[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 771-772]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share some thoughts tonight, 
before we go out, about the trade issue this Nation is facing, and it 
is a highly significant issue. The President is expected to sign the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership on February 4. It is a historic event. It 
cannot become law of the United States of America. It is detrimental to 
this economy. It is particularly detrimental to people who go to work 
every day and would like more jobs. They would like higher paying jobs 
and better benefits. It is detrimental to that, and we are going to 
establish that point. We have a Presidential campaign going on today 
and people need to talk about it. The American people need to know 
where their candidates stand on it.
  Well, let me share a few thoughts tonight and begin this discussion. 
The President is expected to sign the agreement on February 4. He 
negotiated this agreement with 11 different countries in the Pacific 
region. At some point he will implement legislation and then Congress 
will vote on whether to go forward. The legislation is part of the 
fast-track process, so it will not be filibustered. The bill will come 
up on a simple majority vote. No amendments will be allowed. It will 
simply be an up-or-down vote.
  What is happening in the world trade market today? On Monday, January 
25 of this week, Ford announced that they were leaving the Japanese and 
Indonesian markets. Indonesia and Japan are good friends of ours. They 
are good countries, but they are tough trading partners. Why did Ford 
leave Japan? They sell automobiles all over the world. They sell them 
in Europe, Mexico, and South America. Why are they not able to compete 
in Japan?
  What did Ford say? They said that nontariff barriers have prevented 
them from selling cars in the market. In 2015, Ford sold less than 
5,000 cars in Japan, representing six-tenths of 1 percent of the 
Japanese automobile market. In fact, only 6 percent of the automobiles 
sold in Japan are manufactured outside of Japan. It is not a question 
of tariffs. That is not the problem in dealing with Japan and importing 
cars into Japan. The Japanese have erected substantial nontariff 
barriers. In fact, Hyundai, a very fine South Korean automobile company 
in my state, attempted to sell in Japan for some time, and they 
recently gave up.
  What is the policy of Japan? The truth is Japan talks about free 
trade, but like most of our Asian allies and trading competitors, they 
are mercantile. The essence of having a successful mercantile economy 
is to export more and import less. This is the reality we are dealing 
with. The people who are and have been negotiating our trade agreements 
don't seem to understand this or don't care. In fact, they basically 
say: Well, if someone sells a product cheaper here, we don't care. We 
will buy it. They don't worry if we can't sell products in their 
country.
  A trading agreement is a contract between two nations--we were all 
taught that in law school--and it should serve the interests of both 
parties. When a contract ceases to advantage both parties, you abandon 
the contract. It shouldn't be signed or it should end.
  What else about this agreement? It creates an international 
commission--a commission of the 11 or 12 countries, including the 
United States. The language, by definition of our own administration, 
is that the agreement is a living agreement.
  The Presiding Officer is a fine lawyer. He has worked at the court of 
appeals. I know a living agreement makes the hair on the back of his 
neck stand up. It makes you nervous. A living agreement is no agreement 
at all. It can just be changed. They acknowledge and repeatedly say in 
the fast-track documents that nations can meet and change the agreement 
anytime they want. They can update it for changed circumstances, which 
is what activist judges say when they redefine the meaning of the U.S. 
Constitution. They like to say that they are updating it for changed 
circumstances.
  Well, Congress is supposed to do that, it seems to me, but anyway 
this agreement is a living agreement. It contains

[[Page 772]]

5,554 pages. It is twice the length of the Holy Scriptures. It includes 
section 27, which sets up an international commission with nearly 
unregulated power. In fact, our own U.S. Trade Representatives--our own 
Web site--states that the Commission is formed ``to enable the updating 
of the agreement as appropriate to address trade issues that emerge in 
the future as well as new issues that arise with the expansion of the 
agreement to include new countries.'' Congress would be launching such 
an event into the future. Well, what is our problem?
  Well, what is one of the major problems that we have today? It is our 
substantial trade deficit. One report, which I think is probably 
conservative, says that one-half of 1 percent of the GDP has been lost 
in the United States as a result of our trade deficit. That is probably 
an acceptable economic estimate, and that is significant. When you have 
2 percent GDP, you are losing 25 percent based on the trade deficit. We 
have to have growth in this country, more GDP, more Americans working, 
more people with better jobs and better pay, and part of that is 
manufacturing.
  The final figures for 2015 are expected to show that the bilateral 
trade deficit with China is increased to 8 percent to a record of 
around $365 billion. China is not a part of these 12 nations, but it 
has openly been said that they could be made a part of it in the future 
if countries vote them in.
  According to the Economic Policy Institute, growing U.S. trade 
deficits with China through 2013 eliminated 3.2 million jobs. Is that 
an accurate figure? I don't know for sure, but no one disputes that 
trade deficits with China have cost more than 1 million jobs. When you 
lose 1 million jobs, people go on welfare, need unemployment 
compensation or retire early. All of these are damaging events to the 
American economy.
  The White House claims that this Trans-Pacific Partnership 
Agreement--this trade agreement--is critical to limit China's economic 
influence. We are going to hear about that a lot. We are going to hear 
the national security argument. However, a new study just released this 
month by the World Bank shows that China will actually see an increase 
in export potential if the TPP is approved by Congress. It is not going 
to constrict China. The World Bank says it is going to increase China's 
ability to export.
  The report by the World Bank stated that the overall impact on China 
would be ``really negligible.'' It is not a good argument to state that 
it is somehow going to boost other economies in the United States as it 
relates to China. China is not going to be hurt by this agreement.
  The World Bank study further reports that Japan would see an extra 
economic growth of 2.7 percent by 2030 while the United States could 
expect only nominal growth of perhaps four-tenths of 1 percent.
  Robert Scott of the Economic Policy Institute states that the TPP 
could slow the reshoring of American jobs, especially in the automobile 
sector.
  We have had a nice development in recent years. My State has 
benefited so tremendously from foreign automobile investments. Instead 
of making automobiles in Korea, Germany, and Japan, they built plants 
around the country, and some were built in my home State of Alabama, 
and make the automobiles there.
  I don't think there is any doubt that this agreement could reduce job 
reshoring because there is a small tariff on imported automobiles and 
that would be eliminated so that little advantage in moving a plant to 
the United States would be lost.
  Get this. The Fact Checker at the Washington Post gave the 
President's claim that the Trans-Pacific Partnership would create 
650,000 jobs four Pinocchios. That is a pretty bad falsehood. They 
ought to give it five Pinocchios.
  Let's talk about reality. I have talked about trade agreements. 
Republicans favor trade agreements. I favor trade agreements, but they 
have to be good agreements. You have to be careful. What about this 
Korea trade agreement with our friends in South Korea. They are smart 
negotiators. Last year our trade deficit with South Korea from January 
to November--we don't have the numbers for December yet--was $26 
billion. Maybe the rest of the year will be about $28 to $29 billion. 
That would be about 15 percent higher than last year's trade deficit 
with South Korea.
  President Obama signed the agreement in 2010. When he signed it, 
President Obama promised that the South Korea trade deal would increase 
American exports to South Korea by $11 billion a year. All right. I 
want to be cooperative. We like our allies in South Korea, and I voted 
for the agreement. But what happened? Over 11 months of last year the 
United States exported 1.2 billion more than we did when the deal was 
signed in 2010--not $10 or $11 billion more, $1.2 billion. The year 
before that it was $0.8 billion. We haven't seen a surge of exports to 
South Korea. Didn't the negotiators know that? They told us 
differently.
  What about South Korea's imports to the United States--their exports 
to the United States; what about them? They have risen not $1 billion 
but instead $20 billion. Since 2010 our trade deficit with South Korea 
has risen nearly 260 percent, from $10 billion in 2010 to about $28 
billion last year. That is a stunning development.
  So we are going to have to vote on this. And we have been told and we 
have beliefs that things are going to be better than that. It is not 
happening in that way. I urge us to study the facts and figures to be 
realistic. Trade is a good thing, and I have been a supporter. But it 
is not a religion with me. It is a contract. It is a deal, and deals 
are to serve the interests of the American people. It has not been 
doing so. Even the Peterson Institute, which supports these trade 
agreements, said there would be 120,000 fewer manufacturing jobs over 
the next 9 years if this agreement takes place in the United States.
  Mr. President, I see our leader. He has had a busy week. I appreciate 
the opportunity to share these remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________