Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was under the impression that we would be able to have discussion and debate on the legislation before us. My two amendments would deal with two very serious issues. I am disappointed that we have an objection. My first amendment, 1233, would ensure that any changes to U.S. law or policy are passed by Congress. Specifically, if implementing legislation allowed future changes to be made to a trade agreement that could affect or overrule existing U.S. law without Congressional approval, then that legislation could not be fast-tracked. The implementing legislation would have to guarantee that all future changes would have to be approved by Congress. I think that is perfectly appropriate, and it is an absolute responsibility of Congress to ensure its own authority in matters of these kind. Indeed, the Constitution gives plenary authority to Congress over immigration law and trade. Under this amendment that I have offered, Congress cannot delegate the power to change U.S. law to the Executive--Congress cannot do that and must not do that--or to some international body that would be created if this trade agreement--the Trans-Pacific Partnership--enters into force. This is not made clear under the current bill. Colleagues, we need to think about this commission--an international commission--that will be created with 11 trading partners in the TPP. This commission will be given power, and our trading partners will be given powers if Congress approves this, presumably. Under the TPP, that commission is given the authority to amend the trade agreement that is initially passed if they find that circumstances have changed and they desire to change it. This is called the `living agreement' provision. The `living agreement' provision explicitly states these things in this trade agreement. The term `living agreement' should make our hair stand up on the backs of our necks because this is a dangerous thing. What it means is that the commission can alter the agreement. We want to be sure that if this commission alters the agreement--assuming the TPP enters into force--that it is not given the power to change U.S. law, even if the President agrees. There is another question. Senator Brown, I think, has offered an amendment on this question, and my amendment would also fix it. It deals with the admission of new countries into the 11 party--12, counting the United States--TPP trade agreement. It is pretty clear. This commission has the power to admit new members. It says: With regard to the amendment process of the commission, that the process will look similar to that of the World Trade Organization. We have shared this with Senator Hatch and his fine staff. I think they understand what we are talking about here. This suggests that TPP procedures are likely to mirror WTO procedures. Well, the United States has had a long-term problem with the World Trade Organization because we approved the World Trade Organization and passed legislation implementing that agreement, and we did not realize it allowed new members to be admitted without a vote of Congress. So under TPP, if it mirrors the WTO rules for amendments and accessions, the new members--it appears quite plain to me--could be admitted by just 8 of the 12 TPP members--not a unanimous vote as NATO requires or the European Union requires. At one point, the TPP says there must be ``consensus,'' but then it talks about WTO. WTO does not require consensus on everything. So I have to say, colleagues, that, first and foremost, I do not know why we have to create a new commission--a transnational commission that has the ability to discipline the United States, to impose penalties on the United States by what might be a two-thirds vote under a number of circumstances, and create additional constraints on the ability of this great Nation to function. I do not know why we would not be better off dealing--as we have done with other countries--with bilateral trade agreements between the two of us, not creating some international body such as the United Nations, the WTO, or as Europe has done with the European Union. So I am disappointed that we are not going to be able to have my amendment to address this called up now, because if they can block this amendment from being called up, this amendment can be shut out altogether. That is the fact. The train would be advancing without real debate and without a real opportunity for this concept to be addressed and voted on by Members of Congress. I am sure people would rather not have it come up--would rather not have questions about this agreement be raised. I think it is a legitimate question. I would urge my colleagues to continue to evaluate the amendment and to see if we cannot get it up pending. Let's have a vote on it, and let's adopt it. Now, I also have offered amendment No. 1234. First, my previous amendment was No. 1233. This would be 1234. It would hold the Obama administration and the United States Trade Representative to their assurances that no trade agreement will be used to change U.S. immigration law or policy. This has been done in the past to a significant degree. It resulted in Chairman Sensenbrenner and ranking member Conyers writing a letter saying: Never again should any trade agreement amend immigration law. That is the province of the Congress, according to the Constitution. In 2003, I offered a resolution after a past trade agreement did just that--bypassed Congress' authority over immigration law. The resolution passed unanimously. Senator Feinstein and other Democrats signed on. It said: Never again will immigration law be amended as part of a trade agreement. Trade agreements are not the way to change law of the United States, especially when you have a President who is rewriting immigration law, enforcing immigration law that Congress explicitly rejected through his Executive amnesty. So my amendment is modeled after the Congressional Responsibility for Immigration Act of 2003, a bill sponsored by our Democratic colleagues, Senators Leahy, Feinstein, and Kennedy--former Senator Kennedy, our former colleague. It would prohibit the application of fast-track authority procedures to any implementing bill that affects U.S. immigration law or policy or the entry of aliens, if an implementing bill or trade agreement violates those terms. Then, any Member could raise a point of order against the implementing bill, ensuring that the bill is considered under regular Senate procedures allowing amendment and debate. Look, now they tell us that we should not be concerned. Colleagues, we have heard it said that this will not happen--no future trade agreements will affect U.S. immigration law. All right, but I am a little nervous about that. I have been watching the language on this. Senator Grassley, at the Finance Committee hearing a few weeks ago, asked the Trade Representative, Mr. Froman, this: My question: Could you assure the committee that the TPP agreement or any side agreement does not and will not contain any provision relating to immigration, visa processing or temporary entries of persons? That is a good question--simple question. They have been indicating not. His answer sounds good at first blush. Thank you, Senator Grassley. And the answer is yes, I can assure you that we are not negotiating anything in TPP that would require any modifications of the U.S. immigration laws or system, any changes of our existing visa system, and in fact the TPP explicitly states that it will not require any changes in any party's immigration law or procedures. Now the 11 other TPP countries are making offers to each other in the area of temporary entry, but we have decided not to do so. So I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that. So we have decided not to do so--now, at this moment, before the trade agreement is up for approval by Congress, knowing it would be controversial if the implementing bill included immigration changes. But that does not mean we are not party to any immigration provisions in the TPP that could be used to make changes later. One of the chapters in the agreement deals with immigration and temporary entry. I do not see anything that would prohibit the current administration or a new administration from trying to use this trade agreement to advance an immigration agenda. So if the Trade Representative really means it when he assures us there will be no changes in the future, then I would suggest my amendment would be something that Ambassador Froman would be delighted to support to keep us from having this problem and to remove this potential controversy from the legislation. I think it would also--for those who want to see it passed--enhance the opportunity to pass the legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for allowing me to speak, for suggesting I speak next, which was my understanding I would be able to do. We have good people on both sides of this issue, but Senator Brown is an advocate, and I think he has made some good points with regard to the questions facing America. Our colleagues earlier said this is a trade deal done right. Well, in a way that seems to say: don't pay attention to previous trade deals that haven't done so well. We have a number of people who live in the business world, who trade internationally regularly, and they say this is not a good trade deal, and it will not work. We also hear it said frequently that we want increased wages for Americans by everybody on both sides of this issue. But the proponents of the legislation--if you watch carefully what they have been saying--they are only saying it will only increase wages in export industries, not across the economy. And we know that in this Nation our exports amount to only 13 percent of GDP, which is the lowest in the developed world. We don't have a lot of exports. Perhaps, if we export more, maybe wages will go up a little bit, but if we import more in other industries in the 87 percent, we might see a decline in wages and jobs. So what are the facts? More exports are good, but if increased imports dwarf increased exports, it is not so good as a result of this agreement, especially when we have had virtually a six-year-record trade deficit in March and one of the worst quarters in years--the first quarter of this year--in importing more than we export. So the Korea agreement didn't live up to the promises we had for it. I supported it. I voted for it. But will this one be any better? Don't we need to know? So I asked five questions of the President more than 10 days ago. First, regarding jobs and wages. On net, will TPP increase the total number of manufacturing jobs in the United States, generally, or reduce them and auto manufacturing jobs, specifically. Will hourly wages for U.S. workers go up or down? Don't you have that information? Shouldn't that be shared with us before we vote? Regarding trade deficits, I ask: Will TPP reduce or increase our cumulative trade deficit with TPP countries overall? And with the big, new members, it will be significantly impacted-- Japan and Vietnam, specifically. Regarding China, could TPP member countries add new countries-- including China--to the agreement without future congressional approval? Some have tried to say it can't be done. You have to go down in the secret room here, read it, and you are very limited in what you can find out. But as I have read the agreement, I don't think there is any doubt that under WTO rules which will be adopted, new members can be added without a vote of Congress. Regarding the phrase, the ``living agreement'' that is in this deal, the fact that the agreement itself said this is unprecedented. It is the first time we have ever had language like ``living agreement'' in a trade deal. What does that mean? Can the agreement be changed after adoption without congressional action? It appears so. So I have asked, Mr. President, make this living agreement language-- it is not much--public, and let's discuss and analyze just what it means. Does it mean the President can meet with other countries, even vote against a change in trade policy or an agreement with them, lose the vote and have law of Congress overridden or us be in violation of the agreement, subject to sanctions by the Commission or international body. And will the President state, explicitly, and accept language that would mean that rules regarding immigration would not be changed? I hope we can do that. I will just say I see my colleague and admired chairman of the Finance Committee on the floor. He has been willing to meet with my staff, talk respectfully about these issues, and consider how to wrestle through them. I hope we can make some progress, but I am concerned we might not make sufficient progress. We need to think about these things. It can no longer be denied that wages for American workers have been flat or even falling for decades. One analysis says that real hourly wages today are lower than they were in 1973. At the same time, the share of Americans actually working--the percentage of Americans in their working years who are actually working--has steadily declined to its lowest level in four decades. The middle class is shrinking. I wish it were not so. CNN recently summarized the results of a Pew study which found: Most states saw median incomes fall between 2000 and 2013, an ominous sign for the well-being of the middle class. . . . That is really a catastrophe. So in 13 years we have seen a steady decline in wages for the middle class. A separate Pew Research Center study shows that the share of adults in middle-income households has fallen from 61 percent in 1970 to 51 percent in 2013. The erosion over the past four decades has been sure and steady. That is the Pew research. They continue: If past trends continue to hold, there is little reason to believe the recovery from the Great Recession will eventually lead to a rebound in the share of adults in middle-income households. In other words, they are going to be below a middle-income level. And that is not good. Don't we, colleagues, have a responsibility to honestly say: What is causing this? We have had Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents during this time. Trends are occurring out there. Some of them may be difficult to overcome. But don't we need to talk about it more comprehensively? Pew further finds that while middle-income families--who are the majority of Americans by far--earned 62 percent of the Nation's household income in 1970, today they earn only 44 percent of the Nation's household income. So the sad fact is that the middle class is getting smaller. This has enormous implications not just economically but socially. The size and strength of a middle class impacts the health of a community and a nation in many ways. What are we here for in the Senate if not to address, consider, and deal with these kinds of issues? We need to ask some tough questions about why the middle class is shrinking and why pay isn't rising. I have no doubt that bigger government, more regulations, more taxes, our huge $18 trillion debt and the interest we pay on it, and, lately, ObamaCare are important factors in weakening American economic growth and the wages of Americans. I truly believe those are significant factors. But is that all there is? I am afraid there is more. It appears there are two other factors of significance that are not being sufficiently recognized or seriously discussed by any of our political, corporate, and academic leaders, or the media establishment. So it is time for us to begin a vigorous analysis of our conduct of trade. I believe that is one of the factors that may be impacting the wages and income of Americans. Over a number of years, I have pointed out that I believe immigration actions are also containing the growth of wages, as economic studies repeatedly show. But what about trade? Do our policies like the Trans- Pacific Partnership concede too much to our mercantilist competitor allies? These are good countries--Japan, Vietnam. We want to see Vietnam develop and move into the world orbit. There are other countries, but those are the two big ones that would be most impacted by this agreement. We already have trade agreements with Canada, Mexico, Australia, Chile, and others. What about those that have a different philosophy on trade than we do--the mercantilist ideas? Do their actions over the years establish that they have developed trade and nontrade barrier systems that provide their workers and manufacturers substantial advantages in the world marketplace? Have they figured out how to utilize other barriers--other than just tariffs--to advantage their manufacturers and jobs? It is astounding to me how little serious discussion there has been on these issues. For some trade advocates, even bad trade deals are good. Truly, this is so. Many advocates are quite open in their belief that as long as the consumer gets a lower price for their product, there should be no concern if American plants close, workers are laid off, and wages fall. They say that in their writings. The politicians don't say it; they have to answer to the people. Many of the theorists for open borders and utterly free trade say that often. So I fear we have almost an obsession with trade agreements and that this is so strong that many TPP advocates don't concern themselves with anything but that we admit more cheaper goods, that lower prices are good for consumers. That we are all consumers, there can be no doubt. That is a valuable thing, for consumers to have products at lower prices. I don't dispute that. I know some do, but I don't. But is any trade agreement good because it creates more low-cost imports, especially if we are competing against partners who know how to cheat the system and gain manipulative advantage and we don't stand up and try to correct that? Are trade deficits, which are at all-time-high levels, immaterial? Some say trade deficits don't make much of a difference. They do. Is the continuing shuttering of American manufacturing of no concern? I think it is of great concern. Fundamentally, can America be strong without a manufacturing base? Can we be secure without a steel industry, which is getting hammered through unfair trade and dumping and other actions by our trading competitors? At bottom, we must ask whether our aggressive trading partners, using a mercantilist philosophy, may be gaining unfair advantage over the American manufacturing base and workers in America. These nations--good nations, good allies--are not religious about free trade. In general, while they assert their desire for expanded free trade, their actual policies seek fewer U.S. exports to them using nontariff as well as tariff barriers, and our trade competitors use currency manipulation, subsidies, and other actions to expand their exports to us. Their goal is naturally to seek full employment in their countries while exporting their unemployment to our country. This refusal by many to acknowledge the mercantilist policies of our trading competitors has gone, it seems to me, from promoting healthy trading relationships, to some sort of ideology, even to the nature--I have said, and others have as well--of a religion. If you just knock down all trade barriers, allow our competitors to use whatever tactics they want to use, accept any product that comes in that is cheaper, somehow we will have world peace, cancer will be cured, and the economy will boom. But forgive me if I am not willing to buy into that. Cheaper products are good, is what our promoters say. That is all you need to know. Don't ask too many questions about facts. You are going to get cheaper products. That is the only thing that counts. Well, I don't dismiss the advantage of cheaper products. It is a serious issue. This issue deserves everybody's serious discussion. But I have to tell you, I am having my doubts. I have voted for other trade agreements, and I am uneasy about this. Conservatism is not an ideology; it is, as my friend Bob Tyrrell at the American Spectator likes to say, a cast of mind. It lives in the real world. And certainly the real world is not working so well for Middle America today. It is not. Their financial status continues to decline. The conservative thing to do at this point in time is to avoid any dramatic and sudden changes that destabilize families and communities further, to not accelerate the problem that exists. And let's dig in deeply to the questions I ask: Will wages go up? Will trade deficits be reduced? By the way, the Korea Free Trade Agreement didn't work so well. We were promised a number of things. President Obama promised the Korea Free Trade Agreement would increase U.S. goods exported by $10 billion to $11 billion. However, since the deal was ratified several years ago, our exports have risen only $0.8 billion--less than $1 billion--while Korean exports to the United States increased by more than $12 billion, widening our trade gap substantially, almost doubling it. I am just telling you that is what was promised, and the reality didn't match the promises. So is it any wonder the American people are uneasy about these agreements? And I think all of us should be. We should look to be more careful about them. Capital is mobile. People can move money and invest anywhere in the world almost with the click of a computer button. But many times workers are not mobile like that. So when a company closes its plant in the United States and shifts production to a lower wage country, the company may make more money, but the workers in their communities, who cannot move overseas, suddenly don't have jobs, and they are hurt. Of course we can't stop globalization in this economy. We can't reverse the effects of trade. But we can work for trade agreements that create a more level playing field against our good but mercantilist, aggressive trading partners who look for advantages every day and who lust after access to the American marketplace. That is what they want, but we don't have to give that access unless they treat our products with respect and allow access to their marketplaces. So many in our country have an inflexible ideology that the United States and the American people should allow for the completely unrestricted movement of goods and labor into the United States, even when our trading partners manipulate rules for their advantage. Those truest believers are most adamant about passing this fast-track legislation as fast as possible, with the least discussion possible. But the United States is a country, colleagues, not an economy, and a country's job is first and foremost to protect its citizens from military attacks and also from unfair trade policies that threaten our economic well-being. Any trade agreement we enter into should have a mutually beneficial impact on all parties, not just our country but other countries that enter into the agreement. It should be mutually beneficial. That is what contracts do every day. It must not continue or further the decline of manufacturing in the United States. It should seek to end trade unfairness and to increase, not reduce, wages in the United States. We cannot afford to lose a single job nowadays to unfair competition or unfair trade agreements. We are experiencing a decline in wages, a decline in employment. We need to fight for every single job. And that means fair trade--you open your markets before you demand that we open ours. They haven't done so, while we have maintained open markets here. But the fast-track procedures ensure that any trade deal--which is yet unseen--can pass through Congress with a minimum of actual scrutiny after years of soaring trade deficits. Shouldn't we apply more scrutiny to trade agreements, not less? Are we afraid to ask tough questions? Take the issue of currency manipulation. This President has refused to confront this practice that provides a clear advantage for certain foreign competitors. His negotiations have refused to put any provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership that address this issue. And if Congress were to force it in, I am not sure he would even then enforce it. The people pushing for this trade agreement, my colleagues have to know, don't want to confront the currency manipulation. They think it is all right. They do not think it is a problem. It reduces the price of imports, so we should be thankful, they say. And under fast-track, there will be nothing we can do to amend or stop it. Finally, the reality is that this fast-track legislation is a significant vote. No fast-track deal, once passed, has ever been blocked. So if we want to confront currency manipulation and other unfair practices, our best bet is to have trade bills come before Congress through the regular order--not as a fast-track deal. Then Congress can properly exercise its responsibilities that have been delegated to us under the Constitution of the United States. I appreciate the able leaders of the committee who are advancing this legislation. I respect them and many of the arguments they have made. There is much value to them. But I am uneasy about where we are going today. I think we need to spend more time analyzing the actual impact-- not the theoretical impact--of trade agreements--the actual results of our ability to penetrate the foreign markets. If we do that, maybe we can figure a way to actually improve the financial condition of mainstream America. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. OK.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Wyden. He is so principled, and I know his heart is right on all these issues. But there are some disagreements. I do think the Senator gives a little more time between the actual agreement being adopted and its passage, which is preferable. But the truth is that none of our fast-track agreements have ever been defeated. There seems to be a majority in both Houses that would vote for that, and once it is here, it is up or down. There is no other deal. We can't have any amendments and little input from rank-and-file Senators, although the Finance Committee chairman and a few others get some enhanced powers under this agreement--not the average Senator. So it is not the kind of--if we pass the fast-track, I think with 60 votes, I think we are on a path to adopt an agreement, if history is true. I noticed again my colleague said it would enhance salaries in export job areas. That might be so. Hopefully, we would have some increase in exports. In Korea, we had about a $1 billion increase or a little less, instead of 10. But it was a little increase. So maybe that would help a few jobs and a few salaries. But what about the others, the imports that are coming in, imports that are coming in competing with American manufacturing in whole massive areas of the economy? Isn't that likely to close some factories? Isn't it likely to put downward pressure on wages? I think so. Finally, I think the steel industry and some others are saying they cannot support this trade deal unless we do something about nontariff barriers, currency being one of them. That is what people have told me: If there isn't a fix on currency, we can't go forward with a deal. So there is no full-fledged support, that I am aware of, from the steel industry for the agreement as it is likely to pass, which is not going to include any currency fix with teeth in it, I am afraid. Then, finally, my concern about not having an adequate debate is less. We have to get into some of these constitutional issues--the ability of two-thirds of the members of this so-called new commission, this transnational commission that will be established, who can add new members without our approval. We have to talk about that some. But I asked five questions. I would ask them to Senator Hatch. What would it do to wages? What does the living agreement mean? Does it override American law? What about trade deficits and other issues? I think those are the issues that are not being discussed that need to be. So again, with the greatest respect, I thank my colleagues for the hard work they have put into this. There is no committee that has more to do around here than the Finance Committee. I understand their interest in this. I am raising questions. I don't pretend to know all the answers. But I do think the American people are concerned about it, and we should be sure that what we do advances the interests of Middle America as well as corporate America. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we start the vote now, 5 minutes earlier than we planned.

Mr. SESSIONS. I see my colleague from Louisiana. If he is ready to speak, I will wrap up.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be notified after 12 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think that as we consider these trade agreements, it is appropriate that we recognize the importance of free trade, how it helps the world and helps the economy, and it is something I certainly support and have supported on a number of occasions in the past, including the last big trade bill, the Korean trade bill. I generally support--I actually do support the idea of comparative advantage, the gist of which is that if a nation can produce a product and sell it cheaper in another country, people over time will benefit from allowing that country's product to enter the country and being able to buy it at a lower price. That is comparative advantage, and I think it is sound in principle and generally sound in practice. But the American workers are not doing well now. Wages have not increased since 2000--15 years. We have been down $3,000 in median family income since 2009 and still down $3,000. We have the lowest percentage of Americans in working years actually working today since the 1970s. So this is not a healthy environment for Americans. The market has done pretty well. Revenues and profits are holding pretty well, but the average American working person is not doing so well. So what has happened? Is there a problem with currency manipulation, state-owned enterprises, subsidized foreign industries, people who dump products here below market cost or right at market cost being subsidized and supported by foreign countries? Do those alter the situation? Do they make it impossible for American businesses to compete, and if they go out of business, will our government bail them out in any way? We had one bailout after the financial collapse, but businesses are closing every day and they are not being bailed out today. We have seen substantial reductions in manufacturing around the country. The Wall Street Journal just this week published an article, ``The Case of the Vanishing Worker.'' That was in Monday's Wall Street Journal. It talked about the city of Decatur, IL, and detailed how their unemployment rate had gotten as high as 14 percent and it had dropped to almost half of that. It dropped down to almost half of that, so that looked pretty good, but when they looked at the numbers, they weren't so good. What did they find? Even though the unemployment rate had fallen to almost half, how many people were actually working? Well, the answer was 8 percent fewer. So how can the unemployment rate fall and the number of people actually working fall at the same time? The answer is, as the article said, that people are moving away; they are dropping out of the workforce entirely; they are taking early retirement. That is what is happening too often in America. So I think it is important for us to ask, how are these trade agreements benefiting the nation? How are they impacting American people? Let's ask some questions about it. I asked the President questions on that. I sent him a letter, and I asked him a series of questions relating to wages. Will this trade agreement improve job prospects? Will it improve or make worse our trade deficits? Well, he hasn't answered those questions. So I ask my colleagues: Has anybody demanded the Commerce Department, the Treasury Department, the administration to produce data to show that if we enter into another agreement involving 40 percent of the world's economy, involving some of our most capable and rigorous and toughest mercantilist competitors, what will it do to the American workers' prospects? Is that a fair question to ask? We haven't seen any discussion of it, so far as I can tell. And let me tell you what the reason is. Well, first, I will say this: I believe unfair trade competition is real. We talk to people out there every day, and they tell us about it. Dan DiMicco, former CEO of Nucor Steel, has one of his plants in Alabama. They have plants all over the country. He said that these trade agreements are in effect unilateral American trade disarmament and they enable foreign mercantilism. In other words, what he is saying is that we have acquiesced to the mercantilist nationalism emphasis of our trading partners. And why is that? Well, I figured it out. It has taken me a while to understand exactly what the theory is behind these trade agreements, and I don't believe I am in error when I discuss this. Ross Kaminsky, writing in the American Spectator--a fine magazine-- wrote a fine piece arguing for this TPA and the trade agreement. He was overwhelmingly saying it must be passed virtually regardless of what is in it. I have to say his position is consistent with the position of the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and many other economists, and we have to understand what it is. And I am losing confidence in this position. I am not sure it is a good position. As a matter of fact, I don't think it is. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think it is. This is what he says on trade: It bears repeating--and repeating and repeating and repeating--that the benefit to American consumers of free trade is so large that it must trump any parochial interest of a particular industry or labor union or politician. Because they lower the prices of imports, and even understanding that there will be a few losers, free trade agreements are almost always worth supporting regardless of what is offered to American exporters by the foreign trade partner. Let me repeat that. He said they are almost always worthy of being entered into regardless of what is offered to the American exporters by the foreign trade partner. I remember, as a skilled businessman, when I first came to the Senate, and Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, was before me. I was kind of nervous about it--a big maestro of the economy. I asked him a simple question: Mr. Greenspan, what if a country wants to trade with us, wants to sell products to us but will buy zero products from us? They just want to sell to us but will buy nothing in return. Should we enter into a trade agreement with them? What do you think he answered? I used to ask people in townhalls about this on occasion, and they would say he said no. But, but he said yes. I am telling you, this is the movement--the mentality of the current trade agreement supporters, at least in the intellectual, corporate world and the newspaper world and many within universities, certainly not all. So is this a valid position? Are we subjecting our American people unfairly to competition that could cost jobs and so forth? Well, I am losing confidence in those views. That is all I am saying, colleagues. And I think it is time for us to analyze what it means. I would say that the steel industry of the United States is not a little bitty matter. Right now, U.S. Steel closed a big plant I think in Indiana or Ohio. They just laid off a thousand or so workers in Alabama. SSAB Steel in Alabama says they are facing ferocious dumping, it is threatening their market share and their ability to make the most modern plant in the world competitive, and they don't think it is fair. How long do you have to sustain this to have dealt substantial damage to the American steel industry? Don't we need a steel industry? Where would steelworkers get jobs? They say: Well, they can take service jobs. Well, maybe so. Maybe they can work at the plumbing company. Maybe they can work at a hospital. Maybe they can work in a nursing home. Maybe there is other work that can be found. But at some point, do we not need a manufacturing capability that provides a lot more than a service job--manufacturing capabilities, for example, that provide demand for products, demand for supplies, demand for workers who supply those plants and have ripple effects much larger than a person just repairing faucets. I think we have to ask that question in a very serious way. I said earlier I voted for the Korean trade pact. I did not have a lot of trouble voting for that at the time. I thought it was going to be fine. Maybe it is OK. Maybe the pact is going to be, sometime in the future, positive for the United States. The Koreans, like the Japanese, are good trading people. They are allies around the world on security agreements. I am not putting the Koreans down. The Koreans are tough trade negotiators. They have a mercantilist philosophy. What happened before that agreement was passed? President Obama promised that the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement would increase U.S. goods exports to Korea by $10 billion to $11 billion. However, since the deal was ratified in 2012, I believe it was, our exports rose only $0.8 billion--less than $1 billion, not $10 billion. Does that make any difference? We just bring in from abroad and our trading partners don't allow exports abroad? What about the Korean imports to the United States? They rose more than $12 billion, widening our trade gap, almost doubling our trade.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe I had up to 15 to 20 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will wrap up, Mr. President. What about the Census Department's report on the U.S. trade deficit of South Korea? They found it has almost doubled since the passage of the agreement. In 2011, the United States had a $13.2 billion trade deficit with South Korea--not a healthy relationship there--but in 2014, it was $25 billion. Furthermore, the deficit is currently 66 percent higher so far this year than it was at the same point last year. March was the largest trade deficit we have had in a very long time. The first quarter, we had a huge deficit. I believe the March trade deficit was the largest worldwide that we have had in over 6 years. It was almost the highest ever. I am going to support moving forward to discuss this trade bill. There will be some amendments that I would seek to offer. If that is the will of the Congress, those will pass; if not, they will not pass. But fundamentally I do believe it is time for the American people to expect their political leaders to give them some real analysis about what the results of these trade agreements are going to be. Will it help raise wages? Will it create increasing job prospects? Would it increase or reduce our trade deficit? Trade deficits represent a drain and a negative pull on the American economy. Some say they do not make much difference, but they do. It does impact adversely GDP. With regard to those questions, I think we need some answers. I will be asking those as we go forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share a few more thoughts with my colleagues. In 2014, net exports--net exports subtracted 1.5 percent from fourth- quarter GDP. That is a lot. GDP growth in the fourth quarter was subtracted by--excuse me, 1.15 percent. That is more than $500 billion. That is enough to fund a highway reauthorization program for a long time. The problem is that in the short run, Americans tend to be losing jobs as a result of trade agreements; whereas, long-term unemployed people have a difficult time finding work. I would say I believe in trade, but it is not a religion with me. I believe it is a religion when somebody says that you should enter into a trade agreement with anybody, opening your markets totally without demanding anything in return for that. I have to tell you, as I just read from others--it is clearly the policy of the Wall Street Journal--that is good policy, that you should enter into a trade agreement whether or not your partner will allow you to sell anything at all to them. I say good negotiations in a contract are, which a trade negotiation is, if we open our markets, our competitors ought to open theirs sufficiently. Too often we have the problems that arise from nontariff barriers that are impacting the ability of American businesses to sell products in their country. So even if they reduce their tariff, their ability to sell products is blocked by other nontariff matters, all of which I think we can discuss in the weeks to come. Let's be sure we understand where this trade agreement is taking us, what the philosophy and approach behind it is, and let's be sure it serves the interests of the American people first. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, today I wish to congratulate Lt. Gen. Charles ``Chick'' Cleveland of Montgomery, AL, for receiving the Congressional Gold Medal as one of the American Fighter Aces. Lt. Gen. ``Chick'' Cleveland's distinguished Air Force career spanned nearly four decades, and more than 4,300 flight hours. His military decorations and awards include the Distinguished Service Medal (Air Force), Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross with oak leaf cluster, Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster, Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters, Air Force Commendation Medal, Army Commendation Medal and Republic of Korea Order of Military Merit, Chung Mu. Less than 3 years after graduating from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and within months of joining the 334th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron at Kimpo Air Base, South Korea, he scored four confirmed MiG- 15 kills. On September 21, 1952, Lieutenant Cleveland's squadron fought another flight of MiGs. Cleveland engaged one of the enemy aircraft and fired, scoring hits in the tail pipe, engine, and right wing. Within seconds, there was an explosion, and the MiG fell out of the sky. However, instead of watching the MiG to claim credit for the kill, Lieutenant Cleveland broke off the engagement to assist his squadron. He left Korea with those four confirmed kills--one confirmed victory short of becoming an ace. After the war, he was stationed with the 27th Fighter-Bomber Wing at Bergstrom Air Force Base in Texas, where he led the transition team to the Air Force's new aircraft, the F-101 Voodoo. On August 10, 1962, Cleveland became the first pilot to achieve the 1000-flighthour mark in the Voodoo. Lieutenant General Cleveland also served with distinction in Vietnam as the executive assistant to Gen. William Westmoreland, commander, Military Assistance Command, Vietnam. In 2008, 55 years after his aerial victories in Korea, he finally gained official recognition by the U.S. Air Force as a fighter ace. With the de-classification of Soviet records in 2003, his friend and fellow Korean war ace, Dolph Overton discovered the Soviets' account of the events on September 21, 1952. With those records, as well as the testimonies of Cleveland's wingman that day, Don Pascoe, and his former operations officer, Frederick ``Boots'' Blesse, the Air Force awarded Lieutenant General Cleveland credit for one of his two probable victories in Korea and officially recognized him as an Air Force Ace. Lieutenant General Cleveland retired from the Air Force in 1984 and settled in Montgomery, AL, close to where he once had command of the Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base. He continues to involve himself in his community. I am proud to call Lieutenant General Charles ``Chick'' Cleveland a fellow Alabamian and to acknowledge and celebrate his receipt of the Congressional Gold Medal.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share some thoughts on the nomination of Ms. Sally Yates to be Deputy Attorney General. That is the second in command at the U.S. Department of Justice. It is a very important position. She has had over the years a good background in general for us to consider that she would be able to handle that job in an effective way. She understands the system. She has been at the Department of Justice for a number of years. I have no concern with her personal integrity or work ethic or her desire to do well. However, Congress and the executive branch are on a collision course here. A lot of our Members choose not to think sufficiently about it or consider the gravity of it, but I have to say that Congress needs to defend its institutional powers. We have certain powers we can use to defend constitutionally the responsibilities we have and to reject executive overreach--not many, but we have some real powers we can use. Apparently, it is all right for the President to use all his powers and more. It is perfectly all right, I suggest, that we in the Senate use the powers we clearly and unequivocally and indisputably have. I want to tell you how I see the situation with this nomination. I asked her directly at her confirmation hearing, as a member of the Judiciary committee, could she answer yes or no--did she think that the President's Executive amnesty is legal and constitutional. Basically, she said yes, she did. She answered that she has been ``serving as the Acting Deputy Attorney General of the Department of Justice. And the Department of Justice is currently litigating this matter.'' She further stated that ``the Department of Justice has filed pleadings with its position and I stand by those pleadings,'' which I suppose she should. Two things about that. Historically, the Attorney General of the United States understands that their role is different from a lower official, but indeed they have to advise the President on matters of constitutional authority and tell the President no when a strong-willed President wants to do something that is not correct. They are not a judicial officer; they are part of the executive branch. They should try to help the President achieve things the President wants to achieve as a matter of policy. I do not dispute that. But at some point, if the President is seeking to do clearly unconstitutional or illegal, they should tell the President so and not acquiesce, in my opinion. The honorable thing to do, as has been done in the past, is to resign. But if an Attorney General is firm and clear and stands in a firm position, then often the President will back down and avoid a constitutional crisis and keep our government going in the right way. The Deputy Attorney General is the Department's second-ranking official and functions as its chief operating officer. The 25 components and 93 U.S. attorneys--I was a U.S. attorney for 12 years, 15 years at the Department of Justice; I am proud of that service and proud of the Department of Justice--they report directly to the Deputy, and 13 additional components report to the Deputy through the Associate Attorney General. So, on a daily basis, the Deputy Attorney General decides a broad range of legal, policy, and operational issues. Ms. Yates, I suggest, is a high ranking official who holds a position--unlike a U.S. attorney or some section chief--who is involved in the policymaking of the Department of Justice. In addition to that, the litigation going on in Texas before Judge Andrew Hanen is under her direct supervision, and she is monitoring the lawyers who are advocating a position that is opposed by a majority of the State attorneys general of the United States. A majority of them have filed a lawsuit, and they contend that the President's Executive amnesty--an even more dramatic assertion of Executive power than his original amnesty in 2012--is contrary to the law and Constitution. She is direct supervisor over that litigation. On April 7 of this year, Judge Andrew Hanen issued a blistering opinion in the litigation that is ongoing that the Justice Department attorneys had made ``multiple misrepresentations'' to the court ``both in writing and orally that no action would be taken pursuant to the 2014 DHS Directive until February 18, 2015.'' I would like to read some of the comments from the judge's opinion. Judges take this seriously; they are not just saying these things for fun. Judge Hanen said this: Whether by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they were misled by their clients, the attorneys for the Government misrepresented the facts. He didn't say that lightly. When U.S. attorneys and other Federal prosecutors appear in court, they have an absolute duty to tell the truth. It is a responsibility that every judge knows and every government attorney knows. When a government attorney goes into court and they are asked whether they are ready, they reply: The United States is ready, Your Honor. They have a duty to respond consistently with the integrity of the United States of America. We all know that. In this case, the government lawyers asserted that: No applications for the revised DACA would be accepted until the 18th of February, and that no action would be taken on any of those applications until March the 4th. Regarding this, Judge Hanen said: This representation was made even as the Government was in the process of granting over 100,000 three-year renewals under the revised DACA. It goes on: In response to this representation, counsel for the States agreed to a schedule more favorable to the Government, and the Court granted the Government's request not only to file a sur-reply, but also to have additional time to do so. The States now argue that they would have sought a temporary restraining order, but for the Government's misrepresentations. A review of the Chronology of Events, attached as an appendix to this Order, certainly lends credence to the States' claims. That is a pretty serious allegation. Not only did they misrepresent key facts, but they used that misrepresentation to achieve a favorable schedule, which often in litigation is important. The judge goes on to say: The explanation by Defendants' counsel for their conduct after the fact is even more troublesome for the Court. Counsel told the Court during its latest hearing that she was unaware that these 2014 DACA amendments were at issue until she read the Court's February 16, 2015 Order of Temporary Injunction and Memorandum Opinion and Order. Counsel then claimed that the Government took ``prompt'' remedial action. This assertion is belied by the facts. Even if one were to assume that counsel was unaware that the 2014 DACA amendments in their entirety were at issue until reading this Court's February Opinion, the factual scenario still does not suggest candor on the part of the Government. Government counsel have an absolute duty of candor to the court. That is a serious charge by the Federal judge. It goes on: The February Opinion was issued late in the evening on February 16, 2015 (based on the representation that ``nothing'' would happen on DAPA or revised DACA until at least February 18, 2015). As the February Opinion was finalized and filed at night, counsel could not have been expected to review it until the next day; yet, for the next two weeks, the Government did nothing to inform the Court of the 108,081 revised DACA approvals. Instead, less than a week later, on February 23, 2015, the Government filed a Motion to Stay and a Notice of Appeal. Despite having had almost a week to disclose the truth--or correct any omission, misunderstanding, confusion, or misrepresentation--the Government did not act promptly; instead it again did nothing. Surely, an advisory to this Court (or even to the Court of Appeals) could have been included in either document filed during this time period. Yet, counsel for the Government said nothing. So the court goes on: Mysteriously, what was included in the Government's February 23, 2015 Motion to Stay was a request that this Court rule on the Motion ``by the close of business on Wednesday, February 25. . . . ''--in other words, within two days. Had the Court complied with this request, it would have cut off the States' right to file any kind of reply. If this Court had ruled according to the Government's requested schedule, it would have ruled without the Court or the States knowing that the Government had granted 108,081 applications pursuant to the revised DACA despite its multiple representations to the contrary. The attorneys were telling the Court they had not granted any of these applications and had stopped it while, in fact, over 108,000 applications had been issued. The court goes on to say: While this Court is skeptical that the Government's attorneys could have reasonably believed that the DACA amendments contained in the 2014 DHS Directive were not at issue prior to the injunction hearing on January 15, 2015, this Court finds it even less conceivable that the Government could have thought so after the January 15, 2015 hearing, given the interplay between the Court and counsel at that hearing. Regardless, by their own admission, the Government's lawyers knew about it at least as of February 17, 2015. Yet, they stood silent. Even worse, they urged this Court to rule before disclosing that the Government had already issued 108,081 three-year renewals under the 2014 DACA amendments despite their statements to the contrary. The judge goes on to say: Another week passed after the Motion to Stay was filed and still the Government stood mute . . . Still, the Government's lawyers were silent . . . Finally, after waiting two weeks, and after the States had filed their reply, the Government lawyers filed their Advisory that same night at 6:57 p.m. CST. Thus, even under the most charitable interpretation of these circumstances, and based solely upon what counsel for the Government told the Court, the Government knew its representations had created ``confusion,'' but kept quiet about it for two weeks while simultaneously pressing this Court to rule on the merits of its motion. At the March 19, 2015 hearing, counsel for the Government repeatedly stated to the Court that they had acted ``promptly'' to clarify any ``confusion'' they may have caused. But the facts clearly show these statements to be disingenuous. The Government did anything but act ``promptly'' to clarify the Government- created ``confusion.'' The judge goes on to quote the rules of professional conduct: The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct . . . require a lawyer to act with complete candor in his or her dealings with the Court. Under these rules of conduct, a lawyer must be completely truthful and forthright in making representations to the Court. Fabrications, misstatements, half-truths, artful omissions, and the failure to correct misstatements may be acceptable, albeit lamentable, in other aspects of life; but in the courtroom, when an attorney knows that both the Court and the other side are relying on complete frankness, such conduct is unacceptable. I don't think that is a little matter. I am just saying this nominee had those lawyers under her supervision at the time this occurred. We have had a lot of talk over the years from Democrats and Republicans about demanding higher standards of professionalism among government prosecutors and lawyers. I think that is a legitimate demand. We have had too many examples of failures. Sometimes lawyers--I have seen it--for the government have been unfairly criticized. I don't think there is any dispute that the judge's findings in this case represent an accurate statement of the misrepresentations and disingenuousness of these attorneys. Has any discipline been undertaken against them? I am not saying Ms. Yates knew this. I am just saying that if you are the responsible supervisor, shouldn't you take some action to deal with it, and to my knowledge, none has been taken, even at some point the Department of Justice suggested they did nothing wrong. Basically, the Department of Justice has said the court is incorrect in its finding, which I don't think can be justified. On May 7, 2015, the Department of Justice notified the court of an additional misrepresentation regarding approximately 2,000 individuals being granted three-year work authorizations subsequent to this opinion and in violation of the original court order. OK. So you say, well, maybe she is not responsible for that, but I do believe the Deputy Attorney General--acting now--is responsible for taking action against attorneys who breached the proper standards of ethical conduct. But we are drifting too far, in my opinion, into a postmodern world, where rules don't seem to make much difference. You can just redefine the meaning of words and you can just say--once caught in some wrongdoing--well, we didn't mean it or that is not correct or the facts are different, when the facts show what the facts show. It is an unhealthy trend in this country, I think. It is particularly unacceptable in the Department of Justice. That was a great department. It has high standards. It is filled with many of the best lawyers of the highest integrity anywhere in the world, but sloppy work and disingenuousness cannot be acceptable. I believe the Department of Justice needs to do more, and the primary responsibility, it seems to me, is with the Deputy Attorney General. Well, what about the fundamental problem of Congress's power to deal with a President who overreaches, a President who makes law rather than enforces law? We learned in elementary school that Congress makes law and the President enforces law. The Chief Executive cannot make up law. He cannot issue decrees and then declare they are the law of the land. How fundamental is that? Professor Jonathan Turley at George Washington University Law School is a constitutional expert and a supporter of President Obama. He testified before our Judiciary Committee, and other committees, a number of times over the years, mostly for the Democrats, I think--at least from the times I remember. This is what Professor Turley has warned Congress about. I urge colleagues to understand what we are considering here. He said: I believe the President has exceeded his brief. The president is required to faithfully execute the laws. He's not required to enforce all laws equally or commit the same resources through them. But I believe the President has crossed the constitutional line in some of these areas. Here he is referring to the original DACA. He said: This goes to the very heart of what is the Madisonian system. If a president can unilaterally change the meaning of laws in substantial ways or refuse to enforce them, it takes offline that very thing that stabilizes our system. I believe the members will loathe the day that they allow this to happen. He is testifying before the House of Representatives and talking directly to Members of Congress. He said that you will loathe the day that you allowed this to happen. He also said: This will not be our last president. There will be more presidents who will claim the same authority. He further said: The problem of what the President is doing is that he is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he is becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid: that is, the concentration of power in a single branch. This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one, but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. That is what Professor Turley said to the Members of the House of Representatives. He goes on to say: We are creating a new system here, something that is not what was designed. We have this rising fourth branch in a system that is tripartite. The center of gravity is shifting, and that makes it unstable. And within that system, you have the rise of an uber presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty, and I really think that the framers would be horrified by that shift because everything they've dedicated themselves to was creating this orbital balance, and we've lost it. We need to listen to this. The President is issuing orders that nullify law, actually creating an entirely new system of immigration that Congress rejected. He proposed all of this, and Congress flatly refused to pass it. He then declares he has the power to do this system anyway, and he is doing it. This judge has finally stopped part of it for the moment. Professor Turley is talking about deep constitutional questions and what our duty is here. It is not a question of what you believe about immigration or how you should believe the laws are to be written or enforced. We can debate that. But there should be unanimous agreement on both sides of the aisle that the President enforce the laws we have--the laws duly passed by Congress--and not create some new law and enforce them. Mr. Turley goes on to say: I believe that [Congress] is facing a critical crossroads in terms of its continued relevance in this process. What this body cannot become is a debating society where it can issue rules and laws that are either complied with or not complied with by the president. . . . [A] president cannot ignore an express statement on policy grounds. . . . Is this [Congress] truly the body that existed when it was formed? Does it have the same gravitational pull and authority that was given to it by the framers? That is what Mr. Turley says. Then he looks directly at the Members of Congress and says: You're the keepers of this authority. You took an oath to uphold it. And the framers assumed that you would have the institutional wherewithal, and, frankly, ambition to defend the turf that is the legislative branch. I think that is a legitimate charge to the Members of Congress--House and Senate. Professor Turley goes on to say: The current passivity of Congress represents a crisis for members, crisis of faith for members willing to see a president assume legislative powers in exchange for insular policy gains. The short term insular victories achieved by this president will come at a prohibitive cost if the balance is not corrected. Constitutional authority is easy to lose in the transient shift to politics. It's far more difficult to regain. If a passion for the Constitution does not motivate members of Congress, perhaps a sense of self-preservation will be enough to unify members. President Obama will not be our last president. However, these acquired powers will be passed on to his successors. When that occurs, members may loathe the day that they remain silent as the power of government shifted so radically to the chief executive. The powerful personality that engendered this loyalty will be gone, but the powers will remain. We are now at the Constitutional tipping point of our system. If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before this president leaves office, and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority. What is our authority? How do we reassert power? I believe it is perfectly constitutionally appropriate for us to tell the President of the United States: We are not going to confirm your nominee for Deputy Attorney General of the United States, who is directly supervising the lawsuits, the litigation that is going on that undermines our power and undermines the constitutional authority of the people's branch. We are not going to confirm them and allow them to continue to go to court every day and take a position directly contrary to the authority that has been given by the Constitution to the Congress. That is pretty simple. So we have that power. We can confirm or not confirm any nominee to any position. We absolutely should not abuse that power. We shouldn't attack people personally and attack their ethics just because we disagree with their policies. I think Ms. Yates, as I said, is a responsible person, but she is the point person, the supervisor of a litigation that has gone awry in a number of ways in Texas and fundamentally is seeking to advance an unconstitutional power by the Chief Executive. I don't believe it is a little matter. I think it is a big matter. Therefore, I will not vote for her confirmation on that basis. Some of our Members haven't thought this through yet, but sooner or later we are going to have to confront the stark question of how long can we remain effectively silent in the face of Presidential overreach. Professor Turley, in January of this year testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearing for the Attorney General nominee, and added these words: ``If there is an alternative in unilateral executive action, the legislative process becomes purely optional and discretionary.'' In other words, if the Chief Executive can execute an alternative power to pass laws and execute policies he wants if they are contrary to Congress's will, then the legislative process becomes purely optional and discretionary. It has to be mandatory. It can't be that our power is optional. He goes on to say: The real meaning of a president claiming discretion to negate or change Federal law is the discretion to use or ignore the legislative process. No actor in a Madisonian system is given such discretion. All three branches are meant to be locked in a type of constitutional synchronous orbit-- held stable by their countervailing gravitational pull. If one of those bodies shifts, the stability of the system is lost. So the President does not have the power to ignore the legislative process, and we are going to regret this day if we remain silent on this issue. I appreciate the opportunity to share this with my colleagues. I don't know if anybody is listening at this point. Certainly the American people were horrified by the Executive amnesty carried out by the President last year. He announced it before the election but held off until afterward. Still, there is no doubt in my mind that many of the people who went to the polls in November were voting for a rejection of this kind of Executive overreach. It was a message of this past election. We took our seats in January, a new Congress is here, and Professor Turley has said we need to act and we are not acting. Professor Turley has said we need to stand up to the Chief Executive, this Chief Executive while he is in office now, and if we don't, when we go to another election cycle, the powers he has aggrandized to himself will be claimed by the next President. Truly so. That is a grim warning he has given us. I am ready and I think it is time for us to stand up and be clear about this. So, regretfully, I feel compelled to carry out one of the powers Congress has clearly been given--the power to confirm or reject nominations for higher office. I believe we should reject the nomination for the Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General who is advocating and pursuing a lawsuit that goes against the constitutional powers of the Congress, and therefore I will be voting no on the nomination. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, that is an important question. First, I would like to thank the Senator for volunteering to serve in the forces of the United States to protect the security of our country and the Middle East and dangerous areas. We do need to protect our national security. We lost almost 3,000 people on 9/11. The Nation came together. I was a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, and we evaluated what to do about it. We worked together in a bipartisan way and in a virtually unanimous agreement passed the PATRIOT Act to try to help us be more effective in dealing with international terrorism. What I have to tell you is what we were facing. Many people were shocked to see the improper obstacles that were placed in the way of our intelligence community as they sought to try to figure out how to identify and capture people who wanted to do harm to America. It was stunning. There was a wall between the CIA, which did the foreign intelligence, and the FBI. They could not say to the FBI: We have intelligence that this person might be a terrorist. The FBI has jurisdiction within the United States. That wall was eliminated when we developed these intelligence tools. And we did other things in an overwhelmingly bipartisan way. As a person who spent 15 years as a prosecutor, I would say there is nothing in this act that alters the fundamental principles of what powers investigators have to investigate crime in America. A county attorney can issue a subpoena from any county in America-- and they do every day by the hundreds of thousands--including subpoenas to phone companies for telephone toll records. Those toll records have the name, the address, and the phone numbers called and how many minutes. What is maintained in this system basically is just numbers. Not only can a county attorney, who is a lawyer, but also a drug enforcement agent and an IRS agent can issue an administrative subpoena on the basis that there is information in telephone toll records regarding John Doe that are relevant to the investigation they are conducting. They can get that information. It is done by law, and there is a written document, but that is the way it is done every day in America. There does not have to be a court order to get those records. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of subpoenas for telephone toll records. In every murder case, virtually every robbery case, every big drug case, the prosecutor wants to use those toll records to show the connection between the criminals. It is extremely valuable for a jury. This is part of daily law practice in America. To say that the NSA analysts have to have a court order before they can obtain a telephone toll record is contrary to everything that happens every day in America. I am absolutely amazed that the President has gone further than the law requires and is requiring some form of court order. Apparently, this bill would go even further, this FREEDOM Act. It is not necessary. You do not get the communications. All you get is--the person may be a terrorist in Yemen, and they are making phone calls to the United States, and you check to see what those numbers are and who they may have called. You might identify a cell that is inside the United States that it is on the verge of having another 9/11, hijacking another airplane to blow up the Capitol. I mean, this is real life. I think we only had a couple hundred queries. I think that is awfully low. One reason is, I am sure, we have such a burden on it. I would say, let's not overreact on this. Please, let's not overreact on this. Former Attorney General Mukasey, a former Federal judge himself, has really pushed back on this, and he believes it is the wrong kind of thing for us to be doing at this time. This is what he said: To impose such a burden on the NSA as the price of simply running a number through a database that includes neither the content of calls nor even the identity of the callers is perverse. The president said that this step may be dispensed with only in a ``true emergency,'' as if events unfold to a musical score with a crescendo to tell us when a ``true emergency'' is at hand. He was talking about the additional requirements the President put on it. One more thing. This is the way the system works and has worked for the last 50 years--40 years at least. A crime occurs. A prosecutor or the DEA agent investigates. They issue a subpoena to the local phone company that has these telephone toll records--the same thing you get in the mail--and they send them in response to the subpoena. They send those documents. They maintain those records. Now the computer systems are more sophisticated. There are more phone calls than ever. The numbers are by the tens of millions, probably almost billions of calls. So they are reducing the number that they are maintaining in their computers--I believe Senator Cotton said it was 18 months. Maybe they abandon or they wipe out all these records. Well, an investigation into terrorism may want to go back 5 years. The government downloads the records, they maintain them in this secure system, and they are accessible just as they had been before but actually with less information than the local police get when they issue a subpoena. I believe this would be a big mistake. Senator Burr.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I see my colleague, the Senator from Delaware. I know he asked for time. I didn't ask for time set aside for myself. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate Senator Carper, and I know he asked for time, so I will yield for his remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have a lot of good people in the Senate, and Senator Carper is one of the best. He does, indeed, live by the Golden Rule, and it is an inspiration to us--as I have told him more than once--when we have had hot debate in the Senate. He always keeps his good nature, his loving spirit, and always sets a good example. I say thank you to Senator Carper. It is appropriate to thank Federal employees for their work. Not counting the Army Reserve time, I have quite a few years myself in Federal service and love the people I have had the honor to work with. I ask that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we will be dealing soon--I guess next week--with trade promotion authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the TPP. Conventional wisdom is that trade agreements are good. We should just move them forward. Let's have an expedited fast-track process--a fast-track agreement with the TPA--and we will get this done and it is going to work out well for the American people. But in truth, I have to say, since I voted for every trade agreement, one virtually every year since I have been here--except one--the data doesn't give us much confidence that a loosely drawn or improperly drawn agreement is going to help us. In fact, evidence indicates it is not helping us. It is not helping the economy of the United States. It is not helping growth. Some of these agreements have clearly exacerbated our trade deficit. So it is a remarkable thing, and we want to believe in trade, and I do, but the United States has interests, our trading partners have interests, and our trading partners are far more mercantile, far more focused on increasing exports to foreign countries--to the biggest market in the world, the United States--and far more focused on blocking imports that would compete against locally manufactured products than the United States has been producing. Some say: Well, that is not a problem. The United States is smarter in the long run. But I would say I am looking at this more carefully now. I voted for the Korea agreement. Our Korean allies are good people. It is a great country. They achieved so much after the Korean war, and we are proud of them. We have many positive relationships and a fabulous Hyundai plant in my State. It hires thousands, and they have suppliers that add thousands of jobs also. What about that agreement? I supported it. I thought it was a good agreement. It passed here by a substantial vote. But when you look at it, it didn't work out as well as people said. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission--our own trade commission-- estimated that the reduction of Korean tariffs against our exports to Korea and tariff rate quotas on goods alone would have added at least $10 billion to annual exports to Korea. That is $10 billion. Well, last year, three years after the agreement was passed, we didn't export $10 billion; we exported less than $1 billion to Korea--$0.8 billion. So that is a very huge difference, while at the same time Korea's imports to the United States have surged and the trade deficit the United States had with Korea, which was already large, has almost doubled in that time. So I appreciate the complexity of the issue and want to talk about it. As we wrestle with how we continue with this situation with the TPP, trade promotion authority, I ask my colleagues about some of the questions we ought to consider. I know there is a goal to move this thing forward fast rather than slow. The faster we get it done, the fewer questions that get asked, and we have fewer problems. But that is not our problem. That is not our duty. I wrote President Obama a letter yesterday. I made some comments and asked some questions that I believe are reasonable and fair questions to ask before we vote on this agreement that he has been negotiating but that, of course, hasn't completed the negotiations on. And, to the extent to which it has been reduced to writing, which is only partial, it is locked up in secret, and we are able to view it only privately. We are not allowed to quote it or copy it to let the public know what is in it. I asked him: You have asked Congress to approve fast-track legislation (Trade Promotion Authority) that would allow international trade and regulatory agreements to be expedited through Congress for the next six years without amendment. Fast- track, which proponents hope to adopt within days, would also ensure that these agreements--none of which of have yet been made public--could pass with a simple majority vote, rather than the 67 votes applied to treaties or the 60 votes applied to important legislative matters. This is one of the largest international compacts in the history of the United States. [It amounts to 40 percent of global GDP.] Yet, this agreement will be kept a closely- guarded secret until after Congress agrees to yield its institutional powers and provide the administration with a guaranteed ``fast-track'' to adoption. In other words, we are going to agree in advance, before we see the completed deal, before it is made public, to allow this agreement to pass into effect without the ability to have any amendment to it or to fully understand it. I think that is a big ask of Congress. It has always been problematic to use this fast-track procedure. I have voted for trade agreements which were fast-tracked, I acknowledge, in the past, and maybe they have helped us some. But I do believe it is time for us to be a lot more careful today with the trade agreements that we sign and ask a lot more rigorously what impact it will have on working Americans, not just some capital group in the canyons of Wall Street. So I continued to write: The U.S. ran a record $51.4 billion trade deficit in March. That is a record first quarter, I believe. It was a six-year record this year for the trade deficit. That means the amount we export is vastly exceeded by the amount we import--$51.4 billion. Economists tell us--and I don't think there is any dispute--that when you are evaluating trade growth you have to subtract trade deficits since they are a negative to growth. So our trade deficits are pulling down growth in America. They are pulling down job creation. They are pulling down wage growth. They are pulling down our economy. I continue to quote: This is especially concerning since, in 2011, assurances were made from the Administration that the recent South Korea free trade deal would ``increase exports of American goods by $10 billion to $11 billion.'' But, in fact, American domestic exports to Korea increased by only $0.8 billion, an increase of 1.8 percent, while imports from Korea increased $12.6 billion, an increase of 22.5 percent. So, in other words, imports from Korea to the United States increased $12.6 billion. Our exports to them increased less than $1 billion. Continuing: Our trade deficit with Korea increased $11.8 billion between 2011 and 2014, an increase of 80.4 percent, nearly doubling in the three years since the deal was ratified. And we were promised the other. We were promised it would enhance, dramatically, exports. I continue: Overall, we have already lost more than 2.1 million manufacturing jobs to the Asian Pacific region since 2001. Look, we know there are wage advantages in Asia, but wages are going up in a lot of Asian countries too. It is getting closer, and we have an advantage on better management. We have advantages on better infrastructure, and we have advantages on better energy prices. So this is a huge loss to us. At some point we have to defend our American working people's interest. I write: Former Nucor Steel Chairman Daniel DiMicco argues that we have not been engaged in free trade but in ``unilateral trade disarmament and enablement of foreign mercantilism.'' In other words, our agreements with trade have not overcome our trading competitors, our trading partners' desire to maximize their exports and minimize their imports from us. We have to be honest about that; it is not theory. Simply eliminating tariffs does not solve the problem. History tells us that. So I continue to President Obama: Due to the enormity of what is at stake, I believe it is essential Congress have answers to the following questions before any vote is scheduled on ``fast-track'' authority. 1. Regarding the ``Living Agreement": There is a ``living agreement'' provision in TPP that allows the agreement to be changed after adoption--in effect, vesting TPP countries with a sweeping new form of global governance authority. TPP calls this new global authority the ``Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission.'' These measures are unprecedented. We have not had anything like a living agreement in a trade agreement before. Continuing: While I and other lawmakers have been able to view this provision in secret [the chamber downstairs], I believe it must be made public before any vote is scheduled on TPA, due to the extraordinary implications. I think it ought to be reviewed by independent scholars, lawyers, trade experts, to help us decide just what we are doing when we allow, apparently, the members who signed this agreement to meet at any point in time to adjust the meaning of the agreement and the provisions of the deal in order to adjust to changing circumstances. It is kind of like what the Supreme Court has been doing to our Constitution. 2. Regarding trade deficits-- I asked this question, colleagues. Isn't it a fair question to ask, when we are asked to vote for this fast track-- Will TPP increase or reduce our cumulative trade deficit with TPP countries overall, and with Japan and Vietnam specifically? I want to know that. Don't you want to know whether or not we are going to increase our deficit in trade with these member countries, in particular Japan and Vietnam, where we can expect real problems in the future, it seems to me? By the way, by far the biggest trade partner in our economy is the Japanese economy, in this agreement. Vietnam, with 100 million people, has the potential to become a small China, as one expert said, and really be, very much, a competitor to the textile industry, hurting-- most of all, one expert has said--Central American countries, such as Honduras, El Salvador. Those countries that have been developing a textile industry may find themselves undercut by Vietnam under this agreement. 3. Regarding jobs and wages: Will TPP increase or reduce the total number of manufacturing jobs in the United States generally, and American auto-manufacturing jobs specifically, accounting for jobs lost to increased imports? Will average hourly wages for U.S. workers, including in the automobile industry, go up or down and by how much? Let's have a report on that. Shouldn't we know that? 4. Regarding China: Can TPP member countries add new countries, including China, to the agreement without future Congressional approval? Some say it can't be done. Let's have a clear answer to that. At first glance, it would appear that is possible. 5. Regarding foreign workers, TPA is a 6-year authority to the President of the United States to negotiate trade deals. He can submit them to the Congress, and these agreements can be passed without amendment in a simple majority vote. So this is a 6-year authority which concludes into the future. We have had President Clinton, President Bush, President whoever--Rubio, Cruz or whoever could be our President. So it would have that authority. Finally, I asked whether the administration can state unconditionally that no agreement or Executive action, throughout the lifetime of TPA, will alter the number, duration, availability, expiration enforcement, rules or processing time of guest worker, business, visitor, nonimmigrant or immigrant visas to the United States. I think those are fair questions. I think we need to have answers to those before we vote on TPA, but I can tell you what the American people think. There have been some studies that say large numbers of people tend to be right when they express an opinion on things. This is Mr. Frank Luntz--I believe it is his poll. He asked this question on international trade. ``Do free trade agreements the United States has signed with other countries over the past 2 decades benefit other countries or the United States?'' That is a simple question. He asked the American people: What do you think? Do these agreements we have passed over the last 20 years--and I voted for a lot of them in the last 18 years I have been here--are they benefiting other countries or the United States? This is what the American people say: Seventy percent say it benefits other countries. Only 30 percent say it benefits the United States. I think people are deeply skeptical about what we have been doing regarding trade, and it is easy to dismiss their concerns and their skepticism, to say they are just not knowledgeable and we know more and that this movement of capital from New York, to Beijing, to Seoul, to Japan, to Chile is just fine and wonderful and it is going to make your life better. But the American people are not seeing that. Another poll asked the question: What about the effect of the free- trade agreements on wages the American people make. This is the question: Free trade agreements are treaties between countries reducing trade barriers, such as reducing tariffs for imported goods, agreeing to common standards and allowing market access to foreign companies. Do you think the United States making free trade agreements with other countries increases or decreases the level of wages paid in the United States or makes no difference? They asked this of the American people. This is a YouGov poll. Answer: Increases the level of wages paid in the United States--11 percent. Now, we are told repeatedly: Oh, we need to sign these trade agreements. It is going to make your wages go up. It is going to be good for everybody. Don't we hear that? And I have hoped that would be true, but only 11 percent of the American people think trade agreements have moved their wages up. What about the answer to the other part of that question. Decreases the wages paid in the United States--34 percent. So by more than a 3-to-1 majority the American people believe that trade agreements over the last 20 years are decreasing the level of wages in the United States rather than increasing them. Nineteen percent say it makes no difference and one-third say they do not know. We have to consider, colleagues, what is it that is happening. How is it this might be happening? Because, in theory, comparative advantage doctrine means that multiple countries can benefit from trade agreements. I acknowledge that theory and believe it is fundamentally valid, but let's take a tremendous trading partner such as Japan. We have a tremendous trading relationship, where billions of dollars are exchanging hands between our countries every year, and that will be covered by this trade agreement--Japan. So what do we find? We find that we have a 2.5-percent tariff on imported Japanese automobiles to the United States and a 25-percent tariff on the import of light trucks into the United States from Japan. I didn't know the numbers were that high, but it is as a result of various events that occurred over time where retaliation took place. What about Japanese tariffs on automobiles going to Japan. There are none. Japan does not have tariffs on automobiles going into Japan. Yet we have a huge trade deficit with Japan. Why is this happening? It is because of nontariff trade barriers, institutional matters, and the like. One of the biggest is that it is very difficult in Japan to get an automobile dealership up and operating effectively. Hyundai has tried to do it and failed. You can't get a distribution network for vehicles. Maybe there is a cultural loyalty in Japan that makes people far more likely to buy a Japanese automobile than a foreign automobile. There are other factors. So the TPP, as written, will do nothing that advances the export of U.S. automobiles to Japan because those exports into Japan have been reduced substantially through nontariff barriers. Got it? Those nontariff barriers are not fixed in this agreement, but we are going to be reducing ours. One expert who negotiated with Japan for President Ronald Reagan, Clyde Prestowitz, who opposes this agreement and who has written a book on trade, says there is no doubt we are going to have an increase in our trade deficit with Japan. Now, look, I don't have a hard feeling about Japan. In fact, they are fabulous allies. They are putting up money to help in mutual defense. We have Honda and Toyota automobile companies in my home State of Alabama, and I am proud of what they do. But we are not going to see an increase in exports to Japan unless some things are changed other than the tariff, and, in fact, they are not changing the tariff because it is already at zero. Well, maybe that is why the theories don't always work as well as they are projected to work. Mr. Dan Dimicco, whom I mentioned earlier, an outspoken commentator on the issues relating to trade--lived with it and is the chairman emeritus of Nucor Steel today--wrote a very valuable piece in Forbes magazine back in December in which he discussed the trade deals and problems that occurred. He goes through virtually every issue that is raised in these discussions and presents a contrary view to conventional wisdom. I really think we have to listen to some of this. We can't just blithely go by and pretend that the American people, by more than a 2- to-1 margin, are all wrong about salaries and wages when, in fact, I think the record will show that wages have dropped as these trading agreements have increased. From 2009 until today, we have had a net decline of family income of $3,000 in the United States. Wages are down since the 1970s. The percentage of Americans actually with a job who are in the working years is the lowest we have had since the 1970s. Wages have declined basically since the year 2000. We have had virtually no increase in wages since that time. So what is it that is happening that is allowing the stock market to go up and business profits to go up but wages are not? We have had a decline in manufacturing. The numbers are unmistakable, and a large part of this is foreign competition. Colleagues, the time has come when we should enter into no trade agreement--not one--in which we lose a single job in this country as a result of unfair competition. Mr. DiMicco goes on at length. I ask unanimous consent to have his article printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. He says: It is time to focus upon true free trade with rules, reciprocity and results, while fighting the increasing scourge of global mercantilism. We must seek balanced trade flows over time rather than be condemned to serve as the global importer of last resort. He also said: It is also time to preserve our constitutional system of checks and balances and refrain from giving more power to global institutions that displace our legislative and judicial branches. I think that is good advice, too. Again, what Mr. DiMicco says is that while we remove trade barriers and open our markets to importing competition, our allies, even when they reduce their tariff barriers, don't reduce other institutional barriers. They also utilize currency manipulation. This currency manipulation can provide a far more substantial advantage in trade than even a tariff does. Mr. Volcker--the former Federal Reserve Chairman under President Reagan and widely regarded as having done a magnificent job-- said tariffs can be overcome in a matter of minutes by currency manipulation. Europe has seen its currency drop over 20 percent. Korea has moved its currency down. Japan has moved its down. China has ensured its yuan remains at a level below where it should be on economic terms. As a result, they have gained a trade advantage, and as a result, they have decimated American industries, closed factories all over this country when they wouldn't have closed if they had a fair dollar-to-yuan currency relationship. They have been found to be manipulating their currency year after year. The Treasury makes it clear, but the Treasury has taken no action to do anything about it. As a result, good American people have lost jobs, had their factories closed and their towns and communities damaged economically by unfair trade. We have enough trouble competing in the world market. We don't need to have the unfair trade. I thank the Chair for allowing me to share these remarks. I don't pretend to know all the answers. I try to be supportive of trade. I remain supportive of trade. But I think we need to listen to the American people a little bit. I don't think their concerns are unfounded. By a more than 2-to-1 margin, they say these trade agreements have advantaged our competitors rather than us. It is time for us to make sure that if we do a trade agreement or trade promotion authority, the product that is going to be passed into law and become a worldwide trade agreement serves the American people's interests--somebody's interests other than some theoretician in a university, somebody's interests other than some foreign capital, somebody's interests other than the canyons of New York where capital is moved all over the world. Somebody needs to be looking out for the interests of the American people. We need to ask that question first. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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