tv U.S. Senate CSPAN June 23, 2015 10:00am-12:01pm EDT
ay on the procedural vote at least 11 democrats 55 senate republicans vote against the trade package last month do so again. songsters to watch day, maria cantwell and heidi heitkamp of north dakota. they say they're still reviewing their options. ben cardin merrin says he wants fast-track to remain bundled with assistance for workers. live now to the floor of the senat in senate. the chaplain: let us pray. oh god, you are from everlasting to everlasting. keep us under your watchful eyes that we may dwell in your eternal presence. lord into your care we entrust our lawmakers. help them to feel the companionship of your presence
as they labor for liberty. give them safety from all danger and the wisdom to remember that you will never leave or forsake them. be with the members of their staffs. control their thoughts as you fill them with your peace. surround them with the shield of your divine favor sustaining them in all they do and say. be present in their hearts as the spirit of power joy and contentment. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge
of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for a second time. the clerk: h.r. 160 an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14 i would object to further proceedings. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the chair lay before the senate the house message accompanying h.r.
644. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate a message from the house of representatives. the clerk: resolved that the house agree to the amendment of the senate to the title of the bill h.r. 644 entitled an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, and so forth and further resolve that the house agree to the amendment of the senate with amendment. mr. mcconnell: i move to insist upon the senate amendment, agree to the request by the house for conference and authorize the presiding officer to appoint conferees. and i tkurbs. the presiding officer: the -- is pending. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: we the we, the undersigned senators in in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to insist upon the senate amendment, agree to the request by the house for a conference and authorize the presiding officer to appoint conferees with respect to h.r. 644 signed
by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks the time until 11:00 a.m. this morning be equally divided between the leaders or their designees and that the second-degree filing deadline for h.r. 2146 and h.r. 1295 be 10:30 a.m. this morning. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, yesterday the senate's top democrat on trade announced his support for the bipartisan trade legislation we'll vote on today. it adds to the renewed momentum we're seeing for america's workers. it's showing that democrats can join republicans to knock down unfair international barriers that discriminate against america's middle class. barriers that for too long have prevented american workers from selling more of what they make and american farmers from
selling more of what they grow. it's demonstrating that both parties can work together to strengthen america's national security at home and america's leadership abroad. instead of simply ceding the future and one of the world's fastest-growing regions from chinese aggression and it's proven that our friends can rally with us in support of 1.4 million additional jobs in our country, including over 18,000 in kentucky alone. as one study estimates new trade agreements with europe and the pacific could well support. these are the reasons a bill is gaining steam that would help advance all -- all -- of these objectives. the bill that would enhance congress's role in the trade process while ensuring presidents of either party have the necessary tools to secure strong and enforceable trade agreements. that's the bipartisan trade bill before us today.
it passed the finance committee with strong bipartisan support back in april. it passed the full senate with strong bipartisan support in may. it just passed the house with backing from across the political spectrum as well, gaining the support of everyone from chairman ryan and representative hensarling on one side to representative kine on the other. now it's time for the next step. i urge all of our colleagues to vote for cloture on this bipartisan trade bill today. that will open the way for final passage of t.p.a. tomorrow. it will open the way for final passage for t.p.a. and the agoa and preferences measure the following day too. earlier this morning speaker boehner reaffirmed his commitment to taking up t.a.a. once it passes the senate. he stated his desire to see both t.a.a. and t.p.a. on the president's desk by the end of this week.
and he underlined the house readiness to go to conference on the customs bill. speaker boehner is clearly committed to building trust across the aisle on this issue and i am as well. that's why i just moved to go to conference on the customs bill. so this is where we are mr. president. let's vote today. let's vote today to move ahead on t.p.a., an important accomplishment for the country. then we can vote to move ahead on t.a.a. and agoa and preferences. and then we can vote to move ahead on customs. if we all keep working together and trusting each other, then by the end of the week the president will have t.p.a., t.a.a. and agoa and preferences on his desk. with customs in the process of heading his way as well. today is a very big vote. it's an important moment for the country. it sets in motion the completion of a project we set out on
literally months ago. completing work on all four of the bills reported by the finance committee. that is what my friend on the other side said they wanted and that is what can be achieved by continuing to work together. : mr. reid: the nation's heart remains broken over the tragedy in charleston, south carolina. a man full of hate took the lives of nine worshipers. once again pain has been inflicted on americans. once again the people of a community as they struggle to
reconnect to put the pieces of their lives back together. once again we're looking at our newspapers watching our tv screens and talking at our dinner tables about why why did this happen. as the painful details emerge, we can't turn away from the hard truth this tragedy lays bare. racism still exists in our society. we have to accept that reality. if we ever hope to change, mr. president, we have to accept that reality. i watched this weekend as pundits and the nation's thought leaders attempted to address this issue by sidestepping the truth. this violent act was racially motivated. can we have order in the senate? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. reid: this violent attack was racially motivated plain
and simple. it was intended to terrorize the african-american community in charleston and around this nation. 50 years ago dr. martin luther king led a march here in washington. 50 years after congress passed the civil rights act 50 years after the march for voter rights in selma 50 years after congress passed the voter rights act we must still face the hard truth about race in america. mr. president, can we have order in the senate? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. : mr. reid: the truth is we still have much to do. we have much to overcome. we have no choice. one cannot ignore this underlying issue. it deeply troubles our nation that hatred and bigotry
persists. the harsh realities of hate and bigotry in this country make far too many in this country feel their lives don't matter. it's easy to feel your life doesn't matter when the odds are stacked against you every place you look on every hand. here are some of the facts: african-americans face on a daily basis: nearly half of all african-american families live in poor neighborhoods for at least two generations. 50% compared to 7% of white families. an african-american man is far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes and sentenced to longer prison terms than a white man. in the state system the numbers are more skewed than that. these facts demonstrate how
countless men and women face unprecedented challenges to be still judged by the color of their skin than by the content of their character. we have a moral obligation to change these realities. we must ensure all americans know their lives matter. standing for what is right calling out bigotry and hatred. it's hard to fathom that even as a community of charleston grapples with the devastation there is a confederate flag at the statehouse in colombia. it is a symbol of a dark past from which our country has come. it does not and should not represent our values and the way we treat our fellow americans. it is a symbol of slavery.
it is a symbol of white supremacy. there is no other way to explain it. it is a symbol of the ku klux klan. it's not just who we are. the flag should be removed and now. this day governor haley of south carolina said in the capital of south carolina the flag should not be flown. she said we will do this in spite of what the state legislature feels. soy applaud her. i appreciate her courageous act. the confederate flag has no place in the future of south
carolina. it belongs in the past every place in america not just south carolina. everyone who desires to fly that flag on private property can do so but no state in this great nation should allow this flag to soar above the capitol. we must always stand for what is right. we must stand for equality and justice, back and defend e. we must preserve the rights of every american not because it is the safe thing to do, not because it is popular. we must stand and defend equality and justice because it is the right thing to do. we must take meaningful action to ensure the safety of our citizens. once again our hearts are broken as another community stprug tkpwels to recover -- struggles to recover from a mass shooting. i want to mention a few of them, just a few of them. fort hood, 13 americans killed. this was on a military base.
tucson arizona six americans killed. carson city, nevada; four americans killed. connecticut, 27 americans dead. boulder, colorado -- a movie theater -- 12 killed. the navy yard, here, just a few maybe a mile from here at the most here in the district of columbia 12 killed. charleston, south carolina, of course we know, nine killed. these are not all the violent acts. these are but a handful. all these violent events occurred within the past few years. our country, the united states, is the only advanced country where this type of mass violence occurs. the only country. we're the capital of america we
kill each other at a rate 297 times higher than japan 33 times higher than israel. in every other country -- this is by far far too much. we can do something about this sad, violent reality. let's do something. we can expand, for example background checks for people wanting to buy guns, to prevent a criminal from buying guns. is that asking too much? the mentally ill? criminals? more than 80% of the american people support this. why can't we in congress support it? we should support not giving guns to people who are mentally ill and felons.
i know people can say ep wasn't felon. # maybe so. but couldn't we do something? couldn't we at least do this little thing to stop people who are sick in the head, people who are criminals from purchasing guns? couldn't we at least do that. i understand the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over while expecting a different result, and that's what we're doing. for the future of our country we have to change. in the face of racism and bigotry, we must act. we can't do nothing. we must prevent felons from gunning down innocent americans
in broad daylight. if we do not, we will be here again. our hearts will be broken again. and we're going to have to ask ourselves how we allowed another senseless tragedy to take place while we stand by doing nothing. mr. president, what is the business before the senate today? the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the time until 11:00 a.m. will be equally divided. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president later today the senate will once again have an opportunity to vote on trade promotion authority. the senate has voted on this before each time demonstrating strong bipartisan support for t.p.p. -- t.p.a. my hope is we can get a similar result in the senate. we need to be clear about what
is stake. the united states is clearly negotiating a number of trade agreements with our most important trading partners in the world. if the senate fails to approve this bill neither congress nor the american people will -- as a -- if we are unable to advance any trade agreements at all. mr. president, nothing can be further from the truth. as we all know, most of the world's consumers live outside of our borders. 95% of them. in addition, the vast majority of economic growth in the world is likely to occur outside of the united states over the next decade if our workers farmers ranchers and service providers are going to be able to compete in these growing markets we must have open access to these
markets and fair trade rules to boot. without strong trade agreements neither is possible. when it comes to international trade, we cannot standstill. if we don't lead and set the rules of the game, other nations will and our economy will be left behind. the united states continues to be a leader in agricultural exports throughout the world. in fact, we still export more agricultural goods than any other country. in addition, the united states continues to boast an enormous manufacturing base in a supplies consumers in every corner of the globe. we also lead the world in technology digital services and innovation. indeed not only do we lead the world in creation of intellectual property, america essentially created the modern digital landscape. the u.s. also continues to lead in trade and services, exporting more than $700 billion in services in 2014 alone. that is more than twice as much as the united kingdom the
world's second-highest services exporter. i ask unanimous consent that the parliamentarian let me know when my ten minutes have expired. the presiding officer: the senator will be so notified. mr. hatch: we know we can compete on the world stage when the rules are fair and the playing field is level. that is why i am such a strong proponent of this t.p.a. legislation. this bill, which is the product of a great deal of work and a lot of bipartisan cooperation will have a powerful and positive impact on industries throughout our economy. on consumers and of course on american workers as well. mr. president, in an america that embraces international trade, i believe even those individuals who encounter temporary setbacks can find new opportunities, can outwork outproduce and out-innovate our global competition so long as the groundwork has been laid to give them those opportunities. that is why we need strong trade agreements and that is why we
need t.p.a. mr. president, as you can surely tell i feel very passionately about free trade. and i know that many of my colleagues are just as passionate in their opposition. but as congress has considered this legislation, i think we've had a full and fair debate on these issues. we have been transparent on the substance of the bill, and the way things have moved forward. both sides have been able to make their case to the american people. it is at times like these when working in congress is the most rewarding. we have the opportunity to hear so many different accounts, sift through mountains of data and research meet with hundreds of interested parties representing thousands of our constituents, and work through hotly contested differences. then, after all of that work, when circumstances are right we're able to come up with bipartisan legislation that addresses the needs of our country, our constituents and our economy.
that's what we have been able to do with this t.p.a. debate, mr. president, which is a debate that has been going on for many years now. i still went to work with those with -- want to work with those who may not share my views on all of these issues. one way we have agreed to do that is to help make sure that t.a.a. will be extended. as you know, t.a.a. has been included in the trade preferences bill that the senate will hopefully vote on later this week after we have passed t.p.a. i have said it many times i am not a fan of t.a.a. personally i think the program is redundant and ineffective. however, after 38 years here in the senate, believe me, i'm well aware that everyone is not -- everything is not about me. i understand that t.a.a. is a priority for a number of my colleagues and that it continues to be the price of admission for many who want to support t.p.a. the senate majority leader recognizes this as well, which is why he is committed to
ensuring that t.a.a. gets a fair vote here in the senate and fair opportunity to pass. throughout this process, we have done all we can within reason to accommodate the concerns of senators. i am very appreciative of all the support we have received from members on both sides of the aisle. we couldn't have gotten this far without that support. now it is time to finish the work to pass this bill and get it to the president's desk. we need this bill to ensure that our constituents' voices are heard in the trade negotiating process. we need this bill to give our trade negotiators the tools they need to get a good deal. and we need this bill to extend access to foreign markets so we can grow our economy and create good high-paying jobs here at home. that mr. president, is what this bill is all about and why we have been working on this process for so long. we're very close to the finish line mr. president. we need just one more burst of energy and a few more steps to
get us there. i urge all of my colleagues who support free trade open markets and the advancement of american values and interests abroad to join me once again in supporting t.p.a. and working with me and with my colleague senator wyden, to get all the pending trade bill passed in the senate and signed into law. with that, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president over the last several weeks, on the floor of both this body and the house we've heard members and colleagues say they are tired of the old 1990's north american free trade agreement playbook on trade. they're concerned the package that is once again before the senate is more of the same. here's my message on why this legislation needs to move
forward. if you believe that those policies of the 1990's fail to protect american workers and strengthen our economy, this is our chance to set a new course. this is our chance to put in place higher standards in global trade on matters like labor rights and environmental protection shine some real sunlight on trade agreements and ensure that our country writes the rules of the road. the fact is in 2016, globalization is a reality. the choice is whether to sit back and allow globalization to push and pull on our economy until in effect we face some of the same kind of dictates that you see in china. so our choice is either to move now, get into the center of the
ring and fight for a stronger economic future, protect our workers and promote our values or remain tethered to many of those old policies of the 1990's. i say to the senate today if you believe like me that it is time once and for all to close the books on the north american free trade era in trade this legislation deserves your support. in my hometown paper recently, there was an opinion article and it stated this trade bill lays out and i quote a hard and fast checklist for the t.p.p. holding the obama administration accountable for meeting its goals and conditions. the article goes on to say this legislation will reorient priorities and improve the process for the t.p.p. and other trade agreements in the future. i completely agree with that view but the senate doesn't
have to take my word for it. those are the words of kim nesbitt, the past president of the oregon afl-cio who has disagreed with me on trade often over the years yet now he states that this legislation we'll vote on today provides a fresh opportunity for trade done right. now, when it comes to core american values, labor rights, environmental protection and human rights, this legislation raises the bar and demands more from our trade negotiators than ever before. we have talked a lot about a race to the bottom. my view is if our country doesn't fight to protect worker rights in the environment with tough environmental enforceable trade agreements, those priorities are going to wither away. china is certainly not going to take up the banner for american values in trade. so if you believe america should
stop a race to the bottom on labor rights, environmental safeguards and human rights, this legislation is our chance to lift global standards up. now, i want to talk for a moment about the economic potential of this legislation. what we all understand we need to do is make things here, grow things here, add value to them here and then ship them somewhere. my state knows how to make this happen and so do many others. about one out of five jobs in oregon depends on international trade. almost 90% of them are small and medium sized and what we know is that in many instances those jobs pay better, but the fact is if our farmers want to sell their products in japan -- and this is true of agriculture all over america mr. president -- a
lot of our farmers face average tariffs of 40%. that's right. if you want to export some jam to vietnam, it will be marked up by 90%. if you want to set a bottle of wine -- and we've got wine growers with prosperous businesses all over the country you've got to fork over 50% of the value to the government. so if you believe that other countries should open their markets to american exports like the u.s. is open to theirs, this is our chance to bring down the tariffs and other barriers. and i want to touch for a moment again on how different this is than the 1990's. in the 1990's, nobody could have imagined the right tools to protect the modern internet. 25 years ago it was impossible to make a living by setting up a business online. a cell phone was as big as a
brick. in fact, the nafta negotiations began a year before the first web site was set up. today internet commerce is at the heart of our economy. if you want to cement america's leadership in the digital economy, this is your chance to vote for trade policies that will protect a free and open internet. now i want to mention again apropos of how different this is that i have felt for some time that critics of past trade policy have been spot on with respect to a lot of this secrecy which is just gratuitous. if you believe deeply in trade and you want more of it, why should you have all this unnecessary secrecy that makes people cynical about trade? so we have brought sunshine to this trade debate in a way that
is unprecedented. for the first time before the president can sign a deal, the full text has to be released to the public for 60 days. before you can have votes in the other body and here in the senate, there will be no more -- there will be no fewer than four months when anybody can open up a -- where people can open up a proposed trade deal and read it for themselves. so picture that, mr. president. for four months the american people will have in their hands starting with the t.p.p., what a trade agreement is all about. that is simply unprecedented. i'd like to close on the question of how we're going to proceed from here. this is obviously this has obviously been a complicated piece of legislation. i appreciate that the senate and house leaders on the other side have committed to moving trade
adjustment assistance alongside trade promotion authority as well as a proposal that originated with senator brown to strengthen 1krrbg our critically -- strengthen our critically important trade enforcement laws. while the goal of enacting trade policies is a tool to give all americans a chance to get ahead trade adjustment assistance is an absolute must-pass bill. and i am confident that it is going to get through congress and the president's desk. that bill includes the vitally important program also that creates new opportunities for impoverished nations in africa. the customs enforcement bill is also moving forward on a bipartisan basis and there's important work there to be done. the senate must resolve differences in the enforcement bill with the other body. and i want to make it clear this morning, mr. president, that i expect that conference to
respect democratic priorities and my democratic colleagues and i will be laying down markers on several of our top priorities. and i discussed those priorities with chairman ryan last night. those priorities include provisions in the senate bill championed by senator shaheen to help our small businesses, provisions authored by senator bennet to address enforcement of environmental laws, and senator cantwell's important trade enforcement trust fund. in my view, the congress has an opportunity with this legislation to show that it can work in a bipartisan way to take on one of the premier economic challenges of our time. our job is to get past the policies of the 1990's and move towards getting trade done right. colleagues, let's open -- let's pry open foreign markets and send more of our exports abroad. let's fight for the american brand and the oregon brand
against the trade cheats and the bad actors who are blocking our way. and let's raise the bar for american values and open up our trade policies to sunlight. i urge all in the senate to vote "yes" on cloture today and to support this package as it advances this week and be in effect we get three of the important bills done this week and set in motion the fourth. with that, i yield the floor. mr. hatch: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you mr. president. i rise to oppose the motion to invoke cloture on -- i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you mr. president. thanks for the correction. i rise to oppose the motion to invoke cloture on t.p.a. so-called fast-track legislation. i am still incredulous as i've watched this trade nondebate, if you will the speed at which time after time the majority leader is trying to shut down debate. it's happened again and again and that's compounded, mr. president, by the secretness of this whole process. i can't count the number of
times in my state of ohio and in meetings in washington with people from all over the country, i can't count the number of times that people have said we have little or no access to the transpacific partnership. t.p.a. in the past has been actually a rule book, if you will for how we should negotiate trade agreements and at the same time it's been directions on how you negotiate these trade agreements and a rule book on how it's presented on the senate floor. yet, none of the trans-pacific partnership negotiations by ambassador froman have been informed at all by a t.p.a. because we haven't had a t.p.a. yet. we haven't written that instruction book; it hasn't passed. at the same time we've gotten the worst of both worlds because we're voting on t.p.a. and we haven't been able to see what's
in t.p.p. i know supporters in t.p.p. are saying we're going to have 60 days now but members are casting their votes now when they're going to have maximum leverage, where 60 votes are required and have maximum leverage. to put it, put no finer point on it just given up the leverage that they have. as we are still kept in the dark on what's happening with the trans-pacific partnership. let me give one example by where i think we're making a mistake by moving so quickly today. in essence fast-tracking fast. my office has repeatedly and i personally have repeatedly spoken to the president of the united states, the ambassador of the -- united states trade rep ambassador mr. froman, repeatedly asked them to fix some of the language in tobacco. one of the things that apparently if we really could know for sure that the trans-pacific partnership does is give even more power to american tobacco companies more power to american tobacco
companies to have influence over laws that, particularly small countries, that don't have the wherewithal and can't afford the huge legal bills that a large tobacco company can afford to write public health law. so if a small country wants to write a law to protect their children from marketing of tobacco products, which is what we've done in this country a u.s. tobacco company or british tobacco can -- well, let's keep it here -- a u.s. tobacco company can threaten a lawsuit against those companies and those companies are probably going to back off because they can't afford to go to court with a big american tobacco company. even something that is clearly violative of the public interest and public health as the damage big tobacco inflicts on children even that is not to our knowledge been addressed. but again, so much of this is secretive, we don't even know that. that's why there is anger in this country and why there is
that so many people in this country tell me, so many in my state, why are you moving so fast why is this coming up right now why don't we know more about this whole process? yet, again the majority leader is shutting down debate, he will be joined, i assume, by a small number a distinct small number of minority democrats in just getting up over the 60-vote margin so they can shut down debate, so they can move the trans-pacific -- so they can move the t.p.a., the fast track forward, so they can get the trans-pacific partnership down the road. but, mr. president no matter which side of the t.p.p. debate, no matter which side of the trade promotion authority t.p.a. fast-track, no matter which side you're on, it's clear that our trade policy creates winners and losers. i mean, it's clear. even -- even the most vigorous cheerleaders for free trade "the wall street journal" editorial board, for instance,
even the most strongest free traders, even though people that just reflexively support these free trade agreements, even they acknowledge there are winners and losers. they will grew that these trade agreements create more jobs than they lose. i don't agree with that. they argue that, put that aside. but they also acknowledge that people lose jobs because of decisions we make. so mr. president, we are about to pass fast-track here, we are about to pass trade promotion authority, leading to probably the trans-pacific partnership having a reasonable chance of passage. we are about to do that. we are making that decision here. members of congress, people with -- that get -- are well paid with government financed retirements and health care, we are about to make those decisions, and we know -- we're knowingly making that decision, acknowledging that some people will lose their jobs because of a decision we make, but we're not going to take care of those workers. we're going to pass today -- we're going to pass the t.p.a.,
the trade promotion authority slash fast-track, we're going to pass that and just ignore those workers. how shameful is that that we know the decisions we are making in this body, we are making the decisions. the president of the united states makes this decision, the house of representatives has made this decision, the senate's about to make this decision. we're making this decision knowing people will lose their jobs because of our actions yet we're unwilling to pass -- to provide for those workers that lose their jobs. let me give a little history. a special message to congress. in january of 1962, president kennedy said when considerations of national policy make it desirable to avoid higher tariffs, those injured by that competition should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact. rather, the burden of economic adjustment should be borne in part by the federal government. that's president kennedy at the advent at the beginning at the creation of the trade adjustment
assistance. the support for workers who lose their jobs because of -- again i repeat, because of decisions we make in this body, in the house of representatives, in the whitehouse we make decisions on trade. we know people will lose their jobs. we should help them. it should be our moral responsibility to help them. senator vance hartney of indiana said no small number of groups should be made to bear the full burden of a program whose great benefits enrich the nation as a whole. this is as true today as it was 53 years ago. it's not a democratic idea, it's not a republican idea. everyone from the kato institute, a libertarian oriented think tank in washington a bunch of well-paid scholars make pronouncements from on high about various kinds of public policy issues, to the "wall street journal," a similar body but one with greater ability to disseminate information. even those two venerable institutions admit that trade agreements do not create winners
everywhere. a cato institute trade briefing says all those job losses are a painful but necessary part of the larger process of innovation and productivity increases. i'm always a bit amused when people who again well educated, good pay dress like this good benefits, good retirement, good health care, they make pronunciations saying well job losses are painful. not to us, of course. the same as editorial writers who make these decisions pronouncements on trade. they're not losing their jobs. people in my state are losing their jobs with these trade agreements. we'll inflict this pain. we here as the cato institute says as "the wall street journal" says, by decisions we make we're going to inflict pain on these workers. people are going to lose jobs in my town of mansfield ohio, people are going to lose jobs where i grew up. people are going to lose jobs in cleveland where i live now. people are going to lose jobs in zanesville and newark, because of decisions we make today on fast-track because of decisions
we'll make next year on the trans-pacific partnership. people are going to lose their jobs but we're going to vote today to cut off debate and we're going to forget, at least temporarily, about helping those workers that lose jobs because of decisions we make? how immoral is that, how shameful is that? what a betrayal of those workers, what a betrayal we are inflicting on those workers if we make this decision today. former "wall street journal" editorial -- economics editorial david russell writes even free trade's most fervent admirers concede trade creates winners and losers. i'll debate until the cows come home the net benefits of these trade agreements. i think they're net job loss. but even if you concede that -- even if you believe that these trade agreements are net job gainers -- i don't think there is a lot of evidence for that, but even if you believe that, we know that people lose their jobs because of decisions we make. that's why republicans in the past have supported trade
adjustment assistance in principle and in policy, going back decades. 15 years ago president george w. bush said i recognize some american workers may face adjustment challenges -- that means they get thrown out of work. it's a nice way that a president might talk about people that he has left behind, but put that aside. i recognize that some american workers may face adjustment challenges as a result of trade but at least to president bush's credit, i wish his words would be followed today on this floor by the majority leader, by republican leader commonly as he cuts off debate and leaves behind trade adjustment assistance. president bush said i support helping these workers by reauthorizing and improving trade adjustment assistance, programs that will give workers impacted by trade new skills, helping them to find new jobs quickly, providing them with financial assistance. and i can give lots of stories of people i know in youngstown and people i know in dayton and people in lima and portsmouth who have lost their jobs because
of trade but at least they have gotten a helping hand from a government that used to have their backs and believe in them, at least until today from a government that actually will extend that hand and help them retrain. maybe they can become a nurse maybe they can work in information technology, maybe they can become a radiology technology gist at the local -- technologist at the local hospital. later on this year, my colleague john cornyn and assistant republican leader, told reporters there is no doubt that the benefits of more trade do not fall uniformly. there are some segments of the economy that don't prosper as well. we know that. we've seen that acknowledgment across the board. yet today leader commonly is going -- leader mcconnell is going to cut off debate even though decisions we've made have cost people their jobs. that's why we have a moral obligation. it's not a new idea, it's not a partisan idea. it's universally accepted. trade deals don't benefit everybody. that's why this moral obligation to include trade adjustment assistance in any package with
t.p.a. is so important. we can't send the extraneous material work for a new trade deal to the president's desk without assistance for the workers who will be left behind. but that's not what we're doing today. today it's full speed ahead cut off debate, move ahead on fast-track move ahead on trade promotion authority. i assume a number of my democratic colleagues are going along with it. i hope that the wrath of people in this country, if the house and senate refuse to do what some of their leaders say they will that they will pass trade adjustment assistance, that they will take care of those workers. if they don't live up to that promise and many times in the past they haven't lived up to similar promises, a lot of my colleagues are going to go home and they will face people who say wait, you made a decision. i got thrown out of a job because of a decision you made, because of a decision you made as a house member, because of a decision you made as a senator because of a decision you made, mr. president, i was thrown out of work and you passed on june june 23 or whatever today is, you passed fast-track without taking care of me even though it
was your decision that i lose my job. i mean, what kind of government, what kind of principles do we live under here? in march conservative columnist charles krauthammer wrote in "national review" online to be sure any trade deal while a net plus overall produces winners and losers, but the t.p.a. will be -- the t.p.p. will be accompanied by so-called trade adjustment assistance. again, krauthammer as he is about 95% of the time is wrong. he is wrong that it is going to be accompanied by trade adjustment assistance. the assumption all along even among t.p.p. proponents has been the t.p.a. would be passed in tandem with aid for workers. you know, even though that's what we did first here, republicans in the house of representatives are unwilling to vote for them together. they're just not going to vote, so speaker boehner with -- for some reason the acquiescence the president of the united states, pulled them apart and had separate votes. think about the message we'll send. if we put another huge trade
deal -- parenthetically. once majority leader, republican leader trent lott said you can't pass a trade agreement in an even-numbered year. do you know why he said that? he said that because people don't like trade deals in this country. people know that nafta sold them out, they know that cafta sold them out they know pntr with china sold them out korea sold them out. we've heard this over and over. nafta we were promised 200,000 jobs in two years, thank you president bush the first, thank you president clinton for that. we lost 680,000 net jobs. the central american free trade agreement, thank you president bush the second for that. promises were made, big promises about about job increases big promises about wages going up. it didn't happen. wages stayed flat, jobs were lost. thank you president bush the second for that. korea, south korea free trade agreement. negotiated in part by president bush pushed through the senate by pom, thank you mr. president, of both parties for that. they told us 70,000 jobs would be created out of the south
korean trade agreement. nope we've lost 75,000 jobs. using the same formula that -- we have seen this over and over. we know what happens. the bureau of labor statistics reported that between 2009 and 2012 two-thirds of displaced workers, manufacturing workers who did find new jobs ended up taking lower paid jobs. most of those workers saw wage losses of more than 20%. you can debate whether the gains others experience make these losses worth it. i don't think they do. i think if you have traveled darn near anywhere, if members of congress would spend a little more time with people that can't contribute to them, with people that don't belong to the local rotary club, with people that might just work hard, play by the rules not make a lot of money, barely make it, sometimes have their house foreclosed on, sometimes lose their jobs, we'd spend a little more time with people like that, i think we'd see how these trade agreements are working.
there is a debate to be had. i will cede that it's debatable whether these trade agreements -- whether the evidence is that they create jobs or lose jobs. i think it's pretty clear they lose jobs, but there is no debate, there is no debate on what is -- what actually happens here, that because of decisions i'll repeat before this vote coming up in about 60 seconds because of decisions we make -- again, because of decisions we make in this body, the president makes, senators make, congressmen and women make, because of decisions we make in this body, people in our states, whether it's arkansas or arizona or oregon or utah or my state of ohio people lose jobs because of decisions we make. there is no question people lose jobs because of decisions we make. so our answer, anything short of providing for those workers who lose their jobs today -- not doing this on a promise. we are basically trusting the majority leader who doesn't really like, i understand,
doesn't much like the trade adjustment assistance program. we are relying on the word of speaker boehner who doesn't particularly like trade adjustment assistance. we know that most of the members of his party in the house of representatives don't particularly like trade adjustment assistance. so we are going to rely on their promise -- we are voting today on the fly. we are saying to workers in this country, yeah, we've made decisions that may have cost you jobs. we're going to try to help you when you lose that job but we're still going to go ahead today and do that. that's why i ask my colleagues to vote no on this motion today to invoke cloture on trade promotion authority. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 2146 to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, and so forth and for other purposes signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that the debate on the motion to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 2146 shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.
vote: the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 60, the nays are 37. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report. the clerk: house message to accompany h.r. 2146 an act to amend internal revenue code of 19 6 and so forth. the presiding officer: cloture having been invoked the motion to refer falls. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: could we have
order in the senate. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i'd just like to announce that senator corker was inadvertently detained in getting to the floor of the senate. had he been here he would have voted aye on the cloture motion. i want to say to our colleagues this this is a very important day for our country. we've demonstrated we can work together on a bipartisan basis to achieve something that is extremely important for america. not only when we confirm this trade promotion authority will we have the mechanism in place for the president to finalize an extraordinarily important deal with a number of different asian countries, it will indicate that america is back in the trade business, it will also send a message to our allies
that we understand there's somewhat wary about chinese commercial and potentially military domination and that we intend to still be deeply involved in the pacific. so i want to congratulate senator hatch, senator wyden. this has been a long and rather twisted path to where we are today, but it's are a very, very important accomplishment for the country. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i would like to mention that the other two absences senator menendez had voted no on cloture before, senator lee had voted no on cloture before so the vote would have been 61-39. more importantly is this is a day of celebration in the corporate suites to be sure because they have another corporate-sponsored trade agreement that will mean more money in some investors' pockets, that will mean more plant closings in ohio and
arizona and delaware and rhode island and west virginia and maine and all over this country. and most importantly mr. president, what i didn't understand about the vote today is that we even though -- even though "the wall street journal," the cato institute and others acknowledge that decisions we make here on trade agreements while they say it's a net increase in jobs, they also acknowledge that people lose their jobs because of decisions we make. so we make decisions here today that throw people out of work we know that, across the political spectrum that's acknowledged but we today don't do anything to help those workers that lose their jobs so we make a decision to throw people in mansfield ohio and cleveland, ohio out of work but then we don't take care of those workers that lost their jobs because of our decisions. it's shameful, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: let me just concur with the senator from ohio. this trade agreement was
supposed by -- supported by virtually every major corporation in the country the vast majority of whom have outsourced millions of jobs to low-wage countries all over the world. this trade agreement is supported by wall street, by the pharmaceutical industry who want to charge people in poor countries higher prices for the medicine they desperately need. this agreement was opposed by every union in this country working for the best interests of working families by almost every environmental group and many religious groups. in my view this trade agreement will continue the policies of nafta cafta permanent normal trade relations with china, agreements that have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs. we need a new trade policy in america, a policy that represents working families and not just the big money interests i strongly disagree with the majority leader who called this a great day for america.
it is not a great day. it's a great day for the big money interests, it is not a great day for working families. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president i would also ask unanimous consent that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. today for the weekly conference meetings and also from 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. today for an all-senators briefing and that all the time in recess count postcloture. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president there's no secret that republicans on this side of the aisle don't agree with president obama about everything. in fact, i would say on
balance, most republicans disagree with the policy choices made by this president. but occasionally, occasionally even the leader of the democratic party, the president of the united states, gets things right. the presiding officer: could we have order in the senate. the majority whip. mr. cornyn: occasionally the president of the united states gets his policy choices right. and he did when it comes to trade promotion authority which i would point out to our friends and anybody listening that this actually is a six-year trade promotion authority. this extends well beyond the current occupants of the white house's tenure and will be available for the next president of the united states to negotiate trade deals that are in the best interests of the united states. so i agree with the majority
leader, this latest vote is just another example of the senate getting back to work and restored to regular working order. this is a dramatic departure from the old senate, bus there's actually been a lot of time for consideration of important pieces of legislation from the iran nuclear agreement review act to the justice for victims of trafficking act to the budget. and now by moving this trade promotion authority bill forward, we can ensure that american workers and businesses get the best deal in pending trade agreements with countries from asian to south america to europe. so i believe we've actually kept the campaign promises we made last year that if the american people entrusted the republicans with the new majority, we would work together with our allies where we could on the other side of the aisle where we have
common cause to deliver results for the american people. to legislate in their best interest not just obstruct for obstruction's sake or to gain some temporary tactical or political advantage but to promote a functioning deliberative united states senate. i see one of the leaders of this effort, the senator from delaware who has done great work trying to find that common cause and producing a result as exemplified by the t.p.a. and i'm going to yield to him in just a moment but let me just talk briefly about my response to the senator from vermont and the senator from ohio that said there's nothing good to be had out of this trade promotion authority or any potential trade deals that we might negotiate. my home state of texas relies heavily on international trade
and we are the number-one trading state in the nation, which is just one reason why our economy grew at the rate of 5.2% in 2014. our economy in texas grew at the rate of 5.2% in 2014. you know what the united states' economy grew, hows fast it grew? 2.2%. so why would we want to do anything and everything we can to stimulate the growth of the economy to benefit people looking for work and people looking for higher wages? this important trade promotion authority is the first step to doing that. mr. president, i will just conclude because the distinguished senator from delaware is here and others want to speak, trade is an engine of growth it keeps our economy going and these upcoming trade
agreements whether it's the trans-pacific partnership or the trans-atlantic trade and secret. treaty serve as an opportunity to turbo charge that growth. our economy actually contracted last quarter by .7%. as long as our economy is shrinking and not growing we're not going to be able to create the jobs to put america back to work. we're not going to be able to create the sorts of wages that we want for all working americans. and so this legislation represents an important step in that direction and i am glad that in the exercise of a little mutual trust and comity that we have reached this important point. we're not through yet because there are other parts of this trade package that we're going to need to process this week but the promise and commitment we
made on this side of the aisle said if our colleagues across the aisle trust us to move through the trade promotion authority bill, we will continue to work with them and keep our commitments to them and hopefully more than just the trust that produces these pieces of legislation will result from this increased confidence and trust in one another. we know we're going to find things we disagree on and we'll fight like cats and dogs when we need to, but when we actually agree on the policy and can find it within ourselves to work together, the american people are the beneficiaries. i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: while the senator from texas is still on the floor let me say if i could he mentioned the word trust a number of times. it's an important word around here. one of my favorite savings integrity if you matter,if if you don't have it,if nothing else matters. s there a lot we need to get
done everybody realizes that. my takeaway from the election was threefold. people want us to work together get stuff done and want us to get things done that strengthen the economic recovery. one of the ways you strengthen the economic recovery frankly is making sure those markets overseas will allow us to sell into them whether it's products or goods or services, that we have access to those markets. the other thing is my colleague from texas is a big believer, as am i, in the golden rule. that is to treat other people the way we want to be treated. for most people, i think for our country, most of the people in this country actually support what we're doing. most of the democrats in our country support what their president has proposed, and the republicans as well. but what -- what we need to do while we move forward with trade promotion authority we need to keep in mind not everybody will be helped by this, there will be some people that will be disadvantaged.
we have an obligation to them, how would we want to be treated if we were in their shoes. there is a sister piece of legislation to go along with trade promotion authority. i would just ask the republican whip from texas just to give us some assurance or reassurance to build trust around this issue when we're contacted by folks around the country today or tomorrow or the next day, what are we going to do to provide assistance to those people who may be disadvantaged because of trade promotion authority and the trade deal that's going to be negotiated? can you give us some assurance there? is this the end of the road or are there some more pieces to follow this week? mr. cornyn: mr. president? mr. president, i would respond to the question by our colleague from delaware that assurances have been given that we understand that trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance travel together. and i think we have seen examples of where the benefits of trade are not uniformly felt
across the country. there are some people who -- who will be displaced but the importance of trade adjustment assistance i wish we could negotiate something a little more frugal that would actually get the job done, but negotiation took place between chairman ryan in the house and -- and the ranking member, senator wyden in the senate on this important piece of the package. we all recognize that these travel in pairs and that trade adjustment assistance is part of the price you pay for getting trade promotion authority done. but most importantly to my colleague's point from delaware, for those people who are displaced, this guarantees that they will have access to the sort of job training and skills enhancement that they need in order to get even better jobs in this economy that on net will benefit the entire country. so that's the intent on this
side of the aisle and i think the tenth of -- intent of trade adjustment assistance and making sure that we finish our work, not here today but through the rest of the week on this important package of pieces of legislation. mr. carper: mr. president reclaiming my time, i want to thank our republican whip for those words for his work on this. i would just close with this thought. whenever i talk to people that have been married a long time, like 50, 60, 70 years i always ask them what's the secret to being married a long time. i get some really funny answers and some poignant ones as well. the best answer i have heard to that question was the two c's the two c's. not cornyn and carper, but the two c's -- communicate and compromise. and i would add maybe a third to that and that's collaborate collaborate. we need to demonstrate the ability to communicate and to compromise and to collaborate. those are not only the secrets to a vibrant marriage but the
secrets to a vibrant democracy. this is a confidence-building measure. we have taken i think an important step here. working with democrats and republicans, working with the democratic president. and the next step is one we have just talked about, trade adjustment assistance. we need to do that. if we can actually work through these issues this week and produce a -- a bipartisan product the president's going to sign, we will actually build some trust. and when we turn to the issue of transportation having a robust, vibrant transportation system, how to fund it, pay for that, what to do, this will be helpful. it applies to senator wyden senator murray on our side, senator hatch and the leader on the republican side and to senator cornyn for good work not done but a very good start today. thank you very much, and i yield back. thank you. mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. politburo manchin: i have the utmost respect for my colleagues. i think they make compelling arguments. i just really have a hard time with this. i have not had one west
virginian, average working west virginian who had a good job at one time and have lost a job that thinks that this type of approach to trade is good, not one. and i'm hearing talking about how much trade we do from our states. i would like to have known what type of trade, manufactured products. i don't see many manufactured products leaving this country. i see an awful lot of resources such as oil that had been refined into diesel fuel or gasoline. probably comes from texas i would say. that that's probably a big part of their trading and those types of things. but how many people actually benefit from that that really have a good manufacturing job? that's all i have asked. we talked about t.a.a. we're all hung up on t.a.a. do you know why we're hung up? because we all understand we're going to lose more jobs. we've already lost six million jobs since nafta. we've all lost six million jobs across this country. i lost 31,000 manufacturing jobs. i understand nafta hasn't been
enforced. they had some rules in there. you know, then you take this piece of legislation t.p.a., there was more security around this piece of legislation than there was the iran-contra nuclear deal, the iran nuclear deal that we were talking about. my staff could go there they could take notes we got briefed, we were able to ask questions. we couldn't even take a note or take a note out. and they're telling me, well, you know we all depend on trade and the market's shrinking. we're at $18 trillion g.d.p. think about this. we in the united states of america have the greatest economy the world's ever seen. $18 trillion. you know of all these 11 countries we're talking about the closest one to us? japan. four and a half. falls off the richter scale. but yet we have to be very secretive because somebody might leave us. i have been a businessperson all my life. if i wanted to get into a market i'll assure you i would be able to -- to evaluate my competition, the people i want
to do business with. if that was a big person on the block, i had to make more adjustments than they had to make. yet we're so concerned about the secrecy of this deal that none of us could be able to see it, work it, define it, dissect it and improve upon it. now we're just voting, basically carte blanche saying you'll get a 60-day review, can't do anything about it if you don't like it. can't do a thing about it if you don't like it. i didn't think we were elected to do that, i really didn't. when you start looking at everything that this stands for and you look at basically -- and my father, we were -- we had a grocery store my grandfather had a grocery store. my dad had fawrnt store. i was raised in retail. one thing my dad always encouraged is competition. he said joe listen, good competition brings out more buyers. more buyers gives us more of a chance to sell our goods. what he never did like and what he thought was unfair is when you had unfair competition didn't pay their taxes didn't live by the rules or play by the
rules, and if we didn't enforce those, it gave them an unfair competitive advantage. now, if you believe our past performance and our trade deals make us an expert at enforcing and making sure people play by the rules so that america's treated right then you probably would have voted for this. i don't. and i can only judge off our past performance where we are today. when's the last time you've seen goods that you use every day when you go shop, for whatever type of good, household goods clothing goods, things of this sort? furniture, think about that. the greatest furniture markets in the world were in the united states. we make very little furniture in this country today. they still want our wood products, so you know what? yeah we ship logs out of west virginia around the world so people can make the furniture that they want to send back to america. so i guess you say oh, yeah, that's a good trade. the only reason they are buying our logs is because they don't have the quality logs we have, they don't have the quality
hardwood forests. we sent our coal, the best coal in the world the best metallurgical coal that makes the steel comes out of west virginia. sure they're going to buy it because they don't have it. they're going to make their products and send them back to us and come into these markets subsidized. i just sooner or later we ought to do something for america. you've got to rebuild this country. and you don't build the wealth of a country based on basically moving paper back and forth. moving paper back and forth there are some people that the wealth that they accrue from this i'm sure that they are very satisfied and happy with that. and we see the income inequality over the last 20 years. we have never seen this big of a spread never. and you see the flatline of workers all over america just as flatline as can be. i don't know how we can look them in the eye and say we have done the best because now we have opened up 11 new countries. vietnam, 58 cents an hour is what they're going to pay their
workers. and we said whoa, whoa, nafta is going to be basically bringing the whole north american trade up to par. 22 years later i understand that mexico's minimum wage is still under a dollar an hour, around 80 cents. now, if you think a person that makes 58 cents an hour or 80 cents an hour or $1.50 an hour or seven of 11 countries make less than $2 that those people will have disposable income to buy the products that we would like to sell so we can expand our economy and our jobs, i'm sorry, i don't think that's going to happen. i really don't. i can't -- it doesn't make any sense to me at all how we expect a person that can barely survive, that they're going to have disposable income to buy products that we in the united states of america wish to sell to -- really to lift up our manufacturing base. but i guess that's why we have
t.a.a. that we're arguing about because we know we've given that up. we just about wrote that off 22 years ago so i guess we're going to write the rest of it off now. technology is great. i'm all your innovation, creation technology. i'm for every bit of that. but sooner or later you've got to make something. you've got to build something. you've got to reinvest. and there has to be people with their hands making these products being able to support their family, have a benefit package that gives them a decent life. growing up, when i was growing up in a little farm in west virginia we had manufacturing mining, we had people who cooking to work, work -- could go to work, work hard, take their family on vacation, pay their bills. we have let all that slip away from us. we could have the jobs of the future still manufacturing. so i'm not willing to give up on this mr. president. you know, i don't -- you don't
find me up here chastising my colleagues on the republican side or my colleagues on the democrat side. i think we're all here for the right reason. sometimes we get a little bit off track. and i think this is one time we have gotten off track something that would really help the united states of america working families all over this country we've kind of forgotten about. and i'm concerned about that. i'm concerned about going back home to my beautiful state of west virginia and telling the people i'm sorry we're going to have a harvarder time competing with some of these countries because there is just no way. what we have done, we have opened up our borders. we have let international trade international modifying base go wherever they get the best deal. i guarantee you in a developing country, they are not going to be as tough as we are in human rights on environmental quality that they should be aspiring to. they're not going to be tough on those things. they're trying to build an economy. they're trying to build basically a nation, bring it up. they're going to be a little bit lax on these things.
that's unfair competition which my dad always warned me against. now, when we talk about european trade, i'm not worried about european trade because they are basically on the same level playing field that we are. but when you're trying to build a country up, should you sacrifice and tear your country down? should you give away everything that we have worked hard for and built? because i want to help these countries. i have not a bit of problem helping the countries. i am not an isolationist. but i basically would have put something in there that would have protected our manufacturing base. i would have put a thing that when we fell below certain jobs in manufacturing it stopped. you don't give it all away because it's hard to regain that and recapture it back. i'm sure wall street is very happy today. i have a lot of friends that work on wall street. there is a lot of good people that work on wall street, but there is a lot of people basically that just are driven by the almighty dollar. they are not driven by main street. they are not worried about west virginia, not worried about my town of farmington or any part of my state and they're going
to be very happy. they are not worried about 99% of the people still on main street trying to survive. you know, we talked about export-import bank. they said trust us, we'll get a vote on export-import bank. maybe we will some time. i hope that comes to fruition. but that helped an awful lot of small businesses. we haven't gotten that vote yet. so you would have thought that would have been a priority to get a vote on that. it's done an awful lot and gets us in the markets that we can compete on a more level playing field. that hasn't happened. but here we go again. we're going to have some votes tomorrow. and these votes tomorrow are going to be based on the t.a.a. because the house couldn't -- couldn't pass t.p.a., task with t.a.a. in it. -- fast-track with t.a.a. in it. it's basically what we're dealing with. so they think we can do a back door -- what makes you think t.a.a. would be acceptable any way, shape or form in the house? what makes you think now since we have carved this out and we have promised a vote over here on t.a.a., which we know we're
going to need, is going to make it more acceptable on the house side when they made them take t.a.a. out and couldn't pass t.a.a. in the t.p.a. bill? it doesn't make any sense to me. so i think it's a sad day today i really do, and i'm concerned. i'm concerned about our country. i'm concerned about my hardworking people in west virginia. i know you are and all the other states that we have. these are good people and deserve a fair trade. they deserve a fair trading country. people that will trade honestly with us, that have integrity to stand up to, and we shouldn't sacrifice them to build them up. we'll have to assist them but they'll have to find their own markets to the point we don't sacrifice. i'm to the point this could be a troubling thing i'm hoping it's not but it could be. i have concerns, and i've said this -- if i