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