Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a 2015 Northern Kentucky University Lincoln Award recipient, my friend and a community leader, Sister Margarita M. Brewer. Sister Margarita has dedicated her life to serving the Latino community in Greater Cincinnati. Originally from Panama, Sister Margarita has taken an active role in programs assisting the underserved in her local community as well as in Central America. Sister Margarita founded the English Language Learning--ELL-- Foundation, Inc., in 2003 and continues to serve as its president, working with Cincinnati public schools to help English language learners become successful in their academic lives while fostering their cultural identities. I had the privilege of being one of Sister Margarita's ELL tutors while serving in the House of Representatives. I had to stop tutoring when I was appointed U.S. Trade Representative, but during my time as a tutor, I had the chance to see her good work in action. More recently, my wife Jane has worked as an ELL tutor and shares my admiration for Sister Margarita and her service. Jane was honored to receive the English Language Learning Foundation Tutor of the Year Award in 2014. In collaboration with Latino Programs and Services' English Language Learners Program at Northern Kentucky University, she also helped develop NKY's Fun with Science Camp, exposing students to all fields of science through hands-on learning activities. Additionally, Sister Margarita has been involved with the Crossroad Health Center, Family Service of Cincinnati, and Christian Community Health Services. I join the community in congratulating Sister Margarita, who has served the people of Greater Cincinnati and Ohio with distinction.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Kathy Merchant, a friend and an accomplished community leader in Greater Cincinnati over the past nearly two decades, on the occasion of her receiving the 2015 Northern Kentucky University Lincoln Award. Kathy Merchant's professional accomplishments are noteworthy, having served as the president/CEO of the Greater Cincinnati Foundation, GCF, from 1997 until her retirement in May 2015. Prior to joining GCF, Ms. Merchant was director of the Pew Charitable Trusts' Neighborhood Preservation Initiative and a partner in the consulting firm Holt, Wexler & Merchant. Recognized as a national leader in her field, Ms. Merchant serves on the board of the Boston-based Center for Effective Philanthropy and in 2012 joined the national board of the New York-based Local Initiatives Support Corporation. Ms. Merchant has served on a number of nonprofit boards, including the National Center for Arts and Technology, Cincinnati USA Chamber, Council on Foundations, Community Foundations of America/GivingNet, Ohio Grantmakers Forum, and the SC Ministry Foundation. An advocate for the underserved, Ms. Merchant chaired the Strive Partnership's cradle-to-career initiative in Cincinnati--2009 to 2013-- where she continues to serve as a member of the executive committee and as an advisor to the national Strive Network. Ms. Merchant has earned many professional awards, including the YWCA Career Woman of Achievement, 2005; Ohio Philanthropy, 2006; Girl Scouts Woman of Distinction, 2009; Council on Foundations' Distinguished Grantmaker, 2011; Kentucky Commonwealth, 2012; WE Celebrate Woman of the Year--Nonprofit, 2012; and the Cincinnati Public Relations Society of America's Blacksmiths CEO Communicator of the Year, 2013. She was also named a ``Top 50 Power and Influence'' leader by The NonProfit Times, 2008. I would like to congratulate Kathy Merchant on the many contributions she has made to the Greater Cincinnati community and beyond.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Holy Ghost Ukrainian Catholic Church as it celebrates its 100th anniversary. Holy Ghost Ukrainian Church was founded in Akron, OH by a small group of faithful and passionate Ukrainian Christians. In 1915, the Holy Ghost Ukrainian Catholic Church began when two organizations came together to create a place where Ukrainian immigrants could practice the beliefs and traditions they cherished in the new country they called home. The parish has grown and prospered over the years, and continues to flourish at its original location at 1866 Brown Street, offering a center for spiritual and cultural life to Akron and surrounding northeast Ohio communities. On June 21, 2015, Father Vsevolod Schevchuk, ``Father Sal'', and parishioners will welcome honored guests His Beatitude Sviatoslav Sherchuk, Patriarch, and The Most Reverend Bohdan J. Danylo, Bishop, of the Ukrainian Catholic Church to their Hierarchical Divine Liturgy and celebration dinner. The congregation will join together on this day to celebrate the anniversary of the church, their Ukrainian cultural traditions, and all that this parish has meant to the community throughout the years. With more than 50,000 Ukrainian Americans in Ohio, cultural and religious ties remain strong within the community and between Ohio and Ukraine. As cochair of the U.S. Senate Ukrainian Caucus, I have had the privilege of working with the Ukrainian community and know how strongly connected they remain with family and friends overseas. I am certain the continued engagement of Ukrainians in the United States is making a difference in the efforts for the independence of Ukraine. I join the members of the Holy Ghost parish and Ukrainians throughout the United States who continue to pray and work toward a peaceful resolution to the situation in Ukraine. I am proud to stand with Ukrainian Americans and the Ukrainian people as they further their resolve and commitment to maintaining a free and independent Ukraine. Mr. President, I would like to personally extend my congratulations to Holy Ghost Ukrainian Catholic Church on 100 years of faith, service, and worship.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the underlying bill we are talking about on the floor, which is the Defense authorization bill. At a time of a rapidly deteriorating security environment around the world, we need to modify our policies. From the violence in Iraq and Syria to China's aggressive land reclamation in the South China Sea to Russia's activities on the eastern border of Ukraine as we speak here today--all of this is going on. We live in a world that is a lot less safe and less friendly to U.S. interests. Every day we see more of this. Frankly, it is time for us here in the Senate to help by changing some of our policy approaches to address this changing and more dangerous situation we see around the world. I would hope we can do this on a bipartisan basis. Our differences with regard to other issues tend to be more pronounced, but with regard to national security, normally we come together. I am concerned with what I am hearing, at least from some of the debate I have heard on the floor, where it sounds as though some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to actually shut down this debate and not have a debate on some of these amendments and not have some votes on some of these amendments and not have a vote on this bill to try to adjust our national security posture so that we can address these new challenges around the world. It doesn't mean that everything that this side of the aisle wants to do would be accepted. Democrats would have the chance to offer their ideas, and we would have a good debate on it, and they would have a say in it. We need Democrat support to get the legislation done. But let's have that debate and that discussion. So I hope that what I am hearing is not accurate. I hope we will be able to come together and continue this discussion and be able to have votes on amendments and on the final bill and then be able to help, to the extent we can in the Senate, to adjust our foreign policy and our national security policy to address these very real threats we see emerging all over the world. I will give an example of one that I will offer today. This is an amendment that has to do with Ukraine. As some of my colleagues know, the situation in Ukraine has deteriorated significantly in the last year or so, and it has done so because Russia not only invaded Crimea and took that part of Ukraine but they are also now continuing their aggression on the border of Ukraine. This is a situation that affects us as Americans because Ukraine is our ally. Ukraine is a country that has decided to stand with us. It is time for us and the other NATO countries to stand with them. Our policy toward Ukraine, in my view, has been not just insufficient but it has been kind of piecemeal. We haven't had a strategy to deal with this issue. So what this amendment attempts to do is to take the language that is in the underlying legislation--already in the bill the committee put together--and improve it so that, indeed, we do have a more comprehensive strategy toward Ukraine. This is incredibly important not just for Ukraine but for the international order, for our national security, and for our ability to help stop this aggression in Europe--the first, really, since World War II, where we have seen that a country is going across another country's boundaries and actually violating territorial integrity. I visited Ukraine a couple of months ago in April. I got to see some of the conflict consequences firsthand. For those who have been to Ukraine--a number of my colleagues have, including Senator Durbin, who just got back from Ukraine--I think they would all agree with me that Ukraine is in a state of war and it is under siege. That makes it much more difficult for Ukraine to do what they know they need to do, which is to improve their economy, to deal with corruption, to have more transparency, to become more like those countries they want to emulate--the European countries and the United States of America. They are attempting to do that, but it is difficult when they have this conflict on their border where troops are being killed and civilians are being killed and where they have to devote enormous amounts of time and resources. Just this week I had the opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister of Ukraine and the Finance Minister, both of whom are in town. In fact, we met with them yesterday as part of the Ukrainian Caucus, which I cofounded with Senator Durbin. I will tell my colleagues that talking to them, it is very troubling to hear what is happening in their country right now. As some of my colleagues know, there is supposed to be a cease-fire in place. It came from the second of what is called the Minsk agreement. Whatever semblance of credibility this Minsk cease-fire had left--I don't think it had much--it has now totally crumbled. Just last week, combined Russian-separatist forces launched a major assault to the north and southwest of the Province of Donetsk. Donetsk is one of those areas also known as an oblast or a province, where there is a lot of Russian and Russian-separatist activity. They were focused on this strategic town of Maryinka. We probably saw some of this on TV. It is very troubling that once again it looks as of these separatist forces, backed by Russia and Russian equipment, which are directly involved in this, are beginning to push back into Ukraine again. The casualty reports are still coming in, but it appears that dozens have been killed or wounded in this assault, according BBC. These independent news organizations are following this, and I hope all of us are focused on this. The U.S. intelligence in the area is not what it ought to be, frankly, in my view, so we do need to rely on some of these media sources. It is very clear that in terms of this assault, they were using tanks and heavy multiple-launch rocket systems and over 1,000 men were involved. So clearly, this is something that is not only a serious military exercise, but it is one that is backed by Russia, using Russian equipment. We have seen just how committed the Russian Government is to this--to promoting instability in that region of the world. They are committed. The question is whether we are committed to step up and support the people of Ukraine. This is something that, in my view, the NATO forces and the United States should have done a long time ago--not by us getting involved directly, which, frankly, that is not what they are asking for. They are asking for assistance and aid to be able to defend themselves. They are asking for us to help them to be able to stop this assault by giving them just the basic weaponry they need to stop tanks, potentially to stop aircraft if aircraft get involved, and to be able to stop the invasion and to protect the territorial integrity of the country of Ukraine. The President and some of his top advisers continue to stand in the way of meaningful U.S. and NATO action. They have told me they fear that it would provoke Russia, as if deadly clashes such as the one we saw last week and, in fact, yesterday--and we will continue to see today, probably, this steady stream of Russian tanks, artillery pieces, and soldiers into Ukraine--aren't evidence enough that NATO and American restraint has not deescalated this conflict. In fact, I think, in a way, it has emboldened the Russians, and it has inflamed them. Again, we are not talking about U.S. troops. What we are talking about is helping this country that is our ally that has turned to us through NATO, and we want them to be able to defend themselves. The President continues to enforce this de facto embargo on any kind of significant weapon that Ukraine has said it needs to defend itself. He does that despite an overwhelming bipartisan consensus here in this body and in the House that it is time to increase this help. That would include lethal and nonlethal assistance to Ukraine. Congress has voted repeatedly to do just that, most notably in the Ukrainian Freedom Support Act, which was signed into law by President Obama in December. It also provided the President a national security waiver so he didn't have to do what we think he should do, which is to help them to defend themselves. The administration continues to withhold these arms, and it is time for that to end. There is really very little disagreement on the capabilities that Ukraine needs. My amendment, which is amendment No. 1850, modifies and builds on the great work that Senator McCain and Senator Reed and others have already done in the bill. If we look at section 1251 of the bill, we will see that there is already assistance being provided to Ukraine, about $300 million. Our amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to spend this money in a way that all of us know is the appropriate way to ensure that we get the most bang for the buck and that we are giving them the assistance they really need. It requires the Secretary of Defense to spend this money on a number of critical capabilities they need to defend themselves, including real-time intelligence, medium-range and long-range counter-artillery radars, defensive lethal assistance such as antitank weapons, UAVs, secure communications, and training to develop key combat, planning, and support capabilities at both the small unit level and at the brigade level. So it provides, frankly, less wiggle room for the administration by laying out exactly what is needed, what is being asked for by the Ukrainian military, and what, in this Chamber and having done a lot of work in this area through our Ukrainian Caucus and through other sources, we know is necessary. Half of this $300 million under our amendment would be fenced off until at least $60 million of it is spent on the important capabilities the Ukrainians really need and have requested. That is the real-time intelligence, defensive lethal assistance, and counter-artillery batteries. If the administration fails to use this money for the purposes specified, then they have to use it to support other nations facing an increased risk of Russian aggression--countries such as Georgia and Moldova. The amendment also requires DOD to report on the quantity and the type of security assistance being provided to Ukraine and how it complies with the purposes that are established in the legislation. So the amendment helps to ensure that U.S. military assistance provides the assistance that will truly have a meaningful impact on the ground, and it gives Ukraine the tools it needs to defend itself. It will also finally increase the cost of Russia's aggression. At no point has President Putin's decision to escalate this war been costly enough to force President Putin and the Russians to fundamentally reconsider their strategy. The annexation of Crimea, the campaign to destabilize and then invade eastern Ukraine last summer and fall, and the recent offensive have all happened despite a flurry of Western attempts to force a negotiated settlement. In fact, each temporary cease-fire in some senses has merely legitimized what the Russians have done. When there is this flurry of diplomatic activity, it tends to happen after the Russians have made gains on the ground and then it accepts those gains on the ground as the basis for negotiations, granting the separatists and their Russian supporters moral and, I would say, some legal equivalency that they simply don't deserve. There is a pattern here. They seize the land, they preserve their gains through an internationally mediated cease-fire, and then they break that cease-fire, as they are doing right now, to seize more land and then use a new cease-fire to secure acceptance of their new gains. This has to stop. The Obama administration and some EU members have been so fixated on ensuring that the successful implementation of the February cease-fire is a goal in and of itself that they have lost sight of this broader policy objective that a cease-fire should be working to achieve, which should be the defense of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity and support for the economic and political reforms that Ukraine needs. Let me underscore that. It is very difficult for them to undertake the economic and political reforms they need with this siege going on, and that is what we need. We need them to make those reforms so they cannot just keep their territorial integrity but also so they become a stable, democratic, and prosperous country. The Russian aggression in Ukraine is not going to go away or resolve itself simply because we wish it to. It will take a comprehensive strategy, which is laid out in this amendment, and coordinated political, military, and economic actions to change the current dynamic. Sanctions and economic assistance for Ukraine are important, but they are tools, not a strategy. Russian military action has been successful in threatening Ukraine's stability where other attempts to use economic or political means have failed. So what the Russians and separatists have found is that they have tried to disrupt through economic means and political means, and they haven't been successful there. In fact, the Ukrainians have rejected that, including by a recent election. It is no accident that their most successful tactic, the military tactic, is the one the United States and the West has done the least to address. I have argued for months that this piecemeal, reactionary response to intimidation from Moscow is a recipe for failure. Instead, we have to have a comprehensive, proactive strategy that strengthens NATO, deters Russian aggression, and gives Ukraine the political, economic, and military support it needs to maintain its independence. We need a strategy that seeks to shape the outcomes, rather than one that is shaped by them. Much of that leadership must come from us and the administration here in the United States. Of course, this body has an important role to play, and that is what this amendment is all about. Let's include funding for Ukrainian military assistance, not just in this authorization bill where we are setting the policy for it, but let's be sure in the spending bills that follow that we provide the Ukrainians what they need. We should pass this legislation--the underlying bill--which Chairman McCain has correctly noted is critical to helping us deal with so many challenges in the dangerous world we face. We should pass, again, the defense spending bill that doesn't leave the men and women in uniform without the means to carry out their incredibly important mission. Importantly, for today's purposes, we have to be clear about what the stakes are in Ukraine. Events in Ukraine are a direct and deliberate challenge to the credibility of NATO itself, to the U.S.-led international order. President Putin's actions upend decades of established international norms and threaten the very foundation of this system order. Confidence in America and our European allies' unity and commitment to upholding this system deters bad actors. It incentivizes other countries to play by the rules. That is what we want. We want to help ensure peace, stability, and prosperity. If the credibility of our commitment is in doubt, the risk of economic collapse, more violence, and more instability increases. Into a void, chaos ensues. The Ukrainians understand this. They understand the importance of this conflict well beyond their borders. I hope in the United States of America we understand it. I hope we act in a way to help the Ukrainians be able to defend themselves and counter these activities on the eastern border of Ukraine. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of debate only until 3 p.m.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the Miami Conservancy District as it celebrates the 100th anniversary of its founding on June 28, 2015. After the Great Flood of 1913, the people of the Miami Valley vowed ``never again'' and proceeded to raise $2 million in 2 months to fund the design of a flood protection system for riverfront cities on the Great Miami River that now extends from Piqua to Hamilton. Since the dams and levees were completed in 1922, the Miami Conservancy District's protection system has prevented countless floods, preserving 35,000 acres of land for public use as walking trails, picnic areas and parks. In addition, the Miami Conservancy District assists in the management of Ohio's largest state-designated water trail network with 265 miles of waterways, providing paddling and fishing opportunities on the Great Miami, Stillwater and Mad Rivers. The Miami Conservancy District is also a leader on natural resource development and has been a key partner in projects like downtown Dayton's RiverScape, which has improved the quality of life for Miami Valley residents by bringing natural features into an urban environment. The Miami Conservancy District protects some of Ohio's greatest natural wonders and I congratulate those involved in making its first 100 years a success.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. PORTMAN. So GAO has looked at this. They have said there will be $1.86 billion in surplus in these fluctuation accounts at the end of fiscal year 2016. They have actually updated their figures now with even more recent data, and they have just adjusted the 2016 surplus even higher to $2.02 billion. No one has produced a currency projection to counter this GAO estimate. So we are talking about over $2 billion in this account that is available. By the way, the money we are talking about here is not going to be taken and used for other readiness priorities because the SASC bill has already swept up that money for readiness. This money will be sitting in a reserve fund. The Pentagon does not need to be sitting on this size of a reserve fund--essentially a slush fund--when we do have these needs that have been identified. The Army has made a formal request for these. They have asked for assistance here. These deployed units need this assistance. They said they need it. We ought to put this to good use--namely, for an urgent requirement like this one. Again, if you look at the House bill versus the Senate bill, the House has used more of this funding in this reserve fund, this slush fund, than we have used even when you include this additional requirement I am talking about today. So this notion that somehow we cannot do this because the offset is not good--it just does not make any sense. It does not fit with what GAO has said, and it does not fit with what the House has done. So I do not know what the objection is, but I tell you what--if you vote against this, then you are saying that our troops in Europe ought not to have the capability that they have asked for, that they need. Admittedly, this came late. I am sorry about that. It should have come with it sooner. This was a requirement they had identified, but they had identified needing it later by 2020. Now, they need it now, and they need it now because the situation has changed in Europe. We have to be flexible to be able to respond to that change. If we wait another 12 months, another year to do this, who knows what is going to happen. But I know one thing, having been in Eastern Europe recently, I know those countries of Eastern Europe and, in fact, those countries on the European Continent--our NATO partners, in particular, but also Ukraine--are looking to the United States of America to show that the commitment we have made on paper, to ensure we have that commitment in terms of our capability on the ground in Europe. Again, this is an issue where I think we should come together as Democrats and Republicans. It is a bipartisan amendment. I commend Senator Peters for identifying this need with the Army. I understand Senator Reed's concern that this came late in the process, but it is here. The request has been made. I would sure hope we would be able to come together today, given what is happening right now on the eastern border of Ukraine, to ensure that we send a strong message that, at a minimum, we are going to meet these requirements that the Army has insisted they need to be able to give our troops what they need to be able to keep the peace in this important part of the world. I thank the Presiding Officer for the time. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, yesterday I talked about an amendment that is absolutely crucial that we include in this legislation. Again, I commend the chairman, Senator McCain, and the ranking member, Senator Reed, for their work on this underlying bill. But there is something missing, and it is very clear to everybody who is looking at this issue objectively, particularly what is going on right now on the eastern border of Ukraine. We do not have the ability in Europe, because we have pulled our armored units out, to say with credibility that we have the capacity to address the very real challenge now, unfortunately, that is emerging in Europe. Last night, as some of you know, Russian and separatist forces launched an offensive again. I am told it is the largest attack since the February Minsk agreement. So this is just what so many people predicted, including President Poroshenko and others in Ukraine, which is that things are heating up again on the eastern border of Ukraine. The NATO forces--the United States of American in particular--need to be sure they have in Europe the ability to at least have some credibility to say they can respond to this. We have moved our armored units out, meaning there are not Abrams tanks there, except for a few units that were up in the Baltics on a temporary basis this spring. I visited them a couple of months ago. They are doing a terrific job, but they are leaving. What the Army has said is, we want to allow our troops who are there to be able to up-armor, particularly with a weapon--a 30-millimeter cannon rather than a .50-caliber machine gun--on our Stryker vehicles to be able to have some credibility there, to be able to say that we have armored units in Europe that can respond to these new challenges. The Army has asked for this. The Army wants this. They are pleading for it because the soldiers who are there know they will not be able to perform their mission without this enhanced capability. We had this debate yesterday on the floor. I do not think Senator Reed and other Democrats necessarily disagree with the substance of this amendment. What they have said is they are concerned about the pay-for. Well, let's talk about the pay-for. The pay-for is taking this out of an account that is already being used for other purposes. It is already being used by the House Armed Services Committee. In fact, the House Armed Services Committee has already taken more funds out of this account than all of the funds in the SASC committee, the Senate committee, plus this amount that I believe ought to be taken out of this account. This is called the foreign currency fluctuation account at the Department of Defense. GAO, which is the body that looks at these issues from our perspective, from a legislative branch perspective--they are the auditors--GAO has estimated that the Pentagon will have $1.86 billion in surplus from these fluctuations by the end of fiscal year 2016.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, first, I appreciate the ranking member's comments, and I look forward to working with him on this. We talked about this on the floor a moment ago. This is something the Army has requested. They came late; he is absolutely right. They did make a request in March, in terms of submitting this operational needs statement, but it wasn't until April 22 that they actually validated this high priority need and assigned it to the program manager. So the committee didn't have the opportunity to look at it as they have others. I will say it is urgent, and having just been over there and seeing one of those temporary armored companies about to leave, they need this badly. What they are saying is that the 30-millimeter cannon is necessary to go up against any potential enemy, and the .50-caliber machine gun simply is not. So this is not moving more Abrams tanks into the area. It is taking these Strykers and upgrading them, and they have identified this as an urgent need. So I look forward to working with the ranking member on this. I hope we can work through this, even in the next several days here, to get this done, because it is so important. It will be competed. It is a turret and gun system. It is something that does require an offset, and that offset--by the way, the account the GAO has identified as having a certain amount of funding does have that much room left in it and more, we are told. And also the House has already taken more out of this currency fluctuation account than the committee has. So I again thank the ranking member for working on this. I know he too has a strong commitment to our soldiers who are there to be sure they have what they need in order to complete their mission in an increasingly volatile environment in Europe. With that, I yield back for my colleague from Rhode Island.

Mr. PORTMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the National Defense Authorization Act and offer a bipartisan amendment with Senator Peters that will strengthen this very important underlying legislation we are working on. As you know, the security threats around the world continue to grow. A lot of experts believe that ISIS is now the best trained, best equipped, and best financed terror organization we have ever seen. Al Qaeda continues to threaten our own country. If you look at what is going on around the world, Hamas and Hezbollah are constantly looking to wage war on Israel. The regime in Iran remains the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism, and they are pursuing nuclear weapons. China continues to intimidate its neighbors in the South China Sea. We live in a dangerous and volatile world. As a result of these international events and developments, among others, it is absolutely imperative that we maintain a strong national defense to protect our homeland and to defend our allies. With all these crises around the world competing for our attention, we sometimes neglect another crisis, one that Chairman McCain has constantly reminded us about, and that is the situation in Ukraine, which could easily spin out of control at any time. In fact, news out of eastern Ukraine this morning is particularly troubling. It appears that the latest Russian and separatist attacks on Ukrainian positions this morning may be the final blow to what was, in fact, a ceasefire in name only. Russia is increasingly aggressive on the European continent. We need to be acknowledging that and dealing with that in this underlying legislation. I just returned from a trip to Ukraine in April, a year after I had the privilege to be there leading the congressional delegation to monitor the election of President Poroshenko. I went with my friend and colleague, Senator Ben Cardin. A lot has happened since that last election. I learned about this in my meetings most recently with Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, President Poroshenko, and other Ukrainian individuals. They have reached a pivotal moment in Ukraine. The Ukrainian people have sacrificed in hopes of securing a democratic future for their country. However, they need our help. They need sustained economic, military, and political support from the United States and from our NATO allies. It is absolutely critical to this vision of a democratic Ukraine, a free Ukraine, coming to fruition. In my view, the people of Ukraine have made a very clear and unequivocal choice, and we need to stand with them. Their choice is to pursue a pro-Western, democratic path. Their government has been responsive to that choice by making progress in fighting decades of endemic corruption that has left the country weak and, frankly, unprepared for the Russian aggression that has occurred. However, none of these reforms will mean much if Ukraine is unable to secure its borders or defend its sovereignty. The NDAA before us has a lot of important provisions related to this crisis in Crimea and along the eastern border of Ukraine. I applaud Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for their efforts on it. I hope we will be able to entertain a few other amendments in this process that will even strengthen the U.S. posture and support of Ukraine. I look forward to being on the floor later this week to talk about this situation in Ukraine in more detail. This afternoon, however, I have come to the floor to talk about a related amendment that is of great importance as this situation in Eastern Europe continues to destabilize. Following my visit to Ukraine this spring, I visited Latvia. I went there because I wanted to spend some time with U.S. soldiers from an Abrams tank company who were there on a NATO mission. I am sure most of my colleagues know that recent force structure changes moved our two heavy armored brigades out of Europe. This armored unit I saw in Latvia and the other two companies in the Baltics today are only there on a rotational basis this spring, and they will soon return home to the United States, in this case to Fort Stewart. These units are sending an important message to our allies, such as those in the Baltics--and, believe me, the Latvians are extremely appreciative--but they are only temporary. What they are really looking for is a permanent presence. That is what sends the stronger message. The big news when I was over there was that there was a road march being conducted by the 2nd Calvary Regiment through Central and Eastern Europe. The 2nd Calvary Regiment is in Europe, but they were taking this road march through Central and Eastern Europe. This was taking their Strykers, which is the only permanently stationed U.S. armored vehicle in Europe, on roads and through small towns--towns that fear an increasingly aggressive Russia on their doorstep. The unit was doing all it could to help reassure our allies and demonstrate U.S. resolve, but, frankly, they were doing all they could with what they have, and what they have is not enough. They do not have what they need. This unit has communicated this urgently to us here in the Congress. Their weapons systems are, frankly, inadequate to meet their potential mission requirements if they are called upon. They need a more powerful gun. They need to replace their .50-caliber machine gun with a 30- millimeter cannon. The soldiers understand that. The Army understands that. The Army has already identified this requirement, and prior to the deteriorating situation in Europe, they slated to field this improved weapons systems to these Strykers starting in 2020. So they knew it was a problem. They knew they had to address it. Then we saw this deteriorating situation in Europe caused by Crimea's being annexed and now the situation on the eastern border of Ukraine. The soldiers manning these Strykers today know that 2020 is just too far in the future, and Army leadership agrees with them. On March 30 of this year, U.S. Army Europe submitted an operational needs statement to Army Headquarters to address this urgent capability gap in the 2nd Cavalry Regiment. Specifically, according to the needs statement, the unit lacks ``the lethality of a direct fire weapons system to engage similar units or those supported by light-armored vehicles.'' On April 22, Army Headquarters validated this high priority need and assigned this requirement to the program manager for execution. To shave several years off of the fielding timeline, however, the Army needs additional funding in fiscal year 2016. They need it now. That is exactly what this amendment does. The review of these requirements by the Army was occurring while the Defense bill was being marked up in committee. The House appropriators, the first to mark up since the Army communicated its requirement, have fully funded the need. I want to thank Chairman McCain and the ranking member for their consideration and for including this important funding into this bill, even though the urgent need was communicated only very recently. By the way, just to be clear, because I have heard discussion about this on the floor today, this turret and gun system--the cannon itself--will be competed, and that is appropriate. This increase in funding is fully offset by taking additional reductions from the expected surplus from the foreign currency fluctuations as identified by GAO. The additional reductions taken by this amendment still won't match the reductions, by the way, that the House has taken from these accounts. I want to thank the Members of our body here in the Senate for their support of this amendment. Senator Peters, my colleague from Michigan, has been my partner on the other side of the aisle in this effort. He has been a strong supporter of giving our soldiers what they need in Europe and sending that strong message we talked about earlier. Senator Cotton talked about this issue in the Armed Services Committee. He is chairman of the Airland Subcommittee, and he has worked hard on this, as well as have other Armed Services committee members, including Senator Inhofe, Senator Sessions, Senator Wicker, Senator Toomey, who is our Presiding Officer, and, of course, Senator McCain. This amendment is of vital importance for our forward-deployed troops. It also sends a critical message at this time of great uncertainty in Europe. I urge my colleagues to support this. It is bipartisan and it is needed, and I urge its swift adoption. Because of that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 1522.

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, we just adopted an amendment that puts this Senate squarely in opposition to currency manipulation. Now the question is whether we have the courage of our convictions. The only difference between the amendment we just voted and the one we are about to vote on is whether we actually have enforcement as part of that. I want you to be able to tell your workers that you not only disagree with currency manipulation but you want to be able to do something about it. I yield for my colleague.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address just for 1 minute, equally divided between Senator Stabenow and myself, this amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. President. I have been on the floor a number of times this week talking about the importance of trade and talking about the need for us to expand more exports around the world. The United States has not been in a position for 7 years to do that. That is why trade promotion authority is incredibly important to our workers, our farmers, and the people we represent. By doing so, we will give people a shot at actually increasing their salary and their family's income because trade jobs tend to pay better and have better benefits. In my home State of Ohio, 60 percent of our soybean crop is exported. We want to be sure those farmers have access to more markets. Twenty- five percent of our manufacturing jobs--factory jobs--are now trade jobs. So these exports are very important. Unfortunately, what has happened over the last 7 years is that as we try to sell our products and our services to the 95 percent of the world outside of our borders, it is getting harder because other countries are concluding trade agreements with each other. So during this time when the United States has basically been sitting on the sidelines, other countries have negotiated trade-opening agreements. This means lowering tariffs and nontariff barriers, actually taking market share away from us that we would otherwise have. So this is an important issue. If you are for jobs, you should be for exports. You should be for the U.S. Government helping our workers and helping us to be able to knock down these barriers. Other countries tend to have higher tariffs. They tend to have higher nontariff barriers. So this is part of what we ought to be about in this body. I am glad we are finally taking this up. The administration now supports this. That is good. However, as we do that, we also have to be darn sure that the playing field is more level. What do I mean by that? Well, we know that other countries have higher tariffs than we do, on average. But they also do other things that make it harder for our workers to compete. One is that they subsidize their products. We know this because we have taken a number of these countries to court--meaning the World Trade Organization-- about this very topic. Here in the United States, we have the ability, if a company is selling into our market with a subsidized product, to seek relief for that. We should. It is not fair. Second, some countries just want to dump their products here in the United States at below their cost. Why? It is kind of like what they say in business: This is a loss leader. They will take a loss on it, but they will get market share and knock out a U.S. competitor. That takes jobs away from us. That is also not fair. Again, there are international tribunals that deal with this, but also we have our laws here in this country that say: If you are dumping your product here in the United States, that is considered unfair. A company can bring a case. If they can prove they are materially injured--that the company is materially injured--they can find some relief there. So as we are expanding opportunities for trade all around the world, which is a good thing, we also have to be sure that our laws work to protect our workers who are not getting a fair shake. By the way, a lot of these workers are doing everything right, everything that is being asked of them. They are going through worker retraining to learn how to operate the most highly technical, sophisticated machines that are the most efficient. Frankly, that often results in fewer jobs, but it results also in very high quality U.S. products that are being made with the best technology. Some of these workers have been asked to make concessions in their pay or their benefits in order to be competitive. What they say to me is: Rob, you know we are in a global marketplace. We know we are going to have to compete. We know it is not just about competing with Indiana anymore; it is about competing with India, China, Japan, Brazil, and the European Union. So we are willing to become more competitive, to learn these skills, to play by these global rules. But once we do that, we want that playing field to be level. That is fair. That is the least that they should expect from us here in the Congress--to ensure that while they are making these changes to be more competitive that we are watching their back. That is what a lot of the debate has been about with regard to this trade promotion authority vote that we are having. This is the opportunity for Congress to express its will as to what these trade negotiations ought to look like. It is not about a specific negotiation, the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the TTIP negotiations with the EU or other bilateral relationships, it is about establishing what Congress believes ought to be the right rules going forward. Amendment No. 1299 I am very hopeful that today on the floor we will have the opportunity to vote on a couple of different amendments related to this. One that the Presiding Officer is very well aware of is a strong interest of mine. It is ensuring that other countries do not manipulate their currency so that their exports are less expensive to us and our exports that we send to them are more expensive. That is not fair. When they intervene deliberately in their currency for that purpose and do it in a large-scale and protected way, that is called currency manipulation. There are rules against it. The International Monetary Fund has rules against it. As an example, every one of the partners in the trade agreement that is being negotiated now with the Pacific countries--every one of those countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership--has signed up to those obligations already. So the amendment we will be voting on today simply says: Here is the standard that you have already agreed to. Let's say that when you are negotiating a trade agreement with us to lower barriers--both here in the United States, to give them more access to our market, and to give us more access to their market, which, as I said earlier, is something we have to be doing to help our farmers and our workers--let's be sure that those benefits cannot be undone by them going in and manipulating their currency, which is a market distortion. Most countries would say: We agree with that. We are not doing it. Currently that is true. I don't think any of the 12 countries we are talking about here are currently doing it. I will say that they have in the past. Since 2012, I do not believe Japan has been doing it. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the International Monetary Fund and the Department of Treasury. They give us a report every year on this. But before that, they did it over 300 times. It makes it a whole lot harder for us to compete. Again, our workers and our farmers are willing to be the most productive, the most efficient. They know they have to compete. We should applaud them for that. We should support them and help them. But they want to be sure that after they have done all of that and after we have reduced some of these barriers, the playing field does not tilt, making it easier for these other countries to send their products here, which outcompete ours because of currency manipulation. That is what that issue is all about. There will be two amendments, one of which will be offered by Senator Hatch and one offered by me and Senator Stabenow. The one that we are offering is one that does have teeth in it. In other words, it seems to be an enforceable provision. But it leaves the discretion within the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to determine how that is done. This is an office that I had the honor of holding at one time. I had the great honor of representing our country all around the world in negotiating agreements and talking about these very issues with other countries. I can tell you that sometimes other countries may not want to talk about it, but at the end of the day, they know that currency manipulation is bad for everybody. It is bad for the international trading system. It is tempting to do because short term, it makes your exports less expensive. If you want to be an export-driven economy, as China is, that helps sometimes. But it is not ultimately in anybody's best interests. So let's have these disciplines, but let's make them enforceable, so that there is some ability for us to truly stop this manipulation, to discourage it, to have disciplines in place. That is what that amendment is going to be about. By the way, I know the administration has said they do not support this. It is interesting because here is Secretary Lew's letter this week to Congress: ``Holding our trade partners accountable for their currency practices has always been important to this administration.'' Well, let's hold them accountable. I agree with him. I agree with this letter. I do not agree with his recommended veto threat to the President, should we actually put accountable language into trade promotion authority. So I hope they will stick with this letter and not his recommendation to the President. The President himself has talked about this. He has talked about his opposition to currency manipulation, and, by the way, so have 60 Senators. This was in 2013. They are not all currently serving in the Senate, but 60 Senators actually signed a letter saying: ``In our trade agreements, we must have accountable, enforceable currency manipulation provisions.'' So most of this body has been on record in the past. This is what the President said back in 2007. It was not this week, but it was 2007. He said he would work with his colleagues in the Senate to ensure that any trade agreement brought before this Congress is measured not against the administration's commitment--not just a commitment, but that we will do this--but instead against the rights of Americans to protection from unfair trade practices, including currency manipulation. So the notion that the President might veto this because it has protections against currency manipulation--I do not think so. I think he understands the importance of trade promotion authority. I certainly do. I think he knows that we need to get off the sidelines and get back in the business of negotiating agreements that make sense for our farmers, our workers, and our service providers. But I think in his heart, he also realizes he has to have this discipline in place. The alternative, by the way, would be interesting. You could end up with lowering tariffs and nontariff barriers in this agreement. Then one of these countries that has previously been involved in currency manipulation, such as Malaysia or Japan could step in and do it again and undo so many of the benefits. That would be pretty tough to explain to our constituents. We had the opportunity to address this and chose not to. Some are concerned about this being a poison pill. I would just say the obvious. If you have more protections in here, it won't be harder to pass this in the House of Representatives, because the concern, obviously, a lot of people have is that trade is somehow not fair. I agree that we ought to pass trade promotion authority. It is incredibly important to the people I represent. It is incredibly important to our country. It is even a geopolitical issue now because America's footprint in that region of the world, Asia-Pacific, should be greater. We are competing with China in so many respects. One is with regard to commerce. China is one of those countries that are negotiating agreements pretty rapidly with countries all throughout the region. It is important that we get back in the business of establishing those trade ties. That is the geopolitical issue. I would even say it is a national security issue and a strategic issue. But it is also just important to our economy. We all want to give this economy a shot in the arm. This weak recovery we are working through right now is weaker because we are not seeing the gains in exports we would otherwise see if we were opening up these markets. By the way, we only have free trade agreements with 10 percent of the global GDP. If you think about it, we don't have an agreement with the EU or with China or with Japan or with many other large economies, such as Brazil. But with about 10 percent of the world we do have trade agreements. We send 47 percent of our exports to that 10 percent of the world. From Ohio, by the way, it is more than half. It is about 52 percent of our exports. But again, as we do that, let's be darn sure that we are leveling that playing field, that we are addressing these issues we all know exist, whether it is dumping products here or whether it is illegally subsidizing products or whether it is manipulating currency. It seems to me that this is the right balance. It seems to me that this is something that Congress owes the people I represent--to watch their backs, to make sure they get a fair shake. The other amendment that I hope we will have the opportunity to vote on this afternoon is being discussed right now in another room off this Chamber. It is an amendment that ensures that you have a more level playing field with regard to being able to bring these cases against companies that sell their products in the United States unfairly because they sell them at below cost, they dump them or they subsidize them. There are governments that do a lot of subsidization. Again, that is another market distortion. We should fight against it. The rules that are currently in place have been there a long time. They are consistent with the World Trade Organization. Other countries have these rules in place as well. But I will tell you that the way in which companies seek relief and get relief right now is far from perfect, because so often, by the time a company can show that they are materially injured--which is the standard--it is too late. The market share is gone. Many of the workers are gone. Sometimes the companies themselves are gone. This legislation is going to be offered by Senator Brown, my colleague from Ohio, and me. Senator Brown has been talking about this issue on the floor. He is passionate about it. When we travel around the State, both of us, to places such as Cleveland, Toledo, Youngstown, and Dayton, we hear about this issue. We hear: Yes, we can operate on a level playing field, but please help us to ensure that when we find a product that is subsidized and when we find a product that is being dumped here, we have the chance to be able to get the relief that we deserve. So this amendment enhances those protections for Ohio workers seeking relief from these illegally undersold or subsidized imports. By the way, the amendment is now backed by over 80 trade associations and companies, including some great companies in Ohio: Nucor, ArcelorMittal, U.S. Steel, Timken, and others. It is a commonsense, bipartisan measure that basically says that workers should not have to lose their jobs before their company can get relief from these illegal actions. And 78 out of 100 of my colleagues here on the floor of the Senate recently backed a Customs bill that included this language. So there is a lot of support for this here on the floor. We would love to get this included in this legislation because this is the legislation that is the most likely to move through the House and to the President. This is the legislation where it ought to be, given that we are talking about how to expand exports. That is good. But also ensure that we have more fairness in terms of international trade situations. Last night on the floor, I was talking about AK Steel, in West Chester, OH. They have 4,000 workers in the State of Ohio. I talked about their production facilities in Zanesville, OH. Some 250 workers are there--UAW workers. They make grain-oriented electrical steel. It is a specialty steel. It is exported all over the world. I went through what happened to them. They were exporting it to China. China illegally shut out this kind of specialty steel. They lost 92 percent of their exports to China, even though it was illegal for China to do it. The U.S. Government took China to the World Trade Organization and won. China then appealed that. China used all the time they could to avoid complying with that order. By the time it was over, it was 5 or 6 years. They lost 92 percent of their exports. So they lost hundreds of jobs in Ohio because they couldn't get into that Chinese market. By the way, it is now happening in the European Union. For other purposes--apparently because of concern about other products--the European Union is also now blocking some of this specialty steel made in my home State of Ohio. So it happens overseas; we know that. Yet, when this same company goes to our Commerce Department and our International Trade Commission to seek relief for illegally traded imports coming in--these are imports which are illegally traded--they have a hard time getting relief in time for it to be helpful to them being able to get on their feet. So American products are shut out of China and the EU, but American workers cannot get the help they deserve in a timely manner to keep illegally traded imports from flooding our market. This amendment would change that. This is the amendment we have been talking about. It is called the level the playing field amendment. It helps protect thousands of American jobs that would otherwise be put at risk because our trade laws frankly haven't kept up with the speed of international commerce. I had some Ohio steel pipe and tube manufacturing companies in my office yesterday. As some of you know, Ohio is a leader in this part of the steel industry, which is a growth industry for the most part because there are a lot more oil and gas wells, natural gas wells cropping up around the country. These companies employ thousands of workers across my State. Frankly, they are having a tough time because of the market--nothing to do with imports but the fact that the price of oil is such that it is harder to justify drilling new wells. So the fracking has slowed down and they have lost some business. But the other thing that has happened is there has been a surge of foreign imports. So there are now a record number of imports of pipe and tube products coming into this country at a time when our companies are already seeing kind of a soft market because of the lower price of oil and less activity in the oilfields and natural gas fields in Ohio and around the country. So there are companies, such as TimkenSteel, which has over 1,000 workers in Canton, OH, that are continuing to make investments in their plants so they can be updated, modern, and the most efficient plants in the world. They just made a $300 million investment. Indeed, I was there recently. I was able to visit with them and see some of their new investments. It will be one of the most modern steel plants in the world. Their export products are very impressive. They send them all over the world. These are engineered steel products. Just yesterday, they told me they are now approaching about 50-percent capacity. That is barely breaking even for them. By the way, they are at a higher capacity than most in the industry these days. Again, it is a combination of a soft market and a record number of imports of pipe and tube products. A little further east, in the Mahoning Valley, Vallourec in Youngstown also produces pipe and tube products. Some of you have followed Vallourec because it has been in the news. It is kind of a poster child for what American manufacturers should be doing, which is investing in plant and equipment. It is the first new steel mill in Mahoning Valley in probably a couple of generations. It is very exciting. But, boy, they are having a tough time right now. Even though they have invested in their infrastructure and they are doing all the right things and they are becoming more competitive, they are having a tough time. Some of you may know about them because actually just a couple of years ago President Obama was in that factory in Youngstown using it as a backdrop to tout our American manufacturing comeback. A record level of import penetration is now causing incredible disruption in their production. These imports are entering our country at very low prices, and we all suspect this is the basis for a future trade remedy case. Again, it is either dumping, selling below cost, or a subsidized product. They want to make sure they have the ability to bring this case before it is too late. Our trade remedy laws haven't kept up with the fast pace of the global economy. Vallourec had 1,200 workers in Youngstown just a couple years ago. They have now had to furlough 300 workers, and I am told they are at about 20 percent capacity. Last week when I was on the floor, I talked about another company, Wheatland Tube, which is also in Mahoning Valley. I now have an email from one of the officials at Wheatland Tube, and this is what he said: As an individual employed in manufacturing, I understand better than most that trade is a key component for economic growth. He starts off saying they know we need to trade. Then he says: However, it's important for U.S. manufacturers (i.e. steel pipe and tube producers) to have the tools to challenge unfair trade, and that's why I believe that ANY and ALL future trade agreements considered must include enforcement provisions to ensure that trade is conducted fairly. As a U.S. citizen who makes a living in manufacturing . . . provisions included in the Leveling the Playing Field Act-- That is the amendment I am talking about-- will close loop holes in the trade laws to ensure that companies can access these laws to challenge trade distorting practices. I also support language in the TPP that prevents currency manipulation and the ``dumping'' of foreign products in the U.S. It's essential that provisions to close loop holes in trade laws are included in a final trade bill. After all, there's a huge difference between FAIR trade and FREE trade. JMC Steel Group-- Which is the parent of his organization-- relies on these laws, and has utilized them in recent years to challenge trade distorting practices that have injured our industry and our employees. Without laws to regulate unfair trade, I know my job-- "My job,'' he says-- and the jobs of thousands of other manufacturing workers, is at risk. So to Mike Mack, who sent me this email from Wheatland Tube in Warren, OH, I appreciate your expressing your point of view, and I appreciate your supporting this amendment. I appreciate the fact that you understand that trade is important and that you have to be competitive. And that is not easy. It requires some concessions, and it requires some sacrifices. But once you do that, we have to be sure we have their back. When these American pipe and tube manufacturers were in my office yesterday, they said one thing that really worried me. They said: If our trade remedy laws aren't fixed and fixed quickly, one of us will not be at this table next year because we will be out of business. These are good companies. These are companies that are doing the right thing. And they are telling me: Look around the table. There are several of us here now. At least one of us may not be here next year. Because of these concerns we are hearing from workers and companies, we are offering a very simple and modest clarification of U.S. law regarding the definition of ``material injury.'' In fact, I believe it is actually exactly what Congress intended originally. The proposed legislation makes no changes to the definition of ``material injury.'' Instead, the legislation clarifies that ``the [International Trade] Commission shall not determine that there is no material injury or threat of material industry to a domestic industry merely because the domestic industry is profitable or because the performance of the domestic industry has recently improved.'' I think this clarification underscores what the current language already shows. The definition of ``material injury'' is not intended to be so burdensome on U.S. companies that they have to go under or at least see job loss before they can get the relief they deserve. I hope this amendment will be supported, as it was in the Customs package. I hope we can get it to the floor for a vote. I think it is incredibly important that we make sure this goes along with something that is also very important, which is to expand our exports all around the world. We want to be sure American companies that are being harmed by illegal imports feel we are here to back them up and know they won't have to wait and watch as subsidized or dumped imports put them on the verge of going out of business and laying off hundreds, if not thousands, of workers. So the whole notion here is that before companies are gravely or severely injured, they have the chance to make their case, that they can have confidence that the U.S. trade laws will be enforced as Congress originally intended them to and that they will be able to compete on this level playing field. Protecting workers and jobs is not a partisan issue; this is something both sides of the aisle believe in. It is about fairness. It is about ensuring that those factory workers and towns all across America understand that as we expand exports, as we open trade between countries, we are also looking out for them and ensuring it is done in a fair way. But if they are willing to work hard, play by the rules, they can indeed not just succeed but thrive here in this, the greatest country on the face of the Earth, the country that has this economy that has been in the past the envy of the entire world, on the cutting edge. We need to get back to that. We need to continue making things in this country. We need to continue encouraging innovation and creativity. In doing so, we will be able to have the kind of robust economic recovery all of us hope for. Part of this is trade, more exports, and being sure it is fair. Part of this is ensuring that in this body, we provide those rules of the road. If we do so, I believe we will not only be able to help the people we represent, as we should, but also begin to rebuild a consensus around the importance of trade. Some of you have probably followed what is going on in the House this week with regard to trade promotion authority. It is tough to find the votes, and I think that is reflective of the fact that a lot of our constituents back home are skeptical. They are skeptical about trade because they have seen too often, as I mentioned earlier, that other countries were not playing by the rules, and I gave the specific examples of the U.S. steel company trying to sell its product in China or the EU and being blocked but not getting relief here. We can fix this. It is not a matter of changing our posture on trade. We are a country that is courageous. We believe in trade. We are not going to shrink from it. But we are also a country that believes in rules and believes in taking care of the people whom we represent so that they are not unfairly treated in the international marketplace. That is what this debate is about. I hope we will have a good vote on the currency manipulation amendment we talked about. Whether or not we will be able to get up the other amendment is still a matter of debate, as I understand it. I hope we will be able to work through that and offer this incredibly important amendment, which is bipartisan, called level the playing field that I talked about. I think having votes on both of those strengthens trade promotion authority. Frankly, it makes it easier to get that legislation through the House and also, in the end, get America back in the business of helping the workers and farmers and the service providers whom we represent. I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, we have been talking over the past several days about trade. I wish to add a little discussion here about some of the specific amendments that may come up over the next day or two. I am hopeful that we will have a vote on some of these amendments later this evening. It is incredibly important for us to expand opportunities for our workers and our farmers by knocking down barriers to trade. That is why more export promotion is a good thing. These are not only more jobs for America, for my State of Ohio, for the Presiding Officer's State of Arizona, but these are better-paying jobs as well. There is no question that not having trade promotion authority over the last 7 years has been detrimental to us in terms of losing market share for our workers and our farmers. Other countries are negotiating agreements. In fact, there have been well over 100 agreements negotiated without the United States being a party and that cuts us out. But as we do that, as we expand exports--which is a good thing--we must be sure that playing field is also more level and fairer, so that our workers and our farmers, and our service providers have the opportunity to compete. That is all we are asking for. There are a couple of amendments likely to come up again this afternoon and over the next couple of days. One is with regard to this issue of when somebody dumps a product or when a country has a policy of subsidizing a product, there should be the ability for American companies to respond on behalf of their workers. When products are dumped or when there is a subsidy on an import, there is a process by which you go to the International Trade Commission and seek help, show that you were materially injured, that damage was done to you, your company, and your workers because of these unfairly traded imports. You then go to the Commerce Department's International Trade Administration and make the argument as to what the countervailing duty ought to be, what the tariff ought to be to combat this. The problem is that in that system today, it is so hard to show material injury and to get that relief that often by the time you can get that relief, it is too late. We certainly found this in Ohio with regard to many of our industries, and a lot of them, therefore, are very interested in this amendment. One is steel. Right now, there is a lot of tube and pipe coming into this country from overseas. We believe some of it is being sold at below its cost here in America. That means it is being dumped. We believe some is being subsidized. That means it should be subject to countervailing duties. Yet, by the time you can get that relief, find that remedy, often it is just too late. You have lost your market share. You have lost the American jobs. So this amendment, which is bipartisan and which is backed by over 80 American companies and trade associations and many companies in my home State of Ohio, such as U.S. Steel, Timken Steel, ArcelorMittal, is a commonsense measure that says: Look, workers shouldn't have to lose their jobs before they can get relief. Seventy-eight of our colleagues backed this amendment in the Customs bill last week. In fact, Senator Hatch, chairman of the committee, who has done a good job shepherding this process through, included this amendment in his mark in the Committee on Finance, which demonstrates how much support it has. However, we feel it is very important that it be in this legislation, in the trade promotion authority bill, which is the bill we are now debating on the floor. We can't let it get left behind. It is interesting because other countries do have provisions in their laws to keep our exports out if they believe they are unfairly traded or for other reasons. Let me give an example of this by going to AK Steel, which is a company that is based in West Chester, OH. It has 4,000 workers in the State of Ohio. AK Steel produces a high-tech steel called grain-oriented electrical steel. It is a silicon alloy used in the power generation and transmission industry and is more commonly referred to as GOES. GOES steel is a specialty steel. It is an incredibly important product for AK Steel because it is one they are able to export. They are so efficient at producing it and it has such high value that they are exporting it to a number of countries around the world. They produce this steel with 250 United Auto Workers-- members of the UAW--in Zanesville, OH. Back in 2010, China imposed antidumping and countervailing duties on GOES from the United States, including this product from AK Steel made in Zanesville, OH. They claimed U.S. producers had received subsidies through the ``Buy American'' provisions in the stimulus bill. They didn't, by the way, but that is what China claimed. It was really retaliation that had to do with some other products that had been coming from China to here--tubular products for the oil and gas industry--and they were retaliating. Anyway, that was China's claim. So our company, AK Steel, said: Look, this is not accurate. But these duties were put in place anyway by China. It reduced the exports by 92 percent from Ohio to China. So the United States--rightfully so--took China to the World Trade Organization and won the case because the facts were on our side. We won the case, but China appealed it--without removing the duties. So this all takes time. Meanwhile, you are losing market share. Instead of immediately removing the duties, when they lost the appeal, China chose to run out the clock, only dropping their tariff a couple weeks before the WTO forced them to do it. So American-made GOES was kept out of China for 5 years. This process took 5 years and cost American workers millions of orders. Meanwhile, the U.S. domestic producer sought relief from their government by going to the ITC as well as the ITA--the International Trade Commission and the International Trade Administration--and they found the domestic industry was not injured in a case against producers from several countries, including Japan, Germany, China, and Poland, despite surging imports and dropping prices. So on the one hand, they were not able to sell in China for 5 years and lost a lot of market share and millions of dollars. On the other hand, when they went to their own government to ask for a little relief on this product coming in, they were not able to show injury despite surging imports and dropping prices. The provisions we have simply clarify that when a producer--a U.S. company--is injured, when it is material injury as was defined in the statute, they shouldn't have to wait until after the factory is closed and workers are laid off for us to stand up for our workers. By the way, just last month these GOES producers were cut out of another large international market. The European Union announced it would be imposing duties on this same electrical steel from the United States, again putting millions of dollars of exports at risk. So our provision is an attempt to help level this playing field. It is WTO-consistent; in other words, it doesn't violate our international obligations. It simply clarifies what ``material injury'' means. It goes back to the original statutory language and makes it easier for American companies to seek the relief they deserve. This is going to help protect millions of American jobs that otherwise could be at risk because our trade laws haven't kept up with international commerce. This is an example of one of the amendments we would very much like to offer on the floor. I know there is discussion right now in another room in this Capitol about whether we will be able to offer this amendment. It is an amendment by Senator Brown and me. It is an example of what--if we included it in the trade promotion authority legislation--would make this a bill that is truly balanced, one that expands exports, which is incredibly important, as I said earlier, to the people I represent--our farmers, our workers--and to our State and our economy, but that also ensures that there is a more level playing field, that there is fairness in this underlying legislation. The second amendment we hope to offer is with regard to currency manipulation. We have talked a lot about this on the floor this week, and I would just say three things. One, this is something a lot of Members in this Chamber have already looked at because 60 Members of the Senate in 2013 sent a letter to the President of the United States saying that with regard to trade agreements, there should be enforceable currency manipulation prohibitions--60. Some of those Senators are still in this Chamber. Most of them are. I would hope we again would have a strong message from the Congress, which is what trade promotion authority is, that in the context of trade negotiating objectives--and there are about 20 different trade negotiating objectives in TPA--one of them should be that we have a prohibition on currency manipulation, and it should be enforceable. Second, there will be an alternative amendment offered that agrees with our amendment in terms of the definition of currency manipulation. Specifically, it does not affect monetary policy. It does not affect what the United States has been doing with QE2, QE3, QE1. By the way, for those who think that kind of monetary policy is export-oriented, look at the value of the dollar. It has certainly not been effective at lowering the price of our currency. In fact, our currency has gone up in value. It is about stimulus. We can argue about the merits or demerits of that monetary policy, but it is not affected at all by this amendment, and the amendment specifically clarifies that. So just to be clear, No. 1, 60 Senators have already signed this letter; No. 2, this is consistent with the International Monetary Fund definition, which says this is not about monetary policy. It is about real intervention. It is about intervention in currency markets to be able to affect exports, to lower the price of exports unfairly and to increase the cost of our exports to other countries unfairly. Finally, I would just say this is about the balance we talked about earlier. The American people want to know that while we are expanding exports, we are also ensuring that we get a fair shake--our farmers, our workers, our service providers. There is a quote by a former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, that I think is telling. As a former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, he said that, ``In five minutes, exchange rates can wipe out what it took trade negotiators ten years to accomplish.'' As a former U.S. Trade Representative, I agree with that. Currency manipulation takes away so much of the value of what we are trying to do on this floor. Those who support trade should be in favor of prohibitions on currency. This is a distortion. If you are a market- oriented fiscal conservative, if you are someone who believes we ought to let markets work, then you should be against currency manipulation because it does distort the market. If you are someone who believes we should be expanding exports but it should be fair, you should be for this prohibition on currency manipulation and making it enforceable. And we should have the courage of our convictions. If we really do believe that, we should be sure there is some ability to make this enforceable. The countries of the Pacific region that are currently negotiating with us on the Trans-Pacific Partnership do not currently manipulate their currency, but a couple of them have in the past. Notably, Japan has over 300 times before 2012. Malaysia has. It doesn't make sense to put in place this provision to say: In the future--once we have completed this agreement with you, we have knocked down these trade barriers in the United States and in your country to enable us to have more trade--you would not be able to manipulate your currency under this agreement. There is some polling data out there that indicates 9 out of 10 Americans agree with that, by the way. And of course they do because it is just common sense. All we are looking for is the ability to compete fairly. Wouldn't it be great if we could do both of these things--expand exports but also be sure we are getting a fair shake for the people we represent, the AK Steels of the world that have their products blocked in China and their products blocked in the EU and yet can't receive the relief here or the companies in my home State that work hard to bring some business back from China? In one case, there is a small manufacturer in Cleveland, OH, that told me about this. It is a company that makes highly valuable steel products, and these are products that help hold up speakers at major concerts. They brought some of that business back from China. One day I was in their shop talking to them, and they said: Well, we are going to lose this order. Why? Currency manipulation. That made the Chinese imports into our country less expensive because they manipulated their currency and lowered their value and made it much more difficult for them, therefore, to be competitive. They were concerned that they were going to lose that order despite the fact that they had done everything to make their plant more efficient and that the workers had made concessions. They had done everything right and played by the rules. That is what we are asking, that everybody be asked to play by the rules. So I hope the underlying legislation passes, but I hope it passes with these improvements to ensure that we do have a balance here; that we are able to tell our farmers and our workers and our service providers: You are going to have the opportunity now to access 95 percent of the consumers who are outside the borders of the United States of America. That is a good thing. It will mean more jobs and higher paying jobs, paying on average 15 to 18 percent more, and better benefits. But also, by entering into these agreements, we are going to have more fairness for you so you can get a fair shake and be able to do what you want to do, which is to be able to compete in this global marketplace and be assured that competition will be fair. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor a number of times this week to talk about the trade issue, and we are now debating that legislation. I have put up this sign because it is being used by folks on our side of the aisle to talk about the importance of this agreement. It talks about a free and fair trade agreement for a healthy economy. I agree that it needs to be fair, and I agree we need to expand exports. I support for the first time in 7 years giving the U.S. Government the ability to knock down barriers to our farmers, our workers, and our service providers so we can get a fair shake, but we have to be sure it is fair. And so to my colleagues who have put up this sign and then have opposed the amendment I am about to talk about, I hope they will focus on the fair part as well as the expansion of trade to make sure it does indeed give our farmers and workers a fair shake. There has been a lot of debate about a particular amendment dealing with currency manipulation. It turns out everybody is against currency manipulation. Maybe that has been an evolution, but everybody is now saying the same thing. The question is whether it should be enforceable. Amendment No. 1299 There has been a lot of discussion on the floor here today about the amendment I am offering with Senator Stabenow, and frankly there has been some misinformation out here that I would like to clarify. First, I want to talk about what these two amendments do. They are very similar, with one exception. The amendment being offered by Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden does not include enforcement. So they say that this is terrible, that we ought not to have currency manipulation, but the amendment does not have the courage of its convictions. It doesn't say we should do anything about it. Here is the language. First, both have basically the same definition--targeting protracted and large-scale intervention in the exchange markets by a party to a trade agreement to gain an unfair advantage. What that basically means is that people lower their currency deliberately by intervening in order to make their exports less expensive to the United States and make our exports to them more expensive. That is not fair. But basically we both identify the same problem and ensure that we are focused on this issue of real currency manipulation. Second, the amendment I am offering has a specific exemption for what we call macroeconomic policy or specifically domestic monetary policy. In other words, QE1, 2, and 3 would not be affected by our amendment. Yet, even though the Hatch-Cornyn folks are saying they are concerned about that in our amendment, that it might affect domestic policy and monetary policy, they don't have it in their amendment. We have it in ours. So we not only define currency manipulation so that it is clear that it applies to the kinds of standards the International Monetary Fund currently requires--by the way, to all of the countries that might be signatory to the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership; all of them--but it also explicitly says in ours that this shall not be construed to restrict the exercise of domestic monetary policy. Therefore, ours is a stronger amendment with regard to that issue. I also noticed something about their amendment that is interesting. They say theirs has to be consistent with existing obligations of the United States as a member of the IMF and the WTO--the World Trade Organization. Ours says the same thing, except consistent with existing principles and agreements, meaning the other countries have to live up to their agreements also. I am not quite sure why they don't think other countries should have to live up to their obligations. When you sign up with the IMF and the WTO, you are required not to manipulate your currency. Yet, people do it because there is no enforcement. Their amendment doesn't deal with this issue directly. Ours does--have it be consistent with the obligations these countries have already undertaken. Finally and, of course, the most important part is the enforceability. There were 60 Senators who in 2013 signed a letter--and the letter went to the President--regarding trade agreements and currency manipulation. The letter said: We need to have enforceable currency manipulation provisions. Sixty Senators. A number of those Senators are still here in the Senate, of course. I think they were genuine in signing that letter. I was one of them, and I certainly was. I am also a signatory to other legislation and have been working on this issue for a long time. Ten years ago, I testified in this Congress about this very issue. But I hope those 60 Senators understand that they said they wanted it to be enforceable. Ours is enforceable. It says it is to be enforceable just like anything else--like intellectual property protection, like what the tariff level ought to be, like labor and environment standards--and it is up to the administration to determine exactly how to proceed with that. That flexibility is in here. It is a trade negotiating objective, and that is appropriate, too, in my view. I am a former U.S. Trade Representative. I used to negotiate these agreements. The trade negotiation objectives are something we took seriously, but we were given some flexibility. This amendment provides that flexibility. Finally, there has been a lot of discussion about poison pills. I have joked that this is more like a vitamin pill than a poison pill because this would actually help strengthen this underlying agreement and help us get more support for trade. The polling data on this, by the way, is overwhelming. Nine out of ten Americans agree that we have to deal with currency manipulation. Why? Because they think it is wrong. It is wrong. So I have heard it is a poison pill, first because it might hurt us here in the Senate. Just the opposite is true. There are Senators who have told me they would like to support trade promotion authority but they need something on currency manipulation to help them get there. Is it a poison pill in the House? Well, the vote in the House apparently is tough to come by for TPA. I hope it does end up being a TPA that can pass the Senate and the House. As I said earlier, I think it is the right thing for the workers I represent to expand to markets overseas. But this will help, it won't hurt, because this will give Republicans from my home State of Ohio and around the country the ability to go home and look their workers in the eye and say: You know what, we focused on the fair part here. We focused on ensuring that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will have a chance to compete and a chance to win. Finally, they say: Well, it is a poison pill because of the White House, because there was a veto threat recommended by the Secretary of the Treasury yesterday. Well, it was a recommendation; it wasn't a Statement of Administration Policy. I would just reference the President's own statements on this. I know how he feels about it; he is against currency manipulation. In fact, he said that he wanted to be sure to work with colleagues, ``that any trade agreement brought before the Congress is measured not against administration commitments but instead against the rights of Americans to protection from unfair trade practices, including currency manipulation.'' He said he couldn't vote for a trade agreement without enforceable practices on currency manipulation--enforceable so that the rights of Americans could be protected. So I know where the President stood on it, and I hope he will remember that this is about expanding trade. And that is good. We need to do that but at the same time ensure that we have a more level playing field. People have said it is a poison pill because some of our partners in TPP don't want to have to live up to their obligations under the International Monetary Fund. To my colleagues I would just say that should concern us. The last thing we want to do is to complete an agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership and then find out after the fact that all these tariffs we reduced, all these nontariff barriers that got knocked down didn't matter much because these same countries decided they were going to manipulate their currency, which undoes so much of the benefit of a trade agreement. Paul Volcker, former Fed Chair, has said it well: ``In five minutes, exchange rates can wipe out what it took trade negotiators ten years to accomplish.'' So it should concern us if our trading partners aren't interested. By the way, two of them--Japan and Malaysia--have engaged in currency manipulation in the past. Are they doing it now? In my view, no. In the IMF view, no. But they have. Japan hasn't done it since 2012, but before that they did it over 300 times. Why the heck wouldn't we want to have a provision in here that says: I know you are not doing it now, but now that we have come up with this great agreement to expand access for American farmers and American workers and American service providers to Japan, let's be sure you don't do it in the future and undo all those gains. And why would they be worried about that? Why would they not sign up for that kind of commitment? Why wouldn't the United States sign up and all these other countries? Malaysia is the other country that has in the past manipulated its currency. Why wouldn't they sign up for this? If they are refusing to do so, if this is considered a poison pill for that reason, we should be worried about it. I thank the Presiding Officer for giving me the time to clarify some of the statements made earlier on the floor today. I hope every Member of the Senate will decide, as they talk about the need for more enforcement, that this is exactly what we are talking about and that they will ensure this trade promotion authority representing the views of the Congress includes real enforcement and real help for the workers we represent.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Karen A. Love upon her retirement from the Department of Defense, DOD, after over 36 years in civil service. Karen was born in Greenville, OH and later moved to Ansonia, OH. She spent most of her formative years in Celina, where she attended the Immaculate Conception School, Celina Junior High School and Celina High School. After graduating magna cum laude from college, Karen moved to Washington, DC to begin her career. She first worked for the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and then moved to the Senate Armed Services Committee. While working for the Armed Services Committee, Karen had the privilege to work for chairmen on both sides of the aisle including John Stennis, John Tower, Barry Goldwater, and Sam Nunn. After 8 years as a staffer on Capitol Hill, Karen joined the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs, OASD LA. She subsequently served as the personal and confidential assistant to six successive OASD LAs. As a result of her tenure in OASD LA, Karen was one of few DOD employees with significant institutional knowledge of both DOD and Congress. Because of her unique expertise, Karen was promoted to the position of Deputy for Legislative Operations in OASD LA, managing congressional committees' questions and inserts for the Record, the congressional reporting requirements, and the legislative appeals process for DOD. Karen's last position with DOD was as the Deputy Director for Operations for the OASD LA, where she was instrumental in the oversight of the office's operations in support of the DOD's legislative mission and was a critical participant in the legislative affairs consolidation effort directed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. During Karen's distinguished career of over 28 years with DOD, she supported eight Assistant Secretaries of Defense for Legislative Affairs and served under eleven Secretaries of Defense. I am honored to recognize and thank Karen for her dedicated Federal service to the country and wish her the best as she begins the next chapter of her life.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak a little bit today about the trade legislation that is before this body this afternoon. As we have talked about over the last week, as I have come to the floor, I do think we ought to be expanding exports in this country because it is good for jobs. I think trade-opening agreements can be very good for the workers and farmers, people that provide services who I represent in the State of Ohio. We need those jobs. 60 percent of our soybean crop is exported in Ohio, our biggest agricultural product. One of every three acres is planted for export now. For our farmers, those overseas markets are really important. Of course we want to expand them. For our industrial workers, about 25 percent of our factory jobs in Ohio are now trade jobs, export jobs. We want to expand them. For 7 years we have not had the ability to open up new markets, by knocking down barriers overseas. So that is a good thing. We should all be for that. Everyone should be for that. But the question is, as we knock down barriers overseas, are the other countries playing by the rules? If not, then it is not fair to our workers, our farmers, our service providers. In Ohio, a lot of companies have become more productive. They have worked on productivity, and they have worked on efficiency. Workers have given concessions, including some of our major labor unions: the UAW, steel workers, and others, in an effort to join the global economy in a competitive way. What they are saying to me is this: You know, Rob, I would like to be able to be in this global marketplace and compete. But I want to be sure it is fair. If it is, I can do fine. I am confident. I am confident of them. So part of the discussion on the floor today is not just about expanding exports, as important as that is. But it is this: How do you have a more level playing field so that our workers are getting a fair shake, so that our farmers know, when they are competing in global markets around the world, that there is this more level playing field, so we have the ability to tell them--to look them straight in the eye and say: You know what; this is going to be good for you. I will mention a couple of issues. Today, I saw Senator Brown on the floor. This has to do with an amendment that we would like to offer in the trade promotion authority bill, which actually was part of the Customs bill which was voted on in committee and voted on here on the floor. The idea is that instead of having it in the Customs bill, where it may or may not be successful, to have it in the trade promotion authority bill, where it is much more likely to go to the President, to his desk for signature. I will say that this amendment is language that Senator Orrin Hatch, who is here on the floor with us today, the administration and others, supported putting into the Customs bill because they thought it was good policy. Senator Hatch is very discriminating. He knows what is good trade policy in terms of being sure that we have this more level playing field for our workers in this area of subsidized imports and dumped imports into this country. So what we did was that we got this language into the Customs bill, and now we want to be sure it is part of the trade promotion authority bill. Why is this so important? Well, part of this level playing field is to ensure that when products are being sold into the United States of America, they aren't being sold at below their cost. If they are sold at below their cost, it is called dumping. It is an international standard. We have laws against it, but so do the other countries. The World Trade Organization has enforcement measures against that. You are not supposed to dump product into another country in order to gain market share. It is kind of like a loss leader. What happens is, of course, our domestic companies can't compete with that because other countries are allowing their companies to sell at below cost. So when there is dumping, we want to be able to have a remedy for our workers and our companies. The second one is called countervailing duties for subsidized product. That is when another country actually subsidizes their exports in order to get market share. That is not fair either. Let's take the example of somebody who works in the steel industry in Ohio. They are trying to compete to sell steel to, say, the auto plant. Another country comes into the United States and sells their product that is subsidized that is well below the cost of our manufacturer. That is unfair. So you are able to put in place countervailing duties against that product. All we are saying is that we would like to clarify the law so it is easier for a company, easier for those U.S. workers, to be able to show they are injured when you have dumping, when you have subsidized products coming into this country. Again, this is broadly supported. It is bipartisan. It is one that, again, was part of another bill called the Customs bill. It should be part of our legislation, in our view, and we hope it will be offered as an amendment. If it is able to be offered, I think it will pass because, again, I think this is an issue where there is a lot of consensus. One of the problems right now is sometimes companies have such a hard time proving material injury that by the time they prove it, it is too late. In other words, they have lost market share, they have lost the ability to be competitive in the United States, and they end up having to lay people off--and sometimes, in some cases, in some companies in Ohio, including the steel business, they have gone out of business. So this is, I think, a commonsense, logical approach that again has a lot of support. I hope that amendment will be able to be offered and that we will include that on the trade promotion authority. The second amendment has to do with a third area of unfair trade. We talked about dumping. We talked about subsidizing. Another one is when a country says: You know what. I am actually going to intervene in currency markets globally in order to drive down the value of my currency explicitly to get an export advantage over other countries. It is called currency manipulation. It is a standard that has been developed over the years by the International Monetary Fund. It is very specific, and it says that when you do that--because it does distort markets, it does affect trade--it is considered to be an unfair trade practice. The problem is there hasn't been enforcement of that. What happens is, when countries do it, the value of their currency goes down. Therefore, their exports they sell, say, to the United States of America are relatively less expensive, and our exports to them are relatively more expensive. Paul Volcker, who is the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, made an interesting comment. He said, ``In five minutes, exchange rates can wipe out what it took trade negotiators ten years to accomplish.'' I think there is some truth to that. It can happen relatively quickly. I have walked on a shop floor in my home State of Ohio, the company that makes steel pins--and these are very important steel pins because they hold up speakers at big concert halls. They have to be strong, and they have to be precisely drilled and made. They brought some that work back from China. God bless them. I am walking the shop floor, and I am talking about how they have these new machines, they have taken their workers through new training, they have done everything to be more efficient and more productive, but they tell me: Rob, you know, unfortunately, we are going to lose some of this business now because of currency manipulation. We just can't compete. So despite everything they were doing right and the concessions some of their workers were making in order to be more competitive, they couldn't if there was currency manipulation. Everybody believes currency manipulation is a bad thing--the WTO does, the World Trade Organization. They have standards, and they deferred to the International Monetary Fund because it is a currency issue. The International Monetary Fund has standards. Those standards are such that if you look at our legislation, we pick up the standards from the International Monetary Fund. So we say, ``With respect to unfair currency exchange practices [which] target protracted large-scale intervention in one direction in the exchange markets by a party to a trade agreement to gain an unfair competitive advantage in trade over other parties.'' So it is very specific. It is consistent with the IMF and WTO standards, but the amendment goes even further to ensure that is what we are talking about by saying that whatever we do has to be ``consistent with existing principles and agreements of the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.'' So it is a targeted approach to currency manipulation. By the way, someone said: Well, what about QE 1, 2, 3? What about monetary policy? That is not governed, because the way we define this is, again, the IMF definition of ``protracted large-scale intervention in one direction in the exchange markets by a party to a trade agreement to gain an unfair competitive advantage in trade.'' That is not why we did QE 2. We did it to stimulate our economy. We can argue about the merits or demerits of that monetary policy, but it does not fit into that definition because concerns were raised about, well, maybe it could be. As we filed this amendment this week, we added something else to the amendment. It is a very short amendment. I encourage you to read it, Senate amendment No. 1299. It says: ``Nothing in the previous sentence shall be construed to restrict the exercise of domestic monetary policy.'' So you may hear this debate on the floor: Well, gosh. I am worried this is going to come back against us. It can't. All this says is our negotiators, in doing a trade agreement, have to make currency manipulation one of the negotiating objectives. We already have labor issues, environmental issues, and other issues that are negotiating objectives. We have passed one here earlier this week with regard to human rights. Certainly, currency manipulation ought to be one of them. It does affect trade. Now, I know the Secretary of the Treasury issued a veto threat today and said he would recommend the President veto. This has been in discussion for a number of weeks now, and up until now there has not been a veto threat. So that is new today. I find that surprising; first, because we have had a lot of discussion about this, and this is the first time there has been a recommended veto threat. It is not a recommendation that Presidents always agree with when a Cabinet member says that, but it has to be taken seriously. I would be very surprised if the President of the United States were to say: You know what. I like this trade promotion authority. This is good. It expands exports--which is a good thing in my view, as I have said earlier--but somehow I am going to veto it because, boy, we just can't take on currency manipulation. This is at a time when everybody--everybody--the administration, Members of the House and Senate, Democratic and Republican, all agree currency manipulation ought to be prohibited. In fact, the side-by-side amendment that is being offered by my good friend and colleague Senator Hatch and my good friend Senator Wyden also said we should not have currency manipulation. In fact, they pick up our exact language on how to define currency manipulation, but they don't have any enforcement. There are no teeth to it. It says you could do this or that, you could have reporting, you could have rules or you could have monitoring or you could do nothing. What ours says is very simple: Let's just make currency manipulation the same as everything else that is a negotiating objective that is enforceable. Let's subject it to dispute resolution. So you have opportunity; one, first, you have to start with consultation with the other party; and, second, if there are consultations that break down, if you can't resolve it, then it goes to a dispute resolution process. Someone said: Well, the United States would be the judge and the jury. Not at all. As a former U.S. Trade Representative, who has been involved in these negotiations, who has taken into account negotiating objectives, I can tell you these three-judge panels are objective. That is the whole idea, and they determine whether there has been manipulation under the agreement that the parties have reached. So what this says is: Let's raise this issue. Let's have a discussion about it. It is a negotiating objective, and let's see what we can agree with, with the parties, and let's make it subject to the same dispute resolution you would have with other issues, such as the environment, such as labor, so this is actually enforceable. So the question on the floor is going to be: Do you support getting rid of currency manipulation because you know it affects people you present negatively? And the answer is going to be a resounding yes. By the way, 60 Senators wrote a letter in the last Congress--60 of them--saying that in trade agreements there ought to be an enforceable currency manipulation provision. This amendment would require 51 because it is germane. So it is just interesting. If it doesn't succeed--because I know my leadership is against this, I know the White House has now said they are against it. We will see how people vote on this because everybody agrees we ought to deal with this. The question is whether we ought to have teeth in it, whether it ought to be enforceable or not. By the way, what is trade promotion authority? Why are we doing all of this? We are doing it because this is the way Congress can express to an administration what our prerogatives are. Again, 60 Senators have signed that letter. It seems like everybody agrees currency manipulation is a bad thing. The side-by-side--meaning the alternative--in an effort to defeat our amendment, the alternative acknowledges currency manipulation is a bad thing and sets up the exact definition that we use. Ours is a little better because it also exempts monetary policy explicitly, and theirs does not, by the way. But then at the end it says: And what are you going to do about it? Well, you decide. You can do this or this or this or nothing. Ours says: No, you have to subject it to the same enforcement you have with other provisions in a trade agreement. So I am hopeful we can get this passed. People have said: Well, this is about the auto companies. You know, I am not ashamed to represent the auto companies. I am co-chair of the Auto Caucus. The automobile industry in this country is incredibly important. We are proud in Ohio to be the No. 2 auto State in the Nation. By the way, the UAW and the management have made a lot of concessions. They have made a lot of changes to the way they produce automobiles to be more efficient, to have the safest, best automobiles in the world produced in the United States of America. I think they do deserve a fair shot. Again, the agreement can reduce all sorts of tariff barriers and so on to give them a shot at going into some of these markets. But if at the end of the day there is currency manipulation, as Chairman Volcker said-- former Fed Chair Paul Volcker--``In five minutes, exchange rates can wipe out what it took trade negotiators ten years to accomplish.'' So I am very proud to be on the floor saying: Yes, it is important to the autoworkers. But it is much broader than that. The fact that the steel companies around the country have also supported this, the fact that other industries have supported this, it affects everybody. It affects farmers. If we are selling 60 percent of our soybean crops overseas, and they have currency manipulation making our product more expensive, that is bad for our farmers. If you are selling these steel pins I talked about earlier overseas-- I had the fastener industry come see me this week. They are from Ohio. These are the people who make screws, nuts, and bolts. They are concerned about it. So it is not one narrow group. It is anybody who is involved in international trade and understands the need for us not to allow this to happen. Others have said. Well, this is a poison pill. I view it more as a vitamin than a poison pill because I think it strengthens the underlying law. I think it makes it more likely we can get a consensus for trade going forward, including in the House of Representatives, where people want to vote for trade promotion authority, they want to expand exports, but they want to be sure it is fair. They want to be sure their workers and their farmers get a fair shake. So I know the President has said he doesn't like it much, but the President, in the past, has spoken articulately and vociferously against currency manipulation. His statements have been very clear. He not only thinks it is wrong, he thinks it must be enforced. So I would find it surprising that he would be willing to move forward. Is it poison pill because of the House? Again, I think it actually adds votes. Why wouldn't it? Is it a poison pill in terms of the administration? I hope not, and I can't believe it would be. This is a priority for the President to get trade promotion authority done, and I agree with him. I think it is important for us to give our workers and our farmers the chance to export more of their products to the 95 percent of consumers who live outside of our borders, who are not Americans but who want to buy the best products in the world that are stamped ``Made in America.'' We want to do more than that. Then, finally, is it a poison pill for the countries that are negotiating what is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership--called the TPP. Well, I have heard Japan doesn't like this amendment much. It concerns me if our friends in Japan--and they are allies and friends, and I have worked closely with them. When I was the Trade Ambassador, we worked more closely with Japan than anybody had previously, I would say. I brought them into the close circle of countries that were trying to move forward, in this case, on international standards through the Doha agreement. I have great respect for them. By the way, they are not manipulating their currency now and haven't been, in my view, since probably 2012, maybe the end of 2011, by the very definition in here. So why would they be worried? I don't know. But it worries me that they wouldn't be willing to sign off on a provision like this, very sensible, saying: Let's all agree not to manipulate our currency so we can have a more level playing field between all of our countries. They have manipulated their currency in the past. The IMF would say, I think, about 300 times before 2012. So I don't know if they really wouldn't negotiate with us. In fact, this is a very important agreement to them. It is a very important agreement to them because they, like us, want to expand our trade ties together in the fastest growing part of the world--in the Pacific region. And that is good. So look, I appreciate the fact we are going to have a difference of opinion on this. I just hope people will actually look at the facts. Look at the language. Look at the fact that this is an issue we all agree on in terms of currency manipulation. The alternative amendments will have that. The only question is, Should it be enforceable? Should it have teeth? Should we be able to go home and look our workers in the eye and say: You know what? We have taken care of you on this one. You are not going to find yourself playing by the rules, making concessions, going through retraining, making these big investments in these companies with the most up-to-date equipment to be competitive and then find, oh my gosh, the rug is pulled out from under us by manipulation. So here we have President Barack Obama. I mentioned his statement earlier. This is in June of 2007: ``I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that any trade agreement brought before the Congress is measured not against administration commitments but instead against the rights of Americans to protection from unfair trade practices, including currency manipulation.'' I know where the President stands on this. He, like me, like other Senators in this Chamber, wants to be sure we do deal with currency manipulation. In this case he is saying with regard specifically to trade agreements brought before this Congress. That is what TPA is all about--establishing our congressional prerogatives as to trade. So I hope we will be able to move forward with expanding opportunities for everybody we represent, because that is what trade is about. It is about creating more and better jobs. If you are against exports, you are against creating better jobs. Trade jobs pay, they say, on average 13 to 18 percent more. Why? Because they tend to be jobs in the manufacturing sector, in the technology sector. They tend to be good jobs. We want more of them in my State of Ohio. Our farmers want more exports. It is good for their prices. And they all deserve to have these markets overseas because they are working hard to create the best products in the world. All they want is a level playing field to ensure they have the opportunity to send those products overseas to the 95 percent of consumers outside our borders. If we do that--if we do that and at the same time ensure it is fair-- we will be able to look them in the eye and say that this is going to be good for you and your families. Here is what Secretary Lew said earlier today: ``Holding our trading partners accountable for their currency practices has always been important to this administration.'' Let us hold them accountable. We can't hold them accountable if there is no enforcement. We can't hold them accountable if there are no teeth. That is all we are asking for today. I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look at this language and look at this issue. Earlier, one of my colleagues came to speak and he had a sign like this, and it talked about free trade and fair trade. That is what we are talking about. Let us be sure we have free trade and fair trade. If we do that, we can begin to rebuild a consensus around trade that used to be a bipartisan consensus, and we can begin to create a better future for our kids and grandkids--more engaged in global markets, getting better-paying jobs and more jobs, and ensuring America's promise is met. At a time when we have a historically weak recovery, what better thing to do than to give this economy a shot in the arm by expanding exports and by doing so in the context of creating a more level playing field for the people we represent. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to speak briefly about an amendment I am offering to the trade promotion authority legislation. Also, I was not here earlier because I was unavoidably detained. I was on a flight to arrive at National Airport, and because of thunderstorms, they diverted us to Richmond, VA, where I spent about an hour this evening. If I had been here, I would have voted yes on both the trade adjustment assistance legislation and also the religious freedom legislation that came before this Chamber earlier this evening. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak now about an amendment I am offering to the underlying legislation, the trade promotion authority. This amendment is regarding currency manipulation, something we have talked a lot about in this Chamber over the last week. Now is the opportunity for us to speak with our votes on behalf of the people we represent, who believe that, yes, we should be trading with other countries. In fact, I strongly believe that we should be expanding our exports and, therefore, I support trade-opening agreements that could be negotiated under a trade promotion authority. But I also believe that we need to level the playing field, so that while we are expanding trade and increasing our exports and therefore creating more jobs in my home State of Ohio and around the country, at the same time, we are able to tell those workers and farmers that other countries are going to be required to play by the rules. There are lots of issues that get addressed here in this Chamber regarding leveling that playing field. One is to ensure that countries don't dump their products here in the United States, and we have language in the Customs bill that deals with that, to ensure that companies can indeed seek a remedy and seek help for that. We also talk about subsidized products that come to the United States, to our shores, to compete unfairly. We have legislation to address that as well. But there are other issues that need to be addressed to ensure that, again, countries are playing by the rules. One is currency manipulation. We are in the process now of giving our government the ability to negotiate an agreement that could lower tariffs and nontariff barriers to our products, and that is a good thing, whether it is the agreement with Asia, the so-called TPP Agreement, or the agreement in Europe, the so-called TTIP Agreement and others. But the reality is that we are also in a situation where, regardless of what agreements we negotiated, many of the benefits of those reductions in tariffs or nontariff barriers could immediately be countered by another country saying: Do you know what? I am going to intervene aggressively in international currency markets to lower the price, to lower the cost of my currency, so that my exports, specifically to United States, will be less expensive. And, by the way, it also affects other countries in the meantime. So relative to the dollar, their currency is lower, so, therefore, their exports are less expensive to us, and our exports to them are more expensive. When I walk the shop floors in Ohio and I talk to workers and I talk to management about how this affects us in Ohio, what I hear very directly is: Rob, we are all for trade. We believe we can compete. But we need to be able to compete on a playing field where everybody is agreeing that there will be certain rules of the road. There are rules of the road. The amendment that we are offering, despite what some people have been saying about it and what I have seen written even today, which is inaccurate--the rules of the road are actually set up by the International Monetary Fund and by the World Trade Organization, by reference to the IMF. As an example, every single country we are negotiating with right now with regard to Trans-Pacific Partnership--the so-called TPP--is a signatory to this International Monetary Fund and to the WTO. Therefore, they are obliged to live with these rules. Our amendment is very simple. All it says is that these rules apply just as they are currently provided for by the International Monetary Fund, and that countries, when they are negotiating with us in a trade agreement, need to be consistent with those obligations that they have undertaken and that there is an enforceability measure. In other words, if they don't do it, there will be some consequences. Right now, there is no enforcement penalty. This is one reason we continue to see in some cases currency manipulation, which in turn, again, hurts our workers and our farmers, who just want the chance to be able to compete--and compete fairly. I would also say there has been some misinformation about this amendment out there regarding whether it would affect monetary policy. We will see under this amendment that we have clarified that--not that it was ever a question in my mind or of others who drafted it. We clarified that to the extent that we have actually said: This does not apply to monetary policy. It doesn't apply to macroeconomic policy, decisions that countries make. Instead, again, it takes the very specific undertakings that the IMF has established for all these countries, which says: You cannot intervene in purchasing other currencies and doing so in a way to expand your exports unfairly. So I think this is a very important debate we are having with regard to trade promotion authority. We need to get back in the business of expanding trade for our workers and our farmers. The Presiding Officer's wheat farmers in Montana are looking forward to a chance to get into some of these markets where they have been essentially closed out because other countries have completed trade agreements lowering tariffs and we have not. So this will be good for the Presiding Officer's farmers and for the farmers in Ohio. One in every three acres they plant is now planted for export. It will be good for our soybean farmers in Ohio, as 50 percent of their crop is exported. It will be good for the workers of Ohio, as 25 percent of our manufacturing jobs are now export jobs. But we are losing ground because over the last 7 years, we haven't been able to knock down these barriers because we haven't had this trade promotion authority, which is necessary in order to create the opportunity for us to export more. Again, while we are doing that and using the leverage of our market here in the United States of America, the largest economy, we must also be sure that we are dealing with dumping, with subsidization, and, yes, with currency manipulation and other aspects of trade that simply aren't fair. Recently, I received a letter signed by thousands of Ohio auto workers, and they called currency manipulation ``the most critical barrier in the 21st century.'' They get it. These are workers who work at the transmission plant in Sharonville, OH, but I see this all over Ohio. More than 1,500 UAW workers will soon manufacture Ford's medium- duty truck in Avon Lake, OH. We are really excited about that. This is actually production that was moved from Mexico to the United States. This is what they told me: We want to be able to compete. We want to be able to keep our jobs here at Avon Lake, OH. They said: Currency manipulation hurts American competitiveness here at home and export markets where we compete around the world. This assembly plant's mission is to provide our customers with the highest quality, and the safest, most reliable automotive products and services, while also fostering continuous growth and prosperity for our families and the surrounding communities. That is why they say that we must ensure that trade policies do not undermine this progress in the U.S. auto industry and in U.S. manufacturing. By the way, this letter was jointly signed not just by UAW members but also by the plant manager and other members of management at this company. Why? Because they get it. If they are working hard, making concessions, becoming more efficient to be more competitive, they are willing to do it. They know they have to. They get it. We are an international marketplace now. There is global competition. But they want to be darn sure that they aren't having an unfair advantage weighed against them because another government, as they say, cheated on their currency. Given what we are hearing from these American workers, I have introduced this bipartisan amendment with Senator Stabenow, cracking down on currency manipulation. I have been on the floor a number of times to talk about this. I want to be sure that we have the opportunity to be able to move forward with this amendment. We also have a number of other cosponsors, including Senators Burr, Brown, Graham, Casey, Collins, Schumer, Shaheen, Heitkamp, Baldwin, Klobuchar, Manchin, Warren, and Donnelly. We are pleased that our work here is backed up--yes--by the auto companies, including GM, Chrysler, Ford, but also by U.S. Steel, Nucor Steel, AK Steel, and others. This very idea of enforceable currency disciplines in trade has been backed up again and again. It has been endorsed by 60 Senators on the floor of the Senate through either votes or letters that they have signed and by 230 Members of the House. Again, what it does is it gives teeth to the existing IMF and WTO rules against currency manipulation. Some have said: Well, this is kind of a stretch. Why are we dealing with currency manipulation in this legislation? Let me remind them that the TPA bill being considered today--the one without this amendment in it, the one that was offered by Chairman Hatch, my friend Orrin Hatch, and supported by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew--so the administration-- includes a negotiating objective to address currency concerns. So this notion that we shouldn't have this involved in the trade agreement--it is in the underlying TPA. The problem is it is not enforceable. So we say that we agree that currency manipulation is a bad thing because it distorts trade and it distorts free markets. I am a conservative. I believe we shouldn't be encouraging distortion. The difference between the negotiating objective in the bill and the one I am proposing is that ours is actually enforceable. It gives us the opportunity to actually make a difference in this debate, to be able to ensure that countries do indeed abide by the rules they have promised to follow as members of the International Monetary Fund. Some have said this is a poison pill for trade. I don't quite get that. Again, trade promotion authority already includes currency manipulation. The question is whether it should be enforceable. If we believe, as we say we do, that this is wrong, why wouldn't we want to have some ability to enforce it? As I said earlier, this legislation specifically excludes domestic monetary policy. It is now in the text of the amendment itself, which is different than it was in committee. So I very much appreciate being allowed to speak on this tonight. I appreciate the opportunity for me to offer this amendment that I have drafted with Senators Stabenow and others. I look forward to talking more about this issue later this week. I do believe it is important that we move forward on providing the opportunity for the workers I represent, the farmers I represent, and the service providers in Ohio to expand their exports. It creates not just more jobs but good-paying jobs. On average, those jobs pay 15 to 18 percent more--and better benefits. That is important. America needs to get back in the business of expanding exports. For 7 years we haven't had that and other countries have, through hundreds of trade agreements that left us out and lowered the barriers between their countries. That hurts us. We want that market share. We don't want to lose it. But, again, as we do that, let's be darned sure that we are giving our workers and our farmers a fair shake so they have the opportunity. If they play by the rules and they work hard, they become more efficient, they make the concessions, and they know this is going to be something where they have the opportunity to excel, to compete, and ultimately to help create jobs and opportunity here in this country. Just as we are encouraging other countries to take on our free enterprise system and our values we hold so dear, we should also encourage them to take on these rules of fairness, including prohibiting the manipulation of currency that is explicitly directed at increasing our costs and decreasing their costs as they send exports to us. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. Vote Explanation I would reiterate that I support the Brown amendment No. 1242. I was not able to be here for the vote because I was unavoidably detained and was diverted from National Airport. I also want to say that I support the Lankford amendment No. 1237, again, regarding the religious freedoms and making that a part of trade negotiation objectives as well. I yield the floor.