[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 140 (Tuesday, September 20, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5739-S5745]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            EXTENDING THE GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 2832 is agreed to, and the clerk will report 
the measure.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2832) to extend the Generalized System of 
     Preferences, and for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 633

  Mr. REID. On behalf of Senators Casey, Brown of Ohio, and Baucus, I 
call up amendment No. 633.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Casey, Mr. 
     Brown of Ohio, and Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 
     633.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. REID. Before noting the absence of a quorum, it is my 
understanding the Republican leader is on his way to the floor to offer 
an amendment, and I think everyone should understand there will be no 
business conducted until he shows up.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                 Amendment No. 626 to Amendment No. 633

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 626, which 
is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself, Mr. 
     Hatch, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Coats, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
     Rubio, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Thune, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Portman, Mr. 
     Hoeven, and Mr. Cornyn, proposes an amendment numbered 626 to 
     amendment No. 633.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide trade promotion authority for the Trans-Pacific 
         Partnership Agreement and for other trade agreements)

       At the end, add the following:

[[Page S5740]]

                  TITLE III--TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Creating American Jobs 
     through Exports Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 302. RENEWAL OF TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 2103 of the Bipartisan Trade 
     Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3803) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) may enter into trade agreements with foreign 
     countries--
       ``(i) on and after the date of the enactment of the 
     Creating American Jobs through Exports Act of 2011 and before 
     June 1, 2013; or
       ``(ii) on and after June 1, 2013, and before December 31, 
     2013, if trade authorities procedures are extended under 
     subsection (c); and'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(C) The President may enter into a trade agreement under 
     this paragraph--
       ``(i) on and after the date of the enactment of the 
     Creating American Jobs through Exports Act of 2011 and before 
     June 1, 2013; or
       ``(ii) on and after June 1, 2013, and before December 31, 
     2013, if trade authorities procedures are extended under 
     subsection (c).''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``before July 1, 
     2005'' and inserting ``on and after the date of the enactment 
     of the Creating American Jobs through Exports Act of 2011 and 
     before June 1, 2013''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``after 
     June 30, 2005, and before July 1, 2007'' and inserting ``on 
     or after June 1, 2013, and before December 31, 2013''; and
       (II) in clause (ii), by striking ``July 1, 2005'' and 
     inserting ``June 1, 2013'';

       (B) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A), by striking ``April 1, 2005'' and inserting ``March 1, 
     2013'';
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by striking ``June 1, 2005'' and inserting ``May 1, 
     2013''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``June 1, 2005'' and inserting ``May 1, 
     2013''; and
       (II) by striking ``the date of enactment of this Act'' and 
     inserting ``the date of the enactment of the Creating 
     American Jobs through Exports Act of 2011''; and

       (D) in paragraph (5), by striking ``June 30, 2005'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``May 31, 2013''.
       (b) Treatment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement 
     and Certain Other Agreements.--Section 2106 of the Bipartisan 
     Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3806) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking the comma at the end and 
     inserting ``, or'';
       (B) by striking paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(2) establishes a Trans-Pacific Partnership,''; and
       (C) in the flush text at the end, by striking ``the date of 
     the enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``the date of the 
     enactment of the Creating American Jobs through Exports Act 
     of 2011''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A), by striking ``the enactment of this Act'' 
     and inserting ``the date of the enactment of the Creating 
     American Jobs through Exports Act of 2011''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the amendment 
the majority leader just called up. The Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Program in particular is what I will focus on in my remarks. I want to, 
first of all, thank the majority leader for his leadership on this 
issue, helping us get started today. I am particularly grateful for the 
strong leadership Chairman Baucus has provided, the chairman of our 
Finance Committee. I thank him and his staff for their tireless 
efforts, not just leading up to today but over a long period of time. 
He has been such a strong advocate for this program.
  For many months Chairman Baucus has led the charge to assure that a 
strong Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is reinstated because it is 
important public policy for our workers, to get them retrained and to 
make sure they have the skills needed to compete in such a tough 
economy. I appreciate his work.
  I also appreciate Chairman Baucus's work for many years fighting for 
workers, especially when their jobs are at risk, their livelihoods and 
their families' economic security. I thank Chairman Baucus and so many 
others. My colleague Senator Brown of Ohio has been a tremendous leader 
on this issue as well.
  One thing we all understand, whether we are Democrats or Republicans 
or Independents, is that we are still in the midst, still in the grip 
of a jobs crisis all across the country. It knows no geographic 
boundaries, it knows no party. People are worried, concerned that their 
jobs will continually be at risk. Some, of course, have already lost 
their jobs--almost 14\1/2\ million Americans at last count.
  In the midst of that crisis, it is critically important that we take 
the steps here to make sure those who want to get back into the 
workforce, those who want to improve their skills or be retrained in 
some way or another, have that opportunity. We know in the next couple 
of weeks the Congress will be taking up free trade agreements. But 
before we do that, before we begin the debate, before we consider those 
agreements, we have to make sure our workers have the protections they 
need to deal with the ravages of unfair foreign competition.
  There are lots of ways to talk about this program and this issue. 
Some of them, frankly, get a little academic. The best way for me to 
understand the importance of trade adjustment assistance is very much 
consistent with the recent and unfortunate economic history of my home 
State of Pennsylvania. In our Commonwealth--by way of one example, but 
it is the best example I can cite because of the numbers of workers 
affected--in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the 1970s and 1980s, 
in a short period of time, in less than a decade, we had tens of 
thousands of steelworkers lose their jobs. These were folks who worked 
in steel mills, not just for a couple of years but in many instances 
decades. They would graduate from high school, go into the steel mill 
and be virtually guaranteed of a job for the rest of their lives--a 
good job with good benefits on which they could support their families.
  Then we know what happened to those workers and that industry. A lot 
of their jobs were destroyed in the 1970s and 1980s because of the 
decline of the steel industry. It is at times such as that, when 
someone who has worked their whole life and put all of their energies 
into a job and that job goes away in a matter of weeks or months or a 
few short years, we have to make sure we are there for them at that 
moment. One of the ways we can be there for them is with trade 
adjustment assistance.
  I and every Member of the Senate could point to other examples as 
well, but I remember that horrific history in Pennsylvania where 
families were destroyed because of the loss of a job.
  Our trade policies have hit a lot of American workers very hard. 
Especially today we are seeing that. I mentioned Pennsylvania's 
manufacturing jobs as an example. According to an analysis by the Joint 
Economic Committee, of which I am the chairman, from 1997 to 2010--just 
13 years--manufacturing went from 16.4 percent of the gross State 
product of Pennsylvania down to 12.1 percent. In 13 years, a short 
period of time, there was that kind of decline in manufacturing jobs, 
from roughly 16.5 to 12. In total, the job loss in Pennsylvania 
manufacturing was nearly 300,000 good-paying jobs.
  While trade adjustment assistance cannot bring those jobs back, we 
can take steps to help those workers in a tough time as they transition 
to new employment, to new skills and to new opportunities. Many 
displaced workers need considerable training to reenter the labor 
market. Imagine if any one of us did the same job for years or decades 
and then had to turn on a dime to adjust to the difficulties in the 
economy. It takes a while. According to a report by the Joint Economic 
Committee as well, many of these folks who have lost their jobs are 
much older than the rest of the workforce. They need to gain a number 
of skills. Fifty-seven percent of current participants in the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Program are 45 years of age or older--57 percent. 
Trade adjustment assistance can better address the needs of these 
displaced workers by requiring training and giving additional time for 
workers to gain the skills necessary to reenter the workforce to 
prepare to compete in a tough economy, in a world economy.
  We know these programs work. We know, based upon the JEC report I 
cited earlier, 53 percent of those who participated in Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Programs were reemployed within 3 months; 53 percent were 
reemployed after 3 months after leaving the program itself. These 
participants also

[[Page S5741]]

found lasting employment, with 80 percent of those workers employed 
within the first 3 months remaining employed by an additional 6 months.
  We know that in 2009, several reforms were made to the program to 
reflect the realities of the modern workforce and the modern labor 
market. The amendment I offer today with my colleague Senator Brown of 
Ohio would reinstate these reforms, including the following, by way of 
an economic summary: No. 1, providing trade adjustment assistance 
benefits to service sector workers; No. 2, covering workers whose firms 
shift production to non-free-trade agreement partner countries--for 
example, China and India. We hear a lot of people talking around here 
about how we have to compete with China and India and keep our workers 
at a high skill level to do that. This is one way to do that. No. 3, 
finally, increasing the health care tax credit subsidy to 72.5 percent 
and hereby addressing one of the most significant costs for those 
without a job, the cost of health insurance.
  We all know, and I know firsthand, the benefits of a strong trade 
adjustment assistance program based upon what has happened in 
Pennsylvania over many years.
  According to the Department of Labor, from May of 2009 through June 
of 2011--a little more than 2 years--nearly 10,000 additional workers 
qualified for assistance due to these essential reforms in 
Pennsylvania. So the reforms we made in 2009 have helped nearly 10,000 
workers in Pennsylvania. If you look at it nationwide, 185,783 
additional workers were certified for TAA participation because of 
those reforms. In total, trade adjustment assistance has assisted 
nearly half a million people over this time period. Our action this 
week will ensure that thousands of American workers will be able to 
count on retraining and other support if they lose their job through no 
fault of their own.
  More and more jobs--and we all know this but it bears repeating--have 
been sent overseas, leaving workers out in the cold. Nothing they did 
has caused outsourcing of their job, and yet they are left with the 
consequences and their families suffer with those same consequences. To 
get jobs in new industries, workers need new skills. They need to be 
retrained and introduced to new skills. Trade adjustment assistance 
helps those workers hurt by foreign trade get back to work, while also 
ensuring workers have a skilled workforce at the same time.
  Finally, let me urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. 
Trade adjustment assistance has a long and proud history of bipartisan 
support in the Senate, and I hope we can continue that with this 
amendment and with this work. Those who have been affected by this know 
this story better than I or better than any of us, and it is about time 
we stood with those workers when they and their families are suffering.
  I would yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my 
remarks, if it is all right with the distinguished Senator from Ohio, 
the former Trade Representative, the other distinguished Senator from 
Ohio, Mr. Portman, be allowed to give his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I apologize to Senator Brown, but Senator Portman was 
promised he would be able to speak at 11:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thought Senator Hatch said that the senior 
Senator from Ohio, then the junior Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The UC request is for the Senator from Utah, 
the junior Senator from Ohio, then the senior Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I didn't understand that from my conversations, 
but I do not object.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the TAA amendment offered 
by my good friend and colleague from Montana, Chairman Baucus. Before I 
get into the specifics, I think it is important to put this debate in 
context. For years I have been working to ensure that our pending trade 
agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea receive fair 
consideration in the Senate. Unfortunately, while I worked to get these 
agreements approved, others placed obstacles in the way. As a result, 
days, weeks, and months passed. Eventually those months turned into 
years. Now 4 years later, we are taking out the sixth renewal of trade 
adjustment assistance in the time these trade agreements languished. To 
me, it is highly ironic that we not only passed but expanded 
legislation to help workers who are allegedly harmed by trade 
agreements five times over the last 4 years, while we have yet to pass 
a single trade agreement.
  This March President Obama made himself perfectly clear: Unless 
Congress agreed to spend more money for this pet trade priority, he 
would never send a trade agreement to Congress and U.S. workers would 
never benefit from these agreements. Basically, the President held U.S. 
exporters hostage while he squeezed more spending out of Congress.
  Despite my deep disappointment in the President's failure to make 
these agreements a priority, I am pleased we are having this debate 
today. Earlier this summer the administration tried to jam the domestic 
spending program into the Korea Free Trade Agreement implementing bill. 
I strongly opposed this move. I believe it violated longstanding trade 
rules and seriously jeopardized approval of the South Korea agreement.
  I strongly encouraged the White House to reconsider so we could have 
a robust debate with TAA considered solely on its merits. After all, if 
there is such a strong bipartisan support for the program, it should 
not be shielded from a debate and vote in an open forum. It appears the 
administration realized their position was untenable in the face of 
unequivocal Republican opposition. Thankfully they chose to heed my 
advice and today we have an opportunity to consider and fully debate 
TAA.
  If TAA passes the Senate, it should remove what we hope is the last 
obstacle the President and his party placed in front of FTAs. We will 
see. To date there is little evidence that the President is finally 
ready to step up to the plate. It has not been for lack of effort on 
our part. House leadership made it clear that TAA will be considered in 
tandem with the FTAs, as the President requested. Chairman Camp worked 
with Senator Baucus to develop a substantive deal on TAA, as the 
President requested. Despite my deep reservations about the program, a 
number of my Republican Senate colleagues stepped up in support of the 
TAA compromise negotiated by Chairman Baucus and Chairman Camp and even 
put their assurance in writing to support TAA. Before the August work 
period, Senators McConnell and Reid articulated a process for 
consideration of TAA and the FTAs, as the President agreed or 
requested.
  Still the administration refuses to provide any real assurance that 
it will actually send the pending free trade agreements to Congress for 
a vote. I am very disappointed we still have not heard definitively 
from the White House that they will send up the three FTAs. As for the 
trade adjustment assistance amendment before us today, I wish to 
summarize for my colleagues my concerns with the proposed expanded 
program, and my objections to additional domestic spending for this 
program at a time of immense budget difficulties.
  First, there is little evidence that the TAA Programs actually work. 
In fact, the opposite is true. Recent studies by professors at American 
University have found that the TAA program:

       . . . has no discernible impact on the employment outcome 
     of the participants.

  If that is the case, I cannot understand why we would expand this 
ineffective program.
  This summer I was surprised to learn from an article in the Wall 
Street Journal that the Department of Labor is 4 years late on 
producing a report to Congress intended to demonstrate that the 
numerous Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs actually improve the 
employment outcome for TAA participants. Yet today we are considering 
an amendment to not only reauthorize the program for 3 years but to 
make many of the benefits retroactive. Before we authorize $1 billion 
more in

[[Page S5742]]

taxpayer spending, shouldn't we know if the program actually improves 
the job prospects for TAA beneficiaries?
  My friend and colleague from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn, has made it a 
priority to identify and eliminate wasteful government programs. In his 
first report on the subject, the Government Accountability Office 
identified dozens of programs without any identifiable metrics on 
whether they actually succeeded in their mission. At a time of crushing 
budget deficits and increasing debt, Congress could easily start by 
eliminating these programs that have no proven track record of success 
and, in my opinion, we would have to put TAA at the top of that list. 
Consider that we are still waiting on the report from the Department of 
Labor on TAA's efficacy. I suspect if the facts and data clearly 
demonstrated benefits to workers participating in the TAA Programs, the 
report would have been issued years ago. I am sure this report will be 
issued, but only after TAA has been passed. I cannot support increasing 
funding for a program without any real evidence that it works. Some 
will argue more people are using the program, therefore it must be 
working. I strongly reject that argument. Spending more money and 
certifying more workers does not mean a program is succeeding. It 
simply means the program is expanding, and that is my second concern. 
Like many Federal Government programs, this domestic spending program 
continues to grow and grow. TAA money now goes to farmers, firms, 
community colleges, and service workers. Even more troubling, the 
critical nexus between job loss caused by trade agreements and TAA 
eligibility has been jettisoned. Today all workers who lose their jobs 
allegedly due to ``globalization'' could be eligible. As the global 
economy and global supply chains become more integrated, I suspect the 
potential number of beneficiaries and the cost to the U.S. taxpayer 
will grow enormously.

  Third, at a time when we need to severely constrain Federal spending, 
this program increases it. In 2009, TAA was significantly expanded as 
part of the President's failed stimulus bill. Most of those increased 
costs are included in the TAA amendment before us today, but there may 
be additional hidden costs. Because the income support and the health 
coverage tax credit are entitlements, there is no cap on future 
spending. Although the health coverage tax credits are to expire when 
ObamaCare goes into full effect, I have serious doubts that they 
actually will. History shows again and again it is much easier to 
create an entitlement than to end one.
  As I said, I suspect this program, like most Federal programs, will 
cost more than expected, especially after unemployment insurance 
returns to its traditional 26-week level, which will consequently 
increase the use of trade reallocation allowances and increase the TAA 
Program's cost.
  Fourth, the program is fundamentally unfair. Suppose one of our 
fellow Americans loses their job or his job because their factory burns 
down, another loses their job because his or her company could not 
compete with a domestic competitor, and a third loses his or her job 
because of foreign competition. How can we tell two of our fellow 
Americans ``tough luck''? Two can only use the general job training and 
unemployment insurance programs while the third worker is provided with 
a host of more training, income support, and health care benefits. This 
does not seem right to me. Why are we picking winners and losers 
amongst the other 14 million Americans looking for work?
  I am also troubled that although union workers are less than 7 
percent of the private sector workforce, union workers receive over a 
third of TAA certifications. I do not see why we should support this 
vicious cycle. Unions drive industry after industry into bankruptcy by 
insisting on restrictive work rules and overly generous compensation 
and benefits plans, and the taxpayer gets to clean up the mess by 
providing the now unemployed workers with a new set of benefits far 
more generous than those received by others. Unfortunately, encouraging 
vicious cycles appears to be an objective to this administration when 
it comes to TAA.
  Let me share with you another one. By now most of you have heard of a 
company called Solyndra. It was held up by the President and his 
administration as an example of the wonders of the stimulus and its 
ability to transform taxpayer dollars into green jobs. Here is how 
President Obama described it:

       And we can see the positive impacts right here at Solyndra. 
     Less than a year ago, we were standing on what was an empty 
     lot. But through the Recovery Act, this company received a 
     loan to expand its operations. This new factory is the result 
     of those loans.

  Well, the President was right about that. The new factory was a 
result of the taxpayer-provided loans. According to the Wall Street 
Journal, those very same taxpayer loan guarantees also were a prime 
cause of Solyndra's bankruptcy. The ``taxpayer dollars to create green 
jobs'' alchemy worked about as well as medieval attempts to turn lead 
to gold.
  That is not the end of the story. To ensure the circle of taxpayer 
losses remains unbroken, the former Solyndra employees have now applied 
for trade adjustment assistance. That is right. As reported first by 
Americans for Limited Government, and then confirmed by Investors 
Business Daily, Solyndra employees have applied to the Department of 
Labor for trade adjustment assistance.
  To recap, the administration provides loan guarantees to a failing 
company and in the process saddles the taxpayer with over $\1/2\ 
billion in potential liability. These same loan guarantees precipitate 
the demise of said company, and this, in turn, justifies the receipt of 
new taxpayer-funded benefits for the now unemployed workers, benefits 
that go beyond and cost far more than those the other unemployed people 
in this country receive.
  The administration likes to talk about the multiplier effect of new 
Federal spending, but I don't think this is what they had in mind. For 
each initial wasted taxpayer dollar, the government multiplies the 
losses and manages to waste another quarter. Solyndra tried to make 
solar panels but ran up their costs far higher than even domestic 
competitors. Ultimately, with costs above the competition, the company 
failed. Of course, the failure was blamed on China. If you cannot even 
outcompete U.S. companies, it wasn't foreign competition that ruined 
your business, it was simply a failed business model.
  During our hearing on the South Korea Trade Agreement, Deputy U.S. 
Trade Representative Marantis testified that the purpose of the TAA 
Program is to help workers manage the transition to globalization and 
help workers train to be able to take advantage of the opportunities 
presented in the new economy.
  Well, according to President Obama and Vice President Biden, green 
jobs such as those found at Solyndra were supposed to be the jobs of 
the new economy. Now that the new economy venture failed, those very 
same workers are going to be retrained, at taxpayers' expense, for 
other jobs in the new economy. Government, under the President's green 
agenda, picks winners and losers and then pays off the losers when it 
makes the wrong picks. Pardon the American taxpayer for jumping to the 
conclusion that this plan doesn't make sense.
  Let's not forget that a handful of States receive the lion's share of 
TAA money. Again, this is unfair on its face and represents a distorted 
allocation of Federal resources.
  President Reagan did not graduate from an Ivy League college and he 
was not the editor of any law review, but the man understood how the 
economy grows and what types of programs waste precious government 
resources. This was his assessment of TAA:

       The purpose of TAA is to help these workers find jobs in 
     growing sectors of our economy. There's nothing wrong with 
     that, but because these benefits are paid out on top of 
     normal unemployment benefits, we wind up paying greater 
     benefits to those who lose their jobs because of foreign 
     competition than we do to their friends and neighbors who are 
     laid off due to domestic competition. Anyone must agree that 
     this is unfair.

  That was President Reagan.
  I certainly do, as do most of my constituents, think the last thing 
this economy needs is another big spending program.
  Another important point is that TAA fuels the fire of virulent 
antitrade propagandists. TAA supporters say the program keeps faith 
with American

[[Page S5743]]

workers and helps build support for trade. I think just the opposite is 
true. Unions and other antitrade zealots gleefully use TAA data to make 
the case that trade causes outsourcing and job loss. After all, the 
number of trade-dislocated workers is certified by the government.
  As the program is expanded to include more and more people and 
entities, including community colleges, firms, farmers, and fishermen, 
the myth that trade is bad for the American worker finds ready fodder 
and continues to build. Instead of helping build the case for trade, 
TAA certifications are used to show that trade is bad. In the end, TAA 
is really just a government subsidy for an antitrade propaganda.
  Many of those dedicated to fighting a market-opening trade 
liberalization agenda and who are hostile to a thoughtful and ambitious 
trade policy cite each TAA certification and each TAA benefit conferred 
as further evidence that trade and trade agreements are bad for 
America. These same groups use TAA certifications and TAA workers to 
attack the companies that laid those workers off as outsourcers, even 
attempting to name and shame the CEOs of those companies. For goodness' 
sake, why should we expand a program that arms the harshest trade 
critics with more fodder for their ill-informed and relentless attack 
on trade?
  Finally, TAA should move with TPA. Despite what many of my colleagues 
and many so-called trade experts say, TAA does not move with trade 
agreements. In fact, historically significant expansions and reforms to 
TAA have moved with omnibus trade legislation that included grants of 
trade negotiating authority to the President.
  There is a myth that TAA has always received strong bipartisan 
support. Again, the historical record does not bear this out. A simple 
review of a very helpful history of TAA provided by CRS this August 
shows just how controversial TAA has always been and continues to be 
and confirms that TAA reforms traditionally move with TPA.
  Inexplicably, this President doesn't want TPA trade promotion 
authority--and the White House is actually encouraging Leader Reid and 
Democratic Senators to vote down a TPA amendment Leader McConnell will 
offer. Leader Reid and Chairman Baucus and the White House have also 
apparently asked the business community to oppose an amendment on TPA 
as well, despite the fact that the business community has uniformly 
supported the granting of trade negotiating authority to every 
President, regardless of party.
  This is all baffling to me. But I agree with Leader McConnell that 
the President needs TPA whoever the President is--as soon as possible, 
and I can't imagine any President not wanting that authority. As I 
suspect the Democrats will vote down granting their President trade 
negotiating authority, I must also be inclined to vote against this TAA 
amendment.
  Much has been said about TAA and that it is the price for free-trade 
agreements. But we are paving new and dangerous ground by holding three 
trade agreements hostage to expanded TAA. Each time we have tried to 
move these agreements, a new roadblock has been erected. And while we 
dilly and dally, our trade competitors take more of our market share 
around the world, and American businesses and farms lose more money and 
more jobs.
  There has to be a better way. I urge the President to reconsider his 
trade priorities. Instead of expending his political capital on 
expanding the Federal Government, he should liberate the U.S. worker by 
accepting our offer to provide him with the authority to open new 
markets to U.S. exports. Our economy is in dire straits, unemployment 
is sky high, and Federal spending is out of control. We need the 
President's leadership, and we need it now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, let me start by thanking the senior 
Senator from Ohio for his generosity in allowing me to speak now. I 
also commend Senator Hatch, who has been a leader in expanding exports 
and therefore creating jobs for many years, and again he is standing 
today talking about the importance of us moving forward on a progrowth 
trade agenda, including giving the President the ability to have trade 
promotion authority. That is what I wish to talk about today.
  Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, introduced an amendment to 
the underlying legislation saying that, along with trade adjustment 
assistance, for the same 3 years there also be trade promotion 
authority given to this President, which all of his predecessors have 
had. That makes sense. The legislation in the amendment is actually 
identical to legislation I introduced my first week here in the Senate 
on a bipartisan basis with Senator Lieberman to provide the President 
with trade promotion authority. It is incredibly important.
  I think it goes without saying that we live in an increasingly 
interconnected world where the movement of goods and services and 
people across borders is part of our economy. It is very much an 
economy where the United States is connected to our global competitors. 
We are moving forward around the globe on various arrangements, export 
agreements at a rapid pace. Yet I am sorry to say the United States is 
simply not a part of that because we do not have trade promotion 
authority.
  These agreements that are being negotiated open markets for workers 
and farmers and service providers to be able to expand exports, again, 
of goods and services.
  By the way, there are over 100 of those bilateral agreements being 
negotiated today. Guess how many the United States is party to. None, 
not a single one. The reason is that we don't have the ability through 
trade promotion authority to have the United States at the table 
negotiating to open these markets for our workers and our farmers and 
our service providers.
  There is one agreement on which we are negotiating, a regional 
agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I support the continued 
negotiation there, but, frankly, it is not a bilateral agreement that 
is likely to reduce barriers significantly.
  The United States is getting left behind. We lost trade promotion 
authority in 2007. It expired. At that time, President George W. Bush 
came to the Congress and asked for it to be renewed. Then a 
Democratically controlled Congress said: No, we don't want to give you 
the ability to negotiate these agreements that help, as Senator Hatch 
has said, expand jobs in this country.
  President Obama's administration has not asked for the authority. In 
fact, as Senator Hatch has just indicated, they don't seem interested 
in having it, which is unbelievable to me--that you would not want the 
ability to negotiate with other countries to knock down barriers to 
help our workers, our farmers, and our service providers here in this 
country. But that is where we are right now.
  Before the 2007 expiration of trade promotion authority, the United 
States was active and involved in agreements that knocked down barriers 
to our exports. There were three agreements negotiated now 3 and 4 
years ago, and these were agreements with Panama and Colombia and 
Korea. Those are the three agreements that have been talked about a lot 
on this floor over the last day because the trade adjustment assistance 
we are talking about is related to those three agreements. We need to 
get them done. They have been languishing for too long. Obviously, the 
United States, not being able to negotiate anything in the interim 
period, has fallen behind, but at the least, we should move ahead and 
ratify these three agreements. The President's own metrics tell us 
these three agreements alone will generate 250,000 new jobs in this 
country. Look, with unemployment at over 9 percent, we need those jobs, 
and the jobs tend to be better paying jobs with better benefits.
  What has happened in the interim while we have not moved forward with 
these agreements? Well, Korea has started a negotiation with the 
European Union since our agreement was finalized and completed that 
agreement and now made that agreement effective in July of this year. 
Exports from the European Union to Korea increased 36 percent in July 
alone. Our exports to Korea during that time period, by the way, 
increased less than 3 percent.
  What is happening? We are losing market share. We are losing jobs 
while we sit back and allow these other countries to negotiate. 
Remember, over 100

[[Page S5744]]

agreements are being negotiated, and we are not parties to any of them.
  The same thing is happening in Colombia. Since we negotiated the 
agreement with Colombia, Colombia started negotiating with other 
countries, including Argentina and Brazil, and guess what has happened. 
They have completed that agreement, it has gone into effect, and, 
again, our market share has diminished. We used to provide about 71 
percent of the agricultural exports, including corn, wheat, and 
soybeans, to Colombia when we completed the agreement. Today, that 
market share is down to 26 percent. That means farmers in Ohio, 
Montana, Utah, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere are being disadvantaged by 
our trade policy.

  We have to move forward with these agreements. Instead of having 
increased exports from Seoul, Bogota, Calgary, and Munich, they should 
be coming from Cincinnati and Cleveland and Columbus and Dayton. 
Interestingly, Korea and Colombia have now started negotiating an 
agreement with themselves. Again, we are not moving forward because we 
are not part of these agreements because we do not have trade promotion 
authority.
  I think these three agreements that I hope the President finally 
sends to the U.S. Congress for ratification are examples of the kinds 
of agreements that we could have been negotiating over the past 3 or 4 
years and that we should start negotiating tomorrow, by this Senate and 
the House, giving the President the trade promotion authority he needs 
to be able to have those negotiations and to open those markets for 
U.S. products.
  The reality is that trade promotion authority is vital for any 
President to have. Why? Because if you don't have trade promotion 
authority, the other countries will not sit down at the table and 
bargain with you. It is a pretty simple concept. If you want to get the 
best deal from another country, you have to have trade promotion 
authority because here in America, after we negotiate an agreement at 
the executive branch level, it has to come to Congress, and other 
countries don't want to renegotiate an agreement with the U.S. Congress 
that would be full of amendments and changes. So in order for us to 
ensure we can get the best deal, we have to give the President trade 
promotion authority.
  Every President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has asked for this 
authority and received it. It is unbelievable to me that this President 
does not want that. I believe he must want it--any President would--and 
he should ask for it, and we should provide it to him. This amendment 
does exactly that.
  Congress has given TPA authority to Democrats and Republicans alike. 
It is not a partisan issue. So a Republican Congress has given it to a 
Democratic President and vice versa.
  I stand as a Republican telling my colleagues that I would like to 
give it to President Obama. The underlying amendment we are talking 
about provides trade promotion for 3 years, so it would be for the 
remainder of the President's term and, if he is reelected, for the next 
couple of years or, if a Republican is elected, for that person. It 
should not be about party; it should be about our country.
  The President has been talking in the last couple of weeks about the 
fact that he wants products stamped with three words: ``Made in 
America.'' I couldn't agree with him more. He is saying they should be 
exported all around the world? How is that going to happen? It is going 
to happen by opening these markets, by leveling the playing field for 
us as Americans so we can compete and win.
  When we open these markets, we expand exports dramatically.
  Think about this: Countries with which we currently have trade 
agreements which comprise less than 10 percent of the global GDP--think 
about it. We do not have an agreement with China or the European Union. 
It is about 10 percent or less of the global economy. Yet that is where 
we send about 41 percent of our exports.
  These agreements are good for us, which is why the Colombia 
agreement, the Panama agreement, and the Korea agreement, in my view, 
will be able to pass this floor easily because the facts are there, if 
the President will just send them. By giving the President trade 
promotion authority, we could go on and, indeed, make good on his 
promise to have more products stamped with those three words, ``Made in 
America,'' sent all over the world.
  It is a little bit ironic to me that the underlying bill we are 
talking about, the TAA, the trade adjustment assistance, is attached to 
the generalized system of preferences, GSP. It is not legislation I 
oppose, but it is legislation that opens the United States more to 
products from other countries. So here we are talking about opening up 
the United States more with the GSP bill, and yet we are not willing to 
put in place measures to open up other markets more for the United 
States of America through trade promotion authority. How does that make 
sense? But that is where we are.
  To my colleagues, I will say, if we are not engaged in opening 
markets, we are falling behind. America needs to get back in the game 
again. We need to take a leadership role in global trade. That means 
giving this President and all future Presidents the ability to 
negotiate, just as all of their predecessors have had. I strongly urge 
my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, to give to this President 
the same authority other Presidents have had of both parties. Our 
economy and the future for our children and our grandchildren depend on 
it.
  Again, I thank my colleague from Ohio for his generosity, and I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for 
his kind words. I appreciate his support, his public support--he did 
not speak specifically on the Casey-Brown-Baucus amendment, I do not 
believe; I had to step out for a moment, but I know he has said 
positive words about restarting, if you will, trade adjustment 
assistance, and with some expansion, not quite as good as it was 2 
years ago, but still a very important program.
  I appreciate Senator Portman's words and his support of expanding it, 
and I hope he joins with some other Republicans in actually supporting 
the Casey-Brown-Baucus amendment.
  I particularly thank Chairman Baucus for his strong support of trade 
adjustment assistance. Senator Casey, especially, has pushed for this 
for, well, almost a year now, when in December we did everything but 
beg our colleagues to renew this program that helps workers who are 
unemployed through no doing of their own.
  In early 2009, we had written a very good trade adjustment 
assistance: If you lose your job because of a trade agreement, or if 
you lose your job because of trade, even if it is a service job--it 
used to just be manufacturing--you will get two things: One, you will 
get trade adjustment assistance so you can continue with your life and 
not get foreclosed on, you can continue to provide for your kids, and 
you can have a little bit of money to get retrained.
  I met a woman in Youngstown not too long ago who lost her 
manufacturing job to trade. She got TAA. She used that money to go to 
nursing school at Youngstown State University, and she was in school 
with her daughter who was also getting a nursing degree. You think: 
That is exactly how TAA works. There are those examples, I am sure, in 
Philadelphia and Harrisburg, and I will bet you there are even examples 
in Provo of trade adjustment assistance working in that way. That is 
why it is so very important.
  At the same time, the language we wrote also gives help for people to 
continue their health insurance. I was at a place in Columbus not too 
long ago that specializes in helping people get back on their feet and 
get work. To hear someone tell a story: First, they lose their job. 
They do not get much assistance. Then they lose their health care. Then 
they have to talk to their 12-year-old son and 14-year-old daughter 
about moving because they lost their home.
  Does nobody here--I should not say ``nobody'' because a lot of my 
colleagues do care, but does nobody here care about somebody who has to 
sit down with their kids and say: Sorry, honey, we are going to lose 
our home because of foreclosure because we lost our jobs and we are not 
getting retrained and finding any work? That, to me, is what this is 
all about.
  I want to talk a little bit about trade adjustment assistance beyond 
what I said, but I also want to talk about

[[Page S5745]]

some of my colleagues' statements about trade and what it has done for 
this country, to this country. I hear all the theories. Every country 
in the world practices trade according to its national interests. The 
United States of America practices trade according to an economics 
textbook that is 20 years out of date.
  In my first year in the House of Representatives, the Congress passed 
the North American Free Trade Agreement, something I know if Senator 
Casey had been here he would have voted against it. I voted against it. 
I remember the promises, the promises from the free-trade-at-any-cost 
crowd, that NAFTA would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. They said 
it with NAFTA. They said it with PNTR with China. They said it with the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement: If you pass this, it is going to 
mean more manufacturing and more high-tech jobs and stronger 
communities. Look what it has meant.
  Go to Springfield, OH, go to Ashtabula, go to Lima, go to Mansfield, 
go to Zanesville, go to Chillicothe, go to Xenia. Look at these medium-
sized cities of 30,000, 40,000, 50,000, 60,000 people, and look at what 
has happened to them. Often in smaller communities--the Senator from 
Montana, the Presiding Officer, knows this--a husband and wife both 
work at a plant.
  In Jackson, OH, I was walking a picket line with some workers who 
were locked out, and then the plant ultimately closed. For a number of 
the people I saw, the husband and wife both worked at this 
manufacturing plant, each making about $12 or $13 or $14 an hour. They 
were middle class with their combined income. When this plant moved 
overseas, their family income was wiped out.
  It happens over and over in small towns. It happens in Dayton and it 
happens in Cleveland and it happens in Columbus and Philly and 
Pittsburgh and Harrisburg. It happens in small towns and big cities.
  Then we see this free-trade-at-any-cost crowd come to the Senate 
floor and say: If we only had trade promotion authority, we could do 
more of this because it works so well. Free trade has worked so well 
for our country.
  Why have we lost these hundreds of thousands of jobs? Do you know 
why? Because the business plan in this country, the business plan, 
never in world history--I do not think we have seen this ever in world 
history--is where a business plan for a company is to shut down 
production in Steubenville, shut down production in Toledo, move that 
company to Shanghai, move that company to Mexico City, make those 
products, and sell them back into the United States. So their business 
plan is to shut down manufacturing in this country, go overseas, hire 
cheaper workers, in places where there are weaker environmental laws, 
nonexistent worker safety laws, and sell the products back into the 
United States.
  That is what our manufacturing policy has been. That is why this 
whole idea of Korea and Colombia and Panama--as if Mexico and Central 
America and China were not enough--this whole idea of free trade at any 
cost is bankrupting our country. That is why wages during the last 10 
years, during the Bush administration and since--since 2001, wages in 
this country have gone down. We have lost jobs in this country, almost. 
We have not grown jobs in this country. It is about what we had in 
2001, with a much larger population.
  Wages down, job growth flat, and the trade policy is working? So our 
answer is, let's do more of it, as if NAFTA and CAFTA and PNTR were not 
enough? Let's do more trade agreements? Let's send more jobs overseas? 
Also, we can practice trade according to what the Washington Post and 
the New York Times and the rightwing papers and the leftwing papers and 
the Harvard economists and the economic elite in this country say? 
Also, they can follow what they learned in economics 101, taught with a 
textbook that is 20 years out of date? It is not working for our 
country.

  I was talking on the phone today with a retiree in eastern Ohio, and 
she had just been with her son who was about to be deployed at his 
base. She and her husband went and visited her son. He is a marine. She 
went to the commissary, and do you know what. She bought a hat that 
said ``Marines.'' I think it said ``Marines.'' She bought a hat. She 
bought a bunch of stuff at the commissary. Where was it made? Guess. It 
was not made in Helena. It was not made in Harrisburg. It was not made 
in Columbus. This is insane. We have American flags that are made 
abroad. We have products in commissaries that are made abroad. We have 
products Senator Sanders spoke out against sold here in the U.S. 
Capitol that are made abroad. Why? Because we have a trade policy that 
is morally bankrupt, politically bankrupt, economically bankrupt, and 
it is not working for our country.
  That is why this whole idea of trade promotion authority so we can do 
more of the same makes no sense at all. But it is also why we need to 
pass the Casey-Brown-Baucus amendment. When we made the reforms to TAA 
in 2009, 185,000 additional trade-affected workers became eligible in 
every State. Mr. President, 227,000 workers in 2010 alone participated 
in TAA. They got trained for new jobs that employers are looking to 
fill. I think we all know that we have, even in these bad economic 
times, jobs that remain unfilled because they cannot find workers with 
the right skills. This will help to fill that gap. We should all be for 
this.
  According to the Peterson Institute, before the recession hit, 
between 2001 and 2007, two-thirds of TAA participants found jobs within 
3 months of leaving the program. Ninety percent stayed at these jobs 
for at least a year. It is a program that works. It helps people get 
health care. It helps people stay in their homes. It helps people get 
new skills so they can work.
  The last comment I will make: I have said enough about the bankruptcy 
of American trade policy, its moral bankruptcy and economic bankruptcy 
alike. Our trade deficit in 2010--I do not like to come to the floor 
and use a lot of numbers--if this is not reason enough, in 2010 our 
trade deficit was $634 billion. You do know what that means. That 
means, basically, every day we buy almost $2 billion more worth of 
goods made abroad than we sell abroad--almost $2 billion a day.
  If one-tenth the attention was paid to the trade deficit as we pay to 
the budget deficit, this would be a better country. We would see more 
manufacturing in places such as Cleveland and Columbus and Dayton.
  Our trade deficit with China was $273 billion in 2010. Ten years 
before--before PNTR--our trade deficit with China was $68 billion. It 
went from $68 billion to $273 billion in one decade. That works so well 
that we should do more of it? President Bush said $1 billion in trade 
surplus or trade deficit translates into 13,000 jobs, a $1 billion 
trade surplus means 13,000 additional jobs, $1 billion trade deficit 
means 13,000 fewer jobs.
  So our trade deficit with China last year was $273 billion. You do 
not have to be good in math to know that translates into a lot of jobs. 
Making products sold at the Capitol, making products sold at 
commissaries, making products sold all over--until we figure this out 
and pass trade agreements that are actually in our national interests, 
we are simply, pure and simple, betraying our national interests and 
betraying the middle-class families and the families in our country 
that aspire to be middle class.
  I support the Casey-Brown-Baucus amendment and thank Chairman Baucus 
again for his work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

                          ____________________