tv House Session CSPAN April 21, 2015 8:00pm-9:01pm EDT
after the battle of san jacinto, you can see what modern day texas looks like right through here. this area. texas not only claimed what is now modern day texas but claimed parts of oklahoma new mexico colorado, kansas, and all the way up to wyoming. this was the republic of texas. in april of 1836. this land was all claimed by texas. texas established a constitution. it became an independent free nation that lasted for nine years. sam houston was the president of the republic of texas a got elected twice to the republic of texas.
the republic of texas lasted for nine years. and then the majority of texans wanted to join the united states. i9 was not an easy task. many people didn't want people to get texas. it was a treaty. united states is a country and texas would come in as a state as we know. those folks down the hall in the senate, takes 2/3. 2/3 of the state would not have approved texas. how did texas become part of the union? they changed it. it takes the majority of the vote. majority of the vote passed. texas became into the when a
louisiana changed changed his vote and texas came in. the republic of texas was no more and became a state in the union in 1846, 185, december of 185. when it came into the union. texas was allowed to same the height at the united states flag. texas was allowed to allowed to divide into five states. we aren't going to do that. so we aren't going to divide the five states. we have the right to decide and decide into five states. going back into texas what
happened to this land? texas had this debt. and to pay off its debt sold this land to the federal government and wiped the slate clean and texas looks like what we know it looks like. and went to the union. i mentioned and talked about the san jacinto bay not so much because it's really san jacinto bay but about the people who were there 179 years ago. i mentioned, they were all types of folks. but they are similar to our ancestors in the sole anyal days who said no. they weren't going to tolerate. we still have oppression
throughout the world that governments military dick dateors oppressing their people. they would like to be free and independent, but they're not. and those folks back in 1836 made a decision that it was more important to them to be free than it was to be safe, secure, in their own personal life. so they were willing to give their lives for freedom. it's not a trite statement. we have had people from all over the united states that have done that, have fought for america, for freedom and for other people to sacrifice their lives so other people can enjoy that word that most people have never enjoyed, freedom and liberty.
and when a dictator shows up, some people have the ability to step up and say, we aren't going to take it. i will give up my life so there can be a free nation. soy we are grateful for those folks in 1836 and the ones at the alamo and the ones that fought and lived, sacrificed their land, to make sure that freedom rings in our state. text abs are proud of their history. and i learned about texas, san jacinto bay and texas history. kids have to take texas history
twice fourth grade and seff vent zpwrade. our history is different than the 13th colony history. it was from a mexican dictator and we appreciate those folks sam houston davey crockett, jim bowii those men and women who sacrificed their well-being so we could be an independent nation. that tyrants will not rule. they will not be successful and they will be geeted and we should admire people. we do in the house of representatives. we have had people like that in all of our history. that makes us a unique nation.
we could go back to the american independence and trace it back and the united states was at war and in fighting for our liberty. and we thank those people. we are still involved in war throughout the world today people fighting for america. we are grateful for them and we are grateful for those folks, sam houston and all of those boys of summer boys of spring that fought at the battle of san jacinto. we have seen the washington monument. come to the battle, it has a big star on it and taller because it's in texas. as a side note, the texas
monument is bigger than this capitol. we honor them on san jacinto day. kids don't get out of school. but it is my mother's birthday and i don't know if she is watching or not but celebrating her birthday down in texas. on behalf of those of us here we commend those folks at the battle of san jacinto a wish my mom a happy birthday on april 21 2015. and that's the way it is and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the
>> the house of representatives today approved legislation encouraging energy efficiency in an open thing that federal buildings. often has debated legislation to create three committees led by the consumer financial protection bureau on the financial products of small businesses, credit unions, and small banks. democrats are against that bill because it would reduce funding for the consumer financial protection bureau. tomorrow and thursday, the house debates to cyber security bureaus -- bills. one provides company liability can -- protections. the other we designate how the homeland security department should handle cyber threat information from those private companies. the associated press writing this evening, the justice department announced today it has launched it utterly civil rights in addition into the death of freddy gray, a black
man who died of spinal injuries he suffered after his arrest earlier this month in baltimore. investigators will be looking for evidence that the arresting officer willfully violated his rights by using unreasonable force. the incident, one of several around the country recently, involving reports of police brutality and mistreatment of blacks, c-span talks about excessive force and corruption in one of the leaders of civil rights investigation, baltimore police commissioner. here is a look. >> i need it very clear to my police officers from day one. i say the same thing, if you do a good job at there, and you make of mistake, -- make a mistake, i will back you and support you. if it takes losing my job, i will do that. at the same time if you go hurt the community, do something corrupt, i will hold you accountable.
i will be the first one to bury you under the present. i make it very clear i will stand with them as they get their job done, but i will not stand for them being unconstitutional or hurting the community. >> differing views on a trade promotion authority bill pending trade agreements from u.s. chamber president thomas donohue. bipartisan legislation was introduced leslie congressional leaders. -- last week by congressional leaders. fifth senate finance hearing leads up to committee action of the legislation wednesday. from capitol hill, it is two hours.
our intention is to mark up the t.p.a. and related bills later this week. this legislation is a long time coming. t.p.a. expired in 2007. while talks with various trade agreements have gone on since that time without t.p.a. in effect, our neighbors and negotiators have been effectively negotiating with one hand tied behind their backs because they have not been able to assure that the deal they signed is the one congress will vote on in the end. our legislation will fix that. i want to thank ranking member wyden for his senator and -- support and assistance thus far and also congressman ryan. we got a long way to go but working together i'm confident we can get there. now, some expressed concerns about the process by which we're moving this bill forward. for example, i've heard arguments that we're moving too quickly without adequate discussion or examination.
those concerns are, in my view very unfounded. first of all, the bill on which our current t.p.a. legislation was based was first introduced in january of 2014. almost a year and a half ago. and since that time it's been available for examination, dissection, discussion and comment. thousands of organizations have weighed in on the merits of that bill, including business organizations, organized labor think tanks and advocacy groups. many members of congress are on record either praising or criticizing that bill. officials in the obama administration expressed their support for it. true enough in our discussions senator wyden, chairman ryan and i made some improvements of that original bill but the fundamentals remain the same and we've been very transparent as to what the changes really have been. second, in the 113th congress, the finance committee held nine hearings on trade and t.p.a. was wrote up in virtually every one of them.
i know this because more often than not i was the one bringing it up. one of those hearings was devoted specifically and entirely to t.p.a. and included the testimony of witnesses across the spectrum, including one representing organized labor as well. finally, since the 114th congress convened just about four months ago, this committee has had three hearings in which trade and t.p.a. was a major topic of discussion. today's hearing is the fourth. in other words, this is a well-covered territory for this committee. so while i understand and respect there are sincerely held views on this topic, some of which are different than mine, any arguments that we have been less than forthcoming and transparent with this t.p.a. legislation are to put -- to fine point on it nonsense. i've been in the senate a long time and i think i'm generally considered to be pretty reasonable. i'm certainly willing to listen to and consider any genuine concerns that some may have about process. i want all sides to be heard.
i want to have a fair and open debate. that's why we're having this additional hearing. by all means, we should have a frank enough discussion about these issues and i hope we will continue to do so today. but let's not dress opposition to t.p.a. is concern about -- as concerns about process. during the hearing last week i made two assertions about trade. i stated plainly that u.s. trade with foreign countries is a good thing. and i said that t.p.a. is the best tool congress has in its arsenal to help influence and facilitate trade. those are pretty fundamental assertions and at the end of the day, people are either going to agree with them or they won't. now, more hearings and weeks of additional delays won't change many minds one way or the other on these essential issues. with that in mind i welcome today's hearings. like i said, we have a very distinguished panel of witnesses. it doesn't get more distinguished than these two gentlemen who are before us today. and i think they will speak to
the heart of these matters. i look forward to a spirited discussion. for my part i want to make clear if it's not clear enough already that i believe congress should be working hand in hand with the administration to break down barriers to foreign markets in order to give our businesses and job creators a chance to compete in the global marketplace. the united states should be a leader in international trade. we should be setting the standards and making the rules. we simply cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and let other countries dictate where the world goes on trade. trade is an essential element of the healthy economy. we should be doing all we can to advance the trade agenda that works for america and advances our interest on the world stage. i might add this trade agreement will cover 11 nations in the trans-pacific partnership plus ours and 28 different nations in the ttip european partnership plus ours. so it involves high percentage
of trade throughout the world and it puts us in a position to be able to do a good job with regard to trade and to advance our country in many ways we will not be able to do without this agreement. now, that's where we are. i'll stop right there. senator wyden. senator wyden: mr. chairman, colleagues, normally i'd make an opening statement the focus of which would be to lay out the significant differences between this bill and the trade bills of the 1990's. and under normal circumstances i would detail that before the committee at this time. given the interest, however, with colleagues on the committee and engaging with our two witnesses -- and we thank them both, mr. trumka and mr. donohue. i visited with a number of the members of the chamber and the interest of my colleagues who
are here to ask questions, i will fore bear any further statement at this time, mr. chairman. senator hatch: thank you, senator wyden. our first witness is thomas j. donohue, the president and c.e.o. of the u.s. chamber of commerce, the largest business organization in the world. representing the interest of more than three million businesses across various sectors and industries. he's held this position at the u.s. chamber since 1997. we've had a lot of experience working together. prior that i served as president and c.e.o. of the american trucking association for 13 years. earlier in his career he served as a deputy assistant postmaster general of the united states and vice president of development at fairfield university. mr. donohue seached a bachelor's degree from st. john's bifert -- university and an mba from a
delphi university. so we welcome you, mr. donohue to the finance committee. we're honored to have you here. we appreciate your willingness to be here today. our second witness today on this panel is richard l. trumka. he's president of the 12.5 million member american federation of labor and congress of industrial nations or the afl-cio. the largest organization of labor unions in the country. he's held this position since 2009. i might add that this organization is -- has an effect for the american citizens all over the world. one of my closest friends is the international vice president of the afl-cio. he's since passed away. what a great leader he was in this world. prior to 2009, mr. trumka served for 15 years as the afl-cio secretary treasurer. from 1982 to 1995, he was president of the united mine workers.
mr. trumka has a bachelor's degree from penn state university and a degree from villanova. he's a tough guy and somebody i have a lot of respect for. these are two -- these are the two top people in this country as far as i'm concerned to appear at this hearing. they're widely divergent views, perhaps, but we need to listen to both of them. i want to thank you, mr. trumka and mr. donohue. welcome to the senate finance committee and hopefully it won't be the last time you come before this committee. so with that we'll turn to you mr. donohue. you'll be the first witness. mr. donohue: thank you very much, chairman hatch, ranking member wyden and distinguished members of the committee. as you now know, i'm tom donohue and i'm president and c.e.o. of the chamber of commerce of the united states. i'm really pleased to testify today on behalf of our three million small and medium-sized
businesses, state and local chambers of commerce as well as large companies that are members of the chamber and national federation. i'm also pleased to be here with my friend, rich trumka. we appear quite often together on matters of immigration, infrastructure and a whole lot of things we agree on. when we retire we'll get a mike and ike show and go on the road. we think we can make a good deal out of it. the chamber strongly supports the bipartisan congressional trade priorities and accountability act of 2015 which will renew trade promotion authority. t.p.a. is critical because economic growth and job creation at home depend on our ability to sell american goods and services abroad. after all, 95% of the world's consumers live outside the
borders of the united states. why does trade matter to our country? in a word, it comes down to american jobs. already one in four manufacturing jobs depends on exports and one in three acres of american farms is planted for consumers overseas. all told, nearly 40 million american jobs depend on trade. nearly 400,000 jobs in utah and a half a million jobs in oregon depend on trade, just to pick two states at random. \[laughter] these numbers could even be higher but unfortunately the playing field for trade isn't always level. while our market is generally open, u.s. exports face foreign tariffs and often soaring into double digits as well as a atlantic of nontariff thicket of -- as well as a thicket of
nontariff barriers. no one wants to go into a game many points behind before the tip-off but that's exactly what american exporters are doing every day. these barriers are particularly burdensome for america's small and medium-sized companies about 300,000 of which are exporters from the united states. the good news is that america's trade agreements do a great job leveling the playing field and the results include significantly higher exports and new and better jobs. the chamber analyzed these benefits in a recent report entitled "the open door of trade," which we'd like, mr. chairman, to enter into the record today. senator hatch: without objection, it will be entered. mr. donohue: here's some of the highlights of that study. america's 20 trade agreement partners represent just 6% of the world's population.
let me say that again. the 20 trade agreements we have around the world represent just 6% of the world's population. but buy nearly half of america's exports. by tearing down foreign barriers to u.s. exports, these agreements have proven an ability to make big markets even out of small economies. u.s. exports to new trade agreement partners have grown by an annual average of 18% in the five-year period following an agreement coming into force. that's much faster than we typically see in u.s. export growth to other countries. the increased trade brought about by these agreements supports more than five million american jobs, according to a study commissioned by the chamber. trade-related jobs also pay well. for instance, manufacturing jobs tied to exports pay wages that
average 18% higher than those that are not. the trade balance is a poor measure of whether or not your trade policy is successful, but we often hear the opponents of frayed arguments say they cause deficits. that couldn't be more incorrect. the united states -- i'm going to say this -- please listen. the united states has a trade surplus with the 20 trade agreement partners as a group. u.s. exports of manufactured goods to our trade agreement partners generate revenue of about $55,000 for each american factory worker. many manufacturers just couldn't make payroll without these export revenues. for american farmers and ranchers, the stakes are especially high. that's because foreign markets often slap the highest tariffs
on their products, and that's why our agricultural exports soared under our new trade agreements. u.s. service exports are also growing rapidly and supporting of high-wage jobs even though -- millions of high-wage jobs even though the potential for service industries to export is nearly untapped. but to get more of these benefits, congress must approve t.p.a. the united states is never entered into a major trade agreement without it. a simple foreign of t.p.a. was -- form of t.p.a. was first enacted in 1934, but the latest version expired in 2007. t.p.a. is based on the commonsense notion that congress and the white house must work together on trade agreements. t.p.a. is how congress sets priorities and holds the
administration accountable in trade negotiations. a few people have claimed this is a presidential power grab. i may be uniquely qualified to comment on this. after all, the chamber has not been shy about criticizing some actions of the administration when we see overreach. but t.p.a. isn't about congress ceding power to the president. on the contrary, t.p.a. strengthens the voice of the congress on trade. without t.p.a., the administration can pursue its own priorities at the negotiating table and consult with congress only when and if it chooses. t.p.a. lets congress set negotiation goals and sets forth detailed requirements for consultation between the trade negotiators and the congress.
and what should we do with t.p.a.? we should start by bringing several trade negotiations to a successful conclusion. the trans-pacific partnership agreement would open the asia pacific dynamic markets to american goods and services. it is critical that we do so because nations across the pacific are clinching their own trade agreements that exclude the united states, denying american exporters access to these very important markets. t.p.a. gives the united states a strong hand in writing the rules for trade for this important region. it makes us an active player not a bystander, stuck on the outside looking in. t.p.p. would affirm and deepen america's ties to asia at a time when there is a perception that we're pulling back. then there's the trans-atlantic trade and investment partnership
which would further remove barriers between the united states and europe. this agreement could not come at a better time. both america and europe are dealing with struggling economies, aging populations and new competition from emerging nations. the united states and the e.u. represents nearly half of the global economy. a relationship that huge eliminating the trade barriers could bring extraordinarily large benefits to both countries. according to a study by the atlantic council and the british embassy, the agreement would create 740,000 new jobs in america. the trade and services, which we haven't talked about enough, is another big opportunity. a free trade zone for services with 50 countries around the globe, this agreement plays to one of america's strengths.
u.s. service companies are among the most competitive in the globe. from the u.s. business community's perspective, the negotiating objectives laid out in the t.p.a. bill are balanced and ambitious. they reflect the evolution in u.s. trade agreements in recent years and include the best new ideas in trade policy. and the bill strikes just the right balance on intellectual property, which is the lifeblood of the u.s. economy. negotiating objectives had been modernized to reflect our changing economy with new provisions on digital trade and state-owned enterprises, for examples. importantly, the bill directs the u.s. trade negotiators to seek comprehensive agreements, avoiding exceptions or carveouts from those agreements, rules for any industry.
the chamber supports the t.p.a. bills' negotiating objectives on currency practices. it says that parties to a trade agreement should avoid manipulating exchange rates to gain an unfair advantage. i believe the u.s. should continue to press economies to press economies to adapt market-determined exchange rate systems that reflect economic fundamentals. in recent years, the g-7 and g-20 economies have affirmed that they will not target exchange rates or engage in competitive devaluations, but the notion that you can use trade policy tools to address monetary policy challenges causes concerns in many quarters. here's one, for example. it's not in the u.s. interest to
enter into an international agreement that would handcuff u.s. monetary policy and limit the flexibility of the federal reserve to respond to an economic crisis. the t.p.a.'s bills negotiating provision related to currency reflects a reasonable balance. senator hatch: mr. donohue, your time is up. can you wrap up real quickly? mr. donohue: oh, sure. i was going to go as long as i could. [laughter] because when i'm finished -- no thank you. in sum, this is a strong bipartisan bill. there's nothing fast about the matter in which it was done, as the chairman indicated. and given the careful balance in many areas, we urge all of the members to vote for this and get it through. to conclude, the united states cannot afford to sit on the sideline while others set the rules of trade, to create jobs
growth and prosperity, our children need us to set the agenda. two quick points. to open foreign markets to american-made goods and services, we need to renew t.p.a. then we got to use the legislation to get these trade agreements. those agreements now being negotiated are going to make a fundamental difference for this country. and with all our frayed agreements, old and new, we need -- trade agreements old and new, , we need to ensure they're enforced. mr. chairman, senator wyden, let me thank you for having us here. we'll now hear from the other side of the argument and then we can get down to a good discussion. senator hatch: thank you. we sure appreciate your testimony and we appreciate very much your being here. we'll allow you a little extra time if you need it too so we'll turn to you and hear your testimony. mr. trumka: thank you, mr. chairman. before i start my oral testimony, i'd like to submit for the record my full testimony.
senator hatch: without objection. richard trumka: tumtum and bipartisan letters signed by the house and the senate urging the administration to do something on currency manipulation. a g.a.o. report that says that the current labor standards need -- are weak and need to have more done with monitoring and enforcement of labor provisions. and an analysis of the hatch-wyden-ryan t.p.a. bill by ranking member sander levin. i'd like to have those submitted in the record. senator hatch: without objection, it will be -- plate in the record at this point. immediately following your remarks. mr. donohue: mr. chairman, there are few materials like my formal testimony. senator hatch: we'll put them all in the record. mr. trumka: i'd like to state, -- start mr. chairman, by , stipulating that tom donohue is an expert of presidents. he goes back to abe lincoln's days. [laughter]
i think he is ably qualified to be an expert on those presidents. i want to thank you, chairman hatch -- senator hatch: you're goings to have that white hair before it's all said and done. mr. trumka: i want to thank you, members of the committee, and tom donohue. for strengthening labor and environmental provisions, for reforming investment rules, for finding the appropriate balance and regulatory measures and intellectual property protections, for fair rules of origin and finally including meaningful currency provisions among many other issues. far from being opposed to trade on principle, we have supported trade deals when warranted. some examples would be the jordan trade agreement, the african growth and opportunity act, the generalized system of preferences and the re-authorization of the import-export bank.
key to reforming our trade policies we believe is abolishing the outdated, unaccountable and un-democratic fast track process. the trans-pacific partnership, now being negotiated by our government, includes 12 countries and about 40% of the world's g.d.p. and the t.p.p. is designed to be infinitely expandable. so it could be the last trade agreement we negotiate so it's especially crucial that we get the terms of this one right. and mr. chairman, the idea that fast track lets congress set the standards and goals for t.p.p. -- i'm not talking about other agreements but for t.p.p., is an absolute fiction. the agreement has been under negotiation for more than five years and is essentially
complete. so the instructions that you send them will have no affect whatsoever. congress cannot set meaningful negotiating objectives if the administration's already negotiated most of the key provisions. i might also add, this will be the worst possible time to pass fast track for t.p.p. because the leverage that you have left for those issues that are remaining is right now. and you give that away if you pass fast track legislation. congress will lose that crucial leverage over any remaining provisions by agreeing to fast track at this late day. the administration has ignored congress' direct instructions to negotiate meaningful currency provisions and to reform the flawed investor state dispute settlement process. granting fast track now takes congress out of the picture until the agreement is complete.
and while all fast track bills have gone through the charade of listing negotiatings' objectives, there have been no consequences when the administration willfully ignores or fails to achieve any or all of those objectives. america needs an entirely new trade negotiating authority, not minor tweaks at the margin. and the hatch-wyden-ryan bipartisan congressional trade priorities and accountability act of 2015 falls far short of doing that. congress must not agree to fast track a fast track bill right now, mr. chairman. the time allotted between the introduction of the bill hearings, committee consideration and floor action is really short.
and it's a sign that i believe that if it had more time and more people knew about it, more people, not less people, would oppose it. a new and effective trade negotiating authority must do the following -- it must ensure that congress approves trade agreement partners before negotiations begin. create negotiating objectives that are specific to the individual trading partners that we're dealing with, because they're all different. ensure that congress, not the executive branch, determines whether the congressional trade objectives have been met. ensure congress has effective opportunities to strip expedited consideration provisions from trade deals that fail to meet congressional objectives or to incorporate congressional and public participation. increase access to u.s. trade
policymaking, trade proposals and negotiating text for congress, congressional staff and the public. and include a broader trade and competitive package that addresses infrastructure training shortcomings and reform tax policies to ensure that all -- and i mean all can benefit from trade. a few comments about t.p.p. to the extent that we know. bipartisan majorities of the house and senate have insisted that currency manipulation must be addressed but the administration has failed to include any currency provisions in t.p.p. e.p.i., a study, said that u.s. could add as many as 5.8 million jobs to our economy by eliminating currency manipulation.
on investment, the legitimate and serious concerns have been raised by both the left and the right about investor state dispute settlements. yet, the provisions of the t.p.p. have not addressed any of those concerns. on climate, without a border adjustment, t.p.p. will not stop manufacturing from closing up shops in the united states modification to t.p.p. countries with no carbon reduction scheme. in fact, you know, encourage china, not a member of this agreement, to move dirty manufacturing plants to countries that are partners to this and be able to send dirty products back here to the disadvantaged of american producers. on the labor side -- the status quo, the so-called may 10 agreement, needed further strengthening.
the may 10 standards were first steps towards leveling the playing field for workers but they did little to ensure timely and effective action. let me list some of the problems. the highly touted labor action plan in colombia, combined with the may 10 language protecting workers' rights, has been totally ineffective. since that plan has been signed, 105 workers have been murdered for trying to exercise their fundamental worker rights in colombia since the labor action plan was implemented. mr. chairman, we've been told by ustr staff, their general counsel and ustr for labor told us repeatedly that murder of trade unionists and violence against trade unionists is not a
violation of the labor provisions in our f.t.a.'s. so when people say this is the highest standard yet -- talking about labor -- you'll have to excuse me if i'm unmoved or i'm satisfied when they tell us directly, without any equivocation, that violence and the murder of trade unions for exercising their rights is not a violation of these agreements. now, we've asked for reasonable measures to strengthen the labor chapter, but ustr have ignored those requests. they're not there. i'd also say that human rights language in the hatch-wyden-ryan bill is not binding. and the fact that several very serious human rights violators
several very serious human rights violators, vietnam, brunei malaysia, mexico, are , already in the t.p.p. demonstrates that fast track -- fast track objectives are ignored or irrelevant. in sum, to get this thing right, congress should not be constrained by misguided secrecy or speed or unaccountability of fast track. we really urge congress to reject the outdated and un-democratic process, known as fast track, and develop instead a new trade negotiating authority for the 21st century. this is going to affect 40% of the world's g.d.p. it may well be the last trade agreement that gets negotiated and the lives of workers are at stake and the livelihoods of workers are at stake here.
it's important that we get it right. i can understand my friend, tom, advocating for fast track and t.p.p. his members have benefited by it, benefited greatly. but the average working folks in this country haven't. and we need a different deal. we need to have something that really works on our behalf and protects the lives of trade unionists from being murdered or having violence perpetrated against them and say that it doesn't, doesn't violate a trade agreement. mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. and i look forward to working with you, senator wyden, to strengthen this legislation and make it better for the american worker. senator hatch: thank you, mr. trumka and mr. donohue. we know you're busy people and
we know you're sincere people in your respective areas of the law. senator wyden, let's turn to you, first. senator wyden: thank you, mr. chairman. i indicated i want our colleagues ask their questions. i want to make very quick points. mr. trumka, with whom i agree so often, suggested there would be insufficient public scrutiny of t.p.p. colleagues, under this legislation, by law the american people will have t.p.p. in their hands for two months before the president signs it and months more before it is fully debated on the floor of the house and senate. so with that i want to have my colleagues ask questions. senator hatch: mr. donohue, as you noted in your opening
testimony and as i've been saying for years now, since trade promotion authority expired in 2007, our countries other competitors in the world marketplace have not been sitting on their laurels when it comes to trade. indeed, there are hundreds of free trade agreements around the world that are currently in effect or under negotiation and the u.s. is a party to relatively few of these agreements. in your opinion, what's the cost of the united states if we refuse to pass new trade agreements while our competitors press forward with their own? mr. donohue: well, long-term refusal -- and we've been at it for a while -- to pass new trade agreements will basically provide markets across the world to our competitors, it will cost american workers ever growing number of jobs. it will have a measurable effect on the economy of the united states and it will make us far
more insignificant in the -- less significant in the geopolitical, economic affairs of the world. this is the equivalent of going out and resigning from the rest of the world. we're going to say that none of this is important in terms of how we get our children and grandchildren into the economic system. we're going to say none of this is important in terms of what affect we're going to have on the general affairs of the world. and most of all, mr. chairman 95% of the people -- we all agree to this -- that we want to sell something to don't live in the united states. that's no reason to put together agreements that are totally irresponsible, but it is a reason to get out there in the marketplace and compete as we have since our founding, a failure to compete is a resignation from the global economy and the results would be
one of the great tragedies of our time. senator hatch: mr. trumka, let me ask you a question. according to the ustr, average wages in export intensive industries in the u.s. are above those in nonexport intensive industries. the ustr also tells us with over $1 billion in services exports supporting an estimated 7,000 u.s. jobs, expanded services trade globally will unlock new opportunities for americans, unquote. according to the recent bureau of labor statistics data, close to 12% of those employed in service occupations are represented by unions. so mr. trumka, the administration details that it -- tells us that the free trade agreement under consideration will expand exports and create more jobs in export intensive industries, including services in turn that means more jobs in
sectors with significant union representation and higher wages. with those data provided from the democratic union-friendly administration, why do you oppose agreements that can expand your membership and more importantly generate good-paying jobs, including many union jobs for middle-class workers? i just think that's a question -- what are your thoughts on that, mr. donohue, after mr. trumka finishes? mr. trumka: well, first, i'd like to comment on the question you asked tom. this isn't a choice between t.p.p. and no trade, that if we don't get no t.p.p. we don't get no trade. that's the way you made it sound and that's the way he answered. there's a lot of distance between there. what we're saying let's have a good trade agreement that really benefits people. look, those statistics that you quoted will also tell you for every trade deficit, every $1 billion in trade deficit -- and we have about 500 million --
billion dollars of trade deficit a year, there's several thousand, almost 15,000 jobs per -- 15,000 jobs lost per $1 billion of trade deficit. now, each one of the great agreements that we've signed so far has encouraged outsourcing and increase that deficit. it's sustaining. $500 billion a year takes jobs out of the country. i wish we could reverse that and bring it back. i swear -- i don't know where tom got his figures earlier that we have a surplus, a trade surplus. to have a trade surplus, no figure that i know of, because goods and services and everything else has been in deficit. so a good trade bill, mr. chairman, we could create jobs and it could benefit everybody. currently the t.p.p., as constituted, is not that bill. it doesn't address currency. it doesn't address the investment provisions. it doesn't address the labor provisions, and it doesn't
address the environmental provisions. it doesn't address buy american provisions. there are a number of other things we listed and tried to make this agreement into something worthwhile. we've worked for five years to try to make t.p.p. an agreement that the american worker could benefit from. and precious few, fewer than you can count on one hand even made it into the u.s.'s proposal to our trading partners. obviously you can't achieve something if you don't even propose it and negotiate for it. so i'd love to work with you to create job better than t.p.p. but a lot better than nothing, because there's a lot of room between that and to imply that if t.p.p. isn't fast we're not going to do trade is just a misrepresentation, i believe. senator hatch: thank you. my time is up.
senator cornyn. senator cornyn: thank you, mr. chairman. i come from a state that in 2013 counted an estimated 1.1 million jobs associated with trade. just the binational trade with mexico is estimated to support as many as six million jobs in the united states. and in terms of its impact on small and medium-sized businesses and the people they employ, 93.1% of the trade jobs were small and medium-sized enterprises with less than 500 employees. i actually believe that one reason why texas has done better than the rest of the country in terms of its economy and jobs is in large part been because of trade. we led the nation in overall
exports since 2002 in beef cotton, petro chemicals, machinery and high-tech electronics. in 2014 alone, texas manufacturers and farmers set new records of exports with nearly $290 billion worth of merchandise to buyers around the globe. so i believe that this trade promotion authority proposal that we'll mark up tomorrow is -- represents real progress. the challenge i think we have is if absent a trade promotion authority or so-called fast track authority we're left with negotiations on behalf of 535 individual members of congress which is just not feasible. what i worry about, and mr. donohue, you alluded to this, is if we don't engage with asia as -- on this trans-pacific partnership proposal, which we haven't seen by the way, mr.
trumka -- i'm looking, waiting to see what the contents of it are because i don't believe -- i do believe that impact of trade does not fall uniformly and there are things we need to do and there are things we will do with trade assistance authority to help people who are dislocated as a result of trade, learn new skills and new higher paying jobs. but mr. donohue, what would be the consequences to the united states long term if we don't do this? and let's say, countries like china that didn't to fill the void? mr. donohue: i think it's important to recognize we are the largest manufacturer in the world, with the most significant economy in the world. but that reality of what is going on around the world sees
very large economies getting more productive and more engaged with one another on trade. it we are not made -- major players in the trading affairs of the world it will have a fundamentally negative effect on our economy, on jobs in the united eight, and our influence around the globe. mr. trumka is a very passionate representative of his ideas. i would say for the record, mr. chairman, all of our numbers on jobs from this deal or that deal all come from the commerce department. when i was talking about the significant benefit in jobs in recent trade agreements, it's very clear. i think there is another point we should all look at if you would allow me to make a point.
you know, the jobs lost in the united states in manufacturing the great percentage of them wanted to countries. -- go to to countries. a country called efficiency and a country called productivity. the american business system the most efficient in the world has taken 40 plus percent of the jobs out of the manufacturing process, because of information technology, robotics process engineer and supply chain management. those 40% of the jobs are never coming back, but the way we get the jobs back, which mr. trumka wants, i want, and we all want is we do two things. number one, we encourage others to come here and produce their products. you could go around this country today and you would find representatives of europe looking for places to build their factories simply because their energy is three times more costly than ours.