[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 74 (Thursday, May 14, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2908-S2912]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENSURING TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ACT--MOTION TO 
              RECONSIDER CLOTURE VOTE ON MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote on which cloture was not 
invoked on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1314 is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, the time until 2 p.m. will be equally 
divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, soon the Senate will vote once again on 
whether to begin debate on legislation that will help shape the future 
of America's trade policy, and, in addition, our role in the global 
economy. Needless to say, I was very disappointed when many of my 
Democratic colleagues voted to block debate on these important issues 
earlier this week. I am hoping for a much different result this 
afternoon.
  This vote will set the stage for an important debate, quite likely 
the most significant debate that we will have in this Chamber all year. 
This debate will determine whether our Nation is willing and able to 
accept the challenges of the world economy or whether we continue in 
retreat and yield to the siren song of isolationism and protectionism.
  It will determine whether we, as a nation, are able and willing to 
take the lead in setting the rules for the world economy or whether we 
will sit on the sidelines and let other countries create the rules that 
will govern trade in their regions for the foreseeable future. It 
should be pretty clear where I stand in this debate.
  I support free trade and open markets for U.S. exporters and job 
creators. I support new opportunities for American farmers, ranchers, 
manufacturers, service providers, and the workers that they all employ. 
I support expanding American influence in the most vibrant and 
strategic regions in the world. The best way for Congress to help our 
country achieve these goals is to renew trade promotion authority, or 
TPA, as soon as possible.
  That is what we will be debating, if this vote goes the way I hope it 
will. TPA is the most effective tool in the Congress's trade arsenal. 
TPA ensures that Congress sets the objectives for our trade negotiators 
and that those negotiators will be able to reach the best deals 
possible. Without TPA we have no way of holding the administration 
accountable in trade negotiations and no way of making sure our country 
can get a good deal.
  Getting TPA renewed is currently President Obama's top legislative 
priority. He is right and we should support our President on this 
issue.
  As chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over trade, it 
is a very high priority for me, as well. The TPA bill that will be 
brought before the Senate represents a bipartisan, bicameral effort to 
advance our Nation's trade interests.
  The legislation we will be debating will also include provisions to 
reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, or TAA, which I know is a high 
priority for many of my colleagues. It has taken a long time, a lot of 
work, and no small amount of compromise to get us to this point. People 
from both parties have put in enormous efforts just to get a chance to 
have this debate here on the Senate floor.
  I want to thank my colleagues for their work thus far in this effort, 
but also to remind them that we are not there yet. Now, I am well aware 
that not all of my colleagues share my views on trade. I expect that 
they will make those views abundantly clear in the coming days, as they 
should. But to do that, we need to begin that debate. I am looking 
forward to it. The American people deserve a spirited debate on these 
issues.
  Of course, they deserve an opportunity to see this Chamber function 
like the great deliberative body that it once was and under the current 
leadership is becoming again. Put simply, the obstruction has gone on 
long enough. It is time to get down to the serious business of 
legislating. I hope we can begin or continue that process today by 
voting in favor of the motion to proceed. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to do that so that we can get on this bill, debate it, have 
a full-fledged debate, and let the chips fall where they may.
  If we do, I think we will all feel a lot better about what goes on 
around this place.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue.) The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me respectfully disagree with my 
friend from Utah. Let me urge all Members to vote against what I 
believe to be a disastrous trade agreement, a trade agreement based on 
other trade agreements, which, in fact, have cost us millions of 
decent-paying jobs and have led to a race to the bottom.
  Let me just briefly give four reasons--and there are many more. But 
let me just focus on four objective reasons why we should defeat this 
fast-track legislation and why we need to develop a whole new approach 
to trade that benefits American workers rather than just the CEOs of 
large multinational corporations.
  Reason No. 1, this unfettered free-trade agreement with Vietnam, 
Malaysia, and 10 other countries follows in the footsteps of disastrous 
trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA, Permanent Normal Trade Relations 
with China, and the South Korea Free Trade Agreement.
  Any objective look at these trade agreements will tell us that they 
have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and have led us to a race 
to the bottom, where American workers are forced to compete against 
workers in low-wage countries who are making pennies an hour.
  Over and over again, supporters of these types of trade agreements 
have told us about how many jobs they would create, how beneficial it 
would be for the middle class and working class of this country. But 
over and over again, virtually everything they told us turned out to be 
wrong, and they are wrong again in terms of the TPP.
  In 1993, President Bill Clinton promised that NAFTA would create 1 
million American jobs in 5 years. Instead, NAFTA has led to the loss of 
almost 700,000 jobs. In 1999, we were promised that Permanent Normal 
Trade Relations with China would open the Chinese economy to American-
made goods and services. Instead, as everybody who goes shopping 
knows--when you buy product after product made in China--that trade 
agreement has cost us some 2.7 million American jobs. I remember 
hearing all the accolades about free trade with China. They all turned 
out to be wrong.
  In 2011, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told us that the South Korea 
Free Trade Agreement would create some 280,000 jobs. Well, wrong 
again--instead, that agreement has led to the loss of some 75,000 jobs.
  The reason for all of this is very simple. Why would an American 
corporation invest in this country, pay American workers 15, 18, 20 
bucks an hour, provide health care, have to obey environmental 
regulations, and deal with trade unions, when they can go abroad, pay 
people pennies an hour, and not have to worry about the environment. 
That is, of course, what has happened.
  These trade agreements have failed. TPP is based on these principles. 
It will be another failure. We should reject it for that reason.
  Second point, in politics it is always interesting and important to 
know whose side different groups are on. You can learn a lot by who is 
supporting an agreement and by who is opposing the agreement.

[[Page S2909]]

  Well, let's talk about who is supporting the TPP. It turns out that 
virtually every major multinational corporation, including many that 
have shut down plants in the United States and moved abroad--all of 
these multinationals think the TPP is a great idea. I am sure I can 
understand why it will be a great program for them. It will only 
accelerate their ability to shut down plants in America and move to 
low-wage countries abroad.
  There is another group that is actively pushing for us to vote for 
the TPP. That is the pharmaceutical industry. As I think every American 
knows, the drug companies in this country charge our people here the 
highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, but they love this 
legislation. They just love it because they think as a result of this 
legislation, they will be able to charge people all over the world, 
including in very poor countries, higher prices for their products.
  Wall Street--surprise of all surprises--Wall Street loves this 
agreement. As we all remember, not so many years ago, the greed, 
recklessness, and illegal behavior of Wall Street caused the most 
significant economic recession since the Great Depression. But Wall 
Street loves this legislation because it will make it easier for them 
to sell esoteric, complicated financial products all over the world.
  So those are some of the groups that think this legislation is 
wonderful, that we should vote for it.
  Which are the groups and the organizations that oppose this 
legislation? Well, it turns out that every trade union in this country, 
unions representing over 20 million American workers, unions that are 
fighting every single day to get workers higher wages, better pay, 
better health care, are in strong opposition to this legislation.
  This is what the trade union movement has to say about TPP:

       Fast Track trade deals mean fewer jobs, lower wages, and a 
     declining middle class. Fast Track has been used since the 
     Nixon Administration to advance deals, like NAFTA, that are 
     sold to the American people as job creation measures. But 
     these deals, written largely by and for the world's largest 
     corporations, don't create jobs; their main purpose isn't 
     even related to trade, it's to enshrine rules that make it 
     easier for firms to invest offshore and increase corporate 
     influence over the global economy.

  That is what the trade union movement in this country believes about 
this agreement. But it is not only the trade union movement that has 
opposed the TPP. Virtually every major environmental and scientific 
group in this country, groups such as the League of Conservation 
Voters, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the 
Union of Concerned Scientists, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and 
350.org oppose this legislation. This is what the environmental 
organizations have written about this bill:

       As leading U.S. environmental and science organizations, we 
     write to express our strong opposition to ``fast track'' 
     trade promotion authority and to urge you to oppose any 
     legislation that would limit the ability of Congress to 
     ensure that trade pacts deliver benefits for communities, 
     workers, public health, and the environment.

  So we have trade union organizations representing some 20 million 
American workers that say we should not go forward with this agreement. 
We have organizations representing millions of people in the 
environmental community that say we should not go forward with this 
legislation.
  Then we have religious groups, such as the Presbyterian Church 
(U.S.A.), the United Methodist Church, and the Sisters of Mercy, that 
also are opposing this legislation. This is what they have written:

       As people of faith, we call on all nations and government 
     to uphold the dignity of all people. Yet modern trade 
     agreements have harmed people, especially the most vulnerable 
     in the United States and globally. . . . Trade, like the rest 
     of the economy, must be a means of lifting people out of 
     poverty and ensure a country's ability to protect the health, 
     safety and wellbeing of their citizens and the planet. In 
     recognition of your sacred task of stewardship over people 
     and policies, we ask you to oppose fast track trade promotion 
     authority for any trade agreement currently being negotiated.

  So, on the one hand, you have all of the big-money organizations. You 
have every major multinational corporation in America. You have Wall 
Street, and you have the pharmaceutical industry. They say: Vote for 
this legislation.
  On the other side, you have unions representing millions of 
Americans. You have environmental organizations representing millions 
more Americans, and you have religious organizations who say: Wait a 
second. This fast-track trade agreement may not be a good idea. Vote 
no.
  So on the one hand, you have groups whose motivation is greed and 
profit, and on the other hand, you have organizations trying to protect 
working people, trying to protect the environment, trying to uphold 
basic religious values about human dignity saying no. Well, which side 
should we be on? I say we stand with those who are concerned about 
workers' rights, the environment, and moral values.
  Let me give you another reason why we should oppose this trade 
agreement--and this is a provision that has gotten far too little 
attention--and that is the investor-state dispute settlement. That 
sounds like a highly technical term. What in God's Name does that mean? 
But let me try to explain what it does mean. What it does mean in 
English is that it would allow large multinational corporations to sue 
national, State, and local governments--not only in the United States 
but all over the world--if those governments pass legislation that 
hurts their expected future profits.
  This, to me, is exactly about what this whole agreement stands for. 
It is not for raising wages or creating jobs. It is to protect 
corporate profits. And, unbelievably, what this legislation is prepared 
to do is to undermine basic democracy in terms of what local 
communities around the world, States in the United States, and national 
governments do--whether it is the United States or any other 
government--if that undermines future profits of large multinational 
corporations. That is really extraordinary.
  I thought that our job, as Members of the Senate, and the job of 
people in Australia who represent their government and people 
democratically elected all over the world--I had the idea that maybe 
their function was to represent, as best they could, the needs of the 
people who voted for them. I guess that is a radical and crazy idea.
  What this bill says is that if legislation is passed by people who 
are democratically elected, those decisions--that legislation--can be 
brought to an independent tribunal, and those countries could have to 
pay huge fines if the legislation, which might protect health care or 
might protect the environment, undermines future profits of 
multinational corporations.
  What an attack--not only on health and the environment--but it is an 
attack on the fundamental tenets of democracy. Our job is not to worry 
about future corporate profits. Our job is to worry about the needs of 
the American people. That is what elected governments all over the 
world are supposed to do.
  Let me give you some examples--because we have not talked about 
this--of what is already going on around the world based on similar 
language to what will be in the TPP if we vote for it--similar 
language.
  This is maybe the most outrageous example that I can give you, but 
there are many others. Philip Morris, one of the large tobacco 
companies in the world, is suing both Australia and Uruguay over 
labeling requirements for cigarettes.
  Uruguay is this little country, and what they have done is they have 
been very aggressive in trying to protect their children and their 
people from the very harmful impacts of smoking.
  Now, you know what. I happen to think that is a good thing. I think 
in America and all over the world we should do everything that we can 
to make sure that our kids are not hooked on nicotine and do not have 
to suffer heart disease, cancer, emphysema, and all of the other 
diseases related to smoking. I think our government should be very 
vigorous. We have done some things in our country. I think we should do 
more.
  Uruguay, a little tiny country whose President turns out to be an 
oncologist, a guy who is worried about cancer, was trying to do 
everything it could to try to keep the kids in Uruguay from getting 
hooked on cigarettes. And what happened to Uruguay? Well, they were 
taken to this independent tribunal, composing, as I understand it, of 
three corporate lawyers,

[[Page S2910]]

because Philip Morris said: Hey, Uruguay, you are impacting our future 
profits. We want to get kids hooked onto nicotine. We want to sell our 
products to kids and to the people of Uruguay. By fighting us, passing 
legislation, and doing things that will make it harder for kids to 
smoke, you are ruining our profits.
  This case is now resting in an independent tribunal. How insane is 
that--that a country trying to protect its kids from getting cancer is 
being sued by Philip Morris because it might cost them profits? So this 
is not only a health issue--in this case of cancer prevention--but this 
is an issue of basic democracy.
  Do the people of Uruguay, do the people of Australia, do the people 
of any country have a right to be very vigorous in protecting the 
health of their kids and their citizens without worrying about being 
sued by a cigarette manufacturer that is trying to poison these kids 
with deadly products.
  So this is not only a health issue, it is a basic democratic issue, 
and if Philip Morris wins this case, it will be sending a message to 
every government in the world that they can't be aggressive in doing 
things to protect their kids from cigarettes.
  That is one example. Let me give another equally outrageous example. 
Under this investor-state provision, a French waste management firm--
Veolia--is suing for $110 million under the France-Egypt bilateral 
investment treaty over changes to Egypt's labor laws, including an 
increase in the minimum wage.
  Now, let me be honest. I know nothing about Egypt's minimum wage, but 
I do think Egypt and every other country on Earth has a right to raise 
its minimum wage, if they think it makes sense, without worrying about 
being sued by some company that will have to pay higher wages. How 
crazy is that? So, again, not being terribly knowledgeable about 
domestic policies in Egypt, the idea that they are being sued for the 
crime of raising their minimum wage is, to me, beyond comprehension.
  Again, this is just an example of what is happening now and what will 
only happen in an accelerated manner if we pass this agreement, but let 
me give one last example.
  A Swedish energy company called Vattenfall launched a $5 billion 
lawsuit over Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power. This 
initiative was implemented in response to the Fukushima disaster. 
Germany, last I knew, was an independent country, with an elected 
government, and they made a decision to phase out nuclear energy. Some 
people think it is a good idea, some think it is a bad idea, but last I 
heard that should be a decision of the German Government and the people 
who elected that government. The elected officials of Germany are not 
dummies. I presume they do what their people want them to do or they 
pay the political consequence.
  But that was the decision of the elected officials of Germany. They 
said: Let's phase out nuclear power. Yet now they are being sued by a 
Swedish energy company, Vattenfall, for some $5 billion because they 
made that decision.
  Now, that is just what is going on right now. Think about what that 
means into the future. It means any government around the world or in 
this trade agreement, it means any State in the United States--if my 
State of Vermont, which is sensitive to the environment, decides to go 
forward on an environmental piece of legislation, some large 
corporation can go to an independent tribunal and say: Look, we are 
going to sue Vermont for $1 billion because we wanted to do business 
there and their environmental regulations are impacting our ability to 
make a profit. That undermines what the State of Vermont or the State 
of Georgia or any other State chooses to do.
  To me, it is just beyond comprehension that anybody would vote for 
that type of legislation. We can disagree with what they do in Egypt or 
disagree with what they do in Uruguay, we can disagree with what we do 
here, but to say an independent tribunal can provide billions of 
dollars in damages to a corporation because of a democratically made 
decision in the United States or any other country around the world is, 
to me, just incomprehensible.
  The last point I would want to make deals with a health issue. 
Clearly, one of the health crises we face not only in America but 
around the world is the high cost of prescription drugs. In our 
country, if my memory is correct, some 25 percent of Americans who 
receive prescriptions from doctors are unable to afford to fill those 
prescriptions--someone goes to the doctor who diagnoses that individual 
and writes out a script, and the person says thank you very much but 
doesn't have the money to fill that script. It is bad in this country, 
but obviously it is much worse in very, very poor countries around the 
world.
  What this agreement will do, among other things, if it is passed, is 
allow pharmaceutical companies to fight back against their brand-name 
products being converted into generics at much lower prices, so poor 
countries all over the world would have to struggle to come up with 
very high prices for medicine for people who don't have a whole lot of 
money.
  In fact, that is why Doctors Without Borders has said--and Doctors 
Without Borders, as you may know, is a heroic group of doctors who, 
whenever there is a health care crisis around the world--whether it is 
Ebola in Africa or whatever--travel to those places and put their lives 
on the line. Some have died to provide medical treatment in the most 
difficult of circumstances to the poorest people around the world. They 
are really a heroic group of people. But Doctors Without Borders has 
said: ``The TPP agreement is on track to become the most harmful trade 
pact ever for access to medicines in developing countries.''
  So to my mind, the vote we are going to have in a short time is 
really a no-brainer. Are we dumb enough to continue down the road of 
failed trade policies? I would hope not. Do we think it is a good idea 
to be siding with corporate America, which has already used previous 
trade agreements to outsource millions of our jobs and thinks this 
agreement is just wonderful? Are we going to stand with Wall Street, 
whose greed has no limits? Are we going to stand with the 
pharmaceutical industry, which wants to sell drugs to people all over 
the world at a higher price or do we stand with unions, environmental 
groups, religious groups? Do we get involved in a trade agreement which 
allows corporations to undermine the democratic rights of countries 
that stand up for their environment, stand up for the health and well-
being of their kids? Do we make it harder for poor people around the 
world to get the medicines they need?
  This is a no-brainer. I would hope Members of the Senate send a 
resounding note to the corporate world that says you can't have it all; 
that we are going to pass trade agreements which protect working 
families, which protect the middle class, and which protect struggling 
people all over the world and we are going to vote no on fast-track and 
no on the TPP.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. 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. NELSON. Mr. President, the negotiating process has finally 
worked. Indeed, the spirit of four bills that passed the Finance 
Committee last week on this issue of trade--the spirit of that 
overwhelming bipartisan vote in the Finance Committee has now been 
carried out on the floor of the Senate and, in fact, is being carried 
out and will be so as we invoke the motion for cloture to go to the 
bill in the next vote that will occur in 30 minutes.
  Certainly, trade preferences with regard to African countries, plus 
the trade preferences with regard to the poorest nation in the Western 
Hemisphere, Haiti, were not controversial at all. We passed that.
  Certainly, the intent was that the safeguards we put in with regard 
to considering trade legislation put them on a Customs bill. That was 
intended to go along with the trade legislation, and now that has 
passed. Remember, all of this was bollixed up 2 or 3 days ago and we 
weren't going anywhere, but cooler minds prevailed and brought 
everybody together.

[[Page S2911]]

  Now we go to the main event.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the minority has expired.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. I am very grateful to my colleague from Alabama for 
allowing me to do that.
  Mr. President, the main event is the combined two bills of trade 
adjustment assistance, which is, if there is a disruption in a local 
economy or in a particular trade as a result of new international trade 
arrangements, there will be extra training for those workers to be 
trained into another job so they have a livelihood--that is common 
sense. That is combined with the other main event, which is a procedure 
to fast-track, ultimately, the two trade bills that are being 
negotiated by the United States, one in the Pacific area, the other one 
with Europe.
  Fast-track means that when those trade bills come to the Congress for 
approval or disapproval, it will be done with an up-or-down vote. In 
other words, they can't be pecked to death with hundreds of amendments. 
That is why it is called fast-track. We are getting to the point where 
we are going to pass this as we get into the consideration of this 
legislation and amendments that will be coming to it.
  At the end of the day, this Senator is quite confident we will be 
able to pass the fast-track, and it will have this Senator's support. 
Why? Simply because this Senator believes these trade agreements are in 
the interest of the United States.
  I would conclude by saying that if we take, for example, the 
potential Pacific agreement, our military commanders have told us that, 
in fact, it is one of the best things we could do to get this trade 
agreement so China can't get in the economic door before the United 
States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
notified after 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify the Senator.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think that as we consider these trade 
agreements, it is appropriate that we recognize the importance of free 
trade, how it helps the world and helps the economy, and it is 
something I certainly support and have supported on a number of 
occasions in the past, including the last big trade bill, the Korean 
trade bill. I generally support--I actually do support the idea of 
comparative advantage, the gist of which is that if a nation can 
produce a product and sell it cheaper in another country, people over 
time will benefit from allowing that country's product to enter the 
country and being able to buy it at a lower price. That is comparative 
advantage, and I think it is sound in principle and generally sound in 
practice.
  But the American workers are not doing well now. Wages have not 
increased since 2000--15 years. We have been down $3,000 in median 
family income since 2009 and still down $3,000. We have the lowest 
percentage of Americans in working years actually working today since 
the 1970s. So this is not a healthy environment for Americans. The 
market has done pretty well. Revenues and profits are holding pretty 
well, but the average American working person is not doing so well.
  So what has happened? Is there a problem with currency manipulation, 
state-owned enterprises, subsidized foreign industries, people who dump 
products here below market cost or right at market cost being 
subsidized and supported by foreign countries? Do those alter the 
situation? Do they make it impossible for American businesses to 
compete, and if they go out of business, will our government bail them 
out in any way? We had one bailout after the financial collapse, but 
businesses are closing every day and they are not being bailed out 
today. We have seen substantial reductions in manufacturing around the 
country.
  The Wall Street Journal just this week published an article, ``The 
Case of the Vanishing Worker.'' That was in Monday's Wall Street 
Journal. It talked about the city of Decatur, IL, and detailed how 
their unemployment rate had gotten as high as 14 percent and it had 
dropped to almost half of that. It dropped down to almost half of that, 
so that looked pretty good, but when they looked at the numbers, they 
weren't so good.
  What did they find? Even though the unemployment rate had fallen to 
almost half, how many people were actually working? Well, the answer 
was 8 percent fewer. So how can the unemployment rate fall and the 
number of people actually working fall at the same time? The answer is, 
as the article said, that people are moving away; they are dropping out 
of the workforce entirely; they are taking early retirement. That is 
what is happening too often in America.
  So I think it is important for us to ask, how are these trade 
agreements benefiting the nation? How are they impacting American 
people? Let's ask some questions about it.
  I asked the President questions on that. I sent him a letter, and I 
asked him a series of questions relating to wages. Will this trade 
agreement improve job prospects? Will it improve or make worse our 
trade deficits? Well, he hasn't answered those questions.
  So I ask my colleagues: Has anybody demanded the Commerce Department, 
the Treasury Department, the administration to produce data to show 
that if we enter into another agreement involving 40 percent of the 
world's economy, involving some of our most capable and rigorous and 
toughest mercantilist competitors, what will it do to the American 
workers' prospects? Is that a fair question to ask? We haven't seen any 
discussion of it, so far as I can tell. And let me tell you what the 
reason is.
  Well, first, I will say this: I believe unfair trade competition is 
real. We talk to people out there every day, and they tell us about it. 
Dan DiMicco, former CEO of Nucor Steel, has one of his plants in 
Alabama. They have plants all over the country. He said that these 
trade agreements are in effect unilateral American trade disarmament 
and they enable foreign mercantilism. In other words, what he is saying 
is that we have acquiesced to the mercantilist nationalism emphasis of 
our trading partners. And why is that? Well, I figured it out. It has 
taken me a while to understand exactly what the theory is behind these 
trade agreements, and I don't believe I am in error when I discuss 
this.
  Ross Kaminsky, writing in the American Spectator--a fine magazine--
wrote a fine piece arguing for this TPA and the trade agreement. He was 
overwhelmingly saying it must be passed virtually regardless of what is 
in it.
  I have to say his position is consistent with the position of the 
editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and many other economists, 
and we have to understand what it is. And I am losing confidence in 
this position. I am not sure it is a good position. As a matter of 
fact, I don't think it is. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think it is.
  This is what he says on trade:

       It bears repeating--and repeating and repeating and 
     repeating--that the benefit to American consumers of free 
     trade is so large that it must trump any parochial interest 
     of a particular industry or labor union or politician.
       Because they lower the prices of imports, and even 
     understanding that there will be a few losers, free trade 
     agreements are almost always worth supporting regardless of 
     what is offered to American exporters by the foreign trade 
     partner.

  Let me repeat that. He said they are almost always worthy of being 
entered into regardless of what is offered to the American exporters by 
the foreign trade partner.
  I remember, as a skilled businessman, when I first came to the 
Senate, and Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, was before 
me. I was kind of nervous about it--a big maestro of the economy.
  I asked him a simple question: Mr. Greenspan, what if a country wants 
to trade with us, wants to sell products to us but will buy zero 
products from us? They just want to sell to us but will buy nothing in 
return. Should we enter into a trade agreement with them?
  What do you think he answered? I used to ask people in townhalls 
about this on occasion, and they would say he said no. But, but he said 
yes.
  I am telling you, this is the movement--the mentality of the current 
trade agreement supporters, at least in the intellectual, corporate 
world and

[[Page S2912]]

the newspaper world and many within universities, certainly not all.
  So is this a valid position? Are we subjecting our American people 
unfairly to competition that could cost jobs and so forth?
  Well, I am losing confidence in those views. That is all I am saying, 
colleagues. And I think it is time for us to analyze what it means.
  I would say that the steel industry of the United States is not a 
little bitty matter. Right now, U.S. Steel closed a big plant I think 
in Indiana or Ohio. They just laid off a thousand or so workers in 
Alabama. SSAB Steel in Alabama says they are facing ferocious dumping, 
it is threatening their market share and their ability to make the most 
modern plant in the world competitive, and they don't think it is fair.
  How long do you have to sustain this to have dealt substantial damage 
to the American steel industry? Don't we need a steel industry? Where 
would steelworkers get jobs? They say: Well, they can take service 
jobs. Well, maybe so. Maybe they can work at the plumbing company. 
Maybe they can work at a hospital. Maybe they can work in a nursing 
home. Maybe there is other work that can be found. But at some point, 
do we not need a manufacturing capability that provides a lot more than 
a service job--manufacturing capabilities, for example, that provide 
demand for products, demand for supplies, demand for workers who supply 
those plants and have ripple effects much larger than a person just 
repairing faucets. I think we have to ask that question in a very 
serious way.

  I said earlier I voted for the Korean trade pact. I did not have a 
lot of trouble voting for that at the time. I thought it was going to 
be fine. Maybe it is OK. Maybe the pact is going to be, sometime in the 
future, positive for the United States.
  The Koreans, like the Japanese, are good trading people. They are 
allies around the world on security agreements. I am not putting the 
Koreans down. The Koreans are tough trade negotiators. They have a 
mercantilist philosophy.
  What happened before that agreement was passed? President Obama 
promised that the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement would increase U.S. 
goods exports to Korea by $10 billion to $11 billion. However, since 
the deal was ratified in 2012, I believe it was, our exports rose only 
$0.8 billion--less than $1 billion, not $10 billion. Does that make any 
difference?
  We just bring in from abroad and our trading partners don't allow 
exports abroad? What about the Korean imports to the United States? 
They rose more than $12 billion, widening our trade gap, almost 
doubling our trade.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 12 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe I had up to 15 to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is still time until 2. We are just 
notifying you of the 12 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I see my colleague from Louisiana. If he is ready to 
speak, I will wrap up.
  Mr. VITTER. I do not desire to speak.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will wrap up, Mr. President.
  What about the Census Department's report on the U.S. trade deficit 
of South Korea? They found it has almost doubled since the passage of 
the agreement. In 2011, the United States had a $13.2 billion trade 
deficit with South Korea--not a healthy relationship there--but in 
2014, it was $25 billion.
  Furthermore, the deficit is currently 66 percent higher so far this 
year than it was at the same point last year. March was the largest 
trade deficit we have had in a very long time. The first quarter, we 
had a huge deficit. I believe the March trade deficit was the largest 
worldwide that we have had in over 6 years. It was almost the highest 
ever.
  I am going to support moving forward to discuss this trade bill. 
There will be some amendments that I would seek to offer. If that is 
the will of the Congress, those will pass; if not, they will not pass. 
But fundamentally I do believe it is time for the American people to 
expect their political leaders to give them some real analysis about 
what the results of these trade agreements are going to be. Will it 
help raise wages? Will it create increasing job prospects? Would it 
increase or reduce our trade deficit? Trade deficits represent a drain 
and a negative pull on the American economy. Some say they do not make 
much difference, but they do. It does impact adversely GDP. With regard 
to those questions, I think we need some answers. I will be asking 
those as we go forward.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share a few more thoughts with 
my colleagues.
  In 2014, net exports--net exports subtracted 1.5 percent from fourth-
quarter GDP. That is a lot. GDP growth in the fourth quarter was 
subtracted by--excuse me, 1.15 percent. That is more than $500 billion. 
That is enough to fund a highway reauthorization program for a long 
time.
  The problem is that in the short run, Americans tend to be losing 
jobs as a result of trade agreements; whereas, long-term unemployed 
people have a difficult time finding work. I would say I believe in 
trade, but it is not a religion with me. I believe it is a religion 
when somebody says that you should enter into a trade agreement with 
anybody, opening your markets totally without demanding anything in 
return for that.
  I have to tell you, as I just read from others--it is clearly the 
policy of the Wall Street Journal--that is good policy, that you should 
enter into a trade agreement whether or not your partner will allow you 
to sell anything at all to them. I say good negotiations in a contract 
are, which a trade negotiation is, if we open our markets, our 
competitors ought to open theirs sufficiently. Too often we have the 
problems that arise from nontariff barriers that are impacting the 
ability of American businesses to sell products in their country. So 
even if they reduce their tariff, their ability to sell products is 
blocked by other nontariff matters, all of which I think we can discuss 
in the weeks to come.
  Let's be sure we understand where this trade agreement is taking us, 
what the philosophy and approach behind it is, and let's be sure it 
serves the interests of the American people first.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we start 
the vote now, 5 minutes earlier than we planned.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider the vote on which 
cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1314 is agreed 
to.

                          ____________________