. that is particularly important. so i hope that colleagues will support this. this goes right to the heart of whether there will be a new playbook for trade policy. people talk policy. people talk about how trade 2015 is different than trade back in the 1990s. this section reflects it. >> the committee will now walked to the market and modification. i recognize a member of our staff to do so. i did not blow that one. assistant general counsel dolls from the department of the treasury. commissioner bell from cpb office of international trade as well as jericho from gct. members benefit to answer any questions that anyone has. briefly describe the main pieces of the proposal.

>> the committee is considering a proposal to reauthorize the trade facilitation -- >> is your -- is your microphone on? >> the trade facilitation and trade enforcement functions of the united states customs and border protection and other agencies, seven titles. title i considers the trade trade, facilitation and enforcement mission of cbp. the import health, and safety mission. the import related protections of intellectual property rights missions. title v establishes new requirements for cbp to combat evasion and anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders. additional trade enforcement intellectual property rights protection requirements primarily for agencies other than cbp. title iv and seven contain miscellaneous provisions. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the senator 70 questions regarding this?

>> i don't have a question. i apologize. i want to say thank you to the chairman for the level of playing field that including the language of that and your willingness to work together to keep this through the process and think senators burr and portman and casey for their leadership in this. sen. coates was involved as well. i no that we know what has happened in trade enforcement. as he just said so often the injury to the industry as such because of the length of time that it takes in part because of the court decisions that have eroded our ability to fight back and workers lose jobs, companies lose business. so i think everyone involved in that. >> mr. chairman.

>> i want to reiterate. suffered tremendous economic injury the recourse is that we hope that they would to be able to fashion a remedy and tickets and economic justice coming after a generation of steel jobs having been lost at a minimum taking the step of the bill does and we are grateful for that the support for steel and other industries as well. >> agreed to withhold remarks so that senator schumer can make his remarks he is going to offer an amendment. >> thank you, and i would like to call up amendment schumer burr brown portman

number one. >> without objection. >> thank you. i asked senator stamina now, casey, and cartman be added as cosponsors. we filed this amendment. but after much discussion with some of my colleagues who indicated concerns about jermaine this and have said all along that i think that this amendment is important on its own i worked out an agreement with chairman hatch for which i thank him to offer this amendment only here on customs. customs. we will not be asking for a vote on tpa. now, as i discussed with many of you in recent weeks and really three years now i believe currency manipulation is the most significant emerging trade challenge

not currently being used. many of you have supported over 60 votes in the floor of the senate. under existing law if the commerce department finds that subsidized imports are causing economic onto american manufacturers and workers the administration must impose duties on the imports to countervailing benefit conferred on farm producers and exporters by the subsidy. however, as i said rather than enforce the existing law be existing administration and the previous one prefer to use the a threat as a diplomatic tool to achieve other

noneconomic geopolitical goals. as a. as a result they are narrowly defined what qualifies as a countervailing export subsidy and have excluded currency manipulation even though it is the -- even put -- even though it is as plain as the net's on your face. our amendment would our amendment would require the commerce department to investigate whether currency undervaluation by government provide the counter available subsidy in such an investigation. does this by putting in place a new rule that simply says and export subsidy may exist through currency manipulation and should be investigated. they cannot avoid the investigation. we have worked laboriously to make this wto compliant. no one denies that it is. we are using existing mechanisms and law but making sure that they apply to currency the same mechanisms to blood views on other issues but we are making sure it happens with currency.

this is the enforceable mechanism that we must employ to show china we are not messing around and get something done. members of this committee i hope feel an obligation as i do particularly as we are likely to advocate a lot of our oversight role when you fast track any trade agreement. we have an obligation to ensure tools are in place to protect american workers and are being used appropriately as my colleagues as my colleagues have a history of work on this issue and support for this proposal this is our best and most appropriate opportunity to show that we are serious about combating the trade tactic, as i mentioned this bipartisan. the original bill the senators graham and collins and sessions and mime self and brown and stabbing now burr and portman as well as schumer and brown grassley

has been a vocal a vocal proponent of this issue in the past come to press conferences. a while ago senators i i isaacson, crapo, bennett carper have voted and are supportive of improvements in the space. i am forgetting some others, so forgive me. china's trade economic policy undermining the global marketplace which major ceos in america quietly admit to everyone of us cannot say it publicly, but they know what is going on should something be done about it the appropriate time is now. i urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. >> i think the senator from new york. 1932 require countervailing duty investigational review to determine whether some measures of the current misalignment are effectively -- is effectively a subsidy

either directly or indirectly to a country's exports. if so, the sanctions can follow. i actually asked my colleagues to vote against this amendment. it is likely not compliant with existing international trade commitment and effectively attempts to provide for trade sanctions would could be based on presumptions without support and would invite retaliatory trade sanctions mother countries on the basis of some sort the presumption of our currency fundamentals. the amendment would allow so many degrees of freedom than arriving in a subsidy determination including subsidies based upon some measure of under evaluation that it would prove entirely ineffective, at least that is my view. either a subsidy determination would be flexibly used only to trade dispute and possible retaliation from trading partners. this amendment runs the risk

of raising the likelihood of trade disputes and wars but i understand my colleagues and have dealt with hearings on this issue and will do more in the future. with that, anyone else care to comment? >> mr. chairman, i want to commend senator schumer for advancing the solution. colleagues, it is clear there is no issue that has consumed more time in these debates than currency manipulation command it is a sensitive issue because it goes right to the heart of how we protect and grow american jobs in a tough global economy and also it reflects discussion with reflect -- respect to have respect to how this will reflect federal reserve practices in the right. sen. schumer has figured out how to address a key question, to deal with china which clearly has

manipulated currency in the past to give them an unfair advantage. this levels the playing field for american industry by in effect, in a practical fashion expanding trade remedies. i hope my colleagues will support the schumer amendment and i appreciate my i appreciate my colleague working with so many of you on both sides of the aisle to come up with a practical approach. >> any further comment? >> as i said earlier i offer amendment in the trade promotion authority debate. this will be narrowly targeted toward negotiating objective within tpa but i want to comment briefly. i am a cosponsor. i remember in 2,005 i happen to be on the other side of the table at one of these meetings and was asked by senator schumer.

he had more hair than how i felt about currency manipulation. i think that it affects trade in a negative way for american workers. frankly, i believe that it is not something the us senators office typically handles but is something done by treasury. i think we have done to the.where it is widely acknowledged that this is a problem that should and can be addressed again, a focus and a narrowed objective to ensure we are not talking about macroeconomic policies, monetary policies but intervention. the peterson institute for international economics, you follow their work, unfair currency manipulation has resulted in the loss of one to 5 million american jobs. the idea is we sell products other countries.

the hope is, you know we use that money to buy their product and vice versa. that is balanced trade. when a country uses this as a way to a way to distort trade and encourages the depreciation of currencies were exports less expensive over here and more expensive over there you have an imbalance. and you see this with trade balance. one is energy and the other is china and a lot of it goes to the currency manipulation. this is an important issue that we ought to address and do in a thoughtful way that is

wto consistent to avoid the kind of dispute that the chairman talked about, and i intend to support the amendment on that basis today. >> i understand the sen.'s position. sen. brown. >> i we will be brief. i support the schumer amendment and thank you for offering it. we have applied diplomatic pressure, held dialogue after dialogue. there have been incremental improvements but it is often one step forward and to step back. this bill requires congress to investigate. if a petitioner requests an investigation and provides documentation supported, supported, that does not presuppose not come. it is wto compliant and it is contributed -- currency is contrary to do something almost unknown a generation ago, contributing to increasing numbers of businesses putting together there business plan is shutting down production in dayton ohio for asheville

north carolina, moving overseas and selling back into the united states. currency contributes to that structure in the business plan that has become all too common, tax law trademark currency, and is a chance to take away one of those incentives, if you will, for companies to follow that route which they are for companies to follow that route which they are in some ways forced to you because of our economic system and the way we have interacted with china. >> mr. chairman. >> i want to speak in favor very briefly. >> sure. >> senator portman knows because he was trade enforcer, a bill to eliminate the us trigger presented. he learned that one day at my office. as the trade representative. and it is because of this. if you are the trade representative and do not give a trade deal you have failed. so the incentive for trade representatives is get a deal at any cost and we have been willing to accept that. and no deal is perfect

command it requires congress to go back and take what we have learned and to occasionally modify. if the objective is to have a level playing field. there is one thing i think we all know the chinese manipulate currency. the question is, are we going to do something about it? are we going to change it? i ask you this, if you think that this approach is fair supported? this is not the only thing that probably that we can look at any trade agreement and say, this is what we negotiated but now we know this, therefore we should change that. this is one of those. i encourage members to supported. >> senator. >> thank you. i strongly support this amendment. they designed it. i think that it is very clear when you have designed

to manipulate currency you are doing it for an advantage. we talk about level playing field. let's talk about practical effect. is one thing that monetary policy. it is another nongovernmental policy to make currency lower so that you get a competitive advantage in an international marketplace. that gives you a 10, 15 20 percent advantage over us manufacturers, producers farmers. that is not a level playing field. with the schumer amendment it allows us to be able to determine if that is what the currency policy is doing in order to get that ten or 15 or 20 percent advantage the debt is actionable, as it should be. because as senator portman said we are for a level playing field because that is how you will get the maximum economic advantage of trade.

and when you arbitrarily fix your currency value so that your manufacturers producers, and farmers have an advantage, that is wrong. the schumer amendment takes action command i thank you for bringing it forward. >> i we will be brief. i want to join in support of the amendment. i do not want to simply express frustration but it is plainly evident what has happened over a long amount a long amount of time and not only currency manipulation of the range of other practices that china for example, is engaged in. and my home state of pennsylvania when china cheats we lose jobs. it is simple. there is there is nothing complicated about it. when they cheat on currency, when they purposely undervalue it as a particularly pernicious and destructive impact i remember sitting i remember sitting with secretary

gagner in my office raising this issue secretary lou and it seems that over and over again the administration has said that they understand the problem want to do something about the problem, raise it at every meeting command we bilateral discussion, and i appreciate that. i think the time for raising it and pushing it and taking smaller steps is over. we have to take a more decisive in determining of action to get the result which americans expect us to they do not expect us to create some magic wand but they do expect us to take effective steps to remove a problem, and i think that this is a major problem that is hurting workers and costing jobs. >> i do not disagree that this is a problem. i do not think -- i just don't think that this is the right solution. we have mr. dobbs hear from the treasury department.

>> thank you, chairman. >> a little closer. i appreciated. >> again, we share the concerns of many in congress regarding currency practices. we hear your concerns. unfair currency practices heard workers and farms command that is why this administration and particularly secretary lou have taken great length and measures in terms of engaging with partners in a number of different efforts efforts, for example the g 20 g7, imf, as well as bilaterally. we have secured significant commitment in working with

partners, particularly in the g 20 through the s in ed with china, and there has been real progress with respect to currency. currency. china's currency has appreciated by over 30 percent -- by nearly 30 percent on are real, real, effective basis since 2010. japan has not intervened since 2011 and there has been measurable progress in terms of the type of commitment that we have gotten and in terms of the type of appreciation as well with respect to the proposed amendment, i think from our perspective we are opposed to the legislation that would impose a cbd process with respect to currency under evaluation with respect to several things. first of all it raises questions about consistency with international obligations. second, our other countries will pursue retaliatory measures that can mimic art condition, at the same time target our companies and workers which would present a concern. they could design a cbd provision that use a

different standard given that there is no single universal standard that applies to currency undervaluation. i think also unilateral measures will be perceived as being counterproductive in terms of the g 20 and the g7 and all the progress we have made in the international form as well command it will impede and impair or multilateral and bilateral effort and finally, finally, we are concerned that unilateral measures will impair our ability to make progress in the context of cpp with a the currency objective as well. our partners will be concerned about negotiating some sort of currency provisions given that they may also see unilateral measures as well. >> thank you for your opinion. i understand senator stamina would like to speak. >> mr. chairman, i want to thank senator schumer for his work.

now, we now, we have heard over and over again about china taking baby steps. we are at a.now where when we are in full he engaged in the global economy where that is just not enough. frankly, when we get to tpa and with all due respect him what is coming on tpp we want our trading partners japan to know that it is not okay to manipulate currency. it cost us millions of jobs see a price and a price and understand that a good chunk of that is because they cheat. and another tool to create a way to do something about it. i would urge a strong bipartisan vote.

>> i appreciate our administration making the presentation, presentation but in all due respect we try this over and over again for ten years. sen. graham senator graham and i took a trip to china along with senator coburn ten years ago in an effort to try to get something done. starting to do something that might actually solve this problem and help america. i just have lost faith in the diplomatic back and forth. so i asked for a vote. >> a request for a request for a recorded vote. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call]

>> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to call up amendment number one as modified and i would like to ask unanimous consent to add chairman hatch and senator carper as co-sponsors of the bill. >> without objection. >> thank you mr. chairman. bravo reasons that up and said we are all concerned about china's repeated efforts to adopt economic tell alosi said unfairly weaken their currency costing 100,000 jobs in colorado

and 5 million across the country. i'm deeply concerned because these kinds of efforts like the once china is making make overseas goods cheaper in exports from colorado and our other states less competitive on the global markets. that's why senator carper and hatch and i are offering this amendment to make sure that our businesses and our workers have a little playing field. i want to be very clear about this amendment. it is meant to complement, not substitute for my colleagues work on currency manipulation particularly the work of senator schumer. this is consistent with his bill bill. it requires the treasury secretary to regularly deduct -- conduct detailed analysis of trading policies and monetary policy using rigorous and transparent metrics. it also requires bilateral engagement with countries found to be improperly interfering with his currency markets as a first step. that country fails to adopt appropriate policies within a year hour amendment lays out

specific remedial actions to address the problem. significantly this includes the ability to block a particular country including china from the benefit of free. agreements including ppp restricting its access to u.s. financing opportunities and preventing the federal government from procuring goods and services from that country. our amendment offers some real solutions to confront unfair trade practices and gives trade enforcement authorities a new set of tools. and courage all of my colleagues to support the amendment. i thank the chairman for his cosponsorship and i would ask for a roll call vote. >> i would ask an ounce senator nelson be added as a co-sponsor. >> i want to thank senator bennett for his work on this amendment. a memo provides effective tools and procedure for enhanced oversight over the federal government and among multinational institutions like the imf for enhanced oversight

and analysis of international exchange rate policies. the amendment also provides tools for strengthening trade enforcement provides for radio actions by establishing an advisory committee and in exchange rate policy provides no evidence for congress and the american people to weigh in and voice their interest rate this as a strong amendment and it's one that will give a greater voice to everyone here on international exchange rate an amendment that provides significant avenues for surveillance. i would strongly urge my colleagues to join senator bennett and i in support of this amendment. are there any further comments? >> i urge colleagues to support senator bennett's amendment solving this currency problem. but go beyond unilateral involvement and i think what senator bennett is doing is finally getting multilateral engagement bilateral engagement and i urge my colleagues to

support the bennett amendment traits fay mr. president, mr. chairman i too want to support the bennett amendment. it gives a framework that we need to deal with. i didn't support the last amendment because process by which we put into law strict regulations and we have had a case in the pacific northwest on solar were accompanied by the case to the federal government. the federal government felt obligated to act in china retaliated against the company read the key framework is to resolve these issues without getting into a trade war and they appreciate senator bennett's finally crafted legislation. >> senator portman. >> i tend to support this amendment. some are suggesting that those of us who want to see enforceability and currency manipulation should oppose it that i think this is fine. it's more bilateral engagement and encourages treasury to do to set up an advisory committee to

advise the secretary but it does not have obviously the teeth that the schumer bill has already amendment that i'm offering on trade promotion authority so i don't think this is something we should be opposing. i think we should support it. i know some of my colleagues oppose it because it doesn't go far enough but i think it's fine and i tend to support it. >> thank you to the senator from ohio. >> i think we can come up with an elegant compromise on a very difficult issue and i commend you for it and i hope you all vote for it. >> any other comments? the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> will the clerk announced the vote. >> the tally is 26 ayes zero nays. >> the senator from oregon. >> mr. chairman this is amendment 70 and i'm sponsoring this amendment with my colleague senator brown because it

reflects a critically important value and that is the elimination once and for all of's forest indentured labor including child labor. i want to thank senator brown for his years of extraordinary leadership on this issue and staffer nora todd for the hard work she has put in. i think it's also worth noting that our former colleague senator harkin is previously championed this issue for years. currently u.s. law permits the importation of goods made with indentured or forced labor or goods are not made in the united states in sufficient quantities to meet demand. this amendment is very direct. it simply says there is never never a time when forced labor is acceptable. this is 2015. there is absolutely no room in our trade policies for any substance of that principle. we have to be supporting reform in countries where children are exported -- exploited not

perpetuating the practices that perpetuate that practice. it's time to remove it so ensure that indentured labor do not enter the commerce of united states. i hope all of my colleagues will support this amendment. >> mr. chairman? thank you mr. chairman payday appreciate the work of ranking member wyden on this closing in outdated loophole that allows goods made with forced labor not to come into the u.s.. it's important to look at a little history. the strike line section 307 on smoot-hawley and we know when i came about and what history thinks of smoot-hawley. the exception was included in smoot-hawley in 1930 before the u.s. passed a law banning child labor. that's how outdated the provision is. fair labor standards act signed into law in 1938. since in then the u.s. has ratified the labor organization convention against the worst forms of child labor were

ratified the minimum age reformers passed laws against child labor and congress were installed in international efforts to eradicate child labor labor. chairman reince customs fill presented to the house yesterday includes the exact language of senator wyden's in my amendment. it's important the senate not be silent on this issue and just let it play out without our involvement. child labor obviously is that broke and i urge my colleagues to support wyden round. >> i support language that would prohibit the importation of the good to see pp investigates and finds with specific evidence was produced by forced labor including child labor. i've been working with senator wyden and others to find compromise language on this topic and unfortunately we weren't able to get to an agreement in time for this markup. nevertheless i will continue to work on this issue with my colleagues and i'm hopeful we can bring resolution to this issue soon.

but i'm going to vote no for now and hopefully resolve this problem. anybody else have any comments? >> that is acceptable to me mr. chairman. >> all those in favor. >> mr. chairman as for our roll call. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the chairman boat snowe. [roll call] and the other senators care to change their vote or to vote?

announced the vote. >> mr. chairman the final tally is 25 ayes, five days. >> the amendment is agreed to. any further amendments? senator stabenow. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have an amendment to straightforward based on a bill that senator lindsey graham and i have had for a number of years now to make permanent the interagency trade enforcement center that's in ustr. this was done by executive order and has demonstrated that in fact they have been good at bringing. enforcement cases but prior to having a separate center of the same people negotiating agreements would again turnaround and put on a different hat and enforced agreements. so this set up with the center we have now heard from ustr that last month they have a report that has 444 pages detailing the

trade barriers on businesses and workers and farmers based around the globe so this particular agency is laser focused on addressing that. i would ask colleagues to support this. senator brown is joining me. again this is very straightforward. we have this agency but it has not been set up permanently by law and i think now is the time to do that. i would ask colleagues for support. >> let me say this. the eighth amendment establishes and interagency trade center and the office of ustr. i recommend we oppose this. i have concerns about the effectiveness of the interagency trade enforcement center referred to as i attack. there is a lack of transparency regarding how it uses its funding and i'm not convinced that it is shown any real results. if we authorize it we must ensure it's actually helping

american workers through effective enforcement rather than serving as something that is merely symbolic so i would vote no on this. >> mr. chairman if i might take one more minute. we have seen some very effective cases brought that our country is -- auto suppliers, auto-parts auto parts cases some agricultural cases including poultry that has been brought by this agency and i'm hopeful that colleagues will vote yes. i have acts -- as for our roll call to indicate again this is something that senator graham and i have been trying to do for a number of years just to make permanent this agency so it's very clear we have folks that are looking at this every day on behalf of agriculture and manufactures and so on and bringing cases where appropriate. thank you. >> with the senate should take a voice vote on this?

all those in favor say aye. all those who are opposed they no. i don't think there were many opposed so the amendment is adopted. senator isakson. >> thank you mr. chairman. i call up amendment 56 and ask senator warner kraybill and senator casey to be listed as co-sponsors. out of an abundance of caution and respect for the chairman of agriculture agriculture committee i realize there's a jurisdictional issue with this point that this is what is known lovingly as the cat is amendment after the passage of the farm bill. usda has attempted to take over the regulation of the inspection process of seafood and in many cases that means they will be duplicative inspections of seafood and seafood processors like georgia virginia in the states around the country would have dual inspectors which would make it difficult for businesses to stay in business and would probably move offshore. i will withdraw the amendment out of respect for the chairman

chairman of the agriculture committee but i would appreciate the finance committee giving me the end insurance for appropriate time on the floor that we could have an amendment and debate on the floor. >> thank you senator isakson on i understand your concern. as you know better than anyone this has been a long-standing topic of debate in the senate and i'm confident this will be addressed on the senate floor. >> thank you and i withdraw the amendment. >> senator menendez. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman i would like to call my amendment's number one and i understand i hope my understanding is correct about the chair support for some language in the report to try to accomplish what i want to do here. >> the senator is correct. >> i appreciate that mr. chairman. i'm a strong supporter of protecting intellectual property of u.s. companies and individuals. i've heard from many disappointed families and businesses in my state that

foreign companies are selling counterfeit goods and particularly prom and wedding dresses that are manufactured here in the united states to unwitting american consumers who believe they are getting a high-quality dress like a vera wang dress and then they end up with a third rate dress at an important moment in their life and they spend a fortune trying to fix fix it or change it or were going to buy a new dress was the one they got imported from abroad as quote unquote packaged as a gift and thereby skirting u.s.. law. so the consumer is getting duped at an important moment in their life. we are not getting the resources as gifts. we are not collecting the requisite import duties and when this happens we are deprived of revenue and are businesses that are creating these wedding and gown and prom gowns ultimately suffer.

i have visited several of these. they are all over my state and in other parts of the country as well. i appreciate the chairman helping us with language that can seek to accomplish this goal of greater inspection in customs and without understanding i withdraw my amendment. >> senator appreciate you being here. senator portman is next. >> thank you mr. chairman. this amendment as a result of a long-standing issue that has been in this body and the house the mark moratorium in place. it is an amendment that is consistent with legislation introduced back in 2012 by senator mccaskill and myself then it has to do with miscellaneous pair of bills. this is something i hope the committee will be able to support on the strong bipartisan basis because it makes so much sense for our workers to be able to have access to products that

are not made here in america in order to lower their costs and be more competitive. i want to thank the co-sponsor senator toomey senator casey senator burr senator carper and others who have been involved with this topic. it's basically saying these critical inputs that are not available in the united states need to have a predictable pathway to be dealt with here in the united states congress through this miscellaneous tariff bill. if we pass this we would actually begin to deal with the backlog and beginning later this year a predictable pathway for extension of mtv's. since the -- since the mtv expired in 2013 american manufactures have been spending more and import duties higher taxes which are used to raise wages and benefits for american workers and maintain our competitiveness. there's a recent study out the shows failure to pass the mtv has resulted in a tax hike of

$748 million with losses of $1.8 billion over the past three years. this amendment is back by groups. i have a letter from the national association of manufacturers along with 185 companies and associations urging us to take quick action on this issue including companies in my own state of ohio. this reform bill which reflects support from a lot of different stakeholders including manufactures resolve the umar concerns that many of us have had while preserving the constitutional role in trade policy. the bill simplifies the process by allowing companies to apply for this terror directly while preserving total transparency increasing access to tariff companies and breaking the logjam by the earmark moratorium. i strongly help mr. chairman we resolve this issue today and i appreciate your work on this and also congressman camp before and i would hope that with strong

bipartisan push we can get this done. >> mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. i want to commend senator portman who put in a great deal of work over long period of time to reach a sensible conclusion here but this doesn't seems to me if it creates a far better mechanism for companies to be able to get the exemption from tariffs that they are due. they don't have to come to an individual member of congress on bended me if they qualify for this because the commodity or the product is input further processes is simply not made in the united states and therefore should be exempt from these tariffs. this is a better way to do it. the congressional prerogative is still there but we get away from the idea that we are going to bestow certain favors on favored companies or withhold it on others which should never be in

the process. i just want to commend senator portman and everyone who worked on this. it's a very sensible outcome and it's been a long time coming. >> i want to commend both of you and others that i worked on this because it's a very important amendment and the amendments seeks to provide unilateral relief to u.s. manufactures and it will enhance transparency and will address earmark concerns by establishing a process for miscellaneous tariff bills. i do us the committee for support in passing this amendment. >> mr. chairman? i want to add my voice and thank senator portman for his work on this. this is really simple in one sense and providing a measure of relief to manufactures so they can compete in a global marketplace to remain competitive. the miscellaneous this

amendment itself reduces the cost in our state and i know a lot of other states, these companies assert that this relief is critical to their ability to maintain jobs in the united states. it's regrettable that the process has been stalled in recent years. i've been working on it for years and this would be a positive step in the right direction. we are grateful that we are working on this and we need to make sure we can level the playing field for our firms and in particular manufacturing firms so i support a yes vote. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman over here. >> mr. chairman if i could that it will be brief. i want to thank senator portman encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation. this is about u.s. competitiveness. that is what it is at the heart of it.

why should u.s. manufactures pay a duty on something that they bring and that no u.s. manufacturer makes for them to incorporate in their product that they sell around the world? i this to make them more competitive global marketplace. it's to saddle them with an undue cost in their chain of manufacturing. so like senator casey i don't know why it's taken us so blasted long to deal with this but let's stick a fork in this once and for all and do away with it. >> i think the senator. any other comments? >> mr. chairman just quickly. mr. chairman? i just want to say two things quickly. when i appreciate senator burr bringing this to our attention the context of the textile industry because that's not something we focused on until you brought this to our attention and helped us gain support and understanding on how this can be more effective and i

forgot to thank senator wyden earlier and also senator baucus who worked with you in the last congress. >> thank you. any further debate? is the senator willing to take a voice vote? all those in favor say aye. any opposed? the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. are there any further amendments to this though? senator nelson first and then we have senator bennett. senator nelson. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have amendment number 65 and my amendment would create a fund

jointly managed by ustr and the department of state and available to agencies for the enforcement and implementation of freed trade agreements and capacity building so that we can make sure we are enforcing these agreements. the enforcement on what they capitalize their existing anti- anti-countervailing duties which are collected and this amendment would require the u.s. accountability office to study study -- this legislation makes a lot of long needed improvements to the trade enforcement regime particularly as it relates to the enforcement of our anti-dumping and countervailing duties. one of the critical questions when he to ask ourselves is to agencies have the ability to enforce our trade deals and the resources they need to do their job? last year the government to come to the office issued a damning report about the ability of ustr and the department of labor and their ability to enforce labor provisions of free trade agreements. the gal found the ustr just had four people in his office of

labor affairs who in addition to enforcing labor provisions of our fta's were also responsible for negotiating them. they relied on the department of labor and state for day-to-day monitoring and deal well has 528 full-time staff people monitoring and enforcing trade agreements. so essentially. mr. chairman? essentially between dll and ustr we have fewer staff enforcing these provisions then we have the number of countries we have free trade agreements with. agency staff told gao the limited staffing and resources were placing great, severe constraints on ability to monitor and enforce our free trade agreements and now in addition they all have what they are doing on enforcement of our current agreements because shooting the transpacific partnership with countries like vietnam and malaysia which have serious labor issues which also

need to be closely monitored. if we can't enforce our trade agreements because we don't have enough staff when he to make sure we are funding with our countervailing duties collecting the focus of making sure we enforcing these agreements. my amendment as i said would create a dedicated trust fund using the existing funds and using them for enforcing of this. so i know the president wants us to have a tba for the 21st century and i think there is great economic opportunity outside the united states. i support doing tba but we have to have the staff we have to have a of people in the money going to actually doing enforcement so i thank the chair and i would urge my colleagues who support this amendment. >> senator wyden creates. >> i urge my colleagues to support the cantwell amendment. this goes right to the heart of what citizens say.

they say you are all passing these agreements and why do you spend more time on trying to make sure the implementation and enforcement works. what senator cantwell is doing is laying out strategy to ensure the implementation and enforcement go hand-in-hand. the fact is failure to implement as sure as the night follows the day is going to cause people to be interested in enforcement. i hope that colleagues support the cantwell amendment and i urge in aye. >> i recommend we adopt the amendment. any objection to adopting the amendment? without objection show it adopted. >> mr. chairman? >> anybody else? senator bennett i agreed to go to you.

[inaudible] section 301 of the trade act of 1974 provides u.s. government with real enforcement powers. right now the president can take all appropriate actions if one of our trading partners laws or policies violate the international trade agreement. president -- burdens or restricts u.s. commerce. this is allowing the frustration to take action after violations of economic labor and intellectual property rights. my mama would have been environment to that list. this is a commonsense approach that reflects the reality and challenges of international trade. this amendment would allow the united states government to impose penalties on companies that fail to effectively enforce their environmental laws and the the. agreements. we need a way to encourage our trading partners to do the same pit i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i asked the chair.

whether he has a preference for voice vote tory roll call vote creates. >> i think a voice vote would be fine. any objection? all those who support the senator's amendment say aye. any opposed? the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. senator nelson as next i believe. >> mr. chairman you asked me to offer my amendment to the earlier bill. and then we are done. who is next? anybody else? >> mr. chairman to talk about amendment number 77 and this is casey amendment number one. we know a number of us everybody

here is trying to move in the direction of leveling the playing field. lots of ways to get their and a lot of debate about how to get there but i think it's important that we focus on some of the basic challenges or impediments that a lot of our firms have. it's traveling to so many of us in both parties that many of our trading partners operate what are sometimes known as state-owned enterprises and we should take action to confront that challenge. it is made worse by the fact that they don't seem to have tools in place to combat that or to fight against it. one of the tools to fight against that would be what is contained in my amendment and i won't offer today just to talk about it. i'm an amendment that instructs the department of commerce to exclude, to exclude state-owned enterprises from calculations and anti-dumping and

countervailing duty petitions i think it's one way to go at this problem. i realize there are other approaches as well but i think it's a clear and present danger by could use the legal term to a lot of our firms when they have to try to compete and they have other impediments. this is one of the most substantial. >> the senator addresses an interesting issue. as i understand it the senators willing to withdraw that amendment. >> that is correct. >> the amendment is withdrawn. we have a few more amendments to go. i believe senator bennett is not going to offer and i believe that's all the amendments. i think that is all the amendments on this bill. any objection to that? anybody want to record about?

>> i move that we move it. >> we need one more member so we can vote. >> let's just get it done. just 30 seconds and we have a quorum. as soon as we do that we will pass this bill. does anybody want to roll call vote on this? do we need one more member? let's get one more in here. we are okay? any objection to this bill? without objection this bill is passed and will be treated as such.

it will be reported as modified and amended as an original bill. without objection is passed by a voice vote. i think we have gone through this pretty well. it's only been almost three hours. not quite. finally the committee will move to a chairman to mark of minute by the bipartisan trade priorities and acquired ability ability -- accountability act of 2015. i know it's been a long day and we have saved the best for last of course. in my opinion anyway. the bipartisan congressional. priorities and accountability act is just what the bill says. this is a bipartisan agreement that will ensure congress by

making our priorities and expectations clear. the package we have put before the committee today will keep the administration accountable. whatever administration. includes unprecedented transparency provisions and new procedures to make sure our trade agreement meet the standards expected by the american people. in short this bill from the next chapter 4 trade policy and i think it's very important bill that i hope we can pass and i hope we can pass it without an amendment. the fact of the matter is it's a sensitive bill. we are working very closely with the house and both the democrats and the republicans in the house and it's going to be very tight. i would prefer we don't amend it but to make a long story short we have a right to bring up the

amendments if we would like to so i will have the committee worked through the mark and i recognize shane warne of our staff to do so. we also have a list of the committee staff tim from the u.s.. representative's office assistant secretary from the department of commerce and assistant general counsel from the department of treasury as well as terry from cbo and tom barto the chief of staff from the joint committee on taxation to answer any questions you may have. mr. warren would you briefly describe the main features of this proposal and we will go from there. >> thank you mr. chairman. this mark of the committee is considering a proposal to establish congressional trade negotiating objectives and enhance consultation requirements for trade negotiations. the proposal is divided into five sections. section 1 establishes the trade

objectives of the united states. section 2 provides the ability for the president to enter into certain trade agreements at those agreements make progress towards the negotiating objectives and subject to congressional modification in consultation requirements before july 1, 2018 extend by congress before july 1. section 3 requires president's consultations among other requirements for proposal states the united states trade agreement must meet with any member of congress provide access to permanent document including classified materials engaging close and timely consultation with the senate and its committee and all committees of the senate with jurisdiction that could be affected by a trade agreement. the proposal establishes procedures for consultations with the public including the establishment of the chief transparency officer at ustr. section 3 specifies the notice consultation and reports of prison must provide congress

entering into trade agreements and submitting trade agreements to congress. section or establishes the requirements of president must meet with submitting a trade agreement congress and the consideration of implementing legislation subject to trade authority procedure. this section establishes the processes and procedures for disapproval of the use of trade authority procedures at the present is failed or refused to notify or consult in accordance with the requirements of the proposal. section 5 addresses the of put ability to trade negotiations and stipulates application of the provision of the trade agreement a consistent with u.s. law will have no effect. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. warren. i might point out that the president supports this bill as it is written. a very sensitive bill. it's very difficult and i hope that we don't change it.

it's equally important that we don't change it so that it will pass through the house. i want to bring that to everybody's attention because it's a very sensitive situation that we have and this is one of her most important bills in this whole congress. i hope you get cooperation on this although full-fledged debate is just fine with me. senator wyden. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and i will be brief. this legislation provides a major upgrade to american trade policy and in a nutshell it brings our trade policy into the 21st century. much of trade law was written back in the 1990s and nobody had a cell phone. nobody had iphones in a bit part of what we sought to do in this legislation is provide an opportunity to set aside the old trade playbook and come up with

a very different one. for example the american people will never again be in the dark about major trade alosi. this legislation requires by law that before the president of the united states signs tpp or any other trade agreement that trade agreement be published for 60 days so colleagues what this means is your constituents will be sitting in a town hall meeting and in effect will be able to bring a copy of that trade agreement starting with the tpp and asking questions about it. there has never been anything like that. frankly it's long overdue. if you believe strongly in trade as i do why in the world would you want to have all of this excessive secrecy that makes the american people cynical about trade so that's representative of the changes that are in this. strengthens and makes solely

enforceable negotiating objectives on labor and the environment something which is strengthened with the banned amendment on the 301 is a relates to the environment and it includes largely because of the incredible effort and persistence of senator cardin it includes a first ever directive on human rights and good governance. it provides the tools for american manufacturers and farmers to help them knock down the barriers tariffs and other barriers that we can find new markets for those products made in the united states that are made in the united states, wrong in the states and we ought to be in a position to sell them to the growing middle class in the developing world. that growing middle-class is going to double between now and 2025. it's going to be over 1 billion people. let's pass this legislation and

create the opportunity for more of our goods and services and their products to be purchased in that region. i urge my colleagues to support the legislation and i thank you chairman hatch and we have moved expeditiously. i hope we can get through this last part of tonight's work expeditiously as well. >> we are going to get through it one way or the other. let me just say this. i want to recognize any senators who want to raise questions to the panel. are there any questions? if not if there are no further questions the chairman's mark is now open for amendment and let's go to the amendment. i will recognize senators to offer the amendment tree at. >> i file this amendment and i'm not going to offer it because i think there has been some accommodation that takes care of questions. i asked ambassador froman and be

with me just a minute while i explained what i'm up to and what i intend to do in the future if things don't work out this way. i want to mention the amendment i filed to the tpa bill. while i do not intend to ask for all of this today i want to reiterate my concerns about the trade agreements containing immigration provisions even before i became the chairman of the judiciary committee. back when i was chairman and ranking member of this committee i opposed previous administrations attempts to include immigration provisions and i demand that the judiciary committee be consulted on anything related to immigration. despite opposition from congress ustr included immigration provisions and trade agreements with china and singapore in 2003. since then consultations with judiciary and finance committees have taken place but these consultations are really consultations and they do not provide a mechanism for ensuring

that changes to our immigration system are included. when ambassador froman who is before this committee last week, specifically asked him about the immigration provisions and tpp. he told us that they are not negotiating anything in tpp that would require any modifications of u.s. immigration laws or systems. he told us the 11 other countries making offers to each other in the area of temporary entry but that the u.s. has decided not to do so. while this is reassuring that doesn't stop this administration or future administrations from a negotiation negotiating immigration or visa changes without congress. this is why i filed my amendment today. i want there to be no doubt that congress does not condone any negotiations of immigration laws or changes in our visa system. that is congress's responsibility.

i do not intend to require a vote on this today because chairman hatch and i sent a letter to ustr ambassador froman. we stated article i, section 8 calls for the constitution gives congress the power to quote establish a uniform rule of naturalization end of quote and the supreme court has long found that this provision of the constitution grants congress plenary power over immigration policy. he said that for many years congress has made it abundantly clear that international trade agreement should not change the required change to u.s. immigration law and practice. we asked ambassador froman for assurances that tpp will not include provisions that require changes to u.s. immigration law, regulations policy or practice. ambassador froman responded and he gave us his assurances. he knowledge that there is a chapter on the temporary -- but

this chapter only includes quote good governance provisions on transparency with respect to visa processing and cooperation on border security end of quote. he also said this chapter includes commitments of other tpp parties to make information on requirements for temporary entry publicly available. the u.s. already is very transparent about our processes and visa requirements and also already processes visas as expeditiously as possible. in addition to the latter from ambassador froman chairman hatch's agree to work with me on language that will be included in a comforting report to make it clear that congress does not condone ustr negotiating immigration or visa provisions. while i will not offer my amendment today i will keep

options open to offer this amendment on the floor but only if necessary. thank you members of the committee. >> thank you senator grassley. senator cardin. >> a few mr. chairman. i would like to call up the cardin amendment, cardin portman to amendment number 113. i would ask consent in addition to senator cardin portman cap well schumer menendez case case and hell or be as co-sponsors at the emet -- to the amendment. mr. chairman i think you are familiar with his amendment and it deals with one of our trading partners israel. this amendment only applies to the ttip negotiations so it would not affect tpp negotiations. it's interesting that as we are meeting on april 22 it's exactly 30 years ago this date that the united states and israel sign the u.s. israel free. agreement. at that time it was considered

an unprecedented trade agreement in the history of united states and the first fda entered into in the signing ceremony at the house ways & means committee minister minister of commerce and industry ariel sharon especially u.s. trade represent william brock stressed it would benefit the economies of united states and israel and serve as a precedent for future agreements. it is very clear that our trading partners being challenged today by barriers and these barriers are governmental boycotts and sanctions that are targeted against israel. this amendment represents a new effort to try to deal with it by dealing with our trading partners and represents an area to make sure that our international partners do not try to de-legitimate and isolate israel. i might want to point out that we have made progress.

when senator portman was ustr portman he was able to accomplish a great deal through his negotiations to prevent these types of governmental activities against israel in the trade negotiations with our trading partners. when we are dealing with europe this is an important goal. it adds this as it principal toti being objective and i know the house has taken some action on this initiative so it's not inconsistent with the house action. i asked my colleagues to support this amendment. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman i'm glad to be bringing this amendment to senator portman. it's a good time for us to do this. from the time it was founded israel has been the target of a lot of attacks. from military or terrorist groups but now there's also this

other attack and awaits more pernicious because it economic warfare. this is the current campaign called the boycott sanction campaign bds. other countries have attempted to weaken one of our strongest allies and emboldened israel's enemies and done so by this campaign that says somehow we should isolate israel. it's not centrally organized maybe that part of the calls for academic work has to international institutions special investigations and arrest warrants for officials criminal charges even for private businesses that operate inside of israel. fortunately these kinds of campaigns and boycotts have been beaten back the poor. we have been successful in doing that in senator cardin mentioned when i was u.s. trade representative in 2005 we did work with bahrain and amman on trade agreements and was able to negotiate the amman agreement. we got them too and their boycotts of israel so we know

the tepee is an appropriate place for this because we have seen it happen before. i was also involved in applying pressure to saudi arabia. juno saudi arabia granted most favored nation including israel which is something that was difficult for them at the time in the right thing to do. today there are new challenges posed and senator cardin mentioned the e.u. is one of our concerns. unfortunately some of our european allies are engaged from sweden denmark and the largest pension fund in the netherlands have divested from israel's financial institutions. denmark is ashley threatens sanctions against israel must be israeli government takes actions with regard to gaza. there was a threat i the e.u. to boycott meat and dairy in all three products in certain areas of israel and how those products are labeled so i'm pleased some provisions required reports and studies on this issue were included in the bill. i know you mr. chairman have a

strong interest in this issue and i think that's good however this amendment is necessary because we believe combating these anti-israeli effort should be principle negotiating objective. i would demonstrate the importance of the issue. ensures better trade negotiators will continue just like they did with bahrain and amman. a watered-down version of the amendment doesn't make this a principle negotiating objective and therefore it wouldn't be enough. aipac is written a letter today quote would help the committee will support the amendment and not dilute its language. it is essential this bill and the principle negotiating objectives for a trade negotiators which of course is the point of this amendment. again on the 30th anniversary of our first agreement with israel i would hope we would come together stand with israel in the face of threats by the romney battlefield or the negotiating table and i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> a few senator. i support this amendment and i hope we can pass it on a

recorded vote. we will turn to the ranking member. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. colleagues that will be brief and i want to commend senator cardin and senator portman for this effort. as the son of parents who fled nazi germany in the 30s not all family got out. we lost -- lost family at kristallnacht and i've been especially troubled in the rise of anti-semitism in europe and around the world. what senator cardin and senator portman are saying is that we shouldn't let american trade policy be used in any kind of faction that would in some way show and tolerance for that kind of anti-semitism. so i think this is a very constructive amendment and it's bipartisan. i strongly support it. my sense is that we should pass this quickly and try to move it

as far as we possibly can as quickly as we can. >> mr. chairman thank you and i thank senator cardin for pushing this amendment and i'm grateful to you mr. chairman for supporting it and putting it in the bill. i just want to say this. i find those who are part of this bds movement to have a double standard one that jewish people have faced throughout the centuries because they choose to boycott israel and then surrounding countries who have far less human rights, far less rights for women, far fewer rights for lgbt people, for almost anybody else they don't boycott at all. if they boycotted all the countries of the region then maybe we would say okay they are trying to do some good here but they just pick out israel even though israel has far greater democracy and far greater provisions for human rights and

protections of all people then any of the surrounding company -- countries do. i find it appalling and i'm just glad senator cardin has worked so hard on this amendment so that bds will not rear its ugly head into trade negotiations and trade agreements. >> anybody else? i want to commend senator cardin and senator portman for their leadership here. this is an important amendment. as i understand the roll call vote has been requested. i think we have enough here. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] >> the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman the final tally is 26 ayes, zero nays. >> mr. chairman on the amendment that i've previously talked about i would like to ask unanimous consent that senator craig will be added as a co-sponsor. >> without objection. >> would you like to be a co-sponsor? >> as i understand senator portman is next. the next amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. this is the amendment we have been talking about tonight which

is simply to add currency manipulation within trade promotion authority. it's targeted and it's an amendment supporting a bipartisan basis. senator stabenow's going to speak on it than just a second but also senator burr senator brown and center casey. i ask unanimous consent that senator schumer be added as a co-sponsor to this amendment. we have talked about the importance of tba and i agree with what senator wyden said it is underlying bill is important for us to pass because it will expand opportunities for workers in my state and around the country. it's been seven years since we have it had a trade promotion authority in the meantime there've been hundreds of trade agreements and we have been locked out. this means we lost market share but as we do this let's be sure it's fair to the american workers and right now the playing field is against us. we had a discussion about this in the context of senator schumer's legislation offered as an amendment and everybody around the room i think agrees manipulation is something that

to be prohibiting. senator schumer talked about doing it for a specific mechanism that countervailing duties. i support that. i'm a co-sponsor of the legislation but this is about within trade professional authority including one of the negotiating objectives that we look at currency. i would find it very hard to believe that someone could have voted on the specific measure that senator schumer talked about and voting against this amendment. it has to do just with those partners that we negotiate a free trade agree with them we are careful in terms of how we do it. i heard earlier from the treasury department that there is no universal standard on what constitutes currency manipulation. with all due respect i would disagree. all of these countries we are talking about including all the companies of tpp are members of the imf. to live by these principles. the wto has he been established that this is a practice that is prohibited.

they have referred to the imf but they have said current to manipulation should be prohibited so there are standards and our legislation follows the standards. specifically it says with regard to unfair exchange practices that target the ones that are targeted or large skillet expansions in exchange markets to gain an unfair competitive advantage in trade or other parties to the trade agreements of this is not monetary policy. this is not macroeconomic policy policy. including the united states. this is intervening to liberally because you want to expand your exports and it has to be again i repeat protracted large-scale intervention in one direction. clearly consistent with i met standards clearly consistent with -- are amendment says it has to be consistent. whatever the trade negotiators decide on wto and imf principles and agreements.

do we leave some discretion to the negotiators, yes we do. some think we should go further than this and maybe senator stabenow let's talk about that. we say the best way to do this is to have an enforceable currency outcome based on imf principles that give negotiators flexibility as to what the remedy is as to how you go about it. does not lock the to a specific remedy. ..

thank you, mr. chairman. >> i would love to have the administration's viewpoint and see if we have someone from the administration here. [inaudible conversations] is mr. goss here? he stepped out for a few minutes?

you are in charge. we would like to hear the administration's position on this. >> thank you very much chairman hatch. >> please turn your microphone on. that is good. there we good. there we go. >> thank you again. as i stated earlier secretary lou and the administration have worked intensively to attract currency practices to a number of bilateral and multilateral forum. the concerns would, in fact have a significant implication in hobbling legitimate monetary policy objectives. as secretary lou has noted we have formally consulted with countries last week. our partners have indicated a shared understanding of the concerns raised by congress they uniformly

raise concerns about enforceable currency doesn't want and reject the notion of describing to uniform enforceable currency discipline. effectively using the.monetary policy as well. based upon these discussions we expect ttp partners in the context of negotiation would seek to identify measures, standards that would seek to target our monetary policies as well and to seek to subject of those dispute settlements.

so this presents a significant amount of concern. concern. in fact, federal reserve chairwoman yellin stated through concerns precisely because it could potentially horrible us monetary policy objectives. >> thank you, mr. chairman. that last.last.with respect to monetary policy, i think is really the flaw in this particular amendment. this amendment runs the risk of getting us into the business of establishing role for monetary policy and in effect constraining monetary policy. i would ask unanimous consent to put into the record and expert testimony from chairman yellin.

colleagues, janet yellin observed that she is very concerned about commitment in our trade agreement that in any way would hamper our ability to have monetary policy that was designed as a major object of the senate. all about trying to find price stability and maximum employment but trying to find a way to get this right and calibrate that challenging balance. you have you have to make sure that you are not restraining monetary policy. so with reluctance to my have to oppose the amendment and would encourage probably -- encourage colleagues to think through the ramifications of this amendment for american monetary policy in the time is time when we want to grow

more family wage jobs in our country and don't want to keep the federal reserve from having flexibility with respect to the monetary tools the only to bring out about. >> thank you. >> is a cosponsor of the amendment. >> mr. dobbs, a cosponsor of the amendment is the cosponsor of the amendment. thank you very much. it on to respond. [inaudible conversations] they will manipulate their currency, but there is no enforcement. we're not interfering.

they are not deciding that maybe it out to be real because of what's happening in terms of job loss. i appreciate the fact that there is language in negotiating currency practices, without language this is that it needs to be enforceable which is what this amendment does it just does not do what needs to be done. i said so many times but feel compelled to say again last year or maybe two years ago now sen. graham and senator graham and i offered a letter signed by 60 members of the senate indicating that we all wanted to have enforceable currency language in any bill that passed.

and so that is what this does. it can go farther and saying you cannot get that authority unless you have currency enforceable currency language in a trade agreement. that is not what this says. i would just want to know, because of the strong feelings of the automobile industry and japan to my know this is often referred to as the auto amendment, which i am proud certainly say that they are deeply concerned and support but i want to indicate for the record that it is much broader than that. the business and industry council is endorsing this. the alliance for american manufacturing come a whole host of auto manufacturers

are also on board with this because it is serious and if we are giving backtrack authority to negotiate trade agreements, than making sure this provision is strong and enforceable is absolutely critical. so i join with my colleague. >> senator cornyn. >> mr. chairman, if i could ask you were speaking for the administration on this panel. >> speaking for the treasury. >> does the app to -- does the obama administration regard this as a poison pill? >> with the respect to the potential for negotiations,

yes, sir. >> and so you regard this as a poison pill? >> we are concerned about this provision and its impact and consider it to be inflicting. yes, sir. >> i want to see this past. i believe strongly in trade and think that it is good for the country good for wages, the economy, jobs. as much as i respect my distinguished friend from ohio and regard him as an expert in this area i frankly, do worry that during the fragile compromise that the chairman and ranking member have undertaken if something is added to this legislation was jeopardized the passage and ultimately is something telepathically should not go down.

if the administration, president obama and his administration regard this is a poison pill i don't know what the vote -- i don't know what the vote count is. frankly the currency manipulation issues is a difficult issue on our side as well but i am concerned that if it is adopted we will be able to achieve our objective which consent that a way to play out a down to work -- would you disagree with that? >> i would say -- >> i cannot hear you. >> i apologize. >> i agree that it would derail the negotiations. >> one of the few times we can get a good agreement. we have come a long way and it is not just in japan. there are 11 nations plus

hours. so i am concerned about this amendment have feelings about it myself but it makes it difficult to carry this through and i think. i'm very concerned that getting and get -- on the substance we have agreed that the committee seems overwhelmingly feel currency manipulation. it is not the substance. she we had it in. i would add that he has to

change the way we do trade agreements. i believe that we should do trade agreements and believe in the administration's goal of winning these administrations away from to away from china and putting them in our economic world. that is an appealing rationale what but it cannot come at the expense of doing things so i'm toward the. it hurts our ability to export. this bill is heralded by the administration and others as a way to increase exports and jobs. i heard the ways and means chair ryan. this is the best way to increase jobs. putting exporters at a significant disadvantage if our countries three trade with can manipulate currency

at the same time it hurts collection here because it means they are imports that are unduly and unfairly cheaper so let's have trade agreements. i lost i lost the afl-cio endorsement i was in the house, but i have come to the conclusion that with middle-class incomes -- middle class incomes middle-class incomes declining and the need to rebuild the middle class in america we have to rethink the way that we do trade now. we did not put it into tpa. we have to get it done alongside. i don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong there is a lot intrinsically right with putting this

inside tpa because we have to change the way we do trade agreements and prevent our fellow nations from treating us unfairly which has happened for a long time i hope we can get support for this agreement. >> mr. chairman, if i might have one more minute to make too quick points. if requiring japan and the other countries that are going to be a part of a part of the tpp to actually live up to the imf rules and requirements is in fact, a poison pill and will cause the agreement not to go through, then it should not go through. secondly, i argue that is in fact not what we will happen and adding currency language will actually pick up votes as a process goes through. i we will have a

hard time with us all process getting down the house and have you had currency enforcement you actually, i believe pick up support. >> are you prepared to vote for the tpa? >> i am prepared the drink. if i had my way to meet you don't get fast-track authority unless you have a

strong currency you and his partners. senator.

[inaudible conversations] people around the world of manipulating currency. we're staging a conversation with them. my advice back is what you are doing is not working and that sometime you have to get out of the way and let us put teeth into it so that you have a parameter to accomplish what is your acknowledge is a problem. no better place. i understand what the houses said toward the white house is said they need anyone a half an -- [laughter] because it does not do you get you closer to a deal. we're not here to make every

deal closer. we closer. we are here to get it right for america and our partners. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i liked what senator burr said. i would make two comments. there is probably know better vote counter. jeopardizes the passage of already mentioned a couple of members which is if you had currency because supported. if you looking for the ability for me like an my computer we will you do now

good -- if that's your standard with all the respect this is going to help us get this done command it helps trade. i'm a big supporter creates their jobs that go to be able to tell the story to be fair. this is the right combination to the right balance is everyone else good as you questions but i did not. you said that it would derail negotiations. those words were put in your mouth. here are negotiated the trading partners for.

>> i have participated in trade negotiations. >> considerable flexibility i give you examples of several trades that never, never accomplished the way that congress intended. beyond that we also provided flexibility. we don't tell. they are violating to that your meant the detriment of the people we represent. i finally you guys come up with a remedy. a specific remedy in his bill.

the majority was the majority was going to support. talk about retaliation threat, this is a specific one. she would like to go further. focuses on getting more support for trade. i would agree with the statements. this is not about derailing anything for making it harder but about how to make it easier and to say with a straight face to the people hired that this will be good have to be moving forward. >> mr. chairman. >> senator wyden. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i voted for this schumer amendment and the bennett amendment because in my view

neither of those amendments undermines america's ability to fight a financial crisis. i think this is an amendment that is a bridge too far. and in particular what swine me. but the last time we will be discussing this current sequestration -- sequester but to see what janet yellen has said. a progressive democrat. she is concerned about what it will mean with respect to constraining monetary policy and says that the bill is to maintain those two objectives, historical objectives. i urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to vote no this schumer this schumer amendment made sense. i think that this is a bridge too far.

>> we spent days and nights trying to get both houses together on the most important legislation of this administration this year. so this is important stuff command i have no doubt that we can handle it. you know we find. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] ..

>> which is basically an amendment that in essence says

no fast track for human traffickers. human trafficking in the terms of forced labor, marriage and the exploytation is a huge issue in our time. five million children are involved in this and it is estimated to profit $150 billion making it the second largest source of income. we should not offer our services to countries that fail to act on this. our state department puts on its tier three those countries that don't meet minimum national standards and are not making

efforts to do so. my amendment says we cannot provide fast track to countries on tier three. there are 20 countries, and malasia is a party on there. >> mr. chairman please not in order. >> this is a destination and source and transit country for men, women and children subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking. many of the companies known as outsourcing companies recruit workers from foreign countries. the contract labor where the employee is employed by the company creates day to day issues for emp -- employers.

contract recruitment and fees deducted from worker's wages make them vulnerable to debt bondage. we are considering providing to countries that have high standards like japan, canada and new zealand are being given to a country on the state department's list as required under the trafficking victim protection act of 2000. we had a bipartisan vote on human trafficking in the united states senate. it seems to me we should make it clear you cannot violate human trafficking and enjoy the benefits of our trade. you cleanup the act you can be part of it. >> well the clerk will call the role.

>> is there any further debate though? >> i want to thank the senator for his amendment because i share his goal in insuring the administration meets the objectives that congress sets out. but i am confidant the tpa bill already accomplishes this goal. we created two procedures for this committee to review and vote on whether the administration sufficiently achieved negotiations. this amendment does nothing to strengthen our ability to hold the administration accountable. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and i think we would be better off voting no.