Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 101 (Tuesday, June 23, 2015)

[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.

____________________