[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2779-S2781]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 TRADE

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on 
whether to begin debate on the future of the U.S. trade policy. It is a 
debate that has been a long time coming. In fact, we haven't had a real 
trade debate in this Chamber since at least 2002. That was 13 years 
ago.
  Think about that. Let's keep in mind that 95 percent of the world's 
consumers live outside of the United States and that if we want our 
farmers, our ranchers, manufacturers, and entrepreneurs to be able to 
compete in the world marketplace, we need to be actively working to 
break down barriers for American exports. This is how we can grow our 
economy and create good, high-paying jobs for American workers.
  While the chatter in the media and behind the scenes surrounding 
today's vote has been nearly deafening, no one should make today's vote 
more than it is. It is, once again, quite simply, a vote to begin 
debate on these important issues.
  Now, I know some around here are unwilling to even consider having a 
debate if they can't dictate the terms in advance, but that is not how 
the Senate works and, thankfully, that is not the path we are going to 
take.
  I have been in Congress for a long time, so I think I can speak with 
some authority about how this Chamber is--under normal conditions and 
regular order--supposed to operate. Of course, before this year, it had 
been a while before this body had worked the way it was supposed to. 
Hopefully, today's vote can serve as a reminder, and we can go to 
regular order on these bills and do it in a way that brings dignity to 
this Chamber again.
  Once again, today's vote will decide only whether we will begin a 
debate on trade policy. It will not in any way decide the outcome of 
that debate. Indeed, the question for today is not how this debate will 
proceed but whether it will proceed at all.
  Right now, everyone's focus seems to be on whether we will renew 
trade promotion authority--or TPA--and that will, of course, be part of 
the trade debate. TPA is a vital element of U.S. trade policy. Indeed, 
it is the best way to ensure that Congress sets the objectives for our 
trade negotiators and provides assurances to our trading partners that 
if a trade agreement is signed, the United States can deliver on the 
deal.
  As you know, the Finance Committee reported a strong bipartisan TPA 
bill on April 22. The committee vote was 20 to 6 in favor of the bill. 
It was a bipartisan vote. That was a historic day. Before that day, the 
last time the Finance Committee reported a TPA bill was in 1988, almost 
three decades ago.

  But that is not all we did on that day. In addition to our TPA bill, 
we reported a bill to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, or TAA, 
a bill to reauthorize expired trade preference programs, and a customs 
and trade enforcement bill.
  These are all important bills--each one of them. They all have 
bipartisan support. I was a principal author of three of these four 
bills, and I don't intend to see any of them left by the wayside. 
However, that looks like it is becoming increasingly what might really 
happen here if we don't get together.
  Everyone here knows that I am anxious to get TPA across the finish 
line. And though it pains me a little to say it, TAA is part of that 
effort. We know our colleagues on the left have to have that. While I 
oppose TAA, I have recognized--and I have from the beginning--that the 
program is important to many of my colleagues, some of whom are on this 
side of the aisle as well, and it is a necessary component to win their 
support for TPA.
  On a number of occasions, including at the Finance Committee markup, 
I have committed to helping make sure that TPA and TAA move on parallel 
tracks, and I intend to honor that commitment. Toward that end, if we 
get cloture on the motion to proceed later today, I plan to combine TPA 
and TAA into basically a single package that can be split by the House, 
and move them as a substitute amendment to the trade vehicle. And, I 
have to say, Congressman Ryan, the chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, understands that TAA has to pass over there as well.
  In other words, no one should be concerned about a path forward for 
TPA and TAA. That was the big debate throughout the whole procedural 
process. And even though it raises concerns for a number of 
Republicans, including myself, these two bills will move together.
  The question ultimately becomes this: What about the preferences and 
customs bills? There are two other bills here. I have committed in the 
past to work on getting all four of these bills across the finish line 
or at least to a vote on the floor, and I will reaffirm that commitment 
here on the floor today. I will work in good faith with my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle and in both the House and Senate to get this 
done.
  Regarding preferences, the House and Senate have introduced very 
similar bills, and, in the past, these preference programs--programs 
such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the generalized 
system of preferences--have enjoyed broad bipartisan support. My guess 
is that support will continue and that there is a path forward on 
moving that legislation in short order.
  Admittedly, the customs bill is a bit more complicated. However, I am 
a principal author of most of the provisions in the customs bill. 
Indeed, many of my own enforcement positions and priorities are in that 
bill. Put simply, I have a vested interest in seeing the customs bill 
become law, and I will do all I can to make sure that happens. I will 
work with Senator Wyden and the rest of my colleagues to find a path 
forward on these bills. I don't want any of them to be left behind.
  But we all know that the customs bill has language in there that 
cannot be passed in the House. I don't know what to do about that. All 
I can say is that we can provide a vote here in this body, and who 
knows what that vote will be. I am quite certain that if we are allowed 
to proceed today, these bills--not to mention any others--will be 
offered as amendments. But in the end, we can't do any of that--we 
can't pass a single one of these bills--if we don't even begin the 
trade debate.
  If Senators are concerned about the substance of the legislation we 
are debating, the best way to address these problems is to come to the 
floor, offer some amendments, and take some votes. That is how the 
Senate is supposed to operate, and we are prepared to operate it that 
way.
  I might add, though, we have to get the bill up. And if there is a 
cloture vote and cloture fails, Katy bar the door.
  I know there are some deeply held convictions on all sides of these 
issues and that not everyone in the Senate agrees with me. That is all 
the more reason to let this debate move forward and let's see where it 
goes. Let's talk about our positions. Let's make all of our voices 
heard. I am ready and willing to defend my support for free trade and 
TPA here on the Senate floor. I will happily stand here and make the 
case for open markets and expanded access for U.S. exporters and refute 
any arguments made to the contrary. And I

[[Page S2780]]

am quite certain there are a number of my colleagues who would relish 
the opportunity to tell me why they think I am wrong. They should have 
that right. None of that happens if people vote today to prevent the 
debate from even taking place.
  We need to keep in mind that we are talking about bipartisan 
legislation here. All of these bills are supported by Senators on both 
sides of the aisle. This isn't some partisan gambit to force a 
Republican bill through the Senate. And, of course, let's not forget 
that, with TPA, we are talking about President Obama's top legislative 
priority and one of the most important bills in this President's 
service as President of the United States of America.
  This is a debate we need to have. I am prepared to have it. The 
American people deserve to see us talk about these issues on the floor 
instead of hiding behind procedural excuses.
  I urge all of my colleagues, regardless of where they stand 
substantively on these issues, to vote to begin this important and, 
hopefully, historic debate on U.S. trade policy.
  Let me say, I am basically shocked that after all we have done--the 
large vote in the committee, the importance of these two bills in 
particular but all four of them, and the importance of trade promotion 
authority and trade adjustment assistance to the President--that we now 
have a bunch of procedural mechanisms that could make this all 
impossible. It is hard for me to believe that this could take place. We 
had an agreement--the two sides--and I am concerned about that 
agreement being broken at this late date, when we were so happy to get 
these bills out of the committee and get them the opportunity of being 
on the floor.
  I have to say, as a Republican and as a conservative, I have been 
willing to carry the water for the President on this because he is 
absolutely right that TPA and TAA should pass, especially TPA. On TAA, 
I have questions on it and I wish we didn't have to pass it, but I have 
agreed to see that it is on the Senate floor as part of passing TPA.
  The bill deserves to pass. However, we know that the President does 
not like the language that was put into the customs bill and neither do 
I, at this point, because I think it could foul up the whole process, 
the way I am hearing from the other side. We understood we were going 
to have votes on TPA and TAA, without getting into the currency problem 
that will still be alive on the customs bill. I am very concerned about 
this because we have come this far, and we should follow through and 
get this done. The President will be better off, the country will be 
better off, and all of us will be better off. And we can walk away from 
this, I believe, in the end feeling that we have done the right thing. 
This is the best thing that could be done for our country. We have to 
be part of the free-trade movement in this country and in this world. 
There are 400 trade agreements out there. We have only agreed to 20 of 
them.
  These trade agreements generally bring jobs that are much better paid 
than other jobs in our society, between 13 and 18 percent more. For the 
life of me, I will never understand why the unions are so opposed to it 
and, thus, so many Democrats are opposed to it. I can't understand it, 
because this will create jobs, and generally the better jobs--the jobs 
that unions can then fight to unionize if they want to, which they have 
a right to do under our laws. Yet every time these matters come up, 
they are a principal impediment to getting free-trade agreements 
passed.
  Look, I think Ambassador Froman has done a very good job up to now, 
but his hands are tied. If we don't pass TPA, he is going to have a 
very difficult time, ever, bringing about the TPP, the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership, or TTIP, which is 28 European countries plus ours. TPP is 
11 countries plus ours, mainly in Asia--not the least of which is 
Japan, which our Trade Representative believes he can get to sign a 
trade agreement with us. I believe he can. But I don't believe he can 
do it without TPA. We have already been told by the Ambassador from New 
Zealand that they are not going to sign without TPA.
  So to hamper the passage of TPA because of some desire to do 
otherwise is not only a mistake, but it flies in the face of the 
support this President needs and should have on this particular bill.
  Now, I understand there are folks on the other side who just aren't 
for free trade and they are not for trade bills. And they have a right 
to feel that way. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a 
problem with is making it impossible to pass these bills and get them 
through the Senate, which is the path we are on right now. If the votes 
are against cloture, I suspect our path to getting this done--to 
improving our trade throughout the world, to allowing us to compete 
worldwide the way we should--is going to be severely hampered, if not 
completely hurt.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the 
Democratic side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrat side has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, most people who are following this debate 
may be a little bit put off by some of the initials that we use around 
here--TPP, TPA, TAA. What is it all about?
  It is about a trade agreement. It involves a dozen countries, 
including the United States. Most of them are in Asia. We are preparing 
to discuss and debate it, and that trade agreement is known as the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. I think that is what that stands 
for. I will correct the record if I am wrong on that.
  But before we get to the trade agreement, we have to decide how we 
are going to consider it, and that is known as TPA, trade promotion 
authority, or fast track. The question is whether the Senate will agree 
that we cannot amend the trade agreement--no amendments--and that it is 
a simple majority vote. That is what is known as fast track. Virtually 
every President in modern time has had that authority. It has expired, 
and now it has to be recreated by a vote on the floor.
  What we are anticipating this afternoon is whether we go to the 
arguments about these various issues, and the uncertainty is what leads 
my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, to come to the floor.
  The uncertainty from our side is this: How are we going to consider 
this? Four bills came out of the Finance Committee related to trade. 
How are they going to be brought to the floor? Are they going to be 
part of one package? Are they separate votes? Which one will come out 
of the Senate? Will more than one come out of the Senate? These are 
unanswered questions, and because these questions are unanswered, the 
vote at 2:30 or so is in doubt.
  Senator Hatch is upset. He believed that there was an agreement. I 
wasn't a party to it. I don't know. But this much I do know: Trade is a 
controversial issue. It is important to America's economy. But when you 
take it home and meet with the people you represent, there are strong 
mixed feelings about trade.
  Some who work for the Caterpillar tractor company in Illinois want to 
promote trade, sell more of those big yellow tractors, and put more 
Americans to work to build them.
  But many look at trade and say: I could be a casualty. I could be a 
victim. They could ship my job overseas, Senator. So what are you going 
to do to make sure I am protected in this?
  That is why trade isn't an easy issue. It is a controversial issue.
  TAA, which Senator Hatch referred to, is trade adjustment assistance. 
What it says is that if you lost your job because of a trade agreement, 
we will help pay for your training for a new job. Senator Hatch said he 
opposed that. I fully support it.
  I just visited a high school in downstate Illinois. There was a man 
there teaching high school students--good, gifted high school 
students--how to repair computers. I said: How did you get into this 
business? He said: It is a funny thing. I lost my job in a factory 
years ago because of a trade agreement. But because of trade adjustment 
assistance, I was able to go back to college, got a degree, and now I 
am a teacher.
  Do I support trade adjustment assistance? You bet I do--for that 
teacher and for many others who want to transition into a new job if 
they lose their job because of trade. So including trade adjustment 
assistance in any part of a

[[Page S2781]]

trade agreement is important to many of us. We want to make sure it is 
included on the floor of the Senate.
  Equally so, we want to make sure that trade agreements are 
enforceable. It wasn't that long ago that we had thriving steel 
production companies in America that were victimized by many foreign 
countries that started dumping steel in the United States.
  What does it mean to dump steel? These countries--Brazil, Japan, and 
Russia--were selling steel in the United States at prices lower than 
the cost of production. Why? They knew they could run the Americans out 
of business--and they did. By the time we filed an unfair trade 
grievance, went through the hearings and won our case, the American 
companies disappeared. Enforcement is an important part of any 
conversation about trade. We want to know from Senator Hatch and the 
Republicans who bring this to the floor, if we are going to enforce the 
trade agreements so Americans are treated fairly.

  I think that is a pretty legitimate question. Until it is answered, 
there is uncertainty. Maybe the vote at 2:30 will reflect it. I hope we 
can get an answer before 2:30, but if not, then soon after, on how 
Senator McConnell wants to bring this issue to the floor.

                          ____________________