Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 79 (Thursday, May 21, 2015)

[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.

____________________