[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 168 (Friday, December 17, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10438-S10441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 6517

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation that has 
broad bipartisan support and will have a positive impact, if we pass 
it, on job creation in the United States. This is H.R. 6517, which is 
known as the MTB, the miscellaneous terror bill. I will provide some 
highlights and then ask my colleague, Senator Brown of Ohio, to comment 
as well. Then we have a consent request.
  First, this bill supports manufacturing jobs. The National 
Association of Manufacturers supports the bill. When the last bill was 
signed into law earlier this year, the last MTB bill, at that time it 
passed the House by a vote of 378 to 43. This was in July. The national 
manufacturers praised it as ``a victory for job creation.'' This bill, 
combined with the last bill of the same kind, is expected to increase 
U.S. production by at least $4.6 billion over the next 3 years and to 
support 90,000--imagine that--manufacturing jobs, according to a study.
  As I said before, and should repeat again, it has strong bipartisan 
support. The bill has 40 Republican-sponsored provisions and 40 
Democratic-sponsored provisions. It has not just bipartisan support but 
the support of manufacturers across the country. Domestic producers in 
the United States are relying on the new provisions in the bill to 
remain competitive, and these same producers are more likely to grow 
and support good-paying manufacturing jobs, just at a time when we need 
jobs in general, but in particular, there is a crying need for 
manufacturing jobs in the United States as well as a State such as the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
  A couple of words about one aspect of the bill and then I will turn 
to Senator Brown.
  One of the provisions, of course, is trade adjustment assistance. The 
2009 trade adjustment assistance--known by the acronym TAA--those 
reforms made significant improvements in this program for workers. 
Since these changes were implemented, more than 155,000 additional 
trade-impacted workers who would not have been certified under the 
former program became eligible for trade adjustment assistance for 
worker benefits and training opportunities. In total, more than 367,000 
workers were certified as eligible for that support in that same 
timeframe.
  A word about Pennsylvania. We have lost--and I think the 
corresponding number is similar in other States--but imagine this: 
Since 2001, less than a decade, our State has lost 200,000 
manufacturing jobs. This program, the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Program, has played a vital role in helping those workers who have lost 
their jobs in that time period.
  There is much more I could say about Pennsylvania, and I will hold 
that for later. But I did want to turn to my colleague from Ohio, who 
has worked tirelessly on this issue here in the Senate and in the years 
when he was a Member of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I agree with him that this bill has as broad a public 
support as you get on a trade bill, a bill that deals directly with 
tariffs and trade relationships and manufacturing and help for workers 
who are laid off and help both with training dollars and with health 
care dollars and health care tax incentives.
  It is supported--that is why it passed, I believe, by a voice vote in 
the House of Representatives last night, meaning nobody spoke out 
against it when it was passed overwhelmingly by voice vote. There may 
have been a few scattered ``nos.'' I am not even sure there was that.
  The ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, who will be 
chairman, Congressman Camp, from Michigan, was supporting it. The Ways 
and Means outgoing chairman, also from Michigan, Congressman Levin, 
also supported this.
  The AFL-CIO supports it. The National Retail Federation and the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce recognize this is good for the country. That is why 
I am so hopeful my colleagues will not block this legislation.
  One person standing up in this Chamber and blocking legislation 
because it is late in the year--I do not know if they are trying to cut 
some deal or what the reason is they would use for blocking it. But 
forget the politics of the support for it around the country, but look 
what it does that is so important: trade adjustment assistance. Since 
2009, 367,000 workers were certified eligible for TAA, trade adjustment 
assistance. These workers use TAA to acquire new skills. When a worker 
is laid off, in Erie or right across the State line in Ashtabula, OH, 
you want to encourage them to go back to school and become, for 
example, a nurse, if they were working in a plant, and they are 45 
years old, or you want them to go back to school and become a computer 
operator or to have some kind of job that you would hope would pay 
something comparable to the job they lost. This legislation is 
essential to do that.
  The health care tax credit program helps these trade-affected workers 
and retirees purchase private health insurance to replace the employer-
sponsored coverage they lost. We want people to be able to get back on 
their feet.
  An objection to this motion by Senator Casey, a ``no'' vote on this, 
really does say: Stop. We are not interested in helping you do this.
  If we allow the program to go back, if this is defeated, the jobs 
that are shipped to China or India or other countries we do not have a 
trade agreement with would no longer be eligible.
  I can name by name factories in places such as Cleveland and 
Mansfield and Toledo and Dayton--and Senator

[[Page S10439]]

Casey can in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and Altoona and all over his 
State--companies that have shut down or moved much of their production 
to China or India. We want them to be eligible, even though we do not 
have a bilateral trade agreement with those countries as we do with 
NAFTA or CAFTA or some of the other bilateral trade agreements we have.
  That is why this is so important. I particularly ask my colleagues 
not to object to the passage of this bill. It has passed the House. We 
have the exact same language here. It is vetted. The Republican and 
Democratic leaders in both Houses say we ought to do it. Senator Baucus 
has worked very hard, harder than anyone, to renew TAA before the end 
of the year.
  But I particularly am concerned about the health care tax credit. We 
have tried to come to the floor and move that already. We have not been 
successful in doing it because of the peculiar nature of Senate rules 
and that a very small handful, sometimes as few as one, can stop 
legislation.
  But without the HCTC, come January 1, there will be thousands of 
people in my State who lose their health insurance. Hundreds of them--
if not several thousand--have spouses who will lose their health 
insurance because of what this will do in terms of the tax credit for 
health insurance.
  So I guess my question to Senator Casey--and then he can make the 
motion, which I fully support--is, why? What do you see in this that 
anybody would object to? I am at a loss to understand why anybody would 
object to this.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I cannot understand it, especially when you 
consider the fact that we have 15 million Americans out of work. I know 
the numbers are high in all of our States. In Pennsylvania, we are 
fortunate. We are below 9 percent. We are at about 8.8 percent right 
now--8.6 percent, actually, is the most recent number. That number has 
been going down, thank goodness. But it is still just below 550,000 
people. It was up above 590,000. So we are making some progress, but we 
are badly in need of manufacturing jobs, and I know the same is true in 
Ohio.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6517, 
the Omnibus Trade Act, which was received from the House and is at the 
desk; that the bill be read three times and passed, and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will object, I wish to share a few thoughts with my colleagues. I think 
if they knew the basis for the objection I have, they would be 
supportive of it, and I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, let me say, with regard to this 
legislation, I have supported free trade probably more than my 
colleagues. I believe in the Andean Trade Agreement that is a part of 
this. I support the trade assistance that is in the bill and would be 
glad to remove my objections to them if they wish to move forward with 
that.
  But I have worked for 2 years to try to obtain a simple justice to 
close a loophole in the tariff laws that has impacted and will close a 
sleeping bag textile manufacturer in my State. It is in Haleyville, in 
Winston County, AL. It is in northwest Alabama. It is a poor county. 
They have a great history. They call it ``the free State of Winston.'' 
They claim they seceded from the State of Alabama during the Civil War, 
and most of their public officials from then until today remain 
Republicans. But they are an independent, hard-working people. This 
bill, as written, will close that plant, and it should not happen.
  I want to share with you the Chamber of Commerce, NAM and the AFL-CIO 
have been made aware of this, as we have discussed it over the past 
years, and they believe this company should receive some relief. But 
the people who put the bill together did not. And I am very much of the 
belief--I know my colleagues are--that when you have good people in 
your State who are being put out of business by a company that was 
moved to Bangladesh to try to capture this loophole--it is not a little 
matter.

  These are human beings. As I said, I do believe in trade. I think it 
is best for the world. But I would say to my colleagues, we have to 
have fair trade. We have to have just trade. And nations around the 
world, I think, have taken advantage of the overconfidence of the 
United States in our economy that they can cheat on agreements and 
manipulate agreements and close down businesses in the United States, 
and that somehow we are going to pass on by, and that eventually we 
will get to the point where we just have banking and hospitals in this 
country.
  But manufacturing is an important part of our economy. This company 
has been able to withstand competition from China and has been 
successful. But they cleverly figured out how to move it to Bangladesh, 
using 85 percent Chinese products, and shipping it to the United States 
and getting around the small tariff that makes a difference between 
success and failure.
  I plead with my colleagues to consider the justice of this matter. 
Move your bill. I do not think there is any real substantive objection 
to it. The U.S. Trade Representative expressed a lot of sympathy for 
this situation, and I thought somewhere the bureaucrats and the 
politicians were going to put together a bill that would grant relief 
so this company would have a chance to continue to be very competitive. 
They are modern, have high-tech equipment, sewing equipment, good 
employees. They pay them health care and benefits far more than they 
are paid anywhere else in the world. And they can still win except for 
this loophole.
  I am at a point where I am not going to go for it anymore. I am not 
going to stand by and allow nations to cheat on their trade agreements 
and manipulate trade agreements that, in effect, destroy our 
industries. I am aware that the Smoot-Hawley trade agreement was part 
of the Depression. I know all that argument, and I am not against free 
trade. But I am telling you, we need to stand and defend our 
industries. I know both of my colleagues share that.
  I want to say, I feel strongly about it. I believe this is just. And 
I think this bureaucracy, this Senate, this Congress, ought to listen 
to what we are saying and give us some relief. Otherwise, I would be 
willing to move the parts of the legislation that are not directly 
relevant to this.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, let me say by way of response to our 
colleague from Alabama, I have great respect for and appreciate the 
sentiments he is expressing for workers and employers in his State, 
fighting hard for them, and the concern about jobs going overseas.
  I would say a couple things: No. 1, we did have an opportunity this 
fall to vote on legislation which would provide both incentives and 
disincentives to the shipment of jobs overseas by changing the Tax 
Code. We had a debate about it. One side voted for it--this side--and 
the other side did not. I just wanted to make that point.
  But the other point is that, look, we have a disagreement about this. 
What I would hope we could do is try to find a way to help firms such 
as the one that our colleague is trying to protect, and that is 
certainly understandable. But, at the same time, if we do not pass this 
bill in totality, we are going to shortchange the ability to impact not 
just the creation of 90,000 manufacturing jobs around the country, 
including in all of our States, but also trade adjustment 
assistance. So for the hundreds of thousands of people--tens of 
thousands in a State such as Pennsylvania, and potentially even more 
than that, and certainly in all of our States--we have to get this done 
even if we are trying to work on problems that arise that are specific 
to one employer or one portion of a particular community.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will be glad to discuss it with my 
colleague, but I would note that the exemption I am concerned about 
goes to Third World countries. They are given, under the generalized 
system of preferences, or GSP, the right to import pretty much duty-
free, but it comes with a crucial condition. That condition is that you 
do not get to import into the United States under this zero tariff if 
you are competing with American companies and American jobs--unemployed

[[Page S10440]]

Americans. If we don't have that manufacturing in the United States, 
they get this exemption. This is a loophole they achieved under the 
tariff rules by calling a sleeping bag not a textile, and it is a 
textile and it should be covered by this. That is all I am saying.
  I would ask my colleagues, isn't it true that if the leadership of 
both parties agree to this amendment, there is plenty of time for it to 
be accepted, go back to the House, and be passed before we recess? That 
is what I would ask to be done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I see some real potential here. I thank the 
Senator from Alabama. I know Senator Casey and I have fought for 
American manufacturing for pretty much our whole careers. I know 
Senator Sessions has had some disagreements sometimes with our trade 
policy in this country. I think our trade policy has done more--and the 
way we do globalization has done as much damage to our country as 
almost anything in terms of jobs, especially manufacturing jobs.
  There are several parts of this bill, as the Senator recognizes--the 
GSP, about which the Senator obviously has some strong feelings; there 
are things the Senator has sounded as though he was agreeing with on 
TAA and with HCTC, with the Andean, and with the other part of the 
trade issue--I am drawing a blank on the other part of the tariff 
issue. It seems to me that except for the general standardized 
preferences, or GSP, it sounds as though we have a lot of agreement.
  I hope I can speak for Senator Casey as well in saying I will 
certainly work with the Senator on trying to fix the part of the GSP 
that doesn't work for Alabama. If we can either separate the other ones 
out and get a UC or work with them together and go back to the House, 
we are certainly willing to do that.
  I just don't want to see us adjourn--whatever day we adjourn, whether 
it is Monday or Tuesday or Christmas Day, I don't want to see us walk 
out of here without helping with trade adjustment, without helping with 
the health care tax credit, and leaving out Andean trade preferences 
and those things. So let's work together and see if we can do this in 
the next 24 hours and come back to the floor and work something 
through, if Senator Casey agrees with that too.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Brown and Senator Casey. I do believe 
that is possible, and I think maybe there is a growing belief that 
somewhere in this debate about trade, we can reach a common accord 
across the aisle that, yes, we want to have trade, we want to expand 
trade that can benefit America, but at the same time we have to not 
unnecessarily destroy American jobs, and this little part of it is 
damaging. I tried last year. We spent a year talking about this. It is 
not something that just got sprung on the floor here at this moment. I 
think there is a way out of it.
  I thank the Senators for being openminded today.
  Mr. CASEY. I thank both of my colleagues.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I support H.R. 6517. This bill extends 
three of my longstanding trade priorities, Trade Adjustment Assistance, 
TAA, the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, and the Andean Trade 
Preference Act, ATPA. TAA provides job training for workers here at 
home, training that is more important than ever in these difficult 
economic times. And GSP and ATPA support thousands of jobs here in the 
United States and provide livelihoods for millions of people in the 
developing world as well. If we do not act, these programs will expire 
on December 31. The bill also includes miscellaneous tariff bill 
provisions, and provisions to replenish the wool trust fund, all of 
which will support jobs in Montana and across America. I urge swift 
passage of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I know we are discussing a number of 
different issues on the floor right now, and one of the most important, 
as my colleagues know, is the START treaty with Russia, and I wish to 
take a few minutes to talk about it.
  We all take our responsibility of advice and consent very seriously 
for nominations and particularly on a treaty of this magnitude. I am 
very disappointed that on something of this importance, we are bringing 
it up in a lameduck Congress at a time when Americans are distracted by 
one of the most holy holidays for Christians in this country.
  None of us minds working through the holidays or through the night on 
the Nation's business, but it is important that Americans participate 
in this process with us. They know many of the people who will be 
voting on this treaty are those who have been turned out of office by 
Americans in the last election, and they will also know that the reason 
to rush it through before new Members are sworn in is that those who 
will be carrying the voice of Americans into the next session may have 
a different view of some of the things we are doing here.
  It is important, as we look at this START treaty, to understand the 
implications and the background of this treaty. A number of my 
colleagues have talked about various aspects of it--about verification, 
the number of missiles--and I will touch on a few of these things.
  I respect the administration's intent to try to enlist the 
cooperation of Russia on other major issues, such as dealing with Iran 
and North Korea, and that this is a symbol of our willingness to work 
with them. I understand that. I understand that is one of the reasons a 
number of past Secretaries of State have said we need to do this.
  I think the administration and many recognize that this treaty only 
deals with intercontinental ballistic missiles--ICBMs--missiles we have 
had for years on the shelf as a deterrent, as part of that strategy of 
mutually assured destruction. Russia had its number of missiles and we 
had ours, with the understanding that if they fired missiles at us, we 
would fire missiles at them, and we would destroy each other--mutually 
assured destruction. These missiles don't defend Americans, except if 
you say maybe to deter Russians from firing their missiles at us. But 
as we understand that this treaty only deals with the ICBMs, we 
recognize it doesn't include many other weapons, such as tactical 
nuclear weapons, and we also understand it does not have any 
prohibitions on other countries developing nuclear weapons, nuclear 
missiles.
  We also understand that Russia has basically already met the 
limitations in this agreement. They are not going to have to draw down 
their number of missiles or warheads. The United States will reduce the 
number of missiles--ICBMs--it has. But, again, the other weapons, which 
are perhaps more dangerous and of more concern to some of our allies, 
are not included in this treaty.
  So I think part of the rationale of moving through with this is that 
it only deals with one type of missile that is perhaps of limited 
importance in today's world--although certainly the deterrence will 
continue to be part of our strategy--and we are just dealing with these 
so-called strategic weapons and not tactical weapons, and that we can 
give this up, we can reduce the number we have in order to gain 
Russia's cooperation in other matters. I understand that rationale. But 
this is more than just a treaty between the United States and Russia; 
it is a signal to our allies and to the whole world on what posture 
America will take in the future on defending our allies, what posture 
we will take particularly on missile defense. That is where I wish to 
focus most of my comments today.
  There was no argument in the hearings that this treaty is an implicit 
and explicit agreement by the United States not to develop a missile 
defense system that can defend against Russian missiles. That should be 
clear, and there is no argument.
  I think we have played with words a little bit in saying it does not 
limit our plans in missile defense. Our plans are to develop an 
unlimited system that can shoot down a rogue missile. But in the 
hearings with Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, Chairman Kerry, it 
was made very clear that this treaty--it made it clear to the Russians 
and to the whole world that the United States would not even attempt to 
develop a missile defense system capable of shooting down multiple 
missiles.
  Now, if Russia was the only country in the world capable of 
developing multiple nuclear missiles, perhaps we

[[Page S10441]]

could discuss that within that context. But as we know today, there has 
been a proliferation of nuclear technology to many countries, including 
Iran and North Korea. We know that other countries such as Pakistan 
have nuclear weapons. It is not unrealistic to suggest that within a 
few years there may be numerous countries that have capabilities to 
fire multiple missiles at the United States or one of our allies.
  Americans need to know we are agreeing with this START treaty not to 
even attempt to develop a system to defend our citizens or our allies 
against multiple missiles. In the hearing, I made this very clear with 
a question: Is it our intent not to develop a missile defense system 
capable of defending against Russian missiles? Senator Kerry, Secretary 
Gates, and Secretary Clinton agreed that would destabilize our 
relationship with Russia. So everyone should be clear about what is 
happening here--that in order to enlist Russia's cooperation in other 
matters, we are agreeing to a continued strategy of mutually assured 
destruction not just with Russia but with any country that chooses to 
develop the ability to fire multiple missiles at one time.
  I don't think this treaty is going to decrease proliferation. I think 
on its face it will increase the proliferation of nuclear weapons 
around the world. Our enemies will know we don't have the ability to 
defend against missiles, and our allies will develop their own nuclear 
weapons because they know we no longer have the capability to defend 
against not just Russia's missiles, not just strategic missiles, but 
against tactical nuclear weapons.
  Russia has a 10-to-1 advantage right now with modern tactical nuclear 
weapons that are developed not as a deterrence but to be used on the 
battlefield. This treaty does not limit their ability to continue to 
develop these weapons. This treaty implicitly and I think explicitly 
says we are not going to develop any means to shoot down those shorter 
range missiles.
  For us to be considering something of this gravity during the 
holidays, when Americans are rightly paying attention to things other 
than politics, and to rush this through with a few days of debate, when 
for the last treaty I looked at, we had 9 days with many amendments, a 
lot of debate, and finally agreement--we will not only have limited 
debate and limited amendments, but we are going to try to push this 
through before we leave to go home for Christmas. The process is wrong.
  I would appeal to my colleagues to let this go until next year. Let's 
give a specific time agreement next year that we will debate this and 
we will have a vote on it and we will offer amendments and vote on 
those amendments and show the American people this was a full debate 
with full transparency about what is in this treaty and then let 
Senators vote on it, the Senators Americans have elected to speak for 
them here in the Senate.
  I have heard folks say on the Senate floor that we need to rush into 
this because we can no longer go days, weeks, and months without 
verification. I think a close look at the verification of the last 
treaty shows we weren't very close to what was actually going on. There 
are big loopholes in the verification aspects of this treaty, loopholes 
that are big enough to hide missiles and nuclear warheads, and I don't 
think there is a lot of debate about that. A few more weeks is not 
going to put our country in any more jeopardy. In fact, I think rushing 
this through could make the world much more dangerous.
  My hope is that my colleagues, particularly my Republican colleagues, 
those who have expressed an interest in voting for this, will say: 
Enough is enough. Pushing this legislation, along with repealing don't 
ask, don't tell, the DREAM Act and other bills we are doing at the same 
time, and all of these requests for unanimous consent to pass bills 
that people haven't read--there is just too much business, too many 
distractions to take on something of this gravity at this time in a 
lameduck Congress.
  So I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I respect those who feel as 
though this treaty is something we should do. But it is my hope that 
those people will reflect on the importance of this treaty, the signal 
it sends to our allies all over the world, and work with us to get an 
open and honest debate on this treaty at the beginning of next year.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.