[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 140 (Tuesday, September 20, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5750-S5760]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXTENDING THE GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES--Continued
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, under the leadership of Chairman Baucus, I
have the honor of chairing the Senate Finance Subcommittee on
International Trade. That is why I wish to take a few minutes to
outline some of the issues I think are relevant to this important
debate, about going to bat for workers under the trade adjustment
program.
In my home State, about one out of six jobs depends on international
trade. The trade jobs tend to pay better than the nontrade jobs. So I
have said my philosophy about international trade is, what we ought to
do is everything possible to grow things in Oregon and in the country,
to make things in Oregon and across America, add value to them here,
and ship them somewhere because this is an extraordinary opportunity we
have in front of us in terms of expanding exports.
The fact is, the American brand--the brand that is attached to
American goods--the exports we send all over the globe are something
consumers worldwide want. That is my first point. More than 90 percent
of the world's consumers live outside the United States--90 percent--
and they are all potential customers for the products we make in the
United States. More customers for American products means American
businesses have to make more products. To make more products, they go
out and hire more workers. Hiring more workers to make more products to
sell to more consumers is the upside of the trade debate we are
starting today.
Dismantling trade barriers to American exports gives our businesses
access to those new consumers. Doing that creates and supports good-
paying jobs--jobs people can support a family on, with a family-wage
job.
As I mentioned, trade-related jobs provide better benefits and pay
than many of those jobs unrelated to international trade. That is why
when we have an opportunity to open markets to American products and
American exports we ought to take advantage of it.
Point No. 2 is that our successful efforts to open markets are
undermined when foreign governments and foreign competitors cheat. I
use that word specifically because cheating is exactly what engaging in
unfair trade practices that work to undermine our producers and our
innovators is all about. So a central component of our trade policy
always has to be enforcement--enforcement of U.S. trade laws and global
trade rules.
Senator Snowe, Senator Portman, Senator Blunt, Senator McCaskill,
Senator Schumer, Senator Brown, and I have been focused specifically on
stopping foreign suppliers from laundering their merchandise to evade
U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws. These are the duties
that are put in place to remedy the damage that unfairly traded imports
cause to American producers. Those foreign trade cheats, especially
those from China, have been found guilty of dumping their goods in our
country. Instead of stopping the dumping or paying the appropriate
duties, the Chinese goods are shipped into a country such as Korea
where the goods get repacked into boxes that say ``Made in Korea'' in
order to avoid the U.S. trade remedy laws.
All of this has been occurring under the sleepy eyes--the sleepy
eyes--of our customs agency. Fortunately, with bipartisan support, the
Senate is positioned to act on this matter and address the issue. It
will not come a minute too soon.
I was stunned when the staff of my Subcommittee on International
Trade basically set up a sting operation, set up a dummy company, and
we were amazed at the number of firms, particularly from China, that
basically said: Look, we are plenty interested in figuring out how to
get around American trade laws.
So these foreign trade cheats are out there. They are looking for
ways to exploit the fact that the customs agency has not been tough,
has not been relentless, particularly not with respect to protecting
our manufacturers.
So point No. 2 is to make sure in the days ahead we put in place a
stronger response to trade cheating, where cheats from China and other
countries literally launder their merchandise, stamp it as coming from
somewhere else, in order to avoid our trade laws.
The third point speaks to the bill we discuss today, and especially
to the valuable Casey-Brown-Baucus amendment that I hope we will be
voting on shortly. America's ability to compete in the global economy
rests on opening foreign markets, enforcing the trade rules, and
preparing our workforce--the American workforce, the workforce on which
American businesses depend--to be globally competitive for the jobs of
tomorrow.
That is what the TAA, trade adjustment assistance, Program is all
about. Just as over 90 percent of the world's consumers live outside
the United States, so does over 90 percent of the world's workers.
Although we have the most productive, innovative workforce in the
world, sometimes a foreign producer finds a way to do something better
or produce something more efficiently than an American one. The result
is, we can have Americans losing jobs through no fault of their own.
So the Congress decided long ago that the best way to respond to
global competition was to meet it head on, to meet it directly, and
that is what a trade agenda with a robust Trade Adjustment Assistance
Program does.
Trade adjustment assistance throws a lifeline to the workers who lose
their jobs, and to their families, because we have been open, we have
been free, we have been expansionist in the area of trade, particularly
when it comes to creating exports. Trade adjustment assistance provides
American workers with an opportunity to acquire the skills they need to
not just become reemployed but to help American businesses better
compete in the global marketplace while those families make their way
back to the American economy, where they can earn a wage at which they
can support their families.
Trade adjustment assistance is a pretty modest program. The lifeline
that is thrown to these workers is modest--just a few hundred dollars a
week on average--and the job training that is provided to those workers
is typically provided through existing infrastructure such as our
community colleges. Trade adjustment assistance provides just enough
assistance for resourceful and thrifty and industrious workers to
rebound from a trade-related job loss. That, in effect, is what I hope
we can start looking at programs such as trade adjustment assistance as
being.
What we want these programs to be all about is to be something of a
trampoline, where, in effect, people can get a modest amount of
assistance, and through that modest amount of assistance be in a
position to bounce back to the American economy with skills that have
been improved and be in a position to again make a good wage at a
company that can be involved in areas such as exports and productivity
and innovation-driven services.
For much of the last half of the century, the United States
vigorously promoted an open and global economy. As a result, our
country launched an effort to become the largest, most dynamic market
in the world. Today that global market is more competitive than ever
before. The rise of China and India and other emerging markets,
[[Page S5751]]
such as Brazil and Russia, provide extraordinary opportunities to our
innovators and our producers. But we do not get to be the top economy
as a result of some kind of entitlement program. We have to constantly
work at it. We have to constantly work at the task of making more
innovative and more productive goods and services.
Together, Federal Government officials, businesses, and workers have
the opportunity to seize the possibilities that a global economy
provides and also overcome its challenges. Certainly, it is more
important than ever to do that in the face of growing foreign
competition. That means joining again now, on a bipartisan basis, to
support trade adjustment assistance.
I would just like to note, having been involved in these issues since
I came to the Senate, trade adjustment assistance has historically been
a bipartisan program. It has been a program where the Congress,
Democrats and Republicans, consistently said we can look at trade, we
can look at exports as a vehicle for more family-wage jobs in our
country--making things here, growing things here, adding value to them
here, and shipping them somewhere. But certainly, in an ever-changing
world, we are going to see some of our workers needing the
opportunities to upgrade their skills that trade adjustment assistance
allows.
So I very much hope my colleagues will support the Casey-Brown-Baucus
amendment. It has my full support. It is very much in the spirit of the
bipartisan work that has been done on trade adjustment assistance in
the past.
Mr. President, I see other colleagues waiting to speak, and with
that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Fiscal Planning
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, yesterday, the President provided a
fiscal plan on paper that he said reflects his latest fiscal vision for
the country. It seems to be about the fourth vision we have had this
year, and he has said we need to be honest with the American people and
talk straight to them. I certainly believe that is correct, and I would
share some thoughts about the President's plan and express
disappointment that he has not been honest and direct with the American
people, has not discussed in sufficient depth, in my opinion, the
Nation's need to reduce spending because our debt is surging larger
than it ever has in our history and presents a danger today and in the
future.
The President needs to talk more about that. If we are going to ask
the American people to reduce their spending, to take less from the
government, to tighten belts, then we need to know why. I do believe he
has not been sufficiently informative in his conversations because many
of them emphasize increasing investments in various programs, in
spending programs he has advocated, but with regard to the plan that
was introduced yesterday he claims it would increase the fiscal year
2012 deficit by $300 billion; that is, next year it would increase the
debt by $300 billion, but he says it would reduce deficits over the
next 10 years, in the outyears, by $3.2 trillion.
We know what happens now happens. Spending that occurs today--the
money is out the door--and promises to raise revenue in the future
become less certain as each year passes by.
But assuming this is true, assuming we would actually do in the next
10 years the kind of things that would pay for this short-term
spending, I would advise my colleagues that the fundamental claim the
President is making--assuming his numbers are correct, and we do the
things he suggests--it overstates by $1.8 trillion the amount of the
savings. Mr. President, $3.2 trillion, no. Mr. President, $1.8 trillion
reduced from that, and we are looking at about $1.4 trillion in savings
and not $3.2 trillion. That is the fact. I will share with my
colleagues the sad, grim fact of that.
How did it happen? Well, the bill, as the Washington Post said, is
being criticized because of gimmicks that are in it.
First gimmick: The war-funding gimmick. The plan shows $1.1 trillion
over 10 years in savings from putting a cap on war-spending costs. But
those costs are going to decrease as the war effort unwinds whether or
not this proposal is in place. They have been long been planned.
The President's proposed caps on war spending manipulate baseline
concepts to show the savings that have been long planned and new--
something he came up with this week, I suppose--new choices which
inflate the spending cuts in his plan. In other words, it inflates the
amount of spending he has cut by $1.1 trillion.
The Congress has dealt with this little gimmick in the budgetary
process. I serve as ranking member on the Budget Committee, and we
wrestled with these baselines and scoring possibilities. But that
gimmick--the $1.1 trillion gimmick--was rejected during the recent debt
ceiling debate, raising the debt limit. We talked about that and we
didn't do it because it is not an accurate explanation of the cutting
of spending. We don't have any plan to continue to spend in Iraq and
Afghanistan the $158 billion we spend this year. And for 10 years? Give
me a break. That has never been our plan and shouldn't be assumed as a
baseline for spending. Claiming credit for not continuing that is not a
legitimate way to analyze how much you have cut spending.
Some have said Paul Ryan and the House Republicans, when they passed
their budget, included the $1.1 trillion when they said they reduced
spending by $6.2 trillion. They proposed a budget to cut $6.2 trillion.
They also proposed a growth-oriented tax reduction and simplification
plan that would create economic growth, netting out $4 trillion in
actual savings. But Paul Ryan and his committee did not--I have checked
the numbers--consider $1.1 trillion in war savings--which no one has
disputed should occur--off the present amount we are spending. He did
not include that in the $6.2 trillion. He did have an alternative
analysis that showed that, and people have seized upon that to say his
fundamental proposal of a $6.2 trillion spending reduction included it.
It did not.
Another big gimmick--one used too often in this body--is what we call
the doc fix of Medicare. The Balanced Budget Act, in the late 1990s,
proposed substantial reductions in physician fees. As the years have
gone by, it has become more and more plain that doctors cannot sustain
a 20-percent reduction or more in their fees for doing Medicare work.
So each year we put that money back in. But it is part of the plan of a
long-term budget. The statute itself has not been changed. So every
year we have this little problem: Are we going to cut the doctors 22
percent or are we going to avoid cutting the doctors 22 percent? Well,
we don't want to cut the doctors that much. They can't function. That
is too big a cut for them. So we find the money some way every year.
Mostly, we have borrowed it.
The President's plan assumes that money will be found for the doc fix
and they will do it over 10 years to the tune of $293 billion. This
trick counts the higher spending as a given rather than as a policy
choice that needs to be offset. Without this gimmick, the President's
health care savings of $320 billion the plan suggests will occur
becomes health care savings of only $27 billion. You don't save $293
billion because of this gimmick because it is unpaid for. There is no
source of income to pay for the President's assumption. We will pay
$293 billion, which means he only saves $27 billion in health care, not
$320 billion.
I believe this is a truly honest and fair analysis of the President's
proposal. It is incorrect, putting it kindly.
There is another little gimmick. When the President talks about
cutting spending--when he says we are cutting spending--what does he
include in that? He is counting as spending reductions the net interest
effects of his proposed policy changes, even though interest costs are
the secondary effect of his proposed tax hikes.
For example, if you raise taxes and don't cut spending--and spending
has not been cut in this plan--you raise taxes and you reduce projected
deficits, we think about $1.4 trillion under the plan, less than half
of what was projected, then you don't pay as much interest because you
don't accrue as much debt. And you don't pay as much interest on a debt
that is not accrued. They are scoring that as if they cut spending,
when it is a natural by-product of increased taxes.
So when you remove the accounting tricks and the Washington gimmicks
[[Page S5752]]
that have contributed to this country being in the fiscal condition we
are in, you are left with only half of the $3 trillion in deficit
reduction the White House promised.
The White House also claims the President's plan has $2 in spending
cuts for every $1 in tax hikes--$2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax
increases. Indeed, early in the year he suggested we should have a plan
that would have $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. But is
this accurate? Is it true we are achieving $2 in spending cuts for $1
in tax hikes?
If you eliminate the gimmicks, you will see it is absolutely not
true. Under the plan, total Federal spending--including the jobs plan's
stimulus bill--the new stimulus bill--will increase. The President's
plan will not decrease total Federal spending. It will increase, not
decrease. There is no cut in spending. On balance, there is not a penny
of net spending that is cut--on net.
In a speech, the President said:
I'm proposing real serious cuts in spending. When you
include the $1 trillion in cuts that I've already signed into
law, these would be among the biggest cuts in spending in our
history.
Well, that is not true. It is not accurate. I don't think it bodes
well for us to be able to reach an agreement on these very serious
issues if the President is pretending his plan cuts war costs or counts
interest that shouldn't be counted or proposes we have a doc fix
without any money with which to fix it. Those are the kinds of things
that get us into trouble.
Despite the substantial increase in taxation under the President's
plan, deficits would not be tamed. At no point over the next 10 years
would deficits be smaller in nominal terms than the $459 billion
recorded before he became President. That is the highest deficit in
history. President Bush was roundly criticized for the $459 billion
during his time. The lowest deficit under today's plan--the lowest over
10 years--would be $476 billion in the outyears, and it would start
going back up again under the plan they propose, leading to a $565
billion deficit in 2021. And by the way, the last 3 years of deficits
have been $1.3 trillion, $1.2 trillion, and this year will be $1.4
trillion in debt. So next year's deficit will actually surge beyond the
current projections. We had hoped they would come down. But because of
the new spending in this plan, $350 billion will be added to the
deficit next year, putting us well over $1 trillion in deficit again
next year. At a time when we should be reducing deficit spending, the
immediate impact of the plan will be to increase spending, fostering
more fear and uncertainty in our economy and the conclusion among the
financial investors here and worldwide that we still haven't gotten the
message and we are still out of control.
Over the next 10 years, deficits would total $6.4 trillion, and gross
Federal debt would grow by $9.7 trillion. Gross Federal debt would grow
by $9.7 trillion, exceeding $24 trillion in 2021, when last year we had
about a $13 trillion debt. That would put our debt over 100 percent of
GDP.
Properly accounting for the effect of the President's proposed policy
changes, the actual amount of debt reduction proposed by the President
is $1.4 trillion, consisting of $146 billion in spending increases that
would increase the debt and $1.5 trillion in tax increases. So we may
have raised a few weeks ago our legal debt limit, allowing us to run up
more debt, but we have breached our economic debt limit. America's
$14.5 trillion gross debt we have today is 100 percent of our economy.
A prominent study from economists Rogoff and Reinhart--praised by
Secretary Geithner as ``excellent''--shows when a nation's gross debt
reaches 90 percent of GDP it loses, on average, a percentage point or
more in GDP growth that year. Our debt is depressing growth. Our debt
is now 100 percent of GDP, and our growth is unexpectedly slow this
year. Could that be a part of the cause? Some economists say no, but it
certainly is consistent with the projections in their plan.
So the plan that was presented, I have to say, is gimmick piled upon
gimmick, adding up to little more than a tax hike camouflaged as fiscal
restraint. Promised spending control is nowhere to be found. When you
are in a crisis, you must deal honestly with the American people. You
must present the facts, along with a credible solution, and call on the
people to respond and sacrifice together. Americans are good, decent,
hard-working people who will accept a difficult choice if given to them
in honest terms. But the White House is trying to be clever at the
expense of being credible.
The debt is destroying jobs today, I believe. If we are going to
restore confidence in growth, credibility in the President and in
Congress is one asset we cannot afford to borrow against.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, can I ask unanimous consent to have 1
additional minute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate my colleague
Senator Wyden on his work on this legislation, and also would thank him
for his efforts to reach an agreement to improve our Tax Code. It is a
big deal. A lot of expert witnesses have appeared before the Budget
Committee. Senator Wyden is a member of the Budget Committee. Those
witnesses have told us that properly improving our Tax Code could
improve growth, create jobs, and make America stronger. I appreciate
the Senator's hard work and am looking at his proposal and thank him
for contributing positively to the debate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just before he leaves the floor, let me
tell Senator Sessions how much I appreciate the kind words and enjoy
working with him. We serve on the Budget Committee together and talk
often about economic issues. I wish to tell my colleague that I look
forward to working with him on tax and budget issues in the days ahead
especially.
Amendment No. 626
Mr. President, what I would like to do now is take just a couple
minutes to talk about the amendment offered by the distinguished
Republican leader, Senator McConnell, to extend trade promotion
authority--what is known as TPA--for 2 years.
I am certainly interested in working with the leader. Certainly,
Chairman Baucus has made it very clear that he wants to continue to
work on this issue. But I would oppose the McConnell amendment this
afternoon, and I want to outline specifically why.
The last time Congress passed trade promotion authority was in 2002,
essentially almost one decade ago. The McConnell amendment would simply
continue Congress's instructions that were formulated back then, as I
said, almost one decade ago. But the fact is, the American economy has
changed dramatically since TPA was adopted last, and the overseas trade
barriers have changed dramatically. Yet the McConnell amendment simply
hasn't kept up with the times. What I wish to do is outline a few
examples of areas where we face very different economic challenges.
I would also like to say we talked about this very briefly in the
Senate Finance Committee. It was raised by the ranking minority member
on our subcommittee, Senator Thune. So it is clear there is an interest
in the Finance Committee in working on this issue.
Trade promotion authority is a hugely important and complicated
issue. When it was considered the last time, there were extensive
hearings in the Finance Committee. Many amendments were authored. There
was considerable time devoted to it. That has not been the case at all
with respect to reauthorization, and it is why, in particular, I wish
to make sure that when the Congress next deals with trade promotion
authority, we deal with some of the most important challenges. I am
going to outline a few of those.
Digital goods and services would be of special concern that we have
looked at in our community. Digital goods, for an example, would be
software. Digital services would highlight cloud computing. I know it
is something that has been of great interest in Minnesota. It is all
about the Internet playing an increasing role in the American and the
global economy. It is a platform for global commerce.
I believe the Internet represents the shipping lane of the 21st
century. It is
[[Page S5753]]
the shipping lane for goods and services, and the 2002 version of trade
promotion authority doesn't have the kinds of policies that are
necessary to address today's challenges that affect our ability to
export American goods and digital services.
A second example would be the question of labor and environmental
standards with respect to our trade goals and intellectual property
protection for pharmaceutical drugs.
In May of 2007, congressional Democrats and Republicans got together,
on a bipartisan basis, to update trade goals with respect to key issues
such as labor and the environment and intellectual property protection
as it related to pharmaceutical drugs and therapies. These agreements
that were entered into in 2007 aren't reflected in the 2002 version of
trade promotion authority. So extending the 2002 version of trade
promotion authority is another area where, if we simply support the
McConnell amendment this afternoon, trade policy has not kept up with
the times.
Finally, I would just like to mention China. The fact is, in 2002, we
had a relatively short experience with China at the World Trade
Organization and, more than ever before, state-owned enterprises play a
role in global commerce, particularly given the rise of China. I think
all of us agree our trade agenda ought to include promoting discipline
so state-owned enterprises do not undermine the American private
sector. That requires reconsidering, again, the provisions found in the
2002 version of trade promotion authority.
What it comes down to is that this issue deserves more consideration
than a floor amendment with just a modest number of Senators even being
aware of the history and the issues and the complexity of the issues.
In fact, it would be fair to say that a significant number of Senators
on both sides of the aisle weren't even a member of this body back when
trade promotion was considered last in 2002.
So what it comes down to for me is, American trade policy is too
important to construct on the back of a galloping horse. That, in my
view, would be what the Senate would be doing if it simply adopted the
McConnell amendment. Chairman Baucus is opposed to this amendment. He,
such as myself, has made it clear he is interested in working with
colleagues on a bipartisan basis on this issue, and it is an important
part of the role of both the executive branch and the Congress in terms
of looking at trade policy, and it is particularly important right now
when, in a host of areas--I will give another example.
I cited already digital goods and environmental labor standards and
state-owned enterprises. We had a very valuable hearing in the
Subcommittee on Trade Finance on fishing issues, which are also playing
an increasingly important global role in trade agreements and trade
policy. That also was not part of any discussion back in 2002. Those
issues and others need to be aired. They ought to be aired on a
bipartisan basis.
I thought Senator Thune, when we were in the Finance Committee, was
right to ask about this issue. There is going to be an opportunity in
the days ahead to work on this. Chairman Baucus has made it clear that
he wants to work with colleagues on a bipartisan basis on trade
promotion authority. I do as well. I already made that pledge to the
ranking member of our subcommittee, Senator Thune, who has been very
easy to work with on a host of these trade issues. He has made some
particularly important points with respect to digital goods and
services and the opportunity for our high-tech sector--wrote a good
article on it just a couple days ago.
Suffice it to say, there is a lot of interest on our side of the
aisle in working on this issue. But I would urge colleagues to resist
the McConnell amendment this afternoon when it comes up for a vote for
the reasons I have outlined, and there will be time for the kind of
debate on trade promotion that I think is appropriate, one that
reflects the opportunities and challenges of an economy in 2011 that is
very different than the one we were addressing when we last did trade
promotion authority in 2002.
In an effort to come up with a unanimous consent agreement that can
resolve the question of the upcoming votes, I would just say to
Senators on both sides of the aisle that certainly the next hour would
be a very good time for Senators who would like to speak on the Casey-
Brown-Baucus amendment or the McConnell amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Iraq Deadline
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, during a trip to Baghdad this past
January, I had the opportunity to meet with several members of the
Montana National Guard's 163rd Combined Arms Battalion. That day, I
told them that I was proud of each and every one of them, from unit
commander LTC T.J. Hull and SGM John Wood, right on down the line.
Through courageous service to our country, they were making tremendous
sacrifices on our behalf, and they were representing the very best of
Montana.
This month, these folks have been coming back home to Montana from
their demobilizing station in Washington State. Today, I join their
families, their friends, and their neighbors in welcoming the last
group of those citizen soldiers back to Montana.
Job well done, soldiers. And I thank you.
For nearly a year, these 600 Montanans served in some of the harshest
conditions imaginable--escorting numerous convoys across dangerous
terrain and conducting other critical security missions throughout
Iraq. At one point over the last 12 months, this unit accounted for
more than half of Montana's best and brightest serving overseas. They
gave up the comforts of their families, their homes, and their
communities to bring stability to a nation on the other side of the
world. Through it all, they showed courage in difficult times. They
remained strong. And they were always in our thoughts and prayers.
Now they are home. It is our duty to continue our support by
providing the benefits, quality care, and services they need as they
transition back to their families, to their jobs, and to their
communities. Many Iraqi veterans make that transition with success,
coming home to good jobs and welcoming communities. But for others,
making that transition is no easy task. It is no secret that there is a
potential for higher rates of substance abuse, higher divorce rates,
higher unemployment rates. The effects of post-traumatic stress
disorder and traumatic brain injury can impact entire families.
Thankfully, veterans often look after each other. We should recognize
the important role of America's veterans service organizations and
their willingness to help with that transition.
Montana was one of the first States in the Nation to adopt the Beyond
the Yellow Ribbon Program. It involves entire families of National
Guard soldiers and airmen, preparing them for the changes that come
before, during, and after deployment. The Beyond the Yellow Ribbon
Program is a success, and I am pleased that in the last Congress my
colleagues gave all States the resources to implement it.
Furthermore, I will do my best to make sure we keep up our end of the
bargain. Whether it is college education, health care, or compensation
for an injury suffered on the field of battle, we will honor our
commitment to our heroes. We make this promise to the men and women of
the 163rd and to Montanans who make up the many other units of the
Montana National Guard that were deployed this year and to those folks
who are part of Montana's Red Horse Squadron, now in Afghanistan. To
our reservists and to the folks serving in the Active-Duty military
today, we make the same commitment.
Even as we make this commitment, many folks in Montana are wondering
what should happen next in Iraq. Since 2003, our Nation has sent
hundreds of thousands of young men and women to
[[Page S5754]]
fight in Iraq. We have done so at an enormous cost--4,474 Americans
have given their lives, and more than 32,000 have been wounded. We
cannot put a number on those who suffer from the injuries that are
unseen. And let's not forget that the price tag of this war that was
put on our children is quickly approaching $1 trillion, and then there
are the tens of billions of dollars in waste and fraud.
The war in Iraq started with political leaders who had their own
agenda. They went there looking for weapons that never existed. But
through it all, the professionalism of our military never faltered.
They provided security and democracy to a nation that had never known
it.
But for far too long, Iraqi politicians did nothing to secure their
own future. I first went to Iraq in 2007 and returned there again this
past January. I was struck by how much it changed in those 4 years.
Iraq was finally moving forward after too many wasted years, too many
wasted dollars, and too many lives lost. There are many reasons for the
change. The improved security from our military and the training
provided by our troops played a big role. But American diplomats and
military leaders told me that the biggest reason for the progress in
Iraq was this: The Iraqis were told in no uncertain terms that the
United States was leaving. Our military presence would end on December
31 of this year. That was what galvanized Iraqi politicians to take
control of their own country.
Today, I am sending a letter to the President calling on him to stand
by his commitment to pull all U.S. Operation New Dawn troops out of
Iraq by the end of this year. We should bring the last of them home on
schedule. U.S. marines will still guard our embassy, as they always
have, and we will still maintain a strong diplomatic presence in Iraq.
Despite this year's deadline, I know there is talk of the possibility
of keeping a sizable force of U.S. troops in Iraq through next year. If
that is the case, it is not good. We cannot afford moving the
goalposts. Across Montana and this Nation, people are saying: Come home
and come home now. I know sectarian violence in Iraq will continue. We
should not be asking American troops to referee a centuries-old civil
war. That conflict is likely to continue into the distant future
regardless of our presence.
Iraq now has the tools it needs to secure its economy. Iraq must
solve the problems for its own people. Keeping thousands of U.S. troops
in Iraq would needlessly put them in more danger, it would cost
American taxpayers more money, and it would further distract us from
our core objectives of protecting U.S. citizens and further dismantling
al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. That is where our focus must be,
and that is why I am saying let's end this war for good.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for about 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Honoring Our Armed Forces
Sergeant Joshua J. Robinson
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a fallen hero,
U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Joshua J. Robinson of Douglas, Nebraska.
Sergeant Robinson was killed in action on August 7, 2011, while
conducting patrol operations in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. He
was in his third tour of duty. His story of service comes to us at a
time when many are reflecting on the 10th anniversary of the September
11th terrorist attacks--a fitting time to recognize the patriotism of a
fallen hero.
Sergeant Robinson enlisted in the Marine Corps in 2003, a time when
Operation Iraqi Freedom was in the beginning stages and many were
unsure of what was to come. He felt the call to serve and was
rightfully proud of his commitment to defend and protect our country.
Sergeant Robinson's love of the outdoors provided him with many of the
skills needed to be the best Marine he could be.
Sadly, his life was cut short too soon, and the Robinson family laid
their Marine to rest in Hastings, Nebraska on August 16, 2011. Sergeant
Robinson returned to his birthplace with valor and honor, having been
awarded the Purple Heart, the Combat Action Medal, the Iraq Campaign
Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism
Expeditionary Medal, and many other decorations during his military
career. He died a brave and most honorable death. We are proud to call
him one of our own.
The tradition of military service is strong in our great state of
Nebraska, but strong soldiers are not possible without the support of
family. I am confident Nebraskans will rally around Sergeant Robinson's
family during this difficult time. He is mourned by his wife, two sons,
mother and stepfather, sisters, and many others. It is the strength of
his wife Rhonda that will remind Wyatt and Kodiak of the love their
father had for them and for his country.
His mother Misi provided insight into her son's position to serve
when she said:
Our freedom was put on the line. It takes young men like
Josh to enlist and protect the USA.
I know his family is proud of him and will always remember his
spirit, his competitiveness, and his enthusiasm for adventure.
May God bless the Robinson family and all of our fighting men and
women in harm's way.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. COONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal
Mr. COONS. Madam President, I rise today to mark a momentous day and
to stand with the millions of Americans for whom the end of don't ask,
don't tell means the beginning of a real era of new equality for our
Nation. It has been 60 days since Secretary Panetta, Chairman Mullen,
and President Obama certified the U.S. Armed Forces were ready for the
repeal of don't ask, don't tell. After 18 long years, today that policy
finally comes to an end.
This is an important day. It is a good day. Today is a good day
because our Nation, in my view, is taking a major step forward not just
in the pursuit of equal rights but in the pursuit of equal
responsibility. Today is a good day because we always talk about equal
rights, but with don't ask, don't tell we are talking about Americans
who sought equal responsibility, Americans who wanted to serve their
Nation.
Nearly 14,000 LGBT Americans wanted to serve their Nation in their
military but were deemed unfit to serve not because of what they did
but because of whom they loved, as if loving another man made a soldier
unable to aim a rifle or unwilling to die for his country. But for as
many servicemembers who were drummed out--both literally and
figuratively--under don't ask, don't tell, I cannot help but wonder how
many more served in silence, proud of their uniform but made to feel
ashamed of the person underneath.
LTC Charles George served his country for more than 30 years,
including 28 years as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army. His
uniform is decorated with a wide range of medals and ribbons for
dedicated service. When he graduated from ROTC in 1980, Charlie's
boyfriend Dennis was there, and he wrote to me recently about his
experience. He said:
I sat next to his mother, keeping quiet so I wouldn't draw
attention to our relationship. During his actual pinning, my
eyes never left his for the entire process. I was so proud of
him. At one point, his eyes found me in the audience and we
smiled to each other. I still remember that moment.
That was the last of those moments they would have. In 30 years of
dedicated Army service, that ROTC ceremony was the only military
activity of Charlie's that Dennis would be able to be a part of.
Charlie was determined to serve our Nation, and so they had to keep
their relationship a secret.
Charlie steadily rose through the ranks to first lieutenant and then
to captain. He was promoted to major and ultimately lieutenant colonel.
These were all proud moments for Charlie,
[[Page S5755]]
but Dennis could not be in the room for any of them. ``The only thing
harder than being a soldier is loving one,'' they would later recall
hearing. I would offer the only thing harder than loving a soldier
would be having to keep that love a secret from the world for a decade.
After 9/11, then-MAJ Charlie George was activated from Reserve duty,
and like so many military families they discussed their now uncertain
future. If Charlie had died in the service of his country, there would
be no call on Dennis's phone from the Army, no knock on his door.
Dennis would receive no crispily folded flag presented by a military
honor guard. Dennis would never be able to be buried next to Charlie at
the Arlington National Cemetery.
For 31 years they kept their relationship and their love a secret.
Colonel George retired this year--a milestone he will celebrate next
month in Rehoboth Beach, DE. For the first time since that ROTC
ceremony more than three decades earlier, Dennis will be there proudly
looking on. No more secrets, no more hiding, just the respect and
dignity they both deserve--not just because of Charlie's long and
dedicated service to the U.S. Army or because of Dennis's silent
sacrifice but because they are both Americans.
I was proud to cosponsor the repeal of don't ask, don't tell last
fall. I was even prouder to vote for it. Madam President, 3 months ago
I was 1 of 13 Senators to record a video telling the gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgender youth of this country that it gets better. As
Americans we tell our kids that equality for all is a founding
principle of our Nation, but our actions in so many ways have in the
past failed to live up to these brave words. Our video was a promise to
this generation of Americans, to the generation of my children, a
promise that we are working to build an America free of legal
discrimination, free of discrimination in our society; that LBGT youth
have a future in this country where they will be entitled to the same
rights, privileges, and responsibilities as every other American.
Bit by bit we are going to tear down these walls of
discrimination. This is how we make it better. Don't ask, don't tell
was discrimination, plain and simple. But today it is no more. Today is
a good day.
Thank you, Madam President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Inhofe and Mr. Blunt pertaining to the
introduction of S. 1583 are printed in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wish to speak for a few minutes today
about the bill that is on the floor, the amendment, in fact, to the
general system of trade preferences bill. That amendment is trade
adjustment assistance. Frankly, it is not a bill I would have drafted
on my own, but my guess is neither would have the two people who
negotiated the bill. This is a compromise between Chairman Camp in the
House and the Senator from Montana here. It is a compromise that
reflects exactly that. It is not what either one of them may have come
up with, and certainly not what I would have come up with. But, based
on the President's determination, it is essential to move on to the
three trade agreements that have been waiting to be voted on for 3
years now.
I intend to vote for this. I am looking carefully at the amendments.
I am supportive of the two amendments we will vote on today. But if
they would disrupt the balance of this agreement that has been made, I
am going to look very carefully at that as these votes are cast.
Certainly, I wish for this President and all of his successors to
have trade promotion authority. I think we have seen the difficulty of
the President being able to negotiate a treaty as an agreement. A trade
agreement that comes to the Senate and that could be amended by the
Senate and which takes two-thirds of the Senate to approve--those days
are over. Before trade promotion authority, we had essentially gotten
out of the treaty agreement on trade because who wants to make that
kind of agreement? Who wants to get into a room and negotiate a trade
agreement only to see the thing maybe they thought was the biggest
thing they had given up or the biggest thing they had gotten taken out
of the agreement before the Senate votes on it?
So this up-or-down, yes-or-no, majority-in-the-Senate and majority-
in-the-House trade promotion authority is very important. I wish we had
an agreement that this President wanted right now, and that the next
President--whoever that is and whenever that is--would have the ability
to continue, because since we ran out of the trade promotion authority
law, we have not had any agreements negotiated.
In fact, the three we have negotiated now, I want to talk about for a
minute, but they have been available for 3 years and I am eager for the
President to send them up. The President says this TAA issue, this
trade adjustment assistance issue, has to be understood to be completed
and will be completed, or at least he has to be assured it will be
completed, before we get those three agreements.
It would be fine with me if we could adjust this some. I want to see
the bill of my good friend from Oregon, who is on the floor, Mr. Wyden,
considered, of which I have cosponsored, on transshipments, where many
of us in this body have problems in our States--I have two major
problems I could talk about for a long time, but I will not today--
where the proper authority has looked at what is happening, and they
said: No, you have unfair trade practices. So there is a penalty on the
country that is using those unfair practices to compete. But then what
that country does is they start labeling the product as if it were from
somewhere else, and they may ship the product through that other
country and get it labeled there or they may short circuit that and put
the label on it in their own country and say it was made somewhere else
so when it comes in here, suddenly it does not have that penalty.
Whether that is relabeling or I think, as my good friend from Oregon
calls it, merchandise laundering, where you make the merchandise appear
to be something it is not, so you no longer pay the penalty, I would
love to see that on a bill here in the near future.
The other Senator from Oregon and I have a bill on affordable
footwear that has trade impact I would love to see on a bill. This is a
bill that potentially might have jurisdiction to go on. But that is not
the agreement that has been made between the House and the Senate. I am
going to be supporting that agreement and not doing anything that makes
it impossible for us to get these three trade agreements. I am
absolutely banking on the commitment by the President of the United
States that if this happens, the three trade agreements come to the
Congress. When they come to the Congress, I believe they pass the House
and Senate, and they create great opportunity for American workers to
send their products to other countries.
One of these agreements that has been there for a long time is the
agreement with Colombia. Colombia already is able to ship its products
in here without tariff under something that routinely passes the
Congress called the Andean Preferences Act. So this is not about
whatever labor conditions there are in Colombia. Their products already
come here. This is about whether U.S. workers are going to have every
possible advantage in Colombia. This is about whether Caterpillars made
in the United States or John Deere tractors or moving equipment made in
the United States has the same advantage in Colombia that the same
piece of equipment made in Canada has. Right now, they do not have that
advantage. We need to see that they do.
As to Korea, the European Union negotiated a trade agreement long
after we negotiated this agreement, but it went into effect the first
of July, and the year-to-year comparison, July over July, is, I think,
38 percent bigger this July than it was last July. The only difference
between this July and last July is the trade agreement.
These are three countries where all of their trading history, all of
their buying history--Panama being the third of the three--would be
that given the choice of an American product to buy or a product from
any other country but their own, they would give preference to the
American product.
[[Page S5756]]
But we are giving away that market advantage by not creating this
opportunity for American workers and American companies, big and small.
Agriculture is a huge beneficiary of these agreements. Lots of
agriculture, lots of grain crop agriculture, lots of meat crop
agriculture--whether it is chickens or poultry of all kinds or pork or
beef--is very dependent on American family farmers who will see a great
opportunity in each of these countries, given the opportunity to get
their product under these agreements.
I am hoping that enough of my colleagues and I are able to get this
general system of preferences bill, as amended with the TAA, done so we
can get on to the job-creating work of these three trade bills. These
are opportunities to create more private sector American jobs. Over and
over, almost every Member of the Senate says that should be our No. 1
priority. The President says that is his No. 1 priority.
This work, combined as we get to the trade agreements, lets us do the
easiest part of job creation and our No. 1 priority, which is to let
American workers compete in places where the consumer wants to buy
American products, eliminate those barriers, and move forward with
these agreements and the bill on the floor today. Then, hopefully, we
can get to the transshipment bill; hopefully, we can get to the
Affordable Footwear Act, and, hopefully, we will eventually see TPA.
The Senator from Utah has a bill that would synchronize trade
adjustment assistance with any trade bill. And, of course, we should do
that.
But let's get this work done. I look forward to this being done, and
the President sending the bills up so that before the next month
passes, hopefully, we will be seeing American products have the
advantage they have been waiting for now or at least eliminate the
disadvantage they have had needlessly for the 3 years since these
agreements were all negotiated.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I want to respond very briefly to my
friend from Missouri, and then I know the Senator from California is
here, and she wishes to speak for about 10 minutes. I am going to be
very brief.
First, I want to thank Senator Blunt for working with us in a
bipartisan way. He played a key role in trying to advance this issue
and worked very closely with all of us in the Finance Committee,
Chairman Baucus, myself, and others.
The Senator from Missouri is absolutely right with respect to the
tariff issue. The fact is, the American market is open. We essentially
have some of the lowest tariffs around. In many of the markets around
the world--and certainly in a number of areas with these three
countries--we face much higher tariffs. So if we come up with an effort
to, in effect, level the playing field, that means American companies,
particularly American exporters, benefit more than do the folks around
the world. So I think the point the Senator from Missouri has made is a
very valid one.
I also want to thank him for his comment with respect to the trade
cheats. We are going to have further discussions with respect to TPA,
and I see the distinguished ranking minority member. When we talked
about this in committee, I made it very clear I intend to keep working
with Senator Hatch and Senator Thune, who is the ranking member of the
subcommittee. The challenge is to make sure TPA keeps up with the
times. Because if we just reauthorize in 2011 TPA of 2002, we are not
going to be dealing with digital goods and digital services, we are not
going to be dealing with State-run enterprises, we are not going to be
dealing with labor and environmental issues. That is why we are going
to have to continue that work in a bipartisan way.
Madam President, Senator Boxer was going to speak next. Then I
understand Senator Hatch wants to discuss his amendment, and I intend
to remain for that.
With that, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, first, I want to say thank you to the
leadership on this bill. This trade adjustment assistance is so
critical. When we talk about creating jobs, we also want to talk about
retraining those who need, in this century, the new kinds of training
it takes to keep up in this economy and this world economy. So I want
to thank them for their leadership.
Jobs and Deficit Reduction
Madam President, I want to talk about jobs and deficit reduction. The
good news on this front is that President Obama has presented to the
Nation both a jobs plan and a deficit reduction plan. He has shown the
Nation, through this plan, that while we must cut the deficit and the
debt in the long term, we have to focus on jobs in the short term. His
plan ensures that middle-class Americans get the jobs and the
opportunities they need to continue to move ahead. It also makes sure
we have a fair tax system in place so everyone pays his or her own fair
share--not too much, not too little, but fair. So this approach is
welcome.
I will tell you why I welcome it. Because the approach outlined by
President Obama--deficit and debt reduction, investments in jobs--was
the same vision that worked before when Bill Clinton was the President.
I had the honor of being here in this body to support those policies.
People forget that when Bill Clinton became President, there were
deficits and debt as far as the eye could see, and this country was
going on the wrong path. What he did was to make sure everyone paid his
or her own fair share so we had the revenues we needed to make the
investments we needed to create the jobs we needed.
In those years, the investments were in high-tech and biotech, and we
really broke through on the global scene. Madam President, 23 million
jobs were created and deficits were turned into surpluses. I remember
looking back at the record. Some of my Republican colleagues who are
still here today said: The Clinton approach is going to lead to the
worst deficits, no job creation. They were incorrect.
We lived through it, and we know that vision of cutting spending on
what does not work, increasing spending on investments, everyone paying
their fair share--all that turned into prosperity, 23 million jobs.
What perplexes me is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
want to go back to the Bush years, trickledown economics, more tax
breaks for millionaires and billionaires, no investments, so we even
lose funding for our teachers, our firefighters, our nurses, and even
our transportation stakeholders.
I am so grateful we passed an extension of the highway bill for 6
months. But, believe me, we face perils ahead because the House cuts
that bill by a third, and we have to make sure that does not happen
because 1.8 million jobs are at stake.
So I am perplexed that my Republican friends only evidence compassion
and concern for the millionaires and the billionaires, but not for the
middle class. Their compassion for the wealthiest is overwhelming.
Their expressions of concern for billionaires--mind boggling. They call
them the job creators, even though they are not the ones creating the
jobs. The jobs are being created, if they are at all, by the way, by
the small businesspeople. For 64 percent of new jobs, the creation
comes from small business. They do not earn a million dollars. No
way. So they call millionaires and billionaires job creators, which
they are not, and they cry bitter tears that we might ask a millionaire
or a billionaire to pay a fair share.
When I was young--and maybe I shouldn't tell the truth because this
is going to date me--there was a show on television called ``Dragnet.''
The star of it was Joe Friday. Joe Friday used to say: ``Just the
facts.'' So let's look at just the facts. Let's look at the facts. Why
are my Republican friends defending the wealthiest among us? Since
1995, the wealthiest 400 Americans have seen their tax rates fall by 40
percent, while their average income has quadrupled. Let me say that
again. The wealthiest 400 families saw their income go up by four times
and their tax rates went down by 40 percent. Why do they have to cry
for that situation? Why the tears?
[[Page S5757]]
Here is another fact and this is amazing. The wealthiest 400 families
are worth more than 50 percent of American families. Let me say that
again. The wealthiest 400 families in America are worth more than 50
percent of America's families. Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont
brought that fact to us. Why the tears for those 400 families?
One of those people, Warren Buffett, came forward. Bless his heart.
He said his effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's. His
effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's. Why are we crying for
people who earn millions and billions and pay a lower effective tax
rate than their secretaries? I thank Warren Buffett for coming forward
and other millionaires and billionaires have come forward and basically
underscored that. Here is what he said:
My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a
billionaire-friendly government. It's time for our government
to get serious about shared sacrifice.
I think he is right. Why should a millionaire or billionaire pay an
effective lower tax rate than firefighters who risk their lives every
day, than nurses who save lives every day, than their own assistants
and secretaries who are so important in running their enterprises? Our
President Obama has suggested millionaires and billionaires pay the
same effective tax rate as their employees. That should be embraced,
not attacked as class warfare.
I ask, is it class warfare to say to a millionaire or a billionaire
they should pay the same effective tax rate as their secretary or is
that just the moral thing to do? It is the moral thing to do. Is it the
fair thing to do? It is the fair thing to do. Our country needs
everyone to help us as we tackle the deficit. So why the tears? Why the
tears? These are not the job creators. These are not people who have
given the last 10 years. We have seen their incomes rise exponentially
and their taxes go down.
So I don't think it is class warfare at all. It is just a talking
point for Republicans. But since they have raised it, I would say this.
I don't think it is class warfare to ask millionaires and billionaires
to pay the same effective tax rate as their secretaries, but I think
Republican policies are class warfare on the middle class. Look at
their policies. They would end Medicare and put middle-class senior
citizens in jeopardy. They want to privatize Social Security and put
middle-class seniors in jeopardy. They want to cut one-third of the
funds from transportation, which would mean 600,000 layoffs for middle-
class workers.
They stopped us from helping small business by blocking Senator
Landrieu's Small Business Innovation Act. They blocked the EDA--the
Economic Development Act--which would have created 1 million jobs over
5 years. They have taken no action on the FAA bill. They have not
appointed conferees, and we can't get that bill done that is hundreds
of thousands of jobs.
When Republicans took control of the House, gross domestic product
had grown at an average of 2.5 percent after the Recovery Act. Now it
is down to 0.7 percent--from 2.5 percent of growth to 0.7 percent. The
Republican Congress put the brakes on job creation, and that is a
strong reason why this economy has slowed.
Even before they have read the fine print of President Obama's
proposal, they say it is dead on arrival. So let us be clear: Again,
asking millionaires and billionaires to pay the same as their
secretaries is not class warfare, it is moral. Mark Cuban, the owner of
the Dallas Mavericks, says it is the most patriotic thing we can do.
So instead of crying for millionaires and billionaires, I am thinking
of sending a box of Kleenex tissues over there to Paul Ryan, who is
lamenting this attack on millionaires and billionaires. Poor thing.
Poor guys, poor gals. Instead of doing that, let's fight for the middle
class around here. Let's get our arms around deficit reduction by
asking everyone who can to pay their fair share.
By the way, let's give tax breaks to the middle class. Do you know
these same Republicans who are crying their tears for the millionaires
and billionaires say they do not want to give a tax break to working
people? They are against the payroll tax proposal which would suspend
that payroll tax for a period of time. I ask them to stop blocking
bills that would create jobs. Stop blocking tax breaks for the middle
class. Stop going after middle-class seniors. Stop crying for
billionaires and help us pass elements of the Obama jobs plan which
include bipartisan proposals all of us have supported in the past.
I think that is critical. We did this before with Bill Clinton--we
created jobs, we strengthened the middle class, and we created
surpluses by asking everyone to pay their fair share. Remember, when
our President took over, this country was bleeding 700,000 jobs a
month. I remember that--700,000 a month. We were on the verge of losing
our automobile industry. This President took action. He doesn't get the
credit for that, and that is OK. There will be time enough to spell it
out. But all we have to do is look back to those days. Credit was
frozen.
The Presiding Officer remembers that. Capitalism was coming to an
end. This President acted. I have to say this: I don't want to go back
to those days of bleeding 700,000 jobs a month. I don't want to go back
to the days of credit freezes. I don't want to see these deficits
continue. I want everyone to pay their fair share. Most of all, I want
jobs for the American people.
So if we can stop crying tears for the people who have it all and we
can roll up our sleeves and work together for the middle class, we will
strengthen this Nation. We will solve our problems, just as we did when
Bill Clinton was President. We have the roadmap. President Obama has
taken steps to follow that roadmap. We know it works. We will get these
deficits down, we will get the debt down, we will help the middle class
and, yes, the wealthiest among us will pay the same tax rate
effectively as their secretaries. You know what, if we do that,
Democrats and Republicans can feel good about this country again. Let's
work together and let's not say now that we can't ask billionaires to
pay their fair share and let's not keep the middle class from getting
their tax cuts and their jobs. That is what is important.
I wish to thank the leaders on this issue for letting me have the
time to talk about this middle-class attack that we are seeing, and I
thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I wish to talk about an amendment I
intend to offer linking TAA expansion to enactment of the three pending
free-trade agreements.
I will send an amendment to the desk in the near future for
consideration. This amendment makes the effective date for additional
TAA funding contingent upon the enactment of our free-trade agreements
with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.
It is unfortunate this amendment is necessary. Supporters of this
trade adjustment assistance bill tell us that TAA is a necessary
precondition to submission of our pending free-trade agreements--a
necessary precondition of the President. The President and his
supporters say if TAA does not pass, the free-trade agreements will
never be sent to Congress for our consideration.
I find this logic disturbing. It basically boils down to this: Spend
more taxpayer money on one of our pet trade priorities or we will
refuse to allow Congress to vote on trade agreements that we know will
create jobs. The administration has said it will create 250,000 new
jobs. By the way, at a time when unemployment is over 9 percent, I
simply can't understand why the President continues to hold up these
FTAs and their consideration.
Even today, we don't know if the President will actually send the
FTAs to Congress if we pass TAA. So my amendment is very simple. It
allows TAA to be approved, but it will only go into effect once the
President submits the trade agreements to Congress, they are all
approved, and when they are signed into law.
To me, this amendment is about fundamental fairness. If we are to
meet the President's demands, we can at least ensure our top priorities
are addressed as well.
I think it is worth taking a moment to review how we got here.
In December 2010, the President announced he had finally reached
agreement with South Korea to renegotiate parts of that trade
agreement. Touting the benefits of these changes, the President seemed
poised to immediately begin working with Congress
[[Page S5758]]
toward its quick implementation; that is, the implementation of the
Korean Free Trade Agreement.
In February, Senator McConnell and I wrote to the President
commending him for his strong support for the South Korea agreement but
also expressing disappointment we did not see the same level of
commitment to our pending free-trade agreements with Colombia and
Panama. At that time, we warned that further delay would mean lost
market share and alienation of key Latin American allies. We also made
it clear each agreement would receive broad bipartisan support once the
President submitted them to Congress for approval.
Three days later, the President responded when Ambassador Kirk
testified before the Ways and Means Committee that the President had
directed him to immediately intensify engagement with Colombia and
Panama to resolve the administration's outstanding issues with these
two agreements.
Senator Baucus and I welcomed that development when we wrote to
Ambassador Kirk on February 14 and asked that he be prepared to provide
testimony regarding what additional steps the administration believed
Colombia and Panama should take and to provide a clear and expeditious
timeline for moving both agreements through Congress.
Shortly thereafter, in early March, Ambassador Kirk notified Congress
the administration was ready to begin technical work on the South Korea
implementing bill with the intent to seek approval in the spring of
this year. Senator Baucus and I welcomed this development but again
called for a specific timeline for resolution of the outstanding issues
with Colombia and Panama.
During our March 9 hearing on the administration's trade agenda, I
made it clear that consideration of the South Korea agreement, without
a clear path for the Colombia and Panama agreements, was simply not
acceptable and that should the President ignore the will of Congress
and send the Korea agreement without Colombia and Panama, I would do
everything I could to make sure those two agreements were considered at
the same time as Korea.
Shortly thereafter, in early April, the President finally took steps
to fully engage with the Government of Colombia, announcing an
agreement on a labor action plan that would enable the administration
to begin working with Colombia to achieve benchmarks that, if met,
would then enable the President to submit the agreement to Congress. A
few weeks later, Panama met one of President Obama's preconditions for
consideration of their FTA when they approved a tax information
exchange agreement and finalized additional modifications to Panama's
labor laws.
So there we stood in May, on the cusp of victory. Months of intense
congressional pressure appeared to have finally resulted in an
opportunity for Congress to consider our trade agreements with these
important allies. But alas, it was not to be.
Mr. WYDEN. Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Because 5 o'clock is coming.
Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to yield, without losing my right to the
floor.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague. Certainly, when I am done, the
Senator is next to continue his comments.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending McConnell amendment No. 626
be modified with the DeMint language which is at the desk; and Senator
Hatch or his designee then be recognized to offer amendment No. 641;
that the time until 5 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders
or their designees for debate on the McConnell amendment, as modified;
that at 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the
following judicial nominations: Calendar Nos. 169 and 170; that there
be up to 15 minutes of debate on the nominations, equally divided, in
the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of the time,
Calendar No. 169 be confirmed and the Senate proceed to vote without
intervening action or debate on Calendar No. 170; the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to
any of the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations
be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of
the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session;
that upon disposition of the judicial nominations, the Senate proceed
to a vote in relation to the McConnell amendment, as modified; that
there be no amendments, points of order or motions in order to the
McConnell amendment prior to the vote on the amendment, other than
budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that the
amendment not be divisible and it be subject to a 60-affirmative vote
threshold; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment (No. 626), as modified, is as follows:
At the end, add the following:
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''.
SEC. 303. MODIFICATION OF STANDARD FOR PROVISIONS THAT MAY BE
INCLUDED IN IMPLEMENTING BILLS.
Section 2103(b) of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority
Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3803(b)), as amended by section _02,
is further amended in paragraph (3)(B) by striking clause
(ii) and inserting the following:
``(ii) provisions that are necessary to the implementation
and enforcement of such trade agreement.''.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, on the cusp of victory, the President
sacrificed it by demanding more government spending on a controversial
domestic training program.
[[Page S5759]]
After first asking Colombia, Panama and South Korea to take
unprecedented steps to solve our President's concerns with each
agreement, the administration held a press conference and, with no
prior cngressional consultation or notice, announced that they would
not submit our pending trade agreements to Congress unless Congress
first agreed to continue funding a domestic spending program at near
stimulus levels.
This was an astounding development. Instead of working with Congress
to seek approval of these job-creating trade agreements the President
chose to try and force Congress to agree to additional domestic
spending first. In an opinion editorial, the Wall Street Journal called
this move ``extortion.''
Weeks of intense negotiations followed between the White House,
Senator Baucus and Chairman Camp to develop a package that would expand
and renew trade adjustment assistance through 2014.
Meanwhile, committee staff worked with the White House to prepare the
implementing legislation for quick congressional consideration. It
appeared that we were once again close to successfully considering
these important trade agreements.
But yet again, it was not meant to be. Upon reaching an agreement on
the substance of a trade adjustment assistance package with Chairman
Camp the White House again changed course, turning its back on a
willing Congress and instead trying to force through consideration of
trade adjustment assistance by including it in the implementing bill
for the South Korea FTA.
And, once again, this was done with virtually no notice or
consultation with Congress.
The reaction by the Republican caucus was predictable. We fought the
administration's efforts to abuse trade promotion authority for its own
narrow purposes and pushed for consideration of trade adjustment
assistance on its own merits.
Our position was made clear in a letter--signed by every Republican
member of the Finance Committee--to the President, in which we
expressed our united opposition to inclusion of expanded trade
adjustment assistance in an implementing bill submitted to Congress
under trade promotion authority.
The administration ignored our concerns, and pushed forward on a
partisan path to force a vote in the Senate Finance Committee.
As a result, while the implementing legislation for the Colombia bill
and Panama bills received strong bipartisan support, the South Korea
implementing bill moved through committee on a strict party line vote--
the first time a trade agreement has done so in over 25 years.
The administration then vowed to move forward on this path within
days.
After that we heard remarkably little from the administration about
their intentions regarding these trade agreements. Until August, of
course, when the President repeatedly called upon Congress to take the
agreements up ``right now'' to help create jobs.
This hollow call for action typifies the President's approach to the
trade agenda. By calling upon Congress to act, he appears to be
embracing the agreements and pushing for their quick approval. But,
like so many of the President's trade initiatives his words do not
match his deeds.
In reality, Congress cannot take up these agreements ``right now.''
President Obama is relying upon a trade law called trade promotion
authority to protect each of these agreements from being blocked or
amended by Congress.
In order to take advantage of this statutory authority, it is not
Congress but the President who must take the first step and submit each
agreement for consideration. If the President does not submit them,
Congress cannot act under trade promotion authority.
The President and his team know this. In fact, here is a chart which
outlines the TPA process called ``How A Trade Agreement Moves Through
Congress Under TPA.''
This was taken directly from the Web site of the Office of the United
States Trade Representative. It clearly shows Congress cannot act until
the President submits the agreements.
But why take responsibility for moving the agreements when it's much
easier to blame their continued delay on Congress? The fact is the
President wants all the benefits of trade promotion authority but none
of the responsibility.
Once they were called out on the mismatch between their words and
deeds, the administration finally reined in their rhetoric but provided
little guidance as to what their actual plans are.
In the meantime, Republicans continued to push for consideration of
the three pending FTAs. Back in July, a group of Republican Senators
signed a letter vowing to help the administration achieve its objective
of gaining approval of trade adjustment assistance in exchange for
submitting the FTAs. Despite a clear path forward the President remains
silent to this day.
As the President continues to delay, our country cedes each of these
markets to our foreign competitors. Our economy and our workers are
suffering under horrific levels of unemployment--almost one in ten
American workers is out of a job under this administration. We can't
afford to throw away any opportunity to create jobs. Yet this is
precisely what the President is doing.
While our economy remains troubled, and while the rest of the world
watches in bewilderment as the United States lets other countries take
over our export markets, we hear nothing but silence from the
President.
A case in point: the European Union's exports to South Korea
increased almost 45 percent in the first 20 days since that agreement
went into force on July 1. Their share of Korea's import market
increased from 9.5 percent to 10.3 percent in just 3 weeks.
Meanwhile, the U.S. share of Korea's import market dropped from 10.5
percent to 8.4 percent. Unless we act soon, these trends are likely to
continue.
In an open letter to the President and Congress, over 120 food groups
and companies wrote that ``if there is any doubt about the seriousness
of the problem for U.S. agricultural exports, one need only consider
the damage that has already been done by the delay in implementing the
Colombia FTA.
``Argentina and Brazil have negotiated trade agreements . . . with
Colombia that have given them preferential access . . . as a result,
U.S.-produced corn, wheat and soybeans have been hit hard, with the
combined share of Colombia's imports for these products falling to 28
percent from 78 percent since 2008.''
On August 15, 2011, an agreement between Canada and Colombia entered
into force, which will only make the problem worse for U.S. exporters.
I appreciate the President's goal of doubling exports. Having goals
is great. But we all know that, if you don't do the work or take
action, goals become little more than false hope--they never become
reality.
The President and his cabinet admit that these agreements are key to
their goal of doubling exports. Yet the action necessary to reach that
goal, submission of the agreements, still remains in the distant
future. Instead, we watch the days slip by, and with each day our
overseas markets erode.
The fact is that each of these agreements is critically important to
our economy. For my home State of Utah and for workers across the
country they mean more opportunity and jobs.
The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that U.S. workers
lose $8 million in wages and benefits every day these agreements are
delayed.
I for one stand ready to continue to fight for their consideration
and approval. We have come a long way since January of this year, but
we are not done yet.
I hope the President will heed my call and submit these agreements to
Congress so we can approve them. But history has shown that this
President won't act unless he is forced to. This amendment I am
offering will continue to put pressure on him to act and to act soon.
The time for dithering and deliberation is over. Let's adopt this
amendment and ensure that our work in moving TAA forward leads to the
promised result--submission of the three pending free trade agreements
by the President and their quick enactment in to law.
Amendment No. 641 to Amendment No. 633
Madam President, I send amendment No. 641 to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
[[Page S5760]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] proposes an amendment
numbered 641.
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed
with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make the effective date of the amendments expanding the
trade adjustment assistance program contingent on the enactment of the
United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, the United
States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, and the
United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act)
On page 31 of the amendment, between lines 7 and 8, insert
the following:
SEC. 231. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE
CONTINGENT ON ENACTMENT OF CERTAIN FREE TRADE
AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTING BILLS.
Notwithstanding section 201(b) or any other provision of
this subtitle, the amendments made by this subtitle shall
take effect on the date on which the United States-Korea Free
Trade Agreement Implementation Act, the United States-
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, and
the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement
Implementation Act have been enacted into law.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am prepared to proceed.
____________________