[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13804-13810]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   EXTENDING THE GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 2832, which the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the bill (H.R. 2832) to extend the 
     Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30 
p.m. will be divided and controlled between the Senator from Montana, 
Mr. Baucus, and the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, or their designees.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Alabama, I don't 
plan to take a lot of time--maybe 10 minutes total.
  Mr. President, in 1934, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said:

       No country, however rich, can afford the waste of its human 
     resources. Demoralization caused by vast unemployment is our 
     greatest extravagance.

  President Roosevelt said these words at a fireside chat nearly 80 
years ago. Our economy was slowly on the path of recovery after 
suffering the worst financial crash in American history. Roosevelt had 
turned his focus to helping the ``permanent army of unemployed'' 
Americans--those Americans who didn't have jobs. His resulting 
investment in America's human resources put millions of people back to 
work.
  Today, we face a similar situation. After a significant financial 
crisis, our economy is in tough shape. Our economic recovery is fragile 
but improving. Housing foreclosures have slowed and investors are 
looking for new opportunities. We have a long way to go. But 14 million 
Americans are still looking for work--and that is just unemployed. If 
you add the underemployed, it is probably closer to 20 million, and 
maybe more than that. Like President Roosevelt, we must bolster our 
investment in American human resources because, as in 1934, America's 
strength is in its people.
  When people are denied the opportunity to work, they are denied the 
dignity that comes with that work--let alone the income, let alone 
providing for their families. Trade adjustment assistance, or TAA, is 
the right investment in America's workers. TAA provides training and 
income support to thousands of Americans so they can get a good-paying 
job right here in our own country. TAA helps them earn the dignity that 
comes from putting in a good day of work.
  I worked with my friend, Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, from 
Michigan, who is a good man. We worked together on a TAA agreement that 
improves the efficiency, accessibility, and effectiveness of the 
program. I highly commend Representative David Camp. Our staffs have 
worked very closely over and over to try to find a common agreement for 
reauthorizing trade adjustment assistance. We worked to scale back the 
cost of the program, while maintaining the importance of training that 
helps workers secure good-paying jobs here at home.
  The amendment we are offering today is one I made with Chairman Camp 
on TAA. It extends coverage to workers in the services sector, which 
makes up 80 percent of our economy. It wasn't there before, at least 
not before 2009. Extending this coverage means manufacturing workers, 
as well as computer programmers and airline maintenance technicians 
will have equal access to the TAA Program.
  It also extends TAA to all workers. Current law does not cover 8 of 
our top 10 trade partners, including China, Japan, and Korea. Our 
amendment removes this geographic limitation and expands TAA's benefits 
to cover trade with all countries.
  Job retraining is the heart of TAA. This training has a proven track 
record of providing workers the skills they need to secure their next 
job. We know it works--and it works well--in my State of Montana and 
across the country.
  Al Drebes worked at Plum Creek Lumber Mill in Pablo, MT. In January 
2009, Al was laid off. With a young family, he needed to quickly find a 
new job. But after he spent months sending his resume around, he 
realized he needed to update his skills.
  What did he do? Al signed up for TAA and began training in recreation 
power equipment repair. Following his classroom training, TAA partnered 
him

[[Page 13805]]

with a local employer, S&S Sports, which specializes in all-terrain 
motor vehicles, jet skis, and other such things that are so important 
to so many people in our country--and, I might add, they are a lot of 
fun. Al began on-the-job training with S&S and did such a great job 
that the company hired him full time. Because of TAA job training, Al 
now has the security and dignity that comes with a full day's work, and 
he continues supporting his family.
  In addition to providing essential job training, our TAA amendment 
also helps American workers maintain health insurance for themselves 
and their families. TAA-eligible workers have access to the health 
coverage tax credit, which provides a 72.5-percent tax credit subsidy 
to make health care more affordable; otherwise, they would not have any 
health insurance. With nearly 50 million uninsured Americans, this 
benefit is more important than ever.
  Finally, the TAA agreement strengthens programs that help America's 
small businesses and small farmers. These programs--TAA for Firms and 
TAA for Farmers--provide targeted, intensive technical assistance to 
help small businesses and farmers improve their business plans, and 
they provide seed money to implement those plans.
  This bill also provides duty-free access to the U.S. market for 
imported products from certain developing countries.
  The Generalized System of Preferences, otherwise known as GSP, lowers 
the costs on inputs for American employers across the United States. 
American manufacturers use GSP imports--imports from developing 
countries, where the tariffs are reduced so imports can come in more 
easily--to build cars, produce steel, and manufacture hydropower 
turbines, for example.
  Since GSP expired last year, American companies have paid nearly $400 
million in tariffs on these imports. That is an added cost to American 
business of $400 million. By reauthorizing and extending GSP, we ensure 
that these workers, and workers in 129 countries around the world, have 
the opportunity to earn the dignity of work.
  This amendment, in short, helps save and create American jobs. It 
helps Americans keep their jobs by providing the low-cost inputs U.S. 
manufacturers need. It helps Americans who lose their jobs get the 
skills they need to secure a new job and earn the dignity a solid day 
of work provides. The amendment is fully offset and doesn't add a dime 
to our deficit.
  This amendment invests in America's human resources, just as 
President Roosevelt envisioned. It ensures our workers are not 
demoralized by unemployment and that they are energized by the hope of 
again standing on their own two feet.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his hard work 
on this bill. I have supported him so many times in the past and hoped 
over the last several years as we have discussed my little problem in 
Haleyville, AL, that maybe some agreement could be reached. But the 
U.S. Trade Representative, who talks sympathetically and does nothing, 
and the congressional committee seem to be of the view that any change, 
even though that is what they are empowered to do, is somehow not 
possible and we should not make changes in our trade law. So I objected 
today to going to this bill because I wish to see modest changes made 
in it.
  We are facing job losses in America. As my colleague has said, more 
than 25 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. The 
unemployment rate remains above 9 percent. In Alabama, unemployment is 
now higher than the national average. A few years ago, we were below 
the national average.
  In times such as these, Congress ought to consider options that 
create a favorable environment for businesses without adding more to 
the debt by spending money to try to stimulate the economy. One such 
measure would be a small change in the generalized system of 
preferences--the GSP--which the Senate is considering this week.
  Some background: The GSP was enacted in 1974 to give developing 
countries duty-free access to our markets, while still protecting 
American industries. Importantly, a key concept of the whole plan of 
GSP was if a product is made in America, that type of good is not 
allowed duty-free access to GSP. They would not be allowed to be 
imported duty free if we have an ongoing market. In some instances, we 
did not have ongoing production, so we allowed poorer countries to 
import duty free because it didn't lay off American jobs. Importers are 
not allowed the preference of a lower rate under those circumstances.
  Unfortunately, the U.S. Trade Representative concluded otherwise a 
number of years ago and made an exception, straying from the original, 
fundamental purpose and principle. And that exception threatens the 
American sleeping bag textile industry and those industries that 
support it.
  In 1992, the U.S. Trade Representative added sleeping bags to the 
list of GSP-eligible products in a special effort to support--it 
appears, at that time--the textile industry in Czechoslovakia. But, 
apparently, Czechoslovakia never produced a sleeping bag. Apparently, 
this was a political deal. They wanted to help Czechoslovakia after the 
fall of the wall.
  I can understand that, but do you see what is happening? Some 
political part of the government worrying about foreign policy decides 
we don't care too much about American sleeping bags, or whatever, 
because we want to make friends with this country. So we forego 
American jobs for foreign jobs as a way to win favor with those 
countries.
  Now, I am not saying that is never good, but I am saying when we do 
that time and time again we begin to concede too much of American 
wealth and jobs.
  So GSP was in effect in 1974 to help those countries, and I don't 
think it should have been changed. But a few years ago, a Chinese 
company began to produce sleeping bags and import them into the United 
States. They are not eligible to be a GSP low-cost, duty-free shipper 
because they are not a poorer nation that qualifies under the GSP. But 
they began to import into the United States, and when it became clear 
we had a good American company that could compete effectively against 
them, they realized there was a loophole and that Bangladesh could 
qualify for this loophole. So they moved their plant over to 
Bangladesh--at least in name they moved it--and continued to supply the 
materials to Bangladesh where the sleeping bags are produced and then 
imported duty free under this loophole that should never have been 
created because it has put Americans out of work.
  So with regard to China, I just have to note it is not a principled 
free-trade country. They are out aggressively to advance their interest 
and the interests of their companies and to sell everything they can 
sell abroad to advance their interests regardless of how many Americans 
are placed out of work. So I think our leaders have to begin to be 
sensitive to these practices.
  When will we start tough negotiations on behalf of our workers 
instead of resisting efforts to help our workers be competitive? 
Instead of standing up and being tough with Jeff Sessions, the Senator 
from Alabama, they need to stand up and be tough with people in 
Beijing, it seems to me. I believe in free trade. My voting record 
proves this. I have supported virtually every free-trade agreement. But 
free trade is not free if we allow ourselves to be exploited, if we 
hand unfair advantage to other nations.
  Haleyville is a small town. It is in the county of Winston--known as 
the Free State of Winston. Winston County claims and, I think, in 
effect did secede from Alabama when Alabama seceded from the Union. 
There are people in Winston County named Ulysses right now, after 
Grant. It is a remarkable county. It is an hour and a half from 
Birmingham, the closest center. It is very rural--15,000, 20,000, 
25,000 people.
  Also, Marion County is in the same area, and they have high 
unemployment--about 12 percent unemployment

[[Page 13806]]

in that area. These 100 or so jobs are important.
  I went there a few months ago. The local high school band played, and 
they welcomed me. All the employees were there. They pleaded with me to 
do what I could to help them save their jobs, and I promised to do so. 
But I am afraid we are in a mood, and the bill is moving, and we will 
just move it through and people will forget those people back home in 
Haleyville. But I am not forgetting them.
  I believe they have a legitimate request to make of their government 
to adhere to the true principles of GSP--that they don't get to import 
textiles into the United States if there is a domestic manufacturer 
that would be adversely affected. They can import, but they have to pay 
the 9-percent tariff that other countries pay on textiles.
  So I am afraid what is happening in Haleyville, sadly, is a symbol of 
our broken system. This trade loophole contradicts GSP principles. I 
believe it is indefensible. It is a benefit to China paid for directly 
by American workers. It just is. This company in Alabama pays taxes, 
obeys the regulations, plays by the rules, and they ask for nothing 
more than a fair shake. But how do our laws reward them? Out of the 
blue, they find they have competition from a foreign import. So we give 
Bangladesh the ability to skip all the taxes other importers pay, and 
primarily to the benefit of a Chinese company so they can undersell the 
plant in Alabama.
  What happened to the President's pledge of just last week when he 
said he wanted to make sure more products are stamped with three words: 
``Made in America?'' The GSP is supposed to exclude benefits to 
American-made textiles and import-sensitive products. Yet through a 
loophole and a ruling by the USTR, sleeping bags are not even 
considered a textile. If sleeping bags are not a textile, what are 
they? They are not food, they are not a water pump, they are not a 
piece of machinery, they are not a bench. They are made of fabric and 
fibers. They are clearly a textile. For this reason, some sections of 
the United States Code--including the Berry amendment--designates 
sleeping bags as textiles explicitly. It makes no sense for the 
government to recognize sleeping bags as textiles under some sections 
but not others. So all I am proposing is to bring uniformity to the law 
and following the intent of the GSP as initially passed.
  The fast-growing exports from Bangladesh are threatening American 
sleeping bags throughout the United States. It is an industry that has 
grown throughout the United States. Exxel Outdoors--really a California 
company--employs nearly 100 people in a county with unemployment at 12 
percent. But already Exxel has seen a 20-percent decrease in its sales. 
If the appropriate changes are not made, this factory will close and 
100 American workers in Alabama will lose their jobs, and others around 
the country will lose their jobs.
  Let me tell you a little more about Exxel. They came under new 
ownership in 2000. The new owner had planned to close the factory and 
send the jobs to Mexico to try to build a plant in Mexico. Instead, he 
realized the competitiveness of being in Alabama at this plant. He met 
and liked the people in Haleyville. They surprised him. He thought he 
would try it, he would give it a shot. He brought jobs back from Mexico 
and China. Since then they have prospered, creating quality sleeping 
bags right here in the United States.
  Exxel uses suppliers in New York State, New Jersey, North Carolina, 
Tennessee, and Mississippi. This is how a manufacturing system works in 
a country such as the United States. It has ripple effects far beyond 
what some people might think.
  I met one of the great industrialists in Germany recently who is 
investing in Alabama. He told me we have to have a Renaissance in 
manufacturing in the industrialized first world, and he was very 
sincere about this. He is a highly intelligent, accomplished man.
  As you can see from this map, this little plant in Alabama is 
supporting people in Mississippi; Cullman, AL; Atlanta, GA; Volunteer 
Thread in Nashville; Wiggy's in Clinton, TN. They make sleeping bags. I 
have a letter from them saying their business will be threatened too. 
Martex Fiber in Spartanburg; Consolidated Fibers in Charlotte; Royal 
Slide in New Jersey; Polartec in Lawrence, MA; Pennsylvania, New York, 
Vermont, Colorado, and California. So these things have ramifications.
  Indeed, recently, by chance, I was talking to a person with deep 
experience in the textile industry, and he told me they are becoming 
more competitive. He says we are actually gaining back jobs from 
abroad. That is exactly what was happening here. This man gambled. He 
bet on the United States. He didn't know they would figure out a way to 
go to Bangladesh and undercut him.
  So this carve-out created for Czechoslovakia, discovered and used by 
a Chinese company, is creating jobs abroad and not in the United 
States. So the proposed fix I have suggested is not some sort of 
corporate welfare. It would not lower taxes for any business. Indeed, 
it would ensure we collect a little tariff duty on products coming in 
from Bangladesh. They can ship them in, but they have to pay the normal 
tariff of 9 percent on imported textiles. It would not add one cent to 
the deficit of the United States. It would give no loan guarantees, no 
subsidies, no handouts. The fix simply declares sleeping bags are what 
they are--textiles--and subject to the rules of textiles under GSP. 
Really, it would ensure Exxel and other companies in the United States 
have the same competitive position they had before this plant was moved 
to Bangladesh.
  Some are calling this an earmark. I don't believe that is true or 
fair to say. Earmarks give direct financial benefit to an entity 
through tax benefits or government grants. This is not a grant. It does 
not eliminate tariffs so Exxel will pay less taxes. It doesn't give a 
direct benefit to Exxel. It does not cost the United States one cent. 
It eliminates an unfair earmark that already allows a Chinese-run 
company to purchase raw materials worldwide, manufacture sleeping bags 
at a Bangladesh factory, and then import them into the United States 
duty free.
  I repeat: I am trying to strip an earmark. I am trying to actually 
strip an earmark for China from the bill that is before us. I am asking 
that we uphold the values and rules we have put into law. I don't know 
how this was changed after Congress passed it in 1974, stating if you 
import textiles you have to pay a tariff unless there is no domestic 
manufacturer of that textile against whom you are competing. How that 
got changed, I am not sure.
  So I ask that we eliminate the special benefit that has been provided 
to this country and this one textile.
  Exxel is just one company that is currently being hammered by this 
unfair loophole. They are indeed in financial threat. They were 
supplying 30 percent of the sleeping bags in the United States. They 
saw a decline of 20 percent already in that product.
  Mr. President, I will offer for the Record letters written by other 
businesses in support of Exxel's efforts.
  Stein Fibers of Charlotte says:

       Exxel Outdoors has been a solid customer of Stein Fibers, 
     Ltd for many years. We supply synthetic fiberfill for 
     sleeping bags made at their Haleyville, Alabama factory.

  Wiggy's Inc. says:

       Bangladesh recently entered the U.S. market and supplied 
     over 700,000 sleeping bags last year.

  Wiggy's makes sleeping bags in Grand Junction, CO. They have copied 
their Senators, and they ask that we support my effort.
  Rusken corrugated containers in Cullman, AL, supplies the shipping 
packages for these products as they are shipped.
  Dunlap Industries in Chattanooga, TN, says they are one of the 
largest suppliers of thread in the United States, and Exxel is a 
customer of theirs.
  Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation in Tupelo, MS, is also a supplier 
of Exxel.
  Royal Slide Sales Company, Inc., of Garfield, NJ, says:


[[Page 13807]]

       As Royal Slide provides sleeping bag carry cases to Exxel's 
     Haleyville, Alabama factory, the resulting decrease in their 
     business from this surge in duty-free importation of 
     synthetic fill sleeping bags is directly leading to a 
     decrease in our business.

  They support reform.
  Martex Fiber says:

       We are a major supplier of fiberfill to Exxel Outdoors. We 
     have been proud to watch one of the last--

  Listen to this--

       We have been proud to watch one of the last remaining 
     American sleeping bag factories keep going steadily, even as 
     virtually all its competitors moved their facilities to other 
     countries.

  They go on to say that Exxel is entitled to relief.
  Consolidated Fibers of Charlotte, NC, says:

       The impact on our company will be great if the Exxel 
     Outdoors factory is forced out of business by these foreign 
     imports without duty. We supply a great deal of fiberfill to 
     Exxel on an ongoing basis.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Stein Fibers, LTD.,

                                  Charlotte, NC, February 5, 2010.
     Re Comments--Exxel Outdoors petition, GSP, sleeping bags, 
         HTSUS #9404 30.80, Docket #USTR-2010-0004.

       Secretary, United States International Trade Commission: 
     Exxel Outdoors has been a solid customer of Stein Fibers, LTD 
     for many years. We supply synthetic fiberfill for the 
     sleeping bags made at their Haleyville, Alabama factory.
       We are writing in support of withdrawing from GSP, the 
     sleeping bags coming in duty free to the United States under 
     HTSUS 9404.30.80. With duty free status, the importers of 
     these bags are taking away significant business from Exxel 
     Outdoor, which in turn will hurt our business.
       If these sleeping bags continue to get duty free treatment 
     under GSP, before long Exxel's factory will be forced to 
     close down. In 2009 Exxel Outdoor accounted for $407,985.80 
     of our revenue, which would be of significant loss to our 
     company.
       If you would like to discuss this with me, please contact 
     me at your convenience.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Randy Layman,
     Stein Fibers, LTD.
                                  ____



                                                 Wiggy's Inc.,

                                 Grand Junction, CO, May 24, 2011.
     Hon. Ron Kirk,
     U.S. Trade Representative, Executive Office of the President, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Ambassador Kirk: I understand that the Administration 
     will decide soon on the petition filed by Exxel Outdoors 
     (USTR-2010-0017) and determine if sleeping bags should be 
     duty-free under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), 
     assuming that Congress re-authorizes that program. I am 
     writing to urge you to recommend that imports of sleeping 
     bags from all countries remain subject to the normal U.S. 
     duty-rate of 9 percent. If non-down sleeping bags from low-
     wage countries like Bangladesh are duty-free, it will pose a 
     great threat to the remaining U.S. sleeping bag producers 
     such as Wiggy's.
       Until recently China was the only meaningful foreign 
     competitor in the U.S. sleeping bag market. Imports from 
     China are, and always have been subject to the normal duty 
     rate for sleeping bags. This has enabled some U.S. 
     manufactures such as Wiggy's to remain competitive with 
     foreign suppliers. However, Bangladesh recently entered the 
     U.S. market and supplied over 700,000 sleeping bags last 
     year.
       With rising costs in China and other global dynamics, 
     Bangladesh is the world's low-cost manufacturer of textile 
     products such as sleeping bags. Manufacturers in Bangladesh 
     are ramping up production of sleeping bags and will continue 
     to do so, just as they are with other textile products. There 
     is little doubt that over the next few years Bangladesh will 
     take a sizable share of the U.S. market presently filled by 
     China. The only remaining question is: Will Bangladesh also 
     capture the market share presently serviced the U.S. 
     manufacturers? The answer to that question will be determined 
     by the decision you are about to make the petition filed by 
     Exxel Outdoors.
       U.S. manufacturers can compete if the trade laws are fair 
     and equitable. It is grossly unfair that Bangladesh can 
     import fabrics, fiber fill and other materials duty-free from 
     China, assemble them into sleeping bags, and export the 
     finished product duty-free to the U.S., even though the vast 
     majority of those sleeping bag inputs are products of China. 
     Conversely, U.S. manufacturers must pay duty on any of the 
     components we import to produce sleeping bags.
       I trust you will recognize this injustice, and agree that 
     GSP is not supposed to harm or threaten U.S. manufacturing. 
     Please grant Exxel Outdoors' request to remove non-down 
     sleeping bags from GSP.
           Sincerely.
                                                    Jerry Wigutow,
     President.
                                  ____



                                       Rusken Packaging, Inc.,

                                    Cullman, AL, February 3, 2010.
     Re Docket # USTR-2010-0004, Exxel Outdoors Petition on 
         Sleeping Bags, HTSUS 
         # 9404.30.80.

       Secretary, United States International Trade Commission: 
     Rusken Packaging has enjoyed a long time relationship with 
     Exxel Outdoors, supplying them with shipping cartons for 
     their sleeping bags. Exxel is a stellar example of the 
     quality work ethic that we have here in Alabama.
       We wholeheartedly support Exxel in their petition to 
     withdraw synthetic-filled sleeping bags from the GSP. We 
     believe this creates unfair competition for Exxel's American-
     made product This Is not only harming Excel, it is hurting 
     the American companies that Exxel sources from, such as 
     Rusken Packaging.
       For the good of many American businesses, please remove 
     these sleeping bags from the GSP.
       If you would like anything additional from me, I will be 
     glad to make myself available to you.
           Warm regards,
                                                    John Giatinna,
     Rusken Packaging, Inc.
                                  ____

                                                February 10, 2010.
     Re Docket USTR-2010-0004--Exxel Outdoors Petition on GSP, 
         HTSUS # 9404.30.80.

       Secretary, United States International Trade Commission: As 
     one of the largest suppliers of thread in the United States, 
     U.S. Thread is in strong favor of the petition to remove 
     synthetic fill sleeping bags from the GSP--the same type of 
     bags that are cut and sewn at the Exxel Outdoors factory in 
     Alabama.
       This special duty-free treatment for sleeping bag imports 
     from other countries could very well force Exxel to shut down 
     their Alabama factory. This would negatively impact U.S. 
     Thread's business to a great extent, and many communities 
     throughout the Southeast United States.
       We can ill afford to lose a significant customer like Exxel 
     Outdoors. The loss of Exxel Outdoors would devastate the 
     community of Graysville, TN by adding to already astronomical 
     unemployment rate in this area. We have been supplying Exxel 
     Outdoors with all of their sewing thread for many years, and 
     if Exxel were forced to close their doors due to, what we 
     believe, would be an extremely unfair trade agreement, an 
     already economically depressed area would experience the loss 
     of an additional 200 jobs, and a revenue loss to U.S. Thread 
     of $500,000 per year.
       U.S. Thread has already lost far too many textile and 
     apparel customers to foreign competition. Evidence of this is 
     the fact that In 2000 our active employee number was 80. In 
     2010, that number has been reduced to just 25. We can 
     factually attribute this directly to foreign, absurdly low 
     cost labor, arid back room trade deals.
       Thank you for this opportunity to express our support on 
     this important matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me 
     if you have any questions or would like further comment.

                                                 Robbie Owens,

                                  Director of Sales and Marketing,
     U.S. Thread/Dunlap Industries, Inc.
                                  ____

                                                     Smurfit-Stone


                                        Container Corporation,

                                     Tupelo, MS, February 5, 2010.
     Re Docket--USTR-2010-0004, Exxel Outdoors Petition, HTSUS 
         #9404.30.80.

       Secretary, United States International Trade Commission: 
     Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation strongly supports the 
     petition by Exxel Outdoors to remove synthetic-filled 
     sleeping bags from the list of duty-free imports in the GSP.
       The duty-free importing of these sleeping bags is giving 
     foreign countries an unjustifiable price advantage over 
     Exxel's product, hurting their sales.
       As a result, Smurfit-Stone directly loses business from 
     Exxel. We supply Exxel Outdoors with hundreds of thousands 
     shipping cartons per year, but this will continue to 
     significantly decrease as the duty-free foreign imports 
     continue.
       In the event Exxel were to close is facilities in Alabama, 
     the impact to Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation would be a 
     loss of approximately $500,000 in packaging revenue, which 
     would in turn affect more than 200 Mississippi workers.
       We greatly appreciate this opportunity to share our views 
     with you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you would 
     like anything further from us.
           With thanks,
                                                    Danny Kennedy,
     Smurfit Stone Container Corporation.
                                  ____



                                  Royal Slide Sales Co., Inc.,

                                   Garfield, NJ, February 5, 2010.
     Re Docket #--USTR-2010-0004, Petition regarding GSP treatment 
         of HTSUS #9404.30.80.
       Secretary, United States International Trade Commission: 
     Royal Slide Sales Company respectfully agrees with the 
     petition of Exxel Outdoors, requesting that you withdrawal 
     certain sleeping bags from the GSP list of products.

[[Page 13808]]

       As Royal Slide provides sleeping bag carry cases to Exxel's 
     Haleyville, Alabama factory, the resulting decrease in their 
     business from this surge in duty-free importation of 
     synthetic fill sleeping bags, is directly leading to a 
     decrease in our business.
       We do not object to imports generally. To the contrary, 
     Royal Slide imports many of our products. But when imports of 
     a finished product directly threaten a U.S. manufacturer, at 
     minimum imports should be assessed the normal duty-rate.
       The duty-free imports are giving them what we see as a 
     large, unjustified price advantage over Exxel, and we request 
     that you rule to remove the imports from the GSP.
       Should I be able to assist you further with your inquiry 
     into this issue with any additional information, please to 
     not hesitate to contact me at the number or email provided 
     below.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Lew Neuman,
     Royal Slide Sales Company.
                                  ____



                                                 Martex Fiber,

                                                 February 4, 2010.
     Re Exxel Outdoors GSP Petition on HTSUS 9404.30.80, Docket # 
         USTR-2010-0004.

       Secretary, United States International Trade Commission: 
     Martex Fiber Southern Corporation is submitting this letter 
     to urge that you remove the synthetic-filled sleeping bags 
     from GSP, as Exxel Outdoors' petition requests.
       We are a major supplier of fiberfill to Exxel Outdoors. We 
     have been proud to watch one of the last remaining American 
     sleeping bag factories keep going steadily, even as virtually 
     all its competitors moved their facilities to other 
     countries.
       As importers are now bringing in duty-free sleeping bags, 
     this is taking away Exxel's ability to compete in its 
     industry. As Exxel Outdoors loses this business, so does 
     Martex Fiber.
       The U.S. textile industry has already suffered enough. 
     Given the tow wages and other advantages companies operating 
     in foreign countries have, it is only fair that importers of 
     sleeping bags pay the normal duty rate of 9%.
       Please do not hesitate to contact me If you would like any 
     additional from me on this.
           Very best,
                                                    Jimmy Jarrett,
     President, Martex Fiber Southern Corporation.
                                  ____



                                          Consolidated Fibers,

                                  Charlotte, NC, February 5, 2010.
     Re Docket USTR-2010-0004, Petition by Exxel Outdoors On 
         Sleeping Bags HTSUS #9404.30.80.

       Secretary, United States International Trade Commission: We 
     at Consolidated Fibers support without hesitation, the 
     petition by Exxel Outdoors to remove synthetic fiberfill 
     sleeping bags (HTSUS #9404 30.80) from the GSP duty-free 
     treatment.
       The impact on our company will be great if the Exxel 
     Outdoors factory is forced out of business by these foreign 
     imports without duty. We supply a great deal of fiberfill to 
     Exxel on an ongoing basis.
       The closure of this factory would weigh negatively on our 
     revenues and our staff.
       America cannot afford to lose any more good jobs because of 
     a duty-free advantage given to products from another country. 
     Especially in the Exxel's area of the country where the 
     unemployment rate is nearing 18%.
       I will be happy to make myself available to you for 
     discussion, or to answer any questions you may have. My 
     contact information is provided below. Thank you.
           Best Regards,
                                                        Bob Kunik,
                                       Owner, Consolidated Fibers.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Companies in North Carolina, New Jersey, Tennessee, 
Colorado, and Mississippi are asking for help on this matter.
  I support the GSP. I believe in trade. I will continue to support it. 
But I only ask that when we have a problem, either the USTR or the 
Congress listen to somebody and fix it every now and then, not just 
consider we have a big train here and we are not going to stop to 
listen to anybody with a suggestion for improvement. A small change 
will prevent an unfair benefit from accruing to a Chinese company and 
will prevent more Americans from losing their jobs. This will ensure 
that trade is free and principled and plentiful.
  Senator Baucus and I have talked about this, and he has looked at me 
sadly and listened patiently. But we are down at the licklog, and no 
relief has been obtained, and that is why I am here today.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Remembering Senator Charles Percy

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share a few thoughts on 
the passing of Senator Chuck Percy.
  Among other things he did in his remarkable life--successful in 
business and politics--he had a connection to Mobile, AL, my hometown. 
I believe he was born in Pensacola, FL, and was connected to Thomas 
Hord Herndon, who was a Congressman from Alabama and resided in Mobile 
and was well known. I am a distant descendent of Congressman Herndon, 
and I can always remember, as a young person, particularly my great-
aunts talking about him. They followed his career, and I began to 
follow his career. Maybe it was a factor in my becoming a Republican at 
a time in Alabama when most were not. He was successful and young and 
vibrant and created a great image for public service, and it filtered 
down to this young guy in rural Alabama in a positive way.
  So I would just say, Senator Rockefeller, we have lost a great 
American. He had a tremendously successful career in business and 
politics. He was a man of integrity and drive and commitment and good 
spirit. I think we are wise in this body to pause a moment and to be 
appreciative and to remember people who serve their country in that 
fashion.
  My sympathies are with the Percy family and the Rockefeller family.
  I yield the floor.
 Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask the Record to reflect that if 
I would have been present for today's vote, I would have voted to 
invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2832, to extend the 
Generalized System of Preferences.
  I would like to express my continued support for the extension of the 
Generalized System of Preferences, GSP. As the GSP expired on December 
31, 2010, I am quite happy to see the Senate finally poised to take up 
this much overdue extension of this valuable trade program.
  I am also hopeful that this process will finally lead to quick 
consideration of our pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, 
and South Korea.
  These agreements are long past due. Unfortunately, they have been 
delayed because the President has made it clear that his most important 
trade priority is to spend more money on a domestic worker retraining 
program of dubious effectiveness. He has also made it clear that, 
unless Congress accedes to his demands, he will never submit these job 
creating trade agreements to Congress. It is a travesty that the 
President cares more about spending money than creating jobs.
  Yet now that we have this trade vehicle on the floor, I am hopeful we 
can find a way to allow a full and fair debate on TAA--and in doing so, 
finally remove what we hope is the last obstacle in front of these 
three free trade agreements.
  The GSP bill itself is important to our economy. The 2-year extension 
of GSP will provide greater certainty for both U.S. businesses and 
developing country exporters who are able to utilize the benefits of 
the program. The program has secured strong bipartisan support for over 
three decades, and I only expect this trend to continue.
  The GSP allows for nonreciprocal, duty-free tariff treatment of 
certain products from designated developing countries. In fact, some of 
the top GSP beneficiary developing countries in 2010 were Angola, 
Indonesia, Equatorial Guinea, South Africa, the Philippines, and 
Turkey. In order to be designated as a beneficiary country, nations 
must adhere to an extensive criteria list. In turn, GSP is not only a 
trade program, but can also be seen as one of our effective foreign 
policy tools.
  For starters, beneficiary countries must protect intellectual 
property rights, recognize workers' rights, commit to the elimination 
of child labor, and prevent the seizure of property belonging to U.S. 
citizens or businesses.
  GSP continues to promote trade, rather than aid, to nations that are 
advancing their economic development; it has worked to stimulate U.S. 
exports in these markets; and encourages the

[[Page 13809]]

elimination of trade barriers in developing countries.
  What does this mean for the United States? This means our Nation not 
only has an opportunity to assist developing countries to promote 
economic growth in their nations, but we also have an opportunity for 
our American businesses to thrive, while lowering costs for American 
consumers. Across our Nation, U.S. manufacturers and importers benefit 
by receiving goods and raw materials at a lower cost. According to the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, approximately three-quarters of U.S. imports 
that rely on the GSP program, use raw materials, parts and components, 
or machinery and equipment, to manufacture goods in the U.S. for 
domestic consumption or for export.
  So, although the GSP program was initially created to assist with 
economic growth in the developing world, it now provides great 
assistance to our businesses here in the United States.
  In 2010 the United States imported $23 billion in GSP-eligible goods 
from 129 countries around the world. This includes 4,800 eligible 
products. And, according to the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative, GSP saved American importers $682 million in duties in 
2010. These numbers cannot be overlooked--they represent millions of 
dollars in savings for our manufacturers, retailers, farmers and 
families. GSP is particularly helpful for our small businesses. The 
savings on duties by these small businesses allows them to compete with 
larger companies.
  During these uncertain and challenging economic times, we must give 
our businesses the necessary tools to compete not only in the global 
market, but also here at home. Unfortunately, the 9 months that the 
program has not been operational has negatively affected the 
competitiveness of thousands of American businesses that rely on duty-
exemptions. For these companies, GSP is an integral component of their 
business model.
  In fact, according to the Coalition for GSP, from December 31, 2010, 
when the GSP program expired, U.S. companies have paid an additional 
$1.8 million a day in new duties. To date, this amounts to nearly $480 
million in unnecessary additional costs for companies. Businesses in 
every state in the Nation have been affected by the expiration of GSP 
and have a vested interest in the renewal of the program.
  For example, in my State of Utah--the only State in the country to 
import Indonesian steam and vapor turbine parts--tariffs have exceeded 
$235,000 for these goods in the months following the expiration of GSP. 
Components such as mountings for buildings imported from Thailand, cost 
Utah businesses an additional $178,000 in tariffs through July of this 
year. And the total amount of Utah imports of GSP-eligible goods from 
January until July 2011 exceeded $26.2 million, of which an additional 
$1.1 million in unnecessary import taxes were paid.
  I have heard from Utah manufacturing companies, like Black Diamond 
Equipment, which is headquartered in Salt Lake City and employs more 
than 475 people worldwide. That company develops, manufactures and 
distributes a broad range of products including those used for mountain 
climbing, camping, and skiing. As of June 2010, they incurred more than 
$40,000 in tariffs for goods imported from the Philippines--goods that 
otherwise would have been covered under GSP.
  If GSP is not renewed, Black Diamond is projected to pay over 
$100,000 in unnecessary tariffs by the end of the year. As if that was 
not enough, because of these duties, Black Diamond is faced with 
reduced sales, competitiveness issues, and a limited hiring ability for 
their Utah office. To help companies like Black Diamond succeed, we 
must act now to renew GSP.
  I have shared just a few examples of the additional costs incurred by 
businesses in my State, and unfortunately, there are many other similar 
scenarios across the Nation due to the expiration of GSP.
  These Utah companies and other businesses around the country are left 
with difficult decisions about downsizing, hiring freezes, and employee 
layoffs--this at a time when our economy needs more than ever to be 
adding jobs. We must lift this additional burden on our small 
businesses, manufacturers, and farmers, by renewing GSP today, and 
making sure we provide retroactive application.
  I urge my colleagues to come together and extend the Generalized 
System of Preferences until July 31, 2013, and provide the much-needed 
retroactive benefits to our U.S. companies.


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 166, H.R. 2832, an act to extend the 
     Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Mark Udall, 
           Debbie Stabenow, Jeff Bingaman, Daniel K. Inouye, Maria 
           Cantwell, Patty Murray, Richard Blumenthal, Michael F. 
           Bennet, Patrick J. Leahy, Tom Harkin, Barbara Boxer, 
           Kent Conrad, Sherrod Brown, Carl Levin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 2832, an act to extend the Generalized System 
of Preferences, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. 
McCaskill), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator 
from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Paul), and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 84, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 139 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Coburn
     DeMint
     Kyl
     Lee
     McCain
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Burr
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Paul
     Risch
     Stabenow
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 84, the nays are 8. Three-fifths 
of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, 
the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant Daily Digest editor proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 13810]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________