The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“ENSURING TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ACT--MOTION TO RECONSIDER CLOTURE VOTE ON MOTION TO PROCEED” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the Senate section on pages S2908-S2912 on May 14, 2015.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
ENSURING TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ACT--MOTION TO
RECONSIDER CLOTURE VOTE ON MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote on which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1314 is agreed to.
Under the previous order, the time until 2 p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, soon the Senate will vote once again on whether to begin debate on legislation that will help shape the future of America's trade policy, and, in addition, our role in the global economy. Needless to say, I was very disappointed when many of my Democratic colleagues voted to block debate on these important issues earlier this week. I am hoping for a much different result this afternoon.
This vote will set the stage for an important debate, quite likely the most significant debate that we will have in this Chamber all year. This debate will determine whether our Nation is willing and able to accept the challenges of the world economy or whether we continue in retreat and yield to the siren song of isolationism and protectionism.
It will determine whether we, as a nation, are able and willing to take the lead in setting the rules for the world economy or whether we will sit on the sidelines and let other countries create the rules that will govern trade in their regions for the foreseeable future. It should be pretty clear where I stand in this debate.
I support free trade and open markets for U.S. exporters and job creators. I support new opportunities for American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, service providers, and the workers that they all employ. I support expanding American influence in the most vibrant and strategic regions in the world. The best way for Congress to help our country achieve these goals is to renew trade promotion authority, or TPA, as soon as possible.
That is what we will be debating, if this vote goes the way I hope it will. TPA is the most effective tool in the Congress's trade arsenal. TPA ensures that Congress sets the objectives for our trade negotiators and that those negotiators will be able to reach the best deals possible. Without TPA we have no way of holding the administration accountable in trade negotiations and no way of making sure our country can get a good deal.
Getting TPA renewed is currently President Obama's top legislative priority. He is right and we should support our President on this issue.
As chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over trade, it is a very high priority for me, as well. The TPA bill that will be brought before the Senate represents a bipartisan, bicameral effort to advance our Nation's trade interests.
The legislation we will be debating will also include provisions to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, or TAA, which I know is a high priority for many of my colleagues. It has taken a long time, a lot of work, and no small amount of compromise to get us to this point. People from both parties have put in enormous efforts just to get a chance to have this debate here on the Senate floor.
I want to thank my colleagues for their work thus far in this effort, but also to remind them that we are not there yet. Now, I am well aware that not all of my colleagues share my views on trade. I expect that they will make those views abundantly clear in the coming days, as they should. But to do that, we need to begin that debate. I am looking forward to it. The American people deserve a spirited debate on these issues.
Of course, they deserve an opportunity to see this Chamber function like the great deliberative body that it once was and under the current leadership is becoming again. Put simply, the obstruction has gone on long enough. It is time to get down to the serious business of legislating. I hope we can begin or continue that process today by voting in favor of the motion to proceed. I encourage all of my colleagues to do that so that we can get on this bill, debate it, have a full-fledged debate, and let the chips fall where they may.
If we do, I think we will all feel a lot better about what goes on around this place.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue.) The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me respectfully disagree with my friend from Utah. Let me urge all Members to vote against what I believe to be a disastrous trade agreement, a trade agreement based on other trade agreements, which, in fact, have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and have led to a race to the bottom.
Let me just briefly give four reasons--and there are many more. But let me just focus on four objective reasons why we should defeat this fast-track legislation and why we need to develop a whole new approach to trade that benefits American workers rather than just the CEOs of large multinational corporations.
Reason No. 1, this unfettered free-trade agreement with Vietnam, Malaysia, and 10 other countries follows in the footsteps of disastrous trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA, Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, and the South Korea Free Trade Agreement.
Any objective look at these trade agreements will tell us that they have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and have led us to a race to the bottom, where American workers are forced to compete against workers in low-wage countries who are making pennies an hour.
Over and over again, supporters of these types of trade agreements have told us about how many jobs they would create, how beneficial it would be for the middle class and working class of this country. But over and over again, virtually everything they told us turned out to be wrong, and they are wrong again in terms of the TPP.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton promised that NAFTA would create 1 million American jobs in 5 years. Instead, NAFTA has led to the loss of almost 700,000 jobs. In 1999, we were promised that Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China would open the Chinese economy to American-
made goods and services. Instead, as everybody who goes shopping knows--when you buy product after product made in China--that trade agreement has cost us some 2.7 million American jobs. I remember hearing all the accolades about free trade with China. They all turned out to be wrong.
In 2011, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told us that the South Korea Free Trade Agreement would create some 280,000 jobs. Well, wrong again--instead, that agreement has led to the loss of some 75,000 jobs.
The reason for all of this is very simple. Why would an American corporation invest in this country, pay American workers 15, 18, 20 bucks an hour, provide health care, have to obey environmental regulations, and deal with trade unions, when they can go abroad, pay people pennies an hour, and not have to worry about the environment. That is, of course, what has happened.
These trade agreements have failed. TPP is based on these principles. It will be another failure. We should reject it for that reason.
Second point, in politics it is always interesting and important to know whose side different groups are on. You can learn a lot by who is supporting an agreement and by who is opposing the agreement.
Well, let's talk about who is supporting the TPP. It turns out that virtually every major multinational corporation, including many that have shut down plants in the United States and moved abroad--all of these multinationals think the TPP is a great idea. I am sure I can understand why it will be a great program for them. It will only accelerate their ability to shut down plants in America and move to low-wage countries abroad.
There is another group that is actively pushing for us to vote for the TPP. That is the pharmaceutical industry. As I think every American knows, the drug companies in this country charge our people here the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, but they love this legislation. They just love it because they think as a result of this legislation, they will be able to charge people all over the world, including in very poor countries, higher prices for their products.
Wall Street--surprise of all surprises--Wall Street loves this agreement. As we all remember, not so many years ago, the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior of Wall Street caused the most significant economic recession since the Great Depression. But Wall Street loves this legislation because it will make it easier for them to sell esoteric, complicated financial products all over the world.
So those are some of the groups that think this legislation is wonderful, that we should vote for it.
Which are the groups and the organizations that oppose this legislation? Well, it turns out that every trade union in this country, unions representing over 20 million American workers, unions that are fighting every single day to get workers higher wages, better pay, better health care, are in strong opposition to this legislation.
This is what the trade union movement has to say about TPP:
Fast Track trade deals mean fewer jobs, lower wages, and a declining middle class. Fast Track has been used since the Nixon Administration to advance deals, like NAFTA, that are sold to the American people as job creation measures. But these deals, written largely by and for the world's largest corporations, don't create jobs; their main purpose isn't even related to trade, it's to enshrine rules that make it easier for firms to invest offshore and increase corporate influence over the global economy.
That is what the trade union movement in this country believes about this agreement. But it is not only the trade union movement that has opposed the TPP. Virtually every major environmental and scientific group in this country, groups such as the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and 350.org oppose this legislation. This is what the environmental organizations have written about this bill:
As leading U.S. environmental and science organizations, we write to express our strong opposition to ``fast track'' trade promotion authority and to urge you to oppose any legislation that would limit the ability of Congress to ensure that trade pacts deliver benefits for communities, workers, public health, and the environment.
So we have trade union organizations representing some 20 million American workers that say we should not go forward with this agreement. We have organizations representing millions of people in the environmental community that say we should not go forward with this legislation.
Then we have religious groups, such as the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.), the United Methodist Church, and the Sisters of Mercy, that also are opposing this legislation. This is what they have written:
As people of faith, we call on all nations and government to uphold the dignity of all people. Yet modern trade agreements have harmed people, especially the most vulnerable in the United States and globally. . . . Trade, like the rest of the economy, must be a means of lifting people out of poverty and ensure a country's ability to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of their citizens and the planet. In recognition of your sacred task of stewardship over people and policies, we ask you to oppose fast track trade promotion authority for any trade agreement currently being negotiated.
So, on the one hand, you have all of the big-money organizations. You have every major multinational corporation in America. You have Wall Street, and you have the pharmaceutical industry. They say: Vote for this legislation.
On the other side, you have unions representing millions of Americans. You have environmental organizations representing millions more Americans, and you have religious organizations who say: Wait a second. This fast-track trade agreement may not be a good idea. Vote no.
So on the one hand, you have groups whose motivation is greed and profit, and on the other hand, you have organizations trying to protect working people, trying to protect the environment, trying to uphold basic religious values about human dignity saying no. Well, which side should we be on? I say we stand with those who are concerned about workers' rights, the environment, and moral values.
Let me give you another reason why we should oppose this trade agreement--and this is a provision that has gotten far too little attention--and that is the investor-state dispute settlement. That sounds like a highly technical term. What in God's Name does that mean? But let me try to explain what it does mean. What it does mean in English is that it would allow large multinational corporations to sue national, State, and local governments--not only in the United States but all over the world--if those governments pass legislation that hurts their expected future profits.
This, to me, is exactly about what this whole agreement stands for. It is not for raising wages or creating jobs. It is to protect corporate profits. And, unbelievably, what this legislation is prepared to do is to undermine basic democracy in terms of what local communities around the world, States in the United States, and national governments do--whether it is the United States or any other government--if that undermines future profits of large multinational corporations. That is really extraordinary.
I thought that our job, as Members of the Senate, and the job of people in Australia who represent their government and people democratically elected all over the world--I had the idea that maybe their function was to represent, as best they could, the needs of the people who voted for them. I guess that is a radical and crazy idea.
What this bill says is that if legislation is passed by people who are democratically elected, those decisions--that legislation--can be brought to an independent tribunal, and those countries could have to pay huge fines if the legislation, which might protect health care or might protect the environment, undermines future profits of multinational corporations.
What an attack--not only on health and the environment--but it is an attack on the fundamental tenets of democracy. Our job is not to worry about future corporate profits. Our job is to worry about the needs of the American people. That is what elected governments all over the world are supposed to do.
Let me give you some examples--because we have not talked about this--of what is already going on around the world based on similar language to what will be in the TPP if we vote for it--similar language.
This is maybe the most outrageous example that I can give you, but there are many others. Philip Morris, one of the large tobacco companies in the world, is suing both Australia and Uruguay over labeling requirements for cigarettes.
Uruguay is this little country, and what they have done is they have been very aggressive in trying to protect their children and their people from the very harmful impacts of smoking.
Now, you know what. I happen to think that is a good thing. I think in America and all over the world we should do everything that we can to make sure that our kids are not hooked on nicotine and do not have to suffer heart disease, cancer, emphysema, and all of the other diseases related to smoking. I think our government should be very vigorous. We have done some things in our country. I think we should do more.
Uruguay, a little tiny country whose President turns out to be an oncologist, a guy who is worried about cancer, was trying to do everything it could to try to keep the kids in Uruguay from getting hooked on cigarettes. And what happened to Uruguay? Well, they were taken to this independent tribunal, composing, as I understand it, of three corporate lawyers, because Philip Morris said: Hey, Uruguay, you are impacting our future profits. We want to get kids hooked onto nicotine. We want to sell our products to kids and to the people of Uruguay. By fighting us, passing legislation, and doing things that will make it harder for kids to smoke, you are ruining our profits.
This case is now resting in an independent tribunal. How insane is that--that a country trying to protect its kids from getting cancer is being sued by Philip Morris because it might cost them profits? So this is not only a health issue--in this case of cancer prevention--but this is an issue of basic democracy.
Do the people of Uruguay, do the people of Australia, do the people of any country have a right to be very vigorous in protecting the health of their kids and their citizens without worrying about being sued by a cigarette manufacturer that is trying to poison these kids with deadly products.
So this is not only a health issue, it is a basic democratic issue, and if Philip Morris wins this case, it will be sending a message to every government in the world that they can't be aggressive in doing things to protect their kids from cigarettes.
That is one example. Let me give another equally outrageous example. Under this investor-state provision, a French waste management firm--
Veolia--is suing for $110 million under the France-Egypt bilateral investment treaty over changes to Egypt's labor laws, including an increase in the minimum wage.
Now, let me be honest. I know nothing about Egypt's minimum wage, but I do think Egypt and every other country on Earth has a right to raise its minimum wage, if they think it makes sense, without worrying about being sued by some company that will have to pay higher wages. How crazy is that? So, again, not being terribly knowledgeable about domestic policies in Egypt, the idea that they are being sued for the crime of raising their minimum wage is, to me, beyond comprehension.
Again, this is just an example of what is happening now and what will only happen in an accelerated manner if we pass this agreement, but let me give one last example.
A Swedish energy company called Vattenfall launched a $5 billion lawsuit over Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power. This initiative was implemented in response to the Fukushima disaster. Germany, last I knew, was an independent country, with an elected government, and they made a decision to phase out nuclear energy. Some people think it is a good idea, some think it is a bad idea, but last I heard that should be a decision of the German Government and the people who elected that government. The elected officials of Germany are not dummies. I presume they do what their people want them to do or they pay the political consequence.
But that was the decision of the elected officials of Germany. They said: Let's phase out nuclear power. Yet now they are being sued by a Swedish energy company, Vattenfall, for some $5 billion because they made that decision.
Now, that is just what is going on right now. Think about what that means into the future. It means any government around the world or in this trade agreement, it means any State in the United States--if my State of Vermont, which is sensitive to the environment, decides to go forward on an environmental piece of legislation, some large corporation can go to an independent tribunal and say: Look, we are going to sue Vermont for $1 billion because we wanted to do business there and their environmental regulations are impacting our ability to make a profit. That undermines what the State of Vermont or the State of Georgia or any other State chooses to do.
To me, it is just beyond comprehension that anybody would vote for that type of legislation. We can disagree with what they do in Egypt or disagree with what they do in Uruguay, we can disagree with what we do here, but to say an independent tribunal can provide billions of dollars in damages to a corporation because of a democratically made decision in the United States or any other country around the world is, to me, just incomprehensible.
The last point I would want to make deals with a health issue. Clearly, one of the health crises we face not only in America but around the world is the high cost of prescription drugs. In our country, if my memory is correct, some 25 percent of Americans who receive prescriptions from doctors are unable to afford to fill those prescriptions--someone goes to the doctor who diagnoses that individual and writes out a script, and the person says thank you very much but doesn't have the money to fill that script. It is bad in this country, but obviously it is much worse in very, very poor countries around the world.
What this agreement will do, among other things, if it is passed, is allow pharmaceutical companies to fight back against their brand-name products being converted into generics at much lower prices, so poor countries all over the world would have to struggle to come up with very high prices for medicine for people who don't have a whole lot of money.
In fact, that is why Doctors Without Borders has said--and Doctors Without Borders, as you may know, is a heroic group of doctors who, whenever there is a health care crisis around the world--whether it is Ebola in Africa or whatever--travel to those places and put their lives on the line. Some have died to provide medical treatment in the most difficult of circumstances to the poorest people around the world. They are really a heroic group of people. But Doctors Without Borders has said: ``The TPP agreement is on track to become the most harmful trade pact ever for access to medicines in developing countries.''
So to my mind, the vote we are going to have in a short time is really a no-brainer. Are we dumb enough to continue down the road of failed trade policies? I would hope not. Do we think it is a good idea to be siding with corporate America, which has already used previous trade agreements to outsource millions of our jobs and thinks this agreement is just wonderful? Are we going to stand with Wall Street, whose greed has no limits? Are we going to stand with the pharmaceutical industry, which wants to sell drugs to people all over the world at a higher price or do we stand with unions, environmental groups, religious groups? Do we get involved in a trade agreement which allows corporations to undermine the democratic rights of countries that stand up for their environment, stand up for the health and well-
being of their kids? Do we make it harder for poor people around the world to get the medicines they need?
This is a no-brainer. I would hope Members of the Senate send a resounding note to the corporate world that says you can't have it all; that we are going to pass trade agreements which protect working families, which protect the middle class, and which protect struggling people all over the world and we are going to vote no on fast-track and no on the TPP.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, the negotiating process has finally worked. Indeed, the spirit of four bills that passed the Finance Committee last week on this issue of trade--the spirit of that overwhelming bipartisan vote in the Finance Committee has now been carried out on the floor of the Senate and, in fact, is being carried out and will be so as we invoke the motion for cloture to go to the bill in the next vote that will occur in 30 minutes.
Certainly, trade preferences with regard to African countries, plus the trade preferences with regard to the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, Haiti, were not controversial at all. We passed that.
Certainly, the intent was that the safeguards we put in with regard to considering trade legislation put them on a Customs bill. That was intended to go along with the trade legislation, and now that has passed. Remember, all of this was bollixed up 2 or 3 days ago and we weren't going anywhere, but cooler minds prevailed and brought everybody together.
Now we go to the main event.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the minority has expired.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON. I am very grateful to my colleague from Alabama for allowing me to do that.
Mr. President, the main event is the combined two bills of trade adjustment assistance, which is, if there is a disruption in a local economy or in a particular trade as a result of new international trade arrangements, there will be extra training for those workers to be trained into another job so they have a livelihood--that is common sense. That is combined with the other main event, which is a procedure to fast-track, ultimately, the two trade bills that are being negotiated by the United States, one in the Pacific area, the other one with Europe.
Fast-track means that when those trade bills come to the Congress for approval or disapproval, it will be done with an up-or-down vote. In other words, they can't be pecked to death with hundreds of amendments. That is why it is called fast-track. We are getting to the point where we are going to pass this as we get into the consideration of this legislation and amendments that will be coming to it.
At the end of the day, this Senator is quite confident we will be able to pass the fast-track, and it will have this Senator's support. Why? Simply because this Senator believes these trade agreements are in the interest of the United States.
I would conclude by saying that if we take, for example, the potential Pacific agreement, our military commanders have told us that, in fact, it is one of the best things we could do to get this trade agreement so China can't get in the economic door before the United States.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be notified after 12 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify the Senator.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think that as we consider these trade agreements, it is appropriate that we recognize the importance of free trade, how it helps the world and helps the economy, and it is something I certainly support and have supported on a number of occasions in the past, including the last big trade bill, the Korean trade bill. I generally support--I actually do support the idea of comparative advantage, the gist of which is that if a nation can produce a product and sell it cheaper in another country, people over time will benefit from allowing that country's product to enter the country and being able to buy it at a lower price. That is comparative advantage, and I think it is sound in principle and generally sound in practice.
But the American workers are not doing well now. Wages have not increased since 2000--15 years. We have been down $3,000 in median family income since 2009 and still down $3,000. We have the lowest percentage of Americans in working years actually working today since the 1970s. So this is not a healthy environment for Americans. The market has done pretty well. Revenues and profits are holding pretty well, but the average American working person is not doing so well.
So what has happened? Is there a problem with currency manipulation, state-owned enterprises, subsidized foreign industries, people who dump products here below market cost or right at market cost being subsidized and supported by foreign countries? Do those alter the situation? Do they make it impossible for American businesses to compete, and if they go out of business, will our government bail them out in any way? We had one bailout after the financial collapse, but businesses are closing every day and they are not being bailed out today. We have seen substantial reductions in manufacturing around the country.
The Wall Street Journal just this week published an article, ``The Case of the Vanishing Worker.'' That was in Monday's Wall Street Journal. It talked about the city of Decatur, IL, and detailed how their unemployment rate had gotten as high as 14 percent and it had dropped to almost half of that. It dropped down to almost half of that, so that looked pretty good, but when they looked at the numbers, they weren't so good.
What did they find? Even though the unemployment rate had fallen to almost half, how many people were actually working? Well, the answer was 8 percent fewer. So how can the unemployment rate fall and the number of people actually working fall at the same time? The answer is, as the article said, that people are moving away; they are dropping out of the workforce entirely; they are taking early retirement. That is what is happening too often in America.
So I think it is important for us to ask, how are these trade agreements benefiting the nation? How are they impacting American people? Let's ask some questions about it.
I asked the President questions on that. I sent him a letter, and I asked him a series of questions relating to wages. Will this trade agreement improve job prospects? Will it improve or make worse our trade deficits? Well, he hasn't answered those questions.
So I ask my colleagues: Has anybody demanded the Commerce Department, the Treasury Department, the administration to produce data to show that if we enter into another agreement involving 40 percent of the world's economy, involving some of our most capable and rigorous and toughest mercantilist competitors, what will it do to the American workers' prospects? Is that a fair question to ask? We haven't seen any discussion of it, so far as I can tell. And let me tell you what the reason is.
Well, first, I will say this: I believe unfair trade competition is real. We talk to people out there every day, and they tell us about it. Dan DiMicco, former CEO of Nucor Steel, has one of his plants in Alabama. They have plants all over the country. He said that these trade agreements are in effect unilateral American trade disarmament and they enable foreign mercantilism. In other words, what he is saying is that we have acquiesced to the mercantilist nationalism emphasis of our trading partners. And why is that? Well, I figured it out. It has taken me a while to understand exactly what the theory is behind these trade agreements, and I don't believe I am in error when I discuss this.
Ross Kaminsky, writing in the American Spectator--a fine magazine--
wrote a fine piece arguing for this TPA and the trade agreement. He was overwhelmingly saying it must be passed virtually regardless of what is in it.
I have to say his position is consistent with the position of the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and many other economists, and we have to understand what it is. And I am losing confidence in this position. I am not sure it is a good position. As a matter of fact, I don't think it is. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think it is.
This is what he says on trade:
It bears repeating--and repeating and repeating and repeating--that the benefit to American consumers of free trade is so large that it must trump any parochial interest of a particular industry or labor union or politician.
Because they lower the prices of imports, and even understanding that there will be a few losers, free trade agreements are almost always worth supporting regardless of what is offered to American exporters by the foreign trade partner.
Let me repeat that. He said they are almost always worthy of being entered into regardless of what is offered to the American exporters by the foreign trade partner.
I remember, as a skilled businessman, when I first came to the Senate, and Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, was before me. I was kind of nervous about it--a big maestro of the economy.
I asked him a simple question: Mr. Greenspan, what if a country wants to trade with us, wants to sell products to us but will buy zero products from us? They just want to sell to us but will buy nothing in return. Should we enter into a trade agreement with them?
What do you think he answered? I used to ask people in townhalls about this on occasion, and they would say he said no. But, but he said yes.
I am telling you, this is the movement--the mentality of the current trade agreement supporters, at least in the intellectual, corporate world and the newspaper world and many within universities, certainly not all.
So is this a valid position? Are we subjecting our American people unfairly to competition that could cost jobs and so forth?
Well, I am losing confidence in those views. That is all I am saying, colleagues. And I think it is time for us to analyze what it means.
I would say that the steel industry of the United States is not a little bitty matter. Right now, U.S. Steel closed a big plant I think in Indiana or Ohio. They just laid off a thousand or so workers in Alabama. SSAB Steel in Alabama says they are facing ferocious dumping, it is threatening their market share and their ability to make the most modern plant in the world competitive, and they don't think it is fair.
How long do you have to sustain this to have dealt substantial damage to the American steel industry? Don't we need a steel industry? Where would steelworkers get jobs? They say: Well, they can take service jobs. Well, maybe so. Maybe they can work at the plumbing company. Maybe they can work at a hospital. Maybe they can work in a nursing home. Maybe there is other work that can be found. But at some point, do we not need a manufacturing capability that provides a lot more than a service job--manufacturing capabilities, for example, that provide demand for products, demand for supplies, demand for workers who supply those plants and have ripple effects much larger than a person just repairing faucets. I think we have to ask that question in a very serious way.
I said earlier I voted for the Korean trade pact. I did not have a lot of trouble voting for that at the time. I thought it was going to be fine. Maybe it is OK. Maybe the pact is going to be, sometime in the future, positive for the United States.
The Koreans, like the Japanese, are good trading people. They are allies around the world on security agreements. I am not putting the Koreans down. The Koreans are tough trade negotiators. They have a mercantilist philosophy.
What happened before that agreement was passed? President Obama promised that the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement would increase U.S. goods exports to Korea by $10 billion to $11 billion. However, since the deal was ratified in 2012, I believe it was, our exports rose only
$0.8 billion--less than $1 billion, not $10 billion. Does that make any difference?
We just bring in from abroad and our trading partners don't allow exports abroad? What about the Korean imports to the United States? They rose more than $12 billion, widening our trade gap, almost doubling our trade.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 12 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe I had up to 15 to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is still time until 2. We are just notifying you of the 12 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. I see my colleague from Louisiana. If he is ready to speak, I will wrap up.
Mr. VITTER. I do not desire to speak.
Mr. SESSIONS. I will wrap up, Mr. President.
What about the Census Department's report on the U.S. trade deficit of South Korea? They found it has almost doubled since the passage of the agreement. In 2011, the United States had a $13.2 billion trade deficit with South Korea--not a healthy relationship there--but in 2014, it was $25 billion.
Furthermore, the deficit is currently 66 percent higher so far this year than it was at the same point last year. March was the largest trade deficit we have had in a very long time. The first quarter, we had a huge deficit. I believe the March trade deficit was the largest worldwide that we have had in over 6 years. It was almost the highest ever.
I am going to support moving forward to discuss this trade bill. There will be some amendments that I would seek to offer. If that is the will of the Congress, those will pass; if not, they will not pass. But fundamentally I do believe it is time for the American people to expect their political leaders to give them some real analysis about what the results of these trade agreements are going to be. Will it help raise wages? Will it create increasing job prospects? Would it increase or reduce our trade deficit? Trade deficits represent a drain and a negative pull on the American economy. Some say they do not make much difference, but they do. It does impact adversely GDP. With regard to those questions, I think we need some answers. I will be asking those as we go forward.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share a few more thoughts with my colleagues.
In 2014, net exports--net exports subtracted 1.5 percent from fourth-
quarter GDP. That is a lot. GDP growth in the fourth quarter was subtracted by--excuse me, 1.15 percent. That is more than $500 billion. That is enough to fund a highway reauthorization program for a long time.
The problem is that in the short run, Americans tend to be losing jobs as a result of trade agreements; whereas, long-term unemployed people have a difficult time finding work. I would say I believe in trade, but it is not a religion with me. I believe it is a religion when somebody says that you should enter into a trade agreement with anybody, opening your markets totally without demanding anything in return for that.
I have to tell you, as I just read from others--it is clearly the policy of the Wall Street Journal--that is good policy, that you should enter into a trade agreement whether or not your partner will allow you to sell anything at all to them. I say good negotiations in a contract are, which a trade negotiation is, if we open our markets, our competitors ought to open theirs sufficiently. Too often we have the problems that arise from nontariff barriers that are impacting the ability of American businesses to sell products in their country. So even if they reduce their tariff, their ability to sell products is blocked by other nontariff matters, all of which I think we can discuss in the weeks to come.
Let's be sure we understand where this trade agreement is taking us, what the philosophy and approach behind it is, and let's be sure it serves the interests of the American people first.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we start the vote now, 5 minutes earlier than we planned.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider the vote on which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1314 is agreed to.
____________________
