[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 69 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2736-S2739]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we will be dealing soon--I guess next 
week--with trade promotion authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
trade agreement, the TPP. Conventional wisdom is that trade agreements 
are good. We should just move them forward. Let's have an expedited 
fast-track process--a fast-track agreement with the TPA--and we will 
get this done and it is going to work out well for the American people.
  But in truth, I have to say, since I voted for every trade agreement, 
one virtually every year since I have been here--except one--the data 
doesn't give us much confidence that a loosely drawn or improperly 
drawn agreement is going to help us. In fact, evidence indicates it is 
not helping us. It is not helping the economy of the United States. It 
is not helping growth. Some of these agreements have clearly 
exacerbated our trade deficit.
  So it is a remarkable thing, and we want to believe in trade, and I 
do, but the United States has interests, our trading partners have 
interests, and our trading partners are far more mercantile, far more 
focused on increasing exports to foreign countries--to the biggest 
market in the world, the United States--and far more focused on 
blocking imports that would compete against locally manufactured 
products than the United States has been producing.
  Some say: Well, that is not a problem. The United States is smarter 
in the long run. But I would say I am looking at this more carefully 
now.
  I voted for the Korea agreement. Our Korean allies are good people. 
It is a great country. They achieved so much after the Korean war, and 
we are proud of them. We have many positive relationships and a 
fabulous Hyundai plant in my State. It hires thousands, and they have 
suppliers that add thousands of jobs also.
  What about that agreement? I supported it. I thought it was a good 
agreement. It passed here by a substantial vote. But when you look at 
it, it didn't work out as well as people said.
  The U.S. Federal Trade Commission--our own trade commission--
estimated that the reduction of Korean tariffs against our exports to 
Korea and tariff rate quotas on goods alone would have added at least 
$10 billion to annual exports to Korea. That is $10 billion. Well, last 
year, three years after the agreement was passed, we didn't export $10 
billion; we exported less than $1 billion to Korea--$0.8 billion. So 
that is a very huge difference, while at the same time Korea's imports 
to the United States have surged and the trade deficit the United 
States had with Korea, which was already large, has almost doubled in 
that time.
  So I appreciate the complexity of the issue and want to talk about 
it.
  As we wrestle with how we continue with this situation with the TPP, 
trade promotion authority, I ask my colleagues about some of the 
questions we ought to consider. I know there is a goal to move this 
thing forward fast rather than slow. The faster we get it done, the 
fewer questions that get asked, and we have fewer problems. But that is 
not our problem. That is not our duty.
  I wrote President Obama a letter yesterday. I made some comments and 
asked some questions that I believe are reasonable and fair questions 
to ask before we vote on this agreement that he has been negotiating 
but that, of course, hasn't completed the negotiations on. And, to the 
extent to which it has been reduced to writing, which is only partial, 
it is locked up in secret, and we are able to view it only privately. 
We are not allowed to quote it or copy it to let the public know what 
is in it.
  I asked him:

       You have asked Congress to approve fast-track legislation 
     (Trade Promotion Authority) that would allow international 
     trade and regulatory agreements to be expedited through 
     Congress for the next six years without amendment. Fast-
     track, which proponents hope to adopt within days, would also 
     ensure that these agreements--none of which of have yet been 
     made public--could pass with a simple majority vote, rather 
     than the 67 votes applied to treaties or the 60 votes applied 
     to important legislative matters.
       This is one of the largest international compacts in the 
     history of the United States. [It amounts to 40 percent of 
     global GDP.] Yet, this agreement will be kept a closely-
     guarded secret until after Congress agrees to yield its 
     institutional powers and provide the administration with a 
     guaranteed ``fast-track'' to adoption.

  In other words, we are going to agree in advance, before we see the 
completed deal, before it is made public, to allow this agreement to 
pass into effect without the ability to have any amendment to it or to 
fully understand it.
  I think that is a big ask of Congress. It has always been problematic 
to use this fast-track procedure. I have voted for trade agreements 
which were fast-tracked, I acknowledge, in the past, and maybe they 
have helped us some.
  But I do believe it is time for us to be a lot more careful today 
with the trade agreements that we sign and ask a lot more rigorously 
what impact it will have on working Americans, not just some capital 
group in the canyons of Wall Street.
  So I continued to write:

       The U.S. ran a record $51.4 billion trade deficit in March.

  That is a record first quarter, I believe. It was a six-year record 
this year for the trade deficit. That means the amount we export is 
vastly exceeded by the amount we import--$51.4 billion.
  Economists tell us--and I don't think there is any dispute--that when 
you are evaluating trade growth you have to subtract trade deficits 
since they are a negative to growth. So our trade deficits are pulling 
down growth in America. They are pulling down job creation. They are 
pulling down wage growth. They are pulling down our economy.
  I continue to quote:

       This is especially concerning since, in 2011, assurances 
     were made from the Administration that the recent South Korea 
     free trade deal would ``increase exports of American goods by 
     $10 billion to $11 billion.'' But, in fact, American domestic 
     exports to Korea increased by only $0.8 billion, an increase 
     of 1.8 percent, while imports from Korea increased $12.6 
     billion, an increase of 22.5 percent.

  So, in other words, imports from Korea to the United States increased 
$12.6 billion. Our exports to them increased less than $1 billion.
  Continuing:

       Our trade deficit with Korea increased $11.8 billion 
     between 2011 and 2014, an increase of 80.4 percent, nearly 
     doubling in the three years since the deal was ratified.

  And we were promised the other. We were promised it would enhance, 
dramatically, exports. I continue:

       Overall, we have already lost more than 2.1 million 
     manufacturing jobs to the Asian Pacific region since 2001.

  Look, we know there are wage advantages in Asia, but wages are going 
up

[[Page S2737]]

in a lot of Asian countries too. It is getting closer, and we have an 
advantage on better management. We have advantages on better 
infrastructure, and we have advantages on better energy prices. So this 
is a huge loss to us. At some point we have to defend our American 
working people's interest.
  I write:

       Former Nucor Steel Chairman Daniel DiMicco argues that we 
     have not been engaged in free trade but in ``unilateral trade 
     disarmament and enablement of foreign mercantilism.''

  In other words, our agreements with trade have not overcome our 
trading competitors, our trading partners' desire to maximize their 
exports and minimize their imports from us. We have to be honest about 
that; it is not theory. Simply eliminating tariffs does not solve the 
problem. History tells us that.
  So I continue to President Obama:

       Due to the enormity of what is at stake, I believe it is 
     essential Congress have answers to the following questions 
     before any vote is scheduled on ``fast-track'' authority.
       1. Regarding the ``Living Agreement": There is a ``living 
     agreement'' provision in TPP that allows the agreement to be 
     changed after adoption--in effect, vesting TPP countries with 
     a sweeping new form of global governance authority. TPP calls 
     this new global authority the ``Trans-Pacific Partnership 
     Commission.'' These measures are unprecedented.

  We have not had anything like a living agreement in a trade agreement 
before.
  Continuing:

       While I and other lawmakers have been able to view this 
     provision in secret [the chamber downstairs], I believe it 
     must be made public before any vote is scheduled on TPA, due 
     to the extraordinary implications.

  I think it ought to be reviewed by independent scholars, lawyers, 
trade experts, to help us decide just what we are doing when we allow, 
apparently, the members who signed this agreement to meet at any point 
in time to adjust the meaning of the agreement and the provisions of 
the deal in order to adjust to changing circumstances. It is kind of 
like what the Supreme Court has been doing to our Constitution.

       2. Regarding trade deficits--

  I asked this question, colleagues. Isn't it a fair question to ask, 
when we are asked to vote for this fast track--

       Will TPP increase or reduce our cumulative trade deficit 
     with TPP countries overall, and with Japan and Vietnam 
     specifically?

  I want to know that. Don't you want to know whether or not we are 
going to increase our deficit in trade with these member countries, in 
particular Japan and Vietnam, where we can expect real problems in the 
future, it seems to me?
  By the way, by far the biggest trade partner in our economy is the 
Japanese economy, in this agreement. Vietnam, with 100 million people, 
has the potential to become a small China, as one expert said, and 
really be, very much, a competitor to the textile industry, hurting--
most of all, one expert has said--Central American countries, such as 
Honduras, El Salvador. Those countries that have been developing a 
textile industry may find themselves undercut by Vietnam under this 
agreement.

       3. Regarding jobs and wages: Will TPP increase or reduce 
     the total number of manufacturing jobs in the United States 
     generally, and American auto-manufacturing jobs specifically, 
     accounting for jobs lost to increased imports? Will average 
     hourly wages for U.S. workers, including in the automobile 
     industry, go up or down and by how much?

  Let's have a report on that. Shouldn't we know that?

       4. Regarding China: Can TPP member countries add new 
     countries, including China, to the agreement without future 
     Congressional approval?

  Some say it can't be done. Let's have a clear answer to that. At 
first glance, it would appear that is possible.

       5. Regarding foreign workers, TPA is a 6-year authority to 
     the President of the United States to negotiate trade deals. 
     He can submit them to the Congress, and these agreements can 
     be passed without amendment in a simple majority vote. So 
     this is a 6-year authority which concludes into the future. 
     We have had President Clinton, President Bush, President 
     whoever--Rubio, Cruz or whoever could be our President. So it 
     would have that authority.

  Finally, I asked whether the administration can state unconditionally 
that no agreement or Executive action, throughout the lifetime of TPA, 
will alter the number, duration, availability, expiration enforcement, 
rules or processing time of guest worker, business, visitor, 
nonimmigrant or immigrant visas to the United States.
  I think those are fair questions. I think we need to have answers to 
those before we vote on TPA, but I can tell you what the American 
people think. There have been some studies that say large numbers of 
people tend to be right when they express an opinion on things.
  This is Mr. Frank Luntz--I believe it is his poll. He asked this 
question on international trade. ``Do free trade agreements the United 
States has signed with other countries over the past 2 decades benefit 
other countries or the United States?''
  That is a simple question. He asked the American people: What do you 
think? Do these agreements we have passed over the last 20 years--and I 
voted for a lot of them in the last 18 years I have been here--are they 
benefiting other countries or the United States? This is what the 
American people say: Seventy percent say it benefits other countries. 
Only 30 percent say it benefits the United States.
  I think people are deeply skeptical about what we have been doing 
regarding trade, and it is easy to dismiss their concerns and their 
skepticism, to say they are just not knowledgeable and we know more and 
that this movement of capital from New York, to Beijing, to Seoul, to 
Japan, to Chile is just fine and wonderful and it is going to make your 
life better. But the American people are not seeing that.
  Another poll asked the question: What about the effect of the free-
trade agreements on wages the American people make.
  This is the question:

       Free trade agreements are treaties between countries 
     reducing trade barriers, such as reducing tariffs for 
     imported goods, agreeing to common standards and allowing 
     market access to foreign companies. Do you think the United 
     States making free trade agreements with other countries 
     increases or decreases the level of wages paid in the United 
     States or makes no difference?

  They asked this of the American people. This is a YouGov poll.
  Answer: Increases the level of wages paid in the United States--11 
percent.
  Now, we are told repeatedly: Oh, we need to sign these trade 
agreements. It is going to make your wages go up. It is going to be 
good for everybody. Don't we hear that? And I have hoped that would be 
true, but only 11 percent of the American people think trade agreements 
have moved their wages up.
  What about the answer to the other part of that question. Decreases 
the wages paid in the United States--34 percent.
  So by more than a 3-to-1 majority the American people believe that 
trade agreements over the last 20 years are decreasing the level of 
wages in the United States rather than increasing them. Nineteen 
percent say it makes no difference and one-third say they do not know.
  We have to consider, colleagues, what is it that is happening. How is 
it this might be happening? Because, in theory, comparative advantage 
doctrine means that multiple countries can benefit from trade 
agreements. I acknowledge that theory and believe it is fundamentally 
valid, but let's take a tremendous trading partner such as Japan. We 
have a tremendous trading relationship, where billions of dollars are 
exchanging hands between our countries every year, and that will be 
covered by this trade agreement--Japan. So what do we find? We find 
that we have a 2.5-percent tariff on imported Japanese automobiles to 
the United States and a 25-percent tariff on the import of light trucks 
into the United States from Japan.
  I didn't know the numbers were that high, but it is as a result of 
various events that occurred over time where retaliation took place.
  What about Japanese tariffs on automobiles going to Japan. There are 
none. Japan does not have tariffs on automobiles going into Japan. Yet 
we have a huge trade deficit with Japan. Why is this happening? It is 
because of nontariff trade barriers, institutional matters, and the 
like.
  One of the biggest is that it is very difficult in Japan to get an 
automobile dealership up and operating effectively. Hyundai has tried 
to do it and failed. You can't get a distribution network for vehicles. 
Maybe there is a cultural loyalty in Japan that makes people far

[[Page S2738]]

more likely to buy a Japanese automobile than a foreign automobile. 
There are other factors.
  So the TPP, as written, will do nothing that advances the export of 
U.S. automobiles to Japan because those exports into Japan have been 
reduced substantially through nontariff barriers. Got it? Those 
nontariff barriers are not fixed in this agreement, but we are going to 
be reducing ours.
  One expert who negotiated with Japan for President Ronald Reagan, 
Clyde Prestowitz, who opposes this agreement and who has written a book 
on trade, says there is no doubt we are going to have an increase in 
our trade deficit with Japan.
  Now, look, I don't have a hard feeling about Japan. In fact, they are 
fabulous allies. They are putting up money to help in mutual defense. 
We have Honda and Toyota automobile companies in my home State of 
Alabama, and I am proud of what they do. But we are not going to see an 
increase in exports to Japan unless some things are changed other than 
the tariff, and, in fact, they are not changing the tariff because it 
is already at zero.
  Well, maybe that is why the theories don't always work as well as 
they are projected to work.
  Mr. Dan Dimicco, whom I mentioned earlier, an outspoken commentator 
on the issues relating to trade--lived with it and is the chairman 
emeritus of Nucor Steel today--wrote a very valuable piece in Forbes 
magazine back in December in which he discussed the trade deals and 
problems that occurred. He goes through virtually every issue that is 
raised in these discussions and presents a contrary view to 
conventional wisdom.

  I really think we have to listen to some of this. We can't just 
blithely go by and pretend that the American people, by more than a 2-
to-1 margin, are all wrong about salaries and wages when, in fact, I 
think the record will show that wages have dropped as these trading 
agreements have increased. From 2009 until today, we have had a net 
decline of family income of $3,000 in the United States. Wages are down 
since the 1970s. The percentage of Americans actually with a job who 
are in the working years is the lowest we have had since the 1970s. 
Wages have declined basically since the year 2000. We have had 
virtually no increase in wages since that time.
  So what is it that is happening that is allowing the stock market to 
go up and business profits to go up but wages are not? We have had a 
decline in manufacturing. The numbers are unmistakable, and a large 
part of this is foreign competition.
  Colleagues, the time has come when we should enter into no trade 
agreement--not one--in which we lose a single job in this country as a 
result of unfair competition.
  Mr. DiMicco goes on at length. I ask unanimous consent to have his 
article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      [From Forbes, Dec. 16, 2014]

  `Fast Track' To Nowhere: Congress Shouldn't Give Obama Power To Ram 
                              Through TPP

                          (By Daniel DiMicco)

       If the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade and global 
     governance agreement has any chance at passage, it will 
     require the usual alliance of Wall Street Democrats and Wall 
     Street Republicans. Disgruntled citizens voted to ``throw the 
     bums out'' because they were not delivering jobs and 
     prosperity. Yet there is a danger that President Obama and 
     the Republican leadership did not get the message.
       The Obama administration may soon be enabled by some in the 
     GOP to pass the globalists' biggest wish: ``fast-track'' 
     trade authority on the road to the massively misguided Trans-
     Pacific Partnership.
       It has made for titillating journalism to speculate on how 
     these strange bedfellows will overcome opposition from blue 
     collar Republicans and Democrats, and the fractiousness of 
     the current Congress, to collaborate on further gutting 
     America's productive supply chains through unilateral trade 
     disarmament and enablement of foreign mercantilism. The 
     kumbaya trade agreement cheerleader crowd has convinced 
     itself that 40 years of trade deficits don't matter, even as 
     the shrinkage of GDP growth has rendered the U.S. a dwindling 
     superpower teetering on the brink of second class economy 
     status.


                         Misunderstanding Trade

       The left-right Wall Street alliance of TPP cheerleaders 
     relies upon a fundamental misunderstanding of trade, its role 
     in the world and its role in economic growth. National income 
     accounting makes it clear that gross domestic product is the 
     sum of four factors: consumption, investment, government 
     procurement and net trade (exports minus imports).
       That's net trade--not gross trade. In other words, net 
     exports increase our economic size while net imports shrink 
     it. This is not a liberal plot, or a Tea Party plot, or a 
     protectionist plot. It is basic and uncontroversial economic 
     math that the TPP cheerleaders either don't understand or 
     don't want to.
       In 2013, the U.S. economy amounted to $16.8 trillion. 
     Consumption was about 68% of GDP. Investment was about 16%. 
     Government procurement was about 19%. But net trade 
     subtracted about 3% from our economy (because imports 
     exceeded exports). This shrinkage is cumulative, compounding 
     year after year.
       America is the picture of an unbalanced economy, 
     disproportionately relying upon unsustainable consumption. 
     Investment is too small, and should be 4% to 6% higher. Net 
     trade should add to our economy, or at least not subtract 
     from it. Consumption should increase in absolute terms, but 
     should be a smaller percentage of our economy.
       Stated another way, we need to produce more of what we 
     consume. Right now we underproduce and engage in debt-driven 
     consumption. We live beyond our means. Investment is down 
     below sustainable levels. We are slouching towards Gomorrah. 
     We must produce more to employ people and grow wealth so that 
     we can export more (on a net basis), save more and engage in 
     income-driven consumption.
       Thus, the battle is not between free traders and 
     protectionists, as the beltway think tanks and pundits often 
     assert. It is between misguided Gross Traders and factually 
     accurate Net Traders. It is not about opening or closing the 
     borders to trade, but balancing trade flows over time. The 
     seminal economist David Ricardo envisioned balanced trade 
     over time, as did the drafters of the General Agreement on 
     Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
       Free trade was crafted as an antidote to mercantilism, not 
     an enabler of it.


                      Markets versus Mercantilism

       There is a twisted ideological school that promotes 
     unilateral American trade disarmament. The trade disarmament 
     advocates naively convince themselves that foreign 
     mercantilism is irrelevant and the basic trade principle of 
     reciprocity can be ignored. Big Government market 
     intervention by other countries is just fine even as Big 
     Government here is bad.
       President Reagan gave a speech that established the 
     principle of ``free and fair trade with free and fair 
     traders.'' More specifically, he established the 3 R's: 
     Rules, Reciprocity and Results.
       ``Rules'' mean that the trade must be rules based and every 
     nation should follow them. ``Reciprocity'' meant that there 
     will be a reciprocal reduction in tariffs, quotas and other 
     barriers rather than one-sized reduction. ``Results,'' the 
     point forgotten most, meant that America must gain a net 
     benefit from trade arrangements rather than being taken 
     advantage of.
       The Wall Street Republican and Democrat ``free traders'' 
     are not pursuing free trade at all. They are practicing 
     ``mercantilism enabling'' trade. They want a deal that says 
     ``free trade'' on the front cover even as the actual text 
     incentivizes and enables scores of creative mercantilist 
     tactics.
       Modern mercantilism is not tariffs or quotas. It is not 
     Smoot-Hawley. Foreign currency manipulation, via domestic 
     currency controls or government intervention in foreign 
     exchange markets, is a massive problem undertaken by many 
     countries, some of those countries are part of the TPP 
     negotiations. While the communist government in China is the 
     poster child for using competitive currency devaluation to 
     gain a trade advantage, South Korea, Japan and Singapore do 
     it as well. The WTO includes a provision prohibiting 
     countries from ``frustrating'' the intent of the agreement 
     with exchange rate actions. But that provision has been 
     ignored to the detriment of the global trading system, the 
     global monetary system and the US standard of living.
       Tariff reductions are often replaced by increased 
     consumption taxes, which are charged at the border, in other 
     countries. After NAFTA, Mexico enacted a 15% value added tax 
     which is applied to all U.S. exports there. The border tax 
     replaced the Mexican tariff reductions. The Central American 
     Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) countries generally enacted a 
     new 12% consumption tax to replace their tariff reductions. 
     So American companies still pay similar tariff/tax amounts at 
     their border.
       State-owned enterprises are modern forms of epic industrial 
     subsidization. Over 50% of Chinese industry is state owned. 
     Telecommunications, steel, shipbuilding, etc. are state-owned 
     enterprises. They receive free or low cost land, credit, 
     energy and other inputs. Production decisions are not driven 
     by market forces so much as by government bureaucrats. 
     Pricing decisions are made to undercut U.S. or global 
     competitors and gain market share rather than by supply and 
     demand.
       A basic principle of trade agreements is that countries 
     should not engage in actions that ``nullify or impair'' the 
     benefits the contracting parties bargained for. But the U.S. 
     has not enforced those provisions, they are hard to enforce 
     in existing agreements,

[[Page S2739]]

     and the TPP cheerleaders keep pushing new deals without 
     addressing the modern forms of mercantilism.


      Name Calling as a Substitute for Constitutional Consistency

       Deprived of past economic success to base their argument 
     upon, a recent Cato Institute article engages in grade school 
     name calling against those on the right and the left who 
     oppose fast-track trade authority and recycled trade deals 
     like the TPP. The attempt at character assassination by 
     association is an unfortunate substitute for real data.
       Even as the economy suffers from over-financialization, 
     deindustrialization, debt-driven consumption and asset 
     bubbles, the Wall Street TPP cheerleaders advocate a solution 
     in more flawed trade and global governance deals. Never mind 
     that we now have the WTO and bilateral agreements with more 
     countries than ever. Never mind that they predicted an 
     economic nirvana that never materialized when promoting those 
     prior agreements.
       The medicine didn't work. So the solution is to take more 
     medicine.
       The Tea Party groups that oppose fast-track trade authority 
     do so for core constitutional reasons as well. Article I, 
     Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the 
     authority to conduct trade policy. Congress, in the past, 
     typically passed bills designating the countries to negotiate 
     with and mandated the goals. Congress chose the countries to 
     negotiate with, set goals, oversaw the negotiations, and did 
     not pre-approve the final product before it was negotiated or 
     concluded. The checks and balances system set up by our 
     Founding Fathers was very intentional in dividing authority 
     among the legislative, executive and judicial branches so the 
     mistakes or abuse of power in one branch could be checked by 
     another.
       Today's fast-track trade authority not only suspends the 
     ``regular order'' of Congress to approve an agreement, it 
     pre-approves a trade deal before it is even negotiated. The 
     so-called negotiating objectives in the fast-track bill are 
     merely for show. They are mere friendly congressional 
     suggestions that do not bind the executive branch and are 
     often ignored. Congress never verifies that the president 
     achieved the objectives.
       A read of past fast-track legislation reveals many 
     ``negotiating objectives'' that were neither attempted nor 
     achieved by the executive branch negotiators. Yet, the 
     president can and does sign the agreement before Congress 
     views or votes on it.
       Then, the president writes implementing legislation, which 
     is Congress' job. Congress cannot, under fast track, amend 
     the implementing legislation or the agreement but instead has 
     only 45 days for committees to consider and vote, then 15 
     days for a floor vote. Only 20 hours of debate are allowed on 
     a complex international document that runs to thousands of 
     pages.
       Modern fast track goes far deeper into Congress' 
     constitutional authority than mere tariffs and quotas. The 
     president becomes a super-Congress legislating through 
     diplomacy in domestic policy areas. He can and does negotiate 
     with other countries regarding immigration, financial 
     services, tax, food and product safety rules, domestic 
     procurement, labor standards and many other domestic issues. 
     The final agreement may overturn past acts of Congress or 
     include new standards previously considered but rejected by 
     Congress.
       If and when the deal is approved by Congress, the new rules 
     are adjudicated by international tribunals that issue 
     decisions which penalize the U.S. if we do not comply. Future 
     Congresses are forever restricted from considering a wide 
     range of policy changes to benefit our citizens, barred by 
     global rules or the decisions of international tribunals.
       The recent WTO ruling against American's country of origin 
     labeling for food laws is only the most recent example. 
     Americans did not think they agreed to a treaty that 
     prohibited them from identifying where their food comes from.
       Contrary to conventional wisdom, it's an open question as 
     to whether a majority of economists or politicians would 
     support modern trade and global governance deals if they 
     actually read them. The debate becomes twisted into the low-
     brow rhetoric of free trade versus protectionism. Or by 
     ideological name calling. Or by the identity politics of 
     ``this group could be working with that group, which is a 
     very bad thing.''
       America became great by becoming an economic superpower. We 
     innovated, we built supply chains based upon that innovation, 
     we employed and paid people well, we created wealth, we built 
     the first durable middle class in the world. That gave us 
     cash to not only improve our standard of living, but also to 
     build the world's dominant military. We thus became the sole 
     global superpower.
       Modern fast-track legislation began with the Trade Act of 
     1974. We have had 40 years of trade deficits shrinking our 
     economy ever since. It has been a net detriment rather than a 
     net benefit. It is time to focus upon true free trade with 
     rules, reciprocity and results, while fighting the increasing 
     scourge of global mercantilism. We must seek balanced trade 
     flows over time rather than be condemned to serve as the 
     global importer of last resort.
       It is also time to preserve our constitutional system of 
     checks and balances and refrain from giving more power to 
     global institutions that displace our legislative and 
     judicial branches.
       Only then can America return to a more broadly shared 
     prosperity.

  Mr. SESSIONS. He says:

       It is time to focus upon true free trade with rules, 
     reciprocity and results, while fighting the increasing 
     scourge of global mercantilism. We must seek balanced trade 
     flows over time rather than be condemned to serve as the 
     global importer of last resort.

  He also said:

       It is also time to preserve our constitutional system of 
     checks and balances and refrain from giving more power to 
     global institutions that displace our legislative and 
     judicial branches.

  I think that is good advice, too.
  Again, what Mr. DiMicco says is that while we remove trade barriers 
and open our markets to importing competition, our allies, even when 
they reduce their tariff barriers, don't reduce other institutional 
barriers.
  They also utilize currency manipulation. This currency manipulation 
can provide a far more substantial advantage in trade than even a 
tariff does. Mr. Volcker--the former Federal Reserve Chairman under 
President Reagan and widely regarded as having done a magnificent job--
said tariffs can be overcome in a matter of minutes by currency 
manipulation. Europe has seen its currency drop over 20 percent. Korea 
has moved its currency down. Japan has moved its down. China has 
ensured its yuan remains at a level below where it should be on 
economic terms. As a result, they have gained a trade advantage, and as 
a result, they have decimated American industries, closed factories all 
over this country when they wouldn't have closed if they had a fair 
dollar-to-yuan currency relationship. They have been found to be 
manipulating their currency year after year. The Treasury makes it 
clear, but the Treasury has taken no action to do anything about it. As 
a result, good American people have lost jobs, had their factories 
closed and their towns and communities damaged economically by unfair 
trade. We have enough trouble competing in the world market. We don't 
need to have the unfair trade.
  I thank the Chair for allowing me to share these remarks. I don't 
pretend to know all the answers. I try to be supportive of trade. I 
remain supportive of trade. But I think we need to listen to the 
American people a little bit. I don't think their concerns are 
unfounded. By a more than 2-to-1 margin, they say these trade 
agreements have advantaged our competitors rather than us.
  It is time for us to make sure that if we do a trade agreement or 
trade promotion authority, the product that is going to be passed into 
law and become a worldwide trade agreement serves the American people's 
interests--somebody's interests other than some theoretician in a 
university, somebody's interests other than some foreign capital, 
somebody's interests other than the canyons of New York where capital 
is moved all over the world. Somebody needs to be looking out for the 
interests of the American people. We need to ask that question first.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________