[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 23, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4533-S4539]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      DEFENDING PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.


                   Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act

  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor today to 
talk about Internet tax freedom and to talk about ensuring that our 
online businesses remain competitive.
  First of all, I commend the House of Representatives for recently 
passing the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, which would permanently 
extend the current ban on Internet access taxes. The current tax 
moratorium will expire on October 1, and if we fail to renew it, it 
could cost taxpayers nearly $15 billion in new fees and taxes next 
year. In addition, as importantly, it would make Internet access less 
affordable to hard-working families and hamper small businesses' 
ability to grow and create jobs using the Internet because essentially 
it would allow all of these jurisdictions to tax the Internet. So when 
you get on the Internet, you can expect many more taxes if we do not do 
what the House of Representatives did and extend the Internet Tax 
Freedom Act. In fact, I think we should make it permanent.
  I am a cosponsor of a Senate companion bill of which I hope this 
Senate will follow the House's lead to pass and send a permanent 
extension to the President's desk.
  Unfortunately, one of the things we have heard is that some see this 
extension of the moratorium on Internet taxation as an opportunity to 
attach another piece of legislation that, in fact, would burden our 
online businesses and would tremendously disadvantage a State like my 
home State of New Hampshire that has made the legislative decision not 
to have a sales tax.
  We have seen this playbook before. It was called before the 
Marketplace Fairness Act. Of course, there is nothing fair about this 
act when it comes to our online businesses having to collect taxes for 
nearly 9,000 taxing jurisdictions. You can imagine the bureaucratic 
nightmare that would occur. So this so-called Marketplace Fairness 
Act--I always used to like to call it the ``Online Sales Tax Act'' or 
the ``Online Sales Tax Collection Act.'' That would be a more accurate 
description of that particular act.
  So here we are. We have a rerun of this particular bill that would 
have required businesses in the State of New Hampshire--even though we 
do not have a sales tax--our online businesses to collect for all these 
other tax jurisdictions. Again, it is not even just States that have 
sales taxes. In some States, it goes down to the municipal level when 
it comes to municipalities and local jurisdictions actually collecting 
a separate tax, so it would have ended up being over 9,000 taxing 
jurisdictions. So here you have a nice online business out there having 
to be the tax collector for all these different jurisdictions. You can 
imagine that this would really be a huge burden on these online 
businesses.
  The individuals who have been supporting this new sales tax 
collection scheme in this new burden on the Internet--by the way, one 
of the reasons I am such a strong proponent of permanently extending 
the tax freedom and the lack of taxes on the Internet, on Internet 
access, is because we have seen not only consumers' access to the 
Internet but the ability of businesses and the ability of us to create 
jobs and to see real growth on the Internet. This has allowed people to 
start businesses from their home. It has allowed so much creativity. It 
has been very positive for our economy.
  So lo and behold in all of that there are some talking about 
attaching to this Internet Tax Freedom Act this incredibly burdensome 
collection scheme to require businesses to be out there collecting all 
these sales taxes throughout the Nation. The latest proposal the 
proponents of this type of tax collection scheme have come up with is 
one that again creates even more issues--certainly as many if not more 
issues--than the prior proposal that was called the so-called 
Marketplace Fairness Act. Of course, we know there is nothing fair 
about it if you are a business having to collect all these taxes.
  What this rerun would do is actually create this reporting system and 
require businesses to purchase this software and then require States to 
actually have what are called certified software providers. Here is 
what would happen: Under this latest scheme, the certified software 
providers for these States would actually collect all the sales 
information for every sale--every online sale in a State--and then they 
would manage the collection of these taxes. Well, can you imagine? So 
now we are going to say to businesses: Yes, you have to purchase this 
certain software. And guess what. Every sale you make is going to be 
held by the central government in each State.
  Can you imagine, with all the things we have seen happen in terms of 
breach of privacy of individuals? We have seen cyber attacks, all these 
issues we are facing. We have seen it in our government with OPM. We 
have seen it with the IRS. We have seen it with private companies in 
data breach.
  Now this latest scheme is, let's send all the sales information to 
one place, and we will have some company--I guess some private 
companies will stand to benefit from this--they will now collect all 
these taxes, and they will hold all this information. Imagine how much 
information they would hold in each State.
  So that is how we are going to create this new taxing scheme. You can 
imagine how a State such as New Hampshire would feel about that as a 
State that has decided not to have a sales tax--that suddenly our State 
has to keep all this information, has to hire some private company to 
do this, to collect all these taxes, and then that each of our online 
businesses has to purchase this software which is supposed to interface 
with its State government. What a massive bureaucracy, and how unfair 
it is in terms of State sovereignty that the Federal Government would 
impose this on a State such as New Hampshire that has made a decision 
not to have a sales tax.
  This, to me, would be the opposite of what we are trying to 
accomplish under the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, which I fully 
support, which is about Internet tax freedom, and to attach this 
proposal to that Internet Tax Freedom Act, which some people, I think, 
are scheming around here to do, which with the right hand we are going 
to give you Internet freedom and with the left hand we are going to 
take that freedom away from States like mine that have chosen not to 
have a sales tax. And our online businesses would now have to be part 
of this huge bureaucratic scheme to collect taxes for other States and 
other localities.
  So I would hope my colleagues would not go down this road because I 
think the Internet should be free. I think online businesses should be 
able to continue to thrive and grow. I think online businesses should 
not be required to collect for over 9,000 taxing jurisdictions. And 
certainly I think all of us should have concerns about all of the sales 
data being collected by some kind of third party and being held in one 
place just so we can collect more taxes on online businesses.
  In fact, what I have heard from our businesses in New Hampshire 
previously when the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act was on the floor 
of the Senate--many of the businesses in New Hampshire that have online 
sales told me then how unfair they thought this taxing scheme was, and 
those concerns

[[Page S4534]]

remain, great businesses such as Garnet Hill in Franconia, NH. Russ 
Gaitskill, who is the president and CEO of Garnet Hill, told me 
previously: ``It's going to be a nightmare.''
  I heard in the past from E&R Laundry and Dry Cleaners, a small 
business founded in Manchester in 1921. About 70 percent of E&R's sales 
are now Internet based. The company's president said he would not have 
the resources to calculate, collect, and deliver sales taxes for 
thousands of jurisdictions across the country.
  There is a great bakery, certainly, in the Nashua and Amherst area, 
Frederick's Pastries. Anybody who has been there--I can tell you, 
Frederick's is a great bakery. Susan Lozier Roberts of Frederick's 
expressed concern that this taxing scheme would create mass confusion, 
keeping up with all the individual tax codes.
  There is the fact that we are going to have to have software and have 
some third party hold all of the sales information for all these online 
businesses. That creates so many other additional burdensome issues, as 
well as privacy issues.
  Travis Adams with whaddy.com, based in Nashua, said previously: One 
tax audit from another State or jurisdiction would completely crush us. 
Because what happens under this so-called taxing scheme is now all of 
our online businesses can be audited in all of these taxing 
jurisdictions. So you can be an online business in New Hampshire, and 
what the proponents of this new tax scheme would like to have is this 
opportunity that businesses in New Hampshire can now be audited in all 
these other jurisdictions. You can imagine what kind of burdens that 
would create on businesses that are trying to focus every day on the 
bottom line and creating jobs.
  So I would say that as we look at this new proposal that some people 
behind the scenes are talking about trying to attach to the Internet 
Tax Freedom Act--I hope we will not go down this road. It would be bad 
for business, it would be bad for people's privacy, it would be a big 
power grab, I think, from Washington to require States such as New 
Hampshire to collect these taxes from throughout the country, and it 
certainly would not be positive to create more jobs through online 
businesses.
  In fact, the Competitive Enterprise Institute said of this latest 
proposal, which is a cousin to the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act:

       [This] new tax grab erodes healthy tax competition among 
     states, puts consumers' information at higher risk, and 
     ushers in a regime of taxation without representation. It's 
     like the Blackwater of tax collection, state-paid mercenaries 
     with sales tax charts. Under the Marketplace Fairness Act 
     businesses are threatened by the prospect of being audited 
     and prosecuted in every state into which they sell.

  This issue is one I think we all should care about. I know in my home 
State of New Hampshire, where we have chosen not to have a sales tax, 
it would be completely unfair for us to consider passing this proposal 
which is a brandnew tax grab that erodes New Hampshire's competitive 
status of choosing not to have a sales tax. Also, there is the concern 
we all should have about a central taxing authority holding all of this 
private sales information in each of the States and what could be done 
with that information and how will consumers' information be protected. 
New Hampshire's residents and Internet retailers cannot afford this 
radical Federal invasion of our State.
  I hope my colleagues will see the importance of extending the 
Internet Tax Freedom Act to encourage innovation and job creation, but 
under no circumstances should the Internet access tax moratorium be 
held hostage by a new and invasive sales tax that would not only undo 
the benefits of the tax moratorium but also burden our small businesses 
with becoming tax collectors for other States. That is wrong, and I 
hope this body will not go down that road. I certainly will be doing 
everything I can within my power in the Senate to make sure this new 
sales tax collection regime does not get attached to a very positive 
proposal, which is the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, it is an honor to follow my colleague 
from New Hampshire, who has done such an eloquent job.


                           Export-Import Bank

  I want to talk about the Export-Import Bank. I said this during the 
unnecessary 2013 Government shutdown, and I will say it again: Most 
Americans think Congress can do something to help create jobs and 
strengthen our economy--even if it is simply not doing any harm. Yet 
here we are again, willfully allowing an important tool for economic 
growth to expire by not taking commonsense action.
  On June 30, the charter for the Export-Import Bank will expire. 
During its 80-plus years of existence, the Bank has garnered support 
from every President during that span and repeatedly been renewed by 
Congress, often without any objection. The Export-Import Bank is not a 
Democratic program or a Republican program. It is a program to help 
American businesses. President Reagan's words from 30 years ago still 
ring true:

       Exports create and sustain jobs for millions of American 
     workers and contribute to the growth and strength of the 
     United States economy. The Export-Import Bank contributes in 
     a significant way to our nation's export sales.

  The Gipper was right then, and he is right today.
  Those who oppose the Ex-Im Bank for ideological reasons may make 
their case in the abstract, but I have to operate in the reality, where 
I have heard over and over from Indiana small business owners and 
workers about the importance of the Ex-Im Bank.
  Jon, the vice president of Specialty Hardwoods of Indiana, in 
Nappannee, told me about their small company, which has around 40 
employees. They got through the financial downturn of 2008 and 2009 but 
suffered during that time, as all small manufacturers did, not only 
here in this country but worldwide. As they returned to profitability, 
they made a decision to try to diversify markets.
  Up until 2008, they mostly sold their products to the recreational 
vehicle industry. Since then, they have started to sell to cabinet 
companies that market to the kitchen and bath industry nationally and 
made a direct attempt to go after export sales. Lumber product exports 
now account at Specialty Hardwoods for more than 45 percent of their 
current sales. Jon told me:

       We could not have done this without the support of EXIM 
     bank. I personally have helped other small companies in our 
     industry contact EXIM and establish relationships with EXIM 
     to market their products. It levels the playing field for 
     smaller companies to enter this market segment of our 
     industry.
       We have grown our business and survived because of EXIM 
     bank and the efforts of the 40-45 people that we employ.

  The stories continue.
  Mark, the vice president and co-owner of Agrarian Marketing 
Corporation, told us about his company that makes feed additives and 
nutritional supplements for the livestock industry. They have a very 
large distributor in Cairo, Egypt, that represents nearly 30 percent of 
their business. For this Hoosier business, nearly 30 percent of their 
business comes from Cairo, Egypt.
  The credit insurance they purchase through Ex-Im Bank allows them to 
source this business by extending beneficial credit terms to their 
Egyptian customer. It would not be possible if they required their 
customer to prepay for those orders.
  Mark said:

       Although we are a small business, this segment of our 
     business is very important to us and provides excellent 
     profitability and jobs here in Indiana as well as jobs for 
     our contract manufacturers in Iowa, Illinois, and Ohio. All 
     would suffer if we lost this business.

  Bruce, the CEO and chairman of Sullivan-Palatek in Michigan City, 
noted that not only are the 140 jobs at his company impacted but 
several hundred more at local suppliers.
  Bruce said:

       In the event that the Ex-Im Bank were to be shut down, the 
     impact to us would be immediate. I believe we would have very 
     much difficulty in getting any new orders.
       In fact, the orders that we have in house, many of them we 
     would not be able to ship. We would have to shut them down 
     right in the middle . . . of the order process.

  Jon, Mark, and Bruce are three of many in Indiana, many around the 
country. In my home State, the Hoosier State, since 2010 the Export-
Import Bank has directly helped more than 100 companies that have 
exported more than $3 billion in goods and services.
  The Ex-Im Bank costs zero in taxpayer dollars. In fact, it turns a 
profit.

[[Page S4535]]

Since 1992, the Bank has returned more than $7 billion in profits to 
the Treasury. Last year, $675 million was returned to the Treasury. And 
the default rate is 0.175 percent. That is less than one-fifth of 1 
percent. That is an effort to manage it in a fiscally prudent, fiscally 
responsible manner.
  In fiscal year 2014, the Ex-Im Bank authorized around $20.5 billion 
for 3,746 transactions, which contributed to $27.5 billion of U.S. 
exports and more than 164,000 jobs right here in the United States.
  These are not, for the most part, huge corporations. They are small 
companies that wouldn't be able to afford financing elsewhere. In 2014, 
90 percent of the transactions approved by the Bank were in support of 
small businesses.
  So what happens if Ex-Im's charter is to expire? It will be forced to 
shut down, unwind current obligations, and the loss of future financing 
could result in a significant amount of business being lost overseas. 
That directly affects the bottom line for many businesses, leaving them 
with less revenue to reinvest and less revenue to pay wages or create 
new jobs. It becomes difficult--if not nearly impossible--for the 
private sector to replace the loans, the guarantees, and the insurance 
provided by the Ex-Im Bank.
  At a time when American companies are competing in a game that is 
often rigged by foreign currency manipulation, intellectual property 
theft, and insurmountable regulatory barriers, unilaterally eliminating 
our export credit agency further handcuffs U.S. job creators and allows 
competitors in foreign countries to pick up the business.
  If Ex-Im no longer provides financing, foreign companies and 
countries are still going to buy their goods and products. They need 
the products. But instead of buying that product from Muncie, IN, they 
will purchase it in Russia or China.
  This is, to me, the direct opposite of what Congress should be doing. 
It seems as if up is down and down is up in this discussion. Nearly 
every other major country has a credit export agency. Many are larger 
and much more aggressive than the Export-Import Bank. Unilaterally 
eliminating our export credit agency hurts not only the United States 
and handcuffs our job creators, but it also helps competitors in 
foreign countries to capitalize and seize that business.
  Our global competitors, including China, Brazil, and India, are 
investing more in export financing every single day. They are investing 
in their companies and in their economy. If we take this measure, we 
are stepping back. They are rooting for America's Export-Import Bank to 
close because it means more business for them.
  Even our neighbor Canada is providing far more export financing than 
the United States. Canada's economy is one-tenth the size of the U.S. 
economy, and their export-import agency already provides far more 
export financing than we do at the present time. The Ex-Im Bank is a 
tool that helps American companies compete in the global economy.
  In Indiana, we pride ourselves on what we call Hoosier common sense. 
It does not get more common sense than creating more American jobs in a 
fiscally responsible way. That is what the Export-Import Bank does.
  Congress needs a dose of that Hoosier common sense, which is the same 
as the common sense in the Presiding Officer's home State of Ohio. We 
should act quickly to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank to help our 
companies, to help our employees, to help workers around our country, 
and to help our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, our country stands on the brink of a 
great opportunity in the Asia-Pacific. Since 2008, the United States 
and 11 other Pacific nations, including Japan and New Zealand, have 
worked to conclude negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This 
agreement represents nearly 40 percent of the global gross domestic 
product, or GDP, and is the most ambitious free-trade agreement in 
history. By upending antiquated international tariff systems and 
tearing down barriers to trade, we can unleash American ingenuity and 
send our Nation's products from Main Street to Malaysia.
  Much has been said about the national benefits of concluding TPP, but 
I want to focus on some of the particular benefits for my home State of 
Colorado. Colorado, like most States, benefits immensely from 
international trade, particularly with Asia. According to the Business 
Roundtable, more than 265,000 Colorado jobs are supported by the 
countries that would be affected by TPP. These trade-related jobs 
include the farmworker harvesting world-famous melons down in Rocky 
Ford and the meatpacker shipping American beef from Greeley. They are 
the electrical engineer designing computer systems in Boulder and the 
natural gas worker maintaining a rig in Parachute. Collectively, these 
everyday working Americans help drive the economic and trade engine of 
Colorado. Last year, my State exported more than $8 billion worth of 
goods all across the world. Approximately half of them, or $4 billion, 
went directly to TPP countries.
  While nations like Vietnam and Japan have imposed hefty tariffs on 
our Colorado goods in the past, TPP presents an opportunity to level 
the playing field. American goods would flow more freely to the region 
and American workers stand to benefit. That is why I strongly support 
granting the President trade promotion authority, or TPA, and 
finalizing a high-standard TPP. A vote for TPA is a vote for the 
American worker. It is a vote for more active engagement in the world 
and a higher standard of living, and it is a vote to recognize that 
through increased trade, we can indeed deliver upon the promise of a 
better tomorrow.
  Unfortunately, however, some in Congress have opted for isolationism 
and retreat. They have sounded the alarm over supposed failure of past 
trade agreements and argued in favor of taking cover rather than taking 
charge, and they have doubled down on the false notion that trade is 
always bad for the American economy and the American worker. But a 
quick review of the facts will dispel these myths very quickly. 
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, national beef exports 
to Colombia and Panama have more than tripled since 2011 when we 
enacted free-trade agreements with these countries. National wheat 
exports to Chile more than doubled from the enactment of our 2003 free-
trade agreement through 2014, while dairy exports increased more than 
20 times to that country, and our beef exports have increased more than 
eight times to the participant countries of the Central America and 
Dominican Republic free-trade agreement.
  Colorado businesses have played a large role in expanding overseas as 
well. My State witnessed a 37-percent increase in goods exported to 
countries with free-trade agreements between 2003 and 2013. Exports to 
Korea have increased 61 percent since the conclusion of our free-trade 
agreement with that nation in 2011. And NAFTA, which anti-trade forces 
frequently dismiss as the poster child for trade deals gone awry, has 
resulted in a 293-percent--that is right, 293 percent--increase in 
Colorado exports to Canada and Mexico since 1994.
  Beyond the numbers, though, it is important to meet with the workers 
and business owners who understand that freer trade helps their bottom 
line. Just a few days ago, I traveled to Eastern Colorado on my annual 
wheat tour. It is a tradition that Senator Wayne Allard started in the 
1990s--then a U.S. Representative--and one I was excited to continue in 
the Senate. I invited my colleague from Colorado Senator Bennet, so we 
could both hear the needs directly from Coloradans and see the positive 
impacts that agreements such as TPP could have not only on Eastern 
Colorado but farmers across this country.
  On the tour, we had the chance to marvel at the truly incredible 
production level of Colorado wheat growers. We are just about 2 weeks 
away from

[[Page S4536]]

the height of the winter wheat harvest in Colorado--a time when I have 
always enjoyed working at our family implement dealership in Yuma--and 
a reminder that Colorado helps feed the world. The vast majority of 
Colorado's wheat crop is exported. In fact, in 2013, we shipped more 
than $235 million worth of wheat across the globe. Eighty percent of 
the wheat we produce in Colorado is exported. Most of the wheat growers 
we met on the Eastern Plains aren't interested in retreating from the 
international marketplace. In fact, they want to expand the 
international marketplace. They understand that freer trade means 
improved opportunities to place their product. And with a high-standard 
TPP, Colorado wheat growers could penetrate notoriously difficult 
markets in countries such as Japan and begin to ship from Thurman to 
Tokyo and beyond.
  It isn't just wheat either. Colorado farmers and ranchers already 
export millions of dollars in Western Slope beef, Southern Colorado 
onions, and San Luis Valley potatoes. In fact, according to the 
Department of Agriculture, Colorado potatoes represent around 70 
percent of all U.S. potato exports to Mexico. That market stands to 
grow significantly if TPP is successfully concluded, considering that 
Mexico is a member nation in the negotiations.
  There is no question that trade benefits rural America. We should be 
promoting Palisade peaches in Perth and Olathe sweet corn on the 
streets of Singapore. Growing up in rural Colorado, I saw the potential 
that our hard-working farmers and ranchers created for Colorado and for 
Colorado products abroad. Their determined spirit and hard-working 
attitude are what keep America at the top of the global economy, and 
TPP will expand that promise in the Asia-Pacific.
  Urban and suburban America succeed with increased trade as well. As 
do their rural counterparts, urban and suburban Coloradans benefit from 
a wider selection of cheaper goods. The mechanics of free trade stretch 
dollars a little bit further for the teenager with a part-time summer 
job as well as for the family struggling to make ends meet.
  Aside from the benefit of cheaper products, increased trade creates 
jobs here at home. A couple of months ago, I was fortunate enough to 
visit a company in Boulder, CO, that manufactures zip lines and other 
adventure equipment. This company has successfully expanded their 
business to Europe and Asia, helping people across the globe enjoy rain 
forest canopy tours, free falling, and more.
  As this business expanded overseas, they had the ability to hire more 
employees and boost the local economy in Boulder. They doubled their 
Colorado office and are still looking to grow. An agreement such as TPP 
will open further opportunities for this company in the Asia-Pacific 
and beyond, perhaps facilitating world-class bungee jumping in New 
Zealand or advanced rock climbing in Peru, and with those new 
opportunities come more Colorado jobs.
  That is the essence of free trade. It encourages innovation and 
entrepreneurship. It connects the world while growing our workforce at 
home, and it presents an opportunity for Colorado and our country to 
spread our goods and ideas across the globe.
  That is why I have supported free-trade agreements in the past--
agreements that have yielded significant economic and strategic 
benefits for our Nation. That is why I supported the latest generation 
of trade promotion authority and look forward to supporting it again. 
We will continue to support it this week as it goes to the President's 
desk to be signed into law. That is why I urge my colleagues to 
continue their support for free-trade agreements, so the United States 
can help grasp the great opportunity that awaits us in the Asia-
Pacific.
  We have held several hearings over the past couple of months in the 
Foreign Relations Committee and beyond talking about the benefits of 
free trade. A couple of weeks ago, we were joined by experts from Asia 
and economic leaders around this country, all of whom believe we have 
an important role to play in expanding trade and expanding the 
opportunities that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will lead to when that 
agreement comes to this floor, thanks to trade promotion authority. It 
is an important measure that we must enact. It is an important 
statement of good faith that the United States truly is interested in 
the Asia region, the Asia-Pacific region, making good on our efforts to 
truly pivot to Asia to rebalance policy we all support but making good 
on our word that we are indeed in the region to stay.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                         Republican-Led Senate

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last fall, Republicans promised that if 
we were elected to the majority, we would get Washington working. That 
wasn't a campaign slogan, that was a commitment. After 6 months of 
Republican control, I am proud to report we are delivering on that 
promise.
  The past 6 months in the Senate have been the most productive months 
in a long time. We passed bipartisan legislation to approve the 
Keystone Pipeline. We passed a bipartisan bill to help prevent suicides 
among veterans. We passed the first significant bipartisan reform of 
Medicare in years, which will ensure that our seniors have access to 
physicians and that those physicians are judged by the quality rather 
than the quantity of the care they provide. We passed bipartisan 
legislation to give law enforcement new tools to fight human 
trafficking and provide support for trafficking victims. We passed a 
bipartisan bill to authorize funding for our national defense to 
provide for the needs of our men and women in uniform.
  Those are just some of the highlights.
  Every piece of legislation I mentioned passed with bipartisan 
support. One reason that happened is because the Republican majority 
has been committed to ensuring that all Senators, whatever the party, 
have the opportunity to make their voices heard.
  Under Democratic leadership, not only were Members of the minority 
party shut out of the legislative process, but many rank-and-file 
Democrats were as well. During all of 2014, the Democratic leadership 
in the Senate allowed just 15 amendment rollcall votes--15 votes in an 
entire year. That is barely more than a vote a month.
  By contrast, the Republican-led Senate has taken more than 130 
amendment rollcall votes so far this year or more than 21 votes a 
month. That is not only more amendment rollcall votes than last year, 
it is more amendment rollcall votes than the Senate has taken in the 
past 2 years combined. That is through the first 6 months of 2015. We 
have another 6 months to go.
  This week, the Senate is considering what I hope is going to be our 
next bipartisan achievement; that is, the legislation to help expand 
U.S. trade with other countries and increase the opportunities that are 
available for American businesses and American workers.
  Over the past few years, exports have been a bright spot in our 
economy, supporting an increasing number of American jobs each and 
every year. In 2014, exports supported 11.7 million U.S. jobs and made 
up 13 percent of our Nation's economy. We need to continue to open 
markets around the globe to American goods and services, and the best 
way to do that is through new trade agreements.
  Countries with which we have free and fair trade agreements purchase 
substantially more from us than other countries. In fact, in 2013, 
free-trade agreement countries purchased 12 times more goods per capita 
from the United States than nonfree-trade agreement countries--12 times 
more goods per capita.
  For American workers, increased trade means more opportunity and 
increased access to high-paying jobs. Manufacturing jobs tied to 
exports pay, on average, 13 to 18 percent more than other jobs in our 
economy.
  Unfortunately, while trade agreements have proliferated around the 
globe over the past several years, the United States hasn't signed a 
new trade agreement in 8 years. A big reason for that is the fact that 
trade promotion authority expired in 2007. Since 1934, almost all of 
the U.S. free-trade agreements have been negotiated using trade 
promotion authority or a similar streamlined, expedited process.
  Trade promotion authority is designed to put the United States in the

[[Page S4537]]

strongest possible position when it comes to negotiating trade 
agreements. Under TPA, Congress sets guidelines for trade negotiations 
and outlines the priorities the administration must follow. In return, 
Congress promises a simple up-or-down vote on the resulting trade 
agreement instead of the long amendment process that could leave the 
final deal looking nothing like what was initially negotiated.
  That simple up-or-down vote is the key. It lets our negotiating 
partners know that Congress and trade negotiators are on the same page, 
which gives other countries the confidence they need to put their best 
offers on the table. That, in turn, allows for a successful and timely 
conclusion of negotiations.
  Currently, the administration is negotiating two major trade 
agreements that have the potential to vastly expand the market for 
American goods and services in the European Union and in the Pacific. 
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is being negotiated with a number of 
Asia-Pacific nations, including Australia, Japan, New Zealand, 
Singapore, and Vietnam. If this agreement is done right, it could have 
huge benefits for American agriculture, among other industries.
  Agriculture producers in my State of South Dakota and in the 
Presiding Officer's State of Iowa understand that trade promotion 
authority is the most effective way to secure trade agreements that 
will benefit our farmers and our ranchers. One pork producer in my 
State of South Dakota contacted me to tell me that a successful TPP 
deal could increase U.S. pork exports to just one of the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership countries by literally hundreds of millions of dollars in a 
year.
  Discussions of the benefits of trade tend to focus on the economic 
benefits, and with good reason--it helps our economy. It creates good-
paying jobs and raises the standard of living for people in this 
country and gives access for consumers to lower cost goods and 
services. But new trade agreements also have the potential to result 
not just in economic gains for America's farmers, ranchers, and 
manufacturers but in national security gains for the country.
  When we make trade deals with other countries, we are not just 
opening new markets for our goods, we are also developing and cementing 
alliances. Trade agreements build bonds of friendship with other 
nations that extend not only to cooperation on economic issues but to 
cooperation on security issues as well.
  It is also important to remember that just because the United States 
isn't negotiating trade agreements doesn't mean other countries will 
not be. In fact, the United States hasn't signed a single new trade 
agreement over the past 8 years, but that hasn't prevented other 
countries from signing numerous trade agreements over the same period. 
If America fails to lead on trade, other nations such as China will 
step in to fill the void, and these nations will not have the best 
interests of American workers and American families in mind.
  The bill before us today will help pave the way for the United States 
to cement alliances with friendly nations through trade and will help 
ensure that any trade deals the United States enters into will be 
favorable to our economic and our national security interests.
  The Senate passed a version of this bill last month with a bipartisan 
majority, and I am hopeful we will have a similarly strong bipartisan 
vote yet this week. Republicans believe our Nation's problems are best 
solved when Members of both parties come together to find solutions for 
the American people.
  Republicans' plans for our second 6 months in the majority are the 
same as those for the first 6 months of our majority; that is, to make 
sure we continue to move forward in a way that addresses the challenges 
that are facing our country. Unfortunately, last week we saw an 
unfortunate return to partisanship on the part of the Democrats when 
they blocked an appropriations bill to fund our troops. It is not that 
Democrats have a problem with this bill; in fact, many of them voted to 
support the funding this bill provides when they voted in favor of the 
National Defense Authorization Act last week. The authorization act is 
the first step in a two-step process which has to be followed by the 
appropriations bill that actually provides the funding. But Democratic 
leaders and the President, even though many of them supported the 
Defense authorization bill, are upset that government agencies such as 
the EPA and the IRS aren't receiving the Democrats' preferred level of 
funding, so they have decided to hold appropriations bills hostage in 
an effort to get what they want.
  It is unfortunate that Democrats are holding money for our troops 
hostage in order to get more funding for the EPA and the IRS. If 
Democrats believe the funding levels in the appropriations bills are 
not acceptable, they will have the opportunity to offer amendments to 
increase the funding. But in order to do that, they have to allow us to 
actually proceed to consideration of these bills on the Senate floor. 
What they are, in effect, doing now is filibustering any attempt to 
bring any spending bill to the floor; most recently, as I mentioned, 
the funding bill for our troops. The bill that funds our national 
security interests in this country is currently being held hostage. We 
can't even get it on the floor to debate it. We are not only talking 
about ultimately passing it, we are talking about even having a 
discussion on the floor of the Senate about something as important as 
funding our troops and the important military objectives we have as a 
nation. Yet, right now, we have a filibuster being conducted by the 
Democrats--again, because they want to get more funding for their 
favorite agencies. Well, that is a bad way to go about this.

  I am hopeful that this obstruction--which is largely driven by the 
Democratic leadership--that most rank-and-file Democrats will rethink a 
strategy that involves opposing every opportunity to fund our Nation's 
priorities and to get things done for the American people.
  After years of stagnation in the Senate under Democratic leadership, 
I think even most Democrats have enjoyed governing in a functioning 
Senate again. We have dozens of bipartisan bills to show for the first 
6 months of this year, and our record of accomplishment can continue if 
the Democrats abandon their strategy of obstruction and continue to 
work with us to solve the challenges facing our Nation. They can start 
by not objecting to proceeding to even getting a bill that funds our 
national security interests here on the floor of the Senate so we can 
debate it. As I said, if they don't like the funding levels in there, 
we will have an open amendment process in which they will be able to 
offer amendments to change those funding levels. But what they are 
doing right now is fundamentally wrong, not even allowing consideration 
of an appropriations bill that funds our military and pays our troops 
on the floor of the United States Senate. I hope that will change.
  I hope that the Democrats will join us in making the next 6 months of 
2015 as productive as the first 6 months have been and that we can 
point to bipartisan achievements that are good for the American people, 
that focus on their basic daily needs, and that will promote policies 
which will grow our economy and create jobs and lead to a higher 
standard of living and increased take-home pay for middle-income 
families across this country.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I would like to take a few minutes to 
underscore the importance of trade and trade promotion authority to the 
American manufacturing industry.
  Despite some claims to the contrary, U.S. manufacturers have been 
among the principal beneficiaries of our existing free-trade 
agreements. One in four U.S. manufacturing jobs depends on exports. On 
average, the wages of those in export-supported manufacturing jobs are 
18 percent higher than those of other factory workers.
  Furthermore, since the last TPA bill passed through the Congress in 
2002,

[[Page S4538]]

U.S. goods exports have more than doubled, reaching $1.6 trillion in 
2013 alone. While we hear a constant drumbeat decrying our trade 
deficits, the United States enjoys a nearly $60 billion yearly 
manufacturing surplus with our 20 existing partners to the free-trade 
agreements. Consumers and businesses in those 20 countries purchased 
$658 billion of U.S. manufactured goods in 2013 alone, which represents 
nearly 48 percent of all exports produced by the 12 million Americans 
employed in manufacturing.
  Clearly, in places where we have free-trade agreements, where our 
manufacturers can compete on a level playing field, they are winning. 
We need to build on that track record of success and enact more high-
standard, 21st-century free-trade agreements. That is yet another 
reason why we need TPA.
  It is no wonder, then, that our TPA bill is supported by 
manufacturers throughout the country. We have received letters or 
statements of support from groups such as the National Association of 
Manufacturers, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the 
Grocery Manufacturers Association, the American Forest and Paper 
Association, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, the 
Semiconductor Industry Association, the Society of Chemical 
Manufacturers & Affiliates, the National Council of Textile 
Organizations, and many others.
  On top of that, a number of iconic individual manufacturing companies 
have weighed in publicly in support of our bill, including Boeing, 
Cummins, Dow Chemical, Honeywell, Intel, Texas Instruments, Xerox, and, 
of course, many others.
  Caterpillar, which is based in Peoria, IL, is the world's leading 
manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, diesel engines, and 
gas turbines. Caterpillar knows the value of trade to a healthy 
economy, having exported nearly $88 billion in goods and services over 
the past 5 years. They know that if we pass TPA, they can do even 
better.
  Upon introduction of our bill, the company issued a statement saying, 
``Passage of TPA will provide the United States with the strongest 
possible hand when negotiating future trade agreements and will help 
eliminate the current high tariffs and trade barriers that companies 
like Caterpillar currently face.''
  It is not just big companies that benefit. Ninety-eight percent of 
nearly 300,000 American exporters are small and medium-sized 
businesses. Let me say that again. Ninety-eight percent of all U.S. 
exporters are small and medium-sized businesses. There are 300,000 of 
them. That fact escapes many people.
  Let me give an example of one of those small businesses from my home 
State of Utah. Kimber Kable is owned and operated by Ray Kimber. Ray's 
story is emblematic of the American dream. In the late 1970s, Ray 
figured out a way to weave audio cables to reduce unwanted noise and 
improve fidelity. The company he started in his garage over 35 years 
ago is now a driver of economic growth and a source of jobs. Today, he 
employs 30 people in Ogden, UT. He sells his cables to the world. Two-
thirds of Ray's cables are shipped to customers overseas.
  Ray is not only a friend of mine, he is also an outstanding example 
of a larger truth: The U.S. manufacturing sector is the most innovative 
in the world, and American workers are unsurpassed in manufacturing 
productivity. Because of U.S. innovation and productivity, where U.S. 
manufacturing competes on an equal footing, it always succeeds.
  We can help people like Ray reach more markets and maintain healthy 
small businesses across America--businesses that will grow our economy 
and create more jobs--but we can only do that if our trade negotiators 
have the tools to set fair trade rules for our exporters. That is what 
our TPA bill provides.
  For example, a big part of the ability of small companies like Kimber 
Kable to sell around the world is digital trade. That is why the TPA 
bill that is again before us directs our trade negotiators to ensure 
that electronically delivered goods and services are classified with 
the most liberal trade treatment possible and that our trading partners 
allow the free flow of data across borders.
  Using the Internet to market, sell, and transmit digital products is 
only part of the story. Companies like Ray's are also innovators, and 
their innovations must be protected. Too many small businesses have 
experienced firsthand the destructive impact of intellectual property 
theft. Companies like Kimber Kable have to contend with counterfeiters 
stealing their company name to sell inferior products. This TPA bill, 
therefore, will also ensure that U.S. trade agreements reflect a 
standard of intellectual property rights protection similar to that 
found in our own U.S. law. The bill calls for an end to the theft of 
U.S. intellectual property by foreign governments, including piracy and 
the theft of trade secrets, and for the elimination of measures that 
require U.S. companies to locate their intellectual property abroad in 
return for market access. These are strong provisions that will help 
U.S. manufacturing compete and sell their products around the world.
  Companies from Caterpillar to Kimber Kable recognize the importance 
of trade and trade agreements to the future of American manufacturing. 
They recognize that 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside of 
the United States and that if we want to sell American-made products to 
these customers, we need strong agreements to break down barriers and 
level the playing field. We simply cannot do that without the TPA.
  We can do better and we must do better for American manufacturers. If 
we really want to support the American manufacturing industry, then we 
should vote today to pass this TPA legislation once and for all.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes to talk 
about the importance of international trade to my home State of Utah 
and how Utahns will benefit from the passage of the TPA bill.
  Despite having a relatively small population, the State of Utah is a 
very significant player in international trade. In 2014 alone, Utah 
exported more than $12 billion in goods. That number has more than 
doubled over the past decade, despite the economic downturn that took 
place during that time.
  Goods exports account for more than 11 percent of Utah's GDP. More 
than 50,000 Utah jobs are directly tied to goods exports, as more than 
3,400 Utah-based companies export goods to countries around the world. 
By the way, nearly 86 percent of those exporting companies are small or 
medium-sized businesses.
  These Utah exports include a number of key manufacturing exports, 
including primary metal products, computer and electronics products, 
chemicals, processed foods, and transportation equipment, just to 
mention a few.
  There are a number of Utah companies that I could single out here 
today. As I said, there are more than 3,400 Utah-based exporters, but 
let me talk about one in particular--Albion Laboratories, which is 
based in Clearfield, UT.
  Albion is a leading, global manufacturer of chelated minerals for 
human and plant nutritional applications. The company is incredibly 
innovative, owning more than 100 patents from manufacturing processes 
to food applications. Over the years, Albion has enjoyed strong growth 
in large part because of its expanded exports. Today, Albion exports to 
more than 100 different countries, which has allowed the company to 
regularly add new jobs to accommodate its increased output. As of right 
now, the company employs approximately 150 people. This is just one 
example of the many unique and innovative Utah companies that have 
benefited from international trade and will benefit even more from 
expanded access to foreign markets in the future.
  Now, there has been a lot of talk about the potential benefits of our 
pending trade agreements with countries in the Asia-Pacific region and 
the European Union. As of right now, more than half of Utah's exports 
already go

[[Page S4539]]

to these two markets. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that Utah-
based exporters will benefit greatly from the expanded market access 
they will undoubtedly see if we can get both the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership over 
the finish line.
  Of course, without TPA, these two important trade agreements, which 
are among the largest and most ambitious agreements in our Nation's 
history, don't stand a chance. TPA gives our negotiators the tools they 
need to get the best deals possible. TPA gives Congress and our 
constituents a strong voice in the negotiating process, and, of course, 
TPA assures that once an agreement is reached, our country will be able 
to deliver on the deal.
  Utahns depend on international trade. Utah's job creators, like those 
throughout the country, need greater access to foreign markets in order 
to compete. Put simply, they are not going to get that access without 
TPA.
  So for the sake of the thousands of Utah companies that export goods 
around the world and the tens of thousands of Utahns whose jobs depend 
on those exports--and for the hundreds of thousands of companies all 
over this country and more--I urge my colleagues to join me one more 
time in supporting our TPA legislation.
  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. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1648 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, 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. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________