[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13880-13891]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       EXTENDING THE GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES--Continued

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, under the leadership of Chairman Baucus, I 
have the honor of chairing the Senate Finance Subcommittee on 
International Trade. That is why I wish to take a few minutes to 
outline some of the issues I think are relevant to this important 
debate, about going to bat for workers under the trade adjustment 
program.
  In my home State, about one out of six jobs depends on international 
trade. The trade jobs tend to pay better than the nontrade jobs. So I 
have said my philosophy about international trade is, what we ought to 
do is everything possible to grow things in Oregon and in the country, 
to make things in Oregon and across America, add value to them here, 
and ship them somewhere because this is an extraordinary opportunity we 
have in front of us in terms of expanding exports.
  The fact is, the American brand--the brand that is attached to 
American goods--the exports we send all over the globe are something 
consumers worldwide want. That is my first point. More than 90 percent 
of the world's consumers live outside the United States--90 percent--
and they are all potential customers for the products we make in the 
United States. More customers for American products means American 
businesses have to make more products. To make more products, they go 
out and hire more workers. Hiring more workers to make more products to 
sell to more consumers is the upside of the trade debate we are 
starting today.
  Dismantling trade barriers to American exports gives our businesses 
access to those new consumers. Doing that creates and supports good-
paying jobs--jobs people can support a family on, with a family-wage 
job.
  As I mentioned, trade-related jobs provide better benefits and pay 
than many of those jobs unrelated to international trade. That is why 
when we have an opportunity to open markets to American products and 
American exports we ought to take advantage of it.
  Point No. 2 is that our successful efforts to open markets are 
undermined when foreign governments and foreign competitors cheat. I 
use that word specifically because cheating is exactly what engaging in 
unfair trade practices that work to undermine our producers and our 
innovators is all about. So a central component of our trade policy 
always has to be enforcement--enforcement of U.S. trade laws and global 
trade rules.
  Senator Snowe, Senator Portman, Senator Blunt, Senator McCaskill, 
Senator Schumer, Senator Brown, and I have been focused specifically on 
stopping foreign suppliers from laundering their merchandise to evade 
U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws. These are the duties 
that are put in place to remedy the damage that unfairly traded imports 
cause to American producers. Those foreign trade

[[Page 13881]]

cheats, especially those from China, have been found guilty of dumping 
their goods in our country. Instead of stopping the dumping or paying 
the appropriate duties, the Chinese goods are shipped into a country 
such as Korea where the goods get repacked into boxes that say ``Made 
in Korea'' in order to avoid the U.S. trade remedy laws.
  All of this has been occurring under the sleepy eyes--the sleepy 
eyes--of our customs agency. Fortunately, with bipartisan support, the 
Senate is positioned to act on this matter and address the issue. It 
will not come a minute too soon.
  I was stunned when the staff of my Subcommittee on International 
Trade basically set up a sting operation, set up a dummy company, and 
we were amazed at the number of firms, particularly from China, that 
basically said: Look, we are plenty interested in figuring out how to 
get around American trade laws.
  So these foreign trade cheats are out there. They are looking for 
ways to exploit the fact that the customs agency has not been tough, 
has not been relentless, particularly not with respect to protecting 
our manufacturers.
  So point No. 2 is to make sure in the days ahead we put in place a 
stronger response to trade cheating, where cheats from China and other 
countries literally launder their merchandise, stamp it as coming from 
somewhere else, in order to avoid our trade laws.
  The third point speaks to the bill we discuss today, and especially 
to the valuable Casey-Brown-Baucus amendment that I hope we will be 
voting on shortly. America's ability to compete in the global economy 
rests on opening foreign markets, enforcing the trade rules, and 
preparing our workforce--the American workforce, the workforce on which 
American businesses depend--to be globally competitive for the jobs of 
tomorrow.
  That is what the TAA, trade adjustment assistance, Program is all 
about. Just as over 90 percent of the world's consumers live outside 
the United States, so does over 90 percent of the world's workers. 
Although we have the most productive, innovative workforce in the 
world, sometimes a foreign producer finds a way to do something better 
or produce something more efficiently than an American one. The result 
is, we can have Americans losing jobs through no fault of their own.
  So the Congress decided long ago that the best way to respond to 
global competition was to meet it head on, to meet it directly, and 
that is what a trade agenda with a robust Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Program does.
  Trade adjustment assistance throws a lifeline to the workers who lose 
their jobs, and to their families, because we have been open, we have 
been free, we have been expansionist in the area of trade, particularly 
when it comes to creating exports. Trade adjustment assistance provides 
American workers with an opportunity to acquire the skills they need to 
not just become reemployed but to help American businesses better 
compete in the global marketplace while those families make their way 
back to the American economy, where they can earn a wage at which they 
can support their families.
  Trade adjustment assistance is a pretty modest program. The lifeline 
that is thrown to these workers is modest--just a few hundred dollars a 
week on average--and the job training that is provided to those workers 
is typically provided through existing infrastructure such as our 
community colleges. Trade adjustment assistance provides just enough 
assistance for resourceful and thrifty and industrious workers to 
rebound from a trade-related job loss. That, in effect, is what I hope 
we can start looking at programs such as trade adjustment assistance as 
being.
  What we want these programs to be all about is to be something of a 
trampoline, where, in effect, people can get a modest amount of 
assistance, and through that modest amount of assistance be in a 
position to bounce back to the American economy with skills that have 
been improved and be in a position to again make a good wage at a 
company that can be involved in areas such as exports and productivity 
and innovation-driven services.
  For much of the last half of the century, the United States 
vigorously promoted an open and global economy. As a result, our 
country launched an effort to become the largest, most dynamic market 
in the world. Today that global market is more competitive than ever 
before. The rise of China and India and other emerging markets, such as 
Brazil and Russia, provide extraordinary opportunities to our 
innovators and our producers. But we do not get to be the top economy 
as a result of some kind of entitlement program. We have to constantly 
work at it. We have to constantly work at the task of making more 
innovative and more productive goods and services.
  Together, Federal Government officials, businesses, and workers have 
the opportunity to seize the possibilities that a global economy 
provides and also overcome its challenges. Certainly, it is more 
important than ever to do that in the face of growing foreign 
competition. That means joining again now, on a bipartisan basis, to 
support trade adjustment assistance.
  I would just like to note, having been involved in these issues since 
I came to the Senate, trade adjustment assistance has historically been 
a bipartisan program. It has been a program where the Congress, 
Democrats and Republicans, consistently said we can look at trade, we 
can look at exports as a vehicle for more family-wage jobs in our 
country--making things here, growing things here, adding value to them 
here, and shipping them somewhere. But certainly, in an ever-changing 
world, we are going to see some of our workers needing the 
opportunities to upgrade their skills that trade adjustment assistance 
allows.
  So I very much hope my colleagues will support the Casey-Brown-Baucus 
amendment. It has my full support. It is very much in the spirit of the 
bipartisan work that has been done on trade adjustment assistance in 
the past.
  Mr. President, I see other colleagues waiting to speak, and with 
that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                            Fiscal Planning

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, yesterday, the President provided a 
fiscal plan on paper that he said reflects his latest fiscal vision for 
the country. It seems to be about the fourth vision we have had this 
year, and he has said we need to be honest with the American people and 
talk straight to them. I certainly believe that is correct, and I would 
share some thoughts about the President's plan and express 
disappointment that he has not been honest and direct with the American 
people, has not discussed in sufficient depth, in my opinion, the 
Nation's need to reduce spending because our debt is surging larger 
than it ever has in our history and presents a danger today and in the 
future.
  The President needs to talk more about that. If we are going to ask 
the American people to reduce their spending, to take less from the 
government, to tighten belts, then we need to know why. I do believe he 
has not been sufficiently informative in his conversations because many 
of them emphasize increasing investments in various programs, in 
spending programs he has advocated, but with regard to the plan that 
was introduced yesterday he claims it would increase the fiscal year 
2012 deficit by $300 billion; that is, next year it would increase the 
debt by $300 billion, but he says it would reduce deficits over the 
next 10 years, in the outyears, by $3.2 trillion.
  We know what happens now happens. Spending that occurs today--the 
money is out the door--and promises to raise revenue in the future 
become less certain as each year passes by.
  But assuming this is true, assuming we would actually do in the next 
10 years the kind of things that would pay for this short-term 
spending, I would advise my colleagues that the fundamental claim the 
President is making--assuming his numbers are correct, and we do the 
things he suggests--it overstates by $1.8 trillion the amount of the 
savings. Mr. President, $3.2 trillion, no. Mr. President, $1.8 trillion 
reduced from that, and we are looking at

[[Page 13882]]

about $1.4 trillion in savings and not $3.2 trillion. That is the fact. 
I will share with my colleagues the sad, grim fact of that.
  How did it happen? Well, the bill, as the Washington Post said, is 
being criticized because of gimmicks that are in it.
  First gimmick: The war-funding gimmick. The plan shows $1.1 trillion 
over 10 years in savings from putting a cap on war-spending costs. But 
those costs are going to decrease as the war effort unwinds whether or 
not this proposal is in place. They have been long been planned.
  The President's proposed caps on war spending manipulate baseline 
concepts to show the savings that have been long planned and new--
something he came up with this week, I suppose--new choices which 
inflate the spending cuts in his plan. In other words, it inflates the 
amount of spending he has cut by $1.1 trillion.
  The Congress has dealt with this little gimmick in the budgetary 
process. I serve as ranking member on the Budget Committee, and we 
wrestled with these baselines and scoring possibilities. But that 
gimmick--the $1.1 trillion gimmick--was rejected during the recent debt 
ceiling debate, raising the debt limit. We talked about that and we 
didn't do it because it is not an accurate explanation of the cutting 
of spending. We don't have any plan to continue to spend in Iraq and 
Afghanistan the $158 billion we spend this year. And for 10 years? Give 
me a break. That has never been our plan and shouldn't be assumed as a 
baseline for spending. Claiming credit for not continuing that is not a 
legitimate way to analyze how much you have cut spending.
  Some have said Paul Ryan and the House Republicans, when they passed 
their budget, included the $1.1 trillion when they said they reduced 
spending by $6.2 trillion. They proposed a budget to cut $6.2 trillion. 
They also proposed a growth-oriented tax reduction and simplification 
plan that would create economic growth, netting out $4 trillion in 
actual savings. But Paul Ryan and his committee did not--I have checked 
the numbers--consider $1.1 trillion in war savings--which no one has 
disputed should occur--off the present amount we are spending. He did 
not include that in the $6.2 trillion. He did have an alternative 
analysis that showed that, and people have seized upon that to say his 
fundamental proposal of a $6.2 trillion spending reduction included it. 
It did not.
  Another big gimmick--one used too often in this body--is what we call 
the doc fix of Medicare. The Balanced Budget Act, in the late 1990s, 
proposed substantial reductions in physician fees. As the years have 
gone by, it has become more and more plain that doctors cannot sustain 
a 20-percent reduction or more in their fees for doing Medicare work. 
So each year we put that money back in. But it is part of the plan of a 
long-term budget. The statute itself has not been changed. So every 
year we have this little problem: Are we going to cut the doctors 22 
percent or are we going to avoid cutting the doctors 22 percent? Well, 
we don't want to cut the doctors that much. They can't function. That 
is too big a cut for them. So we find the money some way every year. 
Mostly, we have borrowed it.
  The President's plan assumes that money will be found for the doc fix 
and they will do it over 10 years to the tune of $293 billion. This 
trick counts the higher spending as a given rather than as a policy 
choice that needs to be offset. Without this gimmick, the President's 
health care savings of $320 billion the plan suggests will occur 
becomes health care savings of only $27 billion. You don't save $293 
billion because of this gimmick because it is unpaid for. There is no 
source of income to pay for the President's assumption. We will pay 
$293 billion, which means he only saves $27 billion in health care, not 
$320 billion.
  I believe this is a truly honest and fair analysis of the President's 
proposal. It is incorrect, putting it kindly.
  There is another little gimmick. When the President talks about 
cutting spending--when he says we are cutting spending--what does he 
include in that? He is counting as spending reductions the net interest 
effects of his proposed policy changes, even though interest costs are 
the secondary effect of his proposed tax hikes.
  For example, if you raise taxes and don't cut spending--and spending 
has not been cut in this plan--you raise taxes and you reduce projected 
deficits, we think about $1.4 trillion under the plan, less than half 
of what was projected, then you don't pay as much interest because you 
don't accrue as much debt. And you don't pay as much interest on a debt 
that is not accrued. They are scoring that as if they cut spending, 
when it is a natural by-product of increased taxes.
  So when you remove the accounting tricks and the Washington gimmicks 
that have contributed to this country being in the fiscal condition we 
are in, you are left with only half of the $3 trillion in deficit 
reduction the White House promised.
  The White House also claims the President's plan has $2 in spending 
cuts for every $1 in tax hikes--$2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax 
increases. Indeed, early in the year he suggested we should have a plan 
that would have $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. But is 
this accurate? Is it true we are achieving $2 in spending cuts for $1 
in tax hikes?
  If you eliminate the gimmicks, you will see it is absolutely not 
true. Under the plan, total Federal spending--including the jobs plan's 
stimulus bill--the new stimulus bill--will increase. The President's 
plan will not decrease total Federal spending. It will increase, not 
decrease. There is no cut in spending. On balance, there is not a penny 
of net spending that is cut--on net.
  In a speech, the President said:

       I'm proposing real serious cuts in spending. When you 
     include the $1 trillion in cuts that I've already signed into 
     law, these would be among the biggest cuts in spending in our 
     history.

  Well, that is not true. It is not accurate. I don't think it bodes 
well for us to be able to reach an agreement on these very serious 
issues if the President is pretending his plan cuts war costs or counts 
interest that shouldn't be counted or proposes we have a doc fix 
without any money with which to fix it. Those are the kinds of things 
that get us into trouble.
  Despite the substantial increase in taxation under the President's 
plan, deficits would not be tamed. At no point over the next 10 years 
would deficits be smaller in nominal terms than the $459 billion 
recorded before he became President. That is the highest deficit in 
history. President Bush was roundly criticized for the $459 billion 
during his time. The lowest deficit under today's plan--the lowest over 
10 years--would be $476 billion in the outyears, and it would start 
going back up again under the plan they propose, leading to a $565 
billion deficit in 2021. And by the way, the last 3 years of deficits 
have been $1.3 trillion, $1.2 trillion, and this year will be $1.4 
trillion in debt. So next year's deficit will actually surge beyond the 
current projections. We had hoped they would come down. But because of 
the new spending in this plan, $350 billion will be added to the 
deficit next year, putting us well over $1 trillion in deficit again 
next year. At a time when we should be reducing deficit spending, the 
immediate impact of the plan will be to increase spending, fostering 
more fear and uncertainty in our economy and the conclusion among the 
financial investors here and worldwide that we still haven't gotten the 
message and we are still out of control.
  Over the next 10 years, deficits would total $6.4 trillion, and gross 
Federal debt would grow by $9.7 trillion. Gross Federal debt would grow 
by $9.7 trillion, exceeding $24 trillion in 2021, when last year we had 
about a $13 trillion debt. That would put our debt over 100 percent of 
GDP.
  Properly accounting for the effect of the President's proposed policy 
changes, the actual amount of debt reduction proposed by the President 
is $1.4 trillion, consisting of $146 billion in spending increases that 
would increase the debt and $1.5 trillion in tax increases. So we may 
have raised a few weeks ago our legal debt limit, allowing us to run up 
more debt, but we have

[[Page 13883]]

breached our economic debt limit. America's $14.5 trillion gross debt 
we have today is 100 percent of our economy.
  A prominent study from economists Rogoff and Reinhart--praised by 
Secretary Geithner as ``excellent''--shows when a nation's gross debt 
reaches 90 percent of GDP it loses, on average, a percentage point or 
more in GDP growth that year. Our debt is depressing growth. Our debt 
is now 100 percent of GDP, and our growth is unexpectedly slow this 
year. Could that be a part of the cause? Some economists say no, but it 
certainly is consistent with the projections in their plan.
  So the plan that was presented, I have to say, is gimmick piled upon 
gimmick, adding up to little more than a tax hike camouflaged as fiscal 
restraint. Promised spending control is nowhere to be found. When you 
are in a crisis, you must deal honestly with the American people. You 
must present the facts, along with a credible solution, and call on the 
people to respond and sacrifice together. Americans are good, decent, 
hard-working people who will accept a difficult choice if given to them 
in honest terms. But the White House is trying to be clever at the 
expense of being credible.
  The debt is destroying jobs today, I believe. If we are going to 
restore confidence in growth, credibility in the President and in 
Congress is one asset we cannot afford to borrow against.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, can I ask unanimous consent to have 1 
additional minute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate my colleague 
Senator Wyden on his work on this legislation, and also would thank him 
for his efforts to reach an agreement to improve our Tax Code. It is a 
big deal. A lot of expert witnesses have appeared before the Budget 
Committee. Senator Wyden is a member of the Budget Committee. Those 
witnesses have told us that properly improving our Tax Code could 
improve growth, create jobs, and make America stronger. I appreciate 
the Senator's hard work and am looking at his proposal and thank him 
for contributing positively to the debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just before he leaves the floor, let me 
tell Senator Sessions how much I appreciate the kind words and enjoy 
working with him. We serve on the Budget Committee together and talk 
often about economic issues. I wish to tell my colleague that I look 
forward to working with him on tax and budget issues in the days ahead 
especially.


                           Amendment No. 626

  Mr. President, what I would like to do now is take just a couple 
minutes to talk about the amendment offered by the distinguished 
Republican leader, Senator McConnell, to extend trade promotion 
authority--what is known as TPA--for 2 years.
  I am certainly interested in working with the leader. Certainly, 
Chairman Baucus has made it very clear that he wants to continue to 
work on this issue. But I would oppose the McConnell amendment this 
afternoon, and I want to outline specifically why.
  The last time Congress passed trade promotion authority was in 2002, 
essentially almost one decade ago. The McConnell amendment would simply 
continue Congress's instructions that were formulated back then, as I 
said, almost one decade ago. But the fact is, the American economy has 
changed dramatically since TPA was adopted last, and the overseas trade 
barriers have changed dramatically. Yet the McConnell amendment simply 
hasn't kept up with the times. What I wish to do is outline a few 
examples of areas where we face very different economic challenges.
  I would also like to say we talked about this very briefly in the 
Senate Finance Committee. It was raised by the ranking minority member 
on our subcommittee, Senator Thune. So it is clear there is an interest 
in the Finance Committee in working on this issue.
  Trade promotion authority is a hugely important and complicated 
issue. When it was considered the last time, there were extensive 
hearings in the Finance Committee. Many amendments were authored. There 
was considerable time devoted to it. That has not been the case at all 
with respect to reauthorization, and it is why, in particular, I wish 
to make sure that when the Congress next deals with trade promotion 
authority, we deal with some of the most important challenges. I am 
going to outline a few of those.
  Digital goods and services would be of special concern that we have 
looked at in our community. Digital goods, for an example, would be 
software. Digital services would highlight cloud computing. I know it 
is something that has been of great interest in Minnesota. It is all 
about the Internet playing an increasing role in the American and the 
global economy. It is a platform for global commerce.
  I believe the Internet represents the shipping lane of the 21st 
century. It is the shipping lane for goods and services, and the 2002 
version of trade promotion authority doesn't have the kinds of policies 
that are necessary to address today's challenges that affect our 
ability to export American goods and digital services.
  A second example would be the question of labor and environmental 
standards with respect to our trade goals and intellectual property 
protection for pharmaceutical drugs.
  In May of 2007, congressional Democrats and Republicans got together, 
on a bipartisan basis, to update trade goals with respect to key issues 
such as labor and the environment and intellectual property protection 
as it related to pharmaceutical drugs and therapies. These agreements 
that were entered into in 2007 aren't reflected in the 2002 version of 
trade promotion authority. So extending the 2002 version of trade 
promotion authority is another area where, if we simply support the 
McConnell amendment this afternoon, trade policy has not kept up with 
the times.
  Finally, I would just like to mention China. The fact is, in 2002, we 
had a relatively short experience with China at the World Trade 
Organization and, more than ever before, state-owned enterprises play a 
role in global commerce, particularly given the rise of China. I think 
all of us agree our trade agenda ought to include promoting discipline 
so state-owned enterprises do not undermine the American private 
sector. That requires reconsidering, again, the provisions found in the 
2002 version of trade promotion authority.
  What it comes down to is that this issue deserves more consideration 
than a floor amendment with just a modest number of Senators even being 
aware of the history and the issues and the complexity of the issues. 
In fact, it would be fair to say that a significant number of Senators 
on both sides of the aisle weren't even a member of this body back when 
trade promotion was considered last in 2002.
  So what it comes down to for me is, American trade policy is too 
important to construct on the back of a galloping horse. That, in my 
view, would be what the Senate would be doing if it simply adopted the 
McConnell amendment. Chairman Baucus is opposed to this amendment. He, 
such as myself, has made it clear he is interested in working with 
colleagues on a bipartisan basis on this issue, and it is an important 
part of the role of both the executive branch and the Congress in terms 
of looking at trade policy, and it is particularly important right now 
when, in a host of areas--I will give another example.
  I cited already digital goods and environmental labor standards and 
state-owned enterprises. We had a very valuable hearing in the 
Subcommittee on Trade Finance on fishing issues, which are also playing 
an increasingly important global role in trade agreements and trade 
policy. That also was not part of any discussion back in 2002. Those 
issues and others need to be aired. They ought to be aired on a 
bipartisan basis.
  I thought Senator Thune, when we were in the Finance Committee, was

[[Page 13884]]

right to ask about this issue. There is going to be an opportunity in 
the days ahead to work on this. Chairman Baucus has made it clear that 
he wants to work with colleagues on a bipartisan basis on trade 
promotion authority. I do as well. I already made that pledge to the 
ranking member of our subcommittee, Senator Thune, who has been very 
easy to work with on a host of these trade issues. He has made some 
particularly important points with respect to digital goods and 
services and the opportunity for our high-tech sector--wrote a good 
article on it just a couple days ago.
  Suffice it to say, there is a lot of interest on our side of the 
aisle in working on this issue. But I would urge colleagues to resist 
the McConnell amendment this afternoon when it comes up for a vote for 
the reasons I have outlined, and there will be time for the kind of 
debate on trade promotion that I think is appropriate, one that 
reflects the opportunities and challenges of an economy in 2011 that is 
very different than the one we were addressing when we last did trade 
promotion authority in 2002.
  In an effort to come up with a unanimous consent agreement that can 
resolve the question of the upcoming votes, I would just say to 
Senators on both sides of the aisle that certainly the next hour would 
be a very good time for Senators who would like to speak on the Casey-
Brown-Baucus amendment or the McConnell amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Iraq Deadline

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, during a trip to Baghdad this past 
January, I had the opportunity to meet with several members of the 
Montana National Guard's 163rd Combined Arms Battalion. That day, I 
told them that I was proud of each and every one of them, from unit 
commander LTC T.J. Hull and SGM John Wood, right on down the line. 
Through courageous service to our country, they were making tremendous 
sacrifices on our behalf, and they were representing the very best of 
Montana.
  This month, these folks have been coming back home to Montana from 
their demobilizing station in Washington State. Today, I join their 
families, their friends, and their neighbors in welcoming the last 
group of those citizen soldiers back to Montana.
  Job well done, soldiers. And I thank you.
  For nearly a year, these 600 Montanans served in some of the harshest 
conditions imaginable--escorting numerous convoys across dangerous 
terrain and conducting other critical security missions throughout 
Iraq. At one point over the last 12 months, this unit accounted for 
more than half of Montana's best and brightest serving overseas. They 
gave up the comforts of their families, their homes, and their 
communities to bring stability to a nation on the other side of the 
world. Through it all, they showed courage in difficult times. They 
remained strong. And they were always in our thoughts and prayers.
  Now they are home. It is our duty to continue our support by 
providing the benefits, quality care, and services they need as they 
transition back to their families, to their jobs, and to their 
communities. Many Iraqi veterans make that transition with success, 
coming home to good jobs and welcoming communities. But for others, 
making that transition is no easy task. It is no secret that there is a 
potential for higher rates of substance abuse, higher divorce rates, 
higher unemployment rates. The effects of post-traumatic stress 
disorder and traumatic brain injury can impact entire families. 
Thankfully, veterans often look after each other. We should recognize 
the important role of America's veterans service organizations and 
their willingness to help with that transition.
  Montana was one of the first States in the Nation to adopt the Beyond 
the Yellow Ribbon Program. It involves entire families of National 
Guard soldiers and airmen, preparing them for the changes that come 
before, during, and after deployment. The Beyond the Yellow Ribbon 
Program is a success, and I am pleased that in the last Congress my 
colleagues gave all States the resources to implement it.
  Furthermore, I will do my best to make sure we keep up our end of the 
bargain. Whether it is college education, health care, or compensation 
for an injury suffered on the field of battle, we will honor our 
commitment to our heroes. We make this promise to the men and women of 
the 163rd and to Montanans who make up the many other units of the 
Montana National Guard that were deployed this year and to those folks 
who are part of Montana's Red Horse Squadron, now in Afghanistan. To 
our reservists and to the folks serving in the Active-Duty military 
today, we make the same commitment.
  Even as we make this commitment, many folks in Montana are wondering 
what should happen next in Iraq. Since 2003, our Nation has sent 
hundreds of thousands of young men and women to fight in Iraq. We have 
done so at an enormous cost--4,474 Americans have given their lives, 
and more than 32,000 have been wounded. We cannot put a number on those 
who suffer from the injuries that are unseen. And let's not forget that 
the price tag of this war that was put on our children is quickly 
approaching $1 trillion, and then there are the tens of billions of 
dollars in waste and fraud.
  The war in Iraq started with political leaders who had their own 
agenda. They went there looking for weapons that never existed. But 
through it all, the professionalism of our military never faltered. 
They provided security and democracy to a nation that had never known 
it.
  But for far too long, Iraqi politicians did nothing to secure their 
own future. I first went to Iraq in 2007 and returned there again this 
past January. I was struck by how much it changed in those 4 years. 
Iraq was finally moving forward after too many wasted years, too many 
wasted dollars, and too many lives lost. There are many reasons for the 
change. The improved security from our military and the training 
provided by our troops played a big role. But American diplomats and 
military leaders told me that the biggest reason for the progress in 
Iraq was this: The Iraqis were told in no uncertain terms that the 
United States was leaving. Our military presence would end on December 
31 of this year. That was what galvanized Iraqi politicians to take 
control of their own country.
  Today, I am sending a letter to the President calling on him to stand 
by his commitment to pull all U.S. Operation New Dawn troops out of 
Iraq by the end of this year. We should bring the last of them home on 
schedule. U.S. marines will still guard our embassy, as they always 
have, and we will still maintain a strong diplomatic presence in Iraq.
  Despite this year's deadline, I know there is talk of the possibility 
of keeping a sizable force of U.S. troops in Iraq through next year. If 
that is the case, it is not good. We cannot afford moving the 
goalposts. Across Montana and this Nation, people are saying: Come home 
and come home now. I know sectarian violence in Iraq will continue. We 
should not be asking American troops to referee a centuries-old civil 
war. That conflict is likely to continue into the distant future 
regardless of our presence.
  Iraq now has the tools it needs to secure its economy. Iraq must 
solve the problems for its own people. Keeping thousands of U.S. troops 
in Iraq would needlessly put them in more danger, it would cost 
American taxpayers more money, and it would further distract us from 
our core objectives of protecting U.S. citizens and further dismantling 
al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. That is where our focus must be, 
and that is why I am saying let's end this war for good.

[[Page 13885]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for about 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

                      Sergeant Joshua J. Robinson

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a fallen hero, 
U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Joshua J. Robinson of Douglas, Nebraska. 
Sergeant Robinson was killed in action on August 7, 2011, while 
conducting patrol operations in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. He 
was in his third tour of duty. His story of service comes to us at a 
time when many are reflecting on the 10th anniversary of the September 
11th terrorist attacks--a fitting time to recognize the patriotism of a 
fallen hero.
  Sergeant Robinson enlisted in the Marine Corps in 2003, a time when 
Operation Iraqi Freedom was in the beginning stages and many were 
unsure of what was to come. He felt the call to serve and was 
rightfully proud of his commitment to defend and protect our country. 
Sergeant Robinson's love of the outdoors provided him with many of the 
skills needed to be the best Marine he could be.
  Sadly, his life was cut short too soon, and the Robinson family laid 
their Marine to rest in Hastings, Nebraska on August 16, 2011. Sergeant 
Robinson returned to his birthplace with valor and honor, having been 
awarded the Purple Heart, the Combat Action Medal, the Iraq Campaign 
Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism 
Expeditionary Medal, and many other decorations during his military 
career. He died a brave and most honorable death. We are proud to call 
him one of our own.
  The tradition of military service is strong in our great state of 
Nebraska, but strong soldiers are not possible without the support of 
family. I am confident Nebraskans will rally around Sergeant Robinson's 
family during this difficult time. He is mourned by his wife, two sons, 
mother and stepfather, sisters, and many others. It is the strength of 
his wife Rhonda that will remind Wyatt and Kodiak of the love their 
father had for them and for his country.
  His mother Misi provided insight into her son's position to serve 
when she said:

       Our freedom was put on the line. It takes young men like 
     Josh to enlist and protect the USA.

  I know his family is proud of him and will always remember his 
spirit, his competitiveness, and his enthusiasm for adventure.
  May God bless the Robinson family and all of our fighting men and 
women in harm's way.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                      Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal

  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I rise today to mark a momentous day and 
to stand with the millions of Americans for whom the end of don't ask, 
don't tell means the beginning of a real era of new equality for our 
Nation. It has been 60 days since Secretary Panetta, Chairman Mullen, 
and President Obama certified the U.S. Armed Forces were ready for the 
repeal of don't ask, don't tell. After 18 long years, today that policy 
finally comes to an end.
  This is an important day. It is a good day. Today is a good day 
because our Nation, in my view, is taking a major step forward not just 
in the pursuit of equal rights but in the pursuit of equal 
responsibility. Today is a good day because we always talk about equal 
rights, but with don't ask, don't tell we are talking about Americans 
who sought equal responsibility, Americans who wanted to serve their 
Nation.
  Nearly 14,000 LGBT Americans wanted to serve their Nation in their 
military but were deemed unfit to serve not because of what they did 
but because of whom they loved, as if loving another man made a soldier 
unable to aim a rifle or unwilling to die for his country. But for as 
many servicemembers who were drummed out--both literally and 
figuratively--under don't ask, don't tell, I cannot help but wonder how 
many more served in silence, proud of their uniform but made to feel 
ashamed of the person underneath.
  LTC Charles George served his country for more than 30 years, 
including 28 years as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army. His 
uniform is decorated with a wide range of medals and ribbons for 
dedicated service. When he graduated from ROTC in 1980, Charlie's 
boyfriend Dennis was there, and he wrote to me recently about his 
experience. He said:

       I sat next to his mother, keeping quiet so I wouldn't draw 
     attention to our relationship. During his actual pinning, my 
     eyes never left his for the entire process. I was so proud of 
     him. At one point, his eyes found me in the audience and we 
     smiled to each other. I still remember that moment.

  That was the last of those moments they would have. In 30 years of 
dedicated Army service, that ROTC ceremony was the only military 
activity of Charlie's that Dennis would be able to be a part of. 
Charlie was determined to serve our Nation, and so they had to keep 
their relationship a secret.
  Charlie steadily rose through the ranks to first lieutenant and then 
to captain. He was promoted to major and ultimately lieutenant colonel. 
These were all proud moments for Charlie, but Dennis could not be in 
the room for any of them. ``The only thing harder than being a soldier 
is loving one,'' they would later recall hearing. I would offer the 
only thing harder than loving a soldier would be having to keep that 
love a secret from the world for a decade.
  After 9/11, then-MAJ Charlie George was activated from Reserve duty, 
and like so many military families they discussed their now uncertain 
future. If Charlie had died in the service of his country, there would 
be no call on Dennis's phone from the Army, no knock on his door. 
Dennis would receive no crispily folded flag presented by a military 
honor guard. Dennis would never be able to be buried next to Charlie at 
the Arlington National Cemetery.
  For 31 years they kept their relationship and their love a secret. 
Colonel George retired this year--a milestone he will celebrate next 
month in Rehoboth Beach, DE. For the first time since that ROTC 
ceremony more than three decades earlier, Dennis will be there proudly 
looking on. No more secrets, no more hiding, just the respect and 
dignity they both deserve--not just because of Charlie's long and 
dedicated service to the U.S. Army or because of Dennis's silent 
sacrifice but because they are both Americans.
  I was proud to cosponsor the repeal of don't ask, don't tell last 
fall. I was even prouder to vote for it. Madam President, 3 months ago 
I was 1 of 13 Senators to record a video telling the gay, lesbian, 
bisexual, and transgender youth of this country that it gets better. As 
Americans we tell our kids that equality for all is a founding 
principle of our Nation, but our actions in so many ways have in the 
past failed to live up to these brave words. Our video was a promise to 
this generation of Americans, to the generation of my children, a 
promise that we are working to build an America free of legal 
discrimination, free of discrimination in our society; that LBGT youth 
have a future in this country where they will be entitled to the same 
rights, privileges, and responsibilities as every other American.
  Bit by bit we are going to tear down these walls of discrimination. 
This is how we make it better. Don't ask, don't tell was 
discrimination, plain and simple. But today it is no more. Today is a 
good day.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Inhofe and Mr. Blunt pertaining to the 
introduction

[[Page 13886]]

of S. 1583 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wish to speak for a few minutes today 
about the bill that is on the floor, the amendment, in fact, to the 
general system of trade preferences bill. That amendment is trade 
adjustment assistance. Frankly, it is not a bill I would have drafted 
on my own, but my guess is neither would have the two people who 
negotiated the bill. This is a compromise between Chairman Camp in the 
House and the Senator from Montana here. It is a compromise that 
reflects exactly that. It is not what either one of them may have come 
up with, and certainly not what I would have come up with. But, based 
on the President's determination, it is essential to move on to the 
three trade agreements that have been waiting to be voted on for 3 
years now.
  I intend to vote for this. I am looking carefully at the amendments. 
I am supportive of the two amendments we will vote on today. But if 
they would disrupt the balance of this agreement that has been made, I 
am going to look very carefully at that as these votes are cast.
  Certainly, I wish for this President and all of his successors to 
have trade promotion authority. I think we have seen the difficulty of 
the President being able to negotiate a treaty as an agreement. A trade 
agreement that comes to the Senate and that could be amended by the 
Senate and which takes two-thirds of the Senate to approve--those days 
are over. Before trade promotion authority, we had essentially gotten 
out of the treaty agreement on trade because who wants to make that 
kind of agreement? Who wants to get into a room and negotiate a trade 
agreement only to see the thing maybe they thought was the biggest 
thing they had given up or the biggest thing they had gotten taken out 
of the agreement before the Senate votes on it?
  So this up-or-down, yes-or-no, majority-in-the-Senate and majority-
in-the-House trade promotion authority is very important. I wish we had 
an agreement that this President wanted right now, and that the next 
President--whoever that is and whenever that is--would have the ability 
to continue, because since we ran out of the trade promotion authority 
law, we have not had any agreements negotiated.
  In fact, the three we have negotiated now, I want to talk about for a 
minute, but they have been available for 3 years and I am eager for the 
President to send them up. The President says this TAA issue, this 
trade adjustment assistance issue, has to be understood to be completed 
and will be completed, or at least he has to be assured it will be 
completed, before we get those three agreements.
  It would be fine with me if we could adjust this some. I want to see 
the bill of my good friend from Oregon, who is on the floor, Mr. Wyden, 
considered, of which I have cosponsored, on transshipments, where many 
of us in this body have problems in our States--I have two major 
problems I could talk about for a long time, but I will not today--
where the proper authority has looked at what is happening, and they 
said: No, you have unfair trade practices. So there is a penalty on the 
country that is using those unfair practices to compete. But then what 
that country does is they start labeling the product as if it were from 
somewhere else, and they may ship the product through that other 
country and get it labeled there or they may short circuit that and put 
the label on it in their own country and say it was made somewhere else 
so when it comes in here, suddenly it does not have that penalty. 
Whether that is relabeling or I think, as my good friend from Oregon 
calls it, merchandise laundering, where you make the merchandise appear 
to be something it is not, so you no longer pay the penalty, I would 
love to see that on a bill here in the near future.
  The other Senator from Oregon and I have a bill on affordable 
footwear that has trade impact I would love to see on a bill. This is a 
bill that potentially might have jurisdiction to go on. But that is not 
the agreement that has been made between the House and the Senate. I am 
going to be supporting that agreement and not doing anything that makes 
it impossible for us to get these three trade agreements. I am 
absolutely banking on the commitment by the President of the United 
States that if this happens, the three trade agreements come to the 
Congress. When they come to the Congress, I believe they pass the House 
and Senate, and they create great opportunity for American workers to 
send their products to other countries.
  One of these agreements that has been there for a long time is the 
agreement with Colombia. Colombia already is able to ship its products 
in here without tariff under something that routinely passes the 
Congress called the Andean Preferences Act. So this is not about 
whatever labor conditions there are in Colombia. Their products already 
come here. This is about whether U.S. workers are going to have every 
possible advantage in Colombia. This is about whether Caterpillars made 
in the United States or John Deere tractors or moving equipment made in 
the United States has the same advantage in Colombia that the same 
piece of equipment made in Canada has. Right now, they do not have that 
advantage. We need to see that they do.
  As to Korea, the European Union negotiated a trade agreement long 
after we negotiated this agreement, but it went into effect the first 
of July, and the year-to-year comparison, July over July, is, I think, 
38 percent bigger this July than it was last July. The only difference 
between this July and last July is the trade agreement.
  These are three countries where all of their trading history, all of 
their buying history--Panama being the third of the three--would be 
that given the choice of an American product to buy or a product from 
any other country but their own, they would give preference to the 
American product. But we are giving away that market advantage by not 
creating this opportunity for American workers and American companies, 
big and small.
  Agriculture is a huge beneficiary of these agreements. Lots of 
agriculture, lots of grain crop agriculture, lots of meat crop 
agriculture--whether it is chickens or poultry of all kinds or pork or 
beef--is very dependent on American family farmers who will see a great 
opportunity in each of these countries, given the opportunity to get 
their product under these agreements.
  I am hoping that enough of my colleagues and I are able to get this 
general system of preferences bill, as amended with the TAA, done so we 
can get on to the job-creating work of these three trade bills. These 
are opportunities to create more private sector American jobs. Over and 
over, almost every Member of the Senate says that should be our No. 1 
priority. The President says that is his No. 1 priority.
  This work, combined as we get to the trade agreements, lets us do the 
easiest part of job creation and our No. 1 priority, which is to let 
American workers compete in places where the consumer wants to buy 
American products, eliminate those barriers, and move forward with 
these agreements and the bill on the floor today. Then, hopefully, we 
can get to the transshipment bill; hopefully, we can get to the 
Affordable Footwear Act, and, hopefully, we will eventually see TPA. 
The Senator from Utah has a bill that would synchronize trade 
adjustment assistance with any trade bill. And, of course, we should do 
that.
  But let's get this work done. I look forward to this being done, and 
the President sending the bills up so that before the next month 
passes, hopefully, we will be seeing American products have the 
advantage they have been waiting for now or at least eliminate the 
disadvantage they have had needlessly for the 3 years since these 
agreements were all negotiated.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I want to respond very briefly to my 
friend from Missouri, and then I know the Senator from California is 
here, and she wishes to speak for about 10 minutes. I am going to be 
very brief.

[[Page 13887]]

  First, I want to thank Senator Blunt for working with us in a 
bipartisan way. He played a key role in trying to advance this issue 
and worked very closely with all of us in the Finance Committee, 
Chairman Baucus, myself, and others.
  The Senator from Missouri is absolutely right with respect to the 
tariff issue. The fact is, the American market is open. We essentially 
have some of the lowest tariffs around. In many of the markets around 
the world--and certainly in a number of areas with these three 
countries--we face much higher tariffs. So if we come up with an effort 
to, in effect, level the playing field, that means American companies, 
particularly American exporters, benefit more than do the folks around 
the world. So I think the point the Senator from Missouri has made is a 
very valid one.
  I also want to thank him for his comment with respect to the trade 
cheats. We are going to have further discussions with respect to TPA, 
and I see the distinguished ranking minority member. When we talked 
about this in committee, I made it very clear I intend to keep working 
with Senator Hatch and Senator Thune, who is the ranking member of the 
subcommittee. The challenge is to make sure TPA keeps up with the 
times. Because if we just reauthorize in 2011 TPA of 2002, we are not 
going to be dealing with digital goods and digital services, we are not 
going to be dealing with State-run enterprises, we are not going to be 
dealing with labor and environmental issues. That is why we are going 
to have to continue that work in a bipartisan way.
  Madam President, Senator Boxer was going to speak next. Then I 
understand Senator Hatch wants to discuss his amendment, and I intend 
to remain for that.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, first, I want to say thank you to the 
leadership on this bill. This trade adjustment assistance is so 
critical. When we talk about creating jobs, we also want to talk about 
retraining those who need, in this century, the new kinds of training 
it takes to keep up in this economy and this world economy. So I want 
to thank them for their leadership.


                       Jobs and Deficit Reduction

  Madam President, I want to talk about jobs and deficit reduction. The 
good news on this front is that President Obama has presented to the 
Nation both a jobs plan and a deficit reduction plan. He has shown the 
Nation, through this plan, that while we must cut the deficit and the 
debt in the long term, we have to focus on jobs in the short term. His 
plan ensures that middle-class Americans get the jobs and the 
opportunities they need to continue to move ahead. It also makes sure 
we have a fair tax system in place so everyone pays his or her own fair 
share--not too much, not too little, but fair. So this approach is 
welcome.
  I will tell you why I welcome it. Because the approach outlined by 
President Obama--deficit and debt reduction, investments in jobs--was 
the same vision that worked before when Bill Clinton was the President. 
I had the honor of being here in this body to support those policies. 
People forget that when Bill Clinton became President, there were 
deficits and debt as far as the eye could see, and this country was 
going on the wrong path. What he did was to make sure everyone paid his 
or her own fair share so we had the revenues we needed to make the 
investments we needed to create the jobs we needed.
  In those years, the investments were in high-tech and biotech, and we 
really broke through on the global scene. Madam President, 23 million 
jobs were created and deficits were turned into surpluses. I remember 
looking back at the record. Some of my Republican colleagues who are 
still here today said: The Clinton approach is going to lead to the 
worst deficits, no job creation. They were incorrect.
  We lived through it, and we know that vision of cutting spending on 
what does not work, increasing spending on investments, everyone paying 
their fair share--all that turned into prosperity, 23 million jobs. 
What perplexes me is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
want to go back to the Bush years, trickledown economics, more tax 
breaks for millionaires and billionaires, no investments, so we even 
lose funding for our teachers, our firefighters, our nurses, and even 
our transportation stakeholders.
  I am so grateful we passed an extension of the highway bill for 6 
months. But, believe me, we face perils ahead because the House cuts 
that bill by a third, and we have to make sure that does not happen 
because 1.8 million jobs are at stake.
  So I am perplexed that my Republican friends only evidence compassion 
and concern for the millionaires and the billionaires, but not for the 
middle class. Their compassion for the wealthiest is overwhelming. 
Their expressions of concern for billionaires--mind boggling. They call 
them the job creators, even though they are not the ones creating the 
jobs. The jobs are being created, if they are at all, by the way, by 
the small businesspeople. For 64 percent of new jobs, the creation 
comes from small business. They do not earn a million dollars. No way. 
So they call millionaires and billionaires job creators, which they are 
not, and they cry bitter tears that we might ask a millionaire or a 
billionaire to pay a fair share.
  When I was young--and maybe I shouldn't tell the truth because this 
is going to date me--there was a show on television called ``Dragnet.'' 
The star of it was Joe Friday. Joe Friday used to say: ``Just the 
facts.'' So let's look at just the facts. Let's look at the facts. Why 
are my Republican friends defending the wealthiest among us? Since 
1995, the wealthiest 400 Americans have seen their tax rates fall by 40 
percent, while their average income has quadrupled. Let me say that 
again. The wealthiest 400 families saw their income go up by four times 
and their tax rates went down by 40 percent. Why do they have to cry 
for that situation? Why the tears?
  Here is another fact and this is amazing. The wealthiest 400 families 
are worth more than 50 percent of American families. Let me say that 
again. The wealthiest 400 families in America are worth more than 50 
percent of America's families. Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont 
brought that fact to us. Why the tears for those 400 families?
  One of those people, Warren Buffett, came forward. Bless his heart. 
He said his effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's. His 
effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's. Why are we crying for 
people who earn millions and billions and pay a lower effective tax 
rate than their secretaries? I thank Warren Buffett for coming forward 
and other millionaires and billionaires have come forward and basically 
underscored that. Here is what he said:

       My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a 
     billionaire-friendly government. It's time for our government 
     to get serious about shared sacrifice.

  I think he is right. Why should a millionaire or billionaire pay an 
effective lower tax rate than firefighters who risk their lives every 
day, than nurses who save lives every day, than their own assistants 
and secretaries who are so important in running their enterprises? Our 
President Obama has suggested millionaires and billionaires pay the 
same effective tax rate as their employees. That should be embraced, 
not attacked as class warfare.
  I ask, is it class warfare to say to a millionaire or a billionaire 
they should pay the same effective tax rate as their secretary or is 
that just the moral thing to do? It is the moral thing to do. Is it the 
fair thing to do? It is the fair thing to do. Our country needs 
everyone to help us as we tackle the deficit. So why the tears? Why the 
tears? These are not the job creators. These are not people who have 
given the last 10 years. We have seen their incomes rise exponentially 
and their taxes go down.

[[Page 13888]]

  So I don't think it is class warfare at all. It is just a talking 
point for Republicans. But since they have raised it, I would say this. 
I don't think it is class warfare to ask millionaires and billionaires 
to pay the same effective tax rate as their secretaries, but I think 
Republican policies are class warfare on the middle class. Look at 
their policies. They would end Medicare and put middle-class senior 
citizens in jeopardy. They want to privatize Social Security and put 
middle-class seniors in jeopardy. They want to cut one-third of the 
funds from transportation, which would mean 600,000 layoffs for middle-
class workers.
  They stopped us from helping small business by blocking Senator 
Landrieu's Small Business Innovation Act. They blocked the EDA--the 
Economic Development Act--which would have created 1 million jobs over 
5 years. They have taken no action on the FAA bill. They have not 
appointed conferees, and we can't get that bill done that is hundreds 
of thousands of jobs.
  When Republicans took control of the House, gross domestic product 
had grown at an average of 2.5 percent after the Recovery Act. Now it 
is down to 0.7 percent--from 2.5 percent of growth to 0.7 percent. The 
Republican Congress put the brakes on job creation, and that is a 
strong reason why this economy has slowed.
  Even before they have read the fine print of President Obama's 
proposal, they say it is dead on arrival. So let us be clear: Again, 
asking millionaires and billionaires to pay the same as their 
secretaries is not class warfare, it is moral. Mark Cuban, the owner of 
the Dallas Mavericks, says it is the most patriotic thing we can do.
  So instead of crying for millionaires and billionaires, I am thinking 
of sending a box of Kleenex tissues over there to Paul Ryan, who is 
lamenting this attack on millionaires and billionaires. Poor thing. 
Poor guys, poor gals. Instead of doing that, let's fight for the middle 
class around here. Let's get our arms around deficit reduction by 
asking everyone who can to pay their fair share.
  By the way, let's give tax breaks to the middle class. Do you know 
these same Republicans who are crying their tears for the millionaires 
and billionaires say they do not want to give a tax break to working 
people? They are against the payroll tax proposal which would suspend 
that payroll tax for a period of time. I ask them to stop blocking 
bills that would create jobs. Stop blocking tax breaks for the middle 
class. Stop going after middle-class seniors. Stop crying for 
billionaires and help us pass elements of the Obama jobs plan which 
include bipartisan proposals all of us have supported in the past.
  I think that is critical. We did this before with Bill Clinton--we 
created jobs, we strengthened the middle class, and we created 
surpluses by asking everyone to pay their fair share. Remember, when 
our President took over, this country was bleeding 700,000 jobs a 
month. I remember that--700,000 a month. We were on the verge of losing 
our automobile industry. This President took action. He doesn't get the 
credit for that, and that is OK. There will be time enough to spell it 
out. But all we have to do is look back to those days. Credit was 
frozen.
  The Presiding Officer remembers that. Capitalism was coming to an 
end. This President acted. I have to say this: I don't want to go back 
to those days of bleeding 700,000 jobs a month. I don't want to go back 
to the days of credit freezes. I don't want to see these deficits 
continue. I want everyone to pay their fair share. Most of all, I want 
jobs for the American people.
  So if we can stop crying tears for the people who have it all and we 
can roll up our sleeves and work together for the middle class, we will 
strengthen this Nation. We will solve our problems, just as we did when 
Bill Clinton was President. We have the roadmap. President Obama has 
taken steps to follow that roadmap. We know it works. We will get these 
deficits down, we will get the debt down, we will help the middle class 
and, yes, the wealthiest among us will pay the same tax rate 
effectively as their secretaries. You know what, if we do that, 
Democrats and Republicans can feel good about this country again. Let's 
work together and let's not say now that we can't ask billionaires to 
pay their fair share and let's not keep the middle class from getting 
their tax cuts and their jobs. That is what is important.
  I wish to thank the leaders on this issue for letting me have the 
time to talk about this middle-class attack that we are seeing, and I 
thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I wish to talk about an amendment I 
intend to offer linking TAA expansion to enactment of the three pending 
free-trade agreements.
  I will send an amendment to the desk in the near future for 
consideration. This amendment makes the effective date for additional 
TAA funding contingent upon the enactment of our free-trade agreements 
with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.
  It is unfortunate this amendment is necessary. Supporters of this 
trade adjustment assistance bill tell us that TAA is a necessary 
precondition to submission of our pending free-trade agreements--a 
necessary precondition of the President. The President and his 
supporters say if TAA does not pass, the free-trade agreements will 
never be sent to Congress for our consideration.
  I find this logic disturbing. It basically boils down to this: Spend 
more taxpayer money on one of our pet trade priorities or we will 
refuse to allow Congress to vote on trade agreements that we know will 
create jobs. The administration has said it will create 250,000 new 
jobs. By the way, at a time when unemployment is over 9 percent, I 
simply can't understand why the President continues to hold up these 
FTAs and their consideration.
  Even today, we don't know if the President will actually send the 
FTAs to Congress if we pass TAA. So my amendment is very simple. It 
allows TAA to be approved, but it will only go into effect once the 
President submits the trade agreements to Congress, they are all 
approved, and when they are signed into law.
  To me, this amendment is about fundamental fairness. If we are to 
meet the President's demands, we can at least ensure our top priorities 
are addressed as well.
  I think it is worth taking a moment to review how we got here.
  In December 2010, the President announced he had finally reached 
agreement with South Korea to renegotiate parts of that trade 
agreement. Touting the benefits of these changes, the President seemed 
poised to immediately begin working with Congress toward its quick 
implementation; that is, the implementation of the Korean Free Trade 
Agreement.
  In February, Senator McConnell and I wrote to the President 
commending him for his strong support for the South Korea agreement but 
also expressing disappointment we did not see the same level of 
commitment to our pending free-trade agreements with Colombia and 
Panama. At that time, we warned that further delay would mean lost 
market share and alienation of key Latin American allies. We also made 
it clear each agreement would receive broad bipartisan support once the 
President submitted them to Congress for approval.
  Three days later, the President responded when Ambassador Kirk 
testified before the Ways and Means Committee that the President had 
directed him to immediately intensify engagement with Colombia and 
Panama to resolve the administration's outstanding issues with these 
two agreements.
  Senator Baucus and I welcomed that development when we wrote to 
Ambassador Kirk on February 14 and asked that he be prepared to provide 
testimony regarding what additional steps the administration believed 
Colombia and Panama should take and to provide a clear and expeditious 
timeline for moving both agreements through Congress.
  Shortly thereafter, in early March, Ambassador Kirk notified Congress 
the administration was ready to begin technical work on the South Korea 
implementing bill with the intent to seek approval in the spring of 
this year.

[[Page 13889]]

Senator Baucus and I welcomed this development but again called for a 
specific timeline for resolution of the outstanding issues with 
Colombia and Panama.
  During our March 9 hearing on the administration's trade agenda, I 
made it clear that consideration of the South Korea agreement, without 
a clear path for the Colombia and Panama agreements, was simply not 
acceptable and that should the President ignore the will of Congress 
and send the Korea agreement without Colombia and Panama, I would do 
everything I could to make sure those two agreements were considered at 
the same time as Korea.
  Shortly thereafter, in early April, the President finally took steps 
to fully engage with the Government of Colombia, announcing an 
agreement on a labor action plan that would enable the administration 
to begin working with Colombia to achieve benchmarks that, if met, 
would then enable the President to submit the agreement to Congress. A 
few weeks later, Panama met one of President Obama's preconditions for 
consideration of their FTA when they approved a tax information 
exchange agreement and finalized additional modifications to Panama's 
labor laws.
  So there we stood in May, on the cusp of victory. Months of intense 
congressional pressure appeared to have finally resulted in an 
opportunity for Congress to consider our trade agreements with these 
important allies. But alas, it was not to be.
  Mr. WYDEN. Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request? 
Because 5 o'clock is coming.
  Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to yield, without losing my right to the 
floor.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague. Certainly, when I am done, the 
Senator is next to continue his comments.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending McConnell amendment No. 626 
be modified with the DeMint language which is at the desk; and Senator 
Hatch or his designee then be recognized to offer amendment No. 641; 
that the time until 5 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders 
or their designees for debate on the McConnell amendment, as modified; 
that at 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the 
following judicial nominations: Calendar Nos. 169 and 170; that there 
be up to 15 minutes of debate on the nominations, equally divided, in 
the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, 
Calendar No. 169 be confirmed and the Senate proceed to vote without 
intervening action or debate on Calendar No. 170; the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to 
any of the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations 
be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session; 
that upon disposition of the judicial nominations, the Senate proceed 
to a vote in relation to the McConnell amendment, as modified; that 
there be no amendments, points of order or motions in order to the 
McConnell amendment prior to the vote on the amendment, other than 
budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that the 
amendment not be divisible and it be subject to a 60-affirmative vote 
threshold; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment (No. 626), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:

                  TITLE III--TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Creating American Jobs 
     through Exports Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 302. RENEWAL OF TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 2103 of the Bipartisan Trade 
     Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3803) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) may enter into trade agreements with foreign 
     countries--
       ``(i) on and after the date of the enactment of the 
     Creating American Jobs through Exports Act of 2011 and before 
     June 1, 2013; or
       ``(ii) on and after June 1, 2013, and before December 31, 
     2013, if trade authorities procedures are extended under 
     subsection (c); and'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(C) The President may enter into a trade agreement under 
     this paragraph--
       ``(i) on and after the date of the enactment of the 
     Creating American Jobs through Exports Act of 2011 and before 
     June 1, 2013; or
       ``(ii) on and after June 1, 2013, and before December 31, 
     2013, if trade authorities procedures are extended under 
     subsection (c).''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``before July 1, 
     2005'' and inserting ``on and after the date of the enactment 
     of the Creating American Jobs through Exports Act of 2011 and 
     before June 1, 2013''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``after 
     June 30, 2005, and before July 1, 2007'' and inserting ``on 
     or after June 1, 2013, and before December 31, 2013''; and
       (II) in clause (ii), by striking ``July 1, 2005'' and 
     inserting ``June 1, 2013'';

       (B) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A), by striking ``April 1, 2005'' and inserting ``March 1, 
     2013'';
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by striking ``June 1, 2005'' and inserting ``May 1, 
     2013''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``June 1, 2005'' and inserting ``May 1, 
     2013''; and
       (II) by striking ``the date of enactment of this Act'' and 
     inserting ``the date of the enactment of the Creating 
     American Jobs through Exports Act of 2011''; and

       (D) in paragraph (5), by striking ``June 30, 2005'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``May 31, 2013''.
       (b) Treatment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement 
     and Certain Other Agreements.--Section 2106 of the Bipartisan 
     Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3806) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking the comma at the end and 
     inserting ``, or'';
       (B) by striking paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(2) establishes a Trans-Pacific Partnership,''; and
       (C) in the flush text at the end, by striking ``the date of 
     the enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``the date of the 
     enactment of the Creating American Jobs through Exports Act 
     of 2011''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A), by striking ``the enactment of this Act'' 
     and inserting ``the date of the enactment of the Creating 
     American Jobs through Exports Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 303. MODIFICATION OF STANDARD FOR PROVISIONS THAT MAY BE 
                   INCLUDED IN IMPLEMENTING BILLS.

       Section 2103(b) of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority 
     Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3803(b)), as amended by section _02, 
     is further amended in paragraph (3)(B) by striking clause 
     (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(ii) provisions that are necessary to the implementation 
     and enforcement of such trade agreement.''.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, on the cusp of victory, the President 
sacrificed it by demanding more government spending on a controversial 
domestic training program.
  After first asking Colombia, Panama and South Korea to take 
unprecedented steps to solve our President's concerns with each 
agreement, the administration held a press conference and, with no 
prior cngressional consultation or notice, announced that they would 
not submit our pending trade agreements to Congress unless Congress 
first agreed to continue funding a domestic spending program at near 
stimulus levels.
  This was an astounding development. Instead of working with Congress 
to seek approval of these job-creating trade agreements the President 
chose to try and force Congress to agree to additional domestic 
spending first. In an opinion editorial, the Wall Street Journal called 
this move ``extortion.''
  Weeks of intense negotiations followed between the White House, 
Senator Baucus and Chairman Camp to develop a package that would expand 
and renew trade adjustment assistance through 2014.
  Meanwhile, committee staff worked with the White House to prepare the 
implementing legislation for quick congressional consideration. It 
appeared that we were once again close to successfully considering 
these important trade agreements.
  But yet again, it was not meant to be. Upon reaching an agreement on 
the

[[Page 13890]]

substance of a trade adjustment assistance package with Chairman Camp 
the White House again changed course, turning its back on a willing 
Congress and instead trying to force through consideration of trade 
adjustment assistance by including it in the implementing bill for the 
South Korea FTA.
  And, once again, this was done with virtually no notice or 
consultation with Congress.
  The reaction by the Republican caucus was predictable. We fought the 
administration's efforts to abuse trade promotion authority for its own 
narrow purposes and pushed for consideration of trade adjustment 
assistance on its own merits.
  Our position was made clear in a letter--signed by every Republican 
member of the Finance Committee--to the President, in which we 
expressed our united opposition to inclusion of expanded trade 
adjustment assistance in an implementing bill submitted to Congress 
under trade promotion authority.
  The administration ignored our concerns, and pushed forward on a 
partisan path to force a vote in the Senate Finance Committee.
  As a result, while the implementing legislation for the Colombia bill 
and Panama bills received strong bipartisan support, the South Korea 
implementing bill moved through committee on a strict party line vote--
the first time a trade agreement has done so in over 25 years.
  The administration then vowed to move forward on this path within 
days.
  After that we heard remarkably little from the administration about 
their intentions regarding these trade agreements. Until August, of 
course, when the President repeatedly called upon Congress to take the 
agreements up ``right now'' to help create jobs.
  This hollow call for action typifies the President's approach to the 
trade agenda. By calling upon Congress to act, he appears to be 
embracing the agreements and pushing for their quick approval. But, 
like so many of the President's trade initiatives his words do not 
match his deeds.
  In reality, Congress cannot take up these agreements ``right now.'' 
President Obama is relying upon a trade law called trade promotion 
authority to protect each of these agreements from being blocked or 
amended by Congress.
  In order to take advantage of this statutory authority, it is not 
Congress but the President who must take the first step and submit each 
agreement for consideration. If the President does not submit them, 
Congress cannot act under trade promotion authority.
  The President and his team know this. In fact, here is a chart which 
outlines the TPA process called ``How A Trade Agreement Moves Through 
Congress Under TPA.''
  This was taken directly from the Web site of the Office of the United 
States Trade Representative. It clearly shows Congress cannot act until 
the President submits the agreements.
  But why take responsibility for moving the agreements when it's much 
easier to blame their continued delay on Congress? The fact is the 
President wants all the benefits of trade promotion authority but none 
of the responsibility.
  Once they were called out on the mismatch between their words and 
deeds, the administration finally reined in their rhetoric but provided 
little guidance as to what their actual plans are.
  In the meantime, Republicans continued to push for consideration of 
the three pending FTAs. Back in July, a group of Republican Senators 
signed a letter vowing to help the administration achieve its objective 
of gaining approval of trade adjustment assistance in exchange for 
submitting the FTAs. Despite a clear path forward the President remains 
silent to this day.
  As the President continues to delay, our country cedes each of these 
markets to our foreign competitors. Our economy and our workers are 
suffering under horrific levels of unemployment--almost one in ten 
American workers is out of a job under this administration. We can't 
afford to throw away any opportunity to create jobs. Yet this is 
precisely what the President is doing.
  While our economy remains troubled, and while the rest of the world 
watches in bewilderment as the United States lets other countries take 
over our export markets, we hear nothing but silence from the 
President.
  A case in point: the European Union's exports to South Korea 
increased almost 45 percent in the first 20 days since that agreement 
went into force on July 1. Their share of Korea's import market 
increased from 9.5 percent to 10.3 percent in just 3 weeks.
  Meanwhile, the U.S. share of Korea's import market dropped from 10.5 
percent to 8.4 percent. Unless we act soon, these trends are likely to 
continue.
  In an open letter to the President and Congress, over 120 food groups 
and companies wrote that ``if there is any doubt about the seriousness 
of the problem for U.S. agricultural exports, one need only consider 
the damage that has already been done by the delay in implementing the 
Colombia FTA.
  ``Argentina and Brazil have negotiated trade agreements . . . with 
Colombia that have given them preferential access . . . as a result, 
U.S.-produced corn, wheat and soybeans have been hit hard, with the 
combined share of Colombia's imports for these products falling to 28 
percent from 78 percent since 2008.''
  On August 15, 2011, an agreement between Canada and Colombia entered 
into force, which will only make the problem worse for U.S. exporters.
  I appreciate the President's goal of doubling exports. Having goals 
is great. But we all know that, if you don't do the work or take 
action, goals become little more than false hope--they never become 
reality.
  The President and his cabinet admit that these agreements are key to 
their goal of doubling exports. Yet the action necessary to reach that 
goal, submission of the agreements, still remains in the distant 
future. Instead, we watch the days slip by, and with each day our 
overseas markets erode.
  The fact is that each of these agreements is critically important to 
our economy. For my home State of Utah and for workers across the 
country they mean more opportunity and jobs.
  The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that U.S. workers 
lose $8 million in wages and benefits every day these agreements are 
delayed.
  I for one stand ready to continue to fight for their consideration 
and approval. We have come a long way since January of this year, but 
we are not done yet.
  I hope the President will heed my call and submit these agreements to 
Congress so we can approve them. But history has shown that this 
President won't act unless he is forced to. This amendment I am 
offering will continue to put pressure on him to act and to act soon.
  The time for dithering and deliberation is over. Let's adopt this 
amendment and ensure that our work in moving TAA forward leads to the 
promised result--submission of the three pending free trade agreements 
by the President and their quick enactment in to law.


                 Amendment No. 641 to Amendment No. 633

  Madam President, I send amendment No. 641 to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 641.

  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed 
with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To make the effective date of the amendments expanding the 
trade adjustment assistance program contingent on the enactment of the 
United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, the United 
 States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, and the 
   United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act)

       On page 31 of the amendment, between lines 7 and 8, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. 231. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE 
                   CONTINGENT ON ENACTMENT OF CERTAIN FREE TRADE 
                   AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTING BILLS.

       Notwithstanding section 201(b) or any other provision of 
     this subtitle, the amendments made by this subtitle shall 
     take effect

[[Page 13891]]

     on the date on which the United States-Korea Free Trade 
     Agreement Implementation Act, the United States-Colombia 
     Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, and the United 
     States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act 
     have been enacted into law.

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am prepared to proceed.

                          ____________________