On the recordOctober 11, 2011
I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. I voted against NAFTA. I led the battle against CAFTA on this floor. I did so because in those agreements there were not enforceable international worker rights. We face this in Panama. As originally negotiated, there was not the implementation of those rights in Panama. They had certain provisions relating to newer businesses. They also had restrictions in terms of trade zones. And what we said to the Panamanians was, bring your laws up to international standards. That's exactly what they did. This is the opposite, in that respect, of NAFTA and CAFTA. So it is not accurate to say this is a NAFTA-type agreement. It simply is not. In terms of government procurement, we want access for our companies and workers to the construction that's going on in the Panama Canal zone. It's vital for our companies. And so essentially in this agreement there is a provision that we can have access there, with limits, as they can, with limits, to us. It's mutually beneficial. Lastly, there has been reference to the tax haven. Panama was a tax haven, one of the most striking in the world. And we insisted that they enact a TIEA. They've done exactly that. So if we take these one at a time, this is an agreement that meets our standards and changes the agreement from the way it was negotiated by the Bush administration. We should support this agreement. {time} 2140





