Objectives. That last point, with respect to Monetary Policy, i think is really the flaw in this particular amendment. This amendment runs the risk of getting us into the business of establishing rules for Monetary Policy and in effect constraining our Monetary Policy and mr. Chairman i would ask unanimous consent to put into the record, an excerpt of testimony from Federal Reserve chairman yellen to the Senate Banking committee and i will briefly touch on her major observances. I will put into the record. Colleagues, janet yellen observed that she is very committed about the movements to the trade agreements or in any way hamper our ability to have Monetary Policy that was designed to address the major domestic directives of the day. We all understand what the fed is all about is trying to find price stability and maximum employment. But trying to get this right. To calibrate that challenging balance you have to make sure that you are not restraining Monetary Policy. So with reluctance i have to oppose the amendment and i would urge colleagues to think through the ramifications of this amendment for american Monetary Policy at a time when clearly we want to grow more family wage jobs in our country and we dont want to keep Federal Reserve from having as much flexibility as possible with respect to the monetary tools they will need to bring that about. As a cosponsor let me just say i will not be listed as a cosponsor. Would you mind if i recognize her . Im sorry mr. Chairman, i thought as the cosponsor i would have a chance thank you very much. I did want to respond first of all to say it is a pleasure working with senator portman on this and all of my there are rules on Monetary Policy and all the countries involved have signed up. They wont manipulate their currency but there is no enforcement. So we already have the monetary policies. We are just deciding that maybe it ought to be real this time, because of what is happening in terms of job loss. So mr. Chairman, i appreciate the fact that there is language for the first time and negotiating principles and an objective that is put in. I appreciate that on currency practices but without language that says it needs to be enforceable which is what this amendment does. It just doesnt do what needs to be done. I have said so money times, but i feel compelled to say again. Two years ago, senator graham and i authored a letter signed by 60 members of the senate indicating we all wanted to have enforceable currency language in any bill that passed. And that is what this does. It could go farther and say you cannot get back track authority unless you have current enforceable currency language in a trade agreement. I would be happy to do that. That is not what this says. This says as a negotiating objective, whatever we do we just have to have enforceable provisions and i would finally mr. Chairman want to know because of the strong feelings of the Automobile Industry and japan, i know this is often referred to as the auto amendment, which i am proud to say, they are deeply concerned and in support of this. But i would like to indicate for the record that the u. S. Business and Industry Council is endorsing the american iron and Steel Institute and the alliance for american manufacturing. A whole host of auto suppliers that represent many of our states are also on board with this. This is very serious and if we are giving fasttrack authority to negotiate trade agreements than making sure this provision is strong and enforceable is absolutely critical. I join with my colleague in urging a yes vote. You are speaking for the administration on this panel . Yes. Speaking for the treasury department. Would you turn your mic phone on . I am speaking for the treasury department, yes. Does the Obama Administration regard this amendment as a poison pill . We are concerned about this provision with respect to derail negotiations. So yes you regard this as a so yes you regard this as a poison pill . We are very concerned about the impact. We would consider it to be a poison pill, yes, sir. I want to see this legislation passed. I believe strongly in trade and i believe it is good for the country good for wages and the economy and jobs. As much as i respect my distinguished friend from ohio and i regard him as an expert. I do worry that given the fragile compromise that the chairman and Ranking Member have undertaken, if something is added to this legislation which jeopardizes its passage and ultimately that to me is a path we should not go down. If the administration, president obama and his administration regard this as a poison pill, i dont know what the vote count is on the democratic side. I know this is a difficult issue and the currency in relation issues are difficult on our side as well. I am very concerned that if it is adopted that we wont be able to achieve our objective and that concerns me greatly. I have to say that if this amendment passes, you can kiss tpp goodbye. Would you disagree . I would say it would make i cannot hear you. I agree. It would derail the negotiation. This is one of the few times we can really get a good agreement with japan. We have come a long way and not just a pat not just japan, there are 11 nations. So i am concerned about this amendment. I have great feelings about it myself. I think it makes it difficult to carry the bill through. I think all of us are concerned about these issues but we also have to deal with practicalities as well and i am very concerned about it. I support the amendment and not get fasttrack authority unless you have a strong currency enforcement provision. This is strong and good, but it is in fact i believe a reasonable middle ground. It is not enough for me. Mr. Chairman i would like to say we appreciate the candor of our friend from michigan but this at some point will be a matter of counting the votes. So if adopting this amendment does not gain us votes but loses them in the final passage that it strikes me as the poison pill. We will have senator portman sum it up. Let me just say to my friend from texas, pass this and you it only takes two things. Two things that there is unbelievable support for. What did i hear . The secretary of the treasury recognized as people around the world are manipulating currency, because we are engaged in conversation with them for them not to do it. My advice back is what youre doing is not working and at some point you have to get out of the way and let us put the teeth into it so you get a parameter to accomplish what you acknowledged as a problem. Mr. Chairman, i understand how difficult this is i understand what the house said and what the white house said. But in this particular case, who can argue with us doing it right . This isnt a lot. You have a former trade representative trying to stick a currency manipulation thing in a bill, and they grew up learning to hate this stuff. It doesnt get you closer to a deal. We are not here to make every deal get us closer, we are here to get it right. Right for america and our partners. Adopt this. Thank you mr. Chairman, i liked what senator burr said. I dont do this lightly. I would make two comments about the back and forth. First, there is no better vote but but if he is voting against this because he thinks it jeopardizes the passage i think he has a blind spot. Ive mentioned a couple of members who told me that mr. Berg told me which is if you had currency they can support it because they are looking for the ability to say to their constituents and workers and farmers, this not only opens up markets but it does so in a way that helps tilt the Playing Field back toward the middle. There are members who are unable to support it because currency is not addressed. Im not suggesting that it isnt going to be a challenge for chairman hash to move this through the process, but if that is your standard that it jeopardizes the passage, with all due respect i would say this will help us get it done. And it helps trade. I am a big supporter of giving the people i represent the opportunity to access the consumers outside of our why . It creates good jobs and benefits. We have to be able to tell them that this will be fair. That is why this is the right combination. You said, it would derail the negotiations when you are pushed. Im not sure you actually said that, but those words were put in your mouth. Have you negotiated with a trading partner before . Have you dealt with the negotiating objectives . I have participated yes. So youre familiar with the fact that the negotiating objectives set out by this congress have considerable flexibility. Would you agree . I understand i can give you examples of several trade objectives that were never accomplished in the way congress hoped because there was inherent flexibility and objectives. Thats what it means. Its an objective. Beyond that we provide additional flexibility. We dont tell the negotiators how to get there. On purpose. We say follow the principles that these companies agreed to abide by and thereby lighting violating to the detriment of the people youre trying to represent. You guys come up with a remedy. Talk about retaliation. This is a specific one. I support his legislation well even go that far. It is reasonable and balanced in the focus is on how to get more support for trade. I would agree with the statements that senator burr said. This is not about derailing or making it harder. It is about how to be able to say with a straight face to the people who were hired, this is going to be good for you and your family to get ahead in life. Mr. Chairman i would hope you would get a positive vote on a bipartisan basis because i believe it will help to accomplish what you and i share, that we ought to be moving forward to put america back in the business of expanding exports and helping the people we represent. Colleagues, i voted for the schumer amendment and i voted for the bennett amendment because in my view neither of those amendments undermines americas ability to fight a financial crisis. I think this is an amendment that is a bridge too far. In particular, what swung me, and i urge our colleagues this is not the last time we will discuss this. To reflect on what the Federal Reserve chair has said. Janet yellen is a progressive democrat. I say that to my colleagues on this side of the aisle. She is concerned about what it will mean with respect to constraining Monetary Policy and the feds ability to maintain those objectives. I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to vote no. The bennett amendment made sense and i think this is a bridge too far. Let me say that the chairman and i spent days and nights trying to get both houses together on the most important legislation that this administration will have this year. So this is really important stuff. I have no doubt we can handle this on Something Else and you can help me find it. If you are prepared to vote i am prepared to vote. The clerk will call the role. [ calling role ] the clerk will report the vote. Mr. Chairman the final tally is 11 ayes, 15 nays. The amendment is defeated. We will go on to the next amendment. I think senator menendez, youre next. I would like to call amendment number one, which is basically an amendment that says no fasttrack for human traffickers. Human trafficking in the form of sexual exploitation, forced labor, forced marriage and the sale and exploitation of children is one of the great moral challenges of our time. The International Labor organization estimates there over a billion victims in the world and over five million children are involved in this and it is estimated to profit 150 billion making it the second largest source of income. We should not offer our services and benefits of access to our markets to countries that fail to act on this. Our state department puts on its tier three those countries that do not meet minimum International Standards and are not making significant efforts to do so. My amendment says we cannot provide fast track to countries on tier three. There are approximately 23 countries on that list and im disappointed to see that one of them malaysia is a party on there. They are a transit country. Malaysia is a destination. Mr. Chairman, please not in order. Malaysia is a destination and source and transit country for men, women and children subjected to forced labor and women and children subjected to sex trafficking. Many of the companies known as outsourcing Companies Recruit workers from foreign countries. Contractor based labor where the employee is employed by the Company Creates day to day employees are without legal responsibility for exploited practices. A complex system of recruitment and contracting fees often dedetected from workers wage s make them vulnerable to debt bondage. We are considering providing to countries that have high standards like canada japan new zealand and others are being given to a country that is on the state departments list as required under the Trafficking Victim protection act of 2000. We had a bipartisan vote on Human Trafficking in the United States senate. It seems to me we should make it clear you cannot violate Human Trafficking and enjoy the benefits of our trade. You clean up the act you can be part of it. I urge to adopt the amendment. When appropriate, i ask for the yays and nays. Well the clerk will call the role. Is there any further debate though . Let me make a statement. I want to thank the senator for his amendment because i share his goal in insuring the administration meets the objectives that Congress Sets out. But i am confidant the tpa bill already accomplishes this goal. We created two procedures for this committee to review and vote on whether the administration sufficiently achieved negotiation objectives. This amendment does nothing to strengthen our ability to hold the administration accountable. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and i think we would be better off voting no. Any further debate . Very briefly. It is hard to understand how having cast the votes in the senate on Human Trafficking and then say that as a negotiating objective, our own country that puts out a trafficking persons report and labels countries by tiers of how good to how bad they are, that some of the worst offenders should get access to our market. Now somebody can get off the tier three provision by cleaning up their act and then they are eligible. But i dont understand how it is a problem to make that determination and make that one of our negotiating objectives. We reached a compromise that solves the problem. All i can say is i appreciate the senator and his feelings about this but i hope we vote it down. Clerk will call the role. Mr. [ calling role ] mr. Chairman the final tally is 15 ayes and 11 nays. The amendment is agreed to. Do we already announce that vote . I would ask unanimous consent that it wont change the outcome to vote aye. Without objection. Ok. Who wants to be recognized for any further amendments mr. Chairman . Ok. I have an amendment and it states a principle negotiating objective of future trade agreements would be the mutual elimination of statesponsored export financing institutions. When the state sponsored finance institution was reauthorized in 2012, congress required the treasury secretary and i quote initiate and pursue negotiations to reduce with the goal of eliminating subsidize programs. The treasury has failed to meaningfully comply. There are no explanations of what concrete steps were taken pursuant to the law to reduce export somebodys desk export subsidies in the annual report. Here is the simple reality. Taxpayers are required to subsidize Certain Companies through the bank. That is what happened fe what happens. That is not good economics, it is not fair to the taxpayers, and the argument for why it is necessary is simple one i hear, everyone else does it. That is not persuasive to me but but i know it is persuasive to many of my colleagues. This amendment does not commit what some have suggested would be unilateral disarmament by suggesting the elimination of the bank we are asking for it to be a mutual elimination of the market distorting taxpayer burdening institutions. I think it is an important step we can take in the right direction. Mr. Chairman, i know your view on keeping the amendment relatively unamended so i will withdraw but i will revisit this because i dont think it is fair to force taxpayers to face this in indefinitely. I appreciate you for doing that. Senator . I would ask for amendment number three. It is amendment 109. Mr. Chairman . Could we speak briefly on this . Wait until we finish the last one and i will call it it. Chairman . Senator . Thank you. I definitely support credit financing for exports. And i definitely support credit financing for exports when banking organizations around the globe dont support it. I generally support trade and generally support helping build economies around the world. I think building economies around the world stabilizes things and when you stabilize economies around the world you stabilize the politics and policies of these governments we want to see changed. I wish the Banking Community would finance all of the export deals that we would like to do. I wish they would finance all of the Small Business deals we would like to do but they dont. That is why we have the sba to entice them by taking the risks out of the equation. But i want to support Small Business exports and that is not what the sba does but this credit agencies does. I appreciate the fact my colleague withdrew this but it doesnt cost the taxpayer money. It actually generates money to help pay down the deficit. I would say mr. Chairman we need to go in the opposite direction. When we get to the floor i plan to offer an amendment that will be germane to reauthorize the banks to open markets for u. S. Companies and kill the credit agencies that help Small Businesses and businesses in america export is the wrong idea. So i plan to continue this debate when we get to the floor but in the opposite direction. I hope my colleagues who think about trade in the context of what we want to do to grow our economy because i am supported. It is a big Economic Opportunity for the United States outside of the United States but too the tools and created agencies are part of the tools. Mr. Chairman, i want to inquire of my colleague here. My understanding of his reading of the amendment is you are asking as a matter of discussion or negotiation between our trading partners in mutual, you are trying to level the Playing Field, on this. You are not trying to eliminate unilateral import export bank, you are asking for a discussion and debate relative to reaching a mutual agreement which would level the Playing Field. Am i reading that correctly . If i could respond, senator from indiana is correct. What this amendment is not a unilateral elimination of the u. S. Taxpayer financing entity but state there is a negotiating objective and the mutual elimination with the goal being a phase out among our trading partners. Mr. Toomey raised an interesting point and opportunity for us to figure out a way to come to Common Ground on this issue. I agree with everything senator cantwell said. And the reality is we have to have this Credit Agency and the ability to compete because other countries around the world are doing it at much higher levels than we are. We are pikers compared to the vast majority of other countries. They subsidize way more. But senator toomey is right we should have an International Forum to resolve this and knock down all of the subsidies. That way we would have this i think it ought to be an objective of the United States government to go to our trading partners and work to get rid of these, they are trade distorting, and we would not have to rely on this. But in the meantime it is shooting ourselves in the foot and hurting a lot of suppliers in my home state of ohio if we simply unilaterally stop providing this support. Senator toomey has withdrawn this amendment. I dont see any reason for further discussion. I want to commend them for what he is talking about. Commend the senator from washington for what she said. It something we will have to face before the end of this year. And we will have to do it. But i would like to keep moving this markup forward. We are doing pretty good. I do think it is important that we be careful not to amend this because it is going to be difficult to get it through the house and i want it as clean and good as i possibly can for the chairman over there who has his hands full. I know what it is to have your hands full. I appreciate everybody and the cooperation we have had. We are prepared to go to another amendment. Senator scott you are on. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I am going to also follow senator toomeys approach and withdraw my amendment. It was to insure the accountability of regulatory negotiations are part of the agreement. My concern was to make sure nothing aviserates u. S. Nothing eviserates u. S. Sovereignty. My amendment fought to make sure it was spelled out. But certainly it is spelled out clearly. I think it is important to recognize that often times we find ourselves in a situation where an agreement suggests there is a different way for us to move forward as opposed to our u. S. Laws. Senator . Ok. Ok. Let me just say this. I appreciate your concern, senator scott. What you expressed in relation to this amendment. But i believe these concerns can be addressed without the need for an amendment. The tpa bill has extensive consultation requirements they must meet during, before and after negotiating an agreement. Each consultation addresses the amendment and your amendment as i understand mentions regulatory harmonization. I have a note that regulatory harmonization is forcing anyone to change their standards. It means where our trading partners have the same standards as we do, our governments will look for way do is make those regulations more efficient. If the standards are the same, there is no reason for our businesses to have to fill out one form for doing business at home and another set when they sell their products in europe. I pledge to work with you, senator scott, to try to resolve these in a manner that pleases you and others that support that but i would ask you to withdraw the amendment. Thank you. I withdraw the amendment. Thank you so much. Senators that a no and then i will go to senator brown. I know there are a number of amendments. I do have a number of amendments but i will only ask for votes on two. I have a number of amendments but i will not offer all of them. I only have two i would like to offer and ask for a vote on. And to go back to currency one more time and because this so important and so many of us worked so hard on this. I would bring up amendment number two, it very simply just in effect says the currency negotiating objective that is in tpa would be mandatory and a trade agreement would lose fast track consideration if there was not something in there on currency manipulation. It doesnt say what or how but if you dont have a provision to address this the agreement would not receive fast track consideration. And i would ask colleagues who are concerned about some of the language in the other amendment. We are not talking about wto or anything like that. Just you need to have something regarding currency manipulation to get the fast track authority. The amendment seeks to prohibit trade procedures for trade agreements with countries engaging in quote protracted large scale intervention unquote on Foreign Exchange markets for the purpose of gaining trade advantage. Unfortunately the amendment runs into the problem faced by trade representatives and treasury. That problem is determining and labeling a countries at one that manipulates the Bilateral Exchange rate and identifying that manipulation for trade again. I dont believe it provides enough information about how persistent this would have been what quote interventions mean, whether capital control would have to be considered and nomi nominal interventions and how long the prohibition on fast tracking into a trade agreement would last. I do not believe the amendment put into place an effective mechanisms of deterance. I would urge my colleagues to not support this and i am open to anyone who wants to make comment on this. Do you want to vote . I do. Clerk will call the roll. [ calling roll ] clerk will report. The tally is 9 ayes and 17 nays. The amendment is defeated. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I will try another and hopefully we can get bipartisan support for it. It amends the core labor section that indicates we would have equal pay for men and women of work of equal value as set forth in the convention of 100 considering equal pay for men and women workers for work of equal value. Basically, putting in place as we work with other countries to improve their standards, a stipulation as to encourage equal pay for equal work. We are negotiating with countries that have abysmal labor standards and for women it can be a disaster in terms of the way women are paid. This would simply indicate we should empathize the importance of equal pay for women. What amendment number is that . Im sorry. That is number four. Amendment number four. You have a Committee Number on that . Number 96. Let me say i cannot support this. If we add this it makes it complex to pass it. I recommend we vote no. I thank you for the amendment because i share her goal of insuring the administration meets the negotiating objectives that Congress Sets out. But i am confident the tpa bill that senator widen and paul ryan already introduced will take care of many of these matters it seems to me. I hope you will support us in this. And vote no on this amendment. If there are any further comment on this. I meant to ask consent for senator cantwell and senator brown to cosponsor the amendment. Without objection. Senator brown . Senator brown . That ammendment is dispensed with . No . Then i withdraw. The clerk will call the roll. ] calling roll ] the tally is 10 ayes 16 nays. The amendment is defeated. Mr. Bennett . I would long to recognize bennett number one and in the spirit, the way you conducted this hearing i will withdraw the amendment but i would like to speak to it. I am starting to love you. I feel the same way. This amendment is simple. It would make clear through the new principle negotiating objective we should contribute the elimination of poverty and hunger. This would show this isnt just a way to open Global Commerce but an opportunity to combat global poverty. Trade and Foreign Investment are playing an Important Role in global development. If we get trade right, we have the power to positively influence the global fight against poverty and hunger. In 2012, developing countries represented 60 times greater than official aid. And that number is only growing. Trades potential to combat hunger and poverty is not assured and continuities sustainable without clear intent. We need to make it clear that eliminating poverty and hunger around the world are defined objectives of u. S. Trade policy. This will ensure that our trade negotiators present and future consider how trade can boost the livelihoods of the most vulnerable and contribute to Food Security poverty reduction, and the elimination of hunger around the world. I really believe that with this provision in tpa we will set an expectation of addressing hunger and Poverty Issues in all future trade agreements, something that gets to the heart of American Values and our moral responsibility to harness the power of trade to assist people in need here at home, and around the world. Mr. Chairman as i mentioned, i will withdraw the amendment but look forward to working with you and the Ranking Members as we move toward the floor. I thank my friend from colorado. I appreciate that very much. Were work out some attempts. We do need a few minutes, and then well go to senator brown. Lets have a fewminute lapse here. Yeah. I hope members will stay. Were going to get through this as fast as we can. So dont leave. Well, theyre working on that stuff. Youre wasting a lot of time. Why cant we just go ahead . In other words, youre work out some amendments back there. Still we can work on amendments here. Senator grassley is chastising the chairman. And i accept the chastisement. Why dont we move ahead on the next amendment . Senator brown. Ill make it easy. And thank you, senator grassley, for moving forward. And thank you, mr. Chairman, for your tolerance and all. This is amendment brown amendment number 8. Brown amendment number 8 negotiating objective with respect to Public Health. Freed trade agreements have significant Public Health implications. Yet the underlying bill does not include a negotiating objective on Public Health. This amendment would insert an objective on Public Health that makes four key points. Number one, our trade agreements should strengthen the 2007 bipartisan agreement on trade policy that was the socalled may 10th the may 10g9 proposal that was adopted. Number two, it should comply with trips the World Intellectual Property Organization Development Agenda and the World Health Organization resolution on Public Health, innovation and significantly intellectual property. Third, no fta should include obligations that could be interpreted as limiting access to medicine, an established policy of this congress and the administration, i believe. And fourth governments have the right to regulate and pass laws in the interest of Public Health without the threat of traderelated penalties. Think about some of the cases on tobacco aimed at the Australian Government for instance. Governments have responsibility mr. Chairman, the committees i cant hear senator brown. Lets have order. Thank you. Governments have a responsibility to protect Public Health. That includes making sure people have the medicines they need to treat infections. Tb malaria, hiv aids and others that affect the poorest and most vulnerable. Theres a way to strike balance between protecting intellectual property and preserving Public Health and access to medicines our agreement shouldnt favor corporate interests overt health of people in developing countries. The negotiating objective of this amendment calls for and provides instruction touchltz str to negotiate trade agreements that maintain our u. S. Public Health Commitments and promote access to medicines while protecting intellectual property. I offer the amendment and i withdraw it. I appreciate the senator offering and withdrawing. With that should we go to the next amendment . Senator thune is can i recognize senator thune first . Senator thune . Thank you mr. Chairman. I just want to express my appreciation to you and senator wyden for your good work in putting together a modernized tpa package that i believe will help to lower barriers to american exports and in particular i want to commend you for inclusion of language in the trade negotiating objectives as they relate to trade and agriculture that is intended to prevent our trading partners from using unjustified trade restrictions or commercial requirements to keep our products out of the market. As you know, many of the Agricultural Products that we grow and sell in the state like south dakota such as soybean and corn, for example, use biotechnology. Unfortunately, a number of our trading partners are increasingly using unjustified regulatory or commercial requirements designed to keep these products out of the market or otherwise to treat them unfairly. And i guess a question i just wanted for you mr. Chairmans can you confirm for me that that language in the tpa bill as it relates to trade and agriculture is in fact intended to address the full range of nontariff barriers our Agricultural Producers face including unjustified commercial or regulatory requirements . Let me assure the soernenator from south dakota that this is precisely the point of the trading negotiation objectives relating to agriculture in particular that he references. It is true that u. S. Farmers and ranchers face significant nontariff barriers. That restrict access to foreign markets. The trade negotiating objectives on agriculture in the tpa bill are designed to ensure that our trade agreements address the full range of barriers that our producers face. Commercial regulatory, or otherwise. I appreciate the senator raising this issue and i promise to work with him to ensure the Committee Report language makes clear the intent of the statutory language as ive described here. I appreciate that assurance. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Were going to go to senator meneneds then . . Id like to call up menendez amendment 3 which is Committee Amendment 101. And i appreciate senator brown also joining with me on this. One of the most consistent complaints that we have heard about our trade deals is that while we may seek the right principles in labor and Environmental Standards in our negotiating objectives and while we may even get some good language into the deals themselves some of our trading partners just simply fail to live up to their agreement. This amendment is pretty simple. This one says if we provide fast track procedures for a trade deal our partner in the deal must bring their labor law into compliance with the agreement before it enters into effect with them. Our point of maximum leverage is when the benefits of the deal have not been delivered. After the ink is dry on the signature we can find ourselves spending years trying to get a country into compliance while they enjoy the benefits of access to our markets. Yesterday when you had the hearing, mr. Chairman president trunka reminded us of the example. He had a couple. But of one country six years after they enjoyed the benefit of having our markets before they ever got into compliance with their commitments. So if we think we have the right negotiating objectives, if we think we have a deal that that lives up to those objectives we should make sure simply that our partners deliver on their commitments before we give them access to our markets. If countries cant or wont live up to their commitments, then we did not get a good deal with them and we surely shouldnt be putting it on a fast track to implementation. And i would urge support. I think it doesnt change the course of events. A country can ultimately be part of a deal but theyre going to have to have their labor commitments up front. And at the appropriate time i would ask for the yeahs and nays. Senator wyden. Thank you, mr. Chair. Id like to ask mr. Rife the general counsel from the usta, hes here, and i would like to ask him what is the process that ustr goes through before the executive branch allows a trade agreement to enter into force . Thats number one. Number two, do you require that our trading partners meet their labor obligations before entry into force . I think its important to clarify where you all are at this point. Thank you mr. Wyden. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for holding the markup. There actually is a very rigorous process very much along the lines of what the senator was saying a moment ago. There are three stages where ustr and other agencies work very closely with foreign governments tone sure that they implement their obligations under an agreement. First, during the negotiations there are often very detailed conversations with other trading partners about their laws. These are going on now in the tpp context including very much understanding labor laws and understanding the kinds of changes that countries will have to implement. Often those countries begin to take these changes during the negotiating phase. The Second Opportunity for ustr and other agencies to engage is after there has been congressional approval of an implementing bill all of the agencies of the executive branch working with in partnership with this committee and the Congress Work with foreign trading partners to ensure we prepare an inventory. We did this a few years ago. With the agreements passed by congress. Prepare an inventory of all of the changes that we believe need to be made. We then spend dozens and dozens of hours with each trading partner to make sure we understand whether the changes are being made and ensuring those are done before the president reports to the congress that the trade agreement can enter into effect. Then the third stage is once the agreement is in effect. Through use of the interagency trade enforcement center, through use of the general counsels office and all of ustr and all of our Partner Agencies we work to ensure those commitments are followed through. I would just say, colleagues, im going reluctantly oppose this amendment because what the senator is trying to do the motive could not be more appropriate. I dont expect countries just to meet their labor obligations before an agreement goes into effect. I expect countries to meet their obligations on the environment, nontariff barriers, on rules related to digital trade. All of their obligations. And think think thats what mr. Rice has said he is going into sift on. And i think thats why this is a significant upgrade from existing policy. And reluctantly i have to oppose this amendment. If i could add, im confident that the tpa bill that senator wyden and i introduce edd already accomplishes this goal wp working with senator wyden weve created two procedures for this committee to review and vote on, whether the administration sufficiently achieved congressional negotiating objectives. And this amendment does nothing to strengthen our ability to hold the administration accountable. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and im prepared to vote if the senate mr. Chairman whos next . Briefly i wanted to speak for the menendez amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And i appreciate senator menendez offering the amendments. President obama the administration and the ustr is as interested in labor standards as they say they are, the president s speeches sxuchlt str discussions and promises, this is a pretty easy thing for them to support. Understand the situation in vietnam, which is generally accepted as the most egregious violator of labor rights of the 12 countries there is one union. You can join that union. Youre free to join that union. That union is affiliated with the communist party. So you really dont have much choice. I dont think thats really what we believe in in a vibrant labor movement, whether you support unions or you generally dont among those of us here we all agree on some basic principles about labor rights and labor unions and ability and freedom of association to join them or not join them. Theres no real evidence the ustr or administration is using any kind of either a carrot or a stick to move their labor law forward. They say it takes time. Of course it takes time. But there arent really mechanisms to get them to move the way they should be. I understand. But i think our agreement does cover that and i hope mr. Chairman, if i may. Ill be brief. Senator menendez. I listened to what mr. Relative if said. He said one, theres a conversation about what laws a countrys going to have to change to become in compliance. Two, after congressional implementation of an implementation bill which is what were in the midst of doing here, theres an inventory of changes. And then thirdly he talked about the trade enforcement center. The bottom line, all that means is that you dont have in place the labor standards that we are heralding to be able to have those for which were in favor of to be supportive of the bill. Thats far different than having the labor standards in place before the deal goes into effect. I dont understand why we want to give people access to our markets because we say we have to live under these standards but they can get that access before those standards are fully implemented. Thats why in the case of guatemala it took six years. Six years. And there are other examples of that. And thats simply what were trying to avoid. I dont think that this is a burdensome reality. If were saying were getting a good deal and that good deal is about the elements being heralded by the proponents of the bill that would include a good labor standard, environmental starnldndard. Im limiting it to the question of labor and id ask for yeahs and nays. Well certainly grant the yeas and nays. But if i could make a couple of points, we not only have to get this through the senate weve got to get it through the house. And frankly, we will work to make sure that all commitments that are written into this bill come into compliance. Its a very important issue, but this is not the way to do it at least in my opinion. And frankly, i hope we can vote this down because ive got to admit, this would make it very difficult to pass this bill in the house. Weve got to live with the law of the possibility. And its tough enough to put this bill through. It is an extremely important mr. Chairman just a brief remark because thats been made various times here over different amendments. And i would just say well, theres a reason for it. I fully understand. But let me liken it to Something Else. I dont want a deal on iran for the sake of a deal at any cost. And i dont necessarily think that a trade deal at any cost is ultimately what we want. We want a trade deal that creates the level Playing Field, creates the balance, and yes, creates access to markets. So i dont accept the proposition that if were going to accept that proposition then were going to see an iran deal maybe we dont like and well say we need a deal so therefore lets support it. I would hope that that isnt necessarily our guiding star. Let me just say this. This is a strong bill. I think it takes care of what the senator is talking about, at least as far as we can go to get legislation through both bodies. And if we add this to it i think we have a difficult time getting it through the house and maybe even the senate. This is a delicate bill. Theres no question about it. If we pass this bill in its current form its going to be a marvelous thing to get done. And i think for both sides. Not just the president. For republicans too. So thats what were trying to do. And we spent an awful lot of time trying to make sure we get this through both houses. And frankly we dont need the senators language in here to have the administration enforce some of these rules he would like. I just hope our folks will vote this down because it would hurt our getting it through the house. And i dont want to do anything to jeopardize that. And i dont mean to play that tune every time but its a reality, and we just have to think about it. But i think it would be tough even to get it through the senate. With that the clerick will call the role. Mr. Grassley. No. Mr. Grassley no. Mr. Crapo. Mr. Crapo no by approximately. Mr. Roberts no. Mr. Enzi no. Mr. Cornyn no. Mr. Thune no. Mr. Burr no. Mr. Isaac son. Mr. Isaacson no. Mr. Portman. Mr. Portman no. Mr. Toomey. Mr. Toomey no. Mr. Coats. No. Mr. Coats no. Mr. Heller. Mr. Heller no. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott no. Mr. Wyden. Mr. Wyden no. Mr. Schumer. Mr. Schumer yes. Miss cantwell. Miss cant quel no. Mr. Nelson. Mr. Nelson no. Mr. Machinened ez. Mr. Menendez aye. Mr. Parker. Mr. Brown aye. Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett aye. Mr. Casey. Mr. Casey aye. Mr. Warner. Mr. Warner no. Mr. Chairman. The chairman votes no. The clerk will announce the results. Seven ayes, 19 nays. The amendment is defeated. Does anybody else have an amendment . Mr. Chairman. The senator from pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, i have good news and bad news. Good news is i like the good news. I like that in advance. Good news is im not offering all of my amendments. The bad news is good news for me but bad news maybe for some others. Id ask for a voice vote on the by america amendment. Let me just walk through it. This is an amendment, casey amendment or amendment number 203. Amendment number 2. Im trying to insist that the buy america provisions which have been in effect for decades adheres well to this agreement. So that the effect of the amendment if it were to pass and be implemented would be to remove fast track privileges from any agreement that weakens or undermines the buy american act act. In particular, and this is the basics of it in terms of impact, it would simply mean that in a trade agreement wed ensure that the agreement itself doesnt do one of three things. It doesnt weaken. It doesnt undermine. Nor would it necessitates the waiver of the buy american act provisions of the buy american act itself as well as the buy american provisions of the service for transportation act of 1982. And id ask for a voice vote. I oppose this amendment. Policies like this may be intended to Shelter Industries but the result is always retaliation and the closing of borders to american goods. Instead i support increasing american access to the Government Procurement markets of our trading partners. Thats why our tpa bill has negotiating objectives relating to the expansion of the wta Government Procurement agreement. The best way to support American Companies involved in Government Procurement is to ensure that they are treated fairly and compete equally around the world. I know this is well intentioned but i really urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Is there any other vote. Vote. Does anybody want a roll call vote or should we do it voightce vote . Voice vote. Okay. Those in favor of this aye. Aye those opposed to the amendment say no. No the nos have it. The amendment is defeated. I have to admit schumer almost by himself mr. Chairman do we have a recording of those noises . Can we have it played again . Senator brown youre next. Can we send back to the wto to figure out who won . It will take five years. This is amendment number 17. Okay. And it affects the it strikes the investor state from the investor negotiating objective. This amendment strikes language in fast track that explicitly refers to investor state dispute settlement. Investor state dispute settlement provides for an extrajudicial way for corporations to sue governments for regulating or passing laws. Corporations in one country suing a government in another country for a health and safety law or some law that theyve chosen to pass even when their courts have upheld it. State, local or federal governments should not have to look over their shoulder every issue they decide every time they decide to pass a Public Health measure or deny a permit for environmental reasons. Thats why i oppose investor state. If the argument for including the investor state is to ensure american investors have adequate protections then why isnt our goal to improve the legal system in our trading partners so that they can develop their own Property Rights and strengthen their own judicial institutions . We seek to improvince toougss and raise standards in other areas like labor. But in the legal system we instead were setting up an alternative system of arbitration panels totally separate from the courts. Not even related to that country. These arbitration panels are problematic because of their expansive view of expropriation allowing investors to seek compensation where expropriation has not occurred. Just because a government has regulated in a nondiscriminatory way and that has affected an investment doesnt mean a company should be able to sue another government and be compensated. But thats not how arbitrators see it. Arbitration panels cant be trusted to throw out frivolous claims leaving out Public Health programs like Medicare Medicaid and the va vulnerable to isds challenges. In addition, investors often use isds to forum shop or to simply scare a poorer country often a government, into settling by require investors to exhaust all reasonably available domestic remedies. Many frivolous cases i know my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle think about frivolous cases. Many frivolous cases could be filtered out and legitimate regulations left in place. But theres no such requirement in tpp or in the underlying bill. Arbitrators often represent parties and other investor state proceedings which mean they often have serious conflicts of interest. So an arbitrator might be serving as a judge in one case when that arbitrator is a private sector lawyer representing someone else in another case where there easily could be conflicts of interest. Theres nothing in this in t pachlt or in tpp that even addresses those conflicts of interest. Its isds is another way for corporations to maximize profits by challenging government regulations they dont like in an extrajudicial systems whose rulings are divorced from any precedent. This amendment strikes the reference from fast track tone sure future trade agreements, particularly ttip can be concluded without the corporate handout provision. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you senator brown. Senator wyden. Just on that last point because im ao. Posed to this amendment. This question of government handouts. The kind of people who are using investor state are environmental companies. The people who are on the cutting edge of the kind of innovations senator cantwell is talking about. I dont consider those people some kind of corporate handout client that is looking for favors. They are looking for a fair shake of business overseas. I have focused on the investor state provision to ensure that tpa directs the negotiators to get the right kind of investor state. And let me make clear what i think the right kind of investor state provision calls for. Number one, there would be no greater rights for foreign companies. Number two, we preserve we lock in, we embed americas right to regulate. Number three, we have a more transparent process. Number four, we have stronger protections for american sovereignty. The language the amendment would strike is important to ensure that any kind of investor state provision contains the protections against frivolous claims and ensure transparency. In my view these are important directives. I come back to the proposition that our country has never lost an investor state case. Never once. We have had this for decades. We have never lost a case. And on this question of who benefits and somehow this is some kind of corporate handout when senator cantwell appropriately talks about how a big part of americas Economic Future is in Renewable Energy and cuttingedge companies and solar and wind and other renewable sectors, those are the kind of people who have investor state cases and i want them to get a fair shake. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I agree with the distinguished Ranking Member. Would the senator desire a voice vote . I would desire more debate, mr. Chairman, and then a roll call. So i would have some things id like to say in response. Id like to ask mr. Reif, the ranking senator wyden talked about the american right to regulate as part of in other words, to protect our rules. Other than saying we havent lost a case yet part of the reason we havent lost a case is if you look at a chart i should have brought one tonight, of the number of isds cases over the last number of years theyre going like this. There are more and more cases. America will certainly lose some of these because companies around the world are going to find ways to challenge u. S. Law. But my question for mr. Reif is what, mr. Reif have you actually the u. S. Right to regulate that senator wyden says is included in tpp. What would that be . As you know, your boss and ambassador has not allowed senate staff for most of us to go in and read tpp. Ive been in there with ms. Todd for not as much time as id like. Shes not allowed to go back. Can you tell us what that means, american right to regulate, how we preserve that . Thank you senator brown. What it means in the existing text of our existing state dispute mechanisms that are also being negotiated in the tpp, and let me read it to you, it provides that nondiscriminatory regulatory actions by a party that drengzed and applied to protect legitimate Public Welfare objectives such as Public Health, safety, and the environment do not constitute indirect expropriation. So thats actually embedded in the would that have stopped mr. Chairman, if i might. Would that have stopped and i want to explain this to my colleagues in a moment. Would that have stopped Philip Morris from attacking us as they did australia on a plain packaging tobacco Public Health law . So whether a company can bring a case if Philip Morris were a foreign company. But in our agreements, as mr. Wyden said, weve never lost a case. We hear that song. But thats not really that meaningful. But go ahead. And there have been a number of cases where concerns were expressed but then we were able to prevail. And this language is a key reason we have been able to prevail. Both the opportunity for Small Businesses to go abroad and to vindicate their rights to be able to sell and operate in a foreign market and just get the same fair shake that other businesses do. But also at the same time to protect our ability to regulate and establish that as a principle through all investor state mechanisms. Let me share with my colleagues a brief story. The government of australia passed something called a plain packaging law that said that Tobacco Companies no longer in australia could put their logo on a cigarette package, they had to write in black and white the name of the company of the brand of cigarette in black letters so they all kind of looked alike. They also had to put a picture, and i know senator hatch in his state, in his record of anti of Public Health on tobacco especially is impressive. That they also put a picture of a diseased lung or something on there. It almost immediately affected tobacco consumption, especially among young people. That law was passed. Philip morris sued the australian that challenged that law in Australian Court. The Australian Court upheld the law 61. Philip morris then went to hong kong, set up a subsidiary, then under isds in their bilateral trade agreement sued the government of australia. So this is a threejudge panel made up of not stranlds for want of a better term suing the government of australia and the law they had passed democratically and a court had upheld, an Australian Court. Its being litigated now but they could overturn that law the australian people want that protect 16 and 17yearolds from tobacco. Thats the kind of power that they would have in these. I have heard both the president and the ustr says this tobacco issue is really serious, weve got to do something about it. To my knowledge theres still nothing in tpp to deal with this. But more than tobacco this shows how a company in one country can sue a government and overturn the sovereign decision of that government. And if my colleagues care about sovereignty especially, they ought to care about isds. The other issue that opponents the supporters of isds make is that this protects u. S. Companies against expropriation. Theres two things that already can protect u. S. Governments without the side effects of this isds language. Number one is opec and what opec can do. And number two is you can buy expropriation insurance. And why should taxpayers be on the hook here instead of the private sector where these companies, if they fear expropriation in country x, why shouldnt those Companies Buy that insurance to protect themselves . Instead it sounds like t. A. R. P. 3 or . Government bailout for these companies in the developing world. Well, let me just say this. I cant support the amendments attempt to strike language from the Foreign Investment negotiating objectives which youve described to a degree. Im prepared to vote on it. Do you want a roll call vote or youd like a roll call vote . Clerk will call the roll. Mr. Grassley. No. Mr. Grassley no. Mr. Crapo. Mr. Crapo no by proxy. Mr. Roberts. Mr. Roberts no. Mr. Enzi no. Mr. Cornyn. Mr. Cornyn. Mr. Cornyn no. Mr. Thune. Mr. Thune no. Mr. Burr. Mr. Burr no. Mr. Isakson. Mr. Isakson no. Mr. Portman. Mr. 30r9man no. Mr. Toomey. Mr. Toomey no. Mr. Coats. Mr. Coats no. Mr. Haller. Mr. Haller no. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott no. Mr. Wyden. Mr. Wyden no. Mr. Schumer. Mr. Schumer aye. Miss stabenow. Miss stabenow aye. Miss cantwell aye. Mr. Nelson aye. Mr. Menendez ez aye. Mr. Carper no. Mr. Cardin. Mr. Cardin aye. Mr. Brown aye. Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett aye. Mr. Casey. Mr. Casey aye. Mr. Warner. Mr. Warner no. Mr. Chairman. The chairman votes no. Mr. Chairman, the final tally is nine ayes, 17 nays. The amendment is defeated. Are we getting close to the end here . Senator burr, youre next. Mr. Chairman, id like to call up portman number 2, and thats Committee Number 88. And ill say to the chairman, he will not love me like he loves senator bennett because i will have to have a recorded vote on this. But i will be very brief. And i have great affection for the chairman and for the tax hes got in front of him. I thank my colleagues for their support. On the customs bill of the tpb issue. But ive got to add it on the tpa bill as well because thats the only way i can assure that once and for all we address this because this is of great need. Let me just explain very briefly what this mtb bill does. This bill would allow companies to apply for Duty Suspensions directly on a predictable schedule. This carefully crafted bipartisan compromise would allow for the mtb process to move forward in a postearmarked era while still maintaining a role of congress. The bill would explicitly allow members of congress to submit proposals for Duty Suspension to the itc, which would be equally considered along with the submissions from the public. This bill also ensures that bills are properly developmented. Once the provisions are assembled into an mtb, the bills would be considered in the same way it currently is. This reform bill does not provide a fast track process or limitations on floor attempts. I would encourage all the members, this is a very grave issue for many manufacturers. These are duties imposed on them when they purchase something. It goes into a finished product and makes them uncompetitive when they then sell into a global marketplace. Id ask for a recorded vote and urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me just if i can have attention, let me just say this. Your amendment is already in the customs bill that we passed earlier. I think youre right. And frankly i believe that offering well lets just say the chair views this as nongermane. And pursuant to rule 2a of the Committee Rules the chair rules it is not germane and the amendment is out of order. I appreciate that. Senator brown, do you have any other amendments . Mr. Chairman, i have many other amendments. Can you give us some sort of an idea how many more amendments you have . Im guessing seven or eight more. Five more. Five more. Well, one im combining five amendments into one and then four or five more. What id like to do if its all right with you if it is isnt well work on it. But id like to limit each amendment to three minutes to a side if we can. Can we do that . We can try. But id really rather not agree to that, mr. Chairman, because some of these are pretty lively and people want to debate and i dont know why we start doing now three minutes when we didnt do it earlier. I would really object to that. Because its you know, mr. Chairman i started with 88 amendments. I talked myself out of a number of those. Ive worked with you overnight. We negotiated last night and the numbers continue to shrink. Get into it three amendments of 88 amendments is longer than ten minutes of ten amendments. Were fine. Im sorry i raised it. Let me just say this. I would appreciate it if you would keep the argument as short as you can. I will do that. No more australia you know i would keep them shorter if you would be more convinced earlier. But thats probably a bridge take as long as thank you, mr. Chairman. This is an amendment on behalf of senators menendez stabenow, schum rerer, and caseya memt 351 and it prevents china from dock onto tpp without congressional oversight. This amendment were offering to prevent tpp from being a back door trade agreement with china, a back door trade agreement with china. Senator menendez has raised these agreements longer than anybody, and i appreciate the involvement of so many others. It makes clear that this fast track bill does not apply to other countries joining tpp. 12 countries in tpp. It should be 12 countries in tpp. It spells out the process for future tpp partners future partners to join the agreement. First finance and ways and Means Committee have to vote to certify that the country considering joining has met the standards of the agreement. Once the committees certify both the senate and the house have to vote to approval that country joining. Imagine, mr. Chairman, the reaction of the country if the administration and ambassador froman decide at some moment that china is going to be part of tpp. And we think the worlds second largest economy, 1. 3 billion people so much of what we wear and buy is made in that country and all of a sudden theyve backdoored into tpp with no vote of congress with no input from the American People. It just sort of beggars the American People to think that. China expressed interest in joining an agreement at the end of last year. News reports indicate theyre monitoring closely these talks. China manipulates his currency floods are markets. We know that. Former ambassador portman has pointed that out. They flood our markets with subsidized and dumped steel imports. They promote industrial policies designed to undercut our manufacturing. Tpp simply cant become a back door way to pass a Free Trade Agreement with china, without a vote in congress. My amendment would ensure that china, its not just aimed at china. Its not picking on anybody. It just says we can name the other 11 countries there were the other Nine Countries besides the former nafta countries u. S. , canada mexico. We know the other Nine Countries by name. We can recite them. They are in the newspapers. We dont want other countries to join without the finance committee the ways and Means Committee and the congress approving that. My amendment would ensure that china any other country who wants to join this agreement gets congressional approval. I would think we could pass this by a voice vote. Mr. Chairman, if there is chairmans dissent i would like a roll call though. Mr. Chairman first i want to rise in support of this important amendment but first i want to say a word about senator brown. I dont think theres been any senator on either side of this issue whos been more passionate, more dedicated, more focused on trying to make our trade laws better. Whether you agree with him or disagree with him, i think Everybody Knows that senator brown has made this one of the major issues that he has pursued in congress for all the years hes been here. Hes had tremendous effect. Some of the antidumping cases came about because of him. There are i would say thousands and thousands of workers working today who wouldnt have worked because of unfair trade practices, but theyre working because of senator browns great work. I think we should all salute him for what he does and id be happy if he had 88 amendments. But i dont speak for everybody. I think i speak for most of us on the rest of what i said. That one ill take myself. On this amendment senator browns right. China is different. China is different in the way they pursue trade. And they are rapacious. They have a plan. And china is going after the cream of american industry. The tech industry. The pharmaceutical industry. Highend manufacturing. Ive had two new York Companies to get deals in china. Theyve sold their family jewels. G. E. Gave china the designs for the turbines that spin so quickly. To get a tenyear contract. Ibm just made a deal with china where they had to give away a lot of the knowledge of the software that took decades to build up. But chinas such a huge market it says to these companies well give you five ten years of good, you know, youll be here which we wouldnt let you in otherwise, but youve got to show us how you do what you do. And then a Chinese Company will do it and well be stuck. So just as over the last 20 years, by doing nothing weve lost out on low and middleend manufacturing and services. Were going to lose out on the best thing we have going if we let china keep going this way. And thats why some of us are so frustrated. Frustrated here tonight because i very much appreciate the support for my amendment. The amendment of senator brown, senator portman, and senator burr. But i feel a passion that i see america be the number one country in the world. If we traded we would. We have the greatest system, the most innovation. We come up with all the new ideas. But china has figured out a way ton compete with us fairly and come up with the same kind of creativity. They curtail freedom too much to do that. But rather they come up with rapacious trade practices and in all due respect to mr. Dawson the administration they seem to just shrug their shoulders. There is nothing inconsistent with going after china and supporting tpp. Some of us dont support it. Some of us do. But theres nothing inconsistent. And this amendment is i think we should accept this amendment. I think theres nothing wrong with this amendment. And chinas not the same as indonesia or singapore or even japan and korea. It deserves support. And i thank senator brown for offering it. Let me say this. If we want to have influence in asia were going to have to pass tpa. And were going to have to get get tpa put together right. That will send messages we could never otherwise send. So without this bill were never going to accomplish what both of you would like to do. Let me say this. The tpa bill that senator wyden and i introduced already tackles the concern that this amendment seeks to address. Our bill already requires that the president take into account all of the congressional negotiating objectives before commencing negotiations with any country. That will include china. If in the future china became interested in joining the tpp. And section 5a of our bill sets that detailed consultation and reporting requirements, that the president must follow before entering into negotiations with any country. The best thing we can do to counteract china is to pass tpa. So that our negotiators can conclude a tpp based on american standards. And if we can get japan into a tpp which were about to do and we intend to do, its going to send a message all over asia. And i think we will. To quote the Washington Post Editorial Board the tpp would ensure the pacific rim plays by u. S. Style rules and regulations rather than by chinas neomercantilist ones. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. And i appreciate the efforts of my distinguished colleague from ohio. Hes a very compelling orator and somebody that we have respect for here. But id like to vote on this and i recommend we vote. Mr. Chairman, one point if i could make in a little bit of friendly counter. That would be fine. Whether youre for tpp or not, we have differences on this committee. Making sure china plays by the rules is not inconsistent with tpp. In fact, it is consonant with one of the stated goals which is to keep these other countries, these other Asian Countries out of the orb of china. So were not trying to be inconsistent here. They can live alongside of one another. Im not talking about this amendment but the general view on china. But the one thing i would say to my dear friend the chairman is at least to me dealing with chinas rapacious practices is more important to the american future than tpp, whether youre for it or against it. Thats where i would differ. Mr. Chairman. And we can do both. And we can do both. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im going to be very brief as well. Like senator schumer i have enormous respect for senator brown. I think that senator brown and i have had more conversations in the last six months about how to do this than ive had with any other member, and you see it reflected in section after section, starting with the enforcement provision. Heres how i come to being skeptical of all this and why im going to vote no. You dont enter into a trade agreement by osmosis. You enter into it when you have implementing language. And youve got to have implementing language in effect to even get to some of the key questions like tariffs. Tpp does not include china. We all understand that. Given how long its taken to get with the countries weve gotten a deal, i doubt its going to be china joining tpp anytime soon. And this tpa bill is going to be around for just six years. So the bottom line to me is not only do you somehow just arrive at a trade agreement, and thats why i call it no trade agreements by osmosis the reality is if china ever were to join the tpp they have to go through us first. So this question of wanting to hold china accountable which my seatmate for all these years has made that point and made it very eloquently, we are going to hold them accountable because if china were ever to join the tpp theyd have to show up in the United States congress first. So again reluctantly i urge a no vote. Mr. Chairman. Let me just make one other point. Under this bill we have to give notice. And we get advanced notice on any methodology the administration, whatever the administration is, is going to do. This bill really gives congress an awful lot of authority. Senator menendez. Mr. Chairman, briefly look i think this has been made more difficult than the very simple proposition that it is. And i think its a simple but powerful proposition. And that is that its not about mr. Chairman, as you describe well, theyll have to follow the objectives, the goals. Thats in a negotiation. Thats not it. The question simply is can china or any other country not a party today to tpp dock onto the agreement without a vote of the United States congress . And my view is that there should be a vote of the United States congress if a country is going to dock on that is not part of the original parties. And since you said it six years, over the next six years there will be the life of this administration, there will be a new administration. And i think the congress should have a vote if someones going to dock on. Now, i asked this question several times of ambassador froman when he was here before the committee. And he assured me in his testimony that there would be a vote. Well, if thats the position of the administration, then there is no harm to guarantee that that position is here and the tpp tpa. Why not simply adopt the amendment and make it very clear that in the future china or anybody else whos not in power today is going to vote. That has been loudly argued by my colleagues on a whole host of things. I see it as totally appropriate here as well. Let me just say this. Im prepared to vote on this. I hope the people will vote against it. I believe that this agreement is a well done agreement. And under the circumstances better than i ever thought it would be. And frankly we have the support of the president. We have to have the support of the house of representatives fighting for that. And i hope our colleagues will vote this down. Mr. Chairman, i would just add with all due respect this is a really important amendment and i would urge colleagues to vote yes. Clerk will call the roll. Mr. Grassley. Mr. Crapo no. Mr. Roberts no. Mr. Enzi no. Mr. Cornyn no. Mr. Thune no. Mr. Burr. Mr. Burr no. Mr. Isakson. Mr. Isakson no. Mr. Portman. Mr. Portman aye. Mr. Toomey. Mr. Toomey no. Mr. Coats. Mr. Coats no. Mr. Heller. Mr. Heller no. Scott. Mr. Scott no. Mr. Wyden. Mr. Wyden no. Mr. Schumer. Mr. Schumer aye. Miss stabenow. Miss stabenow aye. Miss cantwell aye. Mr. Nelson aye. Mr. Menendez aye. Mr. Carper. Mr. Carper no. Mr. Cardin. Mr. Cardin aye. Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown aye. Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett aye. Mr. Casey. Mr. Casey aye. Mr. Warner. Mr. Warner no. Mr. Chairman. The chairman votes no. The electric clerk will report. 11 ayes, 15 nays. The amendment is defeated. Senator brown do we have any more . Senator menendez next. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And im in deference to all of my colleagues, im going to make this the last amendment im going to offer. Im going to make this the last amendment im going to offer. Thank you. But i do hope it gets some serious conversation because i think people will understand its not about trying to stop tpa. Id like to call up menendez number 5, which is committee 103, for consideration. Basically, what this is about is as we are looking ahead to new trade agreements we should be mindful of the impact that new trade agreements have on our current free trade partners. We negotiated with countries such as canada, mexico, the cafta countries, in part because we recognize that their Economic Growth was intimately tied to the Economic Prosperity and the National Security of the United States. New agreements such as tpp potentially threatened to put some of our trade partners at risk particularly with those in cafta, particularly those that would come from china and not the United States and get assembled in other countries in the tpp negotiations. Just yesterday members of the Foreign Senate Foreign Relations Committee he met with the president of honduras, who made it clear that his, and ive heard this from other cafta countries, that theres a real concern about the effect tpp has on the very enterprises we intended to have cafta be able to create and enjoy. Now, caftas worked in many places. And if you care about the nexus between central america, citizen security, not seeing the drug flows take place and not seeing unaccompanied minors come to the United States, you dont want to undermine that which exists today in cafta. So this basically says that as a principal negotiating objective we want to make sure our trade negotiators do not undermine existing trade relationships when they negotiate new ones. And i think thats a simple but important proposition in having listened to all of caftas leaderships. I think its a real concern for them. And therefore, if its as consequential as they suggest with tens of thousands of jobs lost that were created by virtue of cafta now we have an economic set of circumstances that exacerbates the problems that were already facing at our southern border. Id urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment and i would ask for the yeas and nays. This is a good agreement. Its well thought out. The administrations done a good job on it. The president supports it. Weve worked very closely with this administration with what we believe will pass both houses. I urge my colleagues as sincere as senator menendez is to vote against this amendment, and lets move on. Prepare to go . You want a voice vote or okay, then. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Grassley. Mr. Grassley no. Mr. Crapo. Mr. Crapo no. Mr. Roberts. Mr. Roberts no. Mr. Enzi. Mr. Enzi no. Mr. Cornyn. Mr. Cornyn no. Mr. Thune. Mr. Thune no. Mr. Burr. Pass. Mr. Burr pass. Mr. Isakson. Mr. Isakson no. Mr. Portman. Mr. Portman no. Mr. Toomey. Mr. Toomey no. Mr. Coats. Mr. Coats no. Mr. Heller. Mr. Heller no. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott no. Mr. Widen. Mr. Wyden no. Mr. Schumer aye. Miss stabenow. Miss stabenow aye. Miss cantwell no. Mr. Nelson. Mr. Nelson aye. Mr. Menendez aye. Mr. Carper no. Mr. Cardin. Mr. Cardin aye. Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown aye. Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett aye. Mr. Casey. Mr. Casey aye. Mr. Warner. Mr. Warner no. Mr. Chairman . No. The chairman votes no. Mr. Burr. Mr. Burr no. The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, the final tally is eight ayes, 18 nays. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman. Senator brown. Im down to my last two amendments, mr. Chairman, youll be glad to know. Beyond that im not responsible for the lateness of the evening. The First Amendment is number 52. First amendments number 52. Okay. And im not committed to doing them consecutively. Senator cardin has some amendments ill start with 52. This amendment says that congress should identify by a vote in finance and ways and means that an agreement has met the negotiating objectives as spelled out in fast track. Certification occurs within 90 days of the president sending the agreement up. If the vote fails in either committee, the fast track is stripped from the agreement in that chamber. In the underlying bill the president certifies that the agreement meets the negotiating objective. When he sends the agreement to congress. But of course the president s going to say his agreement met the standards required by congress. That shouldnt be good enough. Congressman writes this committee and the ways and Means Committee and the congress, write the negotiating objectives. Congress should therefore determine if theyve been met. I urge my colleagues in the committee who play an Important Role in the congressional certification to support the amendment and make sure that we not the president , are the judges of whether or not agreement has met the negotiating objectives. Mr. Chairman, one of the great things about this night is i just found that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have this new incredible trust in the president of the United States and admiration and they seem almost to idolize him tonight that we should give him all the power and trust him to do these negotiations. Instead maybe we ought to put congress in the drivers seat and let Congress Actually determine if the president S Certification is legitimate and real. And thats why i ask for support of the amendment. Senator wyden . Senator cornyn really looks like he trusts the president. So i think hes with me on this thank you and as usual senator brown is talking about a valid problem. In the past, the in my view has been a blank check for bad trade deals and that was something that i sought to correct as the chairman will tell the union might suspect have had many spirits discussions. Congress passes a trade promotion act bill it has been virtually impossible to stop coming down the road. And what chairman and hatch and i have proposed after months and months of discussion and it is bicameral, we have proposed a new way to put the brakes on a bad trade deal. In effect, the committee will meet on a bill. On tpp. If the Committee Fails to favorably report the bill for any reason, that sets in place a process to make the agreement ineligible for fast track for tpa procedures and while were on this topic, i want to thank chairman hatch for working closely with me over these last few months and as you can imagine, the discussions were pretty spirit eded, but i think it is going to make a big difference in terms of a new measure of congressional accountability. A new measure of oversight through the negotiations and in effect effect, when people say i dont know if theyll do it, first thing thats going to happen, colleagues, with respect to this new prudeocedure to put the brakes on a bad agreement, the executive branch is going to have to realize when they negotiated maybe Sherrod Brown is going to come along and seek to employee the whistle on a bad trade deal. I think we addressed it so i urge no. Zblz with all due respect to the Ranking Member hes pretty much talking about an implementing bill. Do we want to rubber stamp another Obama Initiative or actually speak up for the rights of congress you guys want to do that . It is late, mr. Chair. We know we have issues here, interests, and to give this power up to the executive, whoever the next is, its really advocating responsibility. More important, i think in the end, turning our in this area already requires to take into account all of professional negotiating objectives. We give congress a lot of authority in this bill. That hasnt been done before. That would include china. If in the future china became interested in joining the tpp. Little worried about things the bill takes care of. Look mr. Chairman. I guess id like to think right now ambassador fromman is sitting in front of his Television Set just hoping to learn more about congressional gauche negotiating objectives. Because i think he wants to follow whatever we tell him every tep of the way. Hes negotiating objectives so important to his daily life and negotiating these agreements well. We know theyre not. Weve all had conversations with the ustr that have been unfulfills where we dont often get answers to our letters or specific questions or we get confiscation or no answers. But the point is, the power should rest back here. You keep saying the president must consider these things. Hes required to take into account. Hes required to take into account. But that doesnt really mean a lot. To take into account. What matters is we should make the decisions here whether he has in fact taken into account what weve, we are telling him to take into account. No, thats the implementing bill. We should be in the process earlier or else its another mr. Chairman, senator coates. Just want to tell my colleagues that i think i speak for the chairman and all of us here that we were kind of feeling bad that we hadnt rubber stamped anything for this president. And this is it. Only sad from a guy thats announced his retirement. I do not associate myself with those comments. Period. Call the roll. Mr. Grassley. Mr. Crea poe. No. Mr. Roberts. No. Mr. Enzi. No. Mr. Thune. No. Mr. Burr. No. Isaacson. No. Mr. Portman. No. Mr. Toomey no. Mr. Coates. No. Mr. Heller. No. Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Wyden. No. Mr. Schumer. Aye. Mr. Nelson. No. Mr. Mendez. Aye. Mr. Carper, no. Mr. Cardin, aye. Mr. Brown, aye. Mr. Bennett, no. Mr. Casey. Aye. Mr. Warner. No. Mr. Chairman. Chairman votes no. Clerical announce the result. Mr. Chairman 19 nays. Amendment is defeated. Do what, now . Anyone else want to be recognized . Senator brown, is this your last one . Its my last amendment, wonderful amendment, numbers 42 and 43. Double play for the benefit of the chairman. Autos, parts and industrial products. 42 and 3, i ask for them to be considered together. Without objection. Thank you. Specifically, they require the president to assess whether a trade agreement would benefit the auto sector in the industrial sector including steel before beginning negotiations or continuing those negotiations after completing the assessment, the president would have to consult with the committees of jurisdiction including this committee to determine whether its appropriate to reduce tariffs on the sectors products. These are similar consultation requirement requirements the president must meet for negotiations and Agricultural Products, so really put ing putting in line manufacturing, steel, auto, in terms of meeting those consultation requirements for negotiations. Given the sensitivity and significance of auto and steel in a number of states in for our country and National Defense makes sense to require the president to do with this. With Due Diligence before negotiating a trade agreement that reduces tariffs as we do in agriculture. Chairman, i ask for support of the committee. All right. I who i oppose this amendment. Is there any further debate . Can i get a roll call, mr. Chairman . Well, of course. Mr. Grassley. No. Mr. Crepo. No. Mr. Roberts. No. Mr. Enzi. No. Mr. Cornyn. No. Mr. Thune. No. Mr. Burr. No. Mr. Isaacson. No. Mr. Portman. Aye. Mr. Toomey. No. Mr. Coates. No. Mr. Heller. No. Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Widen. No. Mr. Schumer. Aye. Mr. Stabenow aye. Mr. Nelson. No. Mr. Mendez. Aye. Mr. Carper. No. Mr. Cardin. Aye. Mr. Brown. Aye. Mr. Bennett, aye. Mr. Casey. Ay me, aye. Mr. Warner. Aye. Mr. Chairman. No. Chairman votes no. Amend amendment is defeated. As i understand it, senator cardin has an amendment and that should be our last, am i correct . Mr. Chairman, i have one amendment im going to be offering. One im going to be offering im going to be withdrawing. Okay, thats fine. Youll be the last one. And the amendment im offering is 109, cardin amountment three. Please, proceed. This amendment would make the trade, the Good Governance sections that i have been talking about that was in the original bill would make it a principal negotiating objective
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.