[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9302-9304]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last month, the Senate passed the 
Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 
2015, which renews trade promotion authority or TPA. Years of hard work 
and compromise enabled us to pass this bill with strong bipartisan 
support in the Senate. Now with the Senate having already acted, all of 
our eyes are turned to the House of Representatives, where I know the 
Speaker and the Republican leadership, not to mention the chairman of 
the House Ways and Means Committee, who is the coauthor of the bill, 
are working to move this important bill forward.
  I want to take some time to address some of the concerns I have heard 
from our House colleagues and others about this bill and the concept of 
TPA, in general. For example, I know some have claimed that TPA cedes 
too much congressional authority to the executive branch. This is a 
particularly troublesome proposition for some of my Republican House 
colleagues who might be wary of granting new powers to the current 
occupant of the White House.
  Now, let me be clear. I have spent as much time as anyone in Congress 
criticizing President Obama's Executive overreach. I have come to the 
floor numerous times to catalog all the ways the current administration 
has overstepped its authority on issues ranging from health care to 
immigration, to labor policy. In fact, I was here just yesterday 
talking about efforts on the part of the administration to unilaterally 
undermine welfare reform.
  So when people say they are worried about legislation that would take 
power from Congress and give it to this President, believe me, I 
understand. I would worry about that, too, but that is not what our TPA 
legislation does. Simply put, TPA is a compact between the House, the 
Senate, and the administration.
  With TPA in place, the administration agrees to pursue negotiating 
objectives established by Congress and is required to consult with 
Congress on a regular basis during the whole negotiating process. In 
return, the House and Senate agree to vote on any trade agreement that 
meets those requirements under a specified timeline without amendments. 
The President does not have any new powers under this compact and 
Congress does not give up any powers.
  In fact, the primary purpose of TPA is to enhance Congress's role in 
the negotiating process. That is right. Despite some claims that TPA is 
an abrogation of congressional power, the opposite is actually true. 
Without TPA, the Members of Congress and their constituents have no 
strong voice on establishing our trade priorities. With TPA, Congress 
can define trade negotiating objectives and priorities.
  Without TPA, the administration is under no formal obligation to 
provide Congress with meaningful information on the status of ongoing 
trade negotiations. With TPA, Congress can require the administration 
to provide frequent updates and consultations. For example, the Senate-
passed TPA bill will ensure that any Member of Congress who wants 
access to the negotiating text, at any time during the negotiations, 
will get that access.
  In addition, Members of Congress will, once again at any time, be 
able to

[[Page 9303]]

request and receive a briefing from the USTR, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, on the current status of ongoing trade negotiations. In 
other words, TPA gives Congress a much stronger say in the substance of 
our country's trade negotiations and provides mechanisms to hold the 
administration far more accountable.
  Right now, the Obama administration is negotiating trade agreements 
with only ad hoc and informal direction from Congress. That will change 
once Congress renews TPA. Still, I know there are some who believe that 
by agreeing not to allow amendments or filibusters of trade agreements, 
Congress is giving up most of its power to influence trade agreements 
on the back end once an agreement is actually signed.
  Again, let me be clear. Under TPA, Congress at all times--all times--
maintains the ultimate authority over a trade agreement, the power to 
reject it entirely. TPA does not guarantee the passage of any trade 
agreement now or in the future, nor does it, as some have argued, 
reduce votes in Congress to a ``rubberstamp'' for the administration.
  This is important, as there has been some confusion on this point. 
With the coming vote on TPA, the House of Representatives is not voting 
to approve any individual trade agreement. I know pundits and talking 
heads in the media have tried to conflate passage of TPA with 
Congress's approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but in reality 
these are separate and distinct propositions.
  Case in point: Over the last couple of years, I have been the most 
outspoken advocate in Congress in favor of renewing TPA. However, 
throughout that time, I have made it abundantly clear that my support 
for TPA does not guarantee any support for the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership. Indeed, I am fully prepared to vote against the TPP if the 
administration falls short on reaching high-priority negotiating 
objectives. Many on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the 
aisle have informed them of some of these high-priority negotiating 
objectives.
  But even if maintaining the power to accept or reject the trade 
agreement is not enough, the Senate-passed TPA bill contains 
procedures, including an all-new procedure that will enable Congress to 
strip procedural protections from any trade agreement if it determines 
there was inadequate consultation or that the negotiating objectives 
have not been met.
  Additionally, under the bill, both the House and the Senate maintain 
their constitutional prerogative to change their respective rules to 
override TPA. So as you can see, the Congress has not given up any of 
its powers under TPA. In addition to preserving and enhancing 
Congress's role in trade policy, the Senate-passed TPA bill contains a 
number of provisions that actually constrain the administration as it 
negotiates and implements new trade agreements.
  For example, the bill ensures that implementing bills to trade 
agreements will include--and I am quoting the text of the bill here--
``only such provisions as are strictly necessary or appropriate to 
implement'' trade agreements. Additionally, the bill makes clear that 
any commitments made by the administration that are not disclosed to 
Congress before an implementing bill for an agreement is introduced 
will not be considered as part of the agreement and will have no force 
of law.
  Furthermore, the bill also ensures that trade agreements cannot be 
used to undermine U.S. sovereignty, another concern I have heard about 
TPA and one I wanted to make sure we were protecting against. The bill 
accomplishes this goal in four important ways; first, it makes clear 
that any provision of the trade agreement that is inconsistent with 
Federal or State law will have no effect; second, the bill states 
specifically that Federal and State laws will prevail in the event of a 
conflict with the trade agreement; third, it affirms that no trade 
agreement can prevent Congress or the States from changing their laws 
in the future; fourth, it confirms that the administration cannot 
unilaterally change U.S. law.
  All of these provisions have been drafted with an eye toward 
maintaining the separation of powers and ensuring that no 
administration can use trade agreements to unilaterally write U.S. laws 
or policy. Now, we have all heard claims that the President intends to 
use trade agreements to change our immigration laws or enact strict 
climate change standards. TPA ensures that throughout the process of 
negotiating, finalizing, and approving a trade agreement, Congress 
stays in the driver's seat.
  Finally, I want to address the concerns I have heard about the 
supposed secrecy surrounding the TPP agreement. Some of our House 
colleagues, as well as a number of people in the media, have decried 
the fact that details of the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, have 
not yet been made public. They have also argued that by renewing the 
TPA before the details of the deal are disclosed, Congress would be 
enabling further secrecy. Again, this reflects a simple 
misunderstanding of simple negotiation tactics.
  The TPP is still being negotiated. As with any high-stakes 
negotiation, some level of confidentiality is a must if we are going to 
get the best deal possible with 11 other countries at the table.
  In all sensitive negotiations, there is a time for disclosure and a 
time to hold your cards close to your chest. So I recognize that with 
trade negotiations, our government is negotiating on behalf of the 
American people. We need to ensure that the maximum amount of 
transparency is possible.
  Fortunately, the Senate-passed TPA bill strikes an appropriate 
balance to deal with these issues, providing unprecedented levels of 
transparency and oversight into the trade-negotiating process. Under 
our bill, the full text of a completed trade agreement must be made 
public at least 60 days before the President can even sign it--be made 
public at least 60 days before the President can even sign it. Talk 
about transparency--this is an all-new requirement, giving the American 
people new and unprecedented access and knowledge of all trade 
agreements well before they are even submitted to the Congress for 
approval.
  After that 60-day period has expired and the President signs an 
agreement, he must submit to Congress the legal text of the trade 
agreement and a Statement of Administrative Action at least 30 days 
before formally submitting an implementing the bill. As I noted 
earlier, the bill includes all-new requirements giving Members of 
Congress access to text and information throughout the negotiating 
process.
  Any Member of the House of Representatives that supports free trade 
who is concerned about the secrecy of current negotiations should be 
the first in line to support the Senate-passed TPA bill. Once again, 
any supporters of expanded U.S. exports who are also wary of executive 
overreach should be trumpeting their support for our bill.
  The Senate TPA bill enhances Congress's role in trade negotiations. 
The Senate TPA bill maintains Congress's power to accept or reject any 
future trade agreement. The Senate TPA bill prevents the President from 
pursuing unilateral changes to U.S. law or policy. And the Senate TPA 
bill provides unprecedented levels of transparency and oversight into 
these trade agreements or into any trade agreements that may come 
forward, including TPP.
  I am sure that some of the cynics out there have one more question: 
If TPA imposes all of these requirements and restrictions on the 
administration, why does the President want it so badly?
  The answer to that question is simple. TPA is necessary in order for 
our negotiators to get a good deal. We know this is the case. Without 
TPA in place, our negotiating partners have no guarantees that the deal 
they sign will be one Congress will consider.
  Without those guarantees, they are less likely to put their best 
offers on the table because they will have no assurance that our 
country can deliver on the deal or any deal they enter into with us. 
Make no mistake, we need to get good deals at the negotiating table.
  More than 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside of our 
country,

[[Page 9304]]

the United States. If our farmers, manufacturers, and entrepreneurs are 
going to compete on the world stage, they need access to these 
customers.
  History has shown that high-standard free-trade agreements expand 
market access for U.S. exporters and reduce our trade deficits. Most 
importantly, they grow our economy, create good, high-paying jobs for 
workers here at home, and improve living standards for our citizens and 
for our trading partners. If the United States is going to advance its 
values and interests in the international marketplace, we need to be 
writing the rules and setting the standards. We cannot do that if we 
are sitting on the sidelines.
  This is an important bill. I was very pleased to see it pass the 
Senate with bipartisan support.
  I hope that in the coming days, we will see a similar result in the 
House of Representatives.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

                          ____________________