[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Page 6373]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 TRADE

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we know that later today the Senate will 
vote on whether to move forward with consideration of trade 
legislation. What we do not know, other than what the leader just said, 
is what is going to be in the matter before us. It seems to me he said 
that there will be TPA and TAA in the bill, and that dealing with 
Africa and these other provisions dealing with customs won't be in the 
bill. That is unfortunate.
  In April, the Senate Finance Committee reported four bills out of the 
committee. Each of these four bills addressed different trade issues. 
Several of these bills contain amendments that the Senate spent months 
and years working to pass.
  As I stand here today, Senate Democrats still don't know for sure the 
procedure of the Republican leader. And I would say to my friend the 
Republican leader, and to everyone who hears me say this, that using 
the logic of the Republican leader, he should move to these four bills. 
If he wants a robust amendment process, which he talks about all the 
time, why doesn't he put this legislation before this body and we will 
have a robust amendment process.
  The ranking member of the Finance Committee is here. He is an 
experienced legislator and he knows--he was here before the Republicans 
put skids on doing any legislation for 4 years. He knows what the 
process was before then. He knows what the process is today, and he 
knows that the reason a few things are being accomplished this work 
period--and I mean a few--is because we have cooperated with 
Republicans. We still want to do that.
  But if the Republican leader is concerned about a robust amendment 
process, then, put everything the committee reported out. That is why 
we have been led by the good senior Senator from Oregon the way we have 
been.
  I have been very clear. I am not a fan of fast track. But it is 
important to remember that the Senate's ongoing debate about trade is 
not limited to legislation granting President Obama fast-track trade 
authority.
  One of the bills reported out of the committee provides worker 
assistance for American workers who lose their jobs because of trade--
important. Trade adjustment helps American workers to be trained, to 
look for new jobs, and to reenter the workplace. It is a program that 
has worked well.
  The second bill helps developing countries export their products to 
the United States.
  The third bill started out as a customs bill and now includes 
bipartisan provisions fighting currency manipulation and includes 
provisions on the importation of goods made with forced labor. It also 
ensures that American manufacturers can enforce trade laws against 
foreign companies that refuse to play by the rules.
  Simply put, these three other bills include many provisions to make 
sure that trade is fair for American workers and the American economy.
  My views on trade--I repeat--are well known. I don't support these 
trade provisions. But if the Senate is going to talk about trade, we 
must consider its impact on the American workers and the middle class, 
and that is what the customs provision does. That is why I support 
combining these four bills into one piece of legislation--so no 
American will be left behind by the Senate Republicans.
  It is essential that if we move to fast-track, we consider these 
other bills as part of the process. In past years, Democrats and 
Republicans joined together to pass other important trade legislation 
with fast-track. For example, in 2002, when that passed, Congress 
adopted in that trade adjustment assistance, customs and trade 
enforcement and an extension of our preference programs. If we did it 
in 2002, why can't we do it today?
  My friend the majority leader talks about the motion to proceed as a 
way to move forward. There is also a way to move forward that would be 
less disruptive, and it would work a lot better; that is, have the 
majority leader put all these four bills together and then begin--his 
words--a ``robust amendment process.''
  The absence of assurance that these four bills are together is a 
signal that some will be left behind, and the people left behind, of 
course, are the American middle class. I urge the majority leader to 
take the necessary steps to merge these four bills reported out of the 
Finance Committee into one piece of legislation; otherwise, we risk 
hurting every American whom we talk about protecting so much here; 
namely, the middle class.
  Again, logically, if you use the statements of the Republican leader, 
we should put all four of them together. We would move forward on this 
legislation. We could have a process--again, using his words, a 
``robust amendment process.'' Last time those words came out--``robust 
amendment process''--we had two amendments. That was the Iran bill, two 
amendments. That is robust? That is not very robust, in my estimation.
  I wish my friend the ranking member of the Finance Committee the very 
best in this legislation. It is a huge responsibility for his caucus. 
We, at this stage, support these four bills being moved forward at the 
same time and then the process can begin of legislating. If we do not--
if he does not do that, then it is going to be very difficult to get to 
the guts of the bills that are reported out of committee.

                          ____________________