May 18 Senate Roll Call Vote #181 (45-41-14) S.Amdt. 1242 to S.Amdt. 1221 to H.R. 1314 Link Here -- 45 Dems voted YEA and 1 voted NAY Wyden (D-OR) and 2 did not vote. On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1242: Brown Amdt. No. 1242; To restore funding for the trade adjustment assistance program to the level established by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011. ( Scroll down below the orange cloud thingy. )
May 18 Senate Roll Call Vote #182 (92-0-8) S.Amdt. 1237 As Modified to S.Amdt. 1221 to H.R. 1314 Link Here -- all Dems voted YEA, only Republicans did not vote. On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1237:
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1237: Lankford Amdt. No. 1237 As Modified; To establish consideration of the conditions relating to religious freedom of parties to trade negotiations as an overall negotiating objective of the United States. ( See more & listen for the dog whistles below the fold, after Brown's speech. ).
May 19 Tuesday, Senate Roll Call Votes not yet posted -- scheduled for Tuesday, May 19, 2015 10:00 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business. Thereafter, resume consideration of H.R.1314, the legislative vehicle for Trade Promotion Authority (H.R.1314 will be the legislative vehicle, related are S.995, H.R.1890, and H.R.1314.)
.
Monday, May 18, Senate Floor, speech of Sharrod Brown (D-OH) speaking for his own S.Amdt. 1242, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE pages S2957-S2959:
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I would remind the majority leader that the last time he used the term, "We shouldn't waste our time on trade," meaning not that we shouldn't pass this trade agreement--of course he supports that--but that we should not spend so much time on trade--the last time, 13 years ago, when Congress debated a trade issue, it led to much smaller trade agreements; most immediately, the Central America Free Trade Agreement. That was the one President Bush most wanted to negotiate at that time, if I recall. That debate lasted for 3 weeks. I am not suggesting this debate last 3 weeks, but I am suggesting that to say we are wasting our time on trade, on a long debate, on a thorough debate with a number of amendments, is a bit of a reach.
I would add that this trade agreement, this fast-track, speaks to, ultimately, at least 60 percent of the world's GDP; first, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is pretty much already negotiated, even though the USTR will not let much of this trade agreement actually see the light of day prior to voting on fast-track; and, second, once TTIP--the United States-European Union agreement--is brought to the Senate and House for approval, that will mean 60 percent of the world's GDP will be included.
So to say we can only debate this for 3 days and squeeze the number of amendments, when I know that at least a dozen Senators, at least a dozen more, probably like a dozen and a half on the Democratic side alone--I know a number of Republicans have amendments too--want to offer amendments, want them debated on, and want them voted on.
AMENDMENT NO. 1242
So the first amendment that I believe we will vote on tonight is my amendment on trade adjustment assistance. Everyone acknowledges--from those who oppose TPA and oppose TPP to its most vehement cheerleaders, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, a number of conservative think tanks, and a number of free-trade advocates--that trade agreements result in winners and losers because they bring dislocation in the economy. We can debate whether the winners outweigh the losers--I don't think they do. I think the losers outweigh the winners in what happens in trade.
I know that the wealthiest 5 percent in this country, by and large, gain from these trade agreements, but the broad middle and below typically lose from these trade agreements. I know what they have done to my State. I know what they have done to the Presiding Officer's State, and I know what they have done especially to manufacturing.
What is not debatable is some industries are going to get hurt, some communities will be hollowed out, some worker jobs will be lost. We know that. We owe it to workers who are going to have their lives upended, through no fault of their own, to do everything we can to ease the transition.
Think about that. We make a decision--President Obama asks us to pass this, the Republican leadership asks us to pass this, and the Senate Republican leadership in the House, joining President Obama--to pass this. So the decisions we make here--the President of the United States and Members of Congress--will cost people their jobs. We know that whether you are for TPA or not.
We know some people will lose their jobs because of these trade agreements. We owe it to them, to those workers who have lost jobs, to those communities that experience devastation, small towns that have seen plants close. That creates devastation in those towns. We owe it to provide training and assistance to help those communities, to help those workers get back on their feet.
That is why I am calling on all my colleagues--regardless of how you feel about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, regardless of how you are going to vote on fast-track--to support this amendment, which restores trade adjustment assistance funding levels to $575 million a year. This is the same level that was included in the bipartisan TAA bill in 2011. One-quarter of current Senate Republicans--sitting Senate Republicans, one-quarter of them--voted for that higher number.
This amendment is fully paid for. I know some of you think that $450 million, the amount included in the underlying bill, is sufficient, but it is not. The truth is that $450 million likely will not be enough. In 2009 and 2010, TAA cost $685 million each year.
If you take the average of funding levels for the 3 years when program eligibility was nearly the same as the one we are considering today, TAA expenditures averaged $571 million a year. Put on top of that what has happened with the South Korea trade agreement--predictions of job growth, almost identical numbers, except it was job loss--that means more people eligible for TAA. Put on top of that the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
We know there will be winners and losers. The losers need help. Add that to the dollar figures we need for Trade adjustment assistance. TAA helps workers retrain for new jobs so they can compete. We have clear evidence that TAA works. It helps workers develop the skills they need to find work and stay employed.
If we are going to compete, we need to invest in these workers to make sure they are ready to meet that global competition.
Right now, this body considers fast-track authority for trade agreements that encompass 60 percent of the world's economy. Now is exactly the wrong time to underinvest in training workers. If we don't support my amendment, that is what we are doing. Make no mistake, if you go home after voting no on this dollar figure, of putting it back to where this Congress voted on it only 4 years ago, you are leaving workers behind. You are underinvesting in workers. You are showing that these workers who lose their jobs because of South Korea, these workers who lose their jobs because of NAFTA, CAFTA or what has happened with PNTR or the South Korea trade agreement, you are saying to those workers: Sorry. We don't have enough money to take care of you--even though it was our actions in the House, the Senate, and this President who caused those workers to lose their jobs.
This is the same level that, in 2011, 70 Senators supported, including 14 current Republican Senators who sit in this body today. In 2011, 307 Members of the House of Representatives also supported the dollar figure that this amendment calls for. I ask my colleagues, including the nearly one-quarter--the fully one-quarter of Senate Republicans who supported it at this level--to support it again today. If we are going to pursue aggressive trade promotion, an aggressive trade promotion agenda, we owe it to our workers, we owe it to our businesses, we owe it to our communities to make sure they are ready for the competition that is about to come their way.
We have a moral obligation to help the families whose livelihoods will be yanked out from under them, not from something they did wrong, not from a decision they made but from a decision we in this body made to change the rules.
We know that will happen. We saw it with NAFTA. We saw it with CAFTA. We are seeing it with Korea. We know we will see it again with TPP.
There is no question that potential new trade agreements we are considering will create economic loss. There is no question that Americans will lose jobs. There is no question. Nobody disputes that.
Are we not to take care of those workers who lose their jobs? Again, it wasn't their decision. It was our decision, in this body, to vote for these trade agreements and then not to fund those workers' comebacks, not to help those workers get back on their feet, not to retrain those workers who lost their jobs because of what we did in this body. Talk about a moral issue.
It is our duty to look out for those workers who end up on the losing end
[Page: S2955] GPO's PDF
of our defined trade policy. That is why I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting trade adjustment assistance today at levels that this Congress overwhelmingly agreed to in a bipartisan manner 4 years ago.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for allowing me to speak, for suggesting I speak next, which was my understanding I would be able to do.
We have good people on both sides of this issue, but Senator Brown is an advocate, and I think he has made some good points with regard to the questions facing America.
Our colleagues earlier said this is a trade deal done right. Well, in a way that seems to say: don't pay attention to previous trade deals that haven't done so well.
We have a number of people who live in the business world, who trade internationally regularly, and they say this is not a good trade deal, and it will not work. We also hear it said frequently that we want increased wages for Americans by everybody on both sides of this issue.
But the proponents of the legislation--if you watch carefully what they have been saying--they are only saying it will only increase wages in export industries, not across the economy. And we know that in this Nation our exports amount to only 13 percent of GDP, which is the lowest in the developed world. We don't have a lot of exports. Perhaps, if we export more, maybe wages will go up a little bit, but if we import more in other industries in the 87 percent, we might see a decline in wages and jobs.
So what are the facts? More exports are good, but if increased imports dwarf increased exports, it is not so good as a result of this agreement, especially when we have had virtually a six-year-record trade deficit in March and one of the worst quarters in years--the first quarter of this year--in importing more than we export.
So the Korea agreement didn't live up to the promises we had for it. I supported it. I voted for it. But will this one be any better? Don't we need to know?
So I asked five questions of the President more than 10 days ago.
First, regarding jobs and wages. On net, will TPP increase the total number of manufacturing jobs in the United States, generally, or reduce them and auto manufacturing jobs, specifically.
Will hourly wages for U.S. workers go up or down? Don't you have that information? Shouldn't that be shared with us before we vote?
Regarding trade deficits, I ask: Will TPP reduce or increase our cumulative trade deficit with TPP countries overall?
And with the big, new members, it will be significantly impacted--Japan and Vietnam, specifically.
Regarding China, could TPP member countries add new countries--including China--to the agreement without future congressional approval?
Some have tried to say it can't be done. You have to go down in the secret room here, read it, and you are very limited in what you can find out. But as I have read the agreement, I don't think there is any doubt that under WTO rules which will be adopted, new members can be added without a vote of Congress.
Regarding the phrase, the ``living agreement'' that is in this deal, the fact that the agreement itself said this is unprecedented. It is the first time we have ever had language like ``living agreement'' in a trade deal.
What does that mean? Can the agreement be changed after adoption without congressional action? It appears so.
So I have asked, Mr. President, make this living agreement language--it is not much--public, and let's discuss and analyze just what it means. Does it mean the President can meet with other countries, even vote against a change in trade policy or an agreement with them, lose the vote and have law of Congress overridden or us be in violation of the agreement, subject to sanctions by the Commission or international body.
And will the President state, explicitly, and accept language that would mean that rules regarding immigration would not be changed? I hope we can do that.
I will just say I see my colleague and admired chairman of the Finance Committee on the floor. He has been willing to meet with my staff, talk respectfully about these issues, and consider how to wrestle through them. I hope we can make some progress, but I am concerned we might not make sufficient progress.
We need to think about these things. It can no longer be denied that wages for American workers have been flat or even falling for decades. One analysis says that real hourly wages today are lower than they were in 1973. At the same time, the share of Americans actually working--the percentage of Americans in their working years who are actually working--has steadily declined to its lowest level in four decades.
The middle class is shrinking. I wish it were not so.
CNN recently summarized the results of a Pew study which found:
Most states saw median incomes fall between 2000 and 2013, an ominous sign for the well-being of the middle class. .....
That is really a catastrophe. So in 13 years we have seen a steady decline in wages for the middle class.
A separate Pew Research Center study shows that the share of adults in middle-income households has fallen from 61 percent in 1970 to 51 percent in 2013. The erosion over the past four decades has been sure and steady. That is the Pew research.
They continue:
If past trends continue to hold, there is little reason to believe the recovery from the Great Recession will eventually lead to a rebound in the share of adults in middle-income households.
In other words, they are going to be below a middle-income level. And that is not good. Don't we, colleagues, have a responsibility to honestly say: What is causing this?
We have had Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents during this time. Trends are occurring out there. Some of them may be difficult to overcome. But don't we need to talk about it more comprehensively?
Pew further finds that while middle-income families--who are the majority of Americans by far--earned 62 percent of the Nation's household income in 1970, today they earn only 44 percent of the Nation's household income. So the sad fact is that the middle class is getting smaller. This has enormous implications not just economically but socially. The size and strength of a middle class impacts the health of a community and a nation in many ways. What are we here for in the Senate if not to address, consider, and deal with these kinds of issues? We need to ask some tough questions about why the middle class is shrinking and why pay isn't rising.
I have no doubt that bigger government, more regulations, more taxes, our huge $18 trillion debt and the interest we pay on it, and, lately, ObamaCare are important factors in weakening American economic growth and the wages of Americans. I truly believe those are significant factors. But is that all there is? I am afraid there is more. It appears there are two other factors of significance that are not being sufficiently recognized or seriously discussed by any of our political, corporate, and academic leaders, or the media establishment. So it is time for us to begin a vigorous analysis of our conduct of trade. I believe that is one of the factors that may be impacting the wages and income of Americans.
Over a number of years, I have pointed out that I believe immigration actions are also containing the growth of wages, as economic studies repeatedly show. But what about trade? Do our policies like the Trans-Pacific Partnership concede too much to our mercantilist competitor allies? These are good countries--Japan, Vietnam. We want to see Vietnam develop and move into the world orbit. There are other countries, but those are the two big ones that would be most impacted by this agreement.
We already have trade agreements with Canada, Mexico, Australia, Chile, and others. What about those that have a different philosophy on trade than we do--the mercantilist ideas? Do their actions over the years establish that they have developed trade and nontrade barrier systems that provide their workers and manufacturers substantial advantages in the world marketplace? Have they figured out how to utilize other barriers--other than just
[Page: S2956] GPO's PDF
tariffs--to advantage their manufacturers and jobs?
It is astounding to me how little serious discussion there has been on these issues.
For some trade advocates, even bad trade deals are good. Truly, this is so. Many advocates are quite open in their belief that as long as the consumer gets a lower price for their product, there should be no concern if American plants close, workers are laid off, and wages fall. They say that in their writings. The politicians don't say it; they have to answer to the people. Many of the theorists for open borders and utterly free trade say that often. So I fear we have almost an obsession with trade agreements and that this is so strong that many TPP advocates don't concern themselves with anything but that we admit more cheaper goods, that lower prices are good for consumers.
That we are all consumers, there can be no doubt. That is a valuable thing, for consumers to have products at lower prices. I don't dispute that. I know some do, but I don't. But is any trade agreement good because it creates more low-cost imports, especially if we are competing against partners who know how to cheat the system and gain manipulative advantage and we don't stand up and try to correct that?
Are trade deficits, which are at all-time-high levels, immaterial? Some say trade deficits don't make much of a difference. They do. Is the continuing shuttering of American manufacturing of no concern? I think it is of great concern. Fundamentally, can America be strong without a manufacturing base? Can we be secure without a steel industry, which is getting hammered through unfair trade and dumping and other actions by our trading competitors?
At bottom, we must ask whether our aggressive trading partners, using a mercantilist philosophy, may be gaining unfair advantage over the American manufacturing base and workers in America.
These nations--good nations, good allies--are not religious about free trade. In general, while they assert their desire for expanded free trade, their actual policies seek fewer U.S. exports to them using nontariff as well as tariff barriers, and our trade competitors use currency manipulation, subsidies, and other actions to expand their exports to us. Their goal is naturally to seek full employment in their countries while exporting their unemployment to our country.
This refusal by many to acknowledge the mercantilist policies of our trading competitors has gone, it seems to me, from promoting healthy trading relationships, to some sort of ideology, even to the nature--I have said, and others have as well--of a religion. If you just knock down all trade barriers, allow our competitors to use whatever tactics they want to use, accept any product that comes in that is cheaper, somehow we will have world peace, cancer will be cured, and the economy will boom. But forgive me if I am not willing to buy into that.
Cheaper products are good, is what our promoters say. That is all you need to know. Don't ask too many questions about facts. You are going to get cheaper products. That is the only thing that counts.
Well, I don't dismiss the advantage of cheaper products. It is a serious issue. This issue deserves everybody's serious discussion. But I have to tell you, I am having my doubts. I have voted for other trade agreements, and I am uneasy about this.
Conservatism is not an ideology; it is, as my friend Bob Tyrrell at the American Spectator likes to say, a cast of mind. It lives in the real world. And certainly the real world is not working so well for Middle America today. It is not. Their financial status continues to decline.
The conservative thing to do at this point in time is to avoid any dramatic and sudden changes that destabilize families and communities further, to not accelerate the problem that exists. And let's dig in deeply to the questions I ask: Will wages go up? Will trade deficits be reduced?
By the way, the Korea Free Trade Agreement didn't work so well. We were promised a number of things. President Obama promised the Korea Free Trade Agreement would increase U.S. goods exported by $10 billion to $11 billion. However, since the deal was ratified several years ago, our exports have risen only $0.8 billion--less than $1 billion--while Korean exports to the United States increased by more than $12 billion, widening our trade gap substantially, almost doubling it. I am just telling you that is what was promised, and the reality didn't match the promises. So is it any wonder the American people are uneasy about these agreements? And I think all of us should be. We should look to be more careful about them.
Capital is mobile. People can move money and invest anywhere in the world almost with the click of a computer button. But many times workers are not mobile like that. So when a company closes its plant in the United States and shifts production to a lower wage country, the company may make more money, but the workers in their communities, who cannot move overseas, suddenly don't have jobs, and they are hurt.
Of course we can't stop globalization in this economy. We can't reverse the effects of trade. But we can work for trade agreements that create a more level playing field against our good but mercantilist, aggressive trading partners who look for advantages every day and who lust after access to the American marketplace. That is what they want, but we don't have to give that access unless they treat our products with respect and allow access to their marketplaces.
So many in our country have an inflexible ideology that the United States and the American people should allow for the completely unrestricted movement of goods and labor into the United States, even when our trading partners manipulate rules for their advantage. Those truest believers are most adamant about passing this fast-track legislation as fast as possible, with the least discussion possible. But the United States is a country, colleagues, not an economy, and a country's job is first and foremost to protect its citizens from military attacks and also from unfair trade policies that threaten our economic well-being.
Any trade agreement we enter into should have a mutually beneficial impact on all parties, not just our country but other countries that enter into the agreement. It should be mutually beneficial. That is what contracts do every day. It must not continue or further the decline of manufacturing in the United States. It should seek to end trade unfairness and to increase, not reduce, wages in the United States.
We cannot afford to lose a single job nowadays to unfair competition or unfair trade agreements. We are experiencing a decline in wages, a decline in employment. We need to fight for every single job. And that means fair trade--you open your markets before you demand that we open ours. They haven't done so, while we have maintained open markets here.
But the fast-track procedures ensure that any trade deal--which is yet unseen--can pass through Congress with a minimum of actual scrutiny after years of soaring trade deficits. Shouldn't we apply more scrutiny to trade agreements, not less? Are we afraid to ask tough questions?
Take the issue of currency manipulation. This President has refused to confront this practice that provides a clear advantage for certain foreign competitors. His negotiations have refused to put any provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership that address this issue. And if Congress were to force it in, I am not sure he would even then enforce it.
The people pushing for this trade agreement, my colleagues have to know, don't want to confront the currency manipulation. They think it is all right. They do not think it is a problem. It reduces the price of imports, so we should be thankful, they say. And under fast-track, there will be nothing we can do to amend or stop it.
Finally, the reality is that this fast-track legislation is a significant vote. No fast-track deal, once passed, has ever been blocked. So if we want to confront currency manipulation and other unfair practices, our best bet is to have trade bills come before Congress through the regular order--not as a fast-track deal. Then Congress can properly exercise its responsibilities that have been delegated to us under the Constitution of the United States.
[Page: S2957] GPO's PDF
I appreciate the able leaders of the committee who are advancing this legislation. I respect them and many of the arguments they have made. There is much value to them. But I am uneasy about where we are going today. I think we need to spend more time analyzing the actual impact--not the theoretical impact--of trade agreements--the actual results of our ability to penetrate the foreign markets. If we do that, maybe we can figure a way to actually improve the financial condition of mainstream America.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
Subsequently, also on Monday, May 18, Senate Floor, speech of Sharrod Brown (D-OH) speaking for his own
: AMENDMENT NO. 1242
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected. Mr. DURBIN. I was unavoidably delayed on United flight No. 616 and not present for the vote on Senator Brown's amendment No. 1242 to increase funding levels for the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. Had I been here, I would have voted "YEA".
Monday, May 18, Senate Floor, speech of James Lankford (R-OK) speaking for his own S.Amdt. 1237, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE pages S2960-S2961:
} "USCIRF recently recommended that the United States should "ensure that human rights and religious freedom are pursued consistently and publicly at every level of the U.S.-Vietnam relationship, I found a hardley "recent" one that was made 11 years ago,
, Testimony before the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Michael Young, Chair, The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Protecting Religious Freedom in Vietnam: Balancing Interests and Principles.
For the record, Contrast USCIRF to another other U.S. government agency, the IRF:
All these right-wing dogwhistle-colors blind my ears and hurt my eyes making it impossible to see the GOP beacon of enduring justice for the least of We The People that Lankford characterized as "all people worldwide (who) are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". sheesh.
.
.