Electronics Association .......................................................................... 223 

California Chamber of Commerce .......................................................................... 224 

Otis McAllister ......................................................................................................... 225 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE PENDING FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS 

WITH COLOMBIA, PANAMA, AND SOUTH KOREA 

AND THE CREATION OF U.S. JOBS 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 25, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Dave Camp 

[chairman of the committee] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
2 

HEARING ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

Camp Announces Hearing on the Pending 

Free Trade Agreements with Colombia, Panama, 

and South Korea and the Creation of U.S. Jobs 

January 18, 2011 

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R–MI) today announced that the Committee on Ways and Means will hold a hearing on the pending 

free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea and the creation 

of U.S. jobs. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, January 25, 2011, in 

1100 Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 A.M. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization 

not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. A 

list of invited witnesses will follow. 

BACKGROUND: 

In 2007, the United States concluded trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, 

and South Korea. Ways and Means has not held a hearing on any of the three completed trade agreements. 

Each of the three trade agreements would open new markets to U.S. exports and, 

in turn, benefit American businesses, farmers, workers, and consumers. The independent U.S. International Trade Commission has estimated that the three pending 

trade agreements, combined, would increase U.S. exports by at least $13 billion. The 

benefits of trade agreements are also long lasting. Since 2000, U.S. exports to the 

13 countries with which the United States has implemented trade agreements have 

grown almost twice as fast as our worldwide exports. 

Colombia, Panama, and South Korea have all concluded trade agreements with 

major trading partners and export competitors of the United States, so U.S. failure 

to implement our own trade agreements with these countries could severely disadvantage U.S. exporters and jeopardize U.S. job creation. For example, the Colombia-Canada free trade agreement is expected to enter into force in July of this year, 

removing significant Colombian tariffs for Canadian agriculture exporters while 

similar tariffs remain in place against U.S. agriculture exports. Colombia has also 

implemented trade agreements with Argentina, Brazil, and the MERCOSUR countries. Similarly, Panama has signed trade agreements with Canada and the European Union, which remove a number of key barriers to their exports. The EU-Korea 

free trade agreement is also expected to enter into force by July 2011 and would 

provide European manufacturers and service providers with preferential access to 

one of the most dynamic economies in Asia, to the detriment of U.S. exports. 

Over the years, several objections have been raised to these agreements. With respect to Colombia, some have argued that sustained progress to address violence 

against workers in Colombia and concerns about Colombian labor law must occur 

before it is appropriate to consider the agreement. However, supporters of the agreement argue that passing the agreement will improve labor protections and express 

frustration the Administration has not identified concrete steps for Colombia to take 

to address concerns. Concerns have also been raised about Panama’s refusal to provide the United States with certain information needed to enforce U.S. tax laws. In 

November, the United States and Panama signed a Tax Information Exchange 

Agreement to address that concern. With respect to South Korea, many stakeholders 

argued that the auto provisions of the original agreement were insufficient. In DeVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:08 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 067469 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\67469.XXX GPO1 PsN: 67469

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
3 

cember, the United States and South Korea reached a supplemental agreement addressing those concerns. 

In announcing this hearing, Chairman Camp said, ‘‘Trade agreements are a 

sure-fire way to support U.S. jobs and boost economic growth by creating 

new markets for U.S. goods and services, particularly at a time when unemployment is nearly ten percent. The United States cannot afford to sit on 

the sidelines while the rest of the world is actively concluding new trade 

agreements that leave us out. The first step to getting back on the field is 

passing these trade agreements. It is time for the President to submit the 

three pending trade agreements to Congress for their consideration within 

six months.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The focus of the hearing is on Congressional consideration of the pending trade 

agreements and the benefits these agreements will bring to American businesses, 

farmers, workers, consumers, and the U.S. economy. The hearing will also explore 

developments with each of these countries that have occurred since the trade agreements were concluded. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you 

would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close 

of business on Thursday, February 8, 2011. Finally, please note that due to the 

change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical 

problems, please call (202) 225–1721 or (202) 225–3625. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 

record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, 

but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission 

provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for 

the printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for written 

comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will 

be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word or WordPerfect 

format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official 

hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:08 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 067469 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\67469.XXX GPO1 PsN: 67469

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
4 

ability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov/

f 

. 

Chairman CAMP. The committee will now come to order for the 

previously scheduled hearing on our three pending trade agreements and their job creation benefits. 

I would like to welcome all of you to the first trade hearing of 

the 112th Congress in which we will examine the three pending 

trade agreements, agreements that were all concluded in 2007, almost 4 years ago. 

I also expect to have Ambassador Kirk appear before the committee in the near future to talk about these agreements and our 

trade agenda. 

I would like to take a moment to welcome in particular Ambassador Silva from the Embassy of Colombia, as well as representatives from the Embassies of Panama and the Republic of Korea. I 

thank you all for attending and for being such strong advocates for 

these agreements because of the strong ties they will create between our countries. 

Given the delay in considering these agreements, I welcomed the 

President’s announcement last June of a clear timetable for resolving the outstanding issues surrounding the South Korea agreement. Mr. Levin and I worked closely together with stakeholders 

and the administration to arrive at a compromise that resolved the 

outstanding auto issues in the U.S.-South Korea trade agreement. 

Unfortunately, the administration has not taken the same productive approach to the Colombia and Panama agreements; and I hope 

the President lays out such a timetable in his address tonight. 

I strongly believe that we should consider all three agreements 

in the next 6 months. This deadline isn’t being driven by politics 

or posturing. It is driven by the need to create jobs for American 

workers. The three trade agreements are a sure-fire way to create 

American jobs by growing U.S. exports of goods and services and 

does not require one dime of new government spending. 

The President has noted that the South Korea agreement alone 

will create 70,000 American jobs. However, until Congress passes 

the agreements, our workers can’t realize these benefits. Continued 

delay also hinders the ability of American workers, businesses, and 

farmers to compete in these markets as our competitors move 

ahead. 

Last May, then agriculture Ranking Member Lucas and I released a report documenting how the delay in implementing the 

Colombian agreement allowed Argentina and Brazil to take market 

share from U.S. farmers in the Colombian market as they implemented their trade agreement with Colombia. I have just released 

an updated analysis showing that the ongoing delay has caused 

U.S. exports to Colombia to decline even further. This updated report also demonstrates that in stark contrast, the existing U.S.- 

Peru agreement has resulted in increased U.S. exports and increased market share. If we implement the Colombian agreement, 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
5 

we can enjoy similar gains as we are seeing in the Peruvian market. 

Other major economies, including the EU and Canada, have 

signed or are poised to sign agreements with Colombia, Panama, 

and South Korea. The EU-South Korea agreement is slated to 

enter into force on July 1st of this year. The Canada-Colombia 

trade agreement is also expected to enter into force this July. Implementation of their agreements, and continued inaction on our 

agreements, will result in further missed opportunities to create 

U.S. jobs. America cannot afford to fall further behind, and by 

standing still we are doing just that. In these difficult economic 

times, Congress and the Administration owe it to American workers, businesses, and farmers to take all available steps to increase 

exports in the jobs they support. 

These agreements create new exports and resulting jobs in several ways. 

First, they level the playing field for American workers by reducing foreign tariffs on U.S. exports. In fact, we enjoy a manufacturing trade surplus with our trade agreement partners. For some 

partner countries, the trade agreements have taken us from a deficit before implementation to a surplus afterward. The simple fact 

is that nearly all imports from Colombia and Panama already enter 

the United States duty free and U.S. exports to all three countries 

pay much higher tariffs than exports from those countries to the 

United States. These agreements would eliminate or substantially 

lower the tariffs on U.S. exports in all sectors, making our products 

more competitive. 

Second, the agreements remove existing non-tariff barriers and 

go a long way towards ensuring new barriers do not emerge. The 

agreements set standards to ensure sanitary and phytosanitary 

rules in agriculture are not used for protectionist purposes, provide 

strong protections for intellectual property rights, and encourage 

greater regulatory harmonization and the use of international 

standards. 

Third, as I have noted, these agreements maintain and improve 

U.S. competitiveness vis-a-vis exporters from other countries. Failure to implement the three pending trade agreements risks putting 

U.S. exporters at a competitive disadvantage in these markets, 

costing American jobs and slowing job creation. 

Finally, I want to note that it is not just big companies that benefit from these agreements. More than 80 percent of the exporters 

to each of the three markets are small- or medium-sized businesses 

with fewer than 500 employees. In many ways, these dynamic businesses and their employees have the most to gain from these agreements and the most to lose if we delay. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses, who represent the full 

spectrum of U.S. agriculture, manufacturing, and services interests, including both large and small businesses; and I look forward 

to your testimony. 

At this time, I will yield to Ranking Member Levin for the purposes of an opening statement. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

While from the outset most Republicans have been calling for immediate passage of all free trade agreements as originally negoVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:08 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 067469 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\67469.XXX GPO1 PsN: 67469

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
6 

tiated by President Bush, we have been working hard at fixing 

them. Our approach on the Democratic side was that each of the 

FTAs as originally negotiated did not embody a trade policy responsible to the changing dynamic of a globalized economy and to the 

best interest of the American people. Trade agreements need to be 

shaped so that as trade expands the benefits are spread more 

broadly. 

The intervening period since the initial negotiation of the FTAs 

has been for us in the Democratic ranks one of action, not of inaction. It has been an intensive effort to get trade policy right, and 

it has been working. We changed for the better the Peru FTA before its passage. We have substantially improved the Korea FTA, 

and we should have in the coming months the implementation language for consideration and approval. There is now the prospect of 

successfully addressing the tax haven and labor law concerns with 

the Panama FTA. 

With respect to the Colombia agreement, the new Santos administration has now articulated a new approach which provides an 

opportunity to address the serious concerns—and I underline 

them—consistently expressed by us regarding that FTA. 

We believe that each trade agreement should be considered on its 

own merits, not lumped together where key issues are ignored, as 

some would be willing to do. It was because of our efforts that enforceable worker rights and environmental standards were added 

to the U.S.-Peru FTA. As a result, labor conditions are improving 

in Peru. And while significant work remains to be done to implement and enforce the agreement’s environmental provisions, as a 

result of that amended FTA Peru has created a new Ministry of 

Environment, reformed its forestry oversight agency, revised its 

criminal laws to strengthen penalties for environmental crimes, deployed 3,000 police officers, and created new offices for environmental prosecutors. 

The agreement was also revised to balance the need to encourage 

innovation with the need to provide access for Peruvian citizens to 

affordable medicines. 

Importantly, the Peruvian government made necessary changes 

to its labor laws before the vote on the FTA, which was then 

passed by Congress with bipartisan support and signed by the 

President. 

Because of our efforts, the U.S.-Korea FTA is finally being fixed 

to open up markets where they were closed and to end one-way 

trade. For decades, Korea has employed a unique and ever-changing regulatory regime to discriminate against our auto imports, 

while the U.S. market has been open to their goods. As a result, 

U.S. automakers exported less than 6,000 cars to South Korea in 

2009. In contrast, South Korean automakers have been able to use 

their historically closed markets to finance an aggressive push into 

the U.S. market, exporting 476,000 cars to the U.S. in 2009. The 

imbalance is so severe that automotive trade accounts for 75 percent of the $10.6 billion U.S. trade deficit with Korea. 

The Republican majority long ago would have simply again accepted a flawed agreement. Fortunately, last year, with the support 

of Members of Congress, including our chairman, the automakers, 

and the UAW, the Obama administration negotiated an additional 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
7 

agreement that will provide U.S. automakers and part suppliers 

with a real opportunity to compete and succeed in the Korean market. With the changes achieved through the additional agreement, 

the U.S. auto industry, Ford, Chrysler, GM, and the UAW are supporting that agreement. 

Because of our efforts, we used the intervening period to address 

legitimate issues in the Panama FTA. Through the intensive efforts 

led by Representative Doggett and Senator Levin, the Obama administration successfully concluded a tax information exchange 

agreement in November, 2010, to address Panama’s status as a tax 

haven. That agreement still needs to be ratified by Panama. 

This administration has also been working to ensure that Panama’s labor laws comply with the FTA obligations, a process we 

started way back in 2007. Because of our efforts, there are now important labor law changes pending before the Panamanian legislature. If the approach had been followed by those who pushed for 

the immediate passage of the Panama FTA, we would have failed 

to address a tax haven country or to improve labor standards in 

Panama. 

A few days ago, I returned from 5 days of fact finding on the 

ground in Colombia meeting with widely diverse citizen groups and 

government leaders. I went 20 months ago, and I thought it important to compare conditions then and now. It is clear that the intervening period was important in focusing attention on serious concerns standing in the way of support for the Colombia FTA. Those 

issues include violence and intimidation in cases involving the exercise of human, political, and labor rights by workers and their 

leaders, a high level of impunity in such cases, and the failure to 

reform the legal and administrative structures relating to the exercise of basic international worker rights. 

Throughout my discussion, there seemed to be wide agreement 

that the new Colombian government—the new Colombian government—was expressing a different approach than its predecessor on 

these critical concerns. I believe there is now an opportunity for the 

two governments to work together mutually to achieve real 

progress on the ground. 

In closing, I say to the Republican majority, you may have been 

willing to press flawed trade agreements, but we were not. We 

went about fixing Peru, Panama, and Korea. It was time well 

spent. Instead of criticizing, there should be acknowledgement of 

the meaningful breakthroughs; and we should be working together 

to implement the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. 

I close with this. Today’s hearing is about trade policy and jobs. 

Yet there are other trade initiatives that have a serious impact on 

U.S. jobs. Much has been said in recent weeks criticizing House 

Democrats’ focus in particular on China’s currency manipulation. 

Well, we focused on it because it matters. China’s undervalued currency has been estimated to cost the U.S. 500,000 to 1.5 million 

jobs. 

According to the NAM—and I quote—the number one factor affecting their exports is the value of the dollar. I was pleased to 

work with Chairman Camp last fall on currency, an effort that resulted in majorities of both parties supporting the currency bill. I 

hope we can continue that effort this year while we also work on 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
8 

China’s other trade-distorting practices, including its massive subsidies, its failure to enforce intellectual property rights, its discrimination in government procurement, and its indigenous innovation policies. Let me repeat that we must address each trade issue 

on its own merits and move forward to grow our economy and 

American jobs and to compete internationally. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Today we are joined by five witnesses. 

Our first witness will be Roy Paulson, who is President of 

Paulson Manufacturing Corporation, a small manufacturing business in Temecula, California. Mr. Paulson is also testifying today 

on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers, and we 

welcome you to the committee. 

After him, we will hear from Bob Stallman. Mr. Stallman is 

President of the American Farm Bureau Federation and a rice and 

cattle producer from Columbus, Texas. 

Our third witness will be Michael Ducker, Chief Operating Officer and President, International, at Federal Express. 

Fourth, we will hear from William Toppeta, President, International, with MetLife. 

And, last, we will hear from Steve Biegun, who is a Corporate 

Officer and Vice President of International Governmental Affairs at 

the Ford Motor Company. 

We welcome all of you, and we look forward to your testimony. 

And I would ask that our witnesses keep their testimony to 5 minutes. 

Mr. Paulson, your written statement, like those of all of the witnesses, will be made a part of the record; and you are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROY PAULSON, PRESIDENT, PAULSON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS 

Mr. PAULSON. Thank you very much. 

Good morning, Chairman Camp, Ranking Member Levin, Members of the Committee. I am Roy Paulson, President of Paulson 

Manufacturing; and I am pleased to testify as a member of the 

board of directors of the National Association of Manufacturers. I 

have a prepared statement for the record and some brief remarks 

to make at this time. 

Paulson Manufacturing is a manufacturer of safety equipment, 

specializing in eye and face protection. This is a family business 

with about 140 employees, yet it is a high-technology business that 

utilizes state-of-the-art equipment and modern methods. You have 

seen our products many times as the face shields worn on firemen’s 

helmets and the heat-reflective face shields worn by steelworkers 

in steel mills. What you have not seen are the many forms of eye 

and face protection used in so many ways from medical surgery to 

high technology. 

We have an expanding business that is thriving even in the difficult economy. We design and manufacture our products in California with domestic materials and local labor. I am able to compete domestically and abroad with my product line as long as I am 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
9 

selling innovative, cutting-edge products. The keys are innovation, 

quality, and customer service. 

As I moved into the international markets, I brought along our 

business philosophy. I discovered that I could successfully sell to 

most countries with the proper application of our business methods 

and a large dose of patience. This helped to develop our long-term 

relations with our foreign customers, and we have been successful 

at building our distribution and creating repeat sales in many 

countries. 

Exports are tremendously important to my company. We export 

to 80 countries, and exports are now one-fourth of our business. I 

want to build on that, because markets around the world are growing faster than the domestic U.S. market. 

For small business to export more, foreign trade barriers must 

come down. That can only happen if we get trade agreements that 

will level the playing field and get rid of these barriers. Tariffs on 

U.S.-made products, including my company’s products, are much 

higher in most foreign markets than corresponding U.S. tariffs on 

the imports products. When we enter a trade agreement, our barriers drop very little. However, the other countries high tariff barriers drop a lot, as they go to zero. That is why trade agreements 

are a no-brainer to me. 

I truly don’t understand congressional reluctance, especially 

since the Commerce Department’s figures show the U.S. has a 

manufacturing goods trade surplus with our free trade partners. 

Over the past 3 years, that surplus has accumulated to over $60 

billion. 

There seems to be a myth in Washington that trade agreements 

caused the U.S. trade deficit and cost 5 million jobs. Frankly, even 

spending 5 minutes with the statistics shows that this is just plain 

wrong. 

I am one of those people who hope that Washington will act on 

facts, not on mythology. One good idea would be for this committee 

to ask the Commerce Department to brief you on the facts of trade, 

in fact, brief the entire House. 

I hope that you will look more closely at my prepared statement, 

which has a lot of facts about how these trade agreements are helping manufacturing in America. 

Now I would like to talk about my company, Paulson Manufacturing. We sell to all three of the countries where the U.S. has 

signed free trade agreements that have not yet been passed by 

Congress. In Panama, I face a 6 percent tariff; in Korea, 8 percent; 

in Colombia, 20 percent. I could sell a lot more to my customers 

if I could get my products in duty free, and I could find more customers in those countries. That means my sales would go up. I 

would gain on my competitors and could even be able to expand my 

workforce. My nightmare is that my competitors will get free trade 

agreements first, get in duty free, and I will lose out. 

Some people think that trade only benefits large companies. Absolutely untrue. I am here before you as an example, 140 employees and selling to 80 countries around the world. 

A lot of smaller companies in the NAM also export. I am on the 

District Export Council and many other export groups. We all export, and we want to export more. Fully 95 percent of all exporters, 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
10 

including to our free trade partners, are small- to medium-sized 

businesses. We are all frustrated by this body, and it has been 

keeping us from expanding our sales and our workforce. 

I need those trade agreements, and I want the government to 

move ahead with the Trans-Pacific Partnership and open these 

markets. I want you to also open up Brazil, India, and other markets to me. I want my company and family of employees to grow 

and prosper. To achieve that, I have to sell to more markets. 

Thank you very much for your time and for listening. I am ready 

to answer your questions at the end of everyone’s remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Paulson follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.001
11 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.002
12 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.003
13 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.004
14 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.005
15 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.006
16 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.007
17 

f 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Our next witness will be Bob Stallman. You have 5 minutes, and 

your written statement will be made a part of the record. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.008
18 

STATEMENT OF BOB STALLMAN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 

Mr. STALLMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Levin, Members of the Committee. I am Bob Stallman, President 

of the American Farm Bureau Federation and a rice and cattle producer from Texas. I appreciate the invitation to share the Farm 

Bureau’s views on the three pending free trade agreements and 

their benefits to U.S. agriculture. 

The Farm Bureau is the Nation’s largest general farm organization, with more than 6 million member families representing producers of nearly every commodity grown or raised commercially in 

all 50 States and Puerto Rico. We support passage of the Korea, 

Colombia, and Panama trade agreements with the United States. 

Combined, these agreements represent almost $3 billion in additional trade for U.S. agricultural producers, but that is only if they 

are implemented. 

The U.S. is facing a proliferation of FTAs, increasing the export 

potential of our competitors while putting U.S. agriculture at a disadvantage. Due to the administration and Congress’ inaction on 

these agreements, the debate is no longer simply about generating 

potential export gains, but it is now about how to prevent the loss 

of existing export markets. 

These trade agreements are not only important to the bottom 

line of America’s farmers and ranchers. They are important to the 

economic health of our rural communities and the overall U.S. 

economy. 

The USDA estimates that every billion dollars in agriculture exports supports 9,000 U.S. jobs. There is a long supply chain made 

up of American workers who get products from the farm gate to 

our foreign consumers. A decline in our exports means a decline in 

work for those that are a part of that supply chain. Given the state 

of our economy, we must do whatever we can to assure we are creating opportunities for work, not taking them away. 

The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement provides a significant opportunity for the U.S. agricultural sector. When the agreement is 

fully implemented, we estimate export gains to exceed $1.8 billion 

annually. 

Korea has completed an agreement with the European Union 

which is expected to be implemented by July of 2011. The KoreaEU FTA in 5 years will eliminate 94 percent of Korea’s tariffs. In 

contrast, the KORUS would eliminate 94.5 percent of Korea’s tariffs in 3 years of implementation. If the Korea-EU FTA agreement 

enters into effect before the KORUS, European exporters will gain 

a significant competitive advantage over the United States in the 

Korean market. 

Loss of market share in Korea because of U.S. competitors’ preferential access has become a reality for some segments of the U.S. 

agriculture. Wine consumption has been increasing in Korea. During the 2000 and 2009 period, Chilean market share by value rose 

from 2.4 percent to 21.5 percent, while the U.S. share fell from 17.1 

percent to 10.8 percent. This is believed to be the direct result of 

the 15 percent import duty eliminated on Chilean wine under the 

Korea-Chile Trade Agreement implemented in 2004. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
19 

The Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement eliminates Colombian 

tariffs on U.S. agriculture products, correcting the current imbalance in agricultural trade between our countries created in part by 

congressional passage and extension of the Andean Trade Preference Act. Our analysis of the agreement suggests gains in exports from this agreement of $815 million. 

While U.S. agriculture continues to wait for passage of the agreement, U.S. market share has been slipping in Colombia due to our 

competitors implementing their own trade agreements. According 

to the USDA, between 2008 and 2009 we have seen almost a 50 

percent drop in our exports, from 1.6 billion to 906 million. According to Colombia’s National Department of Statistics, our peak market share was 46 percent in 2008, while in 2010 it dropped to 21 

percent, being taken over by Argentina. In other words, the United 

States has already blown a major trade opportunity and will need 

to work hard to ever return to our earlier status. 

As a further example, traditionally, the United States has been 

the top supplier of corn, wheat, and soybeans. In terms of market 

share, Colombia statistics shows that the U.S. market share went 

from a peak of 76 percent in 2000 to just 27 percent in 2010, again 

being taken over by Argentina, with some competition also from 

Brazil. 

Under the Panama agreement, we estimate increased exports for 

the U.S. agricultural exports to exceed $195 million. Panama has 

completed a trade agreement with Canada. If this agreement enters into effect before the U.S. agreement, Canadian exporters will 

gain a significant competitive advantage over the United States for 

many products we can export. 

Mr. Chairman, just to restate, these agreements contain significant export gains for U.S. agriculture that will only be realized by 

passage and implementation. Conversely, the inaction has proven 

to result in loss of market share and forfeiture of economic growth 

here. The U.S. government’s inability to move these agreements 

benefits our foreign competitors and harms us. We urge that this 

Congress and the administration support and pass these agreements now and take full advantage of the economic opportunity 

they offer throughout the United States. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our views. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stallman follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
20 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.009
21 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.010
22 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.011
23 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.012
24 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.013
25 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.014
26 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.015
27 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.016
28 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.017
29 

f 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Ducker, you are also recognized now for 5 minutes; and your 

written statement is part of the record as well. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.018
30 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. DUCKER, CHIEF OPERATING 

OFFICER AND PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL, FEDEX EXPRESS 

Mr. DUCKER. Good morning. Thank you very much, Chairman 

Camp, Ranking Member Levin, distinguished members of the 

House Committee on Ways and Means. 

I am Mike Ducker. I am the Chief Operating Officer and President, International, for FedEx Express. I also serve as the Chairman of the U.S. Chamber’s International Policy Committee and am 

a member of its board of directors. The Chamber serves as secretariat for both the U.S.-Korea FTA Business Coalition and the 

Latin American Trade Coalition, which represents hundreds of 

American companies, business, and agricultural organizations and 

chambers of commerce that support approval of the pending free 

trade agreements. 

As you have heard, I have submitted written testimony for the 

record, but I am honored to be here today and would like to take 

just a few moments to discuss our company with the committee. 

I represent nearly 300,000 FedEx team members. As I said, I am 

honored to be here with my fellow panelists to have a discussion 

with you about how we can pass the trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea but, as importantly, how we can 

work together to position our businesses, our members, our workers, and our communities to thrive in this century in the global 

economy. 

We all share the same priority, igniting economic growth and job 

creation so we can leave the harmful effects of the recession behind 

and move forward towards a more prosperous future. Trade has to 

play a vital role in reaching our shared growth and job creation 

goals. 

The business community welcomed President Obama’s call last 

year to double U.S. exports within 5 years and the launch of the 

National Export Initiative, and we all look forward to his comments on trade and passing these trade agreements to enhance 

U.S. competitiveness at tonight’s State of the Union. 

How do we accomplish the bold goal of doubling exports in 5 

years? Well, the markets and consumers outside our borders represent 73 percent of the world’s purchasing power, 87 percent of its 

economic growth, and 95 percent of its consumers. Let me repeat 

that, 73 percent of the world’s purchasing power, 87 percent of its 

economic growth, and 95 percent of its consumers. We have to harness these new markets, this growth, and these new customers to 

lift our economy up and create jobs. 

Trade and trade agreements empower businesses of all sizes and 

their workers. We in the business community must work together, 

no matter our size, to ensure our suppliers, customers, and business partners can benefit from growth and trade as well. 

Our FedEx U.S. operations and our 230,000 American team 

members support our global express delivery network. Expansion of 

global trade strengthens FedEx and enables continued growth of 

our U.S. operations and workforce. As we grow and invest around 

the world, we create jobs here in the United States. Without global 

trade, FedEx would be a shadow of our current operations and our 

domestic U.S. workforce would be dramatically smaller. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
31 

But also consider this. As our global FedEx network expands, we 

purchase new planes, such as our new fleet of Boeing 777 freighters, new trucks, new equipment, supplies, and services. Our growth 

abroad increases our demand for goods and services from our suppliers and vendors here in the United States, which helps them 

grow their businesses and create jobs. 

We strongly support free trade agreements that create new commercial opportunities for our customers and us. At FedEx, we have 

seen the results from the free trade agreements currently in force. 

After implementation, two-way trade volumes between the United 

States and its free trade agreement partners increase. Demand for 

our services to and from those free trade countries increase. Our 

package volumes increase, and we expand our operations to accommodate that growth. It is really as simple as that. 

I joined FedEx in 1975 and started loading packages on small 

leased jets during the first years of the company when we served 

only a handful of the cities in the United States. I have grown with 

the company and worked here in the United States and around the 

world as their operations have expanded. I have seen firsthand 

how the global economy has developed, spending much of my career in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. 

Great opportunities are out there around the world for us and 

our customers and there are great challenges, but we in the private 

and public sector must act to seize those opportunities and overcome those challenges. For too long, the United States—— 

Chairman CAMP. I am afraid we are out of time. The remaining 

part of your statement can be a part of the record, your written 

statement. But thank you very much for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ducker follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
32 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.019
33 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.020
34 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.021
35 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.022
36 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.023
37 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.024
38 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.025
39 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.026
40 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.027
41 

f 

Chairman CAMP. Now, Mr. Toppeta will have 5 minutes; and, 

as with all the other witnesses, your full written statement will be 

a part of the record of this hearing. Thank you. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.028
42 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. TOPPETA, PRESIDENT, 

INTERNATIONAL, METLIFE 

Mr. TOPPETA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My company, MetLife is the premiere global life insurance company, serving more than 90 million customers in over 60 countries. 

On behalf of MetLife, I offer today our strongest possible support 

for the FTAs pending with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. 

Let me begin with our own competitive situation overseas. 

As an American company doing business in foreign countries, we 

have certain competitive handicaps which can be corrected by the 

FTAs. For us and for many in the services industries, the most important challenge in doing business overseas is not tariffs but nontariff barriers that exist in areas such as governmental competition, regulatory restriction, and unlevel playing fields. 

Trade agreements are an important vehicle to rectify those nontariff barriers to doing business abroad. Unlike here in the U.S., 

where our competitors are other private businesses and government is the impartial regulator, in some foreign markets we actually compete against government-owned or government-affiliated 

enterprises. So the foreign government is both our competitor and 

our regulator. If I may use a baseball analogy, this is like having 

the umpire playing for the other team. 

In FTAs, foreign governments can agree to correct this imbalance. For example, the KORUS FTA will allow U.S. insurers to 

compete with state-owned enterprises such as the Korea Post and 

other government-affiliated providers under essentially the same 

regulatory requirements. Korea’s commitments in the KORUS FTA 

to a number of reforms are intended to level the playing field between the government-owned Korea Post and the private sector. 

These commitments are vital to the growth of MetLife and other 

U.S. insurers in Korea. 

There is another way in which we face competitive disadvantages 

overseas. That is the case where our competitors from other countries have an FTA, say, with Korea and the U.S. does not. This is 

a clear and present danger in Korea. Korea has already negotiated 

an FTA with the European union which is on track to be implemented later this year. As you may know, we have major European 

competitors. If the Korea-EU Free Trade Agreement goes into effect 

this year and KORUS does not, we will be at a competitive disadvantage to European insurers. To use another baseball analogy, 

it will be as if the Europeans are putting nine players on the field 

and we can only use six or seven. This disparity can be avoided by 

passing the KORUS FTA promptly. 

My second point is to inform you about how growth of our business in foreign markets, which can be aided by the FTAs, creates 

and sustains jobs here in the U.S. The fundamental point here is 

that MetLife as a global life insurance company has businesses in 

many countries around the world, but we do not export products. 

Instead, we export competencies and expertise which come largely 

from the U.S., creating highly skilled, well-paying jobs right here 

at home. Let me give you an example. 

When we create a new product to offer in Korea, the product development and management are done largely in the U.S. The most 

highly skilled actuaries, investment professionals, risk managers, 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
43 

and others are here. So as we grow our business internationally we 

are expanding employment of people in the U.S.; and for each of 

these experts we employ in the U.S., there is a broad spectrum of 

U.S.-based support jobs behind them in areas such as human resources, information technology, and administrative assistance. 

I would also make a related point. MetLife as a global company 

has a highly diversified stream of revenues and earnings. One of 

the ways in which we are diversified is geographically. This year, 

more than 30 percent of our top-line revenues and about 40 percent 

of our bottom-line earnings will come from international business. 

This diversification is important because, as we know, the world’s 

economies do not always move in lockstep. 

Having diversified revenues and earnings from foreign markets 

allowed MetLife to perform very well during the recent financial 

crisis and to sustain U.S.-based jobs of employees supporting our 

international business. Since the FTAs will enable our growth 

abroad, they will have a direct and positive impact on creating and 

sustaining U.S. jobs. 

In conclusion, just let me say that American companies are innovative, American workers are highly productive. Given a fair 

chance, we can compete and win against anybody in the world. It 

is within your power to put us on a level playing field internationally. By passing these FTAs, you can make it so we don’t have to 

play against the umpire’s team overseas and you can let us play 

nine against nine on the foreign field. If you give us that fair 

chance, if you will unleash us, we can revitalize this economy and 

put Americans back to work in record numbers. We are asking for 

your support. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Toppeta follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
44 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.029
45 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.030
46 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.031
47 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.032
48 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.033
49 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.034
50 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.035
51 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.036
52 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.037
53 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.038
54 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.039
55 

f 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you very much for your testimony. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.040
56 

Mr. Biegun, you now have 5 minutes; and your written statement also is part of the record. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN E. BIEGUN, CORPORATE OFFICER 

AND VICE PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL 

AFFAIRS, FORD MOTOR COMPANY 

Mr. BIEGUN. Thank you, Chairman Camp and Ranking Member 

Levin and Members of the Committee for the invitation to share 

Ford Motor Company’s views today on Panama, Colombia, and 

Korea. Let me also say it is a real honor as a third-generation Ford 

Motor Company employee to represent my company before this distinguished panel today. Thank you. 

Ford Motor Company has supported every free trade agreement 

negotiated by the United States, including the three agreements 

that are being reviewed by the committee today. I look forward to 

especially discussing our views during the course of this hearing on 

the renegotiated 2010 U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. 

Since 2007, Ford has worked diligently to reach today’s position 

to say with confidence that the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement 

will open what has been to date the world’s most closed automotive 

market. We are now pleased to say that we strongly encourage the 

Congress to approve this agreement in its current form. Under it, 

America’s automobile industry will have far greater opportunity to 

expand the export and sale of American-made automobiles to 

Korea. 

This was not always the case. In 2007, a deal was originally negotiated that fell far short of opening the Korean market to U.S. 

auto exports; and, in fact, it would have locked in a one-sided trade 

in automobiles, a trade that accounts for 75 percent of the $11 billion United States trade deficit with Korea. This agreement, which 

hopefully will be before the committee soon, is a significant improvement over the 2007 deal. This outcome would not have happened without the active support and the leadership of the chairman and the ranking member of this committee as well as the tireless efforts of the U.S. trade representative and his team. On behalf of the more than 150,000 men and women who work at Ford 

Motor Company, I would like to say thank you. 

Specifically, improvements have been made in key provisions of 

the free trade agreement impacting car tariffs, auto safety, environmental standards, taxes, transparencies, and a variety of other 

issues, which I detail in my written testimony. 

We had several strong partners in reaching this outcome, certainly Chrysler and General Motors but also the United Auto 

Workers; and the results speak for themselves. I cannot recall in 

recent memory another free trade agreement moving through the 

Congress with bipartisan support as well as the backing of industry 

and labor. 

And this is a big deal. Korea is an important automotive market, 

with almost 1.5 million new cars sold every year. Ford has operated in Korea since 1995, selling both Ford and Lincoln brands. Almost all the vehicles we sell here are made here in the United 

States. Despite the fact that Ford Motor Company today makes 

cars and trucks that are best in class in safety, fuel efficiency, and 

quality, in 2010 our total exports were limited to approximately 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
57 

4,000 vehicles. We look forward under this new agreement to offering the Korean customer a choice of vehicles that has never been 

available to them before; and we are confident that, given the 

choice, like consumers around the world, they will choose the best 

value for the money. 

Mr. Chairman, though often overlooked, America’s automobile industry is one of the leading exporters in the American economy. 

Over the past 5 years, automobiles and auto parts have constituted 

nearly 9 percent of our total merchandise exports. In 2009 alone, 

our company exported 270,000 American-made cars to markets 

around the world. Including auto components and parts, we exported a total of $9.3 billion from the United States. 

We likewise are major importers, sourcing from a global supply 

chain that stretches across 90 countries and exporting from place 

of assembly to point of sale nearly half of the 5.2 million vehicles 

we make worldwide. 

We know that trade works. It should therefore not come as a surprise that, as a global company, Ford Motor Company believes that 

business is best where the trade barriers and tariffs are least. 

These conditions produce a healthy business climate benefiting all: 

customers, workers, and businesses. 

The latest economic downturn has provided ample illustration 

that manufacturing matters to American jobs, investment, and economic growth. While U.S. manufacturing took the brunt of the recession, there are now signs that it is leading the way to recovery. 

Last year, the American economy added manufacturing jobs for the 

first time in over a decade. 

Ford is proud to be at the forefront of American manufacturing’s 

turnaround. We began our transformation before the recession. We 

focused on the things that just made sense, return to our core 

strength, matching capacity to demand, and working with our employees to ensure that Ford not only competes but wins globally. 

Ford’s turnaround was its own, and now we will all benefit from 

this success. We recently announced that Ford will add 7,000 new 

American jobs over the next 2 years. The men and women of Ford 

Motor Company are working daily both for Ford and the Nation’s 

recovery. 

It has been a difficult and at times contentious effort to get the 

U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement through. But now we look forward, not back, to combining this agreement with our own transformation to build the best vehicles in America and deliver them 

around the world, including to Korea. That is what free trade is, 

and that is what free trade agreements should be about. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Biegun follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
58 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.041
59 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.042
60 

f 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you very much. Thank you all for your 

testimony. 

At this time, I have a question for all of the panelists here today; 

and if you could just answer briefly because we are all on the clock 

here on this. 

Will the three agreements—Korea, Colombia, and Panama—if 

passed help create jobs here in the United States? And if each of 

you could answer. 

Mr. PAULSON. Yes. Thank you very much. 

If the three agreements passed, for sure it will create jobs in the 

United States. I know that, in my own factory, for every $150,000 

of sales, we are able to hire another person to the factory; and we 

not just will be hiring production people but also people that will 

be in engineering and in the tool building end of the business. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Mr. Stallman. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Using our calculation that 9,000 jobs are created by every billion dollars of agricultural exports, these three 

agreements would add 27,000 jobs for Americans, assuming $3 billion in increased exports. More importantly, passing these three 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.043
61 

agreements will keep us from losing jobs that will occur when our 

competitors are out there taking over our markets. 

Chairman CAMP. That $3 billion is in the agricultural sector? 

Because I have seen higher numbers for the total exports of all 

three agreements. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Strictly for agriculture. 

Chairman CAMP. Mr. Ducker. 

Mr. DUCKER. Yes, sir. As I said in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, we have about 300,000 employees worldwide; 230,000 of those 

are in the United States. The U.S. is by far the largest business; 

and by harnessing the global market, shifting more into and out of 

the United States, we add employees here at home. So the benefits 

of those trade agreements are clear in our case. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Toppeta. 

Mr. TOPPETA. Yes. I would say in our case the answer is the 

same. 

If I give you my personal experience going back 10 years ago 

when we were much smaller, had virtually no business outside the 

United States, we had only a handful of people doing work internationally, and now we are probably at 2,000 or so employees. So 

the answer is, over that period of time, all because of international 

growth, we have increased jobs here from close to 0 to 2,000; and 

I expect that trend would continue. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Biegun. 

Mr. BIEGUN. Mr. Chairman, we do business in all three countries. We have a growing business in all three, and we export U.S.- 

made automobiles to all three. And to the extent that all three of 

these free trade agreements—well, the Korea in its renegotiated 

form going forward—all three would definitely help us expand our 

business, although the Korean market is six times larger than the 

Colombian market. So that is where the bulk of the opportunity is 

for us. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

A huge aspect of the trade debate is the unfair competition we 

face with China. As the ranking member pointed out in his opening 

statement, it is indisputable that China unfairly subsidizes its exports, fails to protect U.S. intellectual property, favors production 

by its own industries, and doesn’t allow its currency to reflect market realities. Our agreement with South Korea would allow us a 

beachhead in Asia and provide a counterbalance to China there. 

We are also seeing a growing influence of China in Latin America. Their reach is extending even to that part of the world, deliberately using all of the tools they have been using in the past to 

assist their companies in those markets. 

My question for each of the panelists and I will start with Mr. 

Paulson—is how will the three pending trade agreements help you 

compete against China? 

Mr. PAULSON. Thank you. 

For years I used to think I needed to play defense when I was 

working with foreign markets, and I would look at my prices and 

I would say I couldn’t compete on items, and I played defense and 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
62 

set up these walls. Well, I changed my mind, and I don’t really like 

to play defense. I like to play offense. 

When I could move into the offensive role and look to sell to 

these countries instead of worrying about them with what their activities were here in the United States, I found that even in China 

I do not have a problem selling. They love my products. They clamor for these items, and the issue about these different countries not 

wanting U.S. goods is just a misnomer. They want our products, 

and they will pay our prices for quality items. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Mr. Stallman, just briefly. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Agriculture is in a little bit different situation 

with China. China has 7 percent of the world’s arable land, over 

20 percent of the world’s population. They need to import food. 

They have moved into a position of being the number two importer 

of U.S. agricultural products, and so our flow is pretty good. There 

are specific areas that have created problems in the past in some 

commodities, but, in general, we view this as being very positive, 

even establishing a beachhead in Asia and then how that will affect the China market. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Ducker. 

Mr. DUCKER. Yes, sir. 

China is a large and growing part of our global enterprise. We 

do business in 220 countries and territories. We do think, as Bob 

said, it is very important to establish the beachhead there because 

many of the countries in Asia, are the largest trading lanes within 

Asia. So this beachhead is very important. It helps to put rules 

around how we trade and is a good, good creation for our business 

in China as well as the countries that are under consideration 

here. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

And Mr. Toppeta. 

Mr. TOPPETA. Well, I would just give you the example of Korea. 

I would say Korea is a huge market. It is a trillion dollar economy. 

It is a fast-growing economy. It is the eighth largest trading partner for the U.S. And if we don’t fight for that market, then it is 

clear to me that China and Europe surely will. So it would seem 

to me that we would be at our best advantage to get the FTA with 

Korea done so that we can establish our position firmly there. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

And Mr. Biegun. 

Mr. BIEGUN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the geopolitical argument that you are getting at in relation to China. 

From a narrow Ford Motor Company perspective, I would say the 

most important achievement in the Korea Free Trade Agreement 

was the United States standing firm on principle. It sends a message to the Asian economies across the board that you have to open 

your markets if you want free trade with us. I think that is beneficial for China and Korea and Japan and many other countries. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Thank you all very much. 

Mr. Levin is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you. 

We very much welcome your testimony. I really don’t think there 

is any disagreement about the globalization of the economy and the 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
63 

need for us to participate and to compete. The issue is under what 

standards and whether there are standards that relate to making 

sure that the benefits of expanded trade are expanded in terms of 

who benefits in this country in creating jobs and in other countries, 

for example, helping to develop middle classes there who can buy 

our goods. 

Let me, Mr. Toppeta, ask you a bit of an unfair question. You 

are sitting next to Mr. Biegun and you very graphically spelled out 

about the opening of the market for your services, the post owned 

by the government. If the free trade agreement with Korea had not 

opened up the market for your services, as Mr. Biegun has said it 

did not for automotive, would you be supporting the free trade 

agreement with Korea? 

Mr. TOPPETA. Well, the answer is, yes, but maybe not as vigorously as I am. And I will give you the example. 

Mr. LEVIN. Even if Korea continued to shut out your services? 

Mr. TOPPETA. Well, I think you have to look at this in two 

ways. I think you have to look at this, first of all, from a broader 

national perspective, right? The question is helping the U.S. to 

compete better. That is where I think all of us want to start our 

analysis. And so if we had an agreement in which a lot of our industry, our agriculture would benefit and my company wouldn’t, I 

would say, sure, I still support a free trade agreement. 

Mr. LEVIN. How about not your company but the services—your 

industry? 

Mr. TOPPETA. Yeah, I think the same logic applies. I think we 

want to get the market open. And if we can pry the market open 

for one sector or two sectors or three sectors, that would be a start. 

So my answer is I would still support and my company would still 

support—and I will give you the example of Colombia and Panama. 

Mr. LEVIN. Let me ask you about Korea. What if your services 

represented two-thirds of the deficit in trade with Korea? Automotive is two-thirds of the deficit and so, in terms of a closed market, Mr. Biegun has indicated it is the most closed market in the 

world. So even if your industry represented two-thirds of the deficit 

with Korea, you will still say okay? 

Mr. TOPPETA. Well, I think, sir, it depends on what the rest of 

the agreement does and what it does for the U.S. economy. You 

can’t look at everything just from your own narrow perspective. 

And the point that I was trying to make to you is that, with respect 

to Colombia and Panama, we weren’t even doing business in Colombia and Panama until November of last year; And we supported 

the free trade agreements in principle because we thought they 

were a good idea for our economy. 

Mr. LEVIN. You say the word ‘‘narrow’’. You talked about nontariff barriers as the most important barrier. 

Mr. TOPPETA. For my company and my industry. 

Mr. LEVIN. Exactly. And the nontariff barriers in Korea represented two-thirds of the deficit. We have a major deficit with 

Korea. All right. Maybe we will leave it at that. 

Mr. Paulson, I just want to say I am glad Mr. Camp asked you 

the question about China. And while your company may be able to 

benefit from their rules, a lot of companies don’t see it the same 

way. In many cases, the Chinese say we will let you compete only 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
64 

if you transfer your technology to a partner. In those cases, I think 

many, many companies in this country and its workers say that is 

not trade the way it should be. So talking about having a broader 

perspective, I think as we look at our relationship with China—and 

I favor engaging in expanding trade—we need to look at the rules 

of engagement. 

My time is up. 

Chairman CAMP. Your time has expired. But if you would just 

like to make a brief comment. 

Mr. PAULSON. Thank you very much. 

It is interesting what you bring up with China. China asked us 

to bring over the rules and regulations of safety businesses for electrical safety workers to China so they could view those rules and 

see how they could improve their own circumstances. They didn’t 

try and copy our product. What they did was trying to learn from 

us how to protect the workers who are the highly trained electricians. And in this way not only did we export our products but 

we exported the knowledge of the National Fire Protection Association codes for electrical workers. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Herger is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, this is indeed a critical hearing that has been 

long overdue. I represent a district with very high unemployment. 

I know that is characteristic throughout our Nation. So I would 

like to thank you for making this a priority and for giving us the 

opportunity to explore how these pending FTAs will provide an immediate boost to our economy and create much-needed American 

jobs. 

Mr. Stallman, as a member who represents one of the richest agricultural districts in the Nation, one that stands to gain significantly from the tariff reductions included in these agreements for 

products like almonds, walnuts, and dried plums, I am interested 

in exploring how increased agriculture export will benefit our local 

communities and the broader economy. 

In your testimony, in answer to several questions, you alluded to 

a comment in your testimony that the Agriculture Department estimates that every billion dollars in agricultural exports supports 

9,000 U.S. jobs. The Farm Bureau estimates that U.S. agriculture 

exports will increase by almost $3 billion, which would mean 

27,000 jobs. Would you provide more detail about how that supply 

chain works and how additional agricultural exports benefit the 

broader U.S. economy? And please also provide some insight as to 

how these exports might be particularly valuable or helpful for 

small businesses that support our agricultural sector or are part of 

the supply chain. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Certainly, I will try to do that. The entire 

chain, the food chain, and—starts at the farm gate. And a lot of 

times people think about agricultural exports only in the context of 

what is being produced when it leaves the farm gate. Well, the reality is we have transportation workers, processors, packers, longshoremen at the port, sales and marketing employees, administrative and clerical staff for the companies involved. That whole chain 

that is necessary to move that product from the farm gate to our 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
65 

customer in other countries creates jobs, and it all starts at the 

local level. 

The processing facilities many times, particularly for some of the 

products that you talked about, are placed at the local level. You 

have the transportation workers that ship from the local level that 

probably live there, and they truck or load up the products to be 

sent on further up the chain. 

So this has broad benefits and a broad effect across all of our 

economy, and those jobs are spread across that entire supply chain. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you. 

You also discussed in your testimony how exports of Chilean 

wine into Korea have grown exponentially and clearly have supplanted market share from U.S. wine exporters. You attributed the 

decline in U.S. exports to the 15 percent duty that was eliminated 

under the Korea-Chile trade agreement, but remains in place for 

U.S. wine exporters. Do you have any other examples of how we 

have lost market share while others gained by having an agreement in place? 

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, we have examples scattered—well, let me 

start with the Korea agreement. And this is what I fear will happen is that when the EU implements the agreement effective in the 

summer of this year, their schedule applies to reducing 94 percent 

of the tariffs over a 5-year period, while our agreement with Korea, 

if we get that implemented, we reduce the same amount of tariffs 

over a 3-year period. So that gives us a jump, and just like the 

Chilean wine agreement, any time you have a tariff that is reduced 

for one country to the detriment of another country that is putting 

that product in there, your product is at risk. You are going to lose 

market share. It is happening in Colombia right now with corn and 

wheat and soybeans. 

That will be the continued example that we will see if we don’t 

get these agreements in place to reduce the tariffs for our products 

going into those countries. 

Mr. HERGER. So what you are saying, as I understand it, is that 

not only if we are not out signing and implementing trade agreements with other countries, we are not just standing still; we are 

actually losing market share and losing jobs by not participating in 

these agreements. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Absolutely. And in the past that has not been 

a problem. We have always looked at moving forward with our 

trade agreements. Other countries have caught on to this, and they 

are creating their own free trade agreements with these countries 

and getting into the markets that we have traditionally had, and 

for us to sit back and do nothing puts us at a continuing disadvantage. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Johnson is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ducker, in the 3 years before implementation of the U.S.- 

Australia agreement, exports from Texas to Australia averaged 

$800 million a year. And in the 3 years after implementation, they 

went to $1.3 billion a year, or 66 percent. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
66 

And you know—and the U.S.-Chile thing was the same thing. 

The agreement to—exports from Texas to Chile were declining, and 

since implementation, the exports have increased by 107 percent. 

I think the benefits of previous trade agreements are really pretty obvious. And you are all over the world, so can you see changes 

in the way people conduct business in these countries as compared 

to exporting from the United States? Are you now seeing exports 

coming from the rest of the world into these countries that we don’t 

have agreements with? 

Mr. DUCKER. Yes, sir, Congressman Johnson. Having lived outside the United States for a long time, at least half of my career, 

I can unequivocally tell you that not only are other nations taking 

advantage of the burgeoning global trade, but, as my colleagues 

have mentioned here, moving rapidly to gain access to these other 

markets through their trade agreements. And there is no doubt 

that the numbers that you just mentioned there, as well as some 

of the numbers that are in my testimony regarding NAFTA, absolutely are indisputable that the world is moving on and, in fact, 

taking a page out of our playbook about these free trade agreements. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You know, we have got to stop sitting on our 

hands, don’t we? 

Mr. DUCKER. We have to move, sir. It is an imperative. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You know, 26 percent of all manufacturing jobs 

in Texas depend on exports. That is more than one in every four 

workers. Between 2005 and 2008, the number of manufacturing 

jobs in Texas dependent on exports increased from around 161,000 

to 225,000, an increase of 38 percent. 

Mr. Paulson, you rightly note in your testimony that standing 

still on trade agreements is more accurately described as falling behind. I couldn’t agree more. How has U.S. manufacturing in general been affected by the delay in implementing these three trade 

agreements? 

Mr. PAULSON. It is not just an effect with these three countries; 

it is a vision to the whole world that the United States turned off 

the sign that says ‘‘We are open for business.’’ We want to turn 

that sign back on, because if we are stalling out in these agreements, what are we going to stall out next? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Rangel is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and let me 

thank all of you for sharing your views with us. While it is true 

that there are a few Members that would accept any agreement 

that we might come up with, or there are others that no matter 

how good the agreement is, that they would be opposed to it. But 

I think the vast majority of Members, Democrats and Republicans, 

recognize that we have an excellent opportunity to create jobs, to 

create competition, to have economic growth, and that I think all 

of you would agree that having a competitive educational system 

is important. So I do hope that all of you would send to me what 

efforts you are making in order to improve the quality of education 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
67 

of all Americans so that indeed we can compete with international 

workers. 

And I think you have to agree, too, that having an educated and 

healthy workforce is helpful. And I would like to get your views as 

to what role, if any, you think the United States Government 

should play in making certain that all of our workers have access 

to the best health care that is possible in order to be competitive. 

So I hope that you would share those things with me. I don’t want 

to take the committee’s time, but I do hope that I do receive some 

very, very positive things that you are doing. 

Let me ask this as it relates to Korea. There are so many reasons 

why we should support the free trade agreement with Korea. Not 

only are they are our friends and, as people have pointed out, a 

largest trading program, but they represent the center of democracy in this part of the world. It is a part, I think, about national 

security. We have had troops there since I first went in 1950 to 

Korea, and they are still there after 60 years, and so, therefore, we 

do have a vested interest in Korea. 

I want to know whether anyone sitting at this table would have 

supported an agreement with Korea that actually singled out our 

automobile industry for exclusion, where they would accept 6,000 

cars and send over half a million cars. It is not just automobiles 

in Detroit, it is the heart of American manufacturing. Without the 

changes that I understand have been made, would any of you have 

supported the Korea FTA? So I—— 

Mr. PAULSON. Excuse me. I would liked to answer you because 

you did ask us a question. 

Mr. RANGEL. I am waiting for an answer, Mr. Paulson. 

Mr. PAULSON. Certainly. 

The Korean FTA has more in it than simply automotives. The 

NAM, National Association of Manufacturers, has consistently said 

that an improvement to the Korean FTA in respect to the automotive industry was needed, and as you have seen, the USTR Kirk 

has done an excellent job of achieving this. 

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Paulson, that is a wonderful answer, and I 

don’t think anyone can challenge it, but my question to you is that 

if these corrections had not been made in terms of the barriers that 

Korea has put up to American-manufactured cars, would you support that agreement, not the one that I am being supportive of 

today? 

Mr. PAULSON. I have to say that I was not particularly privy 

to that. 

Mr. RANGEL. Okay. You don’t know. Okay. 

Let me ask this, then, as it relates to Panama, because we 

worked on all of these things, and so I am trying to shatter the 

myth that one party is for trade, and the other party is against 

trade. I think we have a great agreement with our friends in Panama. But I ask the question would any of you support the Panamanian FTA if you knew that they refused to sign an agreement with 

us as it relates to them providing a tax haven for billions of dollars 

from American taxpayers being lost? Would you support the Panamanian agreement knowing this and knowing that our government objected to their failure to sign such a tax exchange—information exchange agreement? Would you support that agreement 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
68 

knowing that it had this fault, which I understand now, Mr. 

Paulson, has been corrected? 

Mr. STALLMAN. Congressman Rangel, we would have. We view 

trade agreements through the lens of—really two lenses: one, what 

it does for U.S. agriculture; but then more importantly what it does 

for the economies of the respective countries. Because it is a very 

simple calculation. As economic growth occurs, and as standards of 

living increase, that increases opportunities to provide for food—— 

Mr. RANGEL. I understand that. 

Chairman CAMP. The gentleman’s time has expired, and at this 

time I would recognize Mr. Brady for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BRADY. First, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the timeliness 

of this hearing. Trade has been locked away in a closet for too long 

here in Congress. It is appropriate on the day the President will 

address the Nation on the State of the Union to focus on jobs and 

competitiveness that we are hearing from leaders in manufacturing, in agriculture, in services, in automobiles, real job creators 

who are telling us that trade and these pending trade agreements 

are the answer, are one key component, to creating new U.S. jobs 

and competitiveness, and making the point, too, that clearly America is falling behind our competitors, is costing us U.S. jobs, and, 

I think, undermining the credibility as we go forward on the global 

stage to level the playing field. 

I credit the President and USTR for making a very solid agreement even better and clearing the way for passage of that agreement. I think it is important to make distinction between improvement for the sake of passage versus improvement as an excuse for 

further delays, which is what I see with the Panama and Colombia 

agreements. 

Clearly Panama, in the 4 years since the agreement has been 

signed, has literally met every request that this Congress and 

White House, frankly, could dream of, not only incorporating the 

bipartisan May 10th agreement, but also passing tax and labor 

laws to meet every request from the U.S. Government. Panama is 

ready to go. We have the votes to pass it tomorrow. It is time to 

open that market. No more excuses. 

Colombia is the same. Colombia continues to make dramatic improvements in human rights, labor rights, in protecting labor leaders from violence, and protecting and creating rule of law in their 

country. In fact, the independent organizations looking at Colombia, the International Labor Organization, recognizes the improvements Colombia has made by removing Colombia from its labor 

watch list. The U.N. High Commission for Human Rights has cited 

Colombia’s improvements. The European Union’s latest report on 

human rights acknowledged the evident reduction of cases of violence. And we have bipartisan support from people like Senator 

Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. 

Colombia is making remarkable progress, and I think the new 

government is not a new opportunity for progress, but the continuation of the same opportunity for progress and, unless we move, 

the same opportunities for harm for our U.S. workers. 

So I guess my question today with competitiveness as the issue, 

from a jobs perspective, from a competitiveness perspective, is it 

time, in your opinion, to move these three pending agreements, and 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
69 

does the failure to move undermine our competitiveness as a country? Mr. Paulson? 

Mr. PAULSON. Thank you. 

Yes, if we don’t move, as I said previously, it shows the world 

that we are not open for business in this country. But if we do 

move, and we do it quickly and appropriately, we will see that 

there will be more and more business that will come here to the 

United States not just from these trade agreements, but from our 

other trading partners. 

Thank you. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Absolutely we need to move forward. If we 

don’t, we will be at a competitive disadvantage. 

Let me make one point about Colombia because I don’t think it 

has been talked about. People want to level the trade playing field. 

Our Members want to do that. You hear that continually. This 

Congress has passed the Andean Trade Preferences Act and renewed it. That gives them access to our markets. By them reducing 

tariffs when they already have access to our markets, we are leveling the playing field, and that is what the Colombia agreement 

is about for American agriculture. 

Mr. BRADY. Two-way trade, not merely one-way trade. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Ducker. 

Mr. DUCKER. Yes, sir, Mr. Congressman, it is time to move. We 

fly airplanes into all three of these countries. I have been to Colombia several different times and note, as you do, the improvements 

that have been made in that environment. And as my colleague 

states, some of the tariffs that exist on American exporters today 

into Colombia in particular would be eliminated as a result of this 

agreement. 

Others are moving rapidly to create their own agreements with 

these countries, and I do believe it is urgent that we move and pass 

these free trade agreements to the benefit of our workers here. 

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Toppeta. 

Mr. TOPPETA. I agree. As I said in my testimony, we support 

all three. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. 

Mr. Biegun. 

Mr. BIEGUN. Mr. Brady, we support all three agreements, and 

we are confident that the committee will find a way to move forward to get all three through. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Stark is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the 

panel for enlightening us today. 

I would like to, as the chairman has, just go down the list with 

you and say while I am encouraged by the idea of free trade agreements, what are the pitfalls? What do we want to watch out for? 

It can’t be all 100 percent in our favor. Ford Motor has an issue. 

I am sure that small manufacturers do. What need we—you have 

all outlined for us the benefits. What, if any, very quickly, are the 

dangers we have to watch out for? 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
70 

Mr. PAULSON. Well, I think you just properly described the free 

market, because there is always this situation that there is a pushme, pull-you circumstance that occurs, and the cream will rise to 

the top, and that will be us. 

Mr. STARK. Ag? 

Mr. STALLMAN. You always have to watch out for the details 

of access basically, and I will give you an example with Korea. Rice 

as a commodity. 

Mr. STARK. That is important to California. 

Mr. STALLMAN. That is why I mentioned it. That was taken off 

the table during negotiations. The Koreans are extremely sensitive 

about that. The reality is that is not going to be a huge market for 

us. We have much better markets elsewhere. But when you look 

at the package—and that is what we do as a general farm organization—when you look at the package, it is positive for U.S. agriculture. 

Mr. STARK. Beef? 

Mr. STALLMAN. The beef issue, we are getting beef back into 

that market. We are still encouraging the Koreans to adhere to 

international standards. They have continually said that when 

their consumer confidence increases, they will. But beef is flowing 

back into that market at a rapid rate from the U.S. 

Mr. DUCKER. Yes, sir, Congressman, I think one of the things 

that you have to be careful of in the trade agreements is a balance, 

and striking the proper balance. That is why it is a negotiation. 

Not everybody is going to win on every point, but as long as the 

broader perspective is maintained and we get good balance in the 

free trade agreements, then I think the country is best served. 

Mr. STARK. You are suggesting that we win in one free trade 

agreement but maybe give up in the other, and the balance ends 

up—— 

Mr. DUCKER. I am suggesting that in all of those free trade 

agreements there is a balance in a number of different technical 

points. So in one agreement there may be agricultural provisions 

that need assistance; in others there may be service agreements. 

But I am saying the balance on both sides. 

Mr. STARK. Could you give me an example of a State law or regulation that hurts the life insurance business? Specific? 

Mr. TOPPETA. Sorry, Congressman? A State law in the U.S.? 

Mr. STARK. No, no, in Korea or wherever. 

Mr. TOPPETA. That hurts? Oh, yeah. I can give you lots of examples of that. I think that in the current situation in Korea, one 

of the things—we take for granted here in the U.S. that you know 

what the rules are. You know what the law says. You know what 

the regulations are. 

In Korea, we are frequently subject to what I would call ‘‘desk 

drawer’’ rules, which means the regulator has got something in his 

desk drawer, you don’t know what it is, and at the appropriate moment after you have done something, he pulls it out and says, oh, 

by the way, this is the rule. 

Notice and comment provisions, due process provisions are extremely important. They are actually in this agreement, so I think 

that is a plus for us. But right now there are a number of these 

things which regulatory transparency is a big issue for us in Korea. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
71 

The other thing I would say, you asked a question about things 

to watch out for. I think the big thing to watch out for in all agreements are the follow-throughs. I agree with Mike that, you know, 

in any agreement you are going give something, and you are going 

to get something, but once you get commitments, you have to make 

sure that there is a follow-through. Again, in the KORUS agreement we have established an insurance working group between the 

two countries to work out these differences. 

Mr. STARK. Can their life insurance companies sell in our country? 

Mr. TOPPETA. Yes, they can under the agreement. 

Mr. STARK. Thank you. 

Mr. BIEGUN. Mr. Stark, in the automobile sector, tariffs generally—except in exceptional cases, tariffs are not the barrier to imports. It is the nontariff barriers, The regulatory differences often 

created specifically to impede imports. So you have to build in the 

market to that standard. So in the FTAs that is the fine print that 

we really have to spend a lot of time looking over. 

Mr. STARK. You will have to explain to me later what a third 

of a car is. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Nunes is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I do want to remind the committee that it has 

been 4 years these trade agreements have been pending, more or 

less. We had President Bush, who was willing to sign free trade 

agreements for the first 2 years. The last 2 years, we had President 

Obama and the Democratic Congress, who for the most part has 

said he supports moving these agreements; however, we have not 

seen the agreements move. And despite the sluggishness in our 

economy, despite all of these fine gentlemen here saying they 

would benefit from these agreements, we still have yet to see any 

real movement. 

This President’s National Export Initiative—and I know we politicians love to come up with these wonderful names—in 2009, we 

had $1 trillion in total trade in this country. This initiative set out 

by the President wants to double U.S. exports. And I guess my 

question to the panel—and this is open to anyone who wants to answer it—is this a reasonable expectation to be able to double our 

exports in the near term, to go from $1 trillion to $2 trillion? And 

how far down the line would these three agreements get us? I 

guess we will go to Mr. Paulson first. 

Mr. PAULSON. Thank you. 

I really do feel that the NEI is an achievable goal for our country, and it also puts us into the position that we are striving towards that goal instead of just letting things happen as they may 

occur over time. 

Mr. NUNES. But, Mr. Paulson, can we get there by not passing 

trade agreements? 

Mr. PAULSON. We must pass the trade agreements, and work 

towards the trans-Pacific agreement, and work towards other trade 

agreements, not just these three. We have to go beyond that. You 

can see how other countries, like the cooperation of the EU, is 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
72 

working to establish trade agreements. We have to do the same 

type of work. 

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Stallman. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, I don’t think we can do it without passing 

agreements and negotiating new agreements, reducing tariff barriers and nontariff barriers. But I am encouraged. I think we can 

accomplish the goal. Agriculture already has very significant exports. But if you look at the numbers between 2010 and 2011, we 

are projecting basically a 20 percent increase in agricultural exports, and as world demand increases, I think that number will 

continue to go up. So if we keep working at it, keep enforcing current trade agreements, I think we can do it. 

Mr. DUCKER. Congressman Nunes, the answer is unequivocally 

yes, that we can achieve that initiative. If you look at the 5 years 

between 2003 and 2008, we increased our exports by 79 percent. 

The global economy is expanding. People want to do business with 

the U.S. And I would also point out that during that 5-year period, 

that we implemented free trade agreements with 10 countries, and 

we also saw earlier agreements like NAFTA attain full implementation. 

So I think the lesson is we can do it, yes. We cannot do it without free trade agreements and an opening up of our trade platform. 

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Toppeta. 

Mr. TOPPETA. Yes, I believe we can do it with the FTAs. I think 

it is a matter of record that the first letter sent from the President’s Export Council to the President himself was in support of 

the three FTAs. So I think the President’s Export Council believes 

that we need to get the free trade agreements in order to do this. 

The other point I would make is that I think you can’t really do 

it without services. And the reason I would emphasize that is services are 75 percent of the U.S. GDP, and they are 40 percent of our 

exports. And I think that tells a big story. There is a huge opportunity to increase our exports of services. 

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Biegun. 

Mr. BIEGUN. Yes, sir, I agree with what the other witnesses 

have said, and I would add the emphasis of quality agreements. So 

the renegotiated Korea Free Trade Agreement does offer us this opportunity, in our estimation. But it is a total effort. It is also enforcement. It is competitiveness of the economy. And, frankly, the 

lion’s share of the responsibility is ours, as leaders in our companies, to be able to build the highest quality, the most desirable 

products and get out there in the world and sell them. And that 

is our job, and we are willing to take that on. 

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Stallman, I am going to submit a question 

about nontariff barriers to trade specifically dealing with agriculture. As you know, some agricultural products do very well, especially when those countries need those products like corn and 

wheat and other products. And then when it comes to certain types 

of fruits and vegetables, they tend to put up nontariff barriers to 

trade. So I will address that in writing. 

Chairman CAMP. Mr. Tiberi is recognized. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
73 

I thank you all for being here. I come from Ohio. We have lost 

400,000 jobs over the last 4 years in Ohio, many in manufacturing, 

not all manufacturing. 

But in your testimony, Mr. Paulson, you express a number of different things, and one was frustration with this body, and one was 

talking about the mythology of trade. I do want to remind you that 

some of us up here have supported free trade. Some of us have supported more trade and are just as frustrated, but from a different 

perspective, as well. Let me give that to all of you. 

As part of the President’s Export Council, as was just mentioned—Mr. Reichert and I serve on that—a year ago the President 

talked about doubling exports in the next 5 years. This is the same 

President who, as a candidate in Ohio, less than a year earlier 

campaigned in Ohio about repealing NAFTA. Now, in Ohio, 

NAFTA means also trade with Canada, which has created a whole 

lot of jobs for Ohioans. Now, that is a big change, from repealing 

NAFTA to doubling exports, our largest trading partner being Canada in Ohio, in the next 5 years. 

In the fall of 2010, after the President, before the export council, 

talked about doubling exports, we saw a record number of advertising by a lot of different people who were antitrade, including the 

Democrat Congressional Committee, Democratic Governors Association, labor unions, millions and millions of dollars. I had conversations with your association in Ohio, your association in Ohio, 

the Chamber in Ohio, a number of different folks who say trade is 

good, and not one, not one, zero associations, zero employers, did 

anything to counter the millions of dollars in negative advertising 

on trade. 

And this has been building over years, and 2010 saw the record. 

What I would say to all of them is if this is so good, why aren’t 

you countering to the American people, to the Ohioans in this case, 

why trade is good? When you open a new plant and say to me it 

is because of exports, why aren’t you calling the local TV stations 

then and saying these 100 jobs are because of the trade agreement 

with CAFTA; these 25 additional jobs are because of what we are 

doing because of NAFTA or whatever else it is? 

There has never been an answer, yes, we have done that; yes, we 

are educating the public. So my question for you, Mr. Paulson, and 

for the entire panel is, number one, why are your associations—I 

understand you as public companies may have other things to do, 

but you are a board member of NAM—why aren’t you more engaged in communicating to the public the benefits of trade? It is 

great that you are here today, but if this is so good, why are all 

of these associations not doing what the protectionist side does in 

saying this is good for the American economy, this is good for the 

American worker, this creates jobs? Why aren’t you doing that? 

And when you expand—because you all said if these three trade 

agreements pass, we will have more jobs in America—are you 

going to put out a press release saying that these jobs are directly 

responsible to this trade agreement? 

And number two, are you communicating with your employees 

that trade is good? 

I would like to hear from all of the gentlemen. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
74 

Mr. PAULSON. I will try to be quick. First of all, if you go onto 

export.gov Web site, you will see that I am on it promoting trade. 

On the U.S. Chamber Web site, Paulson Manufacturing is listed as 

Faces of Trade for California. And on NAM, we have been doing 

one heck of a job of trying to communicate the advantages of trade. 

Mr. TIBERI. Zero TV ads, sir. Nobody in downtown Columbus is 

seeing it. 

Mr. PAULSON. In Ohio, having just been there visiting my customers, I went into one of my customers that works with me over 

there. I sell to him my products, and he says to me 13 to 30 percent 

of the products I ship to him he reexports with value-added products, sewn goods in that particular case. And that fellow needs a 

new factory because he has no room in his factory anymore because 

he has got so many people. 

Mr. STALLMAN. We don’t have the resources to do national TV 

advertising campaigns, but we are very active in editorials, press 

conferences, news releases, and not only at the national level. That 

spreads down to our State and local levels. I personally try to get 

editorials in major newspapers around the country. So we have 

been very active. We have a complete educational campaign called 

Trade Matters, which is once again spread out around the country 

through our grass-roots network. 

I think we are fully engaged. And I don’t know what to say about 

TV advertising given today’s media and communications systems 

as they exist. I am not sure that national TV advertising necessarily is the sole answer to this educational issue. 

Chairman CAMP. The time has expired, but if the remaining 

three would just give a quick answer, we will move on. 

Mr. DUCKER. Yes, sir, I will be very quick. 

We are committed to educating our workers and our customers. 

Our Web site blogs extol the virtues of global trade. Our relationship with the Commerce Department that has been ongoing for 

many years, helps small and medium enterprises to find new export markets. And our Faces of Trade program, which was just 

mentioned, with the Chamber. So there are a number of activities 

there. And even in our global advertising, it takes a particularly 

global tone about trade and the benefits of that to our viewers. But 

we don’t do major campaign ads about trade. 

Chairman CAMP. Mr. Toppeta. 

Mr. TOPPETA. I would second what Mike has just said in terms 

of what we have done. We have done internal communication with 

our own employees. 

But to your point, I certainly would concede that we could do a 

better job of communicating with the public on these kinds of 

issues. 

Mr. BIEGUN. Congressman, we love trade. We sell trade. We 

benefit from trade. When we launched our 2011 Ford Explorer, the 

2010 truck of the year, the central message was this vehicle is 

going to be exported to 90 markets around the world. It created 

1,200 new jobs in a Chicago assembly plant, 600 supplier jobs in 

Indiana, Ohio and Michigan. And it is an exciting opportunity for 

us, and as we see the successes from this renegotiated Korea Free 

Trade Agreement, we are looking forward to sharing those not only 

with the committee and the Congress, but also with our partners 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
75 

in the UAW to show that quality trade agreements can work for 

America. 

Chairman CAMP. Mr. McDermott is recognized. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have sat on this committee since 1991, beginning with NAFTA 

and the World Trade Organization and China accession. I have listened to panels like there over and over again, and I have heard 

promises, and we saw side letters on NAFTA and other things. 

I want to ask a simple question of all five of you. Is there any 

problem you have with taking the time to negotiate labor and environmental provisions in these trade agreements? Is that something 

that you think was a useful thing to do? 

Mr. PAULSON. Thank you for the question. The NAM’s point of 

view is that social portions of the trade agreements should not be 

part of the trade agreements, but should focus more on the trade 

issues that are associated. But if I may please add in, don’t forget 

that our influences of working with these countries on a businessto-business value or business-to-business circumstance will have a 

huge change within these countries over a period of time, because 

while you are our Representatives, when we go into the field, we 

are the representatives of the United States. 

Mr. STALLMAN. We have much the same view, that trade 

agreements need to be focused on economics because of the benefits 

that that brings and also the increased standard of living. The increased standard of living, you reduce political strife and improve 

labor conditions. But we have accepted and probably think it is a 

good idea that in agreements that countries should state that they 

will adhere to international standards and international conventions, which is the level at which we think it is appropriate for 

labor and environmental agreements to be included. 

Mr. DUCKER. Very similarly, as I said a little bit earlier, there 

should be balance in the trade agreements. If there is time that 

needs to be taken to balance some of those agreements, yes. But 

the bulk of the agreements should be on the economic benefits of 

free trade on both sides. And so we have had, as I think one of the 

Members pointed out, a 4-year hiatus in terms of moving some of 

these agreements forward. 

Mr. TOPPETA. I would echo what my colleagues have said. I 

think again Mike is right. It is a question of balance. You do have 

to address concerns about worker protection and environment. The 

question for us would be how long does that take to accomplish, 

and what is the balancing act in terms of what may be lost in other 

areas during that process? 

Mr. BIEGUN. We, too, support as my colleagues here on the 

panel do, I want to single out the Congress for its ability to achieve 

an agreement just a few years ago, a bipartisan agreement with 

the administration and the Congress, to pursue this exact angle. 

But I should also say that it is not by virtue of agreements alone, 

but as a global company and for reputational reasons, we also 

strive to provide those labor protections and environmental standards on an equal basis worldwide regardless of whether or not they 

were required in the free trade agreement. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. It strikes me that none of you said we should 

have just taken the Bush ‘‘slam, bam, thank you, Ma’am’’ agreeVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:08 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 067469 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\67469.XXX GPO1 PsN: 67469

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
76 

ments and pass them. You said you thought it was useful that we 

waited and worked out some of these problems. Is that a fair characterization? You all would have passed the Bush ones as they 

came out of the White House without any consultation with anybody in the Congress and passed them immediately? That is basically what you would say, right? 

Mr. PAULSON. I wouldn’t want you to put words in my mouth, 

but I would say that the agreements that were worked out with the 

previous administration were certainly striving towards a goal that 

would then come to this panel for review. 

Mr. STALLMAN. We are on record as supporting those agreements as passed, and we were involved in the negotiations of those, 

working with our trade representative’s office. And when they were 

completed, and we did our analysis, we supported them. 

Mr. DUCKER. As did FedEx support those agreements in the 

past. And I think there is a certain question of timing in this. 

Many of the—it is 4 years hence now, and countries are roaring 

ahead that are not the United States with free trade agreements 

around the rest of the world. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I am going to interrupt because my time is 

just about up. It strikes me that some people think that these 

agreements for labor and environment on these are the only ones 

they will ever be on, and that in the future they won’t be considered. But I don’t hear anybody here saying that this is of legitimate 

concern to have about every trade agreement, no matter which 

ones we make in the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Davis is recognized. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to briefly echo a 

comment Mr. Tiberi made regarding the communication at the 

grass-roots level. I would have to say personally, also living in the 

Ohio Valley, the business community in general, and NAM specifically, were absent from the critical political discussions. 

The reason I bring that up is we get into this constant battle— 

in fact, I was told once by a senior NAM staffer that NAM is not 

a political organization, to which I responded, how do you want to 

get your policy done? 

That brings me to the crux of this. We have a much bigger stake 

in these free trade agreements than simply doing business, than 

simply creating jobs. There is a huge national security and international security component to this, particularly with the Latin 

American agreements with Colombia and with Panama. When I 

think of Hugo Chavez aiding and abetting terrorist activity in his 

own country, dealing with direct threats to Colombia, as well as 

trying to destabilize the Latin American republics in Central America; Evo Morales in Bolivia; Rafael Correa in Ecuador, among others, dominate this political landscape. 

These trade agreements largely keep us out. And the reason that 

I bring up the issue of communication, not preaching to the choir, 

Web site to employees who obviously know that their goods are 

going overseas doesn’t tell the person one block away. And I see 

this in my manufacturing-centric district all the time. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
77 

Here is the real question: I was flabbergasted by the irony a couple of years ago when labor leaders from Colombia came here to 

meet with their brethren, labor leaders in the United States, as 

well as with the then-majority leadership in the House, pleading 

for the signature on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. And I 

guess the question that concerns me here is they were turned down 

by the people that said they were fighting for their interests, and 

it became a matter of raw politics where in many ways I think we 

squandered a lot of opportunity. 

Here is my question: In light of this strategic interest that spans 

not only our businesses, but our ability to protect those and our 

friends, will the failure of these agreements precipitate a longer 

and much bigger setback for the United States? I open that to any 

participant. 

Mr. STALLMAN. We think it will, because it will send a message. It will send the wrong message, as my colleague says, that 

we are not open for business. It will send the message that, well, 

you may want to engage in negotiation with us, but at the end of 

the day, once we agree that we have an agreement, what are you 

going to do to pass it? Are we going to put our gives on the table, 

if you will, out there where we have to take political heat in terms 

of what the other countries are thinking, and then the U.S. takes 

it back, and the agreements are not passed? And when you are involved in trade negotiations and know trade negotiators, that sends 

a real message. 

Mr. DUCKER. Yes, sir, Congressman Davis. I would agree with 

my colleagues on the open-and-ready-for-business piece is a very 

important part of this. I have been to Geneva many times meeting 

with the trade delegations of the WTO, and always I am struck by 

the fact that they want American leadership in terms of the negotiations and moving things forward. And I believe establishing that 

leadership and reinvigorating our trade agenda is very important 

for our country and the world writ large. 

Mr. DAVIS. Following on a point, FedEx is kind of at the tip of 

the spear with where you take and pick up many of the parcels 

that are in transit. Do you feel that this lack of absence on our part 

of activating these free trade agreements would, in fact, cause a 

significant setback to the larger interests of the country besides 

business? 

Mr. DUCKER. Yes, sir, I do. And I would point out that several 

of my colleagues have talked about the global supply chain. Today’s 

business has changed so radically. Really if you have the Internet 

and FedEx to deliver to almost anywhere in the world, you can be 

in business. That helps small business. That helps innovation. That 

helps entrepreneurship. And frankly speaking, removing trade barriers, whether they are tariff or nontariff, around the world puts 

people in business. And I think it is very helpful to move the trade 

agenda forward on a positive basis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Your actuarial analysis, Mr. Toppeta. 

Mr. TOPPETA. What I would say is this: The country of these 

three that I know the best is Korea. I have been working with the 

Korean market for the last 20 years, and that is a strategically 

very important country for the United States. I don’t think there 

is anybody who would debate that. I can tell you that our friends 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
78 

in Korea, the Korean Government, will be very disappointed, very 

disappointed, if we can’t make this free trade agreement happen, 

and I think that will hurt us. 

Mr. BIEGUN. Certainly we are not oblivious to the geopolitical 

considerations in these free trade agreements. All three countries 

are good friends of the United States of America, and every effort 

should be made to find a way forward. But I am also encouraged 

that, in fact, we are on the cusp of moving forward with one of the 

agreements, the Korean Free Trade Agreement, that through a 

good process in this committee has produced a good outcome. So we 

want to encourage the committee along these lines. We think that 

it produces a good outcome. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Lewis from Georgia is recognized. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank 

the members of the panel for being here. 

Mr. Biegun, I have two brothers that worked for Ford for many, 

many years in Detroit, hosts of other relatives, and many are retired. I want to thank you for your leadership of Ford and for all 

that you do. But I want to ask you a simple question. Do you think 

it is more important to rush to get an agreement signed into law, 

or is it better to take our time and try to get it right? 

Mr. BIEGUN. Thank you, Mr. Lewis, and thank you for your 

brothers’ service to the company. 

Obviously our track record speaks for itself. We fought for 3 

years to get the Korea Free Trade Agreement right, and we felt 

that was critically important to the people of Michigan and to the 

people of the Ford Motor Company on a global basis, and also to 

the principle of free trade. Free trade agreements should open 

trade between markets. 

But again, as I said a moment ago, we are quite encouraged by 

the outcome, that through a thorough effort, through the leadership of the members of this committee, we got to that point. 

So, yes, we should get them right. There is a balance in getting 

them right, and getting them through, and getting them on a timely basis, but the committee in the recent past has, I think, demonstrated the right formula for that, and I encourage that to continue. 

Mr. LEWIS. I want to go back for a moment to the question that 

Mr. McDermott raised. Do you think that—and I was somewhat 

not necessarily disturbed, but the way some of you responded. You 

are not suggesting that we have a double standard when it comes 

to trade; that we have one standard in America and one standard 

abroad? Do you believe or feel that trade agreements should be a 

reflection of the core values that we have as a Nation and as a people? 

Mr. PAULSON. I would like to answer that in the sense of that 

as these trade agreements have lingered and laid about, we have 

had a lot of opportunities to second-guess the hard work that was 

put in to develop these. 

I suggest that the stakeholders such as yourself, Mr. Lewis, 

would be involved with the new trade agreement formation right 

at the beginning so that you can form your ideas and bring those 

in with our U.S. Trade Representative so he knows how to focus 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
79 

his direction, and not look back so much on we could have, would 

have, should have. Let us move forward with new ideas. 

Mr. LEVIN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LEWIS. Yes. 

Mr. LEVIN. I just want to tell you, Mr. Paulson, we actively engaged the USTR on these issues in the previous administration, 

and there was simply a disagreement whether core labor standards 

and international environmental standards should be in trade 

agreements. 

It wasn’t the lack of engagement on our part, and as soon as we 

had the power to make it happen, it happened. It is true in Peru, 

and it is true in Korea. The previous administration and the Korean Government would simply not negotiate changes to open up 

their market, the most closed automotive market in the world. 

We were engaged endlessly, as we have been relating to conditions in Colombia. It is not a lack of engagement; it was a lack of 

willingness on the part of the previous administration to tackle 

these issues. The Korean Minister told Mr. Rangel and me, we will 

not discuss. Then we had a new administration that said, in order 

for that agreement to move, you have to open up your market and 

have two-way trade. And if you gentlemen believe in two-way 

trade, and I hope you do, and standards as reflecting American values, remember we have been trying to bring that about. With 

Korea it finally, I think, is happening. And to simply say you balance, we don’t want to support imbalanced trade agreements in 

terms of two-way trade or in terms of basic international standards 

on worker rights and the environment. 

Mr. BRADY. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LEWIS. Yes. 

Mr. BRADY. I was just going to make a point that I really think 

the breakthroughs on these two agreements, Panama and Colombia, came several years ago when Republicans and Democrats in 

Congress sat down together and came forward with a May 10th 

agreement that addressed issues like labor rights, environment. 

And the result, Colombia has adopted eight of the ILO conventions, 

six more than the United States itself has adopted. 

Mr. LEWIS. I take back my time. And—— 

Chairman CAMP. The time has expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. That is just not—— 

Chairman CAMP. I would just say I am not sure that the characterization of the back and forth is really particularly helpful to the 

debate here, because, as Mr. Brady pointed out, there is a May 

10th agreement. And frankly, the real effort on Korea occurred 

after November, the intense discussions. The President made the 

announcement in July or June, but the real effort occurred after 

November. 

But at this time I would yield to Mr. Reichert for 5 minutes. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will just mention briefly that I also am from the State of Washington, as is Mr. McDermott. Unlike Mr. McDermott, however, I 

have only been on this committee for 2 years, and I have been 

waiting for a hearing on trade agreements. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
80 

I am pleased to have you here today, and excited about having 

our first trade hearing, and am looking forward to Korea, Colombia 

and Panama all being brought to the House floor for our votes. 

As you can see it, if we work together, we can get this done. And 

you have a responsibility, as has been mentioned, and each of us 

here at the dais have our responsibilities, and hopefully together, 

Democrats, Republicans and the community in the business world 

out there across the country, can all work together to accomplish 

our goals of creating more jobs and spurring this economy on. 

And one statistic that I want to refer to that was mentioned in 

the panel is this doubling export initiative. As was mentioned, Mr. 

Tiberi and myself are members of the President’s Export Commission. We want to double exports, but at the same time if you look 

at the figures, the last time we did that was between 1995 and 

2007, and, again, there were nine trade agreements that were 

passed during that period of time, I think, that made that possible. 

So I think it is absolutely critical, and I think everyone in the hearing today and everyone in this room and everyone of us sitting here 

knows it is absolutely critical, that we pass these agreements, we 

have fair agreements and move forward with these agreements to 

create jobs. Not only at an economic level is it important, but also 

as we look at our security across the world. 

So I really want to focus on what we lose as we have languished 

somewhat. And specific to the Korean agreement, we know that the 

EU and Korea has an agreement that will take effect on July 1st, 

and here we sit. If you could explain—and any one of the panel 

members, please—what will the losses be as you look forward to 

our inability to—and what have your losses been—in jobs, in dollars, in the economy here in the United States as we have not been 

able to pass these agreements, and other countries have moved forward with their agreements, and we are losing market share? Mr. 

Ducker or anyone who would like to respond to that. 

Mr. PAULSON. Thank you. 

The International Trade Commission has estimated for the 3 

agreements, 13 billion in new U.S. exports. So if we divide that, 

considering that Korea is the largest of these, there will be a huge 

amount of loss and jobs that will occur. It also gives an opportunity 

in the case of the EU to enter in in the sense of that—and I often 

use standards, and actually standards for employees’ safety and 

health. They will bring in these EU standards, which are in my 

business, very critical, and then we will be having to fight against 

those standards versus, for example, the steel industry that is begging for our products in Korea. So it will be a change of focus 

aimed at looking towards Europe as opposed to looking towards the 

United States. 

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Ducker, you mentioned the Chamber of 

Commerce numbers of losing 380,000 jobs and $40 billion worth of 

business. Specifically how does that affect us in a negative way as 

we look forward into the future as these agreements are not made 

and other countries are moving forward? 

Mr. DUCKER. That is a widely used model, but the chamber did, 

in fact, estimate 380,000 jobs, 40 billion lost. And frankly we operate in a fiercely competitive world, and the industrial strength of 

other countries is growing, and they are aggressively pursuing 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
81 

trade agreements to expand to the economic benefit of their workers and their populations, the benefits of free trade. 

Mr. REICHERT. So it means fewer products sold across the 

country because other countries are selling their products, and we 

can’t sell the cars, we can’t sell—— 

Mr. DUCKER. Absolutely, sir. It is, as I said, fiercely competitive, and American products do have alternatives manufactured in 

other places. And a lot of what has been discussed in terms of 

speed in these trade agreements, FedEx is in the speed and reliability business. So we think there has to be balance, but due 

speed with passing free trade agreements and moving the trade 

agenda forward because others are not standing still. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Boustany is recognized. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing, and I look forward to many more hearings on 

trade policy as we go forward. 

Over the past 2 years, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, 

has traveled around the globe and based our foreign policy on three 

pillars: diplomacy, developmental aid and defense. It has now become glaringly apparent that we are missing something, and it is 

a trade agenda, and the failure to move forward on these three 

agreements puts American prestige, American leverage, American 

credibility at stake, at risk. And nothing short of American competitiveness is really the issue here. 

Now, speaking of American competitiveness, I want to drill down 

to something earlier, because we need to make sure that everybody 

is included in this in this country in this equation, which means 

rural America. Mr. Stallman, you mentioned earlier some numbers, 

and you mentioned the fact that with the $3 billion in exports in 

agricultural trade, we would see perhaps 27,000 new jobs created 

as a result of that. Now, I take it those are direct jobs, jobs that 

are directly involved in the production of commodities, the shipment of commodities and so forth. 

But if you drill down even further and take a look at the indirect 

jobs, take every small community. I live in Louisiana, rural Louisiana. I have got rice farmers, soybeans. Take a community like 

Crowley, Louisiana, or Abbeville, Louisiana, very dependent on agriculture and agricultural exports for the entire economy of that 

small town. You are talking about jobs, you know, convenience 

stores, dentists’ offices, small rural hospitals. Do you have a sense 

of what number of indirect jobs we would see either protected or 

created as a result of just doing these three free trade agreements? 

Mr. STALLMAN. We have not analyzed that to give a specific 

number, but I think it is obvious. I drive through Crowley, Louisiana, at least twice a year. And, for instance, just take rice; the 

local rice dryer that employs some people, the equipment dealer, 

the suppliers. If you don’t have the ability to export in this case 

rice specifically, which we export roughly half of our rice in this 

country every year, all of a sudden you don’t have those jobs, you 

don’t have that business. So it is a direct impact on rural communities in America. And you can just spread that same principle 

across all of the production areas of agriculture. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
82 

Mr. BOUSTANY. So it is critically important that we make the 

case that job growth is linked to exports. And the case can be easily 

made, I think, in rural America, and as we try to build consensus 

to move forward on these trade agreements and future trade agreements, we have to get the American people on board with this. And 

I think focusing on rural America, focusing on small business development is going to be critical in this. 

I don’t think there is any way we can actually double exports in 

the time period that the President is describing, the 5-year time period, unless we include small businesses and medium-sized businesses and their connection to the modern supply chain. And I 

have seen some of the figures related to all three of these agreements where a lot of the exports will be on the part of small- and 

medium-sized firms, and I would welcome any of you to comment 

on that. 

Mr. DUCKER. Congressman Boustany, I would just give you one 

small example, if I could. And I couldn’t agree with you more. 

Small and medium enterprises are going to drive a large part of 

that. 

I would just talk for a moment about the Memphis hub, and it 

is like a small city at night, perhaps 10,000 employees working in 

one small area at night. And U.S. exports are one of the fastestgrowing parts of our business. But Memphis is the number one 

cargo airport in the world, and Memphis is not the number one 

large-sized city in the world. We outpunch our weight in the global 

economy because of exports and connecting the world with what we 

deliver. And the benefits of that flow through, as you say, to the 

dentists’ offices, to the grocer and to many parts of the economy. 

So that is one small part where facilitating trade and facilitating 

global markets to small and medium enterprises has a dramatic 

impact locally. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Neal is recognized. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our panelists as well. 

I think the argument that is being offered here is that sometimes 

to subordinate human rights concerns and others in terms of getting some sort of economic liberalism a foothold, that that in turn 

will bring about greater demand in heretofore closed societies for 

more free choice not only in the marketplace, but, just as importantly, in the polling place and other endeavors. 

Now, I think that it bears the reminder, however, that with 

NAFTA and China, that we were instructed that they could not be 

amended. I think that is a part of the conflict here today. We were 

instructed that they could not be amended, that it was all or nothing. And here comes the Peruvian bilateral in which we demonstrated that you could, in fact, amend that agreement, which I 

supported for the purpose of including human rights, the right to 

organize, and environmental concerns, and the Peruvian Government adopted it with little fanfare. 

Now, Mr. Toppeta, I have been very supportive of your industry’s 

efforts, as you know, over the years to expand globally, but I think 

as part of this discussion, there ought to be at least some reasonVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:08 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 067469 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\67469.XXX GPO1 PsN: 67469

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
83 

able discourse about the following idea. It has been difficult, has 

it not, for your industry in China? That is a fair assessment, isn’t 

it? 

Mr. TOPPETA. Yeah, I think that is a fair assessment, sure. 

Mr. NEAL. And the idea of a forced partnership in a sovereign 

capitalist nation where you can never control more than 49 percent 

of your industry, and they really make a lot of basic decisions. And, 

in fact, without saying so, there is one of your large competitors 

that has decided to back away in recent weeks. 

How do we get their attention if we don’t make the argument 

here that economic liberalism, including those basic tenets of the 

Peruvian agreement, the right to organize, campaign for human 

rights and environmental concerns—how do we get them to move 

the argument forward? 

Mr. TOPPETA. Look, it is a great question. I am not sure that 

I have the answer to it, Congressman. I think that in each of these 

cases, we fully understand the need to address a number of different concerns. The issue that presents itself is can you solve all 

of the problems in one trade agreement, and if you attempt to do 

that, you probably wouldn’t get the trade agreement. 

And with all due respect, I think we have to recognize as a country that these are negotiations, these are negotiations, and negotiating with a country like Peru may not be the same as negotiating 

with a country like China. So I think there are difficulties in a 

number of these markets. We are correcting, I think, some of them 

in some of our agreements, but we are certainly not getting at all 

of the issues. The question for me is do you want to make some 

progress with the prospect of making more later? 

Mr. NEAL. Fair enough. But it also, I think, notes reminding 

ourselves that in Panama, the reason that the Panamanian bilateral did not move forward is because the Bush administration took 

the position that I believe the speaker of their assembly had been 

involved in the murder of an American soldier, I believe, the result 

of which was it was the Bush administration that pulled back the 

Panamanian bilateral. It wasn’t the slowness of this committee, 

whether our Republican friends were in the majority or we were in 

the majority. That was an administration position not to submit 

that proposal, I believe. 

Mr. TOPPETA. The only thing I can say about that is I am not 

here certainly and my company is not here blaming anybody. What 

we are talking about is let us move forward. Let us move forward. 

We have three good agreements. We think we should move forward 

on those, and we think it would be beneficial for the country to 

move forward on those. 

Mr. NEAL. The last point that I will make is this. China has not 

proved to be quite what the industry assumed that it would be, has 

it? 

Mr. TOPPETA. I think China has a lot of challenges, and it is 

not alone in that. It is an attractive market for a lot of people because of its size, because of its growth, but it does present difficulties, no doubt about it. 

Mr. NEAL. One last comment, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. The committee needs to move forward. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
84 

Mr. NEAL. If we don’t pursue this here, then your job becomes 

more difficult, isn’t that so, by pushing them? 

Mr. TOPPETA. Our job is difficult already. There is no doubt 

about that. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And I would just say that the ILO core labor rights found in the 

Panama agreement are also the exact same language found in the 

Korea and Colombia agreements as well. 

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Yes. 

Mr. NEAL. That wasn’t the point that I tried to make. The point 

that I tried to make, it was the Bush Administration that pulled 

back on Panama; isn’t that true? 

Chairman CAMP. I think that this idea of which Administration 

did what isn’t particularly productive. I think we can find certainly 

gaps in both—certainly the Bush and Obama Administration on 

these issues. And I just think we are here to talk about what is 

before us, which is how do we move forward now on these agreements. 

Mr. NEAL. I agree, Mr. Chairman. The point that I am making 

is that there has been some testimony or some inquiry this morning from members of the panel that have suggested that there was 

foot dragging on the part of the minority with some of these bilateral proposals, and I think that the point that I tried to make, 

which I assume is based on fact here, and that is that it was the 

Bush administration that pulled back—— 

Chairman CAMP. The fact is we have had no hearings on trade 

over the last 2 years, and that is not an Administration issue; that 

is a committee issue. I wish we had. We didn’t. We are trying to 

have hearings now. I think these are productive discussions. But 

it really is Mr. Smith’s time, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to the panel, thank 

you for sharing your expertise and insight. 

Obviously we are talking about opportunities for the future here, 

and I am intrigued as we do have this discussion. And I don’t want 

to repeat what my colleagues have said about losing market share 

to our competitors around the world, but we do know that it is happening. 

Mr. Stallman, if you could reflect a little bit for agriculture on 

the nontariff trade barriers and how these trade agreements will 

help address that. 

Mr. STALLMAN. A lot of the problems with agricultural trade, 

as in other industry sectors, are the nontariff barriers. For agriculture particularly you have the sanitary and phytosanitary barriers. In many cases a bilateral agreement is much more able to 

address those issues between two countries in terms of health 

standards, food safety standards, those kinds of things, than depending on the WTO. So in that respect many times in bilaterals 

you can more directly address those issues than you can with the 

international agreements. 

Mr. SMITH. Anyone else wishing to respond? 

Mr. DUCKER. Well, I am just going to add a comment that 

many of the provisions in these FTAs level the playing field. And 

if you are in our business, you compete against non-U.S. large comVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:08 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 067469 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\67469.XXX GPO1 PsN: 67469

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
85 

panies which don’t operate under the some of the same provisions. 

But these trade agreements prevent cross-subsidization by government-owned and -assisted competitors. They define contours of 

postal monopolies or fees that can be assessed to serve markets. 

They provide expedited customs procedures. It really simplifies and 

codifies doing business in many of the foreign countries, and that 

is a great benefit of the FTAs. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Biegun. 

Mr. BIEGUN. Mr. Smith, in the case of the Korea Free Trade 

Agreement, in the renegotiated text, it is some of the most farreaching effort we have seen in free trade agreements to create a 

level playing field on standards. We are now expecting adequate 

notice in advance of new regulations, transparency in how those 

regulations are implemented, and there are enforcement mechanisms in the FTA that will be meaningful if those regulations are 

used simply to exclude imports. So we are encouraged that with 

the shoulder to the wheel, we can get agreements like this that will 

open the market. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Becerra is recognized. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your testimony and your 

work. 

I would like to just begin by acknowledging that I don’t think 

there is an American that wouldn’t believe that trade is essential 

for us to continue to be a growing and vibrant economy. What 

makes us strong is the fact that not only do we sell to Americans, 

but we sell to everybody in the world, and everyone loves American 

products. In fact, everyone loves America, and that is why so many 

people wish to come to this country as well. So our brand is good 

not just in terms of our product, it is good in terms of our country 

and people wanting to be here. 

The difficulty I think we get into is we try to ignore that trade 

causes consequences, and they are not always the greatest. And 

Mr. Tiberi tried to point that out in terms of Ohio. I can point it 

out in terms of southern California, where we depend so dramatically on trade because we have the largest ports in the Nation right 

there in Los Angeles. But to the degree that we try to make it 

sound like every trade deal is a good trade deal regardless of what 

it says, that is where we lose, I think. That is where we lose Americans. So when they hear that in 2009 we got to sell to Koreans 

6,000 American vehicles, yet they got to sell to us—in other words, 

they exported to us, we imported from them and bought 476,000 

vehicles, they don’t need to have degrees in rocket science or in 

trade to know that something is wrong. And they just simply want 

to know that it will be level trade, that it will be a fair deal for 

Americans. 

When you take a look at these deals, whether it was the situation for the auto industry with regard to Korea or, as we pointed 

out, the difficulties with Panama being a tax haven, there are reasons why some of these deals haven’t gone through as quickly as 

we might like. But let us not just say willy-nilly we must have a 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
86 

trade deal, because a bad trade deal has major consequences. And 

if you think about our recent past in the last decade or so, American multinational companies have reduced the size of their domestic workforce by about 1,900,000 Americans, yet their foreign employment has gone up by 2.4 million in that same time. Americans 

aren’t dumb. They see that we are exporting as many U.S. jobs to 

places as we are products, and what they want to know is that as 

we export those products, we want Mr. Paulson and his company 

and everybody else to continue to create jobs here because you are 

exporting more. 

And so I think what is important to remember is that we are trying to make sure that this is a good deal, not just a trade deal, and 

if we do that right—well, not just for one industry, but for every 

industry. 

Now, I have a question for all of you gentlemen. If you could just 

give me a quick answer. Currency manipulation. We have heard a 

lot about it. We know some countries devalue their currency. That 

makes their products cheaper to buy. It also makes our products 

more expensive to buy because it makes the U.S. currency look like 

it is valued at a higher price than it should be. Do you believe that 

we should tackle the issue of currency manipulation? And obviously 

the focus has been on China. But do you believe we should address 

the issue of currency manipulation now? 

Mr. PAULSON. Thank you. 

I do not—— 

Mr. BECERRA. Just a quick yes or no, if you could. I tried to 

make it a very direct question because I know that we could go into 

that forever, but I am going to lose time, and I want to get back 

to the trade deals. 

Mr. PAULSON. I don’t think we should address the currency manipulation within the trade agreement. 

Mr. BECERRA. And I don’t mean within the trade agreement; I 

mean just address it generally as quickly as we can. 

Mr. PAULSON. Yes. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you. 

Mr. Stallman. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Not in trade agreements, but in the context of 

international agreements with our countries. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you. 

Mr. Ducker. 

Mr. DUCKER. I would agree with Bob. I mean, that is just one 

of many issues. 

Mr. BECERRA. Yeah. And by the way, I am not asking that we 

address the currency issue in these trade deals. I am just asking 

if we should tackle that as an issue of importance to American consumers. 

Mr. TOPPETA. I would agree with the other panelists. Completely agree. 

Mr. BECERRA. I know the estimates are out there that we lose 

somewhere between a half a million to 1.5 million jobs because of 

this currency manipulation that goes on throughout the country, so 

I hope we can deal with it and deal with it immediately. 

I have one final question I would like to ask. Mr. Toppeta was 

extremely virtuous a moment ago in responding to some questions 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
87 

by Mr. Levin. You mentioned that even if these trade deals had left 

out your industry and your company, that you think that we might 

still want to go forward and approve these deals. 

Now, we are going to probably, I hope soon, in this committee 

and in this Congress deal with the issue of tax reform. And I would 

like to know if you would like to be as noble as well with regard 

to tax reform and virtuous so that if tax reform occurs, and we by 

chance don’t deal with your particular industry or company, that 

you believe that we should still do the tax reform if we don’t tackle 

the issues that are most important to your company and to your 

industry. I will try to leave it brief. Now my time is expiring, so 

if I could just get a quick yes or no from the panel. 

Mr. TOPPETA. I will say that one is way beyond my competence. 

So I have no answer for you. 

Mr. PAULSON. I believe tax reform is important for manufacturers. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Our policy indicates we should work on tax reform, but we will wait to see the details. 

Mr. BECERRA. I see you all tap dancing very, very well. Thank 

you. 

Chairman CAMP. Has everyone had a chance? 

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Ducker and Mr. Biegun. 

Mr. DUCKER. I was just going to say, yes, I think tax reform 

is important in many different aspects. But corporate taxes are 

among some of the highest that we deal with in the world and— 

so, yes, we should deal with tax reform. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you. 

Mr. Biegun. 

Mr. BIEGUN. We will be here. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Chairman CAMP. Mr. Buchanan is recognized. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today. 

As we work to get our ailing economy back on track, I believe it 

is crucial that we work to expand our exports. I am pleased that 

the administration is pushing harder, appears to be pushing hard, 

to get the Korean agreement done as well as the others that we 

are working on. 

But I guess this is to all of the panelists. Last year the President 

stated that he wanted to double U.S. exports by 2014. I support 

this goal. Would you agree that enacting these three trade agreements is an important first step in reaching that goal? 

Mr. PAULSON. It certainly is an important first step, but we 

also have to say that the U.S. manufacturing base needs to become 

fully engaged with not just the trade agreements, but also with improvements to financing for us and improvements to taxes. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Yes, passing these agreements is essential as 

a first step. We need to continue to focus on enforcement and continue to negotiate other agreements to further open up markets. 

Mr. DUCKER. Every long journey begins with a first step, and 

this is a darn good one, and we are strongly encouraging that. But 

we need to move forward after the passage of these into other very 

important markets. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
88 

Mr. TOPPETA. I would agree with that. 

Mr. BIEGUN. And I would just like to repeat what I said earlier, 

that we bear responsibility, too. It is not just the policies of the 

government, but it is the job of our companies to make these work, 

and we look forward to doing so. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Stallman, my State that I represent in terms of my district 

is in Florida, but looking at Florida in general, we have a big area 

of agriculture, citrus, cattle. How do these trade agreements affect 

the State of Florida, in your opinion? And I would be interested in 

anybody else’s comments as it relates to that. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, I don’t have the State-by-State breakdowns in terms of benefits, but in general all agriculture will benefit from these agreements based on the opening of markets. We 

know beef in particular, which I am a little more familiar with, 

these agreements—but the enforcement of current agreements, the 

work with—the work that we are doing to open up markets now 

in China and Japan and keep the market for beef in Taiwan, all 

of those things will be beneficial to beef specifically. But in general 

these agreements are what is necessary to improve agricultural 

market access for our products. 

Mr. DUCKER. I cannot speak specifically to the agricultural aspects, but I would point out that we have a very large international 

hub in Miami which serves most all of Latin America, and trade 

with Latin America certainly benefits the area in and around 

Miami and all the catchment areas that that Miami hub services. 

Mr. TOPPETA. I would say something similar. I cannot give you 

an agricultural angle on this, but for us, we have a large financial 

center in the State of Florida, and there is no question that there 

are a lot of jobs sustained and created in that area because of this. 

It is a finance center for us. 

Mr. BIEGUN. We have Ford stores across the great State of 

Florida, and our dealer partners in your State benefit as we do 

when the company is more prosperous and successful. They have 

been having a very good year, and we look forward to working with 

them to have more good years. Corporate health will definitely be 

improved by the ability to export our vehicles around the world. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I guess the other just general question is this 

thing has dragged on. I have been here 4 years and have been talking about it for 4 years, these trade agreements. It seems like it 

is a big disadvantage to our companies compared to other people 

that are doing business on a partnership with these countries. 

What are your thoughts on that? My sense is we are losing ground 

and losing jobs in America. 

Mr. PAULSON. I would like to say if we put ourselves in the perspective of being in Colombia, and this was a promise, a golden 

promise, that was given to the Colombian people, and they had to 

make the changes, and then every day that this drags on, over in 

Venezuela somebody is laughing. And I can hear him all the way, 

sitting here. 

Mr. BIEGUN. Mr. Buchanan, in the case of Korea, the good news 

is that while the Koreans are negotiating free trade agreements 

with a number of other countries, Canada, Australia and Europe, 

none of those agreements have been completed either precisely beVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:08 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 067469 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\67469.XXX GPO1 PsN: 67469

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
89 

cause of the same issues that held ours up, because their market 

was closed to imported automobiles. Should the committee be able 

to move with some alacrity on the renegotiated free trade agreement, it will be timed so that we should not lose any ground in relation to other countries. But it is important that that deal come 

before the committee and get approved by the end of the summer. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lee is recognized. 

Mr. LEE. Thank you. And I appreciate all the speakers being 

here today. 

I know a lot of the questions have been brought up, but the positive theme that I keep hearing here is that trade is a good thing; 

that these three trade agreements at the end of the day will do 

what the American people are demanding out of Congress, help us 

create an environment where we can start employing American 

workers again. It is very simple. 

And for my colleagues, as you know, I spent my entire career in 

manufacturing up until 2009, so I am a huge advocate. We exported products to all over the world, including South Korea, and 

I am truly a proponent. 

And ironically we have the State of the Union this evening, and 

I am sure we all want the President to talk about economic issues, 

talk about putting people back to work. One thing I learned from 

my father, however, was that it is your report card that counts at 

the end of the day, and it is easy to give lip service to the fact that 

we want to say we want to double exports over the next 5 years. 

However, unless you put tangible items into place, in this case free 

trade agreements, will have a significant impact. 

It is known by experts and obviously by this panel here we can 

start doing the right thing, but we are out of time. And to have 

these trade agreements that have sat on the shelf here for the last 

several years in Congress and had inaction, and the President talk 

about this for 2 years and move none of these forward, I think it 

is very hard for us to look at the American people. We are not 

doing our job. 

Again, I hope tonight we are going to hear a different story from 

him, and that we here in this committee—there were several opportunities over the last few years for this issue to be debated if 

there had been concerns so that we could help push this along. But 

now at the 11th hour, trying to slow this up is reckless, and the 

American people shouldn’t put up with it. 

We need to start moving forward on trade. There is nothing here 

that I’ve heard today that would stop us from doing what, again, 

American people want, allow them an opportunity to make a good 

living and take care of their family. 

So with that I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Blumenauer is recognized. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess I would like to focus for a moment on the role agriculture 

will play in our opportunities going forward. And I appreciate, Mr. 

Stallman, your being here and your testimony. If my Republican 

friends are serious about addressing spending and the deficit, and 

I think they are, we are going to have to deal with the rather exVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:08 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 067469 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\67469.XXX GPO1 PsN: 67469

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
90 

pensive support that we provide to agriculture in this country. I 

want to be clear that I am not referring to assistance that is not 

trade-distorting. I am not talking about marketing; I am not talking about paying farmers to help them comply with clean water 

and other environmental requirements, marketing. These are 

areas, research and marketing, I think it is legitimate for us to 

help and in some cases maybe do more. 

But since I have been in Congress and on this committee, and 

before that, trying to work to move forward with a bipartisan trade 

agenda, I have watched as our agricultural subsidies got in the way 

of moving these programs forward. I watched how a tiny loosening 

of sugar subsidies was a serious problem with CAFTA. We had 

problems with our Australian agreement because of sugar again 

and beef restrictions where we just simply were not going to allow 

free trade to operate. More recently we are paying—the American 

taxpayers are paying Brazil $143.3 million a year because of our 

lavish cotton subsidies, which are illegal under our agreements, in 

order to forestall retaliatory actions for intellectual property and 

other goods that would have been close to a billion dollars. We are 

going to pay that every year. 

I am very interested in wondering if the panel thinks that we 

need to continue these agricultural subsidies. Can American farmers compete in a global market without lavish subsidies? I would 

start, Mr. Paulson, with the National Association of Manufacturers. 

Do you support reforming our foreign policy to reduce costs and to 

avoid these international trade complications? 

Mr. PAULSON. Since I am a manufacturer and have been focused on that my whole life, I really do have to pass on this question. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would respectfully request that maybe 

you check back, because you as a manufacturer could be hit because of retaliatory actions when we violate our WTO requirements. And as I mentioned, these are things that have gotten in 

the way of other trade agreements. 

Mr. PAULSON. I certainly believe that you have brought up a 

very important point. I am not trying to say anything about that. 

But I will say that it is just one that I am not well prepared to 

answer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I am just requesting that maybe you could 

check and find out what the association’s position is and maybe 

make that part of the record? 

Mr. PAULSON. Certainly. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Ducker, FedEx, do you have any 

thoughts about potential retaliation because of lavish foreign subsidies? 

Mr. DUCKER. Having spent most of all of my life in the services 

industry, I am going to refer this to Bob, who has much greater expertise in this area than I. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Would you mind if lavish farm subsidies resulted in retaliatory trade actions that affected FedEx? Would that 

get your attention? 

Mr. DUCKER. If people aren’t living up to their agreements, and 

there are retaliatory measures, I think we should live up to the 

agreements that we have—that we have signed. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
91 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Like Brazil and cotton? 

Well, Mr. Stallman, I don’t want the time to run out without 

turning to you. I am wondering if the Farm Bureau feels that we 

need to have the current level of subsidies for our agricultural 

products to compete internationally, like, for example, the illegal 

cotton subsidies that we are now paying Brazilian farmers to avoid 

Mr. Ducker and Mr. Paulson having retaliation. What is your feeling on that? 

Mr. STALLMAN. Yeah, a couple of quick points, Congressman 

Blumenauer. First, with respect to the degree of subsidies we have 

as you designate them being lavish, had we reduced our entire Federal budget to the extent to which those payments had been reduced over the course of this last farm bill, we would not be talking 

about budget deficits in this country if that same percentage reduction basically occurred across the board. 

Secondly, with respect to the Brazilian cotton agreement, that $143 million first is not going directly to Brazilian farmers. The 

second point is that was a negotiated agreement, a temporary 

agreement, if you will, while the Brazilians are waiting to see what 

we do in the context of the negotiation of the 2012 farm bill and 

in terms of nontrade distorting, the direct payment component in 

the Title I of the farm bill is considered to be green-boxed under 

WTO trade rules. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Do you feel that American agriculture 

can—— 

Mr. BRADY. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer. Mr. 

Blumenauer, all time has expired. 

The chair recognizes Ms. Jenkins for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Agriculture is obviously important to the great State of Kansas 

in my district. Back in 2009, experts in ag products from our State, 

they valued the exports at more than $4.7 billion. The pending free 

trade agreements are especially important to our farmers, who traditionally lead the Nation in wheat production. Kansans know the 

importance of international trade in these markets. In 2007 and 

2008, the U.S. wheat industry dominated the Colombian wheat 

market with almost 70 percent of the market share. It was valued 

at $330 million. 

So delaying the Colombian Free Trade Agreement has already 

hurt Kansas and American farmers. While the U.S. waited, Argentina and Canada began their own negotiations. And, of course, by 

2009–2010, the U.S. wheat industry’s market share had fallen to 

46 percent, a 24 percent loss. U.S. Wheat Associates estimate that 

if the Colombian Free Trade Agreement is not signed, U.S. wheat 

producers will lose up to $100 million per year. 

So considering the impact on the wheat industry alone, could you 

all remind us what the economic impact on your business or industry will be if we fail to implement the three free trade agreements? 

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, I think, if I understood the question, it 

was broader, it was beyond agriculture that—— 

Ms. JENKINS. Yes, I would like to hear from each one of you. 

Mr. PAULSON. Excuse me. I thought that you were just talking 

in agriculture for that. So if we don’t get these free trade agreements through, naturally those are estimates that are how much 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
92 

loss will be made over a period of time and the number of jobs. We 

are using again the International Trade Commission’s estimate 

that it is 13 billion. I believe that what we will see, though, is that 

there will be greater losses beyond this because it isn’t just these 

trade agreements. The whole world is watching. The world is 

watching what we are up to right at this moment. And these trade 

agreements have taken on a greater impact than just dollars and 

cents going back and forth. They become the image of how well the 

U.S. embraces other countries throughout the world, how are we 

out working with others. 

Mr. STALLMAN. You stated the case for agriculture very well. 

You used wheat specifically. I lumped in corn and wheat and soybeans with the particular example of Colombia and the fact that 

other countries have stepped in and begun to take those markets 

to the detriment of our agricultural producers, and that is why it 

is critical that we move forward and go ahead and get us back in 

the game. 

Mr. DUCKER. I would not put it in an agricultural context. You 

have done that quite nicely. But I would say that just one simple 

statistic that exports from this country support one in three U.S. 

manufacturing jobs. The markets are huge and immense outside 

the United States. Eighty-seven percent of the growth is occurring 

there. Ninety-five percent of the world’s consumers are there. And 

one of the great vehicles to get at those consumers, at that economic growth, is through free trade agreements. 

And so I believe that while we delay, others are moving, because 

their calculators work the same way that ours do in terms of the 

numbers and the economic power that exists in global trade. 

Mr. TOPPETA. Thank you. 

As I said earlier, I think the main impact for us of delay will be 

in terms of Korea and the fact that the European Union will have 

an agreement going into effect in the middle of the year. That will 

mean that those competitors from Europe will be able to get their 

products to market quicker in Korea. They will be allowed to do 

more things than we are allowed to do in the markets. They will 

be subject to different rules and regulations, which will be to their 

advantage, frankly. So there is no question that if we don’t get this 

Korea agreement done, it will hurt the insurance industry competitively in Korea. No doubt about it. 

Mr. BIEGUN. We support all three agreements, but in particular 

I would like to repeat what was just said. On Korea, the good news 

again is that we are on a timetable now to have the Korea agreement passed as soon as, if not earlier, than some of our major competitors. 

But I would also be remiss if I didn’t point out that had the 

Korea Free Trade Agreement gone through in its previous form before these provisions were renegotiated, it actually would have had 

a punishing effect on our industry. So we are very supportive of the 

agreement. And the timing still affords us the opportunity to move, 

moving with alacrity, to get it through in time to realize that benefit. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. Time has expired. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Paulsen for 5 minutes. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
93 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

also for your leadership at the subcommittee level and being a part 

of this hearing today, and for all of the witnesses for their testimony. 

There is no doubt that all the trade agreements—we have heard 

about Panama, Colombia and South Korea, of course, which is the 

latest that has had the most discussion from the administration 

standpoint and now the support from a lot of our colleagues from 

both sides of the aisle. It is very important. 

I really believe free trade is a very simple concept that is a natural proven stimulus. It is a cost-free job creator. I can look at Minnesota, my home State. And we talked a little bit about services 

having 75 percent of U.S. GDP. Well, in my district I have got 80 

percent of services occupying that portion of the economy, and 

there is a lot of jobs that are connected directly with that. Seven 

hundred forty-one thousand jobs in Minnesota depend on trade 

independently. It covers manufacturing. It goes all the way to services. 

And I just want to go back to a little bit of the services testimony, Mr. Toppeta, if that is okay, because you mentioned earlier—you had identified some key nontariff barriers; regulation, investment restrictions, due process, regulatory transparency, data 

management rules, for instance. And you talked a little bit about 

how trade agreements very importantly touch on those issues, because the average person doesn’t understand that or doesn’t relate 

to that. They always think of tariffs. Can you just expand a little 

bit about what signs you have seen in different markets as these 

implemented trade agreements have gone forward and actually 

taken place? 

Mr. TOPPETA. I am sorry. What signs I have seen? 

Mr. PAULSEN. Some of the progress, I think, within the markets and some of the good things that have happened. 

Mr. TOPPETA. Maybe I could—Korea specifically—here again, 

let me give you an example that I think is important, and this one 

relates to data management, and it covers really two points about 

Korea. One is this question of the desk drawer rules that I was 

talking about before, that you sometimes don’t know what the rules 

of the road are. 

We had an experience in Korea where we wanted to do data 

management in a more centralized location. We believed that that 

was permissible. We had discussions with regulators about whether 

that was permissible. We were allowed to go ahead and do our data 

management outside of Korea. There was a change of people in the 

regulatory body that regulates us. They came back and said, sorry, 

you have to move your data center back into Korea. Now, that is 

an example of tremendous expense on our part that we had to go 

through partly because we didn’t know the rules, partly because 

they had restrictions on data. 

I think with these kind of issues, and this is directly addressed 

in the Korea FTA, we will be able to do data management outside 

of Korea. I think that is going to be very useful for some companies. They may do their data management from here in the U.S., 

and that will again create jobs here in the U.S. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
94 

The second thing that I would say is this will also give us the 

ability to do really a good job of data privacy protection, because 

when you have small data centers all over the world, it is much 

harder to bullet-proof those, the phrase that is used, to make sure 

that they are protecting the consumers’ information. So this is an 

example where the Korea FTA, I think, can give us both better efficiency, but also better effectiveness. So that is a positive sign, I 

think, going forward. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Stallman, let me just quickly follow up on a question with 

you, because Cargill is based right in my district, and, of course, 

you think agriculture right away. And Minnesota exports quite a 

bit, $6 million worth of wheat and corn, I think, to South Korea 

currently. Is it possible to estimate the effect of an increase in opportunities for one large exporter, what that can be on the local 

economy? I think you mentioned 9,000 jobs earlier. But for a company like Cargill, the supply chain and the agriculture, how many 

new jobs locally might be added? 

Mr. STALLMAN. It is awfully hard to get those numbers precisely at the local level. But just assume that Cargill exports an additional billion or some fraction of that at the rate of 9,000 jobs per 

billion—those are direct jobs, not the indirect effects—will definitely help the local economy where those facilities are located. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, one more point I want to make 

is that in Minnesota in particular, we have seen successful exporting both in services and with manufactured goods. But the reality 

is that with our FTA partners, where we have got FTA partners 

that currently exist, there is actually an exponential increase in exports that have gone on. In fact, I think there is a 103 percent increase overall in terms of Minnesota exports since 2002 with the 

FTA partners that we have. So I think if we look at expanding in 

Korea and Panama and Colombia, we are all going to benefit, and 

it is going to open the door to China and other countries down the 

road. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Pascrell for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank each member of the panel. 

I am a skeptic on these issues. I must say this to begin with: 

Free trade agreements through the last 4 Presidents—so this is not 

a partisan statement I am making—I personally believe have contributed to the job loss in this country and, worse, contributed to 

the minimizing of the dignity of the American worker. I did not 

come and rush to that conclusion. I have voted for trade agreements. 

But I do know that free trade is not simple, not at all. And I 

would like to start by saying to those who say that the jobs that 

will come out of the Korean FTA are going to spread throughout 

the land and contribute to our recovery, well, the International 

Trade Commission has found that net job creation from the Korean 

FTA will be negligible, while independent estimates have found, for 

instance, a subject already brought up, that stopping Chinese currency manipulation would create up to 1.2 million jobs. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
95 

As that is my preface, I would like to ask Mr. Biegun, the European Union recently completed its own free trade negotiations with 

South Korea and was able to secure a 55 percent minimum rule of 

origin requirement, which is a major problem in many different 

areas, not just automobiles, and a cap on duty drawbacks. So our 

agreement, on the other hand, one we are examining right now, 

contains only a 35 percent rule of origin and no limits on the duty 

drawbacks, none. 

Is Ford concerned that what I see as a major disparity, which 

would allow a Korean car company to assemble over 65 percent of 

the value of a car in a regional country like China, will put the 

United States auto industry at a disadvantage compared to our European competitors? 

Mr. BIEGUN. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell. 

Breaking down the two issues, on the issue of duty drawback, 

the approach in the U.S. free trade agreement and in the EU free 

trade agreement are largely the same. So in that case there is not 

a significant difference. However, in both cases, Ford and other 

automobile industry companies fought very hard to put limits on 

the degree to which the Korean Government could use duty drawback, because, as you point out, it allows the import of content 

from outside the free trade areas. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Does that concern you? 

Mr. BIEGUN. It certainly is a concern. It is one of many that we 

have had. 

Mr. PASCRELL. What is the concern? What is your actual concern with what I just said specifically? 

Mr. BIEGUN. Specifically it will allow manufacturers in Korea 

to import content from third countries and then reexport to the 

United States duty free. We in the United States do not enjoy that 

privilege, so we would import the same product from the same 

country to put it in our automobile, and we would pay a tariff on 

it. So it is something of a competitive disadvantage. 

However, as in any free trade negotiation, it is a package of gives 

and takes. Ultimately Ford Motor Company’s principal concern in 

this agreement was opening the Korean market to our goods. The 

Koreans are already well represented in this market, and it is our 

estimation that this free trade agreement will not sizably increase 

their imports, although the duty drawback is a competitive advantage for them. 

Mr. PASCRELL. I have folks coming into my office every day because we were once a great manufacturing power in New Jersey. 

Paterson, New Jersey, was the original manufacturing city in this 

country, the cradle of the industrial revolution. Alexander Hamilton went there, debated very severely Thomas Jefferson over 

whether we should be an industrial or—and we decided we needed 

to be a multifaceted society. 

We made the decision 35 years ago. The problem of trade didn’t 

just start in the last 10 years, did it? The problem of trade existed 

now for many, many years. We lost our textile business 35, 40 

years ago. We were the silk city of the world. So this didn’t just 

happen. 

But here is what comes into my office, and I will conclude with 

this if I may, Mr. Chairman—— 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
96 

Chairman CAMP. [Presiding.] Yes, you may conclude. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Folks who import—who are trying to make 

stone and send it to other places, parts manufacturers come into 

my place every week. They can’t stay in existence—we are talking 

about trading products? You have to have a product to trade. If we 

don’t do something about manufacturing in this country, if we don’t 

do something about that phase of the economy, these trade deals 

only make certain people affluent and bury other people. And bury 

other people. And that is what has happened in the United States. 

And I would look at that very carefully because I think we are 

being put out—and I only use this as one example. 

My time has run out. 

Chairman CAMP. The time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. Berg is recognized. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank everyone that has 

come here for this hearing. 

In 2004, I guess, compared to this year, North Dakota’s exports 

to South Korea have doubled. And those exports, primarily in agriculture, are wheat, peas and soybeans. In fact, right now we have 

a delegation in South Korea trying to expand that. And one of the 

questions that I have is—there is a lot of these other trade agreements that are in the mix. And I am assuming that every country 

in the world is trying to increase its trade so it can pull itself out 

of the same environment that we are in. So I guess my question 

is if we do nothing and say for 2 years—and maybe this is for you 

Mr. Stallman. If we do nothing for 2 years, this component of 

North Dakota’s increased trade with South Korea, will that stall, 

or will that continue if we do nothing? 

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, it is hard to speculate totally, but the 

bias will be for it stalling and not moving forward, because you 

have an EU agreement with reduced tariffs that will be put in 

place, you have other countries negotiating free trade agreements, 

and if those are implemented before ours, and those tariff reductions occur before we have a chance to implement our agreement, 

that puts our shippers of any agricultural products and many other 

products at a competitive disadvantage. And the Koreans aren’t 

going to buy from us just because we are nice people. We are going 

to have to have a good deal. 

Mr. BERG. That kind of leads to another question. But I have 

heard the hearing today, and I have kind of thought about a water 

tank that is up on stilts that is leaking, and we are trying to figure 

out what is the best way to fix this water tank, or how can we have 

the best water tank. That water tank is full of our trade and our 

export, and my thinking is if we do nothing, we may come up with 

a great water tank, but there will be no more market share. It will 

all be drained out of that tank. 

So I guess, continuing with what you said, I would just like a— 

it is going to be a tough question probably, but if we do nothing, 

and we assume that these other countries are engaging in free 

trade agreements and expanding their trade, what will we lose in 

terms of jobs in these sectors over the next 2 years if nothing is 

done? So in manufacturing, just kind of what is your feel and what 

would we lose in agriculture? Or in the service industry what 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
97 

would we lose by standing still and watching others take our market share in these three countries? 

Mr. Paulson. 

Mr. PAULSON. Thank you. 

I know we have talked about the jobs, the dollars and the totals. 

And not to avoid your question, but I want to overemphasize, 

please, that the commercial diplomacy of the U.S. businessmen entering these markets will by far exceed what all of these calculations that have been made, because as I move into a market and 

I go into Colombia, I bring with me all other companies that I 

know about and have them entertain the idea of also selling there. 

So again, I am trying to be clear, let the U.S. businessman do 

his job. He will bring prosperity to our country here, but he has 

to have that opportunity and level that playing field. 

Mr. STALLMAN. If we don’t move forward and pass these agreements, work to open up other agreements, what will happen to 

U.S. agriculture is that our competitors will step in. They will 

begin to take more market share, as they already are in many 

countries, and thus, since American consumers won’t be eating 

more, we will be backing up our supply. We will be filling up our 

domestic supply, increasing that supply, and with stagnant demand what happens is basic economics: The price of the product 

goes down. 

So that is a real concern. We won’t stand still. We are either 

going to move forward, or we are going to fall backward. 

Mr. BERG. Please go ahead. 

Mr. DUCKER. I was just going to say one thing about that, Congressman Berg. If we do nothing, we do something, because if we 

do nothing, others continue to move. We lose market share, we lose 

jobs, we lose the future prosperity. I mean, if you look at NAFTA 

as just one data point, since NAFTA was created, 4 million U.S. 

jobs have been created. There is $1 trillion a year in trade, in that 

NAFTA trade. So if we do nothing, we do something. 

Mr. TOPPETA. Yeah. I mean, I will second the motion. I think 

that one of the other consequences will be we will not be able to 

meet this goal of doubling our exports in the next 5 years. I think 

that goal will go by the wayside if you don’t go forward. So I think 

that is a significant detriment. 

Mr. BIEGUN. Since no importer sells any significant volume of 

cars into Korea, currently it is all upside. But with a good deal, the 

sooner the better. And it is a good deal. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you. 

Mr. BRADY. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

Mrs. Black is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of you 

for being here today and helping to enlighten us on the trade issue. 

I want to, first of all, thank you, Mr. Ducker, and how proud I 

am to have FedEx in our State and the amount of jobs that it has 

supplied in the—how it has helped our economy there in the State 

of Tennessee and particularly there in Memphis. As you recognize, 

there is almost a city there of itself with FedEx. So thank you for 

that. 

Mr. Paulson, I was interested as I read your written comments 

about your enlightenment about how trade really did increase your 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
98 

opportunity to be able to grow your business, and in particular you 

said, there was a time that I viewed foreign countries as competitors, and I made a whole series of defensive moves to protect my 

sales in the market, in the domestic market. And then you said you 

changed your perspective. 

I know one of the comments that you also made that intrigued 

me—and I do believe that being a small business person, that I 

agree that innovation, quality and customer service are three very, 

very important pieces of what makes you successful as a business 

and makes you stand out from other businesses. But what made 

you change your mind? And what were those factors that made you 

then decide to move forward in being a strong competitor in the 

international market? 

Mr. PAULSON. It didn’t happen overnight; it took quite a while 

actually for me to change from a defensive position to an offensive 

position. However, I was always making some—I call them opportunistic exports, and it was not really a planned event. 

So as I started to go around the world, going to the trade shows, 

working actually with the U.S. Commercial Service, who is a very 

strong element in the United States for teaching people how to 

work outside the country, and then working with, like, the senior 

commercial officers in these foreign countries, I was imbued with 

this whole new world of opportunity in front of me, and through 

that I started making sales. And it was my good success and fortune that really turned my mind, because all of a sudden I could 

see there was so much opportunity, and the sales—I can say the 

sales in the most unusual places also through the help of the U.S. 

Commercial Service. 

Mrs. BLACK. Is your trade organization helping those manufacturers who have had great difficulty and some of them just not 

being able to be successful with their product; are they helping 

them to get into these foreign markets? 

Mr. PAULSON. Absolutely. The National Association of Manufacturers offers free help to open foreign markets and teach people 

how to work in those markets. And I can also say that I personally 

spend a lot of my own time as—and volunteer time of teaching others how to enter a market. One of the things I like to say is if you 

put me to work at your business, within just a couple of years, you 

will also have 25 percent of your sales in foreign markets. 

Mrs. BLACK. My final question may be for any of the other panelists. In looking at innovation, quality and customer service, would 

you say that that is the key for why other countries may want our 

products as opposed to the product being made in their country and 

the competitiveness of that? 

Mr. TOPPETA. I would comment on that. I think that is absolutely right. We see in all of these markets that customers are looking for innovation in products, and frankly, doing business with a 

global company and a U.S. company is something that they very 

much desire because of the innovativeness and because of the quality of the service that is provided. So I think it is definitely an advantage. 

Mr. BIEGUN. And, Congresswoman, this is where I keep coming 

back to our responsibilities. And that is our responsibility. But I 

can tell you that Ford Motor Company in our 106 years in business 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
99 

around the world has never found a customer that wants to pay 

more for less quality or for a lower—less desirable product. We are 

absolutely convinced that given the opportunity to present our vehicles to customers around the world, they will make a choice 

based upon best value for the money. 

Mr. DUCKER. Congresswoman Black, I would like to thank you, 

first of all, for your service to our State and to our country. But 

I would say personally about our trade missions, India is one great 

example. Most of the group is dominated by small companies, and 

while we were there, many trade agreements signed and the fortunes of those small businesses greatly enhanced by being open 

and exposed to innovative, new American products that they could 

take to market in India. So, yes, I would definitely agree that innovation, certainly creating value, is one of the greatest things that 

we bring. 

Mrs. BLACK. So if we can remove barriers, we have the products 

with the innovation, the customer service and the quality that will 

make us very competitive. Thank you. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. 

Mr. Roskam is recognized for the final question. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Those of us who are speaking late feel a little bit like the Jimmy 

Stewart character in ‘‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’’ when the 

Chamber clears out. So thank you very much for your patience and 

the patience of our colleagues. 

It seems like one of the subtexts of today’s hearing is that you 

have one side that has been making an argument or a suggestion 

about the cost of waiting, and another that is making an argument 

about the cost of moving forward. And those are very thoughtful 

questions, and you can kind of weigh them out. On Korea, as Mr. 

Rangel alluded, there was kind of a negotiation technique and so 

forth on moving forward and creating more opportunities for Ford 

Motor Company, for example, and other manufacturers. There is 

also a notion, well, as it relates to Colombia and Panama, there is 

a human rights element that I think most largely recognize have 

been remedied and so forth. 

But I just want to share with you an experience of a group that 

came in to see me, and it gets to this idea about no-cost job creation that I think is very powerful and something that can bring 

us all together to Mr. Camp’s point on moving forward, moving this 

debate forward. 

I had a group come to see me sort of with talking points over at 

the Cannon House Office Building just a couple years ago, and they 

were against the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. And I kind of 

shrugged them off and I said, I don’t really want to talk about Colombia. Let me tell you about something that I just heard about. 

And I began to explain to them—I said, hey, there is this opportunity for us as the United States to create changes within the Tax 

Code that actually get our manufactured products in a better position vis-a`-vis another area in the world that is actually four times 

the size of Illinois. And I asked them if we were able to do that, 

were able to change the Tax Code so that Illinois manufacturers 

had an advantage in selling and taking things then to O’Hare Airport on trucks and flying them down to this other market that is 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
100 

four times the size of Illinois, would you all be for that? They 

looked around and kind of crumpled up their talking points, and 

they said, yeah, we are for that, that sounds good. That is the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. And it was sort of a revelatory moment for them. Now, they didn’t give me the satisfaction of telling 

me that I persuaded them, but I think that the way that was 

framed up was a little bit different. 

So I guess the challenge that we have—my staff sometimes will 

come to me, my kids will come to me, and they will ask me a question, and sometimes I will say, well, let me think about it. Now, 

as we all know, ‘‘let me think about it’’ means one of two things; 

it either means no, and I just don’t want to deal with it, or it 

means let me think about it. And I think that we are upon this 

time right now as a committee, as a Congress, and as a country 

where sort of the thinking is done. We need to make decisions moving forward to try to create an environment where worldwide 

American companies or little American companies are in the best 

possible footing to be competitive and dynamic, and that is no-cost 

job creation, and that is something I think we can all agree on. 

Mr. Biegun, let me just ask you one sort of closing question, and 

that is sort of relating that experience that I had with this group 

in my office about Colombia and the type of manufacturing that 

you mentioned when you were having a conversation with Mr. 

Tiberi a couple of minutes ago, can you comment on what the Colombia FTA agreement means in terms of Ford Motor Company 

production opportunity and how that ripples out in jobs from a nocost job creation point of view? 

Mr. BIEGUN. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Roskam. 

As I said earlier in the hearing, we source a number of our vehicles that we sell—the vast majority of the vehicles that we sell— 

in Colombia from the United States, and this will increase our exports from the United States. So it will be entirely beneficial as Colombia doesn’t manufacture any cars, and none are coming—or any 

cars are exported to the United States anyway. So none are coming 

the other way. 

Let me also add in the case of Korea, had you presented me with 

the Koreans’ 8 percent tariff was going away, it would have been 

of no benefit to us, but we would have seen a sizable advantage to 

the Korean importers. So, there is a formula that we have to get 

right. 

But let me end with this note, that we worked through that with 

this committee, with the leadership and the chairman and the 

ranking member, and we are very encouraged with the outcome of 

this. And in conclusion we have bipartisan support; we have industry and labor all supporting the Korea deal. I think that is a model 

of success, and I think it shows that we can together, private sector 

and government, work these things through, and I think that has 

been a great experience for us. 

Mr. ROSKAM. I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. [Presiding.] Thank you. I thank the gentleman 

for yielding. And I want to thank—sincere thanks to all of our witnesses for their excellent testimony and to the Members for their 

thoughtful questions today. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
101 

Let me note for our witnesses, Members may submit questions 

to you for the record. If they do, I hope you will respond promptly 

in writing. 

Chairman CAMP. Our witnesses today made clear that all three 

pending trade agreements offer significant benefits for agriculture, 

manufacturing and the services sectors of our economy, all without 

requiring any new government spending. Continued delay will only 

harm the ability of American workers, businesses and farmers to 

compete in these markets as our competitors move ahead. 

Tonight we have an opportunity to hear from the President. I 

hope we will hear about these agreements and that he lays out a 

clear action plan and timetable for considering all three of them. 

I strongly believe that we should work together and consider all 

three agreements together, and hopefully within the next 6 

months. I hope that we can continue to work together to make that 

happen. 

I again want to thank all of you for spending time today, and the 

committee is about to adjourn, but we will hold. 

Mr. RANGEL. I just want to remind the panel—and I really 

thought it was a great panel—of my request as to your feeling as 

to whether or not our great country is meeting your standards in 

terms of education and also health care. It is very, very important 

to many of us that we find out what your position really is and 

what are you doing about it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Thank you very much. The committee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:14 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
102 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.044
103 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.045
104 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.046
105 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.047
106 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.048
107 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.049
108 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.050
109 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.051
110 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.052
111 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.053
112 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.054
113 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.055
114 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.056
115 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.057
116 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.058
117 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.059
118 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.060
119 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.061
120 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.062
121 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.063
122 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.064
123 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.065
124 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.066
125 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.067
126 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.068
127 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.069
128 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.070
129 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.071
130 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.072
131 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.073
132 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.074
133 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.075
134 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.076
135 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.077
136 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.078
137 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.079
138 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.080
139 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.081
140 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.082
141 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.083
142 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.084
143 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.085
144 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.086
145 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.087
146 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.088
147 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.089
148 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.090
149 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.091
150 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.092
151 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.093
152 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.094
153 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.095
154 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.096
155 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.097
156 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.098
157 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.099
158 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.100
159 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.101
160 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.102
161 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.103
162 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.104
163 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.105
164 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.106
165 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.107
166 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.108
167 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.109
168 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.110
169 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.111
170 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.112
171 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.113
172 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.114
173 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.115
174 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.116
175 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.117
176 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.118
177 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.119
178 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.120
179 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.121 67469A.122
180 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.123
181 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.124
182 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.125
183 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.126
184 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.127
185 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.128
186 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.129
187 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.130
188 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.131
189 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.132
190 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.133
191 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.134
192 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.135
193 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.136
194 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.137
195 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.138
196 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.139
197 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.140
198 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.141
199 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.142
200 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.143
201 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.144
202 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.145
203 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.146
204 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.147
205 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.148
206 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.149
207 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.150
208 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.151
209 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.152
210 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.153
211 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.154
212 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.155
213 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.156
214 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.157
215 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.158
216 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.159
217 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.160
218 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.161
219 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.162
220 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.163
221 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.164
222 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.165
223 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.166
224 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.171
225 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.172
226 

Æ 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING67469A.173