[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 77 (Tuesday, May 19, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3024-S3053]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  ENSURING TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the Presiding 
Officer being my colleague from my State of Ohio.


                           Amendment No. 1251

  Mr. President, with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we are considering 
the largest trade deal in our Nation's history. Forty percent of GDP is 
affected by the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We have a responsibility to 
ensure this deal does not get any bigger without congressional 
approval. That is why I am offering this amendment, the so-called 
docking amendment, along with many of my colleagues, to prevent the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership from being a backdoor trade agreement with 
China. What does that mean? Right now, there is nothing in this trade 
legislation--nothing--that we are considering to prevent the People's 
Republic of China from joining the TPP at a later date. Without a 
formal process requiring congressional input and approval for countries 
like China to join the TPP, we might as well be talking about the China 
free-trade agreement.
  This amendment spells out in law a detailed, important process, step 
by step, for future TPP partners to join the agreement. It does not say 
they cannot join; it just says here is how they join--because TPP and 
TPA seem to be silent on that.
  Here is how it works. The President would be required to notify 
Congress of his or her intent to enter into negotiations with a country 
that wants to join the TPP. The notice period would be 90 days. During 
that time, the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee would 
have to vote to certify that the country considering joining the TPP is 
capable of meeting the standards of the agreement. It would stop sort 
of backdoor Presidential authority, whether it is President Obama or 
the next President making that decision. After that, both the Senate 
and the House would have to pass a resolution within the 90-day window 
approving that country joining the negotiations.
  So if the President decides that he or she wants China to join these 
12 Trans-Pacific Partnership countries, the President cannot do that 
unilaterally. The President needs to go through this process and 
ultimately bring it to a vote by Congress. Then the American people can 
have their say. If it is just done unilaterally and quickly and maybe 
even kind of quietly by the President, the public would have no input. 
But if it goes through the congressional process, the Finance Committee 
and the Ways and Means Committee--I do not think we speak to the order 
of that--the notice period would be 90 days, so the country would then 
have 90 days to speak its mind about what we all think, we 300-some 
million people in this country think about this new country--not just 
China. That is obviously the most important, the most salient, the one 
we pay the most attention to--the second largest economy in the world. 
The implementing bill for that country to join the TPP would be subject 
to fast-track authority only if TPA were still in effect at that time. 
This process is vital to ensuring a public debate on what would be one 
of the most consequential economic decisions in a decade.
  TPP, as we all know, already affects 40 percent of the world's GDP. 
If China piggybacks on this agreement, we will be looking at a sweeping 
agreement that will encompass the two largest economies on Earth. In 
fact, it would then perhaps be three; it would be the United States, 
then China, then Japan. A deal of that scale demands public scrutiny. A 
deal of that scale demands congressional input. A deal of that scale 
demands that the American public weigh in.
  We know China already expressed interest in joining the agreement at 
the end of last year. News reports indicate they are monitoring these 
talks closely. Of course they are. We also know China manipulates its 
currency, even though Presidents Obama and Bush would not say that. We 
know they manipulate their currency. We know China floods our market 
with subsidized and dumped steel imports. We know China pursues an 
industrial policy designed to undercut American manufacturing.
  Sitting in front of me is the junior Senator from the State of 
Washington, who has worked so hard and is on this floor to make sure it 
happens, that we reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. We know what China 
has done there to sort of end run the United States and what the 
failure of our doing that here would mean to even give greater 
advantages to China.
  Mr. President, 2016 will mark China's 15-year anniversary in the 
World Trade Organization. We saw what happened after Congress, in 1999, 
2000--that period--normalized trade relations with China. China became 
a member of the World Trade Organization. Fifteen years ago, our trade 
deficit with China was not much more than $15 billion a year. Today, 
our trade deficit with China is $25 billion a month. So it went

[[Page S3025]]

from $15 billion to a factor of $300 billion--all in the space of 15 
years. Think about that.
  We know what Presidents over time have said about trade deficits--
that when we have a trade deficit of $1 billion, what that means for 
lost jobs. It means we are buying $1 billion worth of goods more than 
we are selling to that country. Every day with China, we buy $1 billion 
more of goods--every day almost $1 billion--$900 million, roughly, more 
than we sell to China every day. We know what that means on job loss. 
We are not making it in the United States. They will make it in China. 
The workers in China are making it, not the workers in the United 
States. So that trade gap with China represents a huge percentage of 
our total U.S. trade deficit. Meanwhile, China continues to thwart the 
rules with impunity.
  We have focused on integrating China into the international system--
something we want to do--but we only hope it will comply with the rules 
we should follow. We give China chance after chance, pushing for 
increased engagement. China continues to play by its own rules. 
Currency manipulation is a good example.
  I appreciate the Presiding Officer's work on that issue, on currency 
manipulation. That should be voted on in this body in the next, I 
assume, 48 years.
  Year after year, the U.S. Treasury says China's currency is 
significantly undervalued. Year after year, we give China a chance--
another chance, another chance--to change its monetary policy, but we 
will not call China a currency manipulator. President Bush would not do 
it. President Obama would not do it. Up to 5 million American workers 
have lost their jobs. Our trade deficit has grown by hundreds of 
billions of dollars due to currency manipulation.
  We have clear evidence that China disregards international trade 
laws. Why would we think it would be any different if they get a 
backdoor entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership? That is why we 
cannot allow TPP to become a backdoor way to pass a free-trade 
agreement with China without a vote in Congress.
  I know Senator Menendez has raised these concerns for a while. I 
appreciate that support and the support of our other cosponsors on this 
issue.
  This amendment is not a poison pill. All this amendment does is 
clarify the process for new countries to join the TPP, should it pass. 
It does not say we cannot bring in new countries. It does say that 
Congress has to vote on it. Congressional approval is not required for 
additional non-Communist countries to join WTO agreements after the 
United States enters into them. We need this amendment to prevent that 
same so-called docking process from being used with the TPP. China and 
those countries like China that are not market economies are 
differently structured economies, different kinds of countries. We are 
not saying: No, never. You cannot enter into the TPP. We are simply 
saying Congress should have a say in it and, most importantly, the 
public should be able to speak out on this and have a period of time to 
talk to their Members of Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in adopting this critical amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President----
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
Senator Warren's remarks, I be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I want to start by saying thank you to Senator Brown for his 
extraordinary leadership on this issue and his determination that 
voices be heard around this country on this trade debate, that the 
people who are actually affected be heard from. I say thank you very 
much to Senator Brown for all he has done here.


                           Amendment No. 1327

  Mr. President, I join with Senator Heitkamp, Senator Manchin, and a 
number of other Senators to propose a simple change to the fast-track 
bill, a change that would prevent Congress from using this expedited 
process on any trade deal that includes so-called investor-state 
dispute settlement provisions. I come to the floor to urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.

  ISDS is an obscure process that allows big companies to go to 
corporate-friendly arbitration panels that sit outside any court system 
in order to challenge laws they don't like. These panels can force 
taxpayers to write huge checks to those big corporations, with no need 
to file a suit in court, no appeals, and no judicial review.
  Most Americans don't think the minimum wage or antismoking 
regulations are trade barriers, but a foreign corporation used ISDS to 
sue Egypt after Egypt raised its minimum wage. Tobacco giant Philip 
Morris went after Australia and Uruguay to stop their rules to cut 
smoking rates. Under the TPP, corporations can use these corporate-
friendly panels to challenge rules right here in America.
  It wasn't always this way. ISDS has been around for a while, and from 
1959 to 2002 there were fewer than 100 claims in the whole world. But, 
boy, has that changed. In 2012 alone, there were 58 cases. Corporate 
lawyers have started figuring out just how powerful a tool these panels 
can be for corporate clients. The huge financial penalties that these 
cases can impose on taxpayers have already caused New Zealand to give 
up on some tough antismoking rules. It has already caused Germany to 
pull back from clean water protections, and it has caused Canada to 
stand down on environmental protections.
  If that worries you, you are not alone. Experts from all over the 
political spectrum--conservatives and liberals, economists and legal 
scholars on the left and the right, opponents of trade deals and 
supporters of trade deals--have all argued that these corporate-
friendly panels should be dropped from our future trade deals.
  Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that we should not 
give ``investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their 
environmental and public health rules.''
  Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz, Harvard law professor 
Laurence Tribe, and other top American legal experts noted that ``the 
threat and expense of ISDS proceedings have forced nations to abandon 
important public policies'' and that ``laws and regulations enacted by 
democratically elected officials are put at risk in a process insulated 
from democratic input.''
  The head of the trade policy program at the conservative CATO 
Institute has said that ISDS ``raises serious questions about 
democratic accountability, sovereignty, checks and balances, and the 
separation of powers''--concerns that ``libertarians and other free 
market advocates should share.''
  ISDS is a major part of the reason why, no matter what promises are 
made, huge trade deals often just tilt the playing field further in 
favor of big multinational corporations. If a country wants to adopt 
strong new protections for workers, such as an increase in the minimum 
wage, a corporation can use these corporate-friendly panels to seek 
millions--or billions--in taxpayer compensation because the new rules 
might eat into the company's profits.
  But, boy, it doesn't work in the other direction. If a country wants 
to undermine worker rights by allowing child labor or slave labor or 
paying workers pennies an hour, there is no special worker-friendly 
process for challenging that. Instead, advocates for workers are stuck 
begging their governments to bring enforcement actions and protect 
their rights. That process can take years, if the government responds 
at all. In fact, just yesterday my office released a 15-page report 
detailing how for decades both Republican and Democratic Presidents 
made the same promises over and over and over again about how good 
these deals would be for workers, and both Republican and Democratic 
Presidents failed to enforce the labor standards promises in those 
trade agreements.
  Giving corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside our 
legal system is a terrible idea. Experts from every place on the 
political spectrum have concluded that it is unfair, it undermines the 
rule of law, it threatens American sovereignty, and it creates an end-
run around the democratic process. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment so we can keep

[[Page S3026]]

these corporate-friendly panels out of future trade agreements.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           amendment No. 1312

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last week the Senate voted 97 to 1 to 
reauthorize the African Growth and Opportunity Act--AGOA--for 10 years. 
It was first enacted in 2000, so the 10 years were up and we had to get 
it reinstated. It provides the African countries with duty-free access 
on most of their exports to the United States.
  I have long been a supporter of AGOA. The program has done a lot to 
improve our trade relationship with the continent of Africa, primarily 
sub-Saharan Africa. Since 2002, annual trade between the United States 
and sub-Saharan Africa has increased by almost 50 percent. So it is 
very successful. It has also been estimated by the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce that it has had the effect of increasing 300,000 jobs in sub-
Saharan Africa and 100,000 jobs here in the United States.
  Trade with Africa is important because many of the world's fastest 
growing economies are in Africa. According to an analysis that was done 
for The Economist magazine, six of the world's fastest growing 
economies were in sub-Saharan Africa in the 10 years it has been in 
effect.
  This is going to continue. I have seen it firsthand. Every time I go 
to Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tanzania or many of the other countries in Africa, 
I see more and more cranes going up and bigger and better buildings. It 
is really a live spot in the world. The infrastructure in places like 
Rwanda and Tanzania is high quality. People who go to Rwanda come back 
with memories of something that is a modern city, not a Third World 
country, as it has been in the past.
  So we have really good things going on there, and we need to continue 
to build on their trade, infrastructure, roads, highways, seaports, 
railways, and airports to help their economies grow.
  For too long sub-Saharan Africa has been ignored as a trading partner 
by the United States. I have been to Africa probably more than any 
other Members have. In fact, there was something very critical of me 
just last weekend in the press--if I can find it here I will state what 
it was--anyway, they were critical of the attention I have been paying 
to Africa.
  I can remember when the United States had the same problem. We 
ignored Africa. Back when we were going into Bosnia, I was kind of 
leading the effort to keep Americans from going into Bosnia. This was 
during the Clinton administration. The excuse they were using was that 
we had to get into Bosnia because of ethnic cleansing. I said on the 
Senate floor, for every person who has been ethnically cleansed in 
Bosnia, there are 100 in West Africa.
  Just last weekend, ``Vice,'' a satirical show on HBO, tried to 
connect me to a law drafted by the Parliament in Uganda that was 
antigay. I have always opposed this law and had nothing to do with it. 
However, there are things that are going on in all these countries that 
need to be looked into.
  My work in Uganda started many years ago to help bring an end to the 
Lord's Resistance Army. A lot of people are fully aware of the LRA now, 
but they weren't back then. There was one individual, Joseph Kony, who 
was going into the various areas of Northern Uganda and was kidnapping 
the little kids. They called them ``the children's army.'' The young 
people would be kidnapped out of their village and then be forced to 
learn to join their little army, to kidnap other people. If they 
refused, they were forced to go back to their villages and murder their 
parents. That is the LRA, and we finally are making progress there.
  Other countries around the world are not ignoring Africa's potential 
as we have been. Brazil and China have secured preferential trade 
agreements with Africa. Every time you see something new and shiny in 
Africa, it comes from China. Economic Partnership Agreements of the 
European Union have also been signed. So we are kind of left out. This 
AGOA has been a worthwhile program.
  We need to start looking ahead to the future. Nearly a billion people 
who live in sub-Saharan Africa and individual countries over the next 
decade or two will reach the point where they are competing head-to-
head with many other countries around the world.
  Our thinking about trade with Africa needs to be mature as their 
economies grow. That is why Senator Coons and I have offered the 
African Free Trade Initiative Act, amendment No. 1312 to the trade 
promotion authority act. We are doing it jointly. This amendment 
requires the President to establish a plan to negotiate and enter into 
free-trade agreements with our friends in sub-Saharan Africa. African 
nations want to enter into free-trade agreements with us. When I was in 
Tanzania earlier this year, I met with Richard Sezibera. Richard 
Sezibera is the Secretary General of the East African Community, which 
is made up of Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, Tanzania, and Kenya. Richard 
Sezibera told me he wants their Eastern African Community to enter into 
a free-trade agreement with the United States--just those five 
countries. This makes sense because FTAs bind business communities 
together and can pay long-term national security and foreign policy 
dividends.
  While some in our government may not deem sub-Saharan African 
countries ``ready'' for an FTA with us, our amendment requires the 
administration to articulate what each country needs to do to get 
ready. It is not enough for them just to say they are not ready to be 
associated with us in this type of a treaty. The amendment also 
requires the administration to determine what kind of resources might 
be needed to help the countries get ready for an FTA with us. Between 
the Millenium Challenge Corporation and USAID, we have had a lot of 
resources going into sub-Saharan African countries to help their 
economies develop, and many outside aid organizations and other 
countries do as well. It makes sense to identify which of these 
resources could be channeled for the purpose of developing a free-trade 
agreement with us.
  We had a great guy. Unfortunately, he is leaving USAID. His name is 
Raj Shah. He has taken a personal interest in Africa, in developing 
relations with Africa.
  USAID has a large trade focus, but much of its work is geared toward 
helping small businesses in places like Tanzania grow their exports. 
Now, this is good. It is a good thing to do, but they should also be 
working at higher levels to improve the trade activities of these 
economies as a whole. They can do this by working with our African 
friends, helping them prepare for a broader trade relationship with the 
United States, either by helping them identify how they can improve 
their agriculture safety regulations or general private property 
rights. To that end, our amendment authorizes USAID to use its 
appropriations to help implement the strategy that will be developed 
under this amendment.
  The Senate just reauthorized AGOA for another 10 years. In the next 
10 years, we should be considering one or more free-trade agreements 
with our partners in sub-Saharan Africa. Our amendment will help this 
desire become a reality.
  As I said, our government and the media have to get beyond their 
opposition to Africa, and hopefully we will be able to be doing that 
before long. If we don't make free-trade agreements with Africa a 
priority, then I think we will find ourselves here in 10 years and see 
a much stronger, highly competitive African economy. We will be 
reauthorizing AGOA again and asking ourselves: Why didn't we push to 
enact free-trade agreements with these countries? We would rather not 
find ourselves there. If we don't do it, China will, and we should be 
the ones writing the rules for trade in Africa, just as we are trying 
to do in Asia.
  So I appreciate the support of Senator Coons and others on this 
amendment, and hopefully it can be adopted to the free-trade promotion 
authority bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, as we continue to debate and file 
amendments to the trade promotion authority, the fast-track 
legislation, I ask unanimous consent to make two amendments pending and 
ask that the pending amendment be set aside and

[[Page S3027]]

call up my amendment No. 1233 and amendment No. 1234.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. CANTWELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was under the impression that we would 
be able to have discussion and debate on the legislation before us. My 
two amendments would deal with two very serious issues. I am 
disappointed that we have an objection.
  My first amendment, 1233, would ensure that any changes to U.S. law 
or policy are passed by Congress. Specifically, if implementing 
legislation allowed future changes to be made to a trade agreement that 
could affect or overrule existing U.S. law without Congressional 
approval, then that legislation could not be fast-tracked. The 
implementing legislation would have to guarantee that all future 
changes would have to be approved by Congress. I think that is 
perfectly appropriate, and it is an absolute responsibility of Congress 
to ensure its own authority in matters of these kind.
  Indeed, the Constitution gives plenary authority to Congress over 
immigration law and trade. Under this amendment that I have offered, 
Congress cannot delegate the power to change U.S. law to the 
Executive--Congress cannot do that and must not do that--or to some 
international body that would be created if this trade agreement--the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership--enters into force. This is not made clear 
under the current bill.
  Colleagues, we need to think about this commission--an international 
commission--that will be created with 11 trading partners in the TPP. 
This commission will be given power, and our trading partners will be 
given powers if Congress approves this, presumably. Under the TPP, that 
commission is given the authority to amend the trade agreement that is 
initially passed if they find that circumstances have changed and they 
desire to change it.
  This is called the `living agreement' provision. The `living 
agreement' provision explicitly states these things in this trade 
agreement. The term `living agreement' should make our hair stand up on 
the backs of our necks because this is a dangerous thing. What it means 
is that the commission can alter the agreement. We want to be sure that 
if this commission alters the agreement--assuming the TPP enters into 
force--that it is not given the power to change U.S. law, even if the 
President agrees.
  There is another question. Senator Brown, I think, has offered an 
amendment on this question, and my amendment would also fix it. It 
deals with the admission of new countries into the 11 party--12, 
counting the United States--TPP trade agreement. It is pretty clear. 
This commission has the power to admit new members. It says: With 
regard to the amendment process of the commission, that the process 
will look similar to that of the World Trade Organization. We have 
shared this with Senator Hatch and his fine staff. I think they 
understand what we are talking about here.
  This suggests that TPP procedures are likely to mirror WTO 
procedures. Well, the United States has had a long-term problem with 
the World Trade Organization because we approved the World Trade 
Organization and passed legislation implementing that agreement, and we 
did not realize it allowed new members to be admitted without a vote of 
Congress. So under TPP, if it mirrors the WTO rules for amendments and 
accessions, the new members--it appears quite plain to me--could be 
admitted by just 8 of the 12 TPP members--not a unanimous vote as NATO 
requires or the European Union requires.
  At one point, the TPP says there must be ``consensus,'' but then it 
talks about WTO. WTO does not require consensus on everything. So I 
have to say, colleagues, that, first and foremost, I do not know why we 
have to create a new commission--a transnational commission that has 
the ability to discipline the United States, to impose penalties on the 
United States by what might be a two-thirds vote under a number of 
circumstances, and create additional constraints on the ability of this 
great Nation to function.
  I do not know why we would not be better off dealing--as we have done 
with other countries--with bilateral trade agreements between the two 
of us, not creating some international body such as the United Nations, 
the WTO, or as Europe has done with the European Union.
  So I am disappointed that we are not going to be able to have my 
amendment to address this called up now, because if they can block this 
amendment from being called up, this amendment can be shut out 
altogether. That is the fact. The train would be advancing without real 
debate and without a real opportunity for this concept to be addressed 
and voted on by Members of Congress. I am sure people would rather not 
have it come up--would rather not have questions about this agreement 
be raised. I think it is a legitimate question. I would urge my 
colleagues to continue to evaluate the amendment and to see if we 
cannot get it up pending. Let's have a vote on it, and let's adopt it.
  Now, I also have offered amendment No. 1234. First, my previous 
amendment was No. 1233. This would be 1234. It would hold the Obama 
administration and the United States Trade Representative to their 
assurances that no trade agreement will be used to change U.S. 
immigration law or policy. This has been done in the past to a 
significant degree. It resulted in Chairman Sensenbrenner and ranking 
member Conyers writing a letter saying: Never again should any trade 
agreement amend immigration law.
  That is the province of the Congress, according to the Constitution. 
In 2003, I offered a resolution after a past trade agreement did just 
that--bypassed Congress' authority over immigration law. The resolution 
passed unanimously. Senator Feinstein and other Democrats signed on. It 
said: Never again will immigration law be amended as part of a trade 
agreement. Trade agreements are not the way to change law of the United 
States, especially when you have a President who is rewriting 
immigration law, enforcing immigration law that Congress explicitly 
rejected through his Executive amnesty.
  So my amendment is modeled after the Congressional Responsibility for 
Immigration Act of 2003, a bill sponsored by our Democratic colleagues, 
Senators Leahy, Feinstein, and Kennedy--former Senator Kennedy, our 
former colleague. It would prohibit the application of fast-track 
authority procedures to any implementing bill that affects U.S. 
immigration law or policy or the entry of aliens, if an implementing 
bill or trade agreement violates those terms.
  Then, any Member could raise a point of order against the 
implementing bill, ensuring that the bill is considered under regular 
Senate procedures allowing amendment and debate. Look, now they tell us 
that we should not be concerned. Colleagues, we have heard it said that 
this will not happen--no future trade agreements will affect U.S. 
immigration law. All right, but I am a little nervous about that. I 
have been watching the language on this. Senator Grassley, at the 
Finance Committee hearing a few weeks ago, asked the Trade 
Representative, Mr. Froman, this:

       My question: Could you assure the committee that the TPP 
     agreement or any side agreement does not and will not contain 
     any provision relating to immigration, visa processing or 
     temporary entries of persons?

  That is a good question--simple question. They have been indicating 
not. His answer sounds good at first blush.

       Thank you, Senator Grassley. And the answer is yes, I can 
     assure you that we are not negotiating anything in TPP that 
     would require any modifications of the U.S. immigration laws 
     or system, any changes of our existing visa system, and in 
     fact the TPP explicitly states that it will not require any 
     changes in any party's immigration law or procedures. Now the 
     11 other TPP countries are making offers to each other in the 
     area of temporary entry, but we have decided not to do so. So 
     I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that.

  So we have decided not to do so--now, at this moment, before the 
trade agreement is up for approval by Congress, knowing it would be 
controversial if the implementing bill included immigration changes. 
But that does not mean we are not party to any immigration provisions 
in the TPP that could be used to make changes later. One of the 
chapters in the agreement deals with immigration and temporary entry. I 
do not see anything that would prohibit the current administration or

[[Page S3028]]

a new administration from trying to use this trade agreement to advance 
an immigration agenda.
  So if the Trade Representative really means it when he assures us 
there will be no changes in the future, then I would suggest my 
amendment would be something that Ambassador Froman would be delighted 
to support to keep us from having this problem and to remove this 
potential controversy from the legislation. I think it would also--for 
those who want to see it passed--enhance the opportunity to pass the 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, this week we are considering legislation 
that could have real importance for our country over the next several 
years on the economic front and also on the national security front. 
That legislation is trade promotion authority.
  Trade promotion authority helps the United States negotiate strong 
trade deals that benefit American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers 
and expand opportunities for American workers. Under TPA, Congress sets 
guidelines for trade negotiations and outlines the priorities the 
administration must follow. In return, Congress promises a simple up-
or-down vote on the resulting trade agreement, instead of a long 
amendment process that could leave the final deal looking nothing like 
what was originally negotiated.
  The promise of that up-or-down vote sends a powerful message to our 
negotiating partners that Congress and U.S. trade negotiators are on 
the same page, which gives other countries the confidence they need to 
put their best offers on the table.
  That, in turn, allows the United States to secure trade deals that 
are favorable to U.S. workers and to businesses and to open new markets 
to products that are marked ``Made in the U.S.A.'' Almost every one of 
the 14 trade agreements to which the United States is a party was 
negotiated using trade promotion authority. Currently, the 
administration is negotiating two major trade agreements that have the 
potential to vastly expand the market for American goods and services 
in the EU and in the Pacific.
  The Trans-Pacific Partnership is being negotiated with a number of 
Asia-Pacific nations, including Australia, Japan, New Zealand, 
Singapore, and Vietnam. If this agreement is done right, it will 
benefit a number of industries, including an industry that is very 
important to my State; that is, agriculture.
  Currently, American agricultural products face heavy tariffs in many 
Trans-Pacific Partnership countries. Poultry tariffs, for example, in 
TPP countries go up to a staggering 240 percent. That is a tremendous 
obstacle for American producers. Reducing the barriers that American 
agricultural products face in these countries would have enormous 
benefits for American farmers and ranchers in my home State of South 
Dakota and across the country.
  In fact, one pork producer in my State contacted me to tell me that a 
successful TPP deal could increase U.S. pork exports to just one of the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership countries by hundreds of millions of dollars. 
I know that is important in my State, important in the Presiding 
Officer's State, and important in every agricultural State across this 
Nation.
  That is why former Agriculture Secretaries from both parties, 
representing every administration going back to President Carter, 
issued a joint letter in February emphasizing the importance of trade 
to farmers and ranchers and urging passage of trade promotion 
authority. They wrote in that letter:

       Access to export markets is vital for increasing sales and 
     supporting farm income at home. Opening markets helps farm 
     families and their communities prosper.

  It is not every day that you see former members of both Democratic 
and Republican administrations coming together to advocate a particular 
policy.
  I would say that this is the free and fair trade for a healthy 
economy that describes precisely what it is that we are talking about. 
We are talking about more exports for American agricultural products, 
manufactured goods, digital goods--you name it, across the board. What 
that means is more jobs and higher take-home pay for American workers.
  The bipartisan agreement isn't limited to former Agriculture 
Secretaries who have come out in support of it. Ten former Treasury 
Secretaries--again, representing administrations of both political 
parties--came together to draft their own letter, stressing the 
importance of trade promotion authority and securing favorable 
agreements for our country. They said:

       Our support for open trade agreements is based on a simple 
     premise. Expanding the size of the market where American 
     goods and services can compete on a level playing field is 
     good for American workers and their families. Expanded 
     international trade means more American jobs and higher 
     American incomes. It means greater access for American 
     businesses to markets and consumers around the world, and it 
     means lower prices for American families here at home.

  That is from former Treasury Secretaries of this country representing 
both political parties.
  Still another bipartisan group of former administration officials 
came together this month to urge support for trade promotion authority. 
This time it was seven former Secretaries of Defense, as well as a 
number of retired military leaders.
  Their letter emphasizes another important aspect of trade that often 
gets overlooked in these discussions, and that is its national security 
implications. Discussions of the benefits of trade tend to focus on the 
economic benefits, of which there are many. So it is with good reason 
that we talk about the economy, jobs, and higher wages. But the new 
trade agreements have the potential to result not only in economic 
gains for American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers but in national 
security gains for our country.
  When we make trade deals with other countries, we are not just 
opening new markets for our goods. We are also developing and cementing 
alliances. Trade agreements build bonds. They build bonds of friendship 
with other nations that extend not only to cooperation on economic 
issues but to cooperation on security issues as well.
  Two major trade agreements the United States is currently 
considering, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade 
and Investment Partnership, have the potential to provide significant 
strategic benefits for our country.
  These agreements--these are the Defense Secretaries writing--``would 
reinforce important relationships with important allies and partners in 
critical regions of the world. By binding us closer together with 
Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Australia, among others, TPP would 
strengthen existing and emerging security relationships in the Asia-
Pacific. . . . In Europe, TTIP would reinvigorate the transatlantic 
partnership and send an equally strong signal about the commitment of 
the United States to our European allies.''
  That is again from the letter coming from seven former Defense 
Secretaries representing administrations of both political parties.
  The Secretaries go on to note:

       The successful conclusion of TPP and TTIP would also draw 
     in other nations and encourage them to undertake political 
     and economic reforms. The result will be deeper regional 
     economic integration, increased political cooperation, and 
     ultimately greater stability in the two regions of the world 
     that will have the greatest long-term impact on U.S. 
     prosperity and security.

  In other words, these agreements will not only provide our Nation 
with significant economic benefits, they will also make a crucial 
contribution to our national security. The Defense Secretaries and 
military leaders also highlight another key point. Just because the 
United States isn't negotiating trade agreements doesn't mean other 
countries won't be.
  The fact that the United States hasn't signed a single trade 
agreement over the past 5 years hasn't prevented other countries from 
signing numerous trade agreements over the same period. In fact, there 
are more than 260 trade agreements in effect around the globe today, 
but the United States is only a party to 14 of those.
  If America fails to lead on trade, other nations, such as China, are 
going to step in to fill the void. And these nations will not have the 
best interests of American workers and American families in mind.
  Free and fair trade agreements are essential for growing our economy 
and

[[Page S3029]]

ensuring that products marked ``Made in the U.S.A.'' can compete on a 
level playing field around the globe. They are also an essential tool 
for strengthening our relationship with our allies, which is of 
particular concern now with so many areas of instability around the 
globe. Trade promotion authority provides the best way of securing 
these agreements.
  The bipartisan legislation that we are considering this week 
reauthorizes trade promotion authority and includes a number of 
valuable updates, such as provisions to strengthen the transparency of 
the negotiating process and to ensure that the American people stay 
informed. It also contains provisions that I have pushed forward to 
require negotiators to ensure that trade agreements promote digital 
trade as well as trade in physical goods and services.
  Given the increasing importance of digitally enabled commerce in the 
21st century economy, it is essential that our trade agreements include 
new rules that keep digital trade free from unnecessary government 
interference. I have previously introduced legislation to help ensure 
that the free flow of digital goods and services is protected, and I am 
pleased that the bipartisan deal that was reached includes many of the 
very measures I have advocated.
  Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have repeatedly come together 
this year to pass legislation to address challenges that are facing our 
country. I hope we will see the same type of bipartisanship on this 
bill. This legislation will benefit American farmers, ranchers, and 
manufacturers. It will help to open new markets for American workers, 
and it will benefit American families. And it will help make our 
country more secure.
  The President supports this legislation. A number of Senate Democrats 
are working with Republicans to get this done.
  I hope that the rest of the Democrats in the Senate will join us to 
pass this important bill for American workers and businesses and make 
trade promotion authority legislation our next bipartisan achievement 
for the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

    Staff Sergeant Matthew Ryan Ammerman and Corporal Jordan Spears

  Mr. DONNELLY. Madam President, Memorial Day is next week, so I wish 
to take a moment to remember and recognize the courageous men and women 
of the Armed Forces who lost their lives serving in the line of duty 
this past year.
  Indiana lost two of its own, Army SSG Matthew Ryan Ammerman and 
Marine Cpl Jordan Spears, two young men who selflessly chose service to 
their country and gave the ultimate sacrifice.
  SSG Matthew Ryan Ammerman of Noblesville served three tours of duty, 
two in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. A decorated soldier who received 
multiple medals during his career, Staff Sergeant Ammerman joined the 
Army in July of 2004. He deployed to Iraq in 2006 and then to 
Afghanistan in 2009. He went on to graduate as a Special Forces 
communications sergeant in 2013 before deploying to Afghanistan the 
following year as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.
  Staff Sergeant Ammerman was killed on December 3, 2014, when his unit 
came under fire while conducting operations in Zabul Province. He was 
29 years old. He is survived by his wife and two brothers.
  Cpl Jordan Spears' childhood dream was to become a marine. His dad 
said he was so proud to wear the Marine uniform. He was a native of 
Memphis, IN. Corporal Spears met with a recruiter when he was 17 and 
wanted to be deployed, his dad said.
  He was deployed in July of 2014 to the USS Makin Island for U.S. 
military operations against ISIS. Corporal Spears was lost at sea on 
October 1, 2014, while conducting flight operations in the North 
Arabian Gulf. He was 21 years old. He is survived by his parents and 
five siblings who loved him very much.
  Indiana grieves for the loss of these two, extraordinary Hoosiers, as 
our country aches at the loss of many more husbands, wives, dads, moms, 
sons, and daughters. The loss of these heroes will not just be felt 
this Memorial Day. They will be missed at the dinner table, at birthday 
celebrations, at holidays, and beyond. This is a reality many military 
families must cope with.
  Let us take a moment to stand beside every military family for the 
tremendous weight they often carry for their service to this great 
Nation.
  And to the families and friends of Staff Sergeant Ammerman and 
Corporal Spears, we all send our continued thoughts and prayers. 
Hoosiers will never forget your loved one's sacrifice to this country.
  Memorial Day provides us an additional opportunity to reflect on the 
bravery of the few who ensure the freedom, the safety, and the way of 
life for all of us. We will always be grateful to America's heroes, the 
service men and women in the Armed Forces, and their loved ones.
  As a Senator for Indiana and on behalf of all Hoosiers, let us thank 
all the men and women in uniform for standing the watch and honor the 
memory of all who are no longer with us for their bravery, their 
courage, and their patriotism.
  God bless Indiana and God bless America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to ask unanimous consent to speak 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to talk about the trade debate we 
are having in the Senate. I know we have heard a lot of debate on both 
sides.
  I wish first to talk about some of the background before I get to 
what is in front of us in terms of the process in voting, amendments, 
and things like that.
  I represent the State of Pennsylvania, which, like many States, 
suffered through the devastation of not just the 1980s--when it comes 
to job loss in, for example, the steel industry, we know that, for 
example, in a very short timeframe, about 5 years, for example, the 
steelworkers lost half of their jobs in southwestern Pennsylvania--in 
just those 5 years. They went from around 90,000 steelworkers down to 
below 45,000 in just 5 years. That is only one example of job loss that 
families in southwestern Pennsylvania have lived through, as well as 
other examples from around the State that we don't have time to recite 
today.
  So that is kind of the backdrop. And, thank goodness, the steel 
industry and the steelworkers came together and were able to recover 
somewhat--obviously, not fully, but they were able to recover over 
time. And in that time period--we are getting into the 1990s and then 
into the 2000s--we have had a lot of assertions made that if a trade 
agreement is brought into effect, we would have job growth and it would 
help those who had been displaced.
  But, unfortunately, what has happened over time is that folks in 
parts of Pennsylvania have seen some of the history. Just to give some 
examples--and this is a Department of Labor number--525,094 workers 
were certified as displaced from the period 1993 to 2002 in the 
aftermath of the so-called NAFTA, the North American Free Trade 
Agreement.
  Over a period of time between 1993 and 2010, the trade deficit with 
Mexico was up by some $66 billion, and that is as of 2010, over those 
17 or so years.
  That is the backdrop when we debate trade itself. Now, I know there 
have been assertions made that this agreement, the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership with 11 other countries, will be different and that there 
will be protections in there that weren't in earlier agreements.
  I have real concerns about those assertions, and I have doubts that 
they will play out in that manner because, in the end, this debate is 
about wages and jobs. It is really, kind of, in one sense, one major 
issue.
  Will this agreement and will the trade promotion authority that 
undergirds this agreement advance or hinder job growth and the growth 
of wages? I have real concerns about arguments that say it will, that 
it will advance job creation.
  One of the assertions often made, as well, is that job loss over 
time, over several decades--it has been more than one generation now in 
affected States such as Pennsylvania--job loss or wage

[[Page S3030]]

diminution is attributable to a number of factors. And there is no 
question about it; that is right.
  But even when you are able to--or I should say especially when you 
are able to isolate the issue of trade, there are some data that 
support that as well, that you can attribute job loss or wage 
diminution simply to trade and not to other overarching issues. For 
example, the Review of Economic Statistics in October 2014, in a 
significant and substantial report, analyzed a number of issues that 
relate to trade. Here is the seminal conclusion from that report: 
``Occupation switching due to trade led to real wage losses of 12 to 17 
percent.'' And occupation switching is, of course, job displacement.
  That covers the period from 1984 to 2002, so it covers a period prior 
to the North American Free Trade Agreement and, of course, about 8 
years or so after the agreement was in effect. So my concern over the 
long term is about wages and Pennsylvania jobs.
  We have a more recent example, and it isn't grounded in the arguments 
that relate for or against NAFTA, the North American Free Trade 
Agreement. Just since the South Korea trade agreement--a more recent 
trade agreement--has been in effect, the trade imbalance or deficit 
with South Korea has increased substantially. By one estimate, it is 
about 12 to 1--$12 billion of imports on our side to just $1 billion on 
their side. That is the kind of ratio we don't want. We want the ratio 
to be something in our favor, not 12 to 1 against it.
  So what do we do? We have an opportunity over the next couple of days 
to continue to debate trade promotion authority. In essence, this is 
the last chance for Congress to have a real impact--or any impact, 
really--on what happens in terms of the ultimate consideration of the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade agreement itself.
  Many of us have amendments, and I would make two arguments before I 
relinquish the floor. One is that we should have a reasonable number of 
amendments and have a debate about these issues. We have had some 
debate already but very few votes and very few amendments. I believe we 
should make sure that folks for trade promotion authority or against 
and folks for the Trans-Pacific Partnership or against should have a 
chance to vote.
  I will have a couple of amendments. I have filed them. I will just 
talk about two, and then I will conclude.
  No. 1 is a ``Buy American'' amendment. It would deny trade promotion 
authority privileges to free-trade agreements that weaken or undermine 
``Buy American'' provisions--very simple but I think very substantial 
in terms of the potential adverse impacts or positive protections it 
can provide.
  We should make sure that ``Buy American'' is maintained, that trade 
promotion authority doesn't undermine it, and we should not allow the 
trade agreement itself to undermine the ``Buy American'' provision. 
That is one of the least things we can do in the context of this 
debate.
  The second amendment I will highlight, among several, is 
congressional certification. This amendment would require certification 
by the two relevant committees--the Committee on Finance in the Senate 
and the House Ways and Means Committee--that negotiating objectives 
have been met, so that prior to a trade agreement going into effect and 
once there is a final review that those objectives the administration 
and every administration asserts are part of the trade agreement--that 
has a review and then a subsequent certification by the two relevant 
committees.
  I know there is a lot more to debate, but I would hope that on 
something as substantial and seismic in its impact on our economy and 
the economy of the world--40 percent of the world's GDP is contained in 
this agreement, TPP, and we know trade promotion authority is kind of 
the rule book in a sense for the Trans-Pacific Partnership--that debate 
we are having on trade promotion authority should allow States such as 
Pennsylvania or Ohio or any other State to have its voice heard, to 
allow the people of our States, especially folks who have concerns 
about these agreements, to have their voices heard. The only way their 
voices can be heard ultimately, in addition to their own advocacy and 
their own efforts to make statements to us, is here on the floor of the 
Senate, to have debates and then have votes on amendments, and we will 
see where we stand at the end of the week.
  To shut off debate and to stop at this moment in time, as some seem 
to want to do, is contrary to what the Senate should do on something as 
substantial as the trade promotion authority, which will affect the 
trade agreement impacting 40 percent of the world's GDP, and I don't 
think it is asking too much to have a few more hours or even a day or 
two more of votes on the floor of the Senate.
  Madam 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. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2048

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, free trade is of absolute importance in 
this country. We need free trade. I like free trade. I want trade to be 
as free as it possibly can be. It is not, however, as pressing as 
another matter that we should be considering now.
  Certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act will expire a week from 
Sunday at midnight. This is an important issue, and it is one that 
deserves debate and full consideration within the Senate.
  I want to point out that we have had months and months to plan for 
this deadline--years, in fact. During these last several months, we 
have worked with House Members, members of the law enforcement 
community, and members of the intelligence community to create a 
compromise bill that now enjoys the support of the Attorney General of 
the United States, of the Director of National Intelligence, the 
telecom industry, the NRA, the tech community privacy groups, and 338 
Members of the House of Representatives. This is a supermajority--a 
super-duper majority.
  We have had a week since the House passed this bill, and it is time 
that we take it up in earnest and give it the full attention and 
consideration of the Senate that it deserves. Then we can return to TPA 
and finish it without facing expiration of a key national security tool 
without anything to put in its place.
  This is a bill--the USA FREEDOM Act, as enacted by the House of 
Representatives--that represents an important compromise, represents a 
very careful and effective balancing between privacy and security 
interests, recognizing the fact that our privacy and our security are 
not in conflict. They are part of the same thing. We are secure in part 
because our privacy is respected. This bill respects both of those.
  We know that it is not easy to get to 218 votes for a lot of things 
on this issue in the House of Representative. In fact, we know it is 
impossible to get to 218 votes in the House of Representatives for a 
clean reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act provisions in question.
  We know that a lot of other things would be difficult to impossible 
to pass in the House. We know that one bill does enjoy a supermajority 
in the House of Representatives, and that is the USA FREEDOM Act. We 
should be taking that up now.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate set aside 
consideration of H.R. 1314, the TPA legislation, and move to the 
immediate consideration of H.R. 2048, the USA FREEDOM Act, that the 
motion to proceed be agreed to, and that the bill be open for 
amendments; further, that upon disposition of H.R. 2048, the Senate 
resume consideration of H.R. 1314.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PATRIOT Act is a critical tool for our national security. The 
junior Senator from Utah is correct that three provisions do expire at 
the end of this month: the so-called roving wiretap provision that will 
allow intelligence professionals and law enforcement officials to track 
terrorists no matter what device they might use, the so-called ``lone 
wolf'' provision that would allow our intelligence authorities to 
identify and stop terrorists who

[[Page S3031]]

are not necessarily clearly linked to an overseas terrorist 
organization, and, finally, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which has 
enabled our intelligence professionals at the National Security Agency 
to help keep our country safe in the so-called telephony metadata 
program, which was unlawfully disclosed by Edward Snowden 2 years ago, 
which is why we are able to discuss such a highly classified program.
  The junior Senator from Utah and I disagree about the program and the 
legislation. There will be a time for that debate because it is the 
most important issue we could debating in the United States, our 
national security and the tools we need to keep our country safe.
  For the time being, we are on the trade promotion authority bill. 
That was a decision made last week. This is maybe not the decision that 
the junior Senator from Utah would have made, and it is not the 
decision I would have made, but that is where we are. Perhaps we could 
have been done with the TPA bill if the other side of the aisle had 
allowed amendments to be processed last week and if there had not been 
a needless filibuster of the motion to proceed to the bill, but that is 
water under the bridge. We should move forward in an orderly fashion 
and process the amendments that are pending on the trade promotion 
authority bill. We should have a final vote on that bill and then we 
should move on to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill. There will be 
time for robust debate in public, which is exactly what so many of our 
Members have been doing in private, given the classified nature of 
these programs. If we have to work beyond Thursday, I am more than 
happy to do that. I will even work on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and 
into next week, if that is what is necessary to first process the trade 
bill and then finally to reauthorize the important provisions of the 
PATRIOT Act.
  Madam President, I object to the unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I also--no matter how we vote on trade--
understand the importance of it.
  I wish to compliment the Senator from Utah for his statements. The 
fact is, a great deal of work has gone into the USA FREEDOM Act of 
2015. The Senator from Utah's bill and my bill is the same version as 
the one passed by the House. I hope people will not lose sight of the 
fact that the House of Representatives really did what the American 
public wants, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority they passed the 
USA FREEDOM Act. Some had been saying that the other body could not 
have gotten that kind of a vote, until say, the Sun rises in the East. 
But the House came together from across the political spectrum in both 
parties to pass the bill. I think we ought to respect that.
  We also--as the Senator from Utah and others have said--have a 
unanimous decision from a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit, 
which declared the current program illegal. We can pass the bill, the 
USA FREEDOM Act, which passed in the House. It means that both sides 
have given a lot to get there. We ought to pass it in this body at some 
point--maybe when the trade legislation and the highway bill are 
completed, we should just take the USA FREEDOM Act up and pass it. If 
there are questions once it has gone into effect, we can always come 
back and make other changes to the law, but we ought to pass this 
legislation and at least give some stability to our intelligence 
community. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney 
General have said they support it, and we ought to accept it and go 
forward. The USA FREEDOM Act takes care of the questions of the courts 
and we should pass it.
  I concur with the Senator from Utah, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask the Chair what business is pending 
before the Senate.


                           Amendment No. 1327

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. H.R. 1314 is currently the pending bill, and 
amendment No. 1327 is pending.
  Mr. DURBIN. Relating to the trade promotion authority bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I wish to speak on that issue.
  Madam President, we cannot ignore that more than 95 percent of the 
potential customers for goods and services and agricultural produce 
live outside the United States of America. This means that to grow our 
economy and to maintain our influence in the world, we clearly have to 
embrace trade; however, this doesn't mean we would embrace every 
proposed trade agreement.
  I have voted for about half of the trade agreements that have come 
before me in the House and Senate during my congressional service. I 
think some of those were good, on reflection, and some of them were 
not. There have been proposals made for free trade which I thought 
speak to the basic issue: Is America competitive in the 21st century? 
Can we outproduce other countries in the world? I never had any doubt 
about that, except for some given circumstances where another country 
has a specialty or some particular skill. I trust the United States. I 
trust our economy, our workers, and our business leaders.
  When it comes to a trade agreement, I think we have to answer some 
hard questions about the specific trade agreement, not the principle of 
trade. Here is something most people do not know. They have proposed 
this trade promotion authority so we can vote on the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership. This is a document that has been negotiated over many 
months and is available for Members of Congress to see in a secluded 
setting. We cannot bring in as many staff as we would like, we cannot 
take the document out of the room, but it is accessible to us. Here is 
the point that is not often made: We have been told by the 
administration that this is not the final draft of the trade agreement. 
We have been told that after we pass the trade promotion authority 
bill, if we do, then there will be some more amendments and changes. So 
what we would view today is not necessarily what will be voted on at 
some later date. It is incomplete. It is a work in progress.
  There are some things we should know and should reflect on. First, I 
will look at it from a very personal perspective. I am honored to 
represent the State of Illinois. It is one of the largest exporting 
States in the Midwest, and it is the fifth largest exporting State in 
our Nation. Illinois exports totaled over $65 billion in 2013 and about 
10 percent of my State's gross State product.
  Since 2009, Illinois exports increased by 58 percent, more than the 
national average of 50 percent. Fifty-six percent of exported Illinois 
goods in 2014--about $38 billion worth of exports--went to countries 
currently negotiating this Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement with the 
United States. Is this important to my State? Is this part of the world 
important to my State? Of course it is. However, Illinois' success in 
exporting its products depends on good trade agreements that level the 
playing field, not just for Illinois companies but for American 
companies. This means we need to have strong antidumping rules that 
prevent companies overseas from dumping cheap, for example, steel 
products and other goods to undercut domestic prices and put our 
companies out of business. Did that happen? It sure did.
  A little over 10 years ago, three countries that we trade with--
Brazil, Japan, and Russia--had an idea. They figured out a way to drive 
American steel companies out of business. How did they do it? Were they 
better or more competitive? No. They dumped their steel. What does it 
mean to dump a product? It means to sell it in another country at lower 
than the cost of production in your own country. They took a loss on 
every ton of steel until they ran that American steel company out of 
business.
  We saw it coming. We saw this dumping taking place. We had trade 
agreements, and we took them to the enforcement authorities. We said: 
They are killing us. They are killing these steel companies in America 
and the people who work there and that is not fair and it violates the 
trade agreement. The organizations responsible for policing these trade 
agreements said: We are going to put that on the docket and we will get 
to that in just a few months.
  Well, a few months turned into a few years. We won the case. They had

[[Page S3032]]

dumped steel in the United States, but the net result of it was not 
what we were looking for. The American steel companies went out of 
business. They could not compete against this dumped steel coming in 
from foreign countries.
  When it comes to these agreements, we need to ask some basic 
questions. Is it enforceable on a timely basis? Can we stop unfair 
trade practices before they kill American jobs? That is pretty basic.
  This steel issue continues to haunt us. Steel dumping is one of the 
reasons that the U.S. Steel plant in Granite City, IL, an area I grew 
up in, will stop production at the end of the month and put 2,080 
Illinois jobs in jeopardy.
  Fair trade agreements should include enforcement and they should also 
include enforceable currency manipulation provisions. When a country 
devalues its currency, the U.S.-made products, in comparison, become 
more expensive, and that adds to our trade deficit. It makes it 
difficult for U.S. companies to compete. There are a lot of ways to 
work on these trade agreements to the advantage of the exporting 
country if you break the rules.
  Trade agreements should allow the United States to enact and 
implement consumer protection laws meant to protect the public. We 
don't want to go to the lowest common denominator when it comes to the 
basics, such as protecting consumers, protecting the environment, and 
protecting the workers. So whether it is food safety, environmental, 
public health, consumer financial protection, an investor's future 
products should not take priority over a country's right to protect its 
own people.
  There is something known as the investor-state dispute settlement. It 
is a procedure which I want to describe to you because I think it gets 
to the heart of this trade agreement we are being asked to vote on. 
Investor-state dispute settlement procedures--often included in trade 
agreements and is included in several trade agreements that the United 
States is party to--prioritize corporate investors above almost 
everything.
  What is it? This is how it works: It allows a corporation to 
challenge a law in an international court if the law, in the eyes of 
that corporation, violates a trade agreement and infringes on the 
investment made by a business. That sounds kind of theoretical. I will 
be specific.
  We want U.S. businesses to have protections when they operate in 
other countries, so it appears to make sense, but corporations have 
gone too far. Corporations are using this dispute settlement to 
challenge legitimate laws in countries that protect the public, such as 
public health laws, environmental rules, land use, and food safety 
policies. More than 500 of these cases have been brought by 
corporations challenging the laws in various countries, including U.S. 
laws.
  A U.S. chemical company launched a case against Canada, as a nation, 
when Canada banned a toxic gasoline additive used to improve engine 
performance--an additive already banned in the United States. An oil 
company sued Ecuador after a domestic court there ruled that the 
company owed $9.5 billion to clean up and provide health care to the 
workers in Ecuador after the oil company had dumped billions of gallons 
of toxic water in open-air oil sludge pits in Ecuador's Amazon.
  Do you get the picture? Your country passes a law to protect the 
people living in your country, and then a corporation that has trade 
business with your company sues the country where the law was passed 
and says that new law is going to cost them money.
  Those are two examples. A toxic additive to gasoline--a corporation 
sues Canada and says you cannot ban that; that will cost us profits. 
Efforts by Ecuador to avoid toxic dumping in their own country are 
being sued by an oil company that says, if you do that, it will cost us 
money. They did not go through the court system. They went through this 
investor settlement dispute.
  There are so many examples of corporations using investor settlement 
dispute to undermine, rollback or delay laws meant to protect the 
public. One of the most egregious examples is Philip Morris. I kind of 
take this personally. As long as I have been around Congress, in the 
House and Senate, I have had a battle with tobacco companies. It 
happens to be the only product which when used according to 
manufacturers' directions will kill you and can still be sold legally. 
So I don't happen to think tobacco companies are in the best interest 
of public health for America or any other country.
  About 26 years ago, I passed a law banning smoking on airplanes. It 
was the first time tobacco companies ever lost. I passed it in the 
House, and my good friend the late Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey 
passed it over here. It is the law of the land. For over 25 years, 
nobody smokes on an airplane. Tobacco companies fought us every single 
step of the way.
  Philip Morris, one of the largest tobacco producers in the world, is 
aggressively challenging domestic tobacco laws around the world using 
the same investor-state dispute settlement that is going to be included 
in this agreement.
  In Australia, as an example, after the highest court ruled against 
Philip Morris and upheld an Australian law requiring warning labels to 
cover a large majority of cigarette packaging, Philip Morris did not 
give up. Instead, Philip Morris sued Australia in an international 
tribunal under investor-state dispute settlement provisions in the 
Australia-Hong Kong Bilateral Investment Treaty. If Philip Morris wins, 
Australia could be forced to pay Philip Morris for expected future 
losses because of a warning label on tobacco products. It could be 
billions of dollars.

  Proponents of this settlement dispute that is baked into this 
agreement we are going to be asked to vote on rightly claim these 
procedures can't require countries to change their laws. In other 
words, Philip Morris can sue Australia and say: Your new law is going 
to cost us money. Keep it if you wish, but we lost profits because of 
this new law, and you have to pay us for our lost profits.
  They can force countries like Australia to choose between changing 
the law or using their own taxpayer dollars to pay billions of dollars 
to a company like Philip Morris for their expected future losses. Think 
about that for a second. Philip Morris is selling a product that kills 
if it is used as intended. Some 6.3 million people each year across the 
world die because of tobacco-related disease. Australia's health care 
system loses millions of dollars in tobacco-related illnesses for 
people in their own country, as well as lost productivity at their 
workplaces. Yet, when Australia enacts a public health law requiring 
labels on tobacco products, Philip Morris can sue Australia? Yes, that 
is right. Tobacco products produced by Philip Morris are literally 
killing Australian citizens, and Philip Morris is suing Australia 
because the warning labels may cost them future profits.
  The same thing is happening in Uruguay. Philip Morris again lost its 
case against Uruguay challenging its tobacco control laws which helped 
reduce tobacco use in that country by 4.3 percent. Now Philip Morris 
says: If we can't win in the courts, we are going to win through the 
trade agreement. We are going to win through the trade treaty, the 
dispute settlement in the trade treaty.
  Sometimes even just the threat of a trade dispute challenging a law 
is enough to block, delay, or prevent enactment of a public health law 
because a country doesn't have the resources to engage in an expensive 
and lengthy lawsuit. This was the case in New Zealand and Nambia.
  Corporations are using investor-state dispute settlements to 
undermine legitimate public laws, from financial protection, to public 
health, to environment and food safety. What are we thinking? If we 
would allow corporations under a new trade agreement to come in and 
attack public health laws in America, to come in and attack 
environmental protection in America--because they can argue: If I can't 
pollute in that river, it is going to cost my company a lot of money; 
therefore, you have to pay us if you want to keep that pollution law on 
the books.
  That is why I am supporting Senator Elizabeth Warren's amendment that 
removes fast-track authority for any trade agreement that includes 
these investor-state dispute settlements. State-to-state dispute 
settlements would still be available if the corporation's rights have 
been violated or if a country passes a law that violates a trade 
agreement. But there is no need to go the extra step and give priority

[[Page S3033]]

to the rights of corporations over the rights of people when it comes 
to laws that protect health, food, clean water, and clean air.
  As the Senate continues to debate on giving fast-track authority to 
these trade agreements currently being negotiated, we still don't know 
what is in the agreements--not entirely. Providing fast-track authority 
for these agreements would prevent this Senate from offering amendments 
that would provide only one up-or-down vote after the agreement is 
finalized.
  I support fair trade. I support trade. I hope the final agreements 
will meet the standards we have spoken of. But I cannot support 
granting fast-track authority to agreements where we don't know their 
contents and we could give away the most basic responsibility we have 
as Senators in the United States--to protect the people of America.
  Madam 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Export-Import Bank

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the vitally important Export-Import Bank 
expires at the end of June. It will be gone. If this program expires--
it is not like anything else--we will have to start all over again. We 
will have to have hearings. We will have to have markups in both 
Houses. If we can extend the authorization of this, it will solve so 
many problems for us.
  The Export-Import Bank creates jobs in our country--in the United 
States--by providing loans and loan guarantees so customers in foreign 
countries can buy our exports. An example is airplanes. I have spoken 
to Mr. McNerney, the head of Boeing, and one of the vital parts of 
their business is being able to have other countries have businesses 
within those countries come and want to buy their airplanes or 
countries that want to buy their airplanes. They have difficulty doing 
that without the ability of the Export-Import Bank to help raise the 
financing.
  I greatly appreciate Senator Cantwell now bringing the attention of 
this body to this important program that is going to expire soon. I 
appreciate Senator Heitkamp for working on legislation dealing with 
this important issue.
  The Export-Import Bank just this year sustained 165,000 jobs. It will 
be a lot more if there is a long-term extension of this bill. So one 
might think, of course, that a program such as this which supports 
165,000 jobs in just 1 year would cost taxpayers an arm and a leg, a 
fortune, but in this case, they would be wrong. It is just the 
opposite. We make money on the Export-Import Bank. Over the last 10 
years, the Bank has returned more than $7 billion to the U.S. Treasury. 
That is $7 billion the U.S. taxpayer does not have to pay because the 
program is so important and so successful.
  A program as effective as the Export-Import Bank should have no 
problem getting reauthorized, but it has had a lot of trouble. As 
recently as 2006, the Bank's charter was extended by unanimous consent. 
It didn't even have a vote. But today the Export-Import Bank is in 
serious danger of being terminated, ended. The Senate banking committee 
has made no effort to bring up the Bank's reauthorization, and the 
majority leader doesn't have a path forward. The best, he said, is we 
will give you a vote on it. Giving a vote on it is meaningless.
  So what has changed since just a few years ago when we extended this 
by unanimous consent? Why has this immensely successful program over 
the last few years been on the chopping block? I will tell my 
colleagues why. It is because the Koch brothers have decided that it 
needs to go. They want to get rid of it. It is part of their attack on 
government programs, and this is a government program. They don't care 
if a bank creates jobs or makes money; they simply want to get rid of 
it.
  That is not the worst of it. Every other developed country supports 
their exports. China and Europe support their exports, and so do Brazil 
and India. They all do. But the Koch brothers don't care. They want the 
United States to be unilaterally disarmed. They are telling their 
Republican friends in Congress that the United States should just get 
rid of this program. They don't care that this will put U.S. companies 
at a competitive disadvantage, and that is an understatement. They 
don't care that this will cost U.S. jobs, and that is an 
understatement. They don't even care that this will put a larger burden 
on taxpayers to have to make up the lost revenue. All the Koch brothers 
care about is maintaining their warped, illogical view of taking down a 
government program and making more money for their massive business 
interests.
  I encourage my colleagues to reject this misguided view. Let's stop 
shooting ourselves in the foot. Let's pass a long-term extension of the 
Export-Import Bank. On this bill, the trade bill--if it became part of 
the trade bill, it would be signed into law. The President loves the 
Export-Import Bank. He said so publicly. We have been trying to get 
this done, but now the Republicans have said no thanks because their 
guiding light, the Koch brothers, don't like it because it is a 
government program.
  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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1327

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the future of 
America's trade policy, we have seen an onslaught of misleading claims 
and shocking tales of horror that have little or no connection to 
reality. Many of these ghost stories we have heard evolve around 
relatively obscure legal provisions relating to investor-state dispute 
settlement, or ISDS. Senator Warren has called up an amendment that 
would give voice to those stories by stripping TPA protections from any 
trade agreement that includes ISDS provisions.
  I call ISDS provisions obscure not because no one knows about them or 
they are unimportant but because in the real world where people 
actually live, they are not part of our day-to-day lives. It is only in 
the overly hyperbolic and borderline fictional world of political 
debate that ISDS provisions impact the lives of everyday people.
  Simply defined, ISDS permits companies to challenge unfair or 
discriminatory treatment by foreign governments in binding arbitration 
rather than in ordinary courts. The purpose is to encourage the free 
flow of capital by protecting investors from uncompensated 
expropriation and other abuses that may not be adequately rectified in 
regular domestic courts that in many cases tend to disfavor foreign 
companies. That is it. That is all it is. This has nothing to do with 
secret tribunals that undermine U.S. sovereignty or provisions giving 
corporations the power to rewrite U.S. laws and regulations.
  We are hearing a lot of these stories about ISDS these days because 
the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which is currently under 
negotiation, includes such a provision. Of course, it would be a shock 
if it didn't. ISDS is a standard element of all U.S. trade agreements 
and international agreements in general. All told, there are 3,000 
trade and investment agreements that include ISDS around the world. The 
United States has these types of agreements with 50 countries. They 
have been around for more than three decades.
  Contrary to some of the claims made by opponents of free-trade 
agreements, ISDS is not a weapon foreign entities use against the 
United States. In fact, the United States demands the inclusion of 
these types of provisions in our trade agreements in order to protect 
American businesses from discrimination from foreign governments. You 
see, here in the United States, foreign companies and investors are 
assured fair and equal treatment under our laws and in our court 
system. While the same is true with regard to many of our trading 
partners, it is by no means guaranteed. ISDS is one mechanism we have 
to ensure a fair process

[[Page S3034]]

for our job creators who do business overseas. It is not widely used, 
but it provides an important backstop.
  Of course, those who use ISDS as a bludgeon against free-trade 
agreements tend to use arguments that are short on actual, verifiable 
facts. For example, we hear claims that ISDS allows corporations to 
overturn laws and regulations both here in the United States and 
abroad. The truth is that ISDS arbitrators have no power to overturn 
laws and regulations. The only recourse for a party that wins an ISDS 
arbitration happens to be financial compensation.
  Others have claimed that ISDS can be used to undermine our health 
care or welfare system or to undo our environmental protections. Once 
again, the facts tell a far different story. Most ISDS cases involve 
very narrow issues affecting individual investors, such as contract 
disputes, licensing, and permitting. There has never been a successful 
claim in ISDS that a nondiscriminatory public health, welfare, or 
environmental rule or legislation violated fairness or 
antidiscrimination requirements.
  We have also heard people say that ISDS provisions put U.S. taxpayers 
on the line for losses. In truth, the U.S. Government has never lost an 
ISDS case. In fact, only 17 cases have been brought against the United 
States in the entire history of ISDS. By contrast, 15,000 cases get 
filed against the U.S. Government in claims court every year. In short, 
ISDS poses no threats to the American taxpayer.
  In the end, virtually all of the tall tales we hear about ISDS come 
in the form of ridiculous hypotheticals that have very little basis in 
reality. But the facts are what they are. While it is only used 
sparingly, ISDS remains an important tool to protect U.S. investors and 
businesses. It is a fixture in international agreements, and if our 
negotiators did not demand its inclusion in our trade agreements, they 
would be doing our country a disservice.
  In March, the Washington Post editorial board--not really known for 
having an unabashedly probusiness bias--published an editorial 
outlining the shortcomings of the anti-ISDS crusade.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the editorial printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Once again, I am all for a fair and open debate on trade policy. I am 
glad we are on the floor having this discussion. I hope we can stick to 
the facts and not spend our time debating unsubstantiated scare 
tactics.
  I urge my colleagues to let common sense prevail and to vote against 
the Warren ISDS amendment.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, March 11, 2015]

                   Don't Buy the Trade Deal Alarmism

                          (By Editorial Board)

       President Obama's proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade 
     agreement is in trouble on Capitol Hill. Senate Finance 
     Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) says a bill to enable 
     expedited consideration of the pact will be delayed until 
     April because of opposition from liberal Democrats and a few 
     tea party Republicans. The latest rallying cry for TPP foes 
     is that it would allegedly threaten environmental and labor 
     regulations, as well as U.S. sovereignty, for the benefit, as 
     Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) noted recently, of ``the 
     biggest multinational corporations in the world.''
       The supposed menace is the TPP's Investor-State Dispute 
     Settlement mechanism, similar to language in more than 3,000 
     agreements among 180 countries, including 50 agreements to 
     which the United States is a party. It would permit companies 
     to challenge unfair or discriminatory treatment by TPP 
     governments in binding arbitration rather than an ordinary 
     court. The useful purpose of the settlement provision is to 
     encourage the free flow of capital by protecting foreign 
     investors from uncompensated expropriation and other abuses 
     in countries where they are, as outsiders, disfavored in 
     court--or in countries that may lack well-developed court 
     systems at all.
       Contrary to predictions that these processes are stacked in 
     favor of multinationals, the United Nations reports that 
     governments won 37 percent of cases and business only 25 
     percent; 28 percent were settled before the arbitrators 
     ruled. In the history of ISDS, 356 cases have been litigated 
     all the way to conclusion. Only 17 complaints were lodged 
     against the United States. The number of such cases has 
     increased in recent years but mainly because foreign 
     investment itself has increased.
       Critics trumpet ISDS horror stories, but upon closer 
     inspection they generally turn out not to be so horrible. 
     Take the oft-made accusation, repeated by Ms. Warren and 
     others, that a French firm used the provision to sue Egypt 
     ``because Egypt raised its minimum wage.'' Actually, Veolia 
     of France, a waste management company, invoked ISDS to 
     enforce a contract with the government of Alexandria, Egypt, 
     that it says required compensation if costs increased; the 
     company maintains that the wage increases triggered this 
     provision. Incidentally, Veolia was working with Alexandria 
     on a World Bank-supported project to reduce greenhouse gases, 
     not some corporate plot to exploit the people. The case--
     which would result, at most, in a monetary award to Veolia, 
     not the overthrow of the minimum wage--remains in litigation.
       Obama administration negotiators have sought to minimize 
     the misuse of this settlement provision under the TPP by 
     recognizing each country's ``inherent right'' to regulate for 
     health, safety and quality-of-life objectives. The vast 
     majority of TPP countries are legally well-developed (Canada, 
     Australia, New Zealand) or already free-trade partners with 
     the United States (Mexico, Peru, Chile). So the TPP changes 
     the status quo hardly at all.
       It seems that the opponents' real beef is with the 
     administration's view that the United States and its trading 
     partners should encourage private investment in one another's 
     economies. On balance, though, free-flowing capital creates 
     more jobs and wealth than it destroys. The TPP would not only 
     increase economic activity but also enhance geopolitical ties 
     between the United States and its East Asian allies, 
     especially Japan. No amount of alarmism should distract 
     Congress from these benefits.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the thousands 
of men, women, and children around the world who are the victims of 
human trafficking. I rise in their defense, on their behalf, and in the 
interests of responsible trade policy that recognizes that there can be 
no reward to nations that ignore the problem and do nothing to end the 
scourge of what amounts to modern-day slavery--one of the greatest 
moral challenges of our time.
  After negotiations with the White House, the USTR, and my colleagues 
on the Finance Committee, Senator Wyden and I at the appropriate time 
will be offering an amendment to the trade bill to make sure that any 
tier 3-rated nation--those are the nations that have the worst record 
in our ``Trafficking in Persons Report''--that any tier 3-rated nation 
hoping to benefit from the Trans-Pacific Partnership will have to 
address the problem of human trafficking in their country. They will 
have to make concrete efforts to meet the standards stipulated in the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Act or they will not have the benefit of 
privileged fast-track access to our markets, period.
  This modification to my original amendment allows for a narrow 
exception, not just a waiver, as we do with most of the restrictions on 
the executive branch. This exception may apply only to a country that 
has been certified by the State Department as having taken ``concrete 
actions . . . to implement the principal recommendations'' of the 
``Trafficking in Persons Report.'' It will have to be made public so 
that all will be able to judge that the implementation of those 
concrete actions toward those recommendations has taken place. That has 
real meaning. Those recommendations are the roadmap we lay out for 
countries to move from tier 3.
  This is a historic change in the nature of trade agreements now and 
in the future. For the first time, we will have on the Senate floor 
trade promotion authority that says we cannot provide fast-track for a 
trade deal with countries that have done nothing to stem the tide of 
human trafficking. For the first time, we have an amendment in a major 
bill that would impose real consequences and real repercussions for 
turning a blind eye to recruiting, harboring, transporting, providing, 
or obtaining a person for compelled labor or commercial sexual acts 
with the use of force, fraud, or coercion. For the first time, we have 
given teeth to the State Department's TIP report and will hold nations 
accountable for their inaction. While the report has provided us with 
important information, it has relied on moral authority but has had no 
real-world impact on real-world suffering.
  Should this bill pass and be signed into law, at least we will not 
reward

[[Page S3035]]

nations with the worst record on reining in human traffickers with the 
benefits of a fast-track to American markets.
  My mother was a seamstress in northern New Jersey. No one worked 
harder. She came home tired, but she came home to her family and was 
proud of her work. She wasn't held hostage by her employers, forced to 
hand over her salary, her passport, or worse.
  Thanks to the hard work of the community of advocates against 
trafficking and the commitment of my colleagues on the committee, the 
``no fast-track for human traffickers'' amendment is in the legislation 
we are debating presently on the floor. I understand there are those 
who would prefer to see this amendment just disappear, but, just like 
those it protects who are suffering around the world, it will be alive 
in every trade agreement now and into the future. This amendment says 
that we will not be silenced. We will not be bowed because some want 
free trade at any cost--at any human cost--even if it means letting in 
those nations that our own State Department has determined to be 
negligent at best in dealing with the scourge of human trafficking in 
their countries.
  This amendment speaks volumes about how we approach trade, how we 
approach the concept of fast-track policy. We, Congress, set the terms 
that shape fast-track negotiations, not the other way around. Before 
any country gains access to U.S. markets, they must show they have 
taken concrete steps to eliminate human trafficking or there will be no 
fast-track--not for tier 3 nations at the bottom of the State 
Department's list.
  Benjamin Franklin said, ``Justice will not be served until those who 
are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.'' Well, let's be 
outraged and make sure this amendment remains a key element of American 
trade policy.
  I thank Senator Wyden, the ranking member, for helping to develop 
compromise language that has preserved the full intent of the 
amendment, and I thank all the human rights and trafficking groups that 
have come forward, worked hard, and helped draw attention to this 
problem and provided a new public mechanism to hold this administration 
or any other administration accountable for their efforts to end human 
trafficking around the world and not reward the very worst human 
traffickers with access to our markets.
  This is a victory for those fighting the scourge of human 
trafficking. Fast-track is no longer a given, no matter how bad a 
nation's record is on how it deals with those who would traffic in 
human beings for profit. This amendment is for all those who have been 
subjected to sexual exploitation, forced labor, forced marriage, debt 
bondage, and the sale and exploitation of children around the world.
  It is for the world's 50 million refugees and displaced people, the 
largest number since World War II, many of whom are targets of 
traffickers. It is for the 36 million women and 5 million children 
around the world subjected to involuntary labor and sexual 
exploitation. For the victims of these crimes, the term ``modern 
slavery'' more starkly describes what is happening around the world 
and, sadly, what is happening in our own backyard--too often in the 
nail salons in our Nation.
  I will continue to fight against human trafficking in all of its 
forms. All of us remain vigilant, constantly aware that the cost of 
human trafficking is not just far away across the ocean in a distant 
country. It is a moral crisis of international proportions that has 
reached our own shores, right here in our own backyard.
  So again let me thank Senator Wyden for his efforts and the 16 
colleagues of the Senate Finance Committee--Democrats and Republicans 
alike--who voted for my amendment in the committee. Most importantly, 
let me thank all of the human rights groups who have worked closely 
with me to ensure that we do not reward nations with the worst record 
on addressing human trafficking with fast-track access to our markets.
  Let all of those who are suffering around the world at the hands of 
human traffickers be the face of any future trade agreements. I have a 
list of groups that have worked every day to eradicate human slavery 
and that have supported my work on this important effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (CAST), 
     Coalition of Immokalee Workers CIW), ECPAT-USA, Free the 
     Slaves, Futures Without Violence (FUTURES), International 
     Justice Mission, National Domestic Workers Alliance (NDWA), 
     National Network for Youth (NN4Y), Polaris, Safe Horizon, 
     Solidarity Center, Verite, Vital Voices Global Partnership, 
     World Vision.
       American Jewish World Service, Bakhita Initiative, 
     Bernardine Franciscan Sisters, Catholics in Alliance for the 
     Common Good, Church of the Brethren, Office of Public 
     Witness, Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach, Daughters 
     of Charity, USA, Franciscan Action Network, Friends Committee 
     on National Legislation, Maryknoll Office for Global 
     Concerns, Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Leadership 
     Conference of Women Religious, NETWORK, A National Catholic 
     Social Justice Lobby, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Religious 
     Sisters of Charity, Scalabrini International Migration 
     Network, School Sisters of Notre Dame, U.S. Shalom Offices, 
     Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Western Province Leadership, 
     Sisters of Mercy of the Americas--Institute Leadership Team, 
     Sisters of the Holy Cross, Trinity Health, Tri-State 
     Coalition for Responsible Investment, United Church of 
     Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I appreciate greatly the kind remarks of my 
colleague from New Jersey about my role in all of this. I do not want 
to make this a bouquet-tossing contest, but I do want the Senate to 
know and I want the country to know how important it has been that 
Senator Menendez has led this charge.
  As my colleague noted, human rights advocates, those who have been in 
the trenches in the fight against trafficking, have come together to 
work with us. Senator Menendez, since our debate in the committee, has 
led this fight. At that time, colleagues, the committee approved an 
important amendment to ensure that trade agreements with countries that 
drop the ball on trafficking get no special privileges here in the 
Congress.
  The reason that my colleague has put all of this time and energy and 
passion into it is that he understands--everyone here, Democrats and 
Republicans--that human trafficking is a plague that must be fought at 
every opportunity. So what Senator Menendez and I have done over the 
last few weeks is to work together to try to find a practical way to 
further improve the language in this original amendment.
  What these alterations--really improvements--are going to do is to 
create a new process by which the President will report to the Congress 
on the concrete, specific steps other countries are taking to crack 
down on trafficking. I think--and we just got their statement--the 
Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking, one of the leading groups that 
has been fighting this scourge the hardest, has just summed up--I just 
got this a few minutes ago--what the Menendez effort is all about. A 
test, the organization has called it, and I quote here, and describes 
it as a ``positive step forward'' in the fight to combat human 
trafficking.
  When we take their statement with the fact that Senator Menendez has 
brought the State Department on board, I think with what we are 
showing--and this has been a major theme, frankly, of what I have 
sought to do over these many months, negotiating with Chairman Hatch 
and colleagues, is to try to make sure that we come up with policies 
that demonstrate that there is a new era of trade policy afoot, a new 
era when trade is done right.
  Because of the good work of my colleague from New Jersey, the 
amendment that we will be offering here, under my colleague's 
leadership, is a demonstration that we can do trade right, that we can 
do everything possible to eradicate this plague that so many around the 
world have mobilized to address. I congratulate my colleague for his 
efforts. Colleagues should note that this would not have happened had 
it not been for Senator Menendez.
  This was a matter that certainly colleagues felt very strongly about. 
People said: Oh, the whole debate is over. It cannot be resolved. 
Senator Menendez said: There is a way to bring people together. I 
congratulate my colleague

[[Page S3036]]

for putting this together. I look forward to voting on it later 
tonight, I hope.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak a 
little bit today about the trade legislation that is before this body 
this afternoon. As we have talked about over the last week, as I have 
come to the floor, I do think we ought to be expanding exports in this 
country because it is good for jobs.
  I think trade-opening agreements can be very good for the workers and 
farmers, people that provide services who I represent in the State of 
Ohio. We need those jobs. 60 percent of our soybean crop is exported in 
Ohio, our biggest agricultural product. One of every three acres is 
planted for export now. For our farmers, those overseas markets are 
really important. Of course we want to expand them.
  For our industrial workers, about 25 percent of our factory jobs in 
Ohio are now trade jobs, export jobs. We want to expand them. For 7 
years we have not had the ability to open up new markets, by knocking 
down barriers overseas. So that is a good thing. We should all be for 
that. Everyone should be for that. But the question is, as we knock 
down barriers overseas, are the other countries playing by the rules? 
If not, then it is not fair to our workers, our farmers, our service 
providers.
  In Ohio, a lot of companies have become more productive. They have 
worked on productivity, and they have worked on efficiency. Workers 
have given concessions, including some of our major labor unions: the 
UAW, steel workers, and others, in an effort to join the global economy 
in a competitive way. What they are saying to me is this: You know, 
Rob, I would like to be able to be in this global marketplace and 
compete. But I want to be sure it is fair. If it is, I can do fine. I 
am confident. I am confident of them. So part of the discussion on the 
floor today is not just about expanding exports, as important as that 
is. But it is this: How do you have a more level playing field so that 
our workers are getting a fair shake, so that our farmers know, when 
they are competing in global markets around the world, that there is 
this more level playing field, so we have the ability to tell them--to 
look them straight in the eye and say: You know what; this is going to 
be good for you.
  I will mention a couple of issues. Today, I saw Senator Brown on the 
floor. This has to do with an amendment that we would like to offer in 
the trade promotion authority bill, which actually was part of the 
Customs bill which was voted on in committee and voted on here on the 
floor.
  The idea is that instead of having it in the Customs bill, where it 
may or may not be successful, to have it in the trade promotion 
authority bill, where it is much more likely to go to the President, to 
his desk for signature. I will say that this amendment is language that 
Senator Orrin Hatch, who is here on the floor with us today, the 
administration and others, supported putting into the Customs bill 
because they thought it was good policy.
  Senator Hatch is very discriminating. He knows what is good trade 
policy in terms of being sure that we have this more level playing 
field for our workers in this area of subsidized imports and dumped 
imports into this country. So what we did was that we got this language 
into the Customs bill, and now we want to be sure it is part of the 
trade promotion authority bill.
  Why is this so important?
  Well, part of this level playing field is to ensure that when 
products are being sold into the United States of America, they aren't 
being sold at below their cost. If they are sold at below their cost, 
it is called dumping. It is an international standard. We have laws 
against it, but so do the other countries.
  The World Trade Organization has enforcement measures against that. 
You are not supposed to dump product into another country in order to 
gain market share. It is kind of like a loss leader. What happens is, 
of course, our domestic companies can't compete with that because other 
countries are allowing their companies to sell at below cost. So when 
there is dumping, we want to be able to have a remedy for our workers 
and our companies.
  The second one is called countervailing duties for subsidized 
product. That is when another country actually subsidizes their exports 
in order to get market share. That is not fair either.
  Let's take the example of somebody who works in the steel industry in 
Ohio. They are trying to compete to sell steel to, say, the auto plant. 
Another country comes into the United States and sells their product 
that is subsidized that is well below the cost of our manufacturer. 
That is unfair. So you are able to put in place countervailing duties 
against that product.
  All we are saying is that we would like to clarify the law so it is 
easier for a company, easier for those U.S. workers, to be able to show 
they are injured when you have dumping, when you have subsidized 
products coming into this country. Again, this is broadly supported. It 
is bipartisan. It is one that, again, was part of another bill called 
the Customs bill. It should be part of our legislation, in our view, 
and we hope it will be offered as an amendment. If it is able to be 
offered, I think it will pass because, again, I think this is an issue 
where there is a lot of consensus.
  One of the problems right now is sometimes companies have such a hard 
time proving material injury that by the time they prove it, it is too 
late. In other words, they have lost market share, they have lost the 
ability to be competitive in the United States, and they end up having 
to lay people off--and sometimes, in some cases, in some companies in 
Ohio, including the steel business, they have gone out of business.
  So this is, I think, a commonsense, logical approach that again has a 
lot of support. I hope that amendment will be able to be offered and 
that we will include that on the trade promotion authority.
  The second amendment has to do with a third area of unfair trade. We 
talked about dumping. We talked about subsidizing. Another one is when 
a country says: You know what. I am actually going to intervene in 
currency markets globally in order to drive down the value of my 
currency explicitly to get an export advantage over other countries.
  It is called currency manipulation. It is a standard that has been 
developed over the years by the International Monetary Fund. It is very 
specific, and it says that when you do that--because it does distort 
markets, it does affect trade--it is considered to be an unfair trade 
practice. The problem is there hasn't been enforcement of that.
  What happens is, when countries do it, the value of their currency 
goes down. Therefore, their exports they sell, say, to the United 
States of America are relatively less expensive, and our exports to 
them are relatively more expensive.
  Paul Volcker, who is the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, made 
an interesting comment. He said, ``In five minutes, exchange rates can 
wipe out what it took trade negotiators ten years to accomplish.'' I 
think there is some truth to that. It can happen relatively quickly.
  I have walked on a shop floor in my home State of Ohio, the company 
that makes steel pins--and these are very important steel pins because 
they hold up speakers at big concert halls. They have to be strong, and 
they have to be precisely drilled and made. They brought some that work 
back from China. God bless them.
  I am walking the shop floor, and I am talking about how they have 
these new machines, they have taken their workers through new training, 
they have done everything to be more efficient and more productive, but 
they tell me: Rob, you know, unfortunately, we are going to lose some 
of this business now because of currency manipulation. We just can't 
compete.
  So despite everything they were doing right and the concessions some 
of their workers were making in order to be more competitive, they 
couldn't if there was currency manipulation.

[[Page S3037]]

  Everybody believes currency manipulation is a bad thing--the WTO 
does, the World Trade Organization. They have standards, and they 
deferred to the International Monetary Fund because it is a currency 
issue. The International Monetary Fund has standards. Those standards 
are such that if you look at our legislation, we pick up the standards 
from the International Monetary Fund.
  So we say, ``With respect to unfair currency exchange practices 
[which] target protracted large-scale intervention in one direction in 
the exchange markets by a party to a trade agreement to gain an unfair 
competitive advantage in trade over other parties.''
  So it is very specific. It is consistent with the IMF and WTO 
standards, but the amendment goes even further to ensure that is what 
we are talking about by saying that whatever we do has to be 
``consistent with existing principles and agreements of the 
International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.'' So it 
is a targeted approach to currency manipulation.
  By the way, someone said: Well, what about QE 1, 2, 3? What about 
monetary policy?
  That is not governed, because the way we define this is, again, the 
IMF definition of ``protracted large-scale intervention in one 
direction in the exchange markets by a party to a trade agreement to 
gain an unfair competitive advantage in trade.''
  That is not why we did QE 2. We did it to stimulate our economy. We 
can argue about the merits or demerits of that monetary policy, but it 
does not fit into that definition because concerns were raised about, 
well, maybe it could be.
  As we filed this amendment this week, we added something else to the 
amendment. It is a very short amendment. I encourage you to read it, 
Senate amendment No. 1299. It says: ``Nothing in the previous sentence 
shall be construed to restrict the exercise of domestic monetary 
policy.''
  So you may hear this debate on the floor: Well, gosh. I am worried 
this is going to come back against us.
  It can't.
  All this says is our negotiators, in doing a trade agreement, have to 
make currency manipulation one of the negotiating objectives. We 
already have labor issues, environmental issues, and other issues that 
are negotiating objectives. We have passed one here earlier this week 
with regard to human rights. Certainly, currency manipulation ought to 
be one of them. It does affect trade.
  Now, I know the Secretary of the Treasury issued a veto threat today 
and said he would recommend the President veto. This has been in 
discussion for a number of weeks now, and up until now there has not 
been a veto threat. So that is new today. I find that surprising; 
first, because we have had a lot of discussion about this, and this is 
the first time there has been a recommended veto threat. It is not a 
recommendation that Presidents always agree with when a Cabinet member 
says that, but it has to be taken seriously.
  I would be very surprised if the President of the United States were 
to say: You know what. I like this trade promotion authority. This is 
good. It expands exports--which is a good thing in my view, as I have 
said earlier--but somehow I am going to veto it because, boy, we just 
can't take on currency manipulation.
  This is at a time when everybody--everybody--the administration, 
Members of the House and Senate, Democratic and Republican, all agree 
currency manipulation ought to be prohibited.
  In fact, the side-by-side amendment that is being offered by my good 
friend and colleague Senator Hatch and my good friend Senator Wyden 
also said we should not have currency manipulation. In fact, they pick 
up our exact language on how to define currency manipulation, but they 
don't have any enforcement. There are no teeth to it. It says you could 
do this or that, you could have reporting, you could have rules or you 
could have monitoring or you could do nothing.
  What ours says is very simple: Let's just make currency manipulation 
the same as everything else that is a negotiating objective that is 
enforceable. Let's subject it to dispute resolution.
  So you have opportunity; one, first, you have to start with 
consultation with the other party; and, second, if there are 
consultations that break down, if you can't resolve it, then it goes to 
a dispute resolution process.
  Someone said: Well, the United States would be the judge and the 
jury.
  Not at all. As a former U.S. Trade Representative, who has been 
involved in these negotiations, who has taken into account negotiating 
objectives, I can tell you these three-judge panels are objective. That 
is the whole idea, and they determine whether there has been 
manipulation under the agreement that the parties have reached. So what 
this says is: Let's raise this issue. Let's have a discussion about it. 
It is a negotiating objective, and let's see what we can agree with, 
with the parties, and let's make it subject to the same dispute 
resolution you would have with other issues, such as the environment, 
such as labor, so this is actually enforceable.
  So the question on the floor is going to be: Do you support getting 
rid of currency manipulation because you know it affects people you 
present negatively? And the answer is going to be a resounding yes.
  By the way, 60 Senators wrote a letter in the last Congress--60 of 
them--saying that in trade agreements there ought to be an enforceable 
currency manipulation provision. This amendment would require 51 
because it is germane. So it is just interesting. If it doesn't 
succeed--because I know my leadership is against this, I know the White 
House has now said they are against it. We will see how people vote on 
this because everybody agrees we ought to deal with this. The question 
is whether we ought to have teeth in it, whether it ought to be 
enforceable or not.
  By the way, what is trade promotion authority? Why are we doing all 
of this? We are doing it because this is the way Congress can express 
to an administration what our prerogatives are. Again, 60 Senators have 
signed that letter. It seems like everybody agrees currency 
manipulation is a bad thing.
  The side-by-side--meaning the alternative--in an effort to defeat our 
amendment, the alternative acknowledges currency manipulation is a bad 
thing and sets up the exact definition that we use. Ours is a little 
better because it also exempts monetary policy explicitly, and theirs 
does not, by the way. But then at the end it says: And what are you 
going to do about it?
  Well, you decide. You can do this or this or this or nothing.
  Ours says: No, you have to subject it to the same enforcement you 
have with other provisions in a trade agreement.
  So I am hopeful we can get this passed. People have said: Well, this 
is about the auto companies. You know, I am not ashamed to represent 
the auto companies. I am co-chair of the Auto Caucus. The automobile 
industry in this country is incredibly important. We are proud in Ohio 
to be the No. 2 auto State in the Nation. By the way, the UAW and the 
management have made a lot of concessions. They have made a lot of 
changes to the way they produce automobiles to be more efficient, to 
have the safest, best automobiles in the world produced in the United 
States of America. I think they do deserve a fair shot. Again, the 
agreement can reduce all sorts of tariff barriers and so on to give 
them a shot at going into some of these markets. But if at the end of 
the day there is currency manipulation, as Chairman Volcker said--
former Fed Chair Paul Volcker--``In five minutes, exchange rates can 
wipe out what it took trade negotiators ten years to accomplish.'' So I 
am very proud to be on the floor saying: Yes, it is important to the 
autoworkers.
  But it is much broader than that. The fact that the steel companies 
around the country have also supported this, the fact that other 
industries have supported this, it affects everybody. It affects 
farmers. If we are selling 60 percent of our soybean crops overseas, 
and they have currency manipulation making our product more expensive, 
that is bad for our farmers.
  If you are selling these steel pins I talked about earlier overseas--
I had the fastener industry come see me this week. They are from Ohio. 
These are the people who make screws, nuts, and bolts. They are 
concerned about it. So

[[Page S3038]]

it is not one narrow group. It is anybody who is involved in 
international trade and understands the need for us not to allow this 
to happen. Others have said. Well, this is a poison pill.
  I view it more as a vitamin than a poison pill because I think it 
strengthens the underlying law. I think it makes it more likely we can 
get a consensus for trade going forward, including in the House of 
Representatives, where people want to vote for trade promotion 
authority, they want to expand exports, but they want to be sure it is 
fair. They want to be sure their workers and their farmers get a fair 
shake.
  So I know the President has said he doesn't like it much, but the 
President, in the past, has spoken articulately and vociferously 
against currency manipulation. His statements have been very clear. He 
not only thinks it is wrong, he thinks it must be enforced. So I would 
find it surprising that he would be willing to move forward.
  Is it poison pill because of the House? Again, I think it actually 
adds votes. Why wouldn't it? Is it a poison pill in terms of the 
administration? I hope not, and I can't believe it would be. This is a 
priority for the President to get trade promotion authority done, and I 
agree with him.
  I think it is important for us to give our workers and our farmers 
the chance to export more of their products to the 95 percent of 
consumers who live outside of our borders, who are not Americans but 
who want to buy the best products in the world that are stamped ``Made 
in America.'' We want to do more than that.
  Then, finally, is it a poison pill for the countries that are 
negotiating what is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership--called the 
TPP. Well, I have heard Japan doesn't like this amendment much. It 
concerns me if our friends in Japan--and they are allies and friends, 
and I have worked closely with them.
  When I was the Trade Ambassador, we worked more closely with Japan 
than anybody had previously, I would say. I brought them into the close 
circle of countries that were trying to move forward, in this case, on 
international standards through the Doha agreement. I have great 
respect for them.
  By the way, they are not manipulating their currency now and haven't 
been, in my view, since probably 2012, maybe the end of 2011, by the 
very definition in here. So why would they be worried? I don't know.
  But it worries me that they wouldn't be willing to sign off on a 
provision like this, very sensible, saying: Let's all agree not to 
manipulate our currency so we can have a more level playing field 
between all of our countries.
  They have manipulated their currency in the past. The IMF would say, 
I think, about 300 times before 2012. So I don't know if they really 
wouldn't negotiate with us. In fact, this is a very important agreement 
to them. It is a very important agreement to them because they, like 
us, want to expand our trade ties together in the fastest growing part 
of the world--in the Pacific region. And that is good.
  So look, I appreciate the fact we are going to have a difference of 
opinion on this. I just hope people will actually look at the facts. 
Look at the language. Look at the fact that this is an issue we all 
agree on in terms of currency manipulation. The alternative amendments 
will have that. The only question is, Should it be enforceable? Should 
it have teeth? Should we be able to go home and look our workers in the 
eye and say: You know what? We have taken care of you on this one. You 
are not going to find yourself playing by the rules, making 
concessions, going through retraining, making these big investments in 
these companies with the most up-to-date equipment to be competitive 
and then find, oh my gosh, the rug is pulled out from under us by 
manipulation.
  So here we have President Barack Obama. I mentioned his statement 
earlier. This is in June of 2007: ``I will work with my colleagues in 
the Senate to ensure that any trade agreement brought before the 
Congress is measured not against administration commitments but instead 
against the rights of Americans to protection from unfair trade 
practices, including currency manipulation.''
  I know where the President stands on this. He, like me, like other 
Senators in this Chamber, wants to be sure we do deal with currency 
manipulation. In this case he is saying with regard specifically to 
trade agreements brought before this Congress. That is what TPA is all 
about--establishing our congressional prerogatives as to trade.
  So I hope we will be able to move forward with expanding 
opportunities for everybody we represent, because that is what trade is 
about. It is about creating more and better jobs. If you are against 
exports, you are against creating better jobs. Trade jobs pay, they 
say, on average 13 to 18 percent more. Why? Because they tend to be 
jobs in the manufacturing sector, in the technology sector. They tend 
to be good jobs.
  We want more of them in my State of Ohio. Our farmers want more 
exports. It is good for their prices. And they all deserve to have 
these markets overseas because they are working hard to create the best 
products in the world. All they want is a level playing field to ensure 
they have the opportunity to send those products overseas to the 95 
percent of consumers outside our borders.
  If we do that--if we do that and at the same time ensure it is fair--
we will be able to look them in the eye and say that this is going to 
be good for you and your families.
  Here is what Secretary Lew said earlier today: ``Holding our trading 
partners accountable for their currency practices has always been 
important to this administration.''
  Let us hold them accountable. We can't hold them accountable if there 
is no enforcement. We can't hold them accountable if there are no 
teeth. That is all we are asking for today.
  I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look at this 
language and look at this issue. Earlier, one of my colleagues came to 
speak and he had a sign like this, and it talked about free trade and 
fair trade. That is what we are talking about. Let us be sure we have 
free trade and fair trade. If we do that, we can begin to rebuild a 
consensus around trade that used to be a bipartisan consensus, and we 
can begin to create a better future for our kids and grandkids--more 
engaged in global markets, getting better-paying jobs and more jobs, 
and ensuring America's promise is met.
  At a time when we have a historically weak recovery, what better 
thing to do than to give this economy a shot in the arm by expanding 
exports and by doing so in the context of creating a more level playing 
field for the people we represent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, this is an exceptional thing we are 
debating right now. We are talking about limiting our own 
constitutional power. We are talking about a trade promotion authority 
act that would restrict our ability to offer and debate amendments on 
free-trade agreements.
  We have been told this is the only way we can move forward on things 
such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the soon-to-be-completed 
European free-trade agreement. There are great disagreements about 
whether that is necessary.
  It is hard to understand why we hold trade to a fundamentally 
different standard than so many other things that are vitally necessary 
for our economy to move forward. Why not have a different process to 
pass immigration reform or energy reform or tax reform? Those are just 
as, if not more, necessary to economic growth than trade.
  But in that we are talking about limiting our ability to offer 
amendments to a trade agreement, it would be the height of irony if we 
were to conduct that debate in a way that limited our ability to also 
offer amendments on the very act that takes away our power to amend the 
trade agreements.
  So here is just a point on process. I am fairly new to this body. 
This is the first time I have been in the Senate debating a trade 
agreement. Certainly, it is the first time I have been in the Congress 
to debate a fast-track bill, a trade promotion authority. I think we 
can take our time to allow this body to work its will, to make sure we 
vote on more than a handful of amendments to a piece of legislation 
that takes away our power to offer amendments on the final trade bills.
  We took 3 weeks to debate the last fast-track bill. Now, I don't 
think anybody is asking for 3 weeks, but we are

[[Page S3039]]

asking for more than a few days, given that many of us think we have 
amendments, such as the one Senator Portman is offering, that can make 
this bill a lot better. So I am coming to the floor today to ask for 
that time to get to a better place on this bill and, specifically, to 
ask for this body to take up a series of amendments surrounding one 
vital issue, and that is the issue of protecting the American supply 
chain on products bought by the U.S. Government. It is commonly 
referred to as the ``Buy American'' law. It has been on the books for 
decades.
  It is a pretty simple premise. When we are buying things for the U.S. 
Government, we should buy them from American companies, by and large. 
It is a pretty meager requirement. At the start, it just says that when 
you buy stuff for the American Government, primarily for the Defense 
Department, you should buy 50 percent of it from U.S. companies.
  That makes a lot of sense to people in the United States. In my State 
of Connecticut, we believe that is just good economics, but it is also 
good national security policy, because if you are not making things for 
the Department of Defense here, you are making them abroad, and you 
become reliant on a supply chain that is increasingly internationalized 
and puts you at risk when one of those companies that is supplying 
parts for a jet engine, for a tank, for a weapon all of a sudden isn't 
your ally any longer.
  The ``Buy American'' law has been riddled with loophole after 
loophole, exception after exception, such that the exception is now the 
rule. I won't go through the litany of ways you can get around the 
``Buy American'' law, so that sometimes today items being bought by the 
Department of Defense are majority made outside the United States and 
frankly, often by countries that we may not be in total alignment with 
when it comes to our security policy.
  I want to talk about one waiver, one way around the ``Buy American'' 
law, and that is a really big one. There is a waiver to the ``Buy 
American'' law for any country that we have entered into a free-trade 
agreement with. So if you have signed a free-trade agreement with the 
United States, you can supply content to goods made for the U.S. 
military and have it count as made in America.
  Now, that is a pretty limited exception when you have only a small 
number of countries you have signed free-trade agreements with. But the 
two regions we are talking about adding to the ranks of those that have 
trade agreements with the United States would represent the bulk of the 
global economy. We are talking about a swath of countries in Asia with 
very low wages and then, ultimately, with the European trade agreement, 
the whole of Europe.
  All of a sudden, we don't have a small exception to the ``Buy 
American'' rule, we have a truck-sized exception to the ``Buy 
American'' rule, rendering it almost obsolete and unenforceable at that 
point, because then almost any country that is producing a good can 
apply for the trade-agreement waiver.
  So we have a series of amendments that would try to tighten up this 
particular waiver, this particular option built into trade agreements. 
The amendment I hope to offer simply says that if you want this waiver 
around the ``Buy American'' law, then you have to show that, No. 1, the 
result of moving the work overseas won't cause a U.S. company to go 
under--and I can give examples of when that has happened--and, No. 2, 
you have to prove it you can't find it in the United States--that your 
only option is to go overseas because you can't find it in the United 
States. If there is an American company making it for a reasonable 
price, then that company should be able to get that waiver.
  Now, it doesn't take away all the other waivers. There is a waiver, 
for instance, that says if you can get it much cheaper overseas, then 
you can go overseas. We don't eliminate that waiver. We just say you 
have to prove you can't get it in the United States and you can't get 
it for a reasonable price in the United States, and then this waiver 
would apply.
  I think all of our constituents would support trade agreements that 
make sure our taxpayer dollars being used to buy goods for the United 
States get used, preferentially, on American companies. And simply by 
tightening up this loophole in the ``Buy American'' law, we will 
protect a lot of jobs.
  How do we know that? Because in 2013, the last year for which we have 
records, there were 1,200 of these waivers approved--1,200 waivers for 
existing countries with free-trade agreements--worth $500 million worth 
of goods. That is $500 million worth of work that would have gone to 
U.S. companies that went to foreign companies because of this waiver 
that said that any country that has a free-trade agreement just doesn't 
have to worry about the ``Buy American'' clause. That is 1,200 today. 
Imagine how many that will be in a year if we were to add all of the 
countries in TPP and all of the countries in TTIP. We are talking about 
factors of two and three and four added to that number.
  So all I am asking for at this point is a debate. Let us just make 
sure on this seminal issue, the preference that we give American 
companies for work paid for by Federal taxpayers, that we have a 
discussion about that on the floor of the Senate at some point over the 
course of this week. Members can choose to vote up or down. They can 
choose to support American companies. They can choose to support the 
outsourcing of American taxpayer work. But let us have a discussion on 
it. We don't need 3 weeks, like we did last time, but be probably need 
a couple more days.
  This is as big as you get for the Senate. We are debating giving away 
our power to amend a major trade obligation of the U.S. Government. Let 
us have a debate about the consequences of that with respect to 
American companies.
  It would make a difference to one set of people in my district, and I 
will end on this--the former workers of Ansonia Copper & Brass. This is 
a company that made copper-nickel tubing for our submarines. They were 
the only American company that made this copper-nickel tubing, and they 
had a competitor in Europe that was trying to take their business away. 
Because of a waiver to the ``Buy American'' law, the contract was 
awarded by the Department of Defense to the European firm and taken 
away from Ansonia Copper & Brass. Because of that waiver to the ``Buy 
American'' law, Ansonia Copper & Brass went out of business. We now 
have no ability in the United States to produce copper-nickel tubing. 
Some of the most important components to the American sub fleet in the 
United States--gone. Our capacity has ended. And you can't just rebuild 
this, because this is a really specialized kind of material, a really 
specialized kind of product. Once that equipment, once that expertise 
is gone, you can't just start it back overnight. That has real security 
consequences for the United States.
  I would argue that, even more importantly, it has serious economic 
consequences for the men and women who were laid off about a year ago 
from Ansonia Copper & Brass, because of an ill-thought-out waiver to 
the ``Buy American'' clause that compromises our economic security and 
our national security. Let us just pledge to have a debate about that 
on the floor of the Senate before we come to a final vote on trade 
promotion authority.
  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.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I want to take a moment to add to what 
my partner on the Portman-Stabenow amendment has said on the floor. I 
appreciate working with Senator Portman on this important issue. I find 
it very interesting, as we are debating--as other colleagues have 
said--a policy that allows the administration to go ahead and negotiate 
a trade agreement where we voluntarily give up our right to change, to 
amend, and that we voluntarily, as a Congress, say we are not going to 
allow anyone to object to make it a 60-vote threshold. So we are giving 
them the fast-track authority. The tradeoff, the way we are supposed to 
be doing that is by setting up a set of negotiating objectives and

[[Page S3040]]

expectations for what will be negotiated in the agreements. That is the 
deal here--fast-track authority, setting up the expectations. What we 
believe on behalf of our constituents, the people we represent, are the 
most important things that we want to make sure are covered: 
enforcement, strong labor and environmental standards, and the No. 1 
trade distorting policy in the world today, which is currency 
manipulation.
  We want to be able to say, if you are going to get this special 
ability to take away our right to change something, then we expect 
certain things. We expect that we are going to be negotiating from a 
position of strength so that we are racing up in the world economy, 
bringing other countries up in terms of wages, what is happening in 
terms of protecting our environment, protecting our intellectual 
property rights, stopping other countries from cheating on currency or 
other trade violations. We want to create a race up, not a race to the 
bottom, not a race to the bottom where the comments are this: Well, if 
you would only work for less, we can be competitive. If we only take 
away your pension, if we only take away your health care, if we only 
make sure that we do not enforce our trade laws, we can be competitive. 
Obviously, that makes no sense.
  In the area of currency, what Senator Portman and I are doing is 
putting forth the very straightforward case that there should be a 
negotiating objective that is enforceable, that is tied to IMF 
definitions. It makes it clear that we are not talking about our 
domestic policies. We are not talking about Fed policies. We are not 
talking about quantitative easing. We are talking about the foreign 
currency policies that under the International Monetary Fund, 188 
countries, including the Asian countries we are negotiating with, have 
all signed up to agree to. All signed on the dotted line--the United 
States, Japan, all the countries that we are talking about--that they 
will not manipulate their currency.
  The problem is they still do. The problem is that Japan, after 
signing on the dotted line under the International Monetary Fund, has 
over the last 25 years manipulated the currency 376 times. We are 
saying that if we are going to let you go into a negotiation and come 
out with a trade agreement of 40 percent of the global economy in Asia 
and where we are seeing the bulk of the currency manipulation, then we 
believe there ought to be an enforceable standard, that we ought to 
have an expectation of a currency manipulation provision that would be 
enforceable at least as a negotiating objective. That is what we are 
talking about.
  You would think--it is unbelievable the reaction. I understand after 
working with many, many Secretaries of the Treasury--and I have 
incredible respect and admiration for our current Secretary--but every 
Secretary under every President I have had the opportunity to work 
with--Democrat or Republican--all believe the same: Do not get into 
this area of policy. I understand that. I do. I respect it. I disagree 
in this case, but I understand that reaction. But when we are talking 
about a 21st-century framework on trade and what we need to do in 
enforcement--and we passed a customs bill that has incredibly important 
enforcement provisions in it. I am pleased that a number of those are 
ones that I have been working on--that Senator Lindsey Graham and I 
have been working on for years--provisions that are in that bill.
  I am very pleased to see that the broader currency issue is addressed 
in there that Senator Schumer, Senator Graham, Senator Brown, and I and 
others have been working on for years, trying to not be in the Trans-
Pacific Partnership negotiations, as we know. All of these things are 
good to be able to do. But if we are going to do that, we need to 
address--as has been quoted by one of our auto manufacturers--the 
mother of all trade barriers, which is currency manipulation. We know 
it is going on.
  On the one hand, we hear from those on the other side that it is a 
poison pill to put this in the fast-track authority. The question is, 
Why? Why is it a poison pill? Why is it a poison pill?
  Well, because Japan will not like it. Japan will walk away from TPP. 
Well, on the other side we hear that the Bank of Japan does not do 
currency manipulation anymore. They do not do it anymore. Why do we 
have to worry about it if they do not do it anymore?
  If they do not do it anymore, then why in the world would they walk 
away from a negotiation if we have a negotiating objective on currency? 
It makes you wonder. Do they want to go from 376 times to 377 times? 
That is what I would assume, if that is that important that it would 
kill an entire agreement with 12 different countries to have a 
negotiating principle in there on currency. It is not just Japan, 
although, that is the major concern. We have seen this happen in 
Singapore, Malaysia, and other countries. If they do not intend to use 
that as a way to get an edge, to beat us on an unlevel playing field, 
then why in the world would they care? That is the question.
  They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they are not doing it 
anymore. But if we put this in there, somehow we are not going to be 
able to get this agreement. Our job in a global economy is to make sure 
the rules are fair for our businesses and our workers.
  So far, it is estimated that we have lost some 5 million jobs and 
counting because of just one thing--currency manipulation. What is 
that? That means that Japan builds an automobile, and they sell it 
someplace else. When they are using the Bank of Japan to manipulate 
their currency, they are able to get a discount on the price 
artificially. We are told, on average anywhere from $6,000 to $11,000 
on the price of an automobile. That is a lot when you are competing.
  It is not a differential because they are more efficient at 
manufacturing or even paying their people less. It is because they 
cheat. It is because they cheat. It is not about selling into Japan, 
which is very difficult right now. But we also know that even if we 
took away the nontariff trade barriers, they have a culture of wanting 
to buy their own automobiles, which I wish we shared. It would be less 
of an issue if we in America were buying American. But the concern is 
that in a global economy, American companies are competing with 
Japanese companies to go into India--over a billion people--or Brazil 
or the Middle East or everyplace between America and Japan.
  If we are creating this huge trade agreement and we do not address 
the fact that they can compete with us for those customers in other 
countries in an unfair way and we do not deal with that, we are forcing 
our manufacturers to try to compete with their hands tied behind their 
back. Why would we do that?
  It is our job to make sure they have every opportunity to succeed--
every opportunity--and that their playing field is level. How many 
times do we all say those words: ``level playing field,'' ``level 
playing field.''
  We are hearing from manufacturers who want to trade. These are global 
companies that always support trade agreements. They are saying to us: 
Pay attention here. This is an issue that has gotten out of hand, that 
we need in the framework when we are negotiating a trade agreement with 
40 percent of the global economy. For the places that manipulate the 
currency, we need to make sure they are not doing that.
  That is what the Portman-Stabenow amendment takes a step to do. I 
would like to go even further and say that you do not get fast-track 
authority unless you have strong currency enforcement in the agreement. 
This is not that far. This is, in fact, the reasonable middle. It says 
we are going to have a strong negotiating objective that is tied to 
enforceable standards under the International Monetary Fund, the WTO, 
that it is a negotiating principle and we expect that to be in there. 
We expect it to be in there. But it does not have the hammer of saying 
you would not get fast-track authority because we want this to be 
something that has strong bipartisan support, that comes to the middle 
here in terms of what is viewed as reasonable and supporting the 
ability to have flexibility in negotiations and so on.
  For the life of me, I do not understand the reaction on the other 
side in terms of the statements that this is a poison pill or that this 
is some outrageous thing to say that along with protecting intellectual 
property rights and focusing on labor standards and environmental 
protection, that we would have a negotiating objective on currency.
  We do not dictate the outcome of it, which I would love to do. We do 
not do

[[Page S3041]]

that. We say, you have to put forward your best efforts here, and you 
have to put folks on notice that we are serious because this is one of 
our negotiating objectives. When it is time for the vote, I hope that 
it will be in this next group of amendments.
  We appreciate very much that the amendment is pending, and we look 
forward to a vote. We would like very much to see that happen this 
evening. There is no reason not to have it. We are ready to have that 
vote. I think we have about 25 percent of the whole Senate now as 
cosponsors, and we would love to have more. This is a bipartisan 
amendment. It is reasonable, and it tackles the No. 1 trade distorting 
barrier right now in the global economy, which is currency 
manipulation. It does it in a responsible way.
  I will close by saying this. Again, we hear that this is a poison 
pill because the main folks who have been currency manipulating, who 
would be part of the TPP, do not want this, do not want anything saying 
the word ``currency'' that would be possibly enforceable.
  We are hearing that the Bank of Japan is not doing it anymore, so you 
do not need the language. But, by the way, they will walk away from the 
agreement if you have it in the language in there. You cannot have it 
both ways. Either they intend to do it again, and that is why they are 
objecting to an agreement with any kind of currency manipulation 
enforcement, or they are not going to do it again and it should not 
matter. They can't have it both ways on this debate. The fact that 
folks are trying to have it both ways makes me very concerned about 
what is really going on in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

  I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Portman in passing this 
very reasonable amendment to make currency manipulation a priority in 
our negotiations.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I second the words of the senior Senator 
from Michigan. She is exactly right about the importance of currency. 
As she said, it is a negotiating objective. Frankly, I wish we could 
write even stronger language because we know that the U.S. Trade 
Representative--whether it is a Trade Representative serving a Democrat 
or a Republican--doesn't pay quite as much attention to the negotiating 
objectives as we want. But there is no reason we shouldn't write strong 
negotiating objectives. Senator Stabenow's amendment with my colleague 
from Ohio is exactly the right major step forward.
  I wish to make one other comment. I believe Senator Franken, Senator 
Boxer, and Senator Whitehouse are coming to the floor, along with 
Senator Murphy, Senator Casey, Senator Warren, and Senator Stabenow, to 
speak about amendments that really matter to TPA. There are literally 
almost two dozen Democratic Senators and I believe at least 8 or 10 
Republican Senators--I am not sure of that number--who have good, 
solid, substantive amendments. That is why I want to see us do what 
Senator McConnell has talked about, and that is have a full hearing and 
airing of amendments that are substantive. There are dozens of 
substantive amendments offered by at least a couple dozen Senators.
  I wish to refer to one thing my colleague from Ohio said earlier, 
before Senator Stabenow's speech, and that is about the amendment that 
refers to leveling the playing field, which we have been working on and 
which is all about trade enforcement. I jotted down one thing he said, 
which I want to emphasize. He said that by the time our government is 
able to prove injury and prove an unfair trade practice, the injury is 
already so great to our workers and our companies. He expanded on that, 
and I wish to expand on that for a moment.
  I have spent hours and hours over the years visiting plants in Ohio 
and seeing what happened to a number of our companies and the workers 
who work at those companies when countries such as South Korea engage 
in unfair trade practices, whether it is steel, coated paper, tires, or 
dumping oil country tubular steel--dumping means they may subsidize 
capital. In addition to lower wages, it may be water, energy, or land. 
Having lower wages is not an unfair trade practice, but the other 
examples are. We know what that means. It means that our workers can't 
compete when they don't play fair.
  Whether it is Colorado, Ohio, or Michigan, we follow the rule of law, 
so it takes a period of time to prove these companies are engaging in 
unfair trade practices. We see a number of these countries and 
companies--it may be Korea, China, or somewhere else--not just gaming 
the currency system, but we see them so often not being forthcoming 
even though international laws require that they be forthcoming with 
information so we can process whether they, in fact, are subsidizing 
their production and dumping their product. They may give us inadequate 
or faulty information or they may give us purposely erroneous 
information. By the time we put together the trade case, small 
businesses, particularly in the supply chain, have gone out of business 
or have been damaged beyond their ability to survive long term, and so 
often, workers have been laid off.
  I saw what happened in Lorain, OH, and I saw what has happened in 
Cleveland and Gallipolis and Chillicothe. I saw what happened in 
Trumbull County, OH, and Youngstown, OH, when China and Korea cheated 
on the oil country tubular steel issue.
  Leveling the playing field will help us fight back. That is why so 
many corporations and labor unions support this legislation.
  It matters to our communities because when a plant closes and workers 
are laid off, it is not just those workers and those families who are 
affected, it devastates the community. Firefighters, teachers, and 
police end up getting laid off, and the community is less safe. All of 
those things happen because we don't stand up and enforce trade law, we 
don't stand up for our international interests, and we don't stand up 
for our economic security and our community interests. That is why the 
Stabenow amendment on currency is so important, and that is why the 
Brown-Portman amendment is important--so we can level the playing 
field.
  We have at least half a dozen Republican sponsors, and we have a 
number of Democratic sponsors as well. That language was so 
uncontroversial that it was adopted in the Finance Committee in the 
managers' package in the underlying bill that Senator Hatch and Senator 
Wyden negotiated at the beginning, about a month or so ago.
  I applaud Senator Stabenow for her work on currency.
  I urge my colleagues, first of all, to make the amendment on leveling 
the playing field pending, and second, to move on this legislation.
  I also appreciate the leadership Senator Whitehouse, who just joined 
us on the floor, has shown on these trade agreements.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I know Senator Whitehouse is here and I 
have already spoken, but I wish to echo Senator Brown's strong appeal 
that we vote on the leveling the playing field amendment. It is 
critical.
  We have seen communities across Michigan as well as throughout the 
country that have been devastated. We not only lose good-paying jobs 
when a plant closes, but we lose small businesses from across the 
street, and it affects the whole community.
  This is an incredibly important amendment. I hope we will get a vote 
on it. I believe the votes are here to support that amendment on a 
bipartisan basis, and I think it is critical that we vote and adopt it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I wish to 
discuss.
  About a year ago, we as a Senate, unanimously by a voice vote, 
ratified four treaties that helped protect American fisheries from 
illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing around the world. It is 
called pirate fishing. This was an effort by the Oceans Caucus. It was 
led by me and then-Senator Begich on our side and Senator Murkowski and 
Senator Wicker on the other side of the aisle. It was hotlined on both 
sides and cleared.
  It is a useful treaty to be in. It is important for our American 
fishing industry to make sure that they are not being punished or 
harmed by foreign competitors who are not fishing

[[Page S3042]]

sustainably, fishing illegally, or violating the laws of the 
jurisdiction in which they are fishing. Because of their misbehavior, 
they are able to bring catch to market less expensively than fishermen 
who play by the rules.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I 
may call up my amendment No. 1387.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I understand there are issues on the 
floor that need to be resolved and there are objections pending, but I 
did wish to speak to this amendment. It is an amendment I hope can 
either get a vote or, because of its noncontroversial, bipartisan 
status, perhaps can be added at a time when there is a managers' 
amendment or some means of dealing with noncontroversial additions to 
this legislation.
  So the objection having been made to my request, I will yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on the trade 
legislation before us and on the importance of considering and voting 
on amendments that would improve it. I have submitted amendments of my 
own. I am co-leading a pair of amendments with Senator Baldwin, and 
there are a number of very important amendments that I support.
  We are talking about how we will consider trade agreements that would 
cover a major portion of the entire global economy. That is a very 
important subject, and I believe we need to fully debate this bill. I 
also believe we need to have votes on a number of amendments to make 
this bill better than it currently is.
  I believe that when trade is done right, it can benefit our workers, 
our communities, and our businesses. But I am concerned that the fast-
track procedures set up by the trade promotion authority bill we are 
considering will not do enough to make sure we do trade right. So, at a 
minimum, I believe we should debate and have votes on a number of 
amendments that would considerably strengthen this bill.
  I have submitted two amendments of my own. One of my amendments would 
strengthen the negotiating objective on labor and environmental 
standards in the trade promotion authority bill. Right now, the bill 
effectively says that partner countries violate those standards only 
when they fail to enforce labor or environmental laws on a sustained 
and recurring basis. The notion that violations of standards need to be 
sustained and recurring to really count as violations is not found 
elsewhere in the bill and doesn't hold with respect to, for example, 
intellectual property, digital trade, or regulatory practices. My very 
simple amendment would take out ``sustained and recurring'' so that a 
labor violation is a labor violation.
  My other amendment is my Community College to Career Fund Act, which 
is designed to address the skills gap where there are jobs open in our 
country because there are not workers with the right skills to fill 
them. Just like Senator Stabenow's amendment on renewing the community 
college portion of trade adjustment assistance, or TAA, of which I am a 
cosponsor, my amendment will bolster workforce development and 
training.
  The community college portion of TAA has been successful in helping 
to retrain workers and communities that have been harmed by trade, and 
that is a good thing. My amendment builds on this by helping community 
colleges partner with business sectors in order to improve our ability 
to get people into jobs in manufacturing that are high-skilled jobs or 
in IT or in health care by providing them the skills they need. This 
will make all of our communities more resilient and economically 
successful.
  I am also proud to co-lead two amendments with Senator Baldwin of 
Wisconsin on our trade remedy laws. One would prevent trade 
negotiations from weakening those laws, and the other would strengthen 
the language in the TPA bill on trade remedy laws--the laws that 
enforce our trade policies and protect our domestic industries from 
dumped and subsidized imports from other countries.
  In Minnesota, I have seen firsthand the damage that happens when we 
don't have and, just as importantly, can't enforce strong trade 
protections. In the last few months alone, we have seen what happens 
when other countries unfairly dump their goods here. In this case, it 
was steel products. Nearly 1,000 Minnesotans are losing their jobs 
after a flood of dumped steel imports. Our provisions stand up for 
American manufacturers by putting in place and enforcing fair trade 
practices.
  In addition to these amendments, there are many other important 
amendments my colleagues have offered on currency manipulation, 
investor-state dispute settlement, ``Buy American,'' and a number of 
other issues.
  I believe that these issues are worth debating and that we should be 
voting on amendments on the important subjects which I have mentioned 
as well as on other important subjects.
  In my view, this bill is in need of substantial improvement, and we 
should not cut off the process of trying to make those improvements. We 
need to be voting on amendments, and we need to be working to improve 
this bill.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have been listening to colleagues speak 
about the importance of having a very open process here where we can 
offer our amendments and make this fast-track a better deal for the 
middle class and for jobs in our Nation. It is rather shocking to 
recognize that this huge agreement, which is going to cover 40 percent 
of trade in this world, is being jammed down our throats in a couple of 
days. It is ridiculous. When we look at other agreements, they have had 
far more time. We have well over 100 amendments filed and we have been 
offered 6 amendments.
  I know the Senator from Washington has laid down the gauntlet on the 
Ex-Im Bank. I support her. We have differing views on the underlying 
bill, but I think she is right because it is really hard to imagine 
passing this huge bill and then ignoring the fact that Ex-Im Bank is 
going to go away.
  To me, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
recognizing that the entire highway bill is ending--the entire highway 
program is ending on May 31--to take up this bill without taking care 
of that is absurd. To take up this bill before raising the minimum wage 
is ridiculous. To take up this bill before we make sure we have 
comprehensive immigration reform so workers can come out of the shadows 
is just the height of insanity. To take up this bill before we have 
taken up the Ex-Im Bank, as I know my friend from Washington has 
explained, is absurd. We have deals that are pending with our small 
businesses through the Ex-Im Bank. They are going to be entirely 
upended.
  So I took the majority leader at his word. I thought we were going to 
have votes to put the enforcement inside this bill, and now that 
doesn't appear to be happening.
  Let me just tell my colleagues about the amendment I wish to offer. I 
think it would pass here overwhelmingly. I have no illusions that we 
will be allowed to vote on it, but it simply says: If a country doesn't 
have a minimum wage of at least 2 bucks an hour, we can't fast-track a 
trade agreement with that country. Let me reiterate. The amendment 
simply says: You can't be fast-tracked if you don't pay at least $2 an 
hour.
  Let's talk about it. Why is this important? I voted for fast-track 
for NAFTA. What a mistake that was. President Clinton promised us the 
world. Republicans and Democrats who were protrade promised us the 
world. Do we know what happened? We lost 700,000 jobs, mostly in 
manufacturing. What makes my colleagues think we are not going to see 
these 12 million manufacturing jobs leave when Chile pays $1.91 an 
hour--$1.91 an hour. Malaysia pays $1.21 an hour. Peru pays $1.15 an 
hour. Mexico pays 80 cents an hour. Vietnam pays 58 cents an hour. 
Brunei and Singapore, well, they have no minimum wage at all.

[[Page S3043]]

  So we have a very simple amendment here which I don't believe I will 
ever get a chance to offer, but it is simple.
  I know if I went outside and asked the average American how they felt 
and said: Do you think it is right for us to do a trade deal with 
countries that pay poverty wages, slave wages to their people--how are 
we going to compete with that? And people say: Oh, well, our workers 
are smarter.
  That is right. But those workers, let me tell my colleagues, are very 
smart in Chile and Malaysia and Peru and Mexico and Vietnam and Brunei 
and Singapore. They are very good. It is tragic that they are in 
countries that pay them slave wages. That is this great deal we are 
going to make.
  It is true that Australia has a very high minimum wage of $13.47; New 
Zealand, $10.87; Canada, $8.69. And I am embarrassed to say ours is 
still $7.25. Our States and cities are making up for it by raising 
their minimum wages. It is a tragedy. This is a race to the bottom. 
Japan has $6.51; and then we get to Chile at $1.91; Malaysia, $1.21; 
Peru at $1.15; Mexico at 80 cents; Vietnam at 58 cents; and Brunei and 
Singapore have no minimum wages whatsoever.
  So I have this very good amendment, and I hope it makes it onto the 
list, I say to the majority leader. Then I have a series of amendments 
that deal with the environment.
  If we are worried about an extrajudicial system to overturn our laws, 
all we have to do is look at what the World Trade Organization did 
yesterday when they said we cannot have country-of-origin labeling 
without getting tariffs put on our products. It had to do with beef. I 
am sure the Presiding Officer cares a lot about that. The fact is that 
country-of-origin labeling is critical. I want to know where the beef 
comes from because there have been all kinds of tragedies with diseases 
with beef, and I want to buy American. But the World Trade Organization 
said no. They said that is a trade barrier. Guess what it means? It 
means that if we don't cancel out that law, they are going to put 
tariffs not just on beef, they are going to put tariffs on wine, on our 
strawberries, our fruits, our vegetables, everything. They are going to 
put tariffs on it.
  So here we are about to go into this massive trade deal with 
countries that pay slave wages, that have terrible environmental laws, 
with an extrajudicial process where companies can sue our States, sue 
our Nation if they say that the laws we have are barriers, and we are 
going to do all this on a Thursday so people can go on their trips. Uh-
uh. No. I say no. That is wrong. We need to have votes on all of these 
things.
  I will tell my colleagues, we could see polluters bringing cases in 
front of this new extrajudicial body and saying: Sorry, but the Clean 
Power Plan is making us spend too much money. Toxic laws here in 
America are making us spend too much money. Your laws against lead 
poisoning are making us spend too much money. Your laws controlling 
formaldehyde, California, are costing us too much money.
  Then we are going to see lawsuits--and we have seen them in the 
past--and all we have to do is look at what happened with the WTO, the 
World Trade Organization, and we are in big trouble.
  So on the one hand we are making a deal with seven nations that have 
slave wages or no minimum wage, so bye-bye, manufacturing; and 
secondly, we have this extrajudicial body that Senator Elizabeth Warren 
has been so eloquent about that can actually overrule America's laws 
and California's laws and Colorado's laws and Washington State's 
laws. And I have a number of amendments here that state that if we have 
laws that deal with toxic substances in toys--that is Boxer 1356--you 
can't mess with that. I have another one that says if we have laws that 
reduce exposure to known cancer-causing substances, you can't overrule 
those laws, but I can't get that on the list. My amendment is not on 
the list.

  I have one that says that if we have laws that make sure pesticides 
are safe, sorry, we are not going to stand by and allow this 
extrajudicial process to work. That should be exempted, and toxic gas 
pollutants should be exempted, such as mercury and asbestos exposure. 
So all of my amendments make sure we do not enter into new trade 
agreements that have the effect of changing our longstanding 
environmental principle of ``polluters pay'' into ``polluters get 
paid.'' That is what this is about. A polluter can sue in this trade 
agreement.
  I went downstairs. I had to give up all my electronics. I couldn't 
take notes with me, but I know enough to see what this is about. A 
polluter can go and make the case that Colorado or California has 
protective laws, and, by God, it made them pay more money to produce 
their products, and they ask for millions of dollars.
  This is not a fiction. This has happened in past trade agreements. 
Believe me. Countries have paid through the nose and have had to repeal 
their laws. So we are rushing into a fast-track vote on something that 
is very dangerous. It is dangerous to the middle class. It is dangerous 
for jobs. And we are pushing it ahead of things that we ought to be 
doing, such as raising the minimum wage, passing the Ex-Im Bank, 
passing immigration laws, putting together the funding for a highway 
bill. We haven't raised the gas tax in 20 years. If we raise it a penny 
every quarter till we raise about 6 cents or 8 cents, it would cost the 
average driver 30 bucks. We can fix the 69 bridges that are collapsing. 
We can fix the 50 percent of roads that are out of compliance and not 
safe. And we can create 3 million jobs. But, oh, no, we are not doing 
that agenda for the middle class. We are doing things that threaten the 
middle class and that further threaten the health and safety of our 
people.
  So I hope working with Senator McConnell and Senator Brown and 
Senator Wyden, we can get a path forward here to hear our amendments.
  We have a promise from the majority leader: This is a new day.
  The press asked me: Is this a new day in the Senate with Senator 
McConnell? I said no--not.
  I can't get my amendments in. I have 10 amendments up. I can't get 
them on any list. Maybe it is because they don't want to vote on this--
the protrade people. They don't want to vote to say that any deal with 
a country that doesn't pay at least two bucks an hour can't be fast-
tracked. It is a hard vote. It is a hard vote, and I want that vote. So 
I am going to do everything in my power to solve this. I am going to 
use every tool at my disposal. I know the Senator from Washington is 
already doing it for me, in a way, but I stand as a backup here, 
because I don't like this being jammed down the throats of the people. 
This is wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, these trade agreements are big deals. 
Trade promotion authority used to mean setting tariffs. Now they can 
affect everything from the safety of our food to the working conditions 
of people around the world and environmental standards. Very frankly 
and simply, that means that Americans should know what the agreements 
say and what our government is saying about them, and they should be 
given that information while there is a meaningful chance to influence 
them.
  I hope to influence them through this deliberative process. It is 
supposed to be open and transparent. I have two amendments--one that 
would promote greater transparency in trade agreements and the second 
to help ensure that foreign countries cannot use trade agreements to 
undermine the safety and security of America's food supply.
  First, on the subject of transparency, nothing is more fundamental 
than for the American people to know what is in these trade agreements. 
Despite their significance, despite the far-reaching ramifications and 
implications they have for our American economy and, indeed, our way of 
life, they are being negotiated in secret. In fact, Members of Congress 
can view them only if they go to secure locations, and staff of Members 
of Congress can see them only if they are accompanied by the Members 
themselves. The real problem is not Members of Congress or their staff 
but the American public who are kept in the dark. They are the supposed 
beneficiaries of these deals, and yet they are kept from knowing what 
is in them. The TPA would allow the text of an agreement to be made 
public only after it is already finalized--a point that is way too late 
for the people most directly and urgently affected by the deals to do 
anything but try to get Congress to vote down

[[Page S3044]]

the whole thing in its entirety at once. That is not productive. That 
is not fair.
  More transparency would allow issues over a particular provision to 
be resolved individually on their own. This kind of practice is not in 
accordance with our democratic condition, an open and transparent 
process to set policy--whether it is trade policy or any other issue of 
economic and political consequence.
  So making the TPA more transparent is a relatively easy fix. My 
amendment would do it. This amendment would require the publication of 
``formal proposals advanced by the United States in negotiations for a 
trade agreement.''
  ``Formal proposals advanced by the United States in negotiations for 
a trade agreement''--that means that the United States, when it takes 
an official position and offers it to another country, ought to tell 
the American people, its own people--not just the people who are rulers 
of another country but our own people. They have a right to know when 
this administration or any other offers something to people of another 
country, and my amendment would require that basic protection and 
transparency.
  Very importantly, this amendment would not prohibit confidential 
negotiations or closed-door deliberations. Some off-the-record 
discussion, no question, is necessary for effective consideration of 
any multilateral agreement. And this amendment would not affect 
negotiations specifically relating to tariffs and similar market-access 
provisions that are the traditional subjects of trade negotiations.
  Some negotiations have to be done in confidence--in private--but 
basic positions, official proposals, are outside of this realm--
proposals that look more like traditional legislative policymaking, 
because they can involve give or take, sacrifices from the American 
people, and give and take by other countries. They can align standards 
for regulations across a number of areas, from drug development to 
finance.
  Other countries can be encouraged. They can be empowered to adopt 
stronger protections for workers, for clean air and water and more. But 
harm can be done if trade agreements undermine American laws and 
American protections for health, safety, and security of our citizens.
  There are a number of amendments that I have supported that will 
directly address labor issues, environmental issues, and security 
issues. This amendment would simply ensure that all of these issues are 
considered in an open, fair, and transparent way, so the American 
people--not just we in this Chamber, not just our negotiators, not just 
the President and his advisers--know what is happening.
  Publication of formal proposals, which is a term of art in trade 
agreements, would bring American transparency practice in line with the 
general practices of our European allies. The European Union countries 
engaged in the TTIP negotiations announcing that they will post on the 
Internet all textual proposals that will be offered to the United 
States, as well as position papers, establishing their approach and 
analysis. And America should simply do the same. We are a nation that 
prides itself on leading the world in transparency, openness, and 
democracy. We should not be behind our European allies on that score.
  I am very grateful for the support of Senator Brown, a tremendous 
leader in this effort to ensure that American trade agreements work for 
the American people, as well as Senator Baldwin and Senator Udall. And 
I urge other colleagues to support this amendment and the other 
amendments that I am offering on food safety.
  And I am grateful, again, to have the support of Senator Brown on 
this one. It would establish as a principal negotiating objective of 
the United States the protection and promotion of strong food safety 
laws as well as regulations and inspections. Enforcement is key. 
Standards are vital. Ensuring that trade agreements do not weaken or 
diminish our food safety standards ought to be a given.
  We take for granted all too often that our food is safe until we 
discover that it isn't, until we find there are food poisonings and 
tragedies that result from unsafe food. We saw it at the beginning of 
the last century. Unscrupulous corporations can cut corners by skimping 
on food safety or worse, by introducing dangerous additives or 
adulterations to foods, making them or processing them under unsafe or 
unacceptable conditions. They may save money, but they sacrifice lives 
and safety. The consequences in real lives and real time can be 
disastrous--not only in lives but in dollars.
  The majority of food manufacturers and producers take their safety 
responsibilities seriously. The majority in this country certainly do. 
But what about abroad? What about in another country? What about in 
countries where the standards are nonexistent or not enforced? A 
campaign of dedicated advocacy and scientific research led to a system 
of food inspection in this country, which is far from perfect but way 
ahead of other countries, and it gives Americans the confidence they 
need and deserve to walk into any supermarket or restaurant in this 
country and feel trust--deserved because it is earned and because the 
laws are enforced.
  Not all countries, unfortunately, follow these practices. Few 
countries have the standards that ours does. Food production is still 
under-inspected, spoiled or adulterated in those countries, and that is 
the product that we want excluded from this country if they fail to 
meet those standards. I am concerned that this trade agreement will 
affect our own food safety regulations by introducing those deficient 
products--unsafe food--into this country.
  My amendment directs negotiators to ensure that imports of that food 
do not undermine the trust and confidence of our people in our own food 
supply as well as products from abroad. Countries with less stringent 
standards in protecting their citizens should not be permitted to use 
trade agreements to force this country to imitate them.
  Trade is a crucial part of the American economy. It is an essential 
part of our Connecticut economy. Trade, when it is done right, is a 
great boon to many people and our entire economy. Defense and 
aerospace, small manufacturers, furniture and food companies in 
Connecticut all thrive because of trade. I want the world to see what 
Connecticut businesses have to offer, what our exports can do for them.
  I know we can compete with anyone. I know how important exports are 
to my State, but I also know trade deals can have negative, unintended 
consequences, which is what we want to prevent; consequences in abuses 
by foreign governments seeking to subvert or circumvent American 
regulations or by giant multinational companies looking to move jobs 
and capital to where labor is cheapest and can be exploited easiest or 
where health or environmental protections are weakest.
  My amendments would help ensure that the American people know what 
are in these trade agreements before they are approved, while they are 
negotiated, and when our food can be protected and transparency 
assured.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, during this trade debate, we have often 
heard a lot about the words ``enforcement'' or ``enforceable,'' 
particularly the phrase ``enforceable labor and environmental 
standards.'' But the fact is there are no enforceable labor and 
environmental standards. There is no new generation of treaty in the 
TPP that is going to create something we have not had before.
  What we have had before has simply failed us. Why is that? Well, we 
had side agreements on labor and the environment in NAFTA. Much is made 
of the fact that, well, we are not going to have side agreements 
anymore; we are actually going to put these standards right in the 
treaty itself. So somehow folks are arguing in support of this treaty 
that moving the print from over here to here somehow makes is it more 
effective.
  That is not the case. We had the same labor and environmental 
standards in the agreements we passed a few years ago, agreements I 
voted against--the agreement with Colombia, the agreement with Korea.
  But what have we seen over time? Have we ever seen any of these labor 
objectives and these environmental standards enforced? Let me give you 
a sense of what we are talking about.

[[Page S3045]]

Under the International Labor Organization, ILO, they have a set of 
standards. They have lots of details. But there are things like freedom 
of association and the right to collective bargaining and elimination 
of forced labor or compulsory labor, as it is referred to, the 
abolition of child labor, the elimination of discrimination in the 
workplace.
  Certainly, at the heart of this--back to the right of collective 
bargaining--is the right of unions to organize, the right of workers to 
talk to each other and to bargain for a fair return for their efforts. 
But have we ever enforced a single ILO provision? No, we have not. In 
fact, we have only challenged the terrible labor practices in another 
nation once; that is, Guatemala. That went through years before we 
officially challenged it, and now it is still not resolved some 8 years 
after it was first challenged.
  Is there anything new that changes the process in the anticipated 
Trans-Pacific Partnership? No, it is the same process: put in the ILO 
standards and hope people will aspire to honor them--hope, the same 
hope that has failed us time and time again in treaty after treaty. So 
the next time someone comes to this floor and says there is an 
enforceable labor standard, no one should believe it because it is not 
there.
  We have not enforced one labor standard, not one. Guatemala is the 
only one we have challenged, and that one, after 8 years, we still have 
not resolved it. How about environmental standards? Have we filed 
challenges on environmental standards? What are these environmental 
standards? Well, basically it is a requirement to honor international 
treaties.
  No, these things are violated all over the place, but we have not 
challenged them a single time. Now, why is it that the United States 
does not challenge these violations? Well, first, it has to be a 
government-to-government action, when an issue is raised and folks are 
told: Hey, government, U.S. Government, you really should do something 
about trade unionists being murdered in Colombia.
  Well, no, if we object, it will create ripples in the relationship. 
So the U.S. Government does not want to take action. It does not want 
to create ripples in the relationship. But if pressed, folks come and 
say: You know, it really matters that you said you would enforce this, 
U.S. Government, but you are not. You should really do something.
  Well, you know, if we object to the way they are conducting 
themselves in regard to labor and environmental standards, there will 
be retaliatory actions against the United States. Then it will just be: 
We will challenge them, they will challenge us, and it will go on for 
years and years. It will disrupt the whole relationship. Why would we 
do that?
  If that is not enough, then if the government, our government, is 
really serious about enforcing something, then the companies that have 
invested in that nation, then they come forward and say: Wait. The 
whole goal of this trade agreement was to create a stable environment 
for investing. If you challenge and try to have them honor the labor 
and environmental provisions, ultimately, not only will it produce 
retaliatory actions that will be potentially harmful, but if you should 
win somewhere down the line, that means there may be tariffs on the 
products that we produce in that country and they will not be able to 
enter the United States. Please do not mess up our investment in that 
nation.
  So for these reasons, there has been no enforcement--none. Again, 
there was one effort in Guatemala never resolved. There is nothing new 
in this anticipated Trans-Pacific Partnership that would operate any 
differently.
  How about if we had snapback provisions? We have been talking quite a 
lot on the situation with Iran, that if we reach an agreement with them 
in June, Congress is going to want to make sure that if there are 
violations of the agreement, that the controls on Iranian trade that 
have been effective in bringing them to the negotiating table will snap 
back into place to make sure folks really respond in Iran to honoring 
the agreement.
  Is there any snapback provision anticipated, new strategy, this new 
tool to make sure the agreements are actually honored? No, there are 
not. So the old system has not worked. There is no new system. There 
has been no enforcement. Anyone who tells you there are enforceable 
labor and environmental standards is not telling you the truth because 
there are not. That is why we need to change the negotiations.
  Now, the goal of fast-track was to lay out a series of objectives for 
the U.S. Government to pursue in writing an agreement on trade with 
other nations.
  This is a little bit complicated now, because when you raise up an 
idea and say this should be addressed, the administration says, well, 
yes, but we have already negotiated this treaty. We cannot go back to 
the negotiating table and change it. We are 95 to 98 percent complete.
  So, for example, we have been raising the issue of currency 
manipulation. This is a fundamental--fundamental--provision of what 
should be in a trade agreement, because when you get rid of a tariff, 
you can create an effective tariff on your trading partner's products 
and a subsidy on your own through intervention in the currency markets. 
It is known as currency manipulation. It should be covered, but it is 
not.
  When you talk to the administration, the administration says we just 
cannot go back and talk about things that we have not already put on 
the table. So that would be unacceptable for us to take on this 
important provision now because we have already negotiated the 
agreement.
  Well, then, what is really the point of fast-track, if it is not to 
lay out the standards that are expected for an agreement? In that case, 
it is nothing but a rubberstamp for an already negotiated treaty that 
does not meet the things that folks in this room are saying are 
important to have. In that case, it just simply becomes a greased track 
for approving the treaty or the agreement, as it is referred to. It is 
not referred to as a treaty. Why not? When it creates an international 
body that can assess fines on the United States, does that not qualify 
as a treaty? No. Because the folks who are negotiating this do not want 
it to be subject to the supermajority that the Constitution requires 
for a treaty. So they say we will call it an agreement. That will fix 
that. Now it is only a simple majority vote, and we will get this fast-
track under the argument that Congress is getting a chance to say what 
needs to be in the treaty--but not really because we refuse to take any 
item we haven't already put in the agreement.
  So that is really the state of affairs. That is why, instead of 
simply having negotiating objectives, we need to have negotiating 
standards that have to be met before an agreement is brought back to 
this body under the fast-track rule. Objectives are just wishful 
thinking, wishful thinking that you have some type of ``enforceable 
labor provisions,'' wishful thinking that there are some forms of 
enforceable environmental standards.
  Is that really enough? Is that all we are asking for is a little bit 
of wishful thinking, when we already know it is not going to be 
honored? So let's put in mandatory negotiating objectives in these two 
categories. That is why I have submitted amendment No. 1369. I ask 
unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that my 
amendment be brought up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. CANTWELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I am saddened to hear that there is an objection in a context in 
which the majority leader has argued that he is going to have a robust 
and open amendment process. So why is there an objection to bringing an 
amendment forward to debate a core issue, which speech after speech 
after speech in support of this agreement--this fast-track to 
accelerate consideration of TPP--has referred to enforceable labor 
standards? Why not debate an amendment that would actually require 
enforceable labor standards? Why not?
  Well, because apparently that is not a serious goal. Let's turn to 
another piece of this. There is a part of this system referred to as 
``dispute settlement,'' an international system of dispute settlement, 
ISDS. What this does is it sets up a tribunal not subject to American 
law. It is an international tribunal, has one person chosen by America 
and one chosen by a foreign

[[Page S3046]]

investor and one chosen by the combination.
  This group, this ISDS, is empowered to apply a series of standards 
and say that an action by our country has damaged the interest of a 
foreign investor, and the foreign investor must be compensated or, if 
they are not compensated, that the law has to be changed. Well, really 
this whole concept was generated to protect American investments in 
countries that had weak judicial systems because that way, if you had 
an investment and the foreign country tried to expropriate it, change 
the law so you could not sell what you were making or something of that 
nature, there was a way to address that.
  One can understand why American businesses would want that sort of 
stability. You can also understand why countries with poor judicial 
systems would want to sign on to such a system in order to encourage 
investment in their country. They want the jobs. They want that foreign 
investment.
  But in the United States, we have a good judicial system. Why would 
we allow it to be displaced by an international tribunal--a tribunal 
that has not even been approved through the treaty process, mandated in 
the Constitution? Why would we give the power to three corporate 
lawyers who have conflicts of interest--there is no prohibition on 
conflicts of interest for the members who serve as judges--and allow 
them to rule on our consumer laws, allow them to rule on our public 
health laws, allow them to rule on our environmental laws? Quite 
frankly, that is giving away a significant piece of our sovereignty, 
carving a big hole out of our judicial system and handing it over to an 
international tribunal. If that doesn't constitute something that 
should qualify for treaty status--giving away a chunk of sovereignty 
out of our judicial system--I don't know what would qualify for a 
treaty. But this little slick game is underway of calling it an 
agreement in order to bypass our constitutional standard. And what does 
that mean? That means if a State says ``We no longer want to allow 
chemicals to be put into our carpets because those flame retardants are 
causing cancer in our children,'' a foreign investor who has set up a 
factory to make flame retardants can file suit against the United 
States and say they have been damaged as a foreign investor. The 
foreign investor gets rights that do not belong to in-country 
investors. Why should we give special rights to foreign investors that 
American investors do not have?
  Why should we proceed and have a labeling law on e-cigarettes--a new 
challenge, if you will? Let's say, for example, that we require 
mandatory caps, childproof caps on the bottles. Let's say we banned the 
flavorings on e-cigarettes. Those flavorings are things such as double 
chocolate delight or any other number of candy flavors, bubble gum--you 
name it. If it sounds like candy, there is a container of liquid 
nicotine with that name on it. So you take away the flavorings, you 
greatly diminish the sales targeted at our youth.
  Why would we control the flavorings? Well, we passed a law in 2009 
that gave that power to the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration. The 
Food and Drug Administration has done an initial draft deeming 
regulation. Under this draft deeming regulation, they attempt to 
control or perhaps may control the flavorings. They would do so because 
cigarette companies--that is, tobacco companies--are targeting our 
children because they know that addiction occurs before the age of 21. 
You want to get our middle school and high school children puffing on 
e-cigarettes so that they will be addicted before they reach 21 because 
by then the brain has developed to the degree that people rarely get 
addicted.
  So we, in protection of the health of our children, have seriously 
considered--created a framework for regulating this candy-flavored 
attack on the health of our youth. That is why we do it, for the 
protection of our youth. But along comes a foreign investor who set up 
a factory to create liquid nicotine and says: I can't sell my product 
now because I invested in all this equipment to do all these candy 
flavors and you are banning it. You either have to change your law or I 
get to be compensated.
  So we should carve out of this ISDS settlement, if we have it at 
all--and I think it should be opt-in. A country that wants foreign 
investment because they know they have a shaky judicial system should 
opt into it. We would not opt in because we have a fair judicial 
system. But if it is going to exist, it should definitely carve out our 
public health, our consumer laws, and our environmental laws. And that 
is exactly why I have amendment No. 1401.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside and amendment No. 1401 be called up.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). Objection is heard.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I will keep pushing for consideration of my amendments, 
which are being banned from consideration on this floor, because if we 
are going to have a ``robust and open amendment process,'' we should, 
in fact, have a robust and open amendment process and consider these 
serious issues before us.
  So let's turn to a third area, which is the fact that the Trans-
Pacific Partnership--you hear robust labor protections that level the 
playing field. Well, a level playing field would involve roughly 
similar standards between countries. So is there anything that levels 
in any way the vast difference between the minimum wage in some of the 
prospective TPP countries and other countries? The answer is no, not a 
thing. The single most important labor differential between the nations 
is not addressed in any shape or form.
  So if we were to look at the minimum wages, we would find, as the 
Senator from California noted earlier, that Brunei and Singapore have 
no minimum wage at all. Mexico and Vietnam are under $1 in minimum 
wage. Malaysia, Peru, and Chile are under $2.50. So basically we have 7 
countries out of this group of 12 that have a minimum wage that either 
doesn't exist or is under roughly $2.50. That is very different from 
the other five countries in this agreement. These are countries such as 
the United States, with a minimum wage at $7.25--it should be higher, 
but it is $7.25; Japan's is $8.17; Canada has a minimum wage of $9.75; 
New Zealand, $11.18; and Australia's is $16.87--more than double the 
United States, which was surprising to me.
  Well, if you have this vast difference and you have manufacturers in 
the United States, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, these 
manufacturers would like to play off China against Malaysia and 
Malaysia against Vietnam and Vietnam against Mexico because that way 
they can drive the lowest possible wages between these countries.
  Let me be quick to say that there are American companies--highly 
responsible American companies--that depend on overseas manufacturing 
that are very careful in monitoring their subcontractors and the 
conditions in which their subcontractors operate. These are often the 
brands that we know well, that are pillars in our community. But for 
every one of those, there are dozens of contractors and subcontractors 
that are seeking the lowest possible cost to make something, and that 
is why they want to play off these countries against each other. Oh, 
Malaysia, you are raising your minimum wage. Oh, you are enforcing your 
environmental standard. We are going to increase production in our 
Vietnamese factory. Oh, Vietnam, you now are saying you want to honor 
the ILO labor standard? Well, that is a problem. We are going to 
produce more in our Mexico factory. So this is opening a race to the 
bottom.
  If we are going to come to the floor--as many have--to say that there 
are fundamentally even labor standards between the countries in this 
agreement, shouldn't we have even standards? Shouldn't we have an even 
minimum wage standard or at a minimum at least require there to be a 
base minimum wage and then have that raised over time for participants 
so as to reduce the differential between the highest paid and the 
lowest paid? Because not only does this system set up an ability and an 
effort to play off Malaysia against Mexico, against Vietnam, but it 
also sets up a situation where the conversation is like this: Oh, so 
here in America we are going to raise our minimum wage. Well, that 
means we are going to have to shift another 1,000 jobs somewhere else--
maybe to

[[Page S3047]]

Malaysia, maybe to Vietnam. Maybe we will use the WTO and go to China.
  It has a big impact on suppressing living wages in our country, and 
we have seen this impact. Since 1974, we have seen productivity soar in 
our country, but the actual return to workers, inflation adjusted, has 
been flat and then declining for the last 10 years. Families are having 
a terribly difficult time getting by.
  So not only do we have a stake in fairness not to create a race to 
the bottom between Malaysia, Vietnam, Mexico, and Peru, but we also 
have an incentive not to create a situation where U.S. living wages are 
constantly eviscerated under the threat of shipping those jobs 
overseas. Well, maybe we will assemble it here, but we will do more of 
our subcomponents in those countries. And once you set up an effective, 
efficient factory overseas, it makes it easier and easier to ship 
those.
  That is why I have an amendment that says: At a minimum, let's fill 
this gaping gap. Let's proceed to require there to be, as part of the 
negotiations, the negotiation of a minimum wage for entry and for that 
minimum wage to be gradually increased in order to diminish the 
disparities between the high-wage countries, of which there are five in 
this agreement, and the low-wage countries, of which there are seven. 
This would be good to end the play off of one low-wage country against 
another, and it would be good to diminish the comparative advantage of 
low-wage countries in terms of taking manufacturing out of the United 
States. That is why I drafted amendment No. 1409.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside and for my amendment No. 1409 to be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I am zero for three now in terms of being able to get 
substantive amendments, serious amendments on this floor for debate, 
but I will try to on one more, and this one is anchored in recent news 
that we have seen the country-of-origin labeling--or COOL, as it is 
called--country-of-origin labeling standard knocked down just 
yesterday. What does this mean? This means it is going to be considered 
a trade violation for us to inform Americans on where their meat comes 
from. Isn't it a fundamental right in our country to know where our 
food comes from? Shouldn't we always have the right to know that? But 
we have engaged in a trade agreement--a previous trade agreement--and 
now the adjudicating body of that agreement says: No, no, no. That is 
unfair, to tell people where the meat comes from. Well, I think that is 
wrong, absolutely 100 percent wrong. Every American consumer should 
have the right to know where their meat comes from, and if I want to 
buy American-grown beef, I should have the right to do that, and I 
can't exercise that right unless I know--on the package--where it was 
grown.
  If there are human rights violations or labor violations in Colombia 
and I don't want to buy Colombia meat until they fix their labor 
negotiations, I should have the right to use my dollar to buy my meat 
from the United States of America and not meat grown in Colombia. But 
that has been struck down because we gave away previously a chunk of 
our sovereignty. That is the danger of giving away the sovereignty of 
the United States of America to an international group that strikes 
down fundamental rights that every one of us should have. So let's fix 
that.
  That is why I drafted amendment No. 1404 which would declare that the 
right to establish information for consumers about where their food 
comes from will not be violated by the agreement that is brought back 
to the Senate.
  I hope everyone will join me in unanimous consent in saying that 
absolutely we are going to defend the rights of Americans to know where 
their food comes from.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside and that amendment No. 1404 be brought up in order that we 
should all be able to exercise our rights to not buy products from 
countries that we find in violation of fundamental human rights or 
other labor abuses or environmental errors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I see my colleagues on the floor who have their own 
amendments to address. I will conclude by saying that if I can't get up 
one of my four amendments to be debated--all substantive and all 
addressing key components of this agreement--then this is not a robust 
process, this is not an open process, and I ask the majority leader to 
keep his vision that he laid out on this floor that this would be an 
open process and a robust process.
  Thank you.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the pending business, 
which is the trade promotion authority, also known as TPA, adding to 
the many initials we are throwing around these days.
  I thought the Senate came to an agreement to move forward on this 
legislation, and as promised by the majority leader allowing 
amendments, but we are not getting to vote. I hope we can note that the 
objections are not coming from the Republican side of the aisle.
  I believe the United States must engage in a global marketplace if 
they are going to survive economically. I also understand there are 
concerns about TPA. In particular, there is confusion about what 
exactly happens when Congress passes a TPA bill. History provides us an 
insight into why Congress created this particular authority.
  Article I of the U.S. Constitution states, ``Congress shall have the 
Power To . . . regulate Commerce with foreign nations.'' For over 150 
years, Congress established tariff rates directly. However, under the 
Reciprocal Trade Agreement of 1934, RTAA--more initials--Congress 
delegated this authority to the President, who could reduce tariffs 
within preapproved levels in reciprocal trade agreements.
  In response to Presidential overreach under the act, Congress enacted 
the first trade promotion authority bill in 1974. Since that time, 
Congress has regularly enacted TPA legislation which defines U.S. 
negotiating objectives and priorities for trade agreements.
  As an added measure, Congress includes time limits on the use of TPA 
and retains the option to disapprove of an extension when the President 
requests one. Finally, each Chamber has the right to exercise its 
constitutional authority to change TPA in an implementing bill.
  The underlying TPA bill builds on the tradition of Congress setting 
the terms for trade by expanding the transparency and consultation 
requirements for the administration. The procedure allows any Member of 
the House or Senate to unilaterally push to remove TPA authority if he 
or she believes the White House has not consulted fully with Congress. 
This is an important check to ensure that Congress is not turning over 
the fast-track keys to an administration that will disrespect the 
negotiating objectives Congress sets in its TPA bill.
  I am confident in supporting TPA because it advances the ball on the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership--TPP. The TPP agreement is not just a trade 
agreement, it is an economic and strategic agreement. The TPA parties 
already include a number of nations the United States already has 
bilateral free-trade agreements with, including Australia, Chile, 
Singapore, and Peru. This starting point ensures that TPP includes the 
highest standards of trade favorable to an economically free and fair 
market.
  Additionally, we know the United States needs to continue setting the 
tone in the Pacific region both economically and politically. The TPP 
achieves the goal by taking the first step in creating the leading 
trade agreement of the 21st century.
  Let me give some examples of how TPP will benefit Wyoming. Despite 
having no direct access to the Pacific Ocean, in 2014, businesses from 
Wyoming exported $1 billion in goods to TPP partners, which would grow 
under the new agreement. For Wyoming, most of its trade is in the 
natural chemical industry. A key industrial

[[Page S3048]]

and chemical product I have spoken about on the Senate floor is soda 
ash. Wyoming also exports machinery and energy products to these 
Pacific markets.
  I must also add that over two-thirds of the firms exporting goods 
from Wyoming are small- or medium-sized businesses. Exports are 
increasingly playing a role in job growth in my State. In 1992, just 12 
percent of the jobs in the State of Wyoming were tied to international 
trade. As of 2013, one in six jobs in Wyoming is dependent on 
international trade. The TPP agreement is an opportunity for Wyoming's 
businesses, especially in mining, manufacturing, and agriculture, to 
expand their markets and grow. This is why on April 22 I voted to 
support TPA in the Senate Committee on Finance.
  Trade promotion authority also plays a key role in advancing the 
interests of our Nation's most competitive businesses, including 
technology and medical innovation. I have long spoken about the 
importance of protecting American innovations overseas. The United 
States remains a leader in innovation and technology because of our 
strong protections for intellectual property. The TPP would include the 
highest standard to date for new innovations.
  I look forward to advancing TPA and want to give credit to Chairman 
Hatch and Leader McConnell for the open amendment process they are 
trying to get on this bill.
  I will also mention, briefly, that I oppose expanding TAA--another 
good acronym--without a closer look at how it mimics and duplicates 
Federal workforce training programs. As the former chairman and ranking 
member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I 
am extremely familiar with the existing Federal programs that Congress 
funds to improve workforce training. TAA is redundant, and now is not 
the time to increase spending. As chairman of the Senate Committee on 
the Budget, I cannot ignore programs that add new spending. That is why 
I intend to vote against expanding it and adding it to the underlying 
bill.
  I hope we will take a look at the TPA within the amendment process, 
and I hope people will pay attention to an article that appeared in the 
Casper Star Tribune, which is our State newspaper. I assume it appeared 
in many other newspapers. The title of this article is ``The left is so 
wrong on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.'' The article goes into some of 
the reasons Democrats might be trying to deny this from happening. If 
you look at the strategy, I think that probably is where a lot of the 
amendments are headed--to actually defeating it, not to help it along, 
not to improve it, and that is wrong.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article I 
just mentioned.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Casper Star Tribune, May 17, 2015]

         The Left Is so Wrong on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

                           (By Froma Harrop)

       The left's success in denying President Obama fast-track 
     authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is 
     ugly to behold. The case put forth by a showboating U.S. Sen. 
     Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.,--that Obama cannot be trusted to 
     make a deal in the interests of American workers--is almost 
     worse than wrong. It is irrelevant.
       The Senate Democrats who turned on Obama are playing a 78 
     rpm record in the age of digital downloads.
       Did you hear their ally, AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka, the 
     day after the Senate vote? He denounced TPP for being 
     ``patterned after CAFTA and NAFTA.'' That's not so, but never 
     mind.
       There's this skip on the vinyl record that the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement destroyed American 
     manufacturing. To see how wrong that is, simply walk through 
     any Wal-Mart or Target and look for all those ``made in 
     Mexico'' labels. You won't find many. But you'll see ``made 
     in China'' everywhere.
       Many of the jobs that did go to Mexico would have otherwise 
     left for low-wage Asian countries. Even Mexico lost 
     manufacturing work to China.
       And what can you say about the close-to-insane obsession 
     with CAFTA? The partners in the 2005 Central American Free 
     Trade Agreement--five mostly impoverished Central American 
     countries plus the Dominican Republic--had a combined economy 
     equal to that of New Haven, Conn.
       (By the way, less than 10 percent of the AFL-CIO's 
     membership is now in manufacturing.)
       It's undeniable that American manufacturing workers have 
     suffered terrible job losses. We could never compete with 
     pennies-an-hour wages. Those low-skilled jobs are not coming 
     back. But we have other things to sell in the global 
     marketplace.
       In Washington state, for example, exports of everything 
     from apples to airplanes have soared 40 percent over four 
     years to total nearly $91 billion in 2014, according to The 
     Seattle Times. About two in five jobs there are now tied to 
     trade.
       Small wonder that U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, a liberal Democrat 
     from neighboring Oregon, has strongly supported fast-track 
     authority.
       Some liberals oddly complain that American efforts to 
     strengthen intellectual property laws in trade deals protect 
     the profits of U.S. entertainment and tech companies. What's 
     wrong with that? Should the fruits of America's creativity 
     (that's labor, too) be open to plundering and piracy?
       One of TPP's main goals is to help the higher-wage partners 
     compete with China. (The 12 countries taking part include the 
     likes of Japan, Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico and New 
     Zealand.) In any case, Congress would get to vote the 
     finished product up or down, so it isn't as if the public 
     wouldn't get a say.
       But then we have Warren stating with a straight face that 
     handing negotiating authority to Obama would ``give 
     Republicans the very tool they need to dismantle Dodd-
     Frank.''
       Huh? Obama swatted down the remark as wild, hypothetical 
     speculation, noting he engaged in a ``massive'' fight with 
     Wall Street to get the reforms passed. ``And then I sign a 
     provision that would unravel it?'' he told political writer 
     Matt Bai.
       ``This is not a partisan issue,'' Warren insisted. Yes, in 
     a twisted way, the hard left's fixation over big corporations 
     has joined the right's determination to undermine Obama at 
     every pass.
       Trade agreements have a thousand moving parts. The United 
     States can't negotiate with the other countries if various 
     domestic interests are pouncing on the details. That's why 
     every president has been given fast-track authority over the 
     past 80 years or so.
       Except Obama.
       It sure is hard to be an intelligent leader in this 
     country.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 
8 p.m. today be equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or 
yielding back of that time, the Senate vote in relation to the 
amendments listed: No. 1312, Inhofe-Coons, as further modified; No. 
1227, Shaheen; No. 1327, Warren; No. 1251, Brown; I further ask that no 
second-degree amendments be in order to these amendments and that the 
Inhofe amendment be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold for 
adoption. I further ask that it be in order to offer the following 
first-degree amendments during today's session of the Senate: No. 1252, 
Brown-Portman, the level playing field amendment; No. 1385, Hatch-
Wyden, the currency amendment; No. 1384, Cruz-Grassley, the immigration 
amendment; No. 1410, Menendez, the child labor amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I would like to speak first on the request. 
I thank Chairman Hatch for his work on this, especially on the level 
the playing field. He knows this amendment is a top priority for me. It 
is also a top priority for steelworkers and steel facilities throughout 
the country.
  I would like to ask Chairman Hatch if he would take the same 
collaborative spirit he has shown toward me and ask him to modify his 
request, if I could. This is my request, Mr. President.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following first-degree amendments be 
in order to be offered during today's session: Brown-Portman No. 1252; 
Hatch-Wyden No. 1385; Cruz-Grassley No. 1384; Menendez-Wyden No. 1410; 
Cantwell No. 1248; Casey No. 1334; Baldwin No. 1317; Murphy No. 1333; 
Cardin No. 1230; Blumenthal No. 1297; Sanders No. 1343; Markey No. 
1308; Peters No. 1353; Whitehouse No. 1387; Boxer No. 1361; Franken No. 
1390; Durbin No. 1244; Merkley No. 1401; that the time until 8 p.m. 
today be equally divided in the usual form and that at 8 p.m. the 
Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the 
order listed: Inhofe-Coons No. 1312, as modified with the changes that 
are at the desk; Shaheen No. 1227; Warren No. 1327; McCain-Shaheen No. 
1226; Brown No. 1251; Hatch-Wyden No. 1385; Portman-Stabenow No. 1299; 
Brown-Portman No. 1252; and Cantwell No. 1248. Further, I ask that no 
second-degree amendments be in order to these

[[Page S3049]]

amendments prior to the votes and that the following amendments be 
subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold for adoption: Inhofe-Coons 
No. 1312; Brown-Portman No. 1252; McCain-Shaheen No. 1226; and Cantwell 
No. 1248; finally, I ask unanimous consent that it not be in order for 
cloture to be filed on the Hatch substitute or the underlying bill 
during today's session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Utah so modify his 
request?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, of course I haven't seen all that, so I 
will have to enter an objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection to the modification is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Before Senator Peters speaks, I again would like to thank 
Senator Hatch for the work he has done on this. I appreciate how he 
wants to move forward. There are many things here we agree with to move 
forward on.
  The reason for the unanimous consent request I made was that we saw 
today a whole host of Senators come to the floor. We saw Senator 
Baldwin come down, Senator Merkley has come down, Senator Peters is 
here, Senator Blumenthal came earlier, Senator Warren, Senator 
Whitehouse, Senator Casey--and I am leaving some out--Senators Boxer 
and Franken all came to the floor with amendments because they want, as 
Senator McConnell promised, a full and open process. So my unanimous 
consent request was to take the generous offer of Senator Hatch and 
make it broader and wider so those Senators who have shown the interest 
to come to the floor today would be able to offer those amendments.
  The reason I asked that cloture not be filed today is that it just 
simply doesn't seem right to me--and I know to a number of Members of 
my caucus--that literally 24 hours after we start this process we 
already are talking about cloture.
  Thirteen years ago, the last time we did fast-track here, this debate 
went for 3 weeks. I am not asking for 3 weeks. I think that would be a 
bridge too far for most of us. But I am saying that 13 years ago there 
were 50 amendments that were considered. Today, we have considered 6 
and there have been 149 filed. That is 4 percent of the amendments that 
were filed. Again, Senator Hatch's generous offer gets us not even to 
10 percent of those offered amendments.
  So invoking cloture this quickly really does stifle the process, and 
I think this is too big a deal for that. This fast-track debate 
encompasses the largest trade debate, the largest trade agreement in 
the history of the country--I guess in the history of the world, for 
that matter. It involves 40 percent of the world's GDP, these 12 TPP 
countries. Adding in the European countries in the next round, also 
under TPA, is another 20 percent of the world's GDP. So that would be 
60 percent of the world's GDP. You don't file cloture within 24 hours 
and begin to shut down debate.
  That was the reason for my unanimous consent request. Again, I thank 
Senator Hatch for his patience in working together on the level the 
playing field amendment, one of the major enforcement issues, but I 
have at least 15 Members of my caucus, as many as 20, who want to offer 
amendments. There have been 149 amendments filed on both sides, and to 
cut off debate with fewer than 10 percent of them in order or even a 
few more than that is simply not the way this Senate should operate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague, and I am trying 
to accommodate him. I always try to accommodate my colleagues. On the 
other hand, his side has stonewalled this since last Wednesday. 
Thursday was a full day we lost. We are going to be here Friday. We did 
not do very much yesterday; today, nothing. I am very concerned that we 
are not moving ahead. We are not doing what we should do. This is an 
important matter. It is an important bill.
  I chatted with the President earlier today. He indicated how 
important it is to him personally, what this bill means to our country, 
how important it is to get it passed and to pass it in a form the House 
will accept, which is what I am trying to do.
  I do not think it has been this side that has slowed this down, 
although I do not want to pick on either side. The Senators are 
certainly within their rights to slow-walk this all they want to. On 
the other hand, it is very difficult for me to sit here, having sat 
here all day and yesterday and would have been Thursday and Friday as 
well and Saturday if necessary. It strikes me as interesting that now 
they want all these amendments when they have had all this time to 
bring up their amendments and nobody was going to stop them.
  All I can say is that I hope we come here tomorrow prepared to do 
amendments or do them tonight. I am prepared to stay if we have to. But 
the fact is that we are not going anywhere on this right now. This is 
an extremely important bill not only for the Congress but for the 
President of the United States and for the world at large when you stop 
and think about it, certainly the world over in Asia.
  We are talking about having an agreement with Japan. It is the first 
time we have been able to do that. We have a new Prime Minister who is 
willing to work with us, and we are willing to work with him. That is a 
major achievement by this administration--not only that but 10 other 
countries. There is a high percentage of trade in this area, and what 
are we going to do--just leave it all to China to take over or are we 
going to take this more seriously and get this job done?
  We have a number of poison pills that people have wanted to bring up 
that naturally would mean the end of this particular bill. I would like 
to prevent that if we can because we are talking about a bipartisan 
bill that has plenty of bipartisan support that really is crucial to 
this country at this time and crucial to that region. That could be a 
very difficult region for us if we do not do this.
  If we do not do this and do it right, as we are trying to do and as 
the President is trying to do, then we will be just turning that whole 
area over to China. They are going to step right in and make the 
difference. Right now, these people want to deal with us, and there is 
a good reason they want to deal with us. But if we cannot even get our 
act in order to deal with them, then I can understand why they might go 
another route. They might be forced to go another route.
  We all saw the new bank that has been established over there. At 
first, there were very few countries that went with it. The last time I 
heard--I may be wrong on this--there were up to 60 countries, including 
some of the European countries, some of the greatest countries in the 
world now.
  What are we going to do--just cede the whole area to China or are we 
going to compete? This bill is for competitive purposes.
  Mr. WYDEN. Will the distinguished chairman yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes.
  Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the chairman's work. I 
want to ask a question about where, in effect, we are. The two of us 
worked together on the list----
  Mr. HATCH. That is right. Forgive me, I did not mean to indicate I 
was the only one doing this. I had an excellent partner.
  Mr. WYDEN. Not at all. The question is, Mr. Chairman, we worked 
together to put together this list, and it was based on the proposition 
that we were going to be fair to both sides.
  Mr. HATCH. Right.
  Mr. WYDEN. On my side of the aisle, my colleagues on the Democratic 
side of the aisle felt strongly about the currency issue. Senator 
Stabenow, for example, and many others felt very strongly about the 
amendment Senator Warren sought to offer. We were able, working 
together, to in effect get an equal number for each side.

[[Page S3050]]

  My understanding is that we continue to be interested--and you just, 
I think, made another gracious offer. We are going to stay here 
tonight. You are still interested in putting together a list that gives 
all sides a fair chance at their major amendments. Is that a fair 
recitation of where we are now, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes. I think both of us literally have tried to be fair to 
both sides. There are some amendments that I wish we did not have to 
put up with, to be perfectly frank with you, but that is always the 
case. Why should we not be fair to both sides?
  There comes a limit to what you can do in these matters. As I said, 
this is probably the most important bill in many respects, outside of 
ObamaCare, in this President's 8 years. It is an extremely important 
bill for our country. It is an extremely important bill for our 
economy. It is an extremely important bill for our allies over in those 
areas. It is an extremely important bill that helps to set the stage 
for TTIP, the 28 countries in Europe.
  All this bill does basically is provide a procedural mechanism 
whereby Congress has some control, if not total control, over what 
agreements are negotiated. This is not the TPP. It is not TTIP. It is 
not the final decisions on that. That will be made pursuant to this 
bill, which will be a very important bill for the purpose of saying 
that the White House and the administration follow certain protocols 
and recognize that the Congress of the United States is important in 
these trade matters, too.
  I want to thank my colleague from Oregon for the hard work he has 
done on this bill. He has been a wonderful partner to work with today, 
and I really appreciate him. I hope we can resolve these problems, but 
as of right now, I had to object to the unanimous consent request by 
the distinguished Senator from Ohio, for whom I have a lot of respect. 
I do not agree with him, but I know he is sincere, and I know he is 
working very hard for what he believes is proper.
  With that, I do not know what else to do other than just say I object 
to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I, too, like the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, have been here all day, and I empathize with the dilemma 
that he faces, along with the ranking member, on how to move forward 
with this legislation.
  This is a discussion which has been going on for months and months, 
if not years, which is, what are we going to do, as we deal with trade 
issues, about the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which 
expires at the end of June?
  While I appreciate my colleagues on the Finance Committee and the 
movement of trade legislation, I have had many discussions with them 
over the last several months about this very issue and the fact that 
this issue has to get resolved. I know no Member gets to have their way 
about what legislation gets an amendment. The list that was just given 
does nothing to guarantee that we would ever see a vote on the 
authorization of the Ex-Im Bank.
  While the other side wants to protect what they think are the 
opportunities to pass this legislation in the House, which I respect, I 
do not think the House has to dictate to the U.S. Senate how we are 
going to proceed when the majority of people in both the House and 
Senate support the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. Right 
now, it has deals of $18 billion and more pending before it. If the 
Bank expires June 30, all of those trade deals, which are jobs for U.S. 
companies, disappear and go away. So, yes, in my opinion, there is no 
more important amendment than one that saves $18 billion of U.S. 
company sales to overseas markets.
  So I and my colleagues who support the Ex-Im Bank reauthorization, 
which is the majority in both the House and Senate, have lost our 
patience with the ability to get this Bank before the Senate and before 
the House before that June 30 deadline. So I have no compulsion at this 
moment to say that I do not support moving forward on the cloture 
motion until we get an understanding of how this Bank is going to be 
reauthorized.
  I know people are proud of the work that has been done on TPA, but it 
is silly to say to the American people that we are moving forward on 
opening up trade opportunities but we are going to let expire the tool 
that small businesses and individuals use to export their products--as 
a credit agency. It makes no sense to open up Cambodia if then you 
cannot get a bank in Cambodia to have the sales of a product from my 
colleague from South Carolina to that country. If somebody wants to 
tell me that one of these New York Wall Street banks will give us that 
kind of financing, then maybe we will come up with a different 
solution, but one does not exist.
  Until our colleagues give us an answer about something we have been 
clear about for more than a year, we are going to continue to object 
because we are not going to let this Bank expire--the credit agency--
without a fight.
  I know my colleague from South Carolina is here on the floor. I 
appreciate his support of the Ex-Im Bank.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to echo what my colleague from 
Washington said. To those who negotiated this trade package, well done. 
I am going to vote for the Portman amendment because I think currency 
manipulation should be addressed more forcefully.
  If trade deals in the future are going to be like trade deals in the 
past, we need to look at what we are doing because some of the trade 
deals in the past have not worked out so well.
  On this currency issue, I want to vote. On the bank, I am telling my 
leadership the following: I have talked with you and talked with you. I 
have forgone taking votes on the Ex-Im Bank because I did not want to 
rock the boat on the budget and other things. I am tired of talking. 
You are not going to get my vote for cloture or anything else this year 
until I get a vote--we get a vote--on the Ex-Im Bank. There are over 60 
votes in this body.
  To the chairman, whom I admire greatly, you mentioned China. Let me 
mention China. China makes wide-body jets. They are getting into the 
wide-body jets business big time. China makes about everything we make. 
Boeing makes 787s in South Carolina and Washington. GE makes gas 
turbines in Greenville, SC, mostly sold through Ex-Im financing to the 
developing world.
  If you are worried about China stepping in if we do not have this 
great trade deal, here is what I am worried about: If our Bank expires, 
then the market share we have today because we have competitive 
financing goes away, and the biggest beneficiary of closing down the 
Bank will be China.
  I am not going to subject American manufacturers to trying to sell 
their products overseas without ex-im financing while all their 
competitors have an ex-im bank. As a matter of fact, China's bank is 
bigger than the banks of the United States, France, England, and 
Germany combined.
  Airbus is a great airplane. France and Germany have an ex-im bank. An 
American manufacturer, when it comes to a wide-body aircraft or any 
other product trying to be sold overseas in the developing world--this 
Bank makes money for the taxpayers and makes them competitive.
  To all of those who really do believe in trade, the fact that you 
would let the Bank expire because of some ideological jihad on our side 
makes absolutely no sense to me. I will not be a part of that anymore.
  To the people who are trying to make this the scalp for conservatism, 
I think you lost your way. This Bank makes money for the taxpayers. 
This Bank doesn't lose money. This Bank allows American manufacturers 
who are doing business in the developing world to have a competitive 
foothold against their competitors in China and throughout Europe and 
have access to Ex-Im financing. All we are talking about is an 
American-made product sold in the developing world where they cannot 
get traditional financing.
  The Ex-Im Bank has been around for decades. Ronald Reagan was for the 
Ex-Im Bank. The Ex-Im Bank is directly responsible for helping to sell 
Boeing aircraft made in South Carolina. Seventy percent of the 
production in South Carolina is eligible for Ex-Im financing. There are 
thousands of small businesses which benefit from manufactured products 
sold in the developing world through Ex-Im financing.

[[Page S3051]]

  Would I like to live in a world where there were no ex-im banks? 
Sure, but the world I am not going to live in is where we shut our Ex-
Im Bank down and China keeps theirs open. I am not doing that. That is 
not trade. That is just idiotic. That is unilateral surrender.
  Come to South Carolina and tell the people at Boeing and all of their 
suppliers--and go to the Greenville GE plant that hires thousands of 
South Carolinians and all of their small business suppliers--why it is 
a good idea for America to shut down a bank that makes money for the 
taxpayers that allows us to be competitive. Tell them how you think 
that is a good way to grow our economy. Tell those people who have good 
jobs in South Carolina--and who will surely lose market share because 
we closed our Bank down--how proud they should be of your ideological 
purity.
  I welcome this debate in South Carolina down the road. But I promised 
my leadership and friends on the other side that I am a reasonable guy. 
I vote for issues give-and-take, but the one thing I will not do is 
allow the Bank to expire without a vote. If my colleagues can beat me 
on the floor, that is fine. I am not asking anyone to vote for the 
Bank. I am asking them to allow me to vote for the Bank because it is 
critical to the economy in my State and I think the Nation as a whole.
  The only reason we are having this debate is because some outside 
groups have made this the conservative cause celebre--in my view, 
without any rational reason.
  I have no problem helping the chairman and ranking member move this 
bill because they talk about how it will make it harder on China to 
take market share in Asia. The only thing I ask of this body is to 
allow me and my colleagues who care about the Ex-Im Bank--it is a small 
piece of the puzzle that has a gigantic impact. It made over $3 billion 
for the American taxpayers.
  This Bank is essential for American manufacturers to be competitive 
in the developing world, and I will not let this Bank expire without a 
vote. I will not give market share to China or the Europeans. I will 
not do that.
  I am willing to work with my colleagues, but they have to be willing 
to work with me. And if they are not willing to honor their word that 
they have been giving me for the last 6 months, then they have nobody 
to blame but themselves.
  To the Senator from Washington, all we are asking for is a vote on 
the Ex-Im Bank--that has been around for decades, that Ronald Reagan 
said was a good idea and that has overwhelming bipartisan support--
before June 30 on a vehicle that must become law if we can pass that 
amendment. I ask the Senator from Washington, is that correct?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina is 
correct. That is all we have been asking for, and we have talked to our 
colleagues about various vehicles and various opportunities for those 
votes. And, yes, that is exactly what has been promised.
  We are here today because, as the Senator from South Carolina has 
described, the failure of us to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank will mean 
huge opportunities for foreign competitors at the very time when we are 
trying to open up markets for our U.S. companies. All we are asking is 
for the opportunity to have this vote. As the majority leader said, let 
the will of the Senate be done.
  The Senator from South Carolina is right. People who have extreme 
views on this have decided that this is something they can hold up. 
Well, I don't think we are here today to try to ultimately say how 
individual people should vote. They should vote their conscience.
  The fact that this Bank is about to expire and the fact that these 
jobs would be lost because we didn't do our job by reauthorizing the 
Bank is a failure. It is an imminent threat of $18 billion. These are 
proposed deals for export that will not get approved and will not get 
done because we won't have a bank. I think the Senate can do better 
than that.
  I thank my colleague for being here tonight and going into detail 
about the Ex-Im Bank.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, and I will wrap it up.
  To my colleagues who have been raising money off of this, you can 
raise all the money you want to, but you will have to debate your ideas 
against my ideas. You will not be able to shut this Bank down without a 
vote. If you feel that good about your position, let's have a vote on 
the floor of the Senate and on the floor of the House.
  The one thing we will not do is let the Bank die without a debate and 
a vote, and that debate and vote must come before June 30 because the 
damage will have been done.
  I will not sit on the sidelines and watch jobs in my State be lost 
because of some ideological crusade, the biggest beneficiaries of which 
would be China and our European competitors. If you really do care 
about China's effect in the world marketplace, shutting the Ex-Im Bank 
down in America and allowing China to keep theirs open is a deathblow 
to American manufacturers that sell in the developing world.
  With that, I yield the floor and look forward to a positive outcome 
so my colleagues can have their bill passed and have votes on 
amendments they care about and get the bill up and passed if the votes 
are there, as long as I get a chance, along with the Senator from 
Washington, to vote on what I care about and what I think is essential 
to the economy--and not just to South Carolina but to the manufacturing 
community that sells in the developing world.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I think we are all aware that Chairman 
Hatch and Senator Wyden have been working in good faith over the last 
several days to set up both debates and votes on amendments from both 
sides of the aisle. The bill managers have had some success in working 
together on the votes that we have had, and so far we have worked to 
get an additional seven amendments pending.
  Sadly, there is an objection from the other side of the aisle on 
getting additional amendments pending regardless of which party offers 
the amendment.
  Senator Hatch and his colleague have been down here for days trying 
to get amendments up, and obviously it is possible in the Senate to 
prevent others from getting amendments. Now we have the whole process 
stymied because we cannot seem to get agreements for any additional 
amendments.
  I think we all know this is a body that requires at least some level 
of cooperation, and that just has not been happening here on this 
bipartisan bill.
  I will point out that while I will file cloture on the bill this 
evening, that is not the end of the story. I will repeat that: That is 
not the end of the story. The bill managers will continue to work 
together to get more amendments available for votes before the cloture 
vote. And with a little cooperation from our friends on the other side 
of the aisle, I still think we can get that done.
  It is my hope that we will be able to process a number of amendments, 
particularly those which are critical to Members on both sides, and 
then move forward, and we will have a couple of days to accomplish 
that.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send to the desk a cloture motion to 
the Hatch amendment No. 1221 to H.R. 1314.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

  We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of 
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring 
to a close debate on the Hatch amendment No. 1221 to H.R. 1314, an act 
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a right to an 
administrative appeal relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt 
status of certain organizations.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Orrin G. Hatch, Daniel 
           Coats, John Boozman, Thom Tillis, Mike Rounds, Pat 
           Roberts, Richard Burr, John Barrasso, Mike Crapo, Jeff 
           Flake, Tom Cotton, Shelley Moore Capito, David Perdue, 
           Chuck Grassley, Dan Sullivan.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send to the desk a cloture motion to 
H.R. 1314.

[[Page S3052]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 1314, an 
     act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for 
     a right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse 
     determinations of tax-exempt status of certain organizations.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Orrin G. Hatch, Daniel 
           Coats, John Boozman, Thom Tillis, Mike Rounds, Pat 
           Roberts, Richard Burr, John Barrasso, Mike Crapo, Jeff 
           Flake, Tom Cotton, Shelley Moore Capito, David Perdue, 
           Chuck Grassley, Dan Sullivan.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 1299

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I call for regular order with respect to 
Portman amendment No. 1299.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.


                           Amendment No. 1411

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to the text 
proposed to be stricken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1411 to the language proposed to be stricken by 
     amendment No. 1299.

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

       In lieu of the text proposed to be stricken, insert the 
     following:
       (11) Foreign currency manipulation.--The principal 
     negotiating objective of the United States with respect to 
     unfair currency practices is to seek to establish 
     accountability through enforceable rules, transparency, 
     reporting, monitoring, cooperative mechanisms, or other means 
     to address exchange rate manipulation involving protracted 
     large scale intervention in one direction in the exchange 
     markets and a persistently undervalued foreign exchange rate 
     to gain an unfair competitive advantage in trade over other 
     parties to a trade agreement, consistent, with existing 
     obligations of the United States as a member of the 
     International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, 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. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, first off, I agree with Senator Brown and 
Senator Hatch on how important this debate before us is. In fact, 
because it is so important, I certainly hope we have an opportunity to 
debate fully its ramifications, especially with issues such as the Ex-
Im Bank, which I heard two of my colleagues discuss with some vigor 
just a few moments ago.


                           Amendment No. 1251

  At this time I wish to talk about an amendment that I am offering 
with Senator Brown to require approval of Congress before any 
additional countries may join the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  The 12 countries currently participating in TPP negotiations 
encompass about 40 percent of the global gross domestic Product. This 
would be the largest free-trade agreement since NAFTA, and Members 
should know that this agreement has the potential to expand to a number 
of additional countries without congressional approval.
  The administration has said that they would welcome interest from 
other nations, including China, in joining TPP. Given the impact that 
trade deals, such as NAFTA, have had on American businesses and 
workers, I would argue that it is important that Congress not only be 
notified of new negotiations but also have the opportunity to vote on 
whether to move forward with bringing on additional countries into 
multinational trade negotiations.
  If Congress were to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it should 
not and must not be a blank check to bring in additional nations 
without congressional approval.
  I am particularly concerned about countries that manipulate the value 
of their currency and gain an unfair advantage over U.S. workers, steal 
intellectual property from American innovators, engage in unfair labor 
practices, damage the environment, and do not abide by existing trade 
deals.
  Just yesterday, a Federal grand jury indicted six Chinese citizens 
for stealing trade secrets. Last year, five Chinese military officers 
were caught stealing intellectual property from U.S. companies. The 
United States has brought 16 claims against China at the World Trade 
Organization, and the Chinese Government has consistently manipulated 
their currency against our dollar.
  Despite these serious problems, the administration has said that they 
would welcome interest from China in joining TPP. If providing fast-
track authority makes it easier for countries such as China to join the 
TPP, robust congressional oversight is critical.
  Senator Brown and I have offered an amendment to explicitly ensure 
that this oversight is available and that Congress has the opportunity 
to vote on the addition of any new countries to TPP negotiations. Our 
amendment will require the President to notify Congress before entering 
negotiations with another country seeking to join the TPP. It provides 
90 days for Congress to conduct hearings and investigations and 
ultimately hold any potential new entrant accountable for unfair trade 
practices.
  The House and Senate will need to affirmatively pass a resolution of 
approval for any new country to join TPP negotiations.
  Nations such as China will not be able to join through unilateral 
action by a future White House. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Brown-Peters amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1299

  I would also like to urge my colleagues to support the Portman-
Stabenow amendment on currency manipulation. A study by the Center for 
Automotive Research found that the TPP, as currently negotiated, will 
allow Japan to manipulate its currency, and this practice will likely 
lead to the elimination of over 25,000 American auto industry jobs.
  Our workers and manufacturers can compete with anyone in the world, 
but they deserve a level playing field. Currency manipulation is the 
most significant trade barrier of our time, and it must be stopped. 
That is why I am supporting the Portman-Stabenow currency amendment, 
and I hope my colleagues will join me in standing up for American 
workers and fighting back against unfair currency manipulation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, trade is a major issue for a 
manufacturing State such as Wisconsin. I am very proud of the fact that 
the State I represent has had a rich history of making things. In fact, 
I don't think we can have an economy that is built to last that doesn't 
make things as a key part, a key sector of the overall economy. So this 
debate on trade promotion authority and the trade bills that may follow 
to the floor of the Senate and the House take on a particular 
disproportionate impact in a State such as Wisconsin that makes things.
  We have lost a lot of those manufacturing jobs in recent years. We 
can't lay the entire blame on trade policies, but certainly some of our 
past trade deals have had a significant impact. It is hard to find 
folks in the State of Wisconsin who don't recall that in a negative 
way, who haven't suffered the results of mistakes we have made in the 
past.
  That brings me to this debate we are having this evening and I hope 
tomorrow and beyond on trade promotion authority. What trade promotion 
authority asks us to do as Senators in the United States and 
Representatives over in the House is to cede some of our usual powers--
our usual powers to amend bills to make them stronger, to make them 
more informed, to improve them, to perfect them--fast-track trade 
promotion authority asks us to relinquish those powers and to take a 
simple up-or-down, yes-or-no vote on a future trade deal that comes 
before us under this fast-track authority.

[[Page S3053]]

  Now, that may bring up the question of why would one ever support 
ceding those powers and relinquishing those powers, and I think that, 
ultimately, one hypothetically can do that because what we can do is 
take the time in the fast-track debate to set the conditions, to set 
the negotiating principles that have to be met in order to be able to 
relinquish that power later.
  That is where we get into this issue of process right now. It is so 
critical that we take the time to debate the conditions that we need to 
see present as representatives of people from States across this 
country, that we take the time to debate thoroughly these amendments so 
that we know the trade deals that will come before us later will be 
fair--not just free but fair. So I hope we take the time to debate all 
of these provisions because they matter in people's lives. They matter 
to middle-class, working Wisconsinites, some who have lost jobs in 
recent years and decades because of mistakes we have made in prior 
trade deals.
  I come to the floor this evening to share with my colleagues that I 
have filed nine separate amendments to this trade promotion authority. 
I know we won't have the chance to fully debate and vote on all of 
them, but I think it is important that we try to have a thorough and 
comprehensive consideration. So far, we have only voted on two 
amendments, and there are only a handful that are pending for 
consideration. So on that point, I wish to take a few moments to 
address just four of the amendments that I think are crucial to my 
State of Wisconsin and the middle-class workers whom I have the honor 
of representing.
  My first amendment is No. 1317. It is cosponsored by my colleagues 
Senator Franken and Senator Blumenthal. It strengthens the principle 
negotiating objective with respect to trade-remedy laws. This is 
talking about enforcement and having teeth in that enforcement. These 
trade remedies ensure that American manufacturers and their workers 
would compete on a level playing field globally.
  American manufacturers fight an uphill battle to keep their prices 
low while foreign companies sell goods in the United States often at 
subsidized prices. U.S. manufacturing has already suffered financial 
losses--and thousands of jobs, I might add--as a result of unfair trade 
practices. My amendment would strengthen our ability to fight on behalf 
of our American manufacturing workers.
  A second amendment I have offered is No. 1365, and I am proud to have 
joined forces with Senator Blumenthal. It would restrict trade 
promotion authority for any trade agreement that includes a country 
that criminalizes individuals based on sexual orientation or otherwise 
persecutes or punishes individuals based on their sexual orientation or 
gender identity. These countries are identified for us in the State 
Department's annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
  At least 75 countries across the globe continue to criminalize 
homosexuality, subjecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender 
people to imprisonment, various forms of corporal punishment and, in 
some countries, the death penalty. For example, in Brunei, a newly 
adopted law provides for execution by stoning for homosexuality. As we 
all know, Brunei is part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade 
agreement that is now under negotiation.
  Senators voting here on this legislation should know and understand 
this. If we do not adopt my amendment, we will be granting our highest 
trading status to a country that executes people based on whom they 
love. This is not hyperbole. This is a fact. The United States should 
not reward countries that deny the fundamental humanity of LGBT people 
by subjecting them to harsh penalties and even death simply because of 
who they are or whom they love.
  My third amendment, No. 1320, would add a principal negotiating 
objective to ensure that any trade agreement actually increases 
manufacturing jobs and wages in the United States. Many Wisconsin 
communities, as I mentioned earlier, bear the scars of NAFTA and other 
flawed so-called free-trade agreements. From closed factories to 
foreclosed homes to devastated communities, Wisconsinites know all too 
well what happens when politicians in Washington tell them that they 
know what is best for them in Wisconsin.
  Let me give a few numbers on trade from Wisconsin's perspective.
  On jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute, NAFTA has led to 
the loss of more than 680,000 jobs, most--60 percent of them--
manufacturing jobs in the United States as a whole.
  Since China joined the WTO in the year 2000, there has been a net 
loss of over 2.7 million U.S. jobs. Of that amount, Wisconsin has lost 
around 68,000 jobs between the years 2001 and 2013 because of our trade 
deficit with China and their currency manipulation.
  Now, in 2011 we passed the South Korea Free Trade Agreement. In the 
years since, the growth of the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea has 
cost us more than 75,000 U.S. jobs.
  On wages, competing with workers in China and other low-wage 
countries, it has reduced wages of 100 million U.S. workers without a 
college degree, a total loss of about $180 billion each year.
  Since China joined the WTO, U.S. workers who lost their jobs because 
of trade with China have lost more than $37 billion in wages as a 
result of accepting lower-waged jobs.
  The final amendment I wish to describe is amendment No. 1319, 
cosponsored by my colleague Senator Merkley, who was speaking with all 
of us earlier this evening. This amendment would require the 
administration to notify the public when it waives ``Buy American'' 
requirements. Wisconsin workers make things, and we have been one of 
the top manufacturing States in the Nation for generations. Now, if we 
hope to continue making things, we think we should continue to have our 
own government as a customer. Or, put another way, U.S. taxpayer 
dollars should support U.S. jobs. That is why I am a strong supporter 
of ``Buy American'' provisions that require Federal agencies to 
purchase American-made products. Free-trade agreements have 
historically allowed foreign nations way too much leeway when bidding 
for our government projects and contracts while not affording American 
companies the same access.
  Now, I believe the issues I have brought up this evening and these 
four amendments are really important issues--important to our country, 
important to our standing in the world, and important to my State of 
Wisconsin. These are issues that the Senate should debate. I urge the 
majority leader to allow an open and robust amendment process so that 
we can vote on these critical provisions.
  With that, 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1411, as Modified

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have a modification to my amendment No. 
1411 at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       In the language proposed to be stricken on page 27, lines 6 
     & 7 strike ``appropriate.'' and insert:
     appropriate.
       (12) Foreign Currency Manipulation.--The principal 
     negotiating objective of the United States with respect to 
     unfair currency practices is to seek to establish 
     accountability through enforceable rules, transparency, 
     reporting, monitoring, cooperative mechanisms, or other means 
     to address exchange rate manipulation involving protracted 
     large scale intervention in one direction in the exchange 
     markets and a persistently undervalued foreign exchange rate 
     to gain an unfair competitive advantage in trade over other 
     parties to a trade agreement, consistent with existing 
     obligations of the United States as a member of the 
     International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.

                          ____________________