[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6514-6526]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENSURING TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ACT--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this morning, I restated my commitment 
to working with Senators in a serious way to move our country ahead on 
trade in the economy of the 21st century. I said that we need to allow 
debate on this important issue to begin and that our colleagues across 
the aisle need to stop blocking us from doing so.
  That is the view from our side, it is the view from the White House, 
and it is the view of serious people across the political spectrum. I 
have repeatedly stated my commitment to serious, bipartisan ways 
forward on this issue. Now, serious and bipartisan does not mean 
agreeing to impossible guarantees or swallowing poison pills designed 
to kill the legislation, but it does mean pursuing reasonable options 
that are actually designed to get a good policy result in the end.
  That is why I have agreed to keep my party's significant concession 
of offering to process both TPA and TAA on the table. It is why I have 
said we could also consider other policies that Chairman Hatch and 
Senator Wyden agree to. That is why I will keep my commitment to an 
open amendment process once we get on the bill.
  Of course, our friends across the aisle say they also want a path 
forward on all four of the trade bills the Finance Committee passed. 
This isn't just an issue for our friends on the other side, but there 
is a great deal of support on our side for many of the things contained 
in these other bills. However, as a senior Senator in the Democratic 
leadership reminded us yesterday, we have to take some of these votes 
separately or else we will kill the underlying legislation.
  So the plan I am about to offer will provide our Democratic 
colleagues with a sensible way forward without killing the bill.
  The plan I am about to offer will allow the regular order on the 
trade bill, while also allowing Senators the

[[Page 6515]]

opportunity to take votes on the Customs and preferences bills in a way 
that will not imperil the increased American exports and American trade 
jobs that we need. We would then turn to the trade bill with TPA and 
TAA as the base bill and open the floor to amendments, as I have 
suggested all week. It is reasonable.
  So I look forward to our friends across the aisle now joining with us 
to move forward on this issue in a serious way.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10:30 a.m., tomorrow, 
May 14, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar 
No. 57, H.R. 1295, and Calendar No. 56, H.R. 644, en bloc; that the 
Hatch amendments at the desk, the text of which are S. 1267 and S. 
1269, respectively, be considered and agreed to; that no further 
amendments be in order; and that at 12 noon the bills, as amended, be 
read a third time and the Senate then vote on passage of H.R. 1295, as 
amended, followed by a vote on passage of H.R. 644, as amended, with no 
intervening action or debate, and that there be a 60-affirmative-vote 
threshold needed for passage of each bill; and that if passed, the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. I 
further ask that following disposition of H.R. 644, the motion to 
proceed to the motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 1314 be agreed to, the motion to reconsider 
the failed cloture vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1314 be agreed 
to, and that at 2 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to 
invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1314; further, that if 
cloture is invoked, the 30 hours of postcloture consideration under 
rule XXII be deemed expired at 10 p.m. on Thursday night.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  First of all, I want to take just a very brief minute and express my 
appreciation to all my Democratic colleagues who have been 
understanding and vocal in their opinions as to what we should do to 
move forward. I also extend my appreciation to the Republican 
leadership, the majority leader, for having this suggestion to go 
forward. We have worked together the last 24 hours, and I think we have 
come up with something that is fair.
  The bipartisan majority of the Finance Committee reported out four 
trade measures, fast-track, trade adjustment assistance, trade 
enforcement, and a bill expanding trade for Africa. Democrats want a 
path forward on all four parts of this legislation. Yesterday, we made 
it clear that we didn't accept merely a fast-track for new trade 
agreements. We also must enforce the trade agreements we make.
  The proposal before us today will provide us that path forward. I 
look forward to consideration today and tomorrow of the trade 
enforcement package and the Africa bill. Once we proceed to the fast-
track measure, the majority leader has offered an amendment process 
that in his words will be open, robust, and fair. I appreciate that 
offer.
  This is a complex issue and one that deserves full and robust debate. 
Once we get on the trade bill, then we have to debate and vote on a 
number of amendments. So with that background and the understanding 
that we have on both sides, I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. While I do not rise with the intention of objecting, may 
I propound a question to the majority leader?
  Mr. REID. Why don't we get the approval first.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I would prefer to propound the question first. Mr. 
Leader, as I understand it, the Africa bill and the trade enforcement 
bill will be in tandem together and not subject to amendment, and then 
we will go to TPA and TAA, which will be open to amendments; is that 
correct?
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Georgia is correct.
  Mr. ISAKSON. In that case, I will not object, but I ask unanimous 
consent that Senator Coons and I be able to make a 1-minute statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, in the committee on the AGOA Act, we put 
in an amendment to ensure an in-cycle and out-of-cycle review of South 
African trade practices vis-a-vis poultry and other issues important to 
the United States. We would have offered an amendment on the floor had 
it been possible without this UC, but with this UC coming forward and 
not objecting, we have gotten permission to talk to Ambassador Froman, 
who has assured us he is willing to instigate an out-of-cycle review 
immediately or whenever necessary to review the trade practices of 
South Africa vis-a-vis poultry. I commend him on doing that and wanted 
to memorialize that in the Record.
  I yield to Senator Coons for the purpose of confirmation.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Isakson of 
Georgia and express my shared concern that if we are going to proceed 
to a long-term renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which 
provides duty-free, quota-free access to the U.S. markets to all of 
sub-Saharan Africa--which I support and have worked hard with the 
Senator from Georgia and many others to make possible--that we also 
ensure there is effective trade enforcement. This is a basic principle 
that underlies all the proceedings here today; that those of us who 
support free trade and global trade also support fair trade and 
effective enforcement.
  As the good Senator from Georgia recently commented, we are acting in 
reliance upon a representation by the U.S. Trade Representative that 
there will be enforcement action taken, if appropriate, on access to 
markets in South Africa.
  With that, I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
majority leader?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I want 
to thank the Senate majority leader for working with us in a 
constructive fashion to make it possible for all of the vital parts of 
the trade package to be considered. I look forward to working closely 
with him.
  Colleagues, I will say that what has been done through the 
cooperation of the majority leader and the minority leader is, in 
effect, to say that trade enforcement will be the first bill to be 
debated; and in doing so, it drives home yesterday's message of 13 
protrade Democrats who together said robust enforcement of our trade 
laws is a prerequisite to a modern trade policy. In making this the 
first topic for debate, it is a long overdue recognition that vigorous 
trade enforcement has to be in the forefront, not in the rear, and a 
recognition that the 1990 NAFTA trade playbook is being set aside.
  I am going to be brief at this point, but I would just like to give a 
little bit of history as to how we got to this point.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, would the Senator from Oregon yield for a 
moment?
  Mr. WYDEN. I would be happy to.
  Mr. BROWN. I want to thank Senator Wyden for his work on the Customs 
bill that we will be debating, the bill to which he is referring, 
especially his amendment that we worked on, the prohibition of child 
labor, closing an 85-year loophole, if you will, allowing child labor 
in far too many cases, and we as a nation were allowing the importation 
of goods produced by child labor. I appreciate his support and Senator 
Hatch's support early in the process before the markup began on our 
``level the playing field'' language, which is particularly important 
to a number of industries in this country, to make the playing field 
more level, as Senator Wyden was saying and, third, the importance of 
currency. We know how many jobs we have lost in my State and all over 
the country because of what has happened with countries gaming the 
currency system. So I wanted to express my thanks to Senator Wyden.
  Mr. WYDEN. Before he leaves the floor, I want to thank Senator Brown

[[Page 6516]]

for again and again putting in front of the committee and all Senators 
the importance of this issue. I just want to read a sentence from the 
paper yesterday that really puts a human face on this enforcement issue 
that Senator Brown has so often come back to. A quote in the New York 
Times says: ``Candy makers want to preserve a loophole.''
  Now, this is the loophole that was closed in the Customs bill. The 
article goes on to say that ``Candy makers want to preserve a loophole 
. . . that allows them to import African cocoa harvested by child 
labor.''
  What Senator Brown has said is without, in effect, this enforcement 
language, this vigorous enforcement language that is in the Customs 
bill, we would basically be back in yesteryear's policy, back in what 
we had for decades and decades, where youngsters would be exploited in 
this way.
  So we are going to talk about trade here for a few days. I think 
colleagues and--certainly my colleagues on the Finance Committee know 
that I strongly support expanded trade. I look at the globe. There are 
going to be 1 billion middle-class people in the developing world in 
2025. They are going to have a fair amount of money to spend. We want 
them to spend on the goods and services produced in the United States.
  So we support expanding those opportunities, increasing those 
exports. The reality is expanding trade exports and enforcing the trade 
law are two sides of the same coin. Because what happens at home--I had 
community meetings in all of my counties, had several in the last 
couple of weeks. The first question that often comes up is a citizen 
will say: I hear there is talk about a new trade deal. Well, how about 
first enforcing the laws that are on the books?
  That is why the group of 13 protrade Senators yesterday wanted to 
weigh in, right at the outset of this debate, talking about how 
important trade enforcement is to a policy that I call trade done 
right--trade down right, a modern trade policy. I am going to be brief 
in opening this discussion, but I want to spend a few minutes 
describing how we got to this place.
  A few weeks ago, the Finance Committee met and passed a bipartisan 
package of four bills. These were more than a year in the making. The 
message I sought to send right at the outset was a message that would 
respond to all the people in this country who want to know if you are 
doing more than just going back to NAFTA. Those four bills suggest that 
this will be very different.
  The first, the trade promotion bill, the TPA as it is called, helps 
rid our trade policies of excessive secrecy. The reason this is so 
important is the first thing people say is, whether it is in South 
Carolina or Oregon or anywhere else: What is all of this excessive 
secrecy about? If you believe strongly in trade and you want more of 
it, why would you want to have all of this needless secrecy that just 
makes people so convinced that you are kind of sort of hiding things? 
So we have made very dramatic changes in that area.
  A second strengthens and expands the support system for our workers. 
It is known as trade adjustment assistance. This is to make sure that 
when there are changes in the private economy, changes that so often 
take place and cause workers to see positions they have had be 
affected, this is a section of trade policy that gives them a chance, 
almost a springboard, into another set of job opportunities.
  The third would finally put, as I have said, trade enforcement into 
high gear so we can crack down on trade cheats and protect American 
workers and exports. The reality is trade enforcement is a jobs bill. 
It is protecting jobs. That is another reason it is so important.
  The fourth, which has been touched on by our distinguished 
colleagues, the Senators from Georgia and Delaware, involves the trade 
preference programs that are so crucial to both our employers and 
developing countries. Taken together, the bills form a package of trade 
policies that are going to help our country create more high-skill, 
high-wage jobs in my State and across the land.
  As I have said so often, if you wanted to explain what a modern trade 
policy is in a sentence, what you would say is: This is the kind of 
approach that helps us grow things in America, make things in America, 
add value to them in America, and then ship them somewhere, 
particularly if you look to that developing world where there are going 
to be, in just a few years, 1 billion middle-class consumers. That 
strikes me as a real economic shot in the arm that will be of long-term 
benefit to our people.
  Now, with respect to enforcement, I want to take just a few minutes 
to talk about why I think this is an appropriate opening step in the 
legislative process. Now, I already talked about the 13, 14 protrade 
Democrats who got together yesterday and weighed in as a group. Why we 
did it is that trade enforcement in that particular bill, which is part 
of the initial debate here, is a jobs bill. It is a cornerstone of a 
new trade approach that is going to reject the status quo.
  As the President said, to his credit, during the State of the Union 
Address, ``Past trade deals have not always lived up to the hype.'' My 
own view is a lot of that can be attributed to subpar trade 
enforcement. That, in my view, is because so many of the same old 
enforcement tools from the NAFTA era and decades prior just are not the 
right kind of tool to get the job done in 2015.
  Our competitors overseas use shell companies, fraudulent records, and 
sophisticated schemes to play cat and mouse with U.S. Customs 
authorities. Our competitors overseas, in a number of instances, 
intimidate American firms into relocating factories or surrendering our 
intellectual property. Our competitors often spy on our companies and 
trade enforcers to steal secrets and block our efforts at holding them 
accountable.
  To mask their activities, they hide their paper trails and engage in 
outright fraud. For a number of years, I chaired the trade subcommittee 
of the Finance Committee. I can tell you, these examples I have given 
of modern challenges is just touching the surface of what we found in 
our investigation. At one point, we set up a sting operation to try to 
catch people who were merchandise laundering.
  Not only does our trade enforcement need to catch up to these 
schemes, we have to have a trade enforcement policy that stays ahead of 
the game. That is why the bipartisan enforcement package, the Customs 
package, will take enforcement up to a higher level. This bill raises 
the bar for all of our trade enforcers, whether it is the Customs 
agents at the border checking inbound shipments, the Commerce 
Department investigator looking into an unfair trade petition or the 
lawyer from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative following up on 
possible violations of trade agreements.
  So I want to just quickly tick through a few of the major parts of 
this trade enforcement package. A proposal that I pushed for a number 
of years to include will help Customs crack down on foreign companies 
that try to get around the rules by hiding their identity and sending 
their products on hard-to-trace shipping routes.
  Another will close a shameful loophole--a shameful loophole that 
Senator Brown and I just talked about--that allows products made with 
forced and child labor to be sold in our country. A third will build 
what I call an unfair trade alert to help identify when American jobs 
and exports are under stress before the damage is done. With this early 
warning system in effect, you will have warning bells ringing earlier 
and more loudly than ever before when a country attempts to undercut an 
American industry like China recently tried with solar panels.
  I think that is especially important, because when you are home and 
you are listening to companies and workers and organizations talk about 
trade enforcement, they say: You know, it just gets to us too late. By 
the time somebody back there in Washington, DC, is talking about 
enforcing the trade laws, the lights have gone out at the plant, the 
workers have had their lives shattered, and the community is feeling 
pain from one end to another.
  So the point of the early warning system is we now have the kind of

[[Page 6517]]

technology and access to the kind of information that can set off these 
early warning signals. That is what the unfair trade alert provision is 
all about.
  Fourth, for the first time in decades, the Congress would set out 
clear enforcement priorities with the focus on jobs and growth that 
will build real accountability and follow through in our trade 
enforcement system.
  Finally, it includes a proposal from Senator Brown that goes a long 
way toward ensuring that our trade enforcers use the full strength of 
our antidumping and countervailing duty laws to fight unfair tactics. I 
said months ago, repeatedly, making it very clear, when Chairman Hatch 
and I began working on this package, that strengthening trade law 
enforcement was at the very top of the list of my priorities.
  I did, in starting all of those discussions and the debate, 
repeatedly come back to the fact that for those of us who are protrade, 
who think it is absolutely key for the kind of export-related jobs and 
growth that we need in this country, we have to shore up trade 
enforcement because it is not credible to say that you are pushing for 
a new trade agreement if people do not find it credible that you are 
going to enforce the laws that are already existing on the books and 
relate to the past trade agreements.
  So strengthening trade enforcement has been at the top of my list of 
priorities for many, many years. The Finance Committee passed this 
enforcement measure with a voice vote. So that ought to indicate alone 
that this was not some topic of enormous controversy. We had votes on 
the trade promotion act, we had votes on the trade adjustment act. 
There was pretty vigorous debate on those--voice vote on the 
enforcement provision and the Customs package because it includes so 
much of what I think Members, actually on both sides of the trade 
debate, feel strongly about.
  I have talked about why as a protrade Democrat I feel so strongly 
about enforcement. My colleague Senator Brown speaks eloquently about 
another point of view, but he feels strongly about trade enforcement. 
So I am very pleased the Senate is on this bill, is beginning debate on 
this legislation. I am thoroughly committed to getting this legislation 
passed before we leave for the recess. No one can ever make guarantees, 
but I am sure going to pull out all the stops to do it.
  I just want, as we close the opening of this debate, to thank both 
the majority leader and the minority leader for working with myself and 
Chairman Hatch and others to get us to this point. We had a bipartisan 
effort in the Finance Committee, and we are very pleased to see the 
distinguished Presiding Officer join us on the Finance Committee. We 
had a bipartisan package, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, 
in the Finance Committee, which passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan 
basis.
  Now, starting with this debate and with what is ahead of us, we have 
a chance to build on the bipartisan work that took place in the Finance 
Committee. It is very appropriate that we begin this discussion 
focusing on trade enforcement, as the 14 protrade Democrats did 
yesterday in making an announcement with respect to the importance of 
this topic. It is going to be a good debate.
  The stakes are enormously high. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get this legislation passed 
and to get a bill to the President of the United States to sign.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I have a concern. It is not about trade. 
Quite frankly, trade is one of the things we have done as a nation all 
along. We were free traders before we were a nation.
  One of the grievances we had in the Declaration of Independence was 
the fact that King George was restricting our trade. We have always 
been individuals in a nation of trade.
  My issue is particularly with this Preferences bill. Again, it is not 
about the protections in it; it is about the way we pay for it. Now, as 
odd as it sounds, while we are doing trade and while we are trying to 
engage in things, we can't lose track of this simple thing called 
deficit that is hanging out there as well.
  We have basic rules on how we actually handle budget issues. For 
anything that we set out that is going to take several years to pay 
for, we have basic rules. Those rules include that it has to be deficit 
neutral in year 6 and it has to be deficit neutral in year 11.
  The way that is set up and the reason that it is set up is so that 
you cannot game the system that way. You can't just backload the whole 
thing and say: We are going to be deficit neutral in the very last 
year, but every other year we are going to run up the bill and have 
some pretend pay-fors at the very end.
  So the way this is set up is to have this basic gap. Halfway through, 
you are deficit neutral. At the other end of it, you are also deficit 
neutral. Well, this is what the Preferences bill does. The Preferences 
bill sets up this unique something called the corporate payment shift.
  So this is how it works. Six years from now, every corporation that 
has $1 billion or more in assets has a 5\1/4\-percent tax increase in 
year 6. In year 7, every one of those companies that has $1 billion or 
more in assets gets a 5\1/4\-percent tax refund.
  Let me run that by you again. This is set up, in the way the bill is 
written, so that 6 years from now taxes go up on every company--that is 
2,000 companies in America that have $1 billion or more in assets--by 
5\1/4\ percent, and in the next year they get a refund of that same 
amount.
  Can someone help me understand why every company in America has to 
gear up, change the way they do all their tax policies, pay an extra 
tax that year, and so that the next year they can get a refund? That is 
additional cost. That is additional expense--only to help this body 
circumvent the basic rules that we said we are going to abide by.
  Now, in all likelihood, those companies won't actually do that 6 and 
7 years from now because, in all likelihood, this body will come 
through and will waive the corporate tax shift because it is now not 
years 6 and 7. Now, it is years 7 and 8, and so it doesn't apply.
  This is ridiculous. This is a problem--that this body is playing a 
game in how we are trying to actually accomplish a basic rule.
  Now, if anyone can stand in this body and say that is a good idea--
that we are going to raise taxes 6 years from now on all these 
companies and refund the same amount in the 7th year--if anyone can 
actually tell me that is a good idea, please do. All that this is set 
up to do is to be able to help us in our CBO scoring.
  This is what I think we should do. Option No. 1 is to have a real 
pay-for--not have some pretend and say this is a deficit-neutral bill, 
when it is not a deficit-neutral bill.
  We have a $3.7 trillion budget. I think we can find a real pay-for to 
be able to put it into this bill. If you are lacking for any of those, 
my office can give you many options that are real pay-fors rather than 
something fake in year 6 and year 7.
  This is option No. 2. At least admit that this is not a deficit-
neutral bill and that these pay-fors are fake. There is something that 
this body has called a budget point of order, and it should apply in 
this sense because this is not a real pay-for.
  Now, I have had these conversations with staff behind the scenes and 
with individuals in this body, and I have been told the same thing over 
and over: This is how we always do it. In other words: You are a new 
guy here. You don't know this is how the game is played on the budget-
neutral deficit, eliminating bills that really don't do that.
  Yes, that is true. I am the new guy here, and I have heard this is an 
old practice--and it needs to go away, because no one can defend this.
  How about this. How about next week I try to go get a car loan, and I 
try to negotiate with the car dealer for a 5-

[[Page 6518]]

year loan, and I tell him: I will pay all of my loan off year 4, but I 
want a full refund in year 5 for all that I have paid off.
  Do you think I am going to get that car loan? No, I am not going to 
get that car loan because he is going to say: That is fake. And I will 
say: I have paid it off completely in year 5.
  Yes, but we paid it all back in the next year.
  We have to be able actually to have real accounting at the end of the 
day. This is not invisible money. This is debt that is being added. And 
with a $3.7 trillion budget, we can find real pay-fors.
  This is a practice that has happened in this Congress and in previous 
Congresses that has to stop. We have the ability to do that.
  I oppose this bill because it is not genuine in how we are actually 
paying for it. Saying that we pay for it in year 6 and refunding it in 
year 7 is not real, and we know it.
  In the days ahead, I hope we can address this practice and not just 
eliminate it for this bill, but that we can eliminate it from ever 
being used again in any bill as a gimmick pay-for.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Amtrak Train Derailment

  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today with a very heavy heart 
because of the horrific tragedy that occurred and is still unfolding 
right now.
  Late last evening, an Amtrak train, train No. 188--a train I myself 
have traveled on--carrying 243 passengers and crew derailed in 
Philadelphia. It has been confirmed now that seven people have died, 
including Associated Press employee, husband, father of two, and 
Plainsboro, NJ, resident Jim Gaines. More than 200 people were injured. 
My deepest thoughts and prayers are with those who are suffering today.
  I am so grateful for the work of the hundreds of first responders, 
Amtrak crew, doctors, nurses, and many others who quickly, 
courageously, and very professionally did their jobs and who no doubt 
saved lives. As we speak, the search through the wreckage for more 
people, living or dead, is still in process. All people have not been 
accounted for, and I hope and pray our brave first responders can soon 
account for everyone who was expected to have been on board.
  The 243 people--including passengers and crew--many of whom boarded 
Amtrak regional train No. 188 just half a mile from where I stand right 
now--were headed to New York. They were on their way home, on their way 
to work, to see their husbands and their wives, their children, and 
their journey was horrifically interrupted when the train derailed 
around 9:30 p.m. in Philadelphia.
  Since the incident, my staff and I have been in contact with Amtrak, 
the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Railroad 
Administration, and the Department of Transportation. The exact cause 
of the derailment is unknown, although speed was definitely a factor. 
We are in close contact with Amtrak officials and Federal investigators 
who are working quickly to identify exactly what happened to cause this 
disaster.
  Amtrak train No. 188 was on a very familiar path. So many people take 
this route. The train that derailed was traveling on the Northeast 
corridor, which is one of the busiest corridors, a 457-mile rail 
corridor that is the most traveled in North America. It is a 
transportation lifeline, one of our main arteries connecting the people 
of Washington, DC, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, New 
York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. The Northeast 
corridor transports 750,000 passengers every day and moves a workforce 
that produces $50 billion each year toward our gross domestic product.
  More people are traveling with Amtrak on the Northeast corridor than 
ever before. Just last year, 11.6 million passengers traveled the 
Northeast corridor. In New Jersey alone, 110 trains run daily along 
this route. New Jersey Transit works in cooperation with Amtrak to move 
trains along the Northeast corridor, where New Jersey Transit customers 
take 288,000 trips on the corridor each day and 63.6 million trips a 
year.
  Yet, none of these numbers--none of them--are as important today as 
that number of 243, the number of people riding on and working on 
Amtrak train No. 188 last evening, or the 7 people who died. We are in 
a time of great sadness.
  As the ranking member of the Senate subcommittee that has 
jurisdiction over rail safety, I want to also say that my colleagues 
and I have been working in the Senate to develop policies and implement 
new safety technologies that will improve rail safety and save lives, 
and we have been working diligently to finalize a draft of a passenger 
rail authorization bill.
  Congress has not passed a passenger rail bill since 2008, and 
authorization for that bill expired in 2013. It is unacceptable that 
Congress has not acted to provide the needed improvements, investment, 
and long-term certainty for Amtrak, and I will work hard to make sure 
that we pass passenger rail, that it is a priority for this body.
  In fact, today we had intended to introduce this bill authorizing 
funding and improvements to passenger rail in the United States. Today, 
that was our intention. However, in light of this tragic event, Senator 
Wicker and I have decided to monitor the incoming information and take 
this opportunity to evaluate what other actions might need to be taken 
as a part of the legislation.
  I am proud of my colleagues who have worked so diligently to ensure 
we get this bill done, and I thank the leadership, Chairman Thune and 
Ranking Member Nelson, for their support. If there is an action that 
needs to be taken to improve safety in the wake of this tragedy as we 
are finalizing this bill, I know we can work together to make it a 
reality.
  That said, I must say I am disappointed in the direction of the House 
appropriations process, which risks starving Amtrak of vitally 
important funds at the very moment we need to be investing more in 
passenger rail and our country's crumbling infrastructure.
  Failing to make the proper investments in our Nation's infrastructure 
is indeed crippling our competitiveness in a global economy. A 2012 
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco report estimated that every 
dollar invested in our national infrastructure increases economic 
output by at least $2. Failing to invest properly in infrastructure 
improvement is threatening the public's safety.
  My thoughts and prayers are with the family, friends, and loved ones 
of the individuals who were killed or injured in last night's train 
derailment. We still aren't certain of the exact cause, but this 
incident is a searing reminder of the fragility of life. It is 
important that we also remember that we should do everything necessary 
to safeguard life, to make sure we have it and have it more abundantly.
  Nothing can fix the damage that has been done to these families and 
their communities. We all grieve as a nation for the loss of life and 
pray for those injured, that they recover.
  I say now that we must work tirelessly to prevent another tragedy 
like this from occurring and that we must do everything necessary so we 
as a nation can have a rail infrastructure and highways, roads, 
bridges--have an infrastructure as a whole that reflects the greatness 
of the people of our country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue 
that,

[[Page 6519]]

by some estimates, has cost the United States as many as 5 million 
jobs, which is a lot of jobs, and that is the issue of currency 
manipulation.
  We are going to have an opportunity, now that there is an agreement, 
to move forward on all of the issues related to trade, whether it is 
fast-track or helping workers or enforcement issues or the other pieces 
that will be in front of us. We will have an important opportunity to 
seriously move forward in a positive way for our manufacturers and for 
agriculture and for all those who are impacted by currency 
manipulation.
  In fact, currency manipulation is the most significant 21st-century 
trade barrier that American businesses and workers face today and is 
the least enforced against. We take the least amount of action against 
currency manipulation, and yet it is the most significant 21st-century 
trade barrier. If we don't take meaningful action to address this 
issue, we stand to lose even more jobs at a time when our economy is 
desperately trying to recover.
  Our workers are the best in the world, and we can compete with 
anybody--our businesses can compete with anybody as long as there is a 
level playing field and the rules are enforced. But we can't win when 
our trading partners cheat, and that is what is happening right now. 
When they manipulate their currency--when Japan does it, when China 
does it, when other countries do it--they are cheating.
  A strong U.S. dollar against a weak foreign currency, particularly 
one that is artificially weak due to government manipulation, means 
foreign products are cheaper here and U.S. products are more expensive 
there. For example, one U.S. automaker estimates that the weak yen 
gives Japanese competitors anywhere from a $6,000 to $11,000 advantage 
on the price of a car, depending on the make and model. It is hard for 
our American carmakers to compete when they are effectively seeing a 
$6,000 to $11,000 higher sticker price--more expensive than Japanese 
vehicles not because of any other difference at all, just currency 
manipulation. That is a large difference that is based on currency 
manipulation. In fact, we have seen some numbers that--at some points 
in time, the entire profit on a vehicle will be from currency 
manipulation.
  We keep hearing about opening Japan's markets to U.S. automakers. 
While that is fine and that sounds nice, it is really a red herring 
when we look at what is going on because Japan right now has zero 
percent tariffs on U.S. cars. So it is not the tariffs that are keeping 
out our cars; it is the complicated web of nontariff barriers that 
Japan uses to keep out American automobiles.
  Beyond that, what is significant and what we have learned is there is 
little appetite for American cars in Japan. Last year, Ford's share of 
imports in Japan was 1.5 percent. Chevy was less than one-third of 1 
percent. There were 13 times as many Rolls Royces imported into Japan 
last year than Buicks, but that is not because there were all kinds of 
Rolls Royces going into Japan. It is because there were only 11 Buicks, 
not 1,100, not 11,000--11.
  One of the things that is interesting is that in Japan they buy 
Japanese vehicles. I wish in America we bought American-made vehicles. 
We would not be seeing as much of this challenge. It is a different 
culture there in terms of the pride of buying Japanese vehicles and, in 
fact, doing what they can to keep others out through nontariff trade 
barriers. Taking down the trade barriers is a good thing. I support it, 
but it is not enough. That is not what this is about when we are 
talking about the transpacific trade agreement and the worries of 
American automakers and other manufacturers as we do that. That is not 
the big challenge. It is not about just trade barriers, making life 
easier for the handful of Japanese consumers who are looking to buy an 
automobile from outside their country. Our manufacturers tell us that 
is not the main concern. It is not about competing in the United States 
or Japan; it is about competing everywhere else in the world. That is 
the problem.
  Japan has a population of 120 million people, but Brazil has a 
population of 200 million people. India has a population of 1.2 billion 
people. In emerging markets, American-made vehicles are at a severe 
competitive disadvantage compared to vehicles produced in Japan or 
Korea, when those countries choose to manipulate their currency, which 
has happened many, many times.
  We are competing, Japan is competing, and the United States is 
competing for those 1.2 billion customers. If they can artificially 
bring down their price $6,000, $7,000, $10,000 or more to sell into 
those areas, even though it is illegal in terms of the international 
community--they have signed up saying they will not do it. But if they 
are allowed to do it and if our trade agreements allow them to do it, 
it is not fair.
  Why would we do that to American companies? Why would we do that to 
American workers? Why would we allow that kind of cheating to occur? 
That is what the amendment that Senator Portman and I have is all 
about, that we will be offering and asking support for.
  This is not an issue that only impacts the auto industry or other 
manufacturers. As everyone knows, I care deeply about agriculture, as 
the current ranking member and former chair of the agriculture 
committee. Agriculture is impacted by currency manipulation as well. As 
a competitive sector in the global economy, any practice that distorts 
the economy, disrupts trade, and threatens employment has an impact on 
U.S. farmers and ranchers as well.
  Unfortunately, the language currently included in the TPA bill does 
not adequately address these issues, because if we are going to be 
effective around currency provisions, we have to make sure they are 
enforceable. There is some language there, but unlike other parts of 
the TPA, there is not language requiring that any provisions in a trade 
agreement be enforceable. That is why Senator Portman and I have 
introduced an amendment to this bill--to the TPA bill--that simply adds 
clear language to require that any future trade deals must include 
enforceable currency provisions. Very importantly, the provisions will 
be consistent with existing International Monetary Fund commitments 
that all of these countries have made. They signed up saying they are 
not going to do currency manipulation, but we do not have enforcement 
to make sure it does not happen. Also, importantly, this does not 
affect domestic monetary policy.
  I understand the arguments. I have great respect for our Secretary of 
the Treasury, whom I work with all the time, and 99 percent of the time 
we are singing the same song--not on this one and the same thing with 
the President, someone whom I admire deeply. I have to say this 
administration has done more than any other White House, I think, that 
I have worked with as a Senator or even in the House, to make sure we 
are enforcing our trade laws, taking trade actions, winning trade cases 
in the WTO. I am very grateful for that. But when it comes to currency, 
there has been a debate saying that somehow our Fed policy, 
quantitative easing--what we do inside our country is somehow impacted 
by the definitions of the IMF, which is not accurate. A country can say 
it is. Anybody can say anything, but it would not hold up because it is 
not accurate. We are talking about foreign transactions, the monetary 
policies of foreign competitors in the global economy.
  I am very pleased that we have bipartisan support for our amendment. 
We are adding supporters all the time. Senator Rounds, Senator Burr, 
Senator Casey, Senator Shaheen, and we have other Senators that will be 
joining us as well. We have growing support and understanding of how 
critical this is.
  The inclusion of strong and enforceable currency provisions in our 
trade agreements make clear to our trading partners that this 
uncompetitive trade practice will no longer be accepted. We are not 
just going to talk about it. We talk a lot about it. We talk a lot 
about

[[Page 6520]]

this issue and the loss of American jobs because of currency 
manipulation. But by putting it in the core instructions for our 
negotiators as they walk into a trade negotiation, to have listed 
alongside critical provisions regarding labor laws and environment and 
intellectual property rights and human rights and other areas, to say 
currency manipulation, your policies around currency we believe are 
critically important in a global economy if we are going to compete on 
a level playing field and not continue to lose American jobs.
  Some would call this amendment a poison pill to the TPA. That could 
not be further from the truth. It is absolutely possible. In fact, we 
have Members supporting our amendment who also support TPA, the 
underlying bill. They want to make sure it is a clear outline of the 
priorities and instructions for any negotiations.
  I have not heard from a single one of my colleagues that he or she 
will oppose the bill because our amendment is not adopted. This is not 
a poison pill. What I do hear repeatedly, though, is that one of the 
principal justifications for granting the administration trade 
promotion authority, fast-track--a process where we can amend it, a 
simple majority vote--is that Congress sets forth its priorities in 
trade promotion authority.
  We are laying out what is important for the people of our country, 
for our businesses, for our workers in trade negotiations. If that is 
the case, then how can something deemed appropriate, deemed a priority 
by all of us be a poison pill?
  It is not our job to match our priorities with their negotiations. 
The negotiations are supposed to match our priorities. They are laid 
out in TPA. Otherwise, why do we give fast-track authority?
  It is our responsibility on behalf of American businesses, American 
workers, and American communities to tell the administration what we 
expect them to fight for on behalf of the people of our country. We 
already insist on enforceable standards in other negotiating 
objectives. I support these, and I believe they should be as strong as 
possible, including issues around labor law, environment, and 
intellectual property rights. Why should currency manipulation be any 
different?
  This is about Congress setting up the list of priorities for 
negotiating objectives, and then in return for that, we then allow a 
fast-track process where any final bill cannot be amended. If we are 
going to give up that authority, that power, I think we have a right to 
lay out the conditions under which we would do that.
  If we lost 5 million jobs around the globe--5 million jobs because of 
currency manipulation coming predominantly from Asian countries that we 
are now negotiating with--we have a right to say we want that to stop. 
We expect there to be a strong, enforceable currency manipulation 
provision in any law we pass that then gives up our right to amend a 
trade agreement.
  There is no way that I believe the entire transpacific agreement 
hinges on whether we include enforceable currency provisions. If that 
is true, it calls into question what else is in the agreement. Why are 
there TPP countries that are so concerned about enforceable standards--
which, by the way, they have all signed up through the IMF as part of 
the global community--they have all signed that they will not do it. If 
the argument now is that they are not doing it, then why are people 
fighting so hard to keep this requirement out of TPA if they are so 
confident this will never occur again?
  Our ability to address currency issues in trade agreements is not 
complicated, again, by our own domestic monetary policies, including 
quantitative easing. In fact, we specifically put in the amendment that 
it does not affect domestic monetary policies.
  We have heard this over and over again. There has been confusion that 
has been spread. The IMF has rules about what is and what is not direct 
currency manipulation. They are clear rules. They are rules that all of 
the IMF countries have agreed to. They are rules that the United States 
has followed while they are doing quantitative easing. They are rules 
that Japan has flagrantly violated not once or twice but 376 times 
since 1991.
  We are hearing that we do not need enforceable language as a 
negotiating objective in the fast-track bill because Japan is not 
manipulating the currency anymore. Well, 376 times they have chosen to 
do that. Once we pass this, there is nothing stopping them from making 
it 377. What stops them is if they know that Congress is giving 
direction to the negotiators to make sure there is enforceable 
provisions in the trade agreement.
  Let's be clear. The United States is clearly following the rules with 
our domestic monetary policy. We are following the rules. Therefore, we 
would not be affected by this, and our amendment specifically 
references that. We are not talking about domestic policy. Other 
countries could say that. They would be wrong. They would have no legal 
standing to say it. You can say anything. But we do know this: Japan 
has flagrantly violated the rules of the IMF--that they signed on the 
dotted line to support--376 times since 1991. Adding enforceable 
currency provisions to a trade deal simply adds enforcement to the 
commitments that Japan and 187 other countries have already made as a 
part of the International Monetary Fund.
  On that point, I appreciate the efforts this administration has made 
to engage on this issue with our trading partners both bilaterally and 
through multilateral forms such as the G-20 and the IMF. But, quite 
frankly, we have not seen enough meaningful progress despite, I am 
sure, our good efforts. The progress we have seen can be wiped out at a 
moment's notice and without any meaningful recourse if we do not 
require enforceable provisions in the fast-track law.
  Then there is China. While they are not currently a party to the TPP, 
it is no secret they are interested in joining it down the road. While 
China's exchange rate may be up nearly 30 percent since 2010, the 
Treasury's own report to Congress released just last month concludes 
that China's currency remains significantly undervalued, which, by the 
way, is the reason we also need to make sure the Customs bill, which 
will be coming before us, maintains what we did in the Finance 
Committee. It should maintain the important legislation which Senator 
Schumer and Senator Graham have been leading for years. I am proud to 
be a part of that, along with Senator Brown and many others. We came 
together on a bipartisan basis to make sure that China, which is not 
involved in the negotiations right now, is also held accountable for 
currency manipulation.
  These two issues are not mutually exclusive; they are part of the 
whole effort. If they are part of a negotiating agreement and it is TPP 
or any other one, we want to make sure our negotiators put this in the 
deal. If they are outside of it, we want to also make sure they cannot 
cheat. That is why both of these are very important policies, and I 
strongly support both of them in order to move forward in a 
comprehensive way on currency manipulation enforcement.
  For too long, we have relied on handshake agreements and good-faith 
assurances from our trading partners around the world that they would 
adhere to the same standards we set for ourselves. For too long, we 
have seen our trading partners ignore their commitments by breaking the 
rules and leaving American workers and businesses at a competitive 
disadvantage. It is time for us to say enough is enough. We don't have 
to keep doing this to ourselves.
  I am very pleased that we have taken a step forward in a couple of 
directions. I mentioned the Schumer bipartisan proposal which so many 
of us have worked on. That is a very important piece of this puzzle. 
The other piece of this puzzle is the Portman-Stabenow amendment. As I 
said, these are not mutually exclusive; they are complementary. I hope 
my colleagues will support both of them to demonstrate a serious 
commitment. It is not enough to support a policy in one bill and not 
support a similar policy in the other part of the picture here, the 
other bill.

[[Page 6521]]

If you support enforcing against currency manipulation--you either do 
or you don't. You do or you don't. We want to make sure we are doing it 
against those not part of the TPP negotiations and those who are. We 
want to make sure that they get signed into law and that they, in fact, 
are the law of the land. It is long past due that we take meaningful 
action on this issue.
  I don't know how many times I have come to the floor since coming 
here in 2001 to speak about this and to be a part of this effort. It 
has always been bipartisan, and I am glad to see that. We need a 
strong, bipartisan vote on the Portman-Stabenow amendment. We have 
understood--those of us who represent manufacturing and agricultural 
States--that this is a critical piece that will help to level the 
playing field so our businesses, our farmers, our ranchers, and our 
workers have every opportunity to compete and win. I know they will. I 
don't have a doubt in my mind.
  Our job is to make sure that there is fairness, that we have the best 
trade deals, that they are enforceable, and that we have the tools to 
enforce them, which is also in front of us with the Customs bill. We 
have to have all of it. We are in a global economy. Everybody is 
competing. Our job is to make sure we are exporting our products and 
not our jobs.
  If we do not focus in a very serious, real way on addressing currency 
manipulation, we will, in fact, leave a giant loophole which those 
companies will drive right through and will allow them to continue 
cheating and taking our jobs. We can fix that, and I am hopeful my 
colleagues will join us on a bipartisan basis for a very strong vote so 
we can send a message to the administration that we are serious--
including this as one of the instructions to them--as to what we expect 
to be in trade agreements going forward.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          National Police Week

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this week, I introduced a bipartisan 
resolution to commemorate National Police Week, which this year began 
on Monday, May 10, and ends on Saturday, May 16. Senator Leahy, the 
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 32 others have 
joined me as original cosponsors of this measure. The theme of this 
year's Police Week is ``Honoring Courage, Saluting Sacrifice.''
  Police Week is dedicated to the brave men and women in blue who 
selflessly protect and serve our communities every day, every week, in 
every community all across the country. The week affords an opportunity 
to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice while striving to 
make our neighborhoods safer and more secure.
  Events are scheduled in Washington, DC, this week not only to 
remember those officers who tragically lost their lives in the line of 
duty but also to honor outstanding acts of bravery and service by many 
others.
  Tens of thousands of police officers, as well as their friends and 
family members, will gather in our Nation's Capital for these events, 
which include a candlelight vigil and a Police Unity Tour arrival 
ceremony, among other events.
  On this day, the 34th Annual National Peace Officers Memorial Service 
takes place here on the Capitol grounds. This solemn service offers an 
opportunity for all of us to pay our respects to fallen officers and 
their families, communities, and law enforcement agencies that have 
been permanently altered because these officers paid the ultimate 
sacrifice. We owe these brave men and women our utmost respect and 
gratitude as we honor them on this important day.
  A report by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund 
showed a 9-percent increase in the number of officers killed in the 
line of duty in 2014 compared to the previous year's fatalities. 
Gunfire was the leading cause of death among law enforcement officers 
last year, and ambushes were the leading circumstance of officer 
fatalities in these deaths, according to this report. The number of 
firearms-related deaths in 2014 represents a 24-percent increase over 
the previous year.
  This is the fifth consecutive year that ambushes have been the No. 1 
cause of felonious deaths of law enforcement officers, according to the 
National Sheriffs' Association. In my home State of Iowa, there have 
been nearly 200 line-of-duty deaths over many years. The fallen include 
numerous law enforcement personnel who were shot and killed or struck 
by vehicles while on duty.
  At the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, the names of these 
Iowans and approximately 20,000 other men and women who have been 
killed in the line of duty throughout U.S. history are carved in the 
memorial's wall. Regrettably, 273 new names will be added to the rolls 
this week to depict the loss of a loved one who did not return home 
safely at the end of his or her duty.
  Already, in 2015, we have witnessed 44 tragic deaths and senseless 
murders of our law enforcement protectors and our guardians of the 
peace. Just this past weekend, we all heard on television that 
Hattiesburg, MS, Police Department Officers Benjamin Deen and Liquori 
Tate were quickly and violently murdered during a traffic stop that was 
anything but routine. Our hearts go out to their families and the 
families of all who have lost their loved ones in the line of duty.
  The men and women of law enforcement go to work shift after shift, 
frequently missing celebrations of birthdays, anniversaries, and 
holidays because they believe in serving something greater than 
themselves. The work of law enforcement is not a job; it is a calling 
to these people. That calling and those officers' devotion to duty 
merits our utmost respect and gratitude.
  As I conclude, I call on all Americans this week to pause and 
contemplate the safety and security we all enjoy. We all must recognize 
that such peace is the result of sacrifices made by brave men and women 
of law enforcement.
  I also wish to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues for their 
overwhelming support of this year's resolution designating National 
Police Week, which this week passed the full Senate by unanimous 
consent.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH. Mr. President, we have all now heard the good news with 
regard to our ongoing efforts to advance U.S. trade policy. We are 
talking about trillions of dollars over the years. After a lot of 
discussion and back and forth, we have come to an agreement on a path 
forward. I am very happy to say that finally, at long last, common 
sense has prevailed.
  On April 22, the Senate Finance Committee reported four separate 
trade bills--a bill to renew trade promotion authority, or TPA; another 
to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, or TAA; a trade preferences 
bill; and a Customs and Enforcement bill.
  Throughout the recent discussion on trade policy, the TPA bill has 
gotten most of the attention. That makes sense. After all, it is 
President Obama's top legislative priority. If we could get it passed, 
its impact would be felt immediately. And he is right on that, 
President Obama is right on this issue, and I am happy to help him get 
this through, if we can.
  The TAA bill--the trade adjustment assistance bill--although I am not 
ecstatic to admit it, is part of the effort. We have known from the 
outset that in

[[Page 6522]]

order to ensure passage of TPA, that TAA must move along with it. That 
is a concession we were always willing to make, although most of us on 
the Republican side are not all that crazy about TAA and many will vote 
against it, including me. TAA is trade adjustment assistance, and that 
is what the union movement has insisted on. Democrats are unanimously 
in favor of it. Republicans are not ecstatic about it at all. In fact, 
we think it is a waste in many ways, but it is the price of doing 
business on TPA.
  The path to the other two bills, the preferences bill and the Customs 
bill, has always been a bit more uncertain, but once again, we knew 
that from the beginning.
  I am pleased to say that we have reached an agreement that will allow 
us to consider and hopefully pass all four of the Finance Committee 
trade bills in relatively short order. Under the agreement, the Senate 
will vote tomorrow on our Customs bill as well as our trade preferences 
bill. This will pave the way for another cloture vote on the motion to 
proceed to a vehicle to move TPA and TAA.
  Although I am wary of counting my proverbial chickens before they are 
hatched--no pun intended--I expect we will get a strong bipartisan vote 
in favor of finally beginning the debate on these important bills, and 
we should.
  This is, in my opinion, the best of all possible outcomes. This is 
what Republicans have been working toward all along--and, I might add, 
some courageous Democrats as well. While we could not and still cannot 
guarantee that all four bills will become law, we certainly want to see 
the Customs and preferences bills pass the Senate. I am a coauthor of 
both of those bills. They are high priorities for me. It was never my 
intention to let them wither on the legislative calendar. I was always 
going to do everything in my power to help move them forward. That is 
why at the Finance Committee markup I committed to work with my 
colleagues to try to get all four of these bills across the finish 
line. That is the agreement which was made, and as of right now, it 
appears we will be able to make good on that commitment on a much 
shorter timeline than I think any of us expected.
  Yesterday was a difficult day. I think it was pretty obvious to any 
observer that I was more than a little frustrated. Today, I am very 
glad to see that my colleagues have recognized our desire to move all 
of these important bills and that they have agreed with us on a 
workable path forward. But now is not the time to celebrate. While this 
agreement solves a temporary procedural issue, now is when the real 
work begins.
  As I mentioned yesterday, it has been years--decades even--since we 
have had a real debate over U.S. trade policy here on the Senate floor, 
and I am quite certain we have a spirited debate ahead of us. I am 
looking forward to a fair and open discussion of all of these important 
issues. It is high time we let this debate move forward. Indeed, it is 
what the American people deserve.
  I am glad we now have a pathway forward. This is something into which 
the President has put an awful lot of effort. He has an excellent Trade 
Representative in Michael Froman, one of the best Trade Representatives 
we could possibly have, a very bright man. He has worked very hard on 
these trade deals. They won't come to fruition until we pass trade 
promotion authority. Keep in mind that is the procedural mechanism 
which will enable the administration to get final approvals by these 11 
countries in Asia and the 28 countries in Europe, plus ours.
  This is very important, and I for one am very pleased that we have 
been able to get this through the Senate Finance Committee. That 
couldn't have happened without the help of Democrats on the other side 
and in particular Senator Wyden. We did part ways in this fiasco that 
occurred, but hopefully we are back together now.
  All I can say is that this is one of the most important bills in this 
President's tenure, and it is a bill that could benefit every State in 
this Union and especially my State of Utah, where we did $7 billion in 
foreign trade last year alone. For a State our size--3 million people--
that is pretty good, but I expect us to do a lot better under trade 
promotion authority.
  Hopefully, the final agreements that are made in TPP and TTIP will be 
agreements that everybody can agree will help our country move forward. 
It will help us to have greater relations with other countries 
throughout the world. It will help us to encourage our own industries 
to be improve and be the best in the world and will be one of those 
approaches that literally will shape the world at large.
  TPA is an important bill. I hope we can pass it. I believe we will. 
As I have said, I am not a fan of the TAA bill and never will be, but 
we understand why that has to pass as well--because the bipartisan 
coalition that supports it would probably not permit trade promotion 
authority without it.
  All I can say is that I have faith that we have arrived and resolved 
this impasse, and I hope that in the coming days we will be able to 
pass trade promotion authority and really put this country back on the 
trade path which it really deserves to be on and on which the rest of 
the world will be pleased to have us, where we can have greater 
cooperation and greater friendships and greater feelings throughout the 
world than we have right now.
  With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, as this body moves to consider trade 
legislation, it is our obligation to make sure that our existing and 
future trade laws are enforced and that we are looking out for those 
hurt by our trade agreements.
  Nearly everyone who supports these agreements--conservatives, 
Republicans, Democrats--nearly everyone who supports these agreements, 
even the most vocal cheerleaders for free trade, such as the Wall 
Street Journal editorial board, all admit that trade agreements create 
winners and losers.
  So if this body is going to vote for a new trade agreement, if the 
President is going to insist that we pass a new trade agreement, it is 
up to all of us that when there are winners and losers, we take care of 
the losers. If people lose their jobs because of a trade agreement 
passed by Congress, because of a trade agreement pushed and negotiated 
by the White House and ultimately ratified by Congress, approved by 
Congress, it is up to us to take care of those people who lost their 
jobs because of what we do; that is, to make sure they get the training 
and support they need, whether they are 30 years old, 40 years old or 
55 years old, to find new careers. We owe it to American companies, and 
we owe it to American workers to make sure the laws we make are 
enforced and that they create a more level playing field.
  We cannot have trade promotion without trade enforcement. That is why 
the provisions contained in the Customs bill are so important.
  Let me go through three provisions--probably the most salient, 
probably the most important provisions in the Customs bill.
  Now, go back a few weeks, and in the Finance Committee we worked on 
four bills. We worked on the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and it 
passed overwhelmingly--no opposition.
  We worked on the Customs bill that had a number of trade enforcement 
provisions. Those are the three I will talk about in a moment--the 
three major provisions.
  We also passed training adjustment assistance, where workers who lose 
jobs because of trade agreements get help from the Federal Government, 
because we made these decisions here that ultimately cost them their 
jobs.
  And fourth is trade promotion authority, so-called fast-track.
  What this Senate did yesterday, when Senator McConnell tried to bring 
up just trade adjustment assistance and fast-track to the floor, is 
that the Senate said no--a denial of cloture--because so many of us 
wanted to

[[Page 6523]]

make sure that we didn't leave the trade enforcement behind. You simply 
shouldn't send a trade agreement to the President's desk--or trade 
negotiating authority to the President's desk--without helping those 
workers who lose their jobs, without provisions to enforce trade laws.
  Let me talk about the three. First, there is currency. For trade to 
work, all parties have to play by the same rules. We must protect 
American workers and American companies from foreign governments that 
artificially manipulate their currencies. This puts U.S. exports at a 
serious disadvantage and results in artificially cheap imports here at 
home.
  So in other words, when a Chinese company, benefiting from 
manipulation of currency, sells a product into the United States, they 
can sell it 15, 20 or 25 percent less expensively--more cheaply--
because of their currency advantage. Because they have cheated on 
currency, they can sell it more cheaply than it would cost otherwise, 
which undercuts our businesses' ability to compete.
  Conversely, when American producers try to sell something in China, 
it has a 15-percent, 20-percent or 25-percent add on the price, almost 
like a tariff. It is not really a tariff. It is really a currency 
advantage that the Chinese have created that makes our goods not 
particularly sellable when trying to compete with Chinese goods.
  China's currency manipulation has been a problem for years, resulting 
in artificially expensive American imports to China and artificially 
cheap Chinese exports to the United States. It is not only China. The 
Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates at least 10 
other countries engage in these practices--many of them mimicking what 
China does.
  This puts our American manufacturers at a serious disadvantage. 
Currency manipulations already cost our Nation up to 5 million jobs. It 
continues to be a drag on Ohio's economy and on our Nation's economy. 
Diplomatic efforts to address this cheating simply haven't worked, and 
we will continue to lose jobs if we don't take action.
  This is a problem under Presidents of both parties. We have been 
asking for currency legislation for over a decade--with President Bush, 
who opposed it; with President Obama, who opposes it. That doesn't mean 
we shouldn't do that.
  The Economic Policy Institute estimates that addressing currency 
manipulation could support the creation of up to 5.8 million jobs and 
reduce our trade deficit by at least $200 billion. This provision 
contained in the bill before us today would clarify that current 
countervailing duty law can address currency undervaluation. It would 
make it clear that the Department of Commerce cannot refuse to 
investigate a subsidy allegation based on the single fact that a 
subsidy is available in other circumstances, in addition to export. 
American businesses have been put at a disadvantage for too long, and 
it has hurt American workers. Now is the time to crack down on currency 
manipulation.
  Issue No. 2 is leveling the playing field. This year I introduced the 
Leveling the Playing Field Act, which was included in the Customs bill 
we are debating. It would strengthen enforcement of our trade laws. It 
would give U.S. companies the tools they need to fight back against 
unfair and illegal trade practices. It would restore strength to 
antidumping and countervailing duty statutes. It would allow industry 
to petition the Commerce Department and the International Trade 
Commission when foreign companies are breaking the rules.
  It has been a particular problem in the steel industry. The domestic 
rebar industry, making steel reinforcement bars--the rebar used in 
highways, bridges, and roadways--is operating at only 60 percent, an 
historic low, due to foreign dumping. I met today with a rebar steel 
manufacturer from Cincinnati to talk about this. He has been involved 
in trade disputes with Turkey and other countries.
  Finished steel imports grew 36 percent last year. In the first 
quarter of this year, finished steel imports are up another 35 percent. 
Imports of these finished steel products have captured 34 percent of 
the U.S. market as of March 2015.
  An Economic Policy Institute report shows that the American steel 
industry risks long-term damage, including putting more than half a 
million steel-related jobs at risk, nearly 34,000 in my State, unless 
the U.S. Government fully enforces its trade remedy rules. We know that 
when foreign steel is dumped illegally in our country, American workers 
pay the price.
  Leveling the Playing Field--title V of the Customs bill, that section 
that was amended that was put in the bill prior to markup--is critical 
to all American companies facing a flood of imports. It would restore 
strength to U.S. trade remedy laws to ensure that our American workers 
and our companies are treated fairly.
  The last issue is child labor. This bill includes a provision to end 
an embarrassing, shameful, disgusting loophole in our trade laws. It 
would close an outdated, 85-year-old loophole that allows some goods 
made with either forced or child labor--unbelievably, for 85 years we 
have allowed this--to be imported into the United States. It would 
strike language in section 307 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that 
provides an exception to our prohibition on the importation of goods 
that are made with forced labor.
  This loophole, called the consumptive demand loophole--that sounds 
not nearly as bad as the child labor loophole--allows goods made with 
forced labor, including child labor, to be imported into the country if 
there isn't enough domestic supply to meet domestic demand.
  This exception was included in Smoot-Hawley in 1930, before the 
United States passed a law banning child labor. That is how outdated 
this provision is. So when this provision was adopted, child labor was 
still legal. We banned child labor, but we have let this loophole stand 
to allow the importing of goods produced by child labor for 85 years. 
The Fair Labor Standards Act, which outlawed child labor in the United 
States, was signed into law in 1938, and yet this loophole still 
stands.
  The United States has ratified the International Labor Organization 
Convention 182 against the worst forms of child labor. We have ratified 
the International Labor Organization Convention 138 on the minimum age 
of work. We have passed laws against child labor in Congress and in 
State legislatures. We are a strong partner in international efforts to 
eradicate child labor. Yet, the consumptive demand loophole--child 
labor, forced labor--allows those products produced in that fashion to 
come into the United States. We have allowed the consumptive demand 
loophole to stay on the books.
  Since the 1990s, there have been valiant efforts by some of my 
colleagues to fix this. I want to acknowledge Senator Harkin for his 
efforts. He has since retired, at the beginning of this year. Senator 
Sanders, the junior Senator from Vermont, has been involved in this 
issue for a long time.
  Child labor is never OK. We are talking about children being forced 
to work in deplorable conditions, often under extreme duress. There is 
never--never a justification for that. And there is no compromise on 
this issue. No product made with forced labor should be allowed to come 
into the country, period. End of discussion. It is immoral. It is 
imperative to fix this, and we can fix this. The Senate should not 
remain silent on this issue. Now is the time to shut the door on this 
ugly chapter of U.S. law. We do it by passing the Customs bill today.
  All these provisions were added to the bill with strong bipartisan 
support in the Committee on Finance. It is imperative they make it to 
the President's desk. If we are going to continue to pursue an 
aggressive trade promotion agenda, we must combine it with equally 
strong trade enforcement language. Without enforcement, we are 
willfully stacking the deck for our foreign competitors and against 
American businesses and American workers. We see what happens when 
steel mills close. We see what happens when manufacturers close their 
doors because they can't compete with artificially cheap imports.

[[Page 6524]]

  Trade agreements and trade law without enforcement amount to no free 
trade at all. They amount to lawlessness. Without proper trade 
enforcement, American producers who play by the rules will continue to 
be undersold by foreign producers who are cheating the market. We can't 
leave our companies and our workers with no recourse against unfair, 
illegal business practices. That is why the Customs bill is so 
important. That is why the currency provisions, the level-the-playing-
field title V provision, and the ban on child labor are so very 
important.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to come to 
the floor to talk a little about the customs legislation that is now 
before us. As my colleague from Ohio just talked about, there are some 
very important provisions in this legislation that help to ensure that, 
yes, while we are expanding exports, we are also ensuring we have a 
more level playing field for our workers and our farmers.
  My State of Ohio is a State where we like exports. We have about 25 
percent of our factory jobs there because of exports. But we want to be 
sure we are getting a fair shake. Working with Senator Brown and 
others, we put together some great provisions that are going to be part 
of this customs legislation. I am hopeful we can get this passed. It is 
part of the Customs bill as it passed in the Committee on Finance, but 
I am also hopeful it will be in whatever provision goes over to the 
House and also is signed by the President into law.
  Growing exports, of course, is a top priority--I hope it is a top 
priority for everybody here in the Chamber--and therefore trade-opening 
agreements are a good idea because we want to knock down barriers for 
our farmers and our workers, who are doing everything we have asked 
them to do to be more competitive and yet still face unfair trade 
overseas. So we want to knock down those barriers. Some are tariff 
barriers and some are nontariff barriers.
  Where we have a trade agreement, we tend to export a lot more. Only 
about 10 percent of the world has a trade agreement with the United 
States. We don't have trade agreements with Europe or Japan or with 
China. But in that 10 percent of the global economy, we send 47 percent 
of our exports. So, yes, trade agreements are important to open up 
markets for us.
  Ninety-five percent of consumers live outside our borders, so we want 
to sell to them. By the way, when we don't continue to sell to them and 
expand that, what happens is other countries come in and take our 
markets, and therefore our economy becomes weaker and we lose jobs here 
in this country. That is what is happening right now. For the last 7 
years, we haven't been able to negotiate agreements because we have not 
had this promotion authority to be able to knock down barriers to 
trade. So that is important.
  But, colleagues, while we do that, we also have to be darn sure this 
level playing field occurs because otherwise we are not giving our 
workers and our farmers a fair shake. That is where we ought to be with 
a balanced approach--opening up more markets to our exports but also 
ensuring that trade is fair. There are a lot of ways to do that, and in 
this legislation before us we really help to keep our competitors' feet 
to the fire to make sure they are playing by the rules. One is with 
regard to trade enforcement cases. There is language in here that makes 
it easier for American companies to seek the relief they deserve when 
another country is selling products into the United States unfairly 
because they subsidize the product illegally or because they sell it at 
below their cost, which is called dumping.
  There are a lot of companies in Ohio that have had the opportunity to 
go to the International Trade Administration to seek remedy and some 
help, but often they find that it is so difficult to show they are 
injured, by the time they get help, it is too late. So what this 
legislation does is it says that when we have these trade cases, we 
want to have the ability to actually make our case and in a timely 
manner get some kind of relief. Otherwise, why do we have these laws? 
If you can't get timely relief, sometimes you find yourself so far 
underwater you can't get back on your feet. That is why I am really 
excited about passing this Customs bill, because if we do that, we will 
put in place a better way for companies to go to their government and 
to seek the relief their workers deserve and to get it in a timely 
manner so it can really help them.
  I was recently in northwest Ohio meeting with steelworkers to discuss 
one of these cases that has to do with Chinese tires coming into the 
United States. These particular workers were at Cooper Tire in Findlay, 
OH, which, by the way, just marked 100 years in business. We want them 
to be in business another 100 years, but they are having a tough time 
because they can't compete with tires being sold at below their cost. 
In response to the concerns they raised with me, I sent a letter to the 
Secretary of Commerce and called on the administration to vigorously 
investigate this case and to stand up for United Steelworkers in 
northwest Ohio.
  We now have a trade enforcement case we are working on involving the 
uncoated paper product made in Chillicothe, OH, at Glatfelter. Again, 
these are United Steelworker workers who are just asking for a fair 
shake. They want us to be sure that the paper being sent into the 
United States from other countries is being fairly traded and not 
illegally subsidized and not sold at below cost or dumped.
  So the tire case and the paper case are two examples where the 
material injury standard would really matter.
  This is an important time for us because in Ohio we have a lot of 
other cases too. In 2014, we had a couple of important trade victories. 
Last year, I worked with Senator Brown to support Ohio pipe and tube 
workers in Cleveland and the Mahoning Valley who are manufacturing 
parts to support the energy renaissance taking place in our State and 
around the country. I visited these pipe and tube manufacturers and met 
with the workers.
  By the way, these workers are doing a great job. Again, they have 
made concessions to be more competitive. The companies have put a big 
investment in their training and a big investment in technology, and 
they can compete if there is a level playing field, and they can win in 
the international competition.
  We won two trade enforcement cases just last year, among others 
against China, where they were illegally underselling and subsidizing 
their products. These victories brought some relief for Ohio pipe and 
tube makers and again gave us a chance to get back on our feet.
  We had another win just last month with regard to extending those 
tariffs to ensure we do have this more level playing field. That 
followed trade enforcement wins I supported for workers who manufacture 
hot rolled steel at ArcelorMittal in Cleveland; AK Steel in Middletown; 
washing machines at Whirlpool in Clyde, OH; and rebar at the Nucor 
plant in Marion, OH, but also rebar made elsewhere, including Byer 
Steel in Cincinnati. I visited both of those plants and talked to the 
workers. They are working hard. They understand they have to compete. 
They understand it is a global marketplace. They are willing to 
compete, but they want to be sure it is on a level playing field, and 
if we do pass this legislation, it will help them in terms of getting 
that.
  Again, I don't think it is fair for American companies to see 
products coming in here that are being subsidized and undersold and yet 
they are not able to get the relief they need. So I am hopeful we will 
be able to pass this legislation as part of the customs law that is 
going to come before the Senate. That material injury standard is what 
it ought to be to ensure that, although companies now have access to 
seek this remedy, that they can actually get the relief they need by 
having this relief provided more quickly and having the standard be one 
that can be met by American companies and workers who are being hit 
with these unfair trade practices.

[[Page 6525]]

  I am pleased this effort is supported by a lot of manufacturers all 
around the country. Today, I met with the fasteners from Ohio. These 
are the folks in Ohio who makes the nuts and bolts and so on. They are 
interested in this case because, again, they see the ability for them 
to get a remedy when they need it. It is also supported by US Steel, 
Timken Steel, Nucor Steel, United Steelworkers, and others. Again, it 
is a classic example of working together to help protect workers and 
jobs in places such as Ohio.
  By the way, I hope it will pass as part of the Customs bill, but, 
again, I hope it is also made part of whatever legislation goes over to 
the House and to the President for his signature, and that may well be 
the legislation that includes trade promotion authority.
  I am also pleased that this Customs bill includes a measure that 
protects American workers and manufacturers called the ENFORCE Act. It 
is also part of this package of bills that is in the customs 
legislation. I have supported and cosponsored this bipartisan bill with 
Senator Wyden since it was introduced back in 2011. I have been proud 
to be the lead Republican on this legislation because, just as I talked 
about how that bipartisan bill with Senator Brown on the material 
injury standard is so important, we have to be sure that once we win a 
trade case, countries don't use diversion to go around whatever 
provisions are put in place.
  Let me give an example. Sometimes a case is won against one country, 
but then they evade those higher tariffs by moving the production to 
another country, and they do it precisely because the trade case has 
been won. It is kind of hard to keep up with that, and that is why this 
legislation allows the administration to go after this issue of customs 
evasion. Sometimes companies are spending millions of dollars a year 
fighting these evasion schemes. A lot of time and effort is put into 
it.
  It is extremely concerning that these goods continue to illegally 
enter the country through illegal transshipment and falsified country-
of-origin labeling, sometimes undervalued invoices to pay less for 
duties, and sometimes misclassifying goods so they can slip through our 
customs without being subject to tariffs.
  Let me give an example of this. Workers in Ohio produce prestressed 
concrete steel wire strand, called PC strand. It is one of our big 
products in Ohio. We are proud to produce it. It is actually made from 
carbon wire rod that is used to compress concrete structural members to 
allow them to withstand very heavy loads. This would be for let's say 
bridges, parking garages, and certain concrete foundations.
  There are 250 workers at American Spring Wire in Bedford, OH, and I 
visited them and talked to them. They are very interested in this 
provision because it helps them. Along with two other producers, they 
were a petitioner in a successful trade case against China a couple of 
years ago.
  As a result of that action, both antidumping duties and also 
countervailing duties were put in place. Why? Because this product was 
coming in illegally subsidized and it was dumped--in other words, sold 
at below cost. So they went through the right process and were able to 
get these tariffs in place as it related to China; however, Chinese 
traders began to approach U.S. producers and importers with proposals 
even before the case ended to circumvent this so that the trade orders 
that would be in place with regard to China would be circumvented by 
sending this product through a third country, where this strand would 
be relabeled and possibly repackaged to reflect a different country of 
origin. By doing so, these antidumping and countervailing duties would 
be avoided.
  And once these trade orders against PC strand were entered, Malaysia 
did indeed become a new source--a significant new source of imports 
through use of this transshipment approach.
  So that is what this legislation goes after. It says, look, when you 
do this--these kinds of schemes, the U.S. Government is required to 
investigate these cases, and requires Customs to make a preliminary 
determination when they have suspicion of this happening. This is a big 
step forward. Again, it is going to help companies, not just 
successfully go through the process and the great cost of winning one 
of these cases but actually having it mean something to them and their 
workers by ensuring companies don't evade it by going to a third 
country.
  Another way we can support American jobs that is in this customs 
legislation is called the miscellaneous tariffs bill. I am pleased it 
includes a bipartisan bill that I coauthored. I authored this bill with 
Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri. I thank her, and I also thank a 
couple of other cosponsors who have been very helpful in getting this 
legislation into the Customs bill and getting it onto the floor of the 
Senate. That includes Senator Burr of North Carolina and Senator Toomey 
of Pennsylvania.
  Senator Toomey has been very helpful, because under the old way, if 
we dealt with miscellaneous tariff bills, it was really considered an 
earmark because it was sort of a rifleshot, where individual Members 
would take up the cause. He has been very helpful in bringing that 
issue to the fore and ensuring that under our legislation we are not 
going to have earmarks. In fact, we are going to be able to have the 
International Trade Commission be involved to determine what the merits 
of the cases are, not individual Members of Congress. That is very 
important to me. Senator Burr has been very helpful to kind of bring 
the textile interests to bear here, to ensure that as we are looking at 
this issue of miscellaneous tariff bills, we are ensuring that the 
textile industry is protected as are our other manufacturers.
  The miscellaneous tariff bill is interesting. This is for extension 
of miscellaneous tariffs that suspend or lower tariffs on a product 
that is an input to a manufacturing facility in the United States, 
where there is no available product in the United States of America.
  Right now we are paying tariffs on products coming in here where 
there is no competition in America. If we can, through these 
miscellaneous tariff bills, either reduce or eliminate these duties, it 
will be less costly for our manufacturers to compete around the world 
and less costly for our consumers. So this is a good thing for our 
economy. It is something we ought to be promoting, and I thank our 
leadership for getting this into the customs legislation. Let's deal 
with this MTB issue.
  By the way, the old legislation expired back in January of 2013--
January of 2013. Since that time, American manufacturers and consumers 
have been paying a much higher import duty, which is essentially higher 
taxes, than they should have to pay. That means they can't put money 
into raising wages, increasing benefits for American workers, and 
maintaining our competitiveness.
  There is a recent study out showing the failure to pass this MTB 
legislation has resulted in a tax hike on U.S. manufacturers of $748 
million--an economic loss of $1.8 billion over the past several years.
  This legislation is backed by the National Association of 
Manufacturers, along with 185 associations and companies that urge us 
to quickly act on this, including 8 of those companies and associations 
in my home State of Ohio. So this is a reform bill that immediately 
restarts this MTB process later this year, resolves these earmark 
concerns that we had previously, and allows us to preserve Congress's 
traditional and constitutional role in trade policy. It is the right 
balance. I am excited it is in this Customs bill, along with the other 
provisions I talked about.
  Next week, I plan to talk more about another issue. It is not in the 
customs legislation, but it will be in the legislation debate regarding 
trade promotion authority.
  We talked earlier about the importance of expanding exports through 
trade promotion authority but also ensuring we had this level playing 
field. Part of the level playing field is ensuring that countries do 
not manipulate their currency, which takes away so

[[Page 6526]]

many of the benefits of a trade agreement. Chairman Volcker of the Fed 
has said something I think that is interesting in this regard. He has 
said that in five minutes, exchange rates can wipe out what it took 
trade negotiators ten years to accomplish.
  We will talk more about this next week as we talk about trade 
promotion authority, because I do intend to offer an amendment that is 
targeted, that is not going to be a poison pill in any respect because 
I think it will actually help us get more votes for trade, which is an 
important thing, and it is also something that, frankly, does not 
affect the TPP countries immediately because none of them are violating 
the provisions of the IMF--International Monetary Fund--which is what 
we use for our definition of currency manipulation, but they have in 
the past, and we don't want them to in the future. We don't want them 
to take away the very benefits that American workers and farmers get 
from these trade agreements.
  I appreciate the time today to talk about this customs legislation. I 
am excited to have it on the floor tomorrow and have the chance to vote 
on all these very important enforcement provisions, to ensure that our 
workers and our farmers are getting a fair shake.
  Then, next week, I hope we will have the opportunity to take up trade 
promotion authority and move that forward, again, in a way to ensure 
that we are lowering these barriers overseas for our farmers, our 
workers, our service providers, so we can access those 95 percent of 
consumers who are outside of our borders and send more stuff stamped 
``Made in America'' all around the world, adding jobs in Ohio and 
America.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________