Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the future of America's trade policy, we have seen an onslaught of misleading claims and shocking tales of horror that have little or no connection to reality. Many of these ghost stories we have heard evolve around relatively obscure legal provisions relating to investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS. Senator Warren has called up an amendment that would give voice to those stories by stripping TPA protections from any trade agreement that includes ISDS provisions. I call ISDS provisions obscure not because no one knows about them or they are unimportant but because in the real world where people actually live, they are not part of our day-to-day lives. It is only in the overly hyperbolic and borderline fictional world of political debate that ISDS provisions impact the lives of everyday people. Simply defined, ISDS permits companies to challenge unfair or discriminatory treatment by foreign governments in binding arbitration rather than in ordinary courts. The purpose is to encourage the free flow of capital by protecting investors from uncompensated expropriation and other abuses that may not be adequately rectified in regular domestic courts that in many cases tend to disfavor foreign companies. That is it. That is all it is. This has nothing to do with secret tribunals that undermine U.S. sovereignty or provisions giving corporations the power to rewrite U.S. laws and regulations. We are hearing a lot of these stories about ISDS these days because the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which is currently under negotiation, includes such a provision. Of course, it would be a shock if it didn't. ISDS is a standard element of all U.S. trade agreements and international agreements in general. All told, there are 3,000 trade and investment agreements that include ISDS around the world. The United States has these types of agreements with 50 countries. They have been around for more than three decades. Contrary to some of the claims made by opponents of free-trade agreements, ISDS is not a weapon foreign entities use against the United States. In fact, the United States demands the inclusion of these types of provisions in our trade agreements in order to protect American businesses from discrimination from foreign governments. You see, here in the United States, foreign companies and investors are assured fair and equal treatment under our laws and in our court system. While the same is true with regard to many of our trading partners, it is by no means guaranteed. ISDS is one mechanism we have to ensure a fair process for our job creators who do business overseas. It is not widely used, but it provides an important backstop. Of course, those who use ISDS as a bludgeon against free-trade agreements tend to use arguments that are short on actual, verifiable facts. For example, we hear claims that ISDS allows corporations to overturn laws and regulations both here in the United States and abroad. The truth is that ISDS arbitrators have no power to overturn laws and regulations. The only recourse for a party that wins an ISDS arbitration happens to be financial compensation. Others have claimed that ISDS can be used to undermine our health care or welfare system or to undo our environmental protections. Once again, the facts tell a far different story. Most ISDS cases involve very narrow issues affecting individual investors, such as contract disputes, licensing, and permitting. There has never been a successful claim in ISDS that a nondiscriminatory public health, welfare, or environmental rule or legislation violated fairness or antidiscrimination requirements. We have also heard people say that ISDS provisions put U.S. taxpayers on the line for losses. In truth, the U.S. Government has never lost an ISDS case. In fact, only 17 cases have been brought against the United States in the entire history of ISDS. By contrast, 15,000 cases get filed against the U.S. Government in claims court every year. In short, ISDS poses no threats to the American taxpayer. In the end, virtually all of the tall tales we hear about ISDS come in the form of ridiculous hypotheticals that have very little basis in reality. But the facts are what they are. While it is only used sparingly, ISDS remains an important tool to protect U.S. investors and businesses. It is a fixture in international agreements, and if our negotiators did not demand its inclusion in our trade agreements, they would be doing our country a disservice. In March, the Washington Post editorial board--not really known for having an unabashedly probusiness bias--published an editorial outlining the shortcomings of the anti-ISDS crusade. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the editorial printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Once again, I am all for a fair and open debate on trade policy. I am glad we are on the floor having this discussion. I hope we can stick to the facts and not spend our time debating unsubstantiated scare tactics. I urge my colleagues to let common sense prevail and to vote against the Warren ISDS amendment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, of course I haven't seen all that, so I will have to enter an objection.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague, and I am trying to accommodate him. I always try to accommodate my colleagues. On the other hand, his side has stonewalled this since last Wednesday. Thursday was a full day we lost. We are going to be here Friday. We did not do very much yesterday; today, nothing. I am very concerned that we are not moving ahead. We are not doing what we should do. This is an important matter. It is an important bill. I chatted with the President earlier today. He indicated how important it is to him personally, what this bill means to our country, how important it is to get it passed and to pass it in a form the House will accept, which is what I am trying to do. I do not think it has been this side that has slowed this down, although I do not want to pick on either side. The Senators are certainly within their rights to slow-walk this all they want to. On the other hand, it is very difficult for me to sit here, having sat here all day and yesterday and would have been Thursday and Friday as well and Saturday if necessary. It strikes me as interesting that now they want all these amendments when they have had all this time to bring up their amendments and nobody was going to stop them. All I can say is that I hope we come here tomorrow prepared to do amendments or do them tonight. I am prepared to stay if we have to. But the fact is that we are not going anywhere on this right now. This is an extremely important bill not only for the Congress but for the President of the United States and for the world at large when you stop and think about it, certainly the world over in Asia. We are talking about having an agreement with Japan. It is the first time we have been able to do that. We have a new Prime Minister who is willing to work with us, and we are willing to work with him. That is a major achievement by this administration--not only that but 10 other countries. There is a high percentage of trade in this area, and what are we going to do--just leave it all to China to take over or are we going to take this more seriously and get this job done? We have a number of poison pills that people have wanted to bring up that naturally would mean the end of this particular bill. I would like to prevent that if we can because we are talking about a bipartisan bill that has plenty of bipartisan support that really is crucial to this country at this time and crucial to that region. That could be a very difficult region for us if we do not do this. If we do not do this and do it right, as we are trying to do and as the President is trying to do, then we will be just turning that whole area over to China. They are going to step right in and make the difference. Right now, these people want to deal with us, and there is a good reason they want to deal with us. But if we cannot even get our act in order to deal with them, then I can understand why they might go another route. They might be forced to go another route. We all saw the new bank that has been established over there. At first, there were very few countries that went with it. The last time I heard--I may be wrong on this--there were up to 60 countries, including some of the European countries, some of the greatest countries in the world now. What are we going to do--just cede the whole area to China or are we going to compete? This bill is for competitive purposes.

Mr. HATCH. Yes.

Mr. HATCH. That is right. Forgive me, I did not mean to indicate I was the only one doing this. I had an excellent partner.

Mr. HATCH. Right.

Mr. HATCH. Yes. I think both of us literally have tried to be fair to both sides. There are some amendments that I wish we did not have to put up with, to be perfectly frank with you, but that is always the case. Why should we not be fair to both sides? There comes a limit to what you can do in these matters. As I said, this is probably the most important bill in many respects, outside of ObamaCare, in this President's 8 years. It is an extremely important bill for our country. It is an extremely important bill for our economy. It is an extremely important bill for our allies over in those areas. It is an extremely important bill that helps to set the stage for TTIP, the 28 countries in Europe. All this bill does basically is provide a procedural mechanism whereby Congress has some control, if not total control, over what agreements are negotiated. This is not the TPP. It is not TTIP. It is not the final decisions on that. That will be made pursuant to this bill, which will be a very important bill for the purpose of saying that the White House and the administration follow certain protocols and recognize that the Congress of the United States is important in these trade matters, too. I want to thank my colleague from Oregon for the hard work he has done on this bill. He has been a wonderful partner to work with today, and I really appreciate him. I hope we can resolve these problems, but as of right now, I had to object to the unanimous consent request by the distinguished Senator from Ohio, for whom I have a lot of respect. I do not agree with him, but I know he is sincere, and I know he is working very hard for what he believes is proper. With that, I do not know what else to do other than just say I object to that.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to take just a few minutes today to talk about the ongoing effort to maintain funding for the highway trust fund. As we all know, while the highway trust fund currently has a large enough balance in terms of funding to last another 2 months, contracting authority expires at the end of May. Therefore, unless this Congress acts before we break for the Memorial Day recess, we will start seeing work stoppages on transportation projects around the country. No one wants to see that. There is bipartisan agreement on that basic point. There is similar agreement on the desire for a long-term highway bill. Members of both parties are tired of kicking the can down the road and want to see a real, long-term fix. The problem is that the bipartisan agreement tends to end there. The gold standard for a future, long-term highway bill has been set at 6 years. That is what everyone apparently wants to see happen, though few have offered workable solutions on how to pay for it. According to CBO, a 6-year highway bill would cost a little more than $90 billion. That is not chump change, even by Congress's standards. It takes real work and significant policy changes to raise that kind of money. One party cannot do it alone. It takes cooperation and compromise, something that, unfortunately, has been lacking around here for some time. As the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the funding for highways, I am committed to finding a solution that gets us as far into the future as possible before we have to revisit the issue again. Toward that end, I have been working with Chairman Ryan of the House Ways and Means Committee and others on a path forward. Our initial plan was to pull together enough funding to get us through the end of 2015. That would have cost roughly $11 billion--with a ``b''--not an insignificant number, by any means, but very doable under the circumstances. We had roughly $5 billion in agreed-upon tax compliance offsets from the previous highway episode late last year. Chairman Ryan and I thought it seemed reasonable to couple that with an equal amount in spending reductions and reforms, getting us very close to what we would need to get the country through the rest of the year on highways. For a time, it appeared as though at least some of our colleagues on the other side were willing to work with us on this general framework. Unfortunately, that cooperation did not last. In fact, it never really began. Last week, rather than even consider a path forward that includes spending reductions, our Democratic counterparts, at the urging of their leadership here in the Senate, effectively walked away from the negotiating table. As a result, it appears that the only immediate path forward is to extend contracting authority until the end of July, when the funding runs out, setting us up for another deadline and potential cliff in just a few short weeks. Let me be clear, I do not fault Republican leaders in either Chamber for taking this route. It was, given the short timetable, the only option left after Democrats failed to engage in meeting us halfway with a balanced package of compliance revenue and spending reductions. But make no mistake, we are going to be here again in 2 months, facing the same problem, because unless someone has $90 billion just lying around, a long-term highway solution is not going to simply materialize between now and July. Don't get me wrong, fixing it in December was going to be difficult as well, but in the end it will likely take at least that long to find a solution that has a chance of passing through both Chambers. The other side's strategy appears pretty transparent. They clearly have two goals in mind. First, they think that if they make Republicans vote on highway funding over and over again, we can be cajoled into accepting their preferred solution, which is a large tax hike. Second, they think that by maintaining a constant state of chaos and uncertainty, they can make the Republican-led Congress look bad or look ineffectual. That first goal is pretty predictable. After all, a tax hike is their answer to pretty much every question that arises here. I hope I am wrong on the apparent second goal. If I am right, it is just sad. Apparently, after spending years in the majority trying to make sure the Senate never did anything productive, their goals have not changed now that they are in the minority. But things are different now. These days, we are getting things done in the Senate, much to the consternation of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. Despite this most recent shift on highway funding, I am confident we can work together to find a workable path forward. It just may take a few more votes to get us there. Today, though I am frustrated, I am undeterred. I am committed to finding a long-term solution to our highway problems. I plan to keep working with my colleagues on finding a way to get us there, particularly Chairman Inhofe, whose committee deals with much of the highway policy, as well as those who serve on the Finance and Ways and Means Committees. The highway bill should be a bipartisan effort. It used to be. Hopefully, after we get this latest episode behind us, it will be again.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Madam President. Finally, at long last, the Senate has begun its debate on the Bipartisan Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, a bipartisan and bicameral bill to renew trade promotion authority or TPA. As one of the authors of this legislation, I am glad we have gotten to this point and look forward to a spirited and fulsome debate on the floor. This legislation has been in the works for a long time. As we all know, the previous iteration of TPA expired in 2007. The original version was originally enacted in 2002. In other words, it has been 13 years since Congress seriously considered legislation to renew trade promotion authority. I think it is safe to say that at least for those who focus on trade policy, the debate and discussion surrounding what would go into the next TPA bill has been going on that entire time. For me, while I have long been a supporter of free trade and TPA, the real work on this bill began in earnest in the spring of 2013. I worked for the better part of a year with former Chairman Max Baucus and Dave Camp on legislation to renew TPA for a 21st century economy. We introduced our bill--which, in many ways, formed the basis for the legislation we are debating now--in January of last year. This year, when I became chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I sought to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make improvements to the bill in order to broaden its support. Most notably, I worked closely with my colleagues on the Finance Committee and with chairman Paul Ryan of the House Ways and Means Committee to craft an improved TPA bill. Senator Wyden and I work well together, and we were able to bring this bill to fruition. I think we were successful. Indeed, we were able to build upon the efforts of last Congress to make important changes that will enhance Congress's role in crafting our trade policy and improve overall transparency and accountability. We introduced our bill on April 16, and on April 22, the Finance Committee reported the bill along with a few other important trade bills you may have heard about. The vote on our TPA bill was 20 to 6. The last time the Senate Finance Committee reported a TPA bill on the Senate floor was 1988. While we passed other TPA bills in the nearly three decades since that time, this is the first to go through regular order, including a full committee process and original consideration on the floor. I want to thank my colleagues, in both the House and the Senate, who have worked with me to get us to this point, especially Senator Wyden and others on the Democratic side as well and certainly everybody on the Republican side. The fact that we are now on the floor debating this bill is, in and of itself, a milestone. In fact, I would call it historic, but let's not fool ourselves. We still have a long way to go. Let's talk about the bill for just a moment. I would like to begin by addressing the most basic question: What is TPA or trade promotion authority? Put simply, TPA is the most important tool Congress has to advance our Nation's trade agenda. Specifically, TPA represents a compact between the Senate, the House, and the administration. Under this arrangement, the administration agrees to pursue objectives specified by Congress and agrees to consult with Congress as it negotiates trade agreements. In return, both the House and Senate agree to allow for time-specific consideration of trade agreements without amendments. This ensures that Congress leads the way in setting our Nation's trade agenda while giving our trade negotiators in the administration the tools necessary to reach high-standard trade agreements. Why is this compact so important? There are a number of reasons, but for now I will just focus on two. First, the TPA compact ensures that Congress has a voice in setting trade priorities before a trade agreement is finalized. By setting clear negotiating objectives in a TPA bill, Congress is able to specify what a potential trade agreement must contain in order to gain passage. Second, the compact allows our trade negotiators to deliver on an agreement. As our negotiators work with our trading partners on trade agreements, they need to be able to give assurance that the deal they sign will be the one Congress votes on. They cannot do that without TPA. In a sense, without TPA, our trading partners are negotiating not only with the professionals at USTR but also with all 535 Members of Congress, whose views and priorities may be unknown or unknowable. Under this scenario, our partners will not put their best efforts on the table because many will have no guarantees that the agreement they reach will remain intact once it goes through Congress. In short, TPA is essential for both the conclusion and passage of strong trade agreements. I would like to take a few minutes to talk about some of the specifics of our bill. First of all, our TPA bill updates the congressional negotiating objectives to focus trade agreements on setting fair rules and tearing down barriers to trade. In fact, the TPA bill we are now debating now contains the clearest articulation of congressional trade priorities in our Nation's history, including nearly 150 ambitious, high-standard negotiating objectives, most of them designed to break down barriers that American exporters face in the 21st century economy. Under the bill, future trade agreements must include strong international rules to counter unfair trade practices, including those related to currency, digital piracy, cross-border data flows, cyber theft of trade secrets, localization barriers, nonscientific sanitary and phytosanitary practices, state-owned enterprises, and labor and environmental policies. Our bill also requires that U.S. trade agreements reflect a standard of intellectual property rights protection similar to that found in U.S. law. We also call for an end to the theft of U.S. intellectual property by foreign governments, including piracy and the theft of trade secrets and for the elimination of measures that require U.S. companies to locate their intellectual property abroad in return for market access. Finally, the TPA bill expands congressional engagement in ongoing and future negotiations by ensuring that Members can review proposals and discuss them with our trade negotiators. The bill also creates new congressional oversight mechanisms to ensure that the administration-- whichever administration it is--closely adheres to the objectives set by Congress, including a new procedure that Congress can employ if our trade negotiators fail to consult or make progress toward meeting the negotiating objectives. As you can see, this bill addresses the needs of our modern economy, and it fully takes into account the concerns expressed by Members of Congress and the American public about the trade negotiating process. The legislation before us also contains the Finance Committee's bill to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance or TAA. I think I have made it pretty clear that I am not TAA's biggest fan. I oppose the program in general and voted against the TAA bill in committee, but from the outset of this process, it was clear to us on the Republican side that we would have to swallow hard and allow TAA to pass in order to get TPA across the finish line. Toward that end, we joined the two bills together on the floor. In short, this is a good bill and one that Members of both parties should be able to support. As I mentioned, the vote in the Finance Committee in favor of TPA was 20 to 6. I hope we will get a similar bipartisan result on the floor. I think we can. To conclude, I just want to make it clear that I am not naive. I am well aware not everyone agrees with me on these issues. There are some--including a few of our colleagues in the Senate--who oppose what we are trying to do with this legislation. They oppose TPA and virtually all free-trade agreements. In essence, though they usually deny it, they oppose trade in general. Of course, I respect the views of my colleagues on these matters as well as any others on which we happen to disagree, but let's be clear about a few things. When you oppose TPA and trade agreements, you stand against the creation of new, higher paying jobs for American workers. You stand against American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, entrepreneurs, and the workers they employ who need access to foreign markets, and you stand against the advancement of American values and interests on the world stage. I will have more to say on the floor about these issues in the coming days about how TPA and trade agreements can help small businesses agriculture and how important our trade policies are to our national security. I plan to do all I can to make the case that U.S. trade with foreign countries is a good thing and that this legislation represents our best opportunity to advance a trade agenda that works for America. For now, I will just say once again that while I am pleased--very pleased, in fact--that we made it this far on TPA, I will not be satisfied until we have a bill on the President's desk--a President who is behind this bill, strongly supportive of it, and has encouraged us every step of the way. As I have stated, we need to have a fair and open debate on these issues. I am committed to hearing arguments, considering amendments, and demonstrating how a functioning Senate is supposed to operate. I hope my colleagues will join me in that type of discussion. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds more.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, look, significantly increasing funding levels for TAA may very well make TAA much harder to pass both here and in the House of Representatives. It is a program that is not supported by a great number of us. That being the case, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting no on this amendment. We have put together a bill that literally has brought together both sides as well as we possibly could. Hopefully, we will vote no on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Inhofe and McCain, I call up amendment No. 1312, as modified, and amendment No. 1226, and ask unanimous consent that they be reported by number.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I have been very interested in the debate, especially between the distinguished Senator from Alabama and the distinguished Senator from Oregon. I have to say that it is very interesting that almost every business in this country wants this bill. Let me just start with mentioning that all the chairs of the President's Council of Economic Advisers under Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, William Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all said: We believe that agreements to foster greater international trade are in our national economic and security interests, and support a renewal of Trade Promotion Authority. This is from Alan Greenspan, Michael Boskin, R. Glenn Hubbard, Ben Bernanke, Austan Goolsbee, Charles Schultze, Laura D'Andrea Tyson, N. Gregory Mankiw, Edward B. Lazear, Alan B. Krueger, Martin Feldstein, Martin Baily, Harvey S. Rosen, and Christina D. Romer, just to mention a few. They say, in a letter to Senator McConnell and Harry Reid, and to the leaders in the House, John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi that virtually every chamber of commerce in the country has come behind this bill. To read one paragraph: TPA is a longstanding and proven partnership between Congress and the President that enables Congress to set negotiating objectives and requires the executive branch to consult extensively with legislators during negotiations. We urge you to act on this essential legislation. . . . I think these chambers of commerce know what is best for business. I think they know what is best for the economy. In fact, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas J. Donohue issued the following statement hailing the introduction of the ``Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, which will renew Trade Promotion Authority.'' These are people who take these things seriously. Take the Business Roundtable: Washington--Business Roundtable, representing CEOs of U.S. companies from every sector of the economy, today commended Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) for their introduction of a bipartisan bill to update and renew Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). Approval of legislation to modernize TPA is a top priority for Business Roundtable. We can go on and on. Jim Greenwood of the Biotechnology Industry Organization has come out in favor of it. Even Gabe Horwitz of the Third Way has come out in favor of it. Tom Linebarger of the Business Roundtable has come out in favor. Thomas Donohue, as I said, has come out in favor of it. David Thomas of Trade Benefits America has come out for this. Matthew Shay of the National Retail Federation says: We urge Congress to quickly pass TPA legislation. Peter Allgeier, from the Coalition of Service Industries, has come out for it. If we start to look at businesses throughout the country, they don't seem to be a bit concerned with some of the issues that have been raised by my friend from Alabama because we have covered them in this bill. Think about it. The tech companies--these are America's moviemakers, software developers, computer manufacturers, the people who drive America's innovation--understand that promoting American trade requires protecting American intellectual property. ``That's the only way to keep our competitive edge in the 21st century. And that's exactly what TPA will do.'' That is quoting them. TPA lays out almost 150 negotiating objectives for the administration to pursue in trade deals. Chris Dodd, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America, praised TPA. Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith came out and said: Passage of renewed TPA, with its updated objectives for digital trade, is critical for America to be able to pursue its interests. And passage is important for Microsoft and our network of more than 400,000 partners--the majority of which are small businesses--to compete in the global economy. Chris Padilla, the vice president of IBM, also spoke in favor: ``TPA is a critical step in preserving the transformative role of data, and in strengthening America's economy and competitiveness.'' Victoria Espinell, CEO of BSA, the software alliance, said: ``This legislation will help ensure that pending trade agreements include necessary rules to promote cross-border data flows.'' Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, said: ``TPA takes a modern approach to trade agreements to ensure a robust digital economy and growth of the Internet,'' which are ``vital to American innovation.'' Dean Garfield, CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council, said: ``Tech's message to Congress is simple: supporting TPA will promote job creation and propel us forward in building a strong 21st century economy.'' John Neuffer, CEO of the Semiconductor Industry Association, said: ``TPA represents a much-needed shot in the arm for free trade, which is critical to the U.S. semiconductor industry, to American jobs, and to our economy.'' We are talking about real jobs here. We are talking about a potential to raise the average pay by as much as 18 percent. Carl Guardino, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, said: ``Our businesses rely on a robust export market and this bill will go a long way in empowering the U.S. and enabling U.S. companies to remain competitive across the globe.'' Mark McCarthy, vice president of the Software & Information Industry Association, said: ``TPA legislation is crucial for finalizing agreements that will set the template for 21st Century trade and for protecting the global digital leadership of the United States.'' Scott Belcher, CEO of the Telecommunications Industry Association said: ``The passage of Trade Promotion Authority legislation is critical to increasing the competitiveness of U.S. companies overseas, particularly in the information and communications industry, and to ensuring continued job growth at home.'' So tech has spoken out--in one voice, really--to support TPA as essential to innovation and competitiveness. We can put our heads in the sand and act as if this is not important, but it is extremely important. Then, you get into agriculture. Agricultural exports support over 1 million U.S. jobs, both on and off the farm. Fiscal years 2010 to 2014 represented the strongest 5 years in U.S. history for agricultural exports, with sales totaling $675 billion. They are expecting grow once we get fair trade rules with the countries we are currently negotiating with. By the way, when we are talking about the 11 nations of the TPP negotiations we are undergoing, one of the countries we are talking about is Japan. We have had trouble breaking down trade barriers with Japan for years. We now have a Prime Minister over there who is willing to work with us and seize the advantage--not just for Japan but for the region as well. If we do not pass this TPA bill, we are just throwing the China the Asia-Pacific. They are already making strides in that area that would not be happening if we had this trade agreement already. I might add that there is the new innovative bank that they have started. At first, there were only a few countries that wanted to join it. Now it is over 60, as I understand it. Upwards of 60 countries have now jumped on board, including some of the major countries in this negotiation. We are going to just stand here and act as if this is not happening and that our interests in free trade are not important unless we get everything we want, which, ironically, we basically get in these agreements. U.S. producers rely on and prosper from access to foreign markets. Currently, we export half of U.S. wheat, milled rice, and soybean production; 70 percent of walnut and pistachio production; more than 75 percent of cotton production; 40 percent of grape production; 20 percent of cherry production; 20 percent of apple production; 20 percent of poultry and pork production; and 10 percent of beef production. Today, only a relatively small percentage of U.S. companies export, yet 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside of the United States. What are we going to do--ignore these facts and not acknowledge that we need to pass this bill? We need to get real about trade. Trade agreements are the most effective way to eliminate foreign tariffs, unscientific regulatory barriers, and bureaucratic administrative procedures designed to block trade. I could go on and on. Today there are some 400 trade agreements, and we have only been party to a small fraction. That is because we have not had trade promotion authority. Are we going to sit back and put our heads in the sand and act as if this were not important? The manufacturers are rallying behind this bill throughout the country. They said this: Manufacturers need TPA and new market-opening trade agreements now more than ever. That was said by National Association of Manufacturers vice chair for international economic policy and Emerson chairman and CEO David Farr. He adds: Trade is increasingly critical for the bottom lines of businesses of all sizes, but U.S. exports face higher tariffs and more barriers abroad than nearly any other major economy. Manufacturers need TPA to restore U.S. leadership in striking new trade deals that will knock down barriers so that manufacturers can improve their access to world's consumers. The National Association of Manufacturers is the largest manufacturing association in the United States. They are begging us to do this. American manufacturers want TPA. What are we going to do--bury our head in the sand and say that is not so? It is time for us to wake up and realize we have to get in the real world. This agreement has been well thought through. Is it perfect? No, nothing is perfect around here. But it goes a long way toward resolving our problems, creating more jobs in America, more opportunities in America, more income in America, and more economic stability in America. Without it, my gosh, what are we going to be? Become just a nation that does not participate, when we have the capacity to participate all over the world. This is an important step that we are talking about here and we need to take it. Let me take a few more moments--I notice the distinguished Senator is here to bring up his amendment. Let me take a few minutes and respond to my colleagues' concerns about provisions contained in the Trans- Pacific Partnership or TPP. Specifically, there are some who have said that TPP contains an unprecedented, ``living agreement'' provision that would allow parties to amend the agreement after it is adopted and, in the process, change U.S. law without Congress's approval. Let me state this as clearly as possible. These assertions are 100-percent false. No trade agreements-- past, present or future--can change U.S. law without the consent of Congress. This is not even a close question. No reasonable interpretation of our Constitution, our laws or our trade agreements lends credence to that interpretation. Of course, I know that my counter-assertions by themselves will not be enough to convince people they are wrong on this issue. So let's delve into this a bit further. True enough, TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, reportedly includes a provision to create a forum along the joint working groups to help parties evaluate whether the agreement is being implemented as intended and to provide a way to discuss new issues as they arise. But guess what. Most U.S. free-trade agreements contain similar provisions. This is not new or unprecedented. This is standard for every modern trade agreement. My friend from Alabama raised the Korea agreement. It has only been in existence since 2012. We have not seen it fully implemented yet, and it is not fully implemented. For example, the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement has a ``joint committee,'' and CAFTA-DR has a ``free trade commission,'' both of which perform the same functions as have been reported for the TPP commission. These agreements specify that these bodies can oversee operations of the agreement. However, nothing in the text of either agreement gives either committee the power to change U.S. law--nothing whatsoever. The same is true of the commission that is reportedly part of TPP. In addition, TPP will almost undoubtedly include a process for amending the agreement. This, too, is standard procedure for modern trade agreements. That is a good thing. These provisions, which once again are included in all of our existing trade agreements, help ensure that the United States can protect its interests when new issues arise. Most importantly, they contain a backstop to protect our country's sovereignty. For example, in our free-trade agreement with South Korea, the relevant provision states that ``an amendment shall enter into force after the parties exchange written notification certifying that they have completed their respective legal requirements and procedures.'' In NAFTA, the section describing the amendment process states: ``When so agreed and approved in accordance with the applicable legal procedures of each party, a modification or addition shall constitute an integral part of this agreement.'' Of course, in the United States, the applicable legal procedure for amending a free-trade agreement and for any and all changes to U.S. law includes approval by Congress. In other words, no free-trade agreement--again, that is past, present or future--to which the United States is a party can be amended without Congress's approval. Once again, these ``living agreement'' provisions are standard practice for free-trade agreements. For the most part, they have not been remotely controversial, up until now, I guess. In fact, one of our colleagues, who has been very vocal on this issue and has even filed at least one amendment to our TPA bill on this matter, voted in favor of free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama, all of which included provisions very similar to those that are reportedly part of TPP. It is not just I who am saying this. I have a memo sent to my staff from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service that reiterates these points. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of this memo, immediately following my remarks. Madam President, this is U.S. Government 101. Under our system, only Congress can change the law. I am certainly not oblivious to the fact a number of my colleagues--both here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives--deeply distrust our current President. I am hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to criticizing President Obama--and even his predecessors--and his propensity for overreach. I have been very critical of this administration's effort to expand executive power, and I will continue to be. But no one should channel distrust of President Obama into opposition to the TPA bill. If anything, the opposite is true. Our bill contains numerous provisions solidifying the principle that U.S. law cannot be changed without Congress's consent. Under our bill, no secretive provisions of a trade agreement can be withheld from Congress and still enter into force. Furthermore, the bill goes further than any previous version of TPA in ensuring transparency and accountability in both the trade negotiating process and the approval procedures. In short, Madam President, if you are suspicious of executive authority but still want to support free trade, you should support our TPA bill. Once again, there is simply no reason to be concerned about ``living agreement'' provisions in the TPP or any other trade agreement. Our Constitution, our laws, our trade agreements, and, of course, our TPA bill all ensure that when it comes to the U.S. trade policy, Congress has the final say. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order during today's session of the Senate to call up the following amendments: No. 1299, Portman-Stabenow; No. 1251, Senator Brown; No. 1312, Inhofe, as modified; No. 1327, Warren; No. 1226, McCain; and No. 1227, Shaheen.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Finally, Mr. President, I would also like to briefly talk about legislation I introduced earlier this year, the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act, which reinforces States' already effective regulatory practices relating to hydraulic fracturing. This important piece of legislation recognizes States' demonstrated ability to properly address hydraulic fracturing and allows them to continue regulating on this issue. Importantly, this legislation does not prevent the Bureau of Land Management from promulgating baseline standards where none exist. As background, for over 60 years, States have safely and successfully regulated hydraulic fracturing in a way that protects the environment. When I was in the oil business back in the early 1970s, hydraulic fracturing was being used then, although it has been brought clearly into a much more safe and responsible way since. Even the Obama administration has admitted there has never been an example of harm to human health or groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing under existing State regulations and oversight. States should be able to continue to regulate hydraulic fracturing, and swift passage of this bill will afford needed certainty and future security for emerging U.S. energy development companies. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on two pieces of important trade legislation. Both of these bills have been in the works for some time. They were among the four trade bills we reported out of the Senate Committee on Finance last month, and as a principal coauthor of both bills, I am very glad we found a way to get them to this point. The first bill we will be voting on is the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. This bill will reauthorize and improve three of our trade preference programs: the generalized system of preferences, or GSP; the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or AGOA; and tariff preferences for Haiti. I want to take a few minutes to talk about each of these programs individually, starting with the GSP. The GSP promotes trade with developing nations by providing for nonreciprocal duty-free tariff treatment of certain products originating in those countries. The program helps beneficiary countries advance their economic development and encourages them to move toward more open economies and eliminate trade barriers to U.S. exports. The GSP does more than provide assistance in the developing world; it also assists hundreds of businesses here in the United States. Across our country, manufacturers and importers benefit by receiving inputs and raw materials at a lower cost. Approximately three-quarters of U.S. imports under GSP are raw materials--parts and components--or machinery and equipment used by U.S. companies to manufacture goods here at home. Unfortunately, because the program expired in 2013, many U.S. businesses have had to deal with high tariffs on these imports for the last 2 years. As an example, last year alone, without the GSP program in place, American companies paid over $600 million in tariffs. Businesses in every State have been affected by the expiration of GSP and have a vested interest in the renewal of the program. There are businesses in my own home State of Utah and around the country that have been left with difficult decisions about downsizing, hiring freezes, and employee layoffs in the absence of GSP. Today, with the passage of this bill, we will take a long-overdue step toward solving these problems. Also included in the preferences bill are provisions for the long- term renewal of the AGOA Program, which encourages African countries to further develop their economies by lowering U.S. tariffs on their exports. Since AGOA was enacted in the year 2000, trade with beneficiary countries has more than tripled, with U.S. direct investment growing more than sixfold in that time. This program has helped create more than a million jobs in Sub- Saharan Africa. I worked with my colleagues on the Committee on Finance to craft reauthorization language that will improve on AGOA's past success, to remove obstacles to trade in Sub-Saharan Africa and allow both that region and our job creators here at home to benefit from expanded market access. I share many of my colleagues' belief that benefits under AGOA should go to countries making good-faith progress toward meeting the program's eligibility criteria. For example, I am very concerned that officers in the Republic of South Africa recently indicated they will attempt to renegotiate commitments made under the General Agreement on Trade in Services to require foreign-owned companies to relinquish 51 percent ownership and control to South Africans. South Africa also developed a draft policy that proposed changes to intellectual property rights laws which contained significant shortcomings, including inadequate protections for patents, trademarks, and copyrights. These are three areas I take a tremendous interest in, among so many other things around here. I hope very much that as they redraft this policy, it will include recognition of how important protection of intellectual property is to supporting economic growth. But it is not just South Africa. For example, I understand other beneficiaries under the program continue to impose barriers and limitations to cross-border data flow or otherwise limit digital trade. Because of these concerns, we thought it was important to create a mechanism under the AGOA Program which would allow for benefits to be scaled back if a country is found to not be making good-faith progress on these and other issues. That new tool is included in the bill, and we expect the administration to use this tool aggressively, particularly in the case of South Africa. The legislation also includes new consultation and notification requirements, keeping Congress informed of beneficiaries' progress. There are new mechanisms for stakeholders to petition the administration to raise awareness about potential eligibility violations. The bill will require these petitions to be taken into account when determinations are made regarding a beneficiary's status and in regular reporting. I know the AGOA Program has a lot of support here in Congress among Members of both parties. I think we were able to craft a bill that not only provides for the long-term extension of the program the administration was seeking but also responds to some very serious bilateral trade challenges we are facing today. With these changes, we have created a more flexible program we believe will spur greater development and economic integration and opportunity in the region, while better serving the needs of our job creators here at home. I believe it deserves strong support. Finally, the preferences bill would also extend preferential access to the U.S. market for Haiti. Haiti is one of the poorest economies in the Western Hemisphere. The Haiti preference program supports well- paying, stable jobs in a country saddled with poverty and unemployment. I hope this extension will encourage continued economic development and support democracy in Haiti. This is a strong preferences bill. I expect a strong vote in favor of passing it later today. Next, the Senate will vote on the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, which includes important provisions to reauthorize and modernize the operations of Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, and significantly improve intellectual property rights protection in the United States and around the world. The Customs bill will facilitate the efficient movement of merchandise destined for the United States by formalizing in statute programs such as the Centers of Excellence and Expertise. It will also ensure that U.S. customs and trade laws are uniformly implemented nationwide and help ensure that the private sector and CBP work together. With this bill, we will also ensure that the automated commercial environment and the international data system are completed so that trade documentation can finally be submitted electrically and importers will no longer be required to submit the same information to numerous government agencies. In addition, the bill will modernize the drawback process by moving from a labor-intensive paper-based system to an electronic claims process that will significantly free up resources in the private and the public sector, and it will increase the de minimis level from $200 to $800, reducing needless burdens on small businesses importing into the United States. Additionally, the bill strengthens our trade remedy laws and our ability to respond to imports that pose a threat to the health or safety of U.S. consumers. When drafting this customs legislation, I was particularly interested in beefing up our enforcement of intellectual property rights. The bill includes the strongest possible provisions with regard to intellectual property rights and intellectual property rights enforcement. For example, our bill will establish in law the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center to coordinate Federal efforts to prevent intellectual property violations. It will also significantly expand CBP's tools and authorities to protect intellectual property rights at the border by requiring CBP to share information about suspected infringing merchandise with rights holders. Our bill will provide CBP with explicit authority to seize and forfeit devices that violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act--an act I put through a number of years ago--and require CBP to share information with rights holders who are injured by these unlawful devices. The bill contains provisions to establish a process for CBP to enforce copyrights while registration with the copyright office is pending and to significantly improve CBP's reporting requirements to hold the Agency more accountable for its enforcement efforts with regard to intellectual property. The bill will strengthen CBP's targeting of goods that violate intellectual property rights, improve CBP's cooperation with the private sector and with foreign customs authorities on enforcement, and require an educational campaign at the border. I am particularly fond of that last part. At my insistence, the bill includes provisions that will require all versions of the Customs Declaration Form that everyone fills out when they enter the United States to contain a warning that importation of goods that infringe on intellectual property rights may violate criminal and/or civil law and may pose serious risks to health and safety. I am not sure most Americans appreciate the danger that counterfeit products can pose, as they often are not built to the same standard of the protected product. So I hope making people more aware of these dangers will help us make sure we are doing all we can to keep Americans safe. In addition to enhancing protection at our borders, our Customs bill will provide USTR with additional tools to improve the protection of intellectual property rights by our trading partners overseas in order to stop infringing goods at the source. For example, the bill will establish a chief innovation and intellectual property negotiator, with the rank of ambassador, to ensure that intellectual property rights protection is at the forefront of our trade negotiation and enforcement efforts and to enhance USTR's accountability to Congress on these issues. On top of that, the bill will give USTR more tools to increase enforcement for trade secrets and to ensure that countries that consistently fail to protect intellectual property meet specified benchmarks for improvement. I am a big fan of this bill. It includes a number of my top trade enforcement priorities, and I am very glad we will get a chance to vote on it today. Of course, it is not perfect. Some of the amendments that were added in committee leave me with some reservations. Most notably, the bill now contains provisions that purport to deal with currency manipulation that are, in my view, very problematic. One provision sets up an avenue for a countervailing duty investigation or review to determine whether some measure of a currency manipulation is effectively a subsidy, either ``directly or indirectly'' to a country's exports. If the government finds that the manipulation is, once again, either ``directly or indirectly,'' an export subsidy, sanctions can follow. This provision is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, it is likely not compliant with our existing international trade commitments. It would effectively require the imposition of trade sanctions that, under the language of the legislation, could be based on presumptions without support. And it will almost certainly invite retaliatory trade sanctions from our trading partners, who will argue, and in fact have already argued, that actions taken by the Federal Reserve Board constitute currency manipulation. While the authors of the currency manipulation provision in the Customs bill may believe that there is a clear delineation between monetary policies used primarily for domestic economic stabilization and policies used to gain a trade advantage, there is not. When Japan engages in quantitative easing to boost its economy and inflation expectations, sometimes at the very urging of U.S. officials, is that manipulation? When the Federal Reserve engages in quantitative easing, with part of the expected benefit being downward exchange rate pressure and boosted exports, is that manipulation, or just domestic stabilization? Is Germany's persistent trade surplus somehow partially caused by ongoing quantitative easing activities at the European Central Bank? And, with respect to detection, despite the intent of the authors of this provision, accuracy is evidently not a concern. I am sure that everyone--or at least those who support this provision--has looked at the recent exchange rate assessments for 2013 from the International Monetary Fund External Sector Report. For Japan, one IMF method suggested 15-percent yen overvaluation, while another method suggested 15-percent undervaluation. Yet under the currency manipulation provision in this bill, IMF models and methods are what we are supposed to use to set trade sanctions. For South Korea, the two IMF methodologies suggested undervaluation between around 7 percent and 20 percent. So when we want to set a punitive countervailing duty, what are our authorities supposed to do? Should they assume that South Korea benefited from currency undervaluation of 7 percent or 20 percent or some random number in between? Who knows. This provision, unfortunately, simply won't work, since it assumes the existence of accurate knowledge and abilities to determine some fundamental equilibrium exchange rates that the IMF and the economics profession simply do not have. Under the questionable provision of the bill that allows for investigation of currency undervaluation and potential ensuing trade actions, I believe the authors of the provision were overly heroic and mistaken in their belief about the precision of currency valuation methodology. The provision would appeal to models and methodologies, as described in IMF documents. The problem is that even the IMF does not use those models and methodologies to make definitive judgments about appropriate currency values, which are inherently some of the most difficult things for economic models to identify. It would not be difficult for our trading partners to use precisely the same models and methodologies to make countervailing cases against Federal Reserve monetary policy, resulting in retaliatory trade sanctions and perhaps defensive currency interventions. This is a clear road to trade wars and currency wars replete with competitive devaluations. Such a road is paved by the offending provision in the Customs bill, which basically gives our trading partners a template for their own accusations about currency manipulation and ensuing trade sanctions. This is problematic. And while Senators in this Chamber would like to simply decree that our monetary policies are just domestic economic stabilization, while foreign monetary policies that may look similar are manipulation, such self-evaluations will not be acceptable in international trade and agreements. I understand the desire among many of my colleagues to address currency manipulation, and I want to work with them on this issue. But I am convinced that the currency manipulation provision in the Customs bill simply will not work, and, when tried, it will simply give ammunition to our trading partners to consider engagement in trade wars, currency wars, competitive devaluations, and beggar-thy-neighbor monetary policies. This isn't what we should be shooting for with our Nation's trade policy. In addition to the currency language, there was another provision added during the markup that would require employers to report occupational classification data to State agencies when filing their quarterly wage reports. This is an entirely new burden that would be placed on employers throughout the country, added to all the other reporting burdens they already face, and would require brand new systems for reporting and collecting information. And in the end, it is not readily apparent just how valuable this new collected information will be. According to CBO, this new requirement would cost employers throughout the country more than $200 million between 2016 and 2020. Now, that may not seem like much compared to the numbers that get thrown around here in the Senate. But when we are talking about small businesses who struggle from month to month to cover their payrolls, it is a burden that, at least to me, doesn't appear to be necessary. So once again, I am concerned about this provision and the impact it might have. However, despite the reservations I have about the flawed currency manipulation concepts and language and the unfunded mandate on employers, I believe it is important that we vote to move the Customs bill forward. Overall, this is a very good bill. A lot of work has gone into it, and I know that it reflects the priorities of a number of our colleagues and Members here in the Senate, including myself. That being the case, I plan to vote in favor of passing this legislation later on today, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Once again, I am very glad to see that we are making progress on moving these bills through the Senate. I wish to thank all of my colleagues--particularly those on the Finance Committee--who worked so hard on these bills to get them to this point. These are important votes we are going to take today. I expect that both of these bills will receive broad bipartisan support, and I hope they will. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1221.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.