[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 79 (Thursday, May 21, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3225-S3231]
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 Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, free trade is very important to our 
country and to our future economic prosperity. Anyone who does not 
believe that is in denial, in my opinion. We live in a global economy 
and we need to lead on the issue of free trade.
  We must not make excuses and cower away from the opportunity in front 
of us.
  The trade promotion authority legislation we are considering is a 
critical tool for the advancement of our economic interest throughout 
the world.
  This legislation is also proof that Congress and the administration 
can work together to increase economic opportunity for Americans across 
all 50 States.
  Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden have worked for months to get 
us to this point. I commend them for this effort and I look forward to 
working with them to finish this process.
  We know that 80 percent of the purchasing power in the world is 
located outside the United States, along with 95 percent of the world's 
consumers.
  As the middle class expands in regions such as Asia, we have to make 
sure our businesses and workers have the ability to take advantage of 
the opportunity that growth presents.
  Some estimates predict the middle class in Asia is going to swell 
from half a billion people to over 3 billion people in just the next 15 
years. Are we going to sit on the sidelines while other countries gain 
preferential access to those consumers?
  Governor Branstad of Iowa, recognizing the benefits of trade, sent a 
letter to me this week outlining his support for trade promotion 
authority. The letter was signed by 74 other Iowans who represent 
businesses and associations that also believe it is critical that 
Congress pass TPA.
  The letter states:

       Quite simply, international trade is important to Iowa's 
     businesses, workers and farmers. A vote for leveling the 
     playing field in international trade is a vote for Iowa.

  I couldn't agree more with Governor Branstad on that point.
  Last year, U.S. exports equaled $2.35 trillion and supported nearly 
12 million jobs. Can any of us imagine our unemployment rate without 
trade supporting 12 million jobs?
  In Iowa alone, 448,000 jobs are dependent on trade, according to the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And those jobs pay 18 percent higher wages on 
average because they are tied to trade.
  Americans know the benefits of trade. And we know that American 
businesses and workers are some of the most efficient and productive in 
the world. We just need to make sure they have the opportunity to 
succeed.
  That is why we are considering this bill--to expand economic 
opportunities for American businesses and workers.
  Free-trade agreements that lower trade barriers in other countries 
can do an amazing thing--they can stimulate our economy through exports 
without requiring additional spending.
  During testimony to the Senate Finance Committee, Trade 
Representative Froman pointed out that the U.S. is already an open 
marketplace with tariffs that average just 1.6 percent, some of the 
lowest in the world. Yet at the same time, our companies face very high 
tariffs in other markets. Some agricultural products face tariffs up to 
400 percent, machinery can be up to 50 percent.
  We cannot let the status quo on trade, where we have an open 
marketplace while our businesses face extremely high tariffs, continue. 
Trade agreements set the stage for long-term opportunity. The citizens 
in Iowa who may benefit the most from more trade with Pacific rim 
countries are probably still in school. We can help their future today.
  Iowa exported $15.1 billion in 2014. That represents a 135 percent 
increase compared to a decade earlier. $9 billion, or 60 percent of the 
exports went to TPP countries under current trade rules. Imagine what 
is possible just in Iowa if we reduce barriers in that region.
  Roughly, $3.6 billion worth of machinery assembled by Iowa workers 
alone was exported last year. The goal of the legislation before us is 
to increase that number.
  According to the Department of Agriculture, fiscal years 2010-2014 
represent the strongest 5 years of agricultural exports in the history 
of our country. We exported $675 billion worth of agricultural goods 
during that period.
  The Trans-Pacific Partnership would create more opportunities for our 
farmers and ranchers in a region of the world that represents 39 
percent of global GDP. You heard me correctly, we have a chance to give 
our farmers, ranchers, and businesses better access to markets that 
represent over one-third of global GDP.
  And while I support and believe in the immense benefits of free 
trade, I also oppose countries tilting the field in their favor through 
actions like undervaluing their currency. An undervalued currency makes 
export goods cheaper from the country with the cheaper currency and 
also makes it harder for consumers in that country to purchase foreign 
goods, like our agricultural products.
  I support addressing currency manipulation in our trade agreements. I 
have watched administrations of both parties put their heads in the 
sand on this issue. Everyone opposes currency manipulation, yet little 
ever gets done.
  This TPA bill represents the modern realties we face from the global 
economy that need to be addressed by our trade negotiators.
  The bill includes clear negotiating objectives for standards on 
sanitary and phytosanitary regulations that must be science-based. 
Having science-based standards will help limit disruptions to U.S. 
agricultural exports and even open up some new markets for our 
producers.
  Negotiating objectives are offered related to digital trade in goods 
and cross-border dataflows that are new and unique issues for the time 
we now live in.
  Clear guidance from Congress is also given for localization barriers 
and intellectual property rights. More transparency and consultations 
are also required of the administration.
  This is a good bill that we need to pass so we can finish the free 
trade agreements we have been working on for years.
  The Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade agreements like the 
Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, known as TTIP offer 
tremendous opportunity for our country and my home State of Iowa.
  Throughout the world, there are an estimated 260 preferential trade 
agreements, the United States is only involved in 20 of them.
  We must embrace our role in the world as the competitive economic 
powerhouse that we are. America is a country that leads, we have a 
chance to enter into a trade agreement that will set new rules and 
standards for one-third of the global economy.
  Getting TPA through Congress and completing more free trade 
agreements in the future can unleash economic

[[Page S3226]]

prosperity that leads to more jobs, more economic growth, and more 
opportunity for our workers.
  I will end by asking what our alternative is for future 
competiveness. Other countries are working on preferential agreements. 
Are we going to sit idly while other countries enter into strategic 
agreements?
  Should we let China start setting the rules of trade throughout the 
world?
  Should we allow other countries to continue blocking our agricultural 
products with nonscientific excuses?
  Should we watch the growing middle class in Asia get their food and 
products from other countries without trying to compete for their 
business?
  The status quo on trade guarantees us a future with less economic 
opportunity compared to passing TPA and new trade agreements. That is 
why we must pass TPA and then pass new trade agreements to help ensure 
America has a brighter economic future.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes today to talk 
once again about Congress's role in advancing our Nation's trade 
policies and specifically on the increasingly important issues of 
digital trade and intellectual property rights.
  Let's keep in mind that the last time Congress passed TPA was in 
2002. We live in a very different world than we did 13 years ago. 
Technology is vastly different. Commerce is vastly different. For 
example, in 2002, less than 700 million people worldwide had access to 
the Internet. Last year, that figure reached nearly 3 billion--with a 
``b''--3 billion people. In 2002, e-commerce platforms such as Amazon 
and eBay were just beginning to gain widespread use. Special media 
sites and other platforms that today drive so much Internet traffic and 
user-generated content--sites such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter--
did not even exist.
  In the last 13 years, an entirely new economy has developed based on 
these online platforms. Today, Facebook has around 1.4 billion--with a 
``b''--active users, with approximately 83 percent living outside of 
the United States of America and Canada. YouTube has more than 1 
billion users, with local interfaces in 75 countries and compatibility 
with 61 different languages.
  Mobile technology has similarly been transformed since 2002, as the 
term ``smart phone'' has become part of our regular vocabulary. Mobile 
phones were big and clunky in 2002 and were not good for much more than 
making phone calls. Today, smart phones perform a myriad of functions, 
including streaming video from the Internet, video calling, digital 
photography and videography, and GPS locating, just to mention a few.
  The growth of the Internet and mobile technologies has transformed 
our economy, the products and services we buy, and how we buy them. The 
advances have significantly reduced the cost of moving products and 
services across borders and boosted productivity in this country and 
around the world.
  Digitally traded goods and services are growing and are expected to 
continue to grow. According to a recent study conducted by the 
International Trade Commission, in 2012, U.S. digitally intensive firms 
sold nearly $1 trillion or nearly 6 percent of our total GDP in goods 
and services over the Internet. About one-quarter of those sales were 
small and medium-sized enterprises. The people behind these numbers are 
everyday Americans just trying to compete in an increasingly 
competitive global marketplace.
  Fortunately, our TPA bill includes upgraded negotiating objectives 
that reflect the world in which we now live. To address this new 
digital economy, our bill for the first time recognizes the growing 
significance of the Internet as a trading platform in international 
commerce. It would also extensively update and expand the e-commerce 
directives from the 2002 TPA bill to require U.S. negotiators to ensure 
that all trade agreement obligations, rules, disciplines, and 
commitments apply to digital trade and that digitally traded goods and 
services receive no less favorable treatment than comparable goods and 
services and that they are classified to ensure the most liberal trade 
treatment possible.
  The free flow of data across borders is critical to facilitating 
digital trade, as it allows U.S. companies to identify market 
opportunities, innovate and develop new goods and services, maintain 
supply chains, and serve their customers around the world. 
Unfortunately, an increasing number of governments are considering or 
imposing restrictions on cross-border dataflows, including requirements 
that U.S. companies store and process data locally. Our bill directs 
U.S. negotiators to ensure that our trading partners refrain from such 
restrictions and requirements.
  It also includes several new and expanded negotiating objectives to 
address common regulatory issues faced by U.S. companies in the digital 
economy. For example, the bill directs U.S. negotiators to seek greater 
openness, transparency, and convergence of standards, development 
processes, and to encourage the use of international and interoperable 
standards.
  I would urge any of my colleagues who oppose this bill to explain how 
they plan to give American workers and businesses in the digital 
economy an opportunity to thrive in an increasingly competitive 
marketplace--global marketplace, really. They talk about wanting to 
preserve jobs and protect Americans, but existing trade rules were 
written for a time long since passed.
  Beyond transitioning our country into this increasingly competitive 
world of technological growth, our TPA bill also takes a 
bipartisanship, bicameral approach to improving intellectual property 
rights protections. Protecting intellectual property is critical to the 
development of the digital economy, just as it is critical to overall 
economic growth.
  Our Founding Fathers believed intellectual property to be so 
fundamental to America's future prosperity that they explicitly granted 
Congress the congressional authority to protect it. Since Jefferson's 
moldboard plow and Eli Whitney's cotton gin, American intellectual 
property has spurred on American job growth and prosperity, creating 
more competitive businesses here--right here in America. Intellectual 
property, be it for mechanical products, software, or semiconductors, 
creates value for individuals and American businesses. In turn, these 
businesses create jobs, spur economic growth, and enrich our culture.
  The simply truth is, the countries that strengthen intellectual 
property rights enjoy great economic benefits. They attract more 
investment, technology transfers, increased immigration, and ultimately 
more prosperity for their citizens. Yet, despite these fundamental 
truths, intellectual property protections around the globe are often 
fundamentally deteriorating and continually at risk.
  Our economic and strategic competitors are well aware that the United 
States leads the world in innovation, but all too often they fail to 
understand why. Instead of fostering policies to advance innovation, 
they seek shortcuts to undermine and even steal American intellectual 
property. The tools they employ are numerous and very sophisticated. 
Some of these tools include nontransparent reimbursement and licensing 
regimes, unfair standard setting, and burdensome regulations.
  All of these mechanisms are designed specifically to pry away some of 
the most innovative and productive parts of our economy, tearing away 
the competitive edge our American businesses have worked so hard to 
create and stunting what could be a much more liberal playing field. If 
enacted, our bill would represent a significant step forward in 
strengthening the protection and enforcement of intellectual property 
rights around the world.
  It calls for robust intellectual property rules, building on the 
strong intellectual property standards found in the prior 2002 TPA law. 
This includes requiring that trade agreements meet the same high 
standards found in U.S. law. Our bill also requires countries to fully 
implement the TRIPS Agreement, particularly the enforcement 
obligations.

[[Page S3227]]

  To address the challenges and opportunities created by the digital 
economy, our bill would ensure that right holders are able to keep pace 
with technological developments by controlling and preventing 
unauthorized use of their works online.
  A growing problem around the world is that foreign governments are 
stealing valuable technology from U.S. businesses. This type of trade-
secret theft threatens to diminish U.S. competitiveness around the 
globe. It puts American jobs at risk and poses threats to U.S. national 
security. To address this problem, our bill calls for an end to 
government involvement in intellectual property rights violations, 
including piracy and cyber theft of trade secrets.
  The bill also ensures that governments limit the unnecessary 
collection of trade-secret information and protects any information 
they do collect from disclosure. This is the first time TPA legislation 
has addressed these issues--these very important issues.
  The bill also requires the elimination of the price controls and 
reference pricing, which are used by many countries to deny full market 
access to innovative pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
  The bill further includes a new provision to direct the U.S. 
negotiators to ensure that regulatory reimbursement regimes that make 
pricing and reimbursement decisions are transparent, provide procedural 
fairness, are nondiscriminatory, and provide full-market access for 
innovative pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
  Our bill also calls for the elimination of measures that require U.S. 
companies to locate their intellectual property abroad as a market 
access or investment condition. Finally, this legislation includes an 
expanded capacity-building objective, directing the administration to 
work with U.S. trading partners to strengthen not only their labor 
laws, as was provided for in 2002, but also their intellectual property 
rights laws.
  Once again, we live in an economic and technological environment that 
is very different from the one that existed in 2002. Advances in 
Internet and mobile technologies have transformed whole sectors of our 
economy. Our bill positions our country to take advantage of the 
opportunities and face the challenges presented by the 21st century 
economy, and that is one of the many reasons why it should pass.
  I urge each of my colleagues to work with me to help move this bill 
forward so we can negotiate strong trade agreements that serve today's 
economy as well as set the stage for America's next generation of 
entrepreneurs and innovators.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from Nebraska.


                             Build USA Act

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about our 
Nation's infrastructure. In just a few days, authorization for our 
Nation's transportation programs will expire. By August, the highway 
trust fund will run out of money. Our States and citizens will face the 
consequences of inaction in Washington.
  Americans depend on our Nation's roads every day as they travel to 
work, bring their children to school, and transport goods to consumers. 
Transportation infrastructure is an essential component of our daily 
lives and for the national economy. As such, it must be efficiently 
maintained. But today, all across America, our highways and bridges 
languish in disrepair. Our citizens are no strangers to potholes, road 
closures, and ``expect delays'' signs. Moreover, as America's 
population continues to grow, expansion projects for our crumbling 
highways remain caught in bureaucratic redtape.
  For decades, it has been apparent that excessive regulations, coupled 
with inadequate funding and financing, have delayed badly needed road 
projects. I have firsthand knowledge of the challenges facing our 
Nation's transportation system. In my home State of Nebraska, roads and 
bridges connect vibrant, urban communities with our open country.
  Before arriving in the Senate, I served as chairman of the 
transportation and telecommunications committee in the Nebraska 
Legislature. And while there, I spearheaded a bill that eventually 
became law.
  What is now known as the Federal Funds Exchange Program provides the 
State of Nebraska with the ability to voluntarily exchange Federal 
transportation funding for State transportation financing at 80 cents 
on the dollar. In exchange for giving up this Federal funding, counties 
and cities receive State transportation dollars with more reasonable 
regulatory requirements.
  This program has been a great success in my State of Nebraska. For 
example, in Buffalo County, federally exchanged funding made a 
longstanding bridge replacement possible. A major arterial street in 
South Sioux City is up and running because of the program. In 
Scottsbluff, a city in the Nebraska Panhandle, they are using our State 
program to conduct important maintenance on city streets, and the 
program has also enabled Adams County to construct several bridges and 
a large culvert project.
  Despite these accomplishments in Nebraska, States across the country 
suffer from very rigid, regulatory requirements and a shortage of 
transportation funding options. Our current system is broken. States 
not only need more options, but they need some relief as well.
  In fact, the Congressional Research Service estimates that a lack of 
flexibility has caused major highway projects to take as many as 14 
years to plan and to build.
  The time has come to bring successful practices from Nebraska to 
Washington.
  For this reason, I have introduced the Build USA Act. This bill will 
create a new funding structure for State transportation projects. 
Specifically, the Build USA Act establishes the American Infrastructure 
Bank. The bank will allow States to remit Federal transportation 
dollars.
  States would then be able to receive 90 percent of this money back 
and retain control over the environmental, construction, and design 
aspects of highway projects. This new strategy will infuse more dollars 
into our transportation system, and it is going to provide States with 
greater flexibility so they can build and maintain their roads.
  The revenues that are generated from State remittance agreements with 
this bank would also help fund other local infrastructure projects. 
Currently, the Federal Government only offers large-scale financing 
options for States seeking core infrastructure funding. So, as a 
result, smaller communities are often ineligible to receive Federal 
assistance for their projects, while major metropolitan areas benefit 
from easier access to financing.
  Under the Build USA Act, bank loans would not be subject to a minimum 
project cost or size. The revenue from these loans could help local 
governments apply for core infrastructure financing at a rate that is 
going to be more competitive than the private sector.
  The Build USA Act provides additional funding flexibility for those 
immediate transportation needs that we see all across this country. 
And, what is more, it accomplishes it without raising taxes.
  Under this proposal, a voluntary 3-year repatriation holiday would be 
implemented to generate seed money for the bank's revolving fund 
operations. Recent estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation suggest 
that the first 3 years of a similar repatriation plan could raise as 
much as $30 billion.
  Although some Members of Congress wish to save these revenues for an 
overhaul of the Tax Code, most of us do acknowledge that tax reform is 
unlikely to come to fruition in the near future. Meanwhile, our 
Nation's transportation needs are immediate. We better address them 
now. These dollars should go toward solving problems that our citizens 
experience every single day. As such, revenue should help provide a 
long-term solution to highway funding, not just a one-time jump-start 
or a shot in the arm, as some people have suggested.
  This proposal is a long-term solution. It is a solution to issues 
that have plagued our Nation's roads for decades. Individual States 
must have the flexibility to address the unique needs of their local 
communities.
  In order to address the transportation challenges facing our Nation, 
we need to have more options available. Although this plan does not 
address the immediate challenges facing the

[[Page S3228]]

highway trust fund, it does represent a way to infuse new money into 
our Nation's transportation system, while it is offering States new 
solutions to get transportation projects up and running.
  It looks to the future. This is a proposal for the long term. It is 
time that we start thinking outside the box. It is time to offer 
Nebraska's best practices to help the Federal Government help itself.
  Our Nation needs to get moving, so I encourage all of my colleagues 
to look at this proposal, to consider this proposal, because it moves 
us forward into the future.
  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. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, we have been talking over the past 
several days about trade. I wish to add a little discussion here about 
some of the specific amendments that may come up over the next day or 
two. I am hopeful that we will have a vote on some of these amendments 
later this evening.
  It is incredibly important for us to expand opportunities for our 
workers and our farmers by knocking down barriers to trade. That is why 
more export promotion is a good thing. These are not only more jobs for 
America, for my State of Ohio, for the Presiding Officer's State of 
Arizona, but these are better-paying jobs as well. There is no question 
that not having trade promotion authority over the last 7 years has 
been detrimental to us in terms of losing market share for our workers 
and our farmers.
  Other countries are negotiating agreements. In fact, there have been 
well over 100 agreements negotiated without the United States being a 
party and that cuts us out.
  But as we do that, as we expand exports--which is a good thing--we 
must be sure that playing field is also more level and fairer, so that 
our workers and our farmers, and our service providers have the 
opportunity to compete.
  That is all we are asking for.
  There are a couple of amendments likely to come up again this 
afternoon and over the next couple of days. One is with regard to this 
issue of when somebody dumps a product or when a country has a policy 
of subsidizing a product, there should be the ability for American 
companies to respond on behalf of their workers.
  When products are dumped or when there is a subsidy on an import, 
there is a process by which you go to the International Trade 
Commission and seek help, show that you were materially injured, that 
damage was done to you, your company, and your workers because of these 
unfairly traded imports. You then go to the Commerce Department's 
International Trade Administration and make the argument as to what the 
countervailing duty ought to be, what the tariff ought to be to combat 
this. The problem is that in that system today, it is so hard to show 
material injury and to get that relief that often by the time you can 
get that relief, it is too late.
  We certainly found this in Ohio with regard to many of our 
industries, and a lot of them, therefore, are very interested in this 
amendment. One is steel. Right now, there is a lot of tube and pipe 
coming into this country from overseas. We believe some of it is being 
sold at below its cost here in America. That means it is being dumped. 
We believe some is being subsidized. That means it should be subject to 
countervailing duties. Yet, by the time you can get that relief, find 
that remedy, often it is just too late. You have lost your market 
share. You have lost the American jobs.
  So this amendment, which is bipartisan and which is backed by over 80 
American companies and trade associations and many companies in my home 
State of Ohio, such as U.S. Steel, Timken Steel, ArcelorMittal, is a 
commonsense measure that says: Look, workers shouldn't have to lose 
their jobs before they can get relief.
  Seventy-eight of our colleagues backed this amendment in the Customs 
bill last week. In fact, Senator Hatch, chairman of the committee, who 
has done a good job shepherding this process through, included this 
amendment in his mark in the Committee on Finance, which demonstrates 
how much support it has. However, we feel it is very important that it 
be in this legislation, in the trade promotion authority bill, which is 
the bill we are now debating on the floor. We can't let it get left 
behind.
  It is interesting because other countries do have provisions in their 
laws to keep our exports out if they believe they are unfairly traded 
or for other reasons. Let me give an example of this by going to AK 
Steel, which is a company that is based in West Chester, OH. It has 
4,000 workers in the State of Ohio. AK Steel produces a high-tech steel 
called grain-oriented electrical steel. It is a silicon alloy used in 
the power generation and transmission industry and is more commonly 
referred to as GOES. GOES steel is a specialty steel. It is an 
incredibly important product for AK Steel because it is one they are 
able to export. They are so efficient at producing it and it has such 
high value that they are exporting it to a number of countries around 
the world. They produce this steel with 250 United Auto Workers--
members of the UAW--in Zanesville, OH.
  Back in 2010, China imposed antidumping and countervailing duties on 
GOES from the United States, including this product from AK Steel made 
in Zanesville, OH. They claimed U.S. producers had received subsidies 
through the ``Buy American'' provisions in the stimulus bill. They 
didn't, by the way, but that is what China claimed. It was really 
retaliation that had to do with some other products that had been 
coming from China to here--tubular products for the oil and gas 
industry--and they were retaliating. Anyway, that was China's claim.
  So our company, AK Steel, said: Look, this is not accurate. But these 
duties were put in place anyway by China. It reduced the exports by 92 
percent from Ohio to China. So the United States--rightfully so--took 
China to the World Trade Organization and won the case because the 
facts were on our side. We won the case, but China appealed it--without 
removing the duties.
  So this all takes time. Meanwhile, you are losing market share. 
Instead of immediately removing the duties, when they lost the appeal, 
China chose to run out the clock, only dropping their tariff a couple 
weeks before the WTO forced them to do it. So American-made GOES was 
kept out of China for 5 years. This process took 5 years and cost 
American workers millions of orders.
  Meanwhile, the U.S. domestic producer sought relief from their 
government by going to the ITC as well as the ITA--the International 
Trade Commission and the International Trade Administration--and they 
found the domestic industry was not injured in a case against producers 
from several countries, including Japan, Germany, China, and Poland, 
despite surging imports and dropping prices. So on the one hand, they 
were not able to sell in China for 5 years and lost a lot of market 
share and millions of dollars. On the other hand, when they went to 
their own government to ask for a little relief on this product coming 
in, they were not able to show injury despite surging imports and 
dropping prices.
  The provisions we have simply clarify that when a producer--a U.S. 
company--is injured, when it is material injury as was defined in the 
statute, they shouldn't have to wait until after the factory is closed 
and workers are laid off for us to stand up for our workers.
  By the way, just last month these GOES producers were cut out of 
another large international market. The European Union announced it 
would be imposing duties on this same electrical steel from the United 
States, again putting millions of dollars of exports at risk.
  So our provision is an attempt to help level this playing field. It 
is WTO-consistent; in other words, it doesn't violate our international 
obligations. It simply clarifies what ``material injury'' means. It 
goes back to the original statutory language and makes it easier for 
American companies to seek

[[Page S3229]]

the relief they deserve. This is going to help protect millions of 
American jobs that otherwise could be at risk because our trade laws 
haven't kept up with international commerce.
  This is an example of one of the amendments we would very much like 
to offer on the floor. I know there is discussion right now in another 
room in this Capitol about whether we will be able to offer this 
amendment. It is an amendment by Senator Brown and me. It is an example 
of what--if we included it in the trade promotion authority 
legislation--would make this a bill that is truly balanced, one that 
expands exports, which is incredibly important, as I said earlier, to 
the people I represent--our farmers, our workers--and to our State and 
our economy, but that also ensures that there is a more level playing 
field, that there is fairness in this underlying legislation.
  The second amendment we hope to offer is with regard to currency 
manipulation. We have talked a lot about this on the floor this week, 
and I would just say three things.
  One, this is something a lot of Members in this Chamber have already 
looked at because 60 Members of the Senate in 2013 sent a letter to the 
President of the United States saying that with regard to trade 
agreements, there should be enforceable currency manipulation 
prohibitions--60. Some of those Senators are still in this Chamber. 
Most of them are. I would hope we again would have a strong message 
from the Congress, which is what trade promotion authority is, that in 
the context of trade negotiating objectives--and there are about 20 
different trade negotiating objectives in TPA--one of them should be 
that we have a prohibition on currency manipulation, and it should be 
enforceable.
  Second, there will be an alternative amendment offered that agrees 
with our amendment in terms of the definition of currency manipulation. 
Specifically, it does not affect monetary policy. It does not affect 
what the United States has been doing with QE2, QE3, QE1.
  By the way, for those who think that kind of monetary policy is 
export-oriented, look at the value of the dollar. It has certainly not 
been effective at lowering the price of our currency. In fact, our 
currency has gone up in value. It is about stimulus. We can argue about 
the merits or demerits of that monetary policy, but it is not affected 
at all by this amendment, and the amendment specifically clarifies 
that.
  So just to be clear, No. 1, 60 Senators have already signed this 
letter; No. 2, this is consistent with the International Monetary Fund 
definition, which says this is not about monetary policy. It is about 
real intervention. It is about intervention in currency markets to be 
able to affect exports, to lower the price of exports unfairly and to 
increase the cost of our exports to other countries unfairly.
  Finally, I would just say this is about the balance we talked about 
earlier. The American people want to know that while we are expanding 
exports, we are also ensuring that we get a fair shake--our farmers, 
our workers, our service providers.
  There is a quote by a former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul 
Volcker, that I think is telling. As a former Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve, he said that, ``In five minutes, exchange rates can wipe out 
what it took trade negotiators ten years to accomplish.''
  As a former U.S. Trade Representative, I agree with that. Currency 
manipulation takes away so much of the value of what we are trying to 
do on this floor. Those who support trade should be in favor of 
prohibitions on currency. This is a distortion. If you are a market-
oriented fiscal conservative, if you are someone who believes we ought 
to let markets work, then you should be against currency manipulation 
because it does distort the market. If you are someone who believes we 
should be expanding exports but it should be fair, you should be for 
this prohibition on currency manipulation and making it enforceable. 
And we should have the courage of our convictions. If we really do 
believe that, we should be sure there is some ability to make this 
enforceable.
  The countries of the Pacific region that are currently negotiating 
with us on the Trans-Pacific Partnership do not currently manipulate 
their currency, but a couple of them have in the past. Notably, Japan 
has over 300 times before 2012. Malaysia has. It doesn't make sense to 
put in place this provision to say: In the future--once we have 
completed this agreement with you, we have knocked down these trade 
barriers in the United States and in your country to enable us to have 
more trade--you would not be able to manipulate your currency under 
this agreement.
  There is some polling data out there that indicates 9 out of 10 
Americans agree with that, by the way. And of course they do because it 
is just common sense. All we are looking for is the ability to compete 
fairly.
  Wouldn't it be great if we could do both of these things--expand 
exports but also be sure we are getting a fair shake for the people we 
represent, the AK Steels of the world that have their products blocked 
in China and their products blocked in the EU and yet can't receive the 
relief here or the companies in my home State that work hard to bring 
some business back from China?
  In one case, there is a small manufacturer in Cleveland, OH, that 
told me about this. It is a company that makes highly valuable steel 
products, and these are products that help hold up speakers at major 
concerts. They brought some of that business back from China.
  One day I was in their shop talking to them, and they said: Well, we 
are going to lose this order. Why? Currency manipulation. That made the 
Chinese imports into our country less expensive because they 
manipulated their currency and lowered their value and made it much 
more difficult for them, therefore, to be competitive. They were 
concerned that they were going to lose that order despite the fact that 
they had done everything to make their plant more efficient and that 
the workers had made concessions. They had done everything right and 
played by the rules. That is what we are asking, that everybody be 
asked to play by the rules.
  So I hope the underlying legislation passes, but I hope it passes 
with these improvements to ensure that we do have a balance here; that 
we are able to tell our farmers and our workers and our service 
providers: You are going to have the opportunity now to access 95 
percent of the consumers who are outside the borders of the United 
States of America. That is a good thing. It will mean more jobs and 
higher paying jobs, paying on average 15 to 18 percent more, and better 
benefits. But also, by entering into these agreements, we are going to 
have more fairness for you so you can get a fair shake and be able to 
do what you want to do, which is to be able to compete in this global 
marketplace and be assured that competition will be fair.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the trade promotion 
authority bill which has been debated on the Senate floor the last few 
days.
  I begin, though, by complimenting my good friend and colleague from 
Ohio--one of the most well-respected Members of this body, I think an 
example of a true American statesman, and certainly one of our best 
U.S. Trade Representatives who knows a lot about the topic that we have 
been debating. So I thank him for his tremendous service for the people 
of Ohio and of our country.
  The TPA bill we have been debating is going to be good for the 
country. It will help move our country forward, provide tremendous 
opportunities for growth and expansion--for our farmers, ranchers, 
businesses, fishermen, workers, and those in the high-tech sector.
  As Senator Portman mentioned, 95 percent of all global consumers lie 
outside of the United States--95 percent. What we need to do is access 
those consumers to have more opportunity.
  Currently, it is estimated that over 38 million jobs in the United 
States are tied to trade. The trade agreements we are talking about on 
the Senate floor that would come after TPA will create hundreds of 
thousands of new jobs and new opportunities for Americans. These are 
good jobs, and we need more jobs.
  This has been one of the weakest recoveries of any major recession in 
American history. We are barely growing at 1.5 percent, 2 percent GDP 
growth. These are not traditional levels of American growth. Why? Why 
has our growth been so slow?
  Well, there are many reasons. But I think the overregulation of our 
economy by the Federal Government clearly is one of the major reasons, 
and trade agreements are exactly the kind of boost we need. What do 
trade agreements do? They reduce regulations, they cut redtape, they 
reduce taxes on goods coming in to American families. We need this kind 
of policy, in terms of less regulation and more freedom for our 
domestic economy and internationally. That is how we are going to get

[[Page S3230]]

moving again. That is how we are going to get this economy moving 
again. That is how we are going to get Americans working again. That is 
why TPA is so important to begin this process. But TPA is also about 
American leadership--bipartisan U.S. American leadership.
  Since the end of World War II, every administration--Democratic, 
Republican, it doesn't matter--has wanted to lead on trade, has wanted 
to obtain trade promotion authority, and that has been critical to 
American leadership, global leadership, and helping our businesses and 
workers.
  It is also critical to make sure we have a seat at the table, to set 
the rules for the global trading regime as we have traditionally done--
again, bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans for decades have been 
doing this--and to help make sure we are leveling the playing field for 
our workers.
  The American workers--the American fisherman, the American rancher, 
the American farmer--can compete against anyone in the world with a 
level playing field. We have done that for decades. That is the 
American way, but we have to be in the game. We need to be the country 
setting the rules. We need to be the country that lays out trade 
agreements that have strong intellectual property rights protection, 
that open markets, that get rid of state-owned enterprises, that have 
strong enforcement provisions--so when countries cheat in global trade, 
we have the ability to enforce rules and strike back if we need to, to 
protect our economy, our workers, our farmers, our fishermen.
  I wish to talk a little bit about free trade as it relates to my home 
State of Alaska.
  Here are some facts about trade in Alaska: Already, in my State of 
Alaska there are over 90,000 jobs tied to trade. That is more than one 
in five of all jobs in the Alaska economy tied to global trade, 
particularly trade to the Asia-Pacific region.
  We are also a huge recipient of foreign direct investment--foreign 
direct investment that employs Alaskans. These are good jobs. Fourteen 
thousand Alaskans are directly employed by foreign companies, and there 
are tens of thousands more who are indirectly benefited. So many 
Alaskans count on these important jobs.
  In terms of exports, of course we are a very large State with a 
relatively small population--a little over 700,000 citizens. But in 
2013, the State of Alaska exported over $6 billion in goods and 
services. Per capita exports, we are a powerhouse. We are one of the 
strongest exporters in the country. And in terms of fish and seafood, 
we are the superpower of exports--not per capita but absolute exports. 
In 2013, we exported roughly $2.3 billion in seafood and fish.
  The fishing industry is a very important industry for a lot of States 
in our country, but more than half of all seafood harvested in America 
comes from Alaska's waters. It is also one of the biggest employers in 
my State. In fact, it is the biggest employer in my State, even more 
than some of the resource industries. There are 78,000 Alaskans 
employed in this industry, and these are the epitome of small 
businesses.
  Every fishing vessel, when you look at one, is a small business. What 
do they do? They take risks. I am sure some have seen ``The Deadliest 
Catch.'' A lot of times they are family-owned. They work hard, and they 
produce a great product--a great product--king crab, fresh Alaska 
salmon--a great product. These are classic American small businesses, 
which brings me to my amendment.
  As my colleague from Ohio mentioned, there are a lot of discussions 
right now. We sure hope Members of this body are going to have 
opportunities to present amendments to make the TPA bill stronger.
  The amendment I have filed, that I want to offer, is a simple 
amendment to make a principal negotiating objective under TPA focusing 
on making sure members of the fishing community--American Fish, 
American Seafoods--have opportunities for more open markets overseas. 
This will benefit the hard-working fishing families all across America.
  This amendment will ensure that of the many TPA objectives, this one 
will be in there--more access to markets, more opportunities for these 
great American small businesses.
  As I mentioned, not only in terms of Alaska is this an important 
industry, this is a hugely important industry for the United States. In 
2013, our country exported over $5.5 billion worth of fish and seafood. 
The commercial fishing industry in the United States in 2013 employed 
over 1 million Americans, with an income of $32 billion. Let me repeat 
that: Over 1 million Americans in this industry nationwide and $32 
billion in income--and, again, most of these are classic American small 
businesses. This is who TPA should be focused on.
  As I mentioned, the current TPA bill has negotiating objectives for a 
lot of important industries in our great country--textile, agriculture, 
services, manufactured goods. There are about 20 specific trading 
negotiating objectives that the TPA bill directs the U.S. Trade 
Representative to get in terms of the free-trade agreements he will try 
to seek once TPA has been passed, and this is the way it should be. 
Those are all great sectors. Agriculture is hugely important to our 
country. But we should also have a similar negotiating objective for 
another very important industry in this country--our seafood industry, 
the fishing industry.
  This is a simple amendment. It asks that the U.S. trade negotiator 
focus as a principal objective to make sure this industry has 
opportunities just like all the other industries do and, importantly, 
particularly as we are trying to work through this bill to see what 
amendments we can get on it, this is a very bipartisan amendment.
  Senator Markey of Massachusetts, on the other side, has a lot of 
hard-working fishing families. So from Alaska to Massachusetts, this is 
a very bipartisan bill that will help small businesses, and it help 
coastal communities that rely so much on fishing.
  Finally, I want to talk about TPA and go back to the issue of 
American leadership. TPA, open trade, and free-trade agreements can 
work for America. They can work for our workers, farmers, businesses, 
ranchers, fishermen. I know. I have had the opportunity of seeing this 
firsthand.
  I worked as an Assistant Secretary of State under Condoleezza Rice on 
economic issues, on trade issues, and a number of the free-trade 
agreements we currently have in force were ones I had an opportunity to 
work on with many members in the Federal Government.
  Let me give two examples: the free-trade agreement we had with 
Singapore and the free-trade agreement we had with Australia. Once 
these were passed and the barriers to our exports came down, American 
exports skyrocketed to these countries. As I mentioned, American 
workers can compete with anyone. Give us a level playing field, and we 
will take advantage of it.
  U.S. exports, in terms of goods to Australia, rose 33 percent between 
2004 and 2009. U.S. goods exports to Singapore were up $21 billion--31 
percent--from 2003 to 2009.
  I met with the Singapore Ambassador today. He reminded me that we 
actually have a trade surplus with Singapore, as I believe we do with 
Australia, because of these free-trade agreements.
  So free-trade agreements are a win-win for our country economically, 
but they also importantly deepen the economic ties that bind our 
country and our citizens to some of our most important friends and 
allies--such as the country of Singapore, such as the country of 
Australia, and that is happening.
  Finally, though, trade is also about American leadership, it is about 
American confidence, the ability to say: Open the markets and we can 
compete with anyone. We need that confidence back.
  For too long under this administration we have been disengaged from 
the world. For too long we have allowed other countries to be in the 
driver's seat globally--where we have not been driving events, we have 
been reacting to events internationally. For too long we have been 
withdrawing, for too long we have been leading from behind, and for too 
long we have not been showing confidence globally; we have been showing 
weakness. Weakness is provocative, and you see that all over the world.
  Now, I have been critical of this administration's approach to 
foreign policy in a whole host of areas--its foreign

[[Page S3231]]

policy of global disengagement, its lack of confidence, and American 
leadership in the world. But I applaud the President for what he is 
doing now. I applaud the President for his strategy of rebalancing the 
focus of military forces and trade in the Asia-Pacific.

  I applaud the President for doing the hard work of seeking TPA. These 
are never easy votes. These are never easy votes. But we should support 
what he is doing because it means America is back. We are engaging 
again. We are not leading from behind. We are leading the way countless 
administrations in the past have done with regard to global trade.
  This will enable us to determine our future, to drive it, not react 
to it. I urge my colleagues to vote for this TPA bill because it is a 
vote for American leadership.
  I also urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment that is going to 
help many small businesses throughout the United States and coastal 
communities and our strong fishing communities.
  My amendment will strengthen the TPA bill, and I encourage all my 
colleagues to support that amendment as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Small Business and Trade

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I appreciate the chairman's leadership on the trade 
promotion authority, TPA, legislation. As he has said, this bill 
creates the process by which the administration can negotiate trade 
agreements that have the potential to enhance trade opportunities for 
American businesses. The ability to reach new markets is critical for 
ensuring that American businesses can compete in a global marketplace.
  Trade has become increasingly vital for small businesses looking to 
diversify and grow. And yet, even though 95 percent of the world's 
customers live overseas, less than 1 percent of small- and medium-sized 
businesses in the United States sell to global markets. By comparison, 
over 40 percent of large businesses sell their products overseas.
  As ranking member of the Small Business Committee, one of my 
priorities is narrowing that gap. I believe that, as we consider 
expanding trade relationships, we must make sure that small businesses 
have a seat at the table and the support they need to reach global 
markets and compete internationally.
  Does the chairman agree?
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. Yes, I agree 
wholeheartedly. Small businesses are a vital part of promoting 
international trade.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank the chairman. To that end, I have filed an 
amendment, amendment No. 1227, that would take a number of steps to 
ensure that our small businesses benefit from international trade and 
potential new trade agreements.
  Although I understand that we will not have an opportunity to amend 
the TPA legislation, I hope to work with the chairman to ensure that 
this amendment is included in H.R. 644 or a similar bill as reported by 
a conference committee to reauthorize trade facilitation and trade 
enforcement functions and activities.
  Mr. HATCH. The Senator has my commitment to work with her to do so.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his support for this 
amendment.
  Does the ranking member agree that we should ensure that small 
businesses are supported as part of our trade agenda?
  Mr. WYDEN. I do, and I support the amendment of the Senator from New 
Hampshire that would make sure that we engage small businesses as part 
of our efforts on international trade. I also look forward to working 
with her to do everything possible to get this amendment included in 
H.R. 644.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. 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. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________