those products that are designed and built by oregonian and american workers and get those workers high-skill, high-wage jobs in a tough global economy. if we're going to do that it is going to take a fresh trade policy. the president put it very well in the state of the union when he said and i quote here, past trade deals have not always lived up to the hype. in my view the 1990s playbook on trade have to go. our trade policies in 2015 have got to work better for america's middle class. and that's why i have been working with so many of you on with respect to the bills that we're going to deal with today. so here's what's going to change with this package. our country is going to aim higher in trade agreements. our trade enforcement will be much tougher. and the process of negotiating and voting on agreements will be more transparent. it will be more open.

it will be more democratic. the legislation is designed to safe guard american sovereignty and promote american values. congress will be sending u.s. trade policy in a more progressive direction than it has ever been before. the committee spent a lot of time over the last several days discussing these proposals. and the piece of the package that focuses on trade promotion is certainly going to get much of the attention today. but i want to make sure that the other parts get the attention they want as well. this package is going back to american workers with job training, financial support and access to health care when they are knocked offstride by the global economy. it is a tough challenge competing in global markets and there is fierce competition everywhere. that's why the package extends the health coverage tax credit and expands trade adjustment assistance to include for the

first time service workers in addition to workers in manufacturing. the trade adjustment benefits will be enhanced through current levels and they'll last through 2021. finally, the legislation is going to extend the generalized system through preferences in 2017 in both the haiti hope act and african growth opportunity act will be expanded for a decade. these are important programs. these are important programs that are going to do a lot of work for developing nations around the world. i'm looking forward to a spirited debate to all of these proposals. i know there's going to be many amendments and certainly energetic discussion. i as believe there's a lot of common ground, particularly i'm guaranteeing there are modern trade policies that work for america's middle class. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator wyden.

let's have an understanding, we're not going to have any outbursts in this room. let's treat everybody with respect on both sides of these it issues. we're going to have to vote. we'll let senator grassley give his opening remarks, about three minutes. >> while i'm not sure i thought we would get to this point a month or two ago, it sure has worked out well that senator hatch and senator wyden can work together and get us to this point. trade is very important to our country and our economic future. trade promotion authority with it, we are marking it up today as an important tool in the advancement of the u.s. trade agenda. this legislation is proof congress and the administration can work together to increase economic opportunity for americans all across our 50

states. we already know and common sense dictates that 80% of the purchasing power is located outside of the united states, along with 95% of the world's consumers. as the middle class expands in regions such as asia we have to make sure our businesses and workers have the ability to take advantage of the economic opportunity that growth represents. in iowa alone, 448,000 jobs dependent upon trade, according to the u.s. chamber of commerce figures. and those jobs pay 18 percent higher wages on average because they're tied to trade. we know that american business and workers are the most efficient and productive in the world. we just need to make sure that they have the opportunity to succeed. and while i support and believe in immense benefits of free trade, i also oppose countries tilting the field in their favor through actions like undervaluing their currency to make their exports goods cheaper

in the world market. no business can compete with cheap currencies that are artificially low and have a pegged exchange rate that prevents trade to fall freely. this tpa bill represents the modern realities that we face from the global economy that need to be addressed by our trade negotiators. the bill includes clear negotiating objectives for the standards on sanitary and vital sanitary regulations that must be science-based which will help limit disruptions to u.s. agricultural exports. negotiating objectives are offered related to digital trade and goods in cross-border data flows that are new and unique issues for the time we now live in. clear guidance from congress is also given for localization barriers and intellectual property rights. more transparency and consultations are also required of the administration.

this is a good tpa bill that congress needs to pass so we can finish our trade agreements. the tpp and other trade agreements that we may take part in, offer tremendous opportunity for my country and home state of ireland. we must take this necessary first step that is why we are here today. and so i'm glad we're proceeding accordingly. >> thank you, senator grassley. there has been objection to this meeting, so we will meet -- come back from this vote. these two votes and meet at 11:30, unless we can remove that objection. we will then recess until 4:00. and then we'll be back here for as long as it takes. and i will recognize other senators for their statement when we resume. mr. chairman. >> have you voted senator? >> i have not. but my opening state is really

short. >> go ahead. i'll wait with you. >> thank you for allowing this. i'll be brief. i filed many amendments on 88 initially to the four bills we're considering today. my amendments will improve the negotiating objectives in key areas. it expands congress' role which this should all be about in evaluating trade assessments and trade agreements. i appreciate chairman hatch and senator wyden working with me and my staff to get some of them considered. i look forward to debating them through the course of the day and evening. i wanted to thank chairman hatch and senator wyden for the playing field act in the customs remodification mark. this legislation will make a difference for companies across ohio and workers across those companies like this null core and u.s. steel and many others who face an onslaught of unfairly traded imports and who need strong remedy laws to fight

back. i know you and your staff worked hard to get this bill. i'm truly grateful to my colleagues, casey burr and coates for their advocacy in this as well. i look forward to a productive and constructive markup. >> thank you senator. let's go vote. we'll be back as soon as we can.

so, you heard senator hatch say they're going to go vote a couple amendments on the human trafficking legislation the senator is working on. the senator said they should be back about 11:30. we'll see if they're back in 30 minutes or so. a reminder, the senate begins on the nomination of loretta lynch the attorney general. we expect a procedural vote in the morning. and a confirmation vote is possible on the nominee in the afternoon. our coverage of course, will be on c-span2. yes, the congress haurdeard from donahue and tromp ka. we'll show you as much as we can of that hearing until they're

ready to get back to this mock-up. i'd like to welcome everyone to the continuation of our hearings on congress and u.s. tariff policy. today we have a very distinguished panel of witnesses that i hope will help to us expand the ongoing nature of our trade agenda. as everyone here knows last week senator wyden along with the house and ways and means committee chairman ryan introduced legislation to renew trade promotion authority or tpa. our intention is to mock-up the tpa bill and also trade-related bills later this week. this legislation is a long time coming.

tpa expired in 2007. while talks of various trade agreements are gone since that time. without tpa in effect, our nation and negotiators have been effectively negotiating with one hand tied behind their backs because they've not been able to assure our trading partners that the deal they sign is the one that congress will vote on in the end. our legislation will fix that. i want to thank ranking member wyden for his support and assistance. we've got a long way to go, i'm confident we can get there. now, some of us expressed concerns about the process by can we're moving this bill forward. for example, i've heard examples that we're moving too quickly without examination. those concerns in my view are very unfounded. first of all, the bill in which our tpa legislation was first

introduced in january 2013. since that time it's been available for examination, discussion, and comment. thousands have weighed in on the merits of that bill including business associations organized labor, think tanks and advocacy groups. many members of parties from both chambers are on record in praising or criticizing that bill. officials in the obama administration expressed their support for it. in our discussions senator wyden, chairman ryan made 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 tpa was brought up at virtually every one of them. i know this because more often than not i was the one bringing it up. none of those hearings is negotiated specifically and entirely to tpa, and included

witnesses across the spectrum including one representing organized labor as well. finally, since the 114th congress convened just about three months ago this committee has had three hearings in which trade and tpa 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 from mine, any arguments that we've been less than forthcoming or transparent with this legislation are to put too fine a point on it are nonsense. i've been in the senator a long time. i want our side to be heard. and 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 and open discussion about these issues and i hope we will

continue to do so today but let's not dress up our tradition for concern and tpa as concern for our process. during the hearing i made two assertions about trade. i stated plainly that u.s. trade with foreign country says good thing. and i said that tpa is the best tool congress has in its arsenal to help 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. more hearings or weeks of additional delays aren't going to change many minds one way or the other on these essential issues. with that in mind i welcome today's hearing, like i said i get a very distinguished panel of witnesses. it doesn't get any more distinguished than these two gentlemen before us here today. and i think they will speak to the heart of these matters. i look forward to a spirited discussion. for my part, i just 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. 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 when the world goes on trade. trade is an essential element of a healthy economy. we should be doing all we can an america that advances on the world stage. this will cover 11 nations in the transpacific partnership plus ours. and 28 different makes in the european partnership plus ours. so it involves a high percentage of trade out there the world, and it puts us in a position to be able to do a good job with regard to trade and advance our country in many ways that we will not be able to do without this agreement.

now, let's -- that's where we are. let's stop right there. senator wyden. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman and colleagues, normally, i would 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 1990s. 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. donahue for doing it. i've talked with mr. trumka often in the past. visited with a number of members of the chambers in the interest of my colleagues who want to ask question i will forbear a further statement at this time,

mr. chairman. >> thank you senator wyden. our first witness is thomas j. donahue. he's the president and ceo of the u.s. chamber of commerce. the largest business organization in the the world represents more than 3 million businesses across various industries and sectors. mr. donahue has held this position since 1997. we've had a lot of experience working together. prior to that he served as 13 years as president and ceo of the american trucking association. earlier in his career, he served as the deputy assistant postmaster general of the united states and was vice president of development at fairfield university. mr. donahue received a bachelors degree from st. johns university and an mba from adolphfy. we welcome you. our second witness on this panel

is richard l. trumka. mr. trumka is the president of 12.5 million members of the organization of afl-cio. he's held this position since 2009. i might add that this organization has an eckk effect for all organizes around the world. one of my best friends want an international president of the afl-cio. he's since passed away. prior to this, mr. trumka served for 15 years as the afl-cio's secretary-treasurer. he was president of the united states mine workers. mr. trumka has a bachelors degree from penn state university and a law degree from villanova. he's a tough guy and somebody i have a lot of respect for.

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 on the other hand, we need to listen to both of them i want to thank you, mr. trumka, and mr. donahue as well, for joining us today. welcome to the senate finance committee. we hope this won't be the last time you come before the committee. for that, you'll be the first witness. >> thank you very much chairman hatch, ranking member wyden and distinguished members of the committee. as you now know i'm tom donahue and i'm president and ceo of the chamber of commerce of the united states. i'm really pleased to testify on behalf of our 3 million small and medium-size businesses state and local chambers of commerce, as well as large companies that are members of the chamber and our national

federation. i'm as pleased to be here with my friend rich trumka. we appear quite often together on matters of infrastructure, and when we return, we're going to get a mike & ike show and get 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 ability of 2015 which will renew trade promotion authority. tpa 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 1 in 4 manufacturing jobs depends on exports. and 1 in 3 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 500,000 jobs in oregon depend on trade. just to pick two states at random. 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 tariff and often soaring into double digits, as well as the thicket of nontariff barriers. no one wants to go into a game many points behind the tip-off. but that is exactly what american exporters are doing every day. these barriers are particularly

burdensome for america's small and medium-size is 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, and mr. chairman to enter into the record today. >> without objection it will be entered. >> thank you. 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 smaller 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 forth. that's must faster than we typically see in u.s. export growth to other countries. increased trade brought about about these agreements supports more than 5 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 trade arguments say that they caused 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 are manufactured goods to our trade agreement partners generate revenue of about $55,000 for each american factory worker. many manufacturers just couldn't make pay roll 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 millions of high-wage jobs even though the potential through service industries through export is nearly untapped. but to get more of these benefits congress must approve tpa. the united states has never ventured into a trade agreement without it. a simple form of tpa was first enaffected in 1994 but the latest version expired in 2007. tpa is based on the common sense notion that congress and the house must work together. tpa holds the administration the canable. a few people have claimed that 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 overage. but tpa ceding power to the president. on the contrary, tpa strengthens the voice of the congress on trade without tpa the administration can pursue its own priorityies at the negotiating table and consult with congress if and when it chooses. tpa allows congress to set goals and sets forth detailed requirements for consultation between the trade negotiators and the congress. and what should we do with tpa? we should start by bringing several trade negotiations to a successful conclusion.

the transpacific partnership agreement would open the asia specific dynamic markets to american goods and services. it's 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. tpa gives 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. tpp would affirm and deepen america's ties to asia at the time when there is a perception that we're pulling back. then there's the transatlantic 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 ageing populations and new competition from emerging nations. the united states and the e.u. represents nearly half of the global economy. in relationship that huge eliminating today's relatively modest 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 in 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 strength u.s. service companies are among the most competitive in the globe. the u.s. business community's

perspective, and negotiating objectives laid out in the tpa bill are balanced and ambitious. it 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 life blood of the u.s. company. negotiating objectives have 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 tpa bill's 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 adopt 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 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 tpa's bills negotiating

provision relating to currency reflects a careful and reasonable balance. >> mr. donahue your time is. you i'll let you go over a little bit. can we wrap up real quickly? >> sure, i was going to go as long as i could it's just -- >> i could have interrupted you earlier. >> no thank you. >> you're fine. >> in sum, this is a strong bipartisan bill. there was nothing fast about the manner in which it was done that the chairman indicated and given the careful balance in many areas we urge all of the members to vote for this and get 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 farm markets to american-made goods

and services we need to renew tpa. then we've got to use the legislation to get these trade aagreements. those agreements now being negotiated are going to make a fundamental difference for this country. 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 we'll get down to a good discussion. >> well, thank you. we sure appreciate your testimony. and we appreciate very much you're being here. mr. trumka, we'll allow you a little extra time if you need it, too. we'll turn to you now and hear your testimony. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i start my oral testimony, i'd like to submit for the record my full testimony. >> without objection. >> and the bipartisan letters signed from the house and senate urging the administration to do something on currency

manipulation. a gao report that says that the current labor standards need a week. and need to have more done with monitored enforcement of labor provisions. and an analysis of the hatch/wyden tpa bill. >> without objection they'll be placed in the record immediately following your remarks. >> excuse me mr. chairman, there are a few materials like your former testimony that i know you'll have. >> thank you. >> i'd like to start, mr. chairman by stipulating that tom donohoe san expert of presidents. he goes back to abe lincoln's day. >> you're going to have that before it's all said and done. >> i want to thank you chairman

hatch and chairman wyden and my friend tom donohoe -- [ stand by ] -- sorry for the inconvenience. senators have today's rules.

i don't think i ever used the two-hour rule, if i have, it has to be certainly justified. so in the eyes of the senator who has done this that's justified. we'll see if we can reconvene. >> senator hatch, is this an objection? >> i don't know who gave the objection. i'm pretty sure but i don't want -- okay. it's certainly within any senator's rights. these rules are important and i uphold the rules. that's the bay itway it is. thanks so much. and so you heard chairman

hatch there, this mock-up delayed now it looks like until maybe 4:00 this afternoon. as soon as it gets back under way, whatever time that is. we'll get it live for you on c-span3. right now, let's take you back to yesterday's hearing where the committee heard from thomas donohue and richard trumka. >> -- congress will lose that leverage over provisions by agreeing to fast-track at this late day. the administration has ignored congress' direct instructions to negotiate meaningful currency provisions and to ignore the flawed investment 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 the negotiating 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 tpa 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 assure 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. be sure 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. increased access to trade policy and proposals or negotiating text for congress, congressional

staff and the public and include a broader trade and competitive package that addresses infrastructure, training short comings and tax policies to ensure that all, and i mean all can benefit from trade. a few comments about tpp to the extent that we know. bipartisan majorities of the house and the senate have insisted that currency manipulation should be addressed. but the administration has failed to include any currency provisions in tpp. epi, a study, said that the u.s. could add as many as 5.8 million jobs to our economy by eliminating currency manipulation. an investment to legitimate and serious concerns have been raised by both the left and the right, about investor state

dispute settlement. yet the investment provisions of tpp have not addressed any of those concerns. on climate without a border adjustment, tpp will not stop manufacturing from closing up shops in the united states moving to tpp countries with no carbon reduction scheme. in fact, it will 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 disadvantage of american producers. on the labor side, while the labor movement has been clear that the status quo on labor the so-called may 10th agreement needed further strengthening. the may 10th 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 10th language of 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 assistance 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 ftas. so, when people say this is the highest standard yet, talking

about labor you'll have to excuse me if i'm unmoved or unsatisfied 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 laborer chantpter but usta has ignored those requests. they're not there. i'd also say that the human rights in the hatch-wyden-ryan is not winding. vietnam, malaysia and mexico are already in the tpp demonstrates that the 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 undemocratic process known as fast track. and develop instead a new trade negotiating authority it for the 21st century. this is going to affect 40% of the world's gdp. 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

tpp. 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. and senator wyden, to strengthen this piece of legislation to make it better for the american worker. >> thank you, mr. trumka and thank you, mr. donoghue, we appreciate both of you. we know that you're busy people and also very sincere people in your respective areas of the

law. >> thank you very much mr. chairman i indicate i want to let me my colleagues ask their questions. i just want to make one quick point, mr. trumka with whom i agree with so often suggested that there would be insufficient public scrutiny of tpp. colleagues under this legislation, by law the american people will have tpp in their hands for two months before the president signs it. and months more before it is fully debated on the floor in the house and the senate. for that i want to let me my colleagues ask questions. >> maybe i'll take back my right to ask questions at this point. mr. donahue as you noted in your opening testimony as i've been saying for years now since trade propositional authority expired in 2007, our countries, our

experts, in the world market place, 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 from 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? >> 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 evergrowing number of jobs. it will have a measurable effect on the economy in the united states. and it will make us far less significant in the geopolitical economic affairs of the world. it would -- you know, 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 effect we're going to have on the general affairs the world. and most of all, mr. chairman 95% of the people and 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. failure to compete is a resignation from the global economy. and the results would be one of the great tragedies of our time. >> 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 nonintensive industries. ustr also tells us the current exports supporting an estimated 7,000 u.s. jobs, expanded services would unlock new opportunities to americans unquote. according to a latest data, less than 12% of those employed in service occupations are represented by unions. mr. trumka, the u.s. fair agreement tells us that the free trade would create more jobs in export intensive industries including services in turn that mean more jobs in sectors with significant representation and higher wages. with those data provided from the democratic union from the administration, why do you have

agreements that can expand your membership? and more importantly generate good paying jobs for middle class workers? i just think that's a question. and what are your thoughts on that, mr. donahue after mr. trumka finishes? >> first of all i'd like to comment on the last question that you asked tom. >> sure. >> this isn't a choice between tpp and no trade. that if we don't get tpp, we get no trade. that's way you made it sound and that's the way he answered. there's a lot of distance between that. what we're saying is let's have a good trade benefit that really does benefit people. the statistics, we'll also tell you for every billion dollars in trade deficit and we have about $500 billion of trade deficit every year, there's several thousand, almost 15,000 jobs lost berper billion dollars of

trade deficit. now each one of the trade deficits that we've sign identification has increased that deficit. it's sustaining. 500 billion a year takes jobs out of the country. 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 we could create jobs and benefit everybody, but currently the tpp has constituted is not that bill. it doesn't address currency. it doesn't address the investment and doesn't address the labor provisions and doesn't address the environmental provisions. it doesn't address by american provisions. there are a number of other things we listed and try to make

this agreement into something worth while. we worked for five years to try to make tpp 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. 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 something, better than tpp but a lot better than nothing. because there's a lot of room between there and to imply tpp isn't vast we're not going to do trade, is a misinterpretation. >> my time is up. 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 by national trade with mexico is supporting 6 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 large part been because of trade. we led the nation in overall exports since 2002 and beef, cotton, pet trow chemicals and texas manufacturers and farmers set new records of exports with

$290 billion worth of merchandise to buyers around the globe. i believe this trade promotion authority proposal that we'll markup tomorrow is -- represents real progress. the challenge i think we have is 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 not feasible. what i worry about and mr. donahue, you allowed to this if we don't engage with asia on the transpacific partnership proposal, i'm waiting to see what the contents of it are because i don't believe -- i do believe that the impact trade does not fall uniformly and

there are things we need to do and will do with trade assistance authority to help people who are dislocated as results of trade use new skills and higher paying jobs. but what would be the consequences long term if we don't do this and countries like china step in to fill the void. >> it's important to first recognize senator that we are the largest manufacturer in the world. we're the most significant economy in the world. but that realty of what's going on around the world sees very large economies getting more efficient, more productive and more engaged with one another on trade. if we are not major players in

the trading affairs of the world, it will have a fundamentally negative effect on jobs in the united states and our influence around the globe. mr. trumka is a very passionate representative of his ideas. i would say just for the record, mr. chairman all of our numbers on jobs on 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, very clear. but i think there's another point we should all look at if you would allow me to make a point. the jobs lost in the united states in manufacturing, the great percentage of them they go to two countries. they go to a country called efficiency and country called productivity.

the american business system which is the most efficient in the world has taken 40% of the jobs out of the manufacturing process because of information technology and robotics and process engineer and supply chain management, those 40 jobs -- those 40% of the jobs are never coming back but the way we get the jobs back is mr. trum ka wants and we all wants we do two things. number one we encourage others to come here and produce their products. you can 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. the second thing that we need to do and fundamentally efficient way, produce more things in our manufacturing plants and in new manufacturing plants that we

would bill and export them around the world. those are the only ways to expand manufacturing jobs in the united states. >> mr. chairman i wasn't here when the north american free trade agreement was negotiated but i can tell you in my state it's viewed as a net positive for that region of the country and as the central american free trade agreement is but part of the consequences i would close on this point, i was with senator cain in hon durduras and remember the influx of minors moving into the united states, and our failure to have -- help our neighbors provide not only security but grow their economy where they live does have residual and impact on us in ways that perhaps we don't even

recognize. so i appreciate the great work you and the ranking member have taken on this and look forward to supporting the tpa and tomorrow's markup. >> mr. chairman might i comment? senator, you indicated that we would have 535 different agreements without fast track. that again, there's a whole lot in between there. i suggest that the following things to improve trade promotion authority ensure that congress approves trade agreement partners before the negotiation begins, create negotiation objectives that are specific to each one of the trading partners because they are different. ensure that congress not the executive branch determines whether the trade objectives

have been met, ensure that congress has effective opportunities to strip provisions from trade deals that fail to meet congressional objectives and public participation. and we also think that we ought to integrate this with the rest of the things necessary to make a trade work. infrastructure, training and tax policies. so it's not that we're saying we can't have it or that you shouldn't have it. we're seeing this one the one you're considering aggregates too much power. you give too much power away and have no control over this agreement almost completely negotiated. >> mr. chairman, we always recognize that a negotiation is a give and take. you experienced it here in your own committee in recent weeks as you working together have come up with a bill. that's exactly what happens in a

trade negotiation. and the fundamental reality is we're in a new time and if we fail to inject ourselves at the right time and in a significant way in this trading process those other large and growing countries are going to do it on their own. i know everybody believes america is so essential because they are because of technology and because of our value system and so on, we have got to keep -- to keep that position we have got to enter into these agreements. we don't have to give away our value system. we have to deal with the things that are important but there's no way that we can tell everybody else just wait ten years, we'll get our stuff together and think about it and work about it. we have got to have an expediting system and have a system that let's people that do this every day all day professionals to bring you the

results based on what you told them you want. but tomorrow is too late. today it's time to move on these issues. >> thank you for holding this discussion today and i want to thank both of our witnesses mr. trumka, my belief is the greatest problem america faces is the decline of middle class incomes, it's harder to stay in the middle class and gain in the middle class. i know of almost no one who has done more than you and thank you for your good work and mr. donahue, for your strong advocacy and leerdship. we've worked together on many issues immigration above all, but export/import infrastructure and most important from saint theresa's parish in brooklyn. we know the administration when

they try to sell me on tpp, it's almost the gees geopolitics that prevail. s if there's an economic between them and china, i agree with that goal. with that said, if that's one of the main goals to lure country from china's influence, it makes perfect sense as part of the overall effort to -- within tpp or alongside tpp to deal with china head on to show them that there's not business as usual. not only do they manipulate their currency which has cost us millions of jobs and trillions of dollars of wealth unfairly flowing from us to them. it's been documented over and

over again and probably worst of all, would we have a good product they don't let us in. we're in a new phase high tech stuff. that's our hope and future. you've already had the competition with furniture and toys and clothing sort of low end stuff. but if they start stealing our intellectual property in these areas and then they keep us out, or they have us force us to join join ventures 51% owned and take that information to build industries from their protected market and compete with us, i don't know of anything that's more frightening to me that continued thing that i believe is so important, which is to get the middle class incomes going again like it was in the grand era of america from 1950 to 2000. i think we can do two things.

i know what china does. i had a small company in upstate new york they needed a material from china rare earth, 500 jobs the guy said to me i know that's against wto but i can't spend five years not having the good and going to court through the process. then i spoke to the business roundtable. just about every one of them is one of your members. i told them i thought china doesn't play fair and it's hurting our big companies. that's why we needed currency and do more against china alongside within or alongside tpa. you know position of the business round table is against that. that's six of the major ceos, all of whom you know mr. donahue and we all know came -- we can't say anything, but china retaliates if we say a thing. we need that big market.

i appreciate that. if i were ceo of one of these companies i might do the same thing. they said you keep it up. my goal here is to do something about china, to do something about china, the most repatience of our trading partners and i was very disappointed in the efforts of president bush and i'm disappointed in the efforts of president obama. i've dealt with five treasury secretaries on this issue currency in particular from snow on, and none of them have done anything. so this markup is a unique opportunity to stand to do something about the repashsness of china trade. it's the one point in time throughout this tpp process where congress will have the opportunity to show that to china and the world it's not business as usual because they are just killing us. they are just taking everything from us and not fair way. wto not compliant way and thumb

their nose and say take us to wto. i say to my colleagues, now is the time if there ever was one, if not now when? it's a unique opportunity to do something about china. some of us are against tpa and others are for it. but we can all agree, we had 60 people as mr. trumka mentioned, saying we ought to do something as part of this process with china and i hope we will. and we cannot have weak tea, anything discretionary that said the administration could do something against china if they want to, i've been through the wars on this one. i've tried every administration and spent hours with every treasury secretary and they never say china is a currency manipulators because the forces are too strong the other way. unless we have something stronger than any administration, not just this one, it's not going to work.

my quick question to each, mr. trumpka, what do you feel -- how do you feel about currency manipulation as part of this and mr. donahue not on this particular bill which i know you're strongly for, but do you believe we should be doing something on currency manipulation that it's a problem for us here? >> epi says currency manipulation alone cost the country 5.8 million jobs. if we eliminate currency manipulation we have the chance to gain almost 6 million jobs. we strongly support that and think it needs to be part of the agreement. i would also say though, mr. chairman, senator schumer, that some of our partners in tpp have been identified as currency manipulator manipulators. malaysia, japan and singapore have been identified as currency manipulators as well. >> i do my bill just applies to

china though. >> senator, as we've debated many subjects, but as we know, that the china card so to speak is an issue that we'll be dealing with many years it's complicated by serious problems in china as well, economic problems. my view about this bill is that there is a very serious attention to currency as it should be and it is at a point where i would encourage moving ahead without major amendments. in terms of dealing with currency outside the bill there are a lot of things here that are important. mr. trumpka said japan was a currency manipulators they were

back then but haven't been for a long time. people would accuse the united states of currency manipulation when we were dealing with the crisises of recent years when we were handling and managing our interest rates and other factors that came out of the fed. the specific challenge that you raise about china is one that we will deal with all of our lifetimes. i am very willing and very anxious to talk about other beyond this agreement, other opportunities to get the facts straight, look for ways to apply more -- i wouldn't say aggressive, but more successful pressure on these issues. i understand the point about this theft of intellectual property and may complain we're making a little progress but sure not enough. i understand what happens when they decide to make a product

and don't need us any longer. the china issue needs serious discussion. we'd like to be a part of it. i don't think at this date and this time that you can go beyond what we're talking about on currency in this bill. >> thank you. senator schumer i want to make it clear that i believe this is a serious issue. and that i don't think it should be part of this agreement which has been very very fast id yusly worked out, i am willing to work hearings and do appropriate work after we pass this bill if we can get this passed with everybody's attention. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm always struck when you two gentlemen are before the committee that there are many things that you actually agree on and workforce training and xm

back seem to be two of those, do i have that right? >> yes. >> you're both supportive of like a apprentice programs for job training? >> we don't have enough of them. the private sector spends something in the area of $60 billion a year on this. the public sector rich and i have talked about this and the bill that will have to be a bill that on job training and trade adjustment assistance to follow all of these trade deals but we really believe that has to be thought out more. we're doing old things in job training. we can do new things to train people for new industries but we both agree we need to do those things in the private sector and public sector. >> good because we'll -- we're proposing new things but i definitely am a big supporter of taa and don't think we should do

tpa or tpp without it but mr. donahue, could you please tell the republican presidential candidates that they are wrong about the xm bank? >> thank you, let me say, senator, we don't do presidential politics. we do every other kind -- >> do you think people -- >> we talk to people that are, you know in the public world about presidential policies and you're damned right we tell them because we -- >> that the xm bank should be passed? >> i have told probably three of them myself and we are -- we have a little plan to have a visit with some of these people in the normal course of this business and point out what the bank means to this country and to american industry and particularly to thousands and thousands of small companies. >> well, i just want to say with

my time that i'm a big -- i come from a big manufacturing state and it has a lot of labor members in it and it has a lot of people who support trade. in fact probably one in three jobs are related to trade. i support having more bilaterals and multilaterals because a bunch have been done while we've been sitting around not having tpa. but at the same time i believe that we have to have these tools that work together like xm bank and trade adjustment assistance and investment in apprentice programs and things that go along with this. i hope that we can get our colleagues here to understand that it's both and i think you hold a lot of haunch to make sure we get these things done. otherwise, then it's only sharehow oldshare shareholders benefitting from these deals and not working people. i think i would put up our manufacturing skills against anybody in the world.

>> best in the world. >> and i also don't apologize for our country being a leader in. aerospace manufacturing and make ag great product worth hundreds and millions of dollars when people talk about boeing being the xm bank, it's almost they want us to apologize we don't make a lot of chachkys and ship to china. we want people to buy those planes. i hope people will stop and realize for one second that aeropace manufacturing is a lot of jobs in the united states of america. >> it's a bad thing to make predictions because then the people you want to work hard let up. the things that you've raised, the issues of job training and some of the related issues there, we could talk about community colleges and all of that, and the thing you raise on the bank are issues that we're pushing very hard and i feel

that we're going to get there. >> thank you. thank you very much mr. chairman. >> thank you we'll turn to senator warren. >> thank you to both of our witnesses, i feel when we're talking about trade we need to start by saying we're in a global economy and know we're going to trade. this is about whether we're exporting our products or jobs and it's a question of policy. so we either have something that needs restrengthened in the middle class and we bring workers with us or race to the bottom. and i will never forget sitting in greenville, michigan, with a company that was making refrigerators a number of years ago and we were trying all kinds of things to keep them in west michigan and you can't compete with $1.57 an hour in wages. it can't be a race down to that. it has to be a race up.

i fundamentally when we're talking about fast track let's talk about fast tracking the middle class so we can make it arace up. one of those issues is very much currency manipulation i know my colleague, senator schumer has talked about this and others are talking about this as well. senator graham and i offered an amendment -- a letter with 60 numbers. that's a pretty magic number 60 members who said we would not support trade agreements wanted trade agreements to include enforceable currency language needs to be in tpa and in tpp. i'm wondering, mr. trumpka, i know you talked about currency and the importance of enforcing it. but talk more about what this means in terms of jobs because from the numbers i've seen we've lost millions of jobs because we haven't enforced against china

or back when japan was doing it and they can do it again. it seems to me that's a very important part of enforcement. >> absolutely, epi did a study and it estimates that correcting currency manipulation would create 5.8 million jobs in this country. that's almost 6 million jobs with currency manipulation being corrected. and if you want -- if one of the reasons you want to vote for tpp is because you want the u.s. to be a world leader, well, china is excluded from this agreement. china is a leader in that area, will continue to lead with currency manipulation and we do nothing about it. we won't change the rules for currency manipulation between u.s. and those trading partners, or china and those trading partners, it's going to have a dramatic effect and continued drain of jobs. and everything that you gain in

this agreement by reducing tariffs and other things can be on veeiated overnight by people manipulating their currency. i want to say this tom, put your mind to rest. i don't like you to worry. the actions of the federal reserve do not constitute currency manipulation according to the mif does you don't have to worry about that and that can be put asleep for a little while. >> rich, what i said to be specific others would accuse us because of the use of the fed to support us during a crisis of manipulating currency. >> but you agree it is a current manipulation. >> i agree it isn't in standard terms and people have come out and tried to agree within the international organizations that going ahead and dealing with interest rates that way wouldn't

be manipulation and they did it because all of europe is now gone to do that to try and save their own economy. >> what i think the debate is again, foreign currency issues versus domestic. we have economists from the right and left who said what has been done here with the fed is not what we're talking about when we're saying currency manipulation and i can just say as we approach not just tpa but after this tpp and ability to open up with japan which right now is closed, i grew up with a father, had a car dealership and my grandpa. they couldn't put a car dealership in japan. they couldn't put cars in japan from the united states, cars made in michigan in japan right now. trying to open that up, one. of the great concerns i have, when we see japanese automakers made their whole profit in the past based on currency

manipulation, now, let's compete fair and square. that's what i'm concerned about as we move forward in these trade agreements. >> senator warner. it's great to see both of you again, i guess a couple of points i want to make. one, i do fear at times that the analogies back to nafta, thank goodness we're in a different world at this point. america is much more competitive on manufacturing and american energy costs because of things like you again both have supported like key stone and others, make us more competitive. i think having a trade agreement strengthens our hands in terms of attracting jobs. i agree and one of the things that senator schumer and senator stabenow mentioned was currency manipulation. i think it needs to be addressed. the curious thing, lts way i read senator schumer's bill this would be a perspective tool

but japan wouldn't apply on currency manipulation. there's a question china would. should we add more tools to our tool kit going forward as somebody who lost money -- absolutely stolen our property, absolutely. the knowing of doing nothing right now and continuing status quo would be a disaster for america, vis avis china and the region. i point out to my colleagues i wish senator schumer was still here, most of his argument until he got to currency was in favor -- you could argue in favor of tpa and tpp because clearly america's position has weakened and it seems to be retreating. i point out "the new york times" article on saturday that points out the fact as a congress we have not taken up the imf reforms and not ended up doing export/import bank and we have -- the chinese have started

to create a brand-new financial institution and focused on asia and ultimately could contest to the terms of the dollar -- these are things if we want to truly protect american jobs, we have to be worried about. what do we do? well, there's 40% of the world we're talking about here china is not part of tpp. who's going to set the framework for that region? i believe it ought to be american led. i think the work of the chairman and ranking member both in terms of the added transparency and intellectual property and -- which i get the fact they are not as strong standards on environment and labor as you like but at least they are standards. and i believe there are standards that can be enforced, which is not the case in the past. if we take these 11 nations and combine them in what i would hope would be an american-led trading entity that this will give us the ability to actually

increase the leverage who long term i believe we have to watch on every account, both in terms of intellectual property theft and trade advantage and currency, but let's not miss the opportunity for america to once again reassert its national and international leadership in trade and in a way that i believe will actually increase jobs increase job opportunities and my fear is that refighting the battles of the '90s in 2015 is not the format we ought to be looking at. let me close with one question to mr. donahue you can come back at me as well. >> i'd like that. >> isds we have got folks, members of the senate who are saying this could open up a whole new can of worms and ambassador froman said it --

there are prudential exceptions in the language put forward, this is a tool that has not been used a lot in the past. there's some question that it's being ramped up and potentially could undermine our labor environmental and other laws. do want to make a comment? >> senator it's an issue that that can't stand the argument. it's so much stronger than the argument when you look at it. there are 3,000 trade agreements that have these provisions and we have never lost -- never lost one of these issues. they have no authority to impede on federal law. new -- if we ever lost a negotiation, it would be somebody would have to pay our money. but it is -- it's been in trade

agreements and provides a rational way to address issues and the only reason anyone would bring this up is a reason not to do what we're about to do here is because they didn't want to do it. this argument doesn't carry the water. and i think it's very important to understand something. the people that -- and i respect people -- we disagree 80% of the time but we get along pretty well. i respect his positions. but what's going on here is that the people who don't want to do the trade bill under current circumstance would like to stop this bill because it's the only way they can do it. and i think to leave those trade bills on the side of the road to deny as the senator from michigan said, the opportunity to create lots more, serious jobs in manufacturing and to sell to that 95% of the people around the world that want to

buy our stuff would be a serious mistake. i respect the real strong views here but i'm telling you, he's going to have a hell of a lot more members if we do these deals than he is if we don't. >> your time is up. >> may i respond, mr. chairman? >> sure. >> first of all this isn't an issue about doing nothing or have having tpp. this is about making tpp worthy of every american and not just tom's members, they are going to do real fine. no matter what they are going to do fine. these are some standards better than no standards. we were told by the ustr general council that murdering a trade unionist doesn't violate these standards. that perpetuating violence against a trade union doesn't

violate these agreements. excuse me. excuse me, if i'm not willing to accept that standard because i think the country can do better. >> with regard to isds look this is a special privilege for companies, no individual gets access to isds. tom, we haven't lost a case yet. we won a couple by technicalities that we would have lost. there was just a case in nova scotia two weeks ago, they wanted to expand a stone quarry and all around it was an environmentally sensitive area. they denied the permit to expand the stone quarry. the isds panel said, you're entitled to damages. they are going to collect because they didn't get an extension of their boundaries into a sensitive environmental area. this will affect food safety and

it will affect the environment and it affects trade unionists i can tell you that. this is a secret tribunal that you can't control. you can give them instructions but once that panel is em panelled, they have the absolute power to do what they want to do. and they interpreted the language that you have given them fair and reasonable and economic, economy, beyond any stretch of an imagination. so senator, we can do a lot better and american workers deserve a lot better than what we're getting with tpp or with this version of it. >> senator casey. >> thank you, mr. chairman i appreciate the hearing. i thank mr. donahue and mr. trumpka for being here, especially want to note the

pennsylvania roots and -- >> here. >> using that vulnerable law agree today, right? i'm grateful for the opportunity because it's important that we debate this, even an issue that has tends to divide the country and even divides both political parties between and among themselves, my concern here with both trade pro morgs authority and tpp the trade deal itself is the same concern i had of nafta and every other agreement since then, what is the impact not just broadly on pennsylvania, that's my first priority, but in particular what it means for workers and wages. unless it can meet the test of -- that i set forth with regard to workers and wages, very difficult for me to support either the trade promotion authority or the trade deal itself, let me focus first on wages.

i would argue that -- and very similar to what senator schumer said central challenge as a counted, our central domestic challenges, how do we solve this wage problem? there's a recent report by the economic policy institute which very graphically and very alarming manner set forth the correlation between wages and productivity world war ii almost perfect alignment. if productivity was up as it was in those years 97%, wages went up 91%. that's the way it ought to work. since '73 for a whole variety of reasons, not simply because of trade but certainly trade i believe is a substantial factor, we have a -- in the united states of america productivity up 74% in those 40 years and 73 to 13, wages up 9, not 91 9%.

neither political party has come up with an answer to that central challenge. part of the debate or this debate i think -- i should say part of the resolution of that problem is what we do on trade not the only part of the solution. so we see now that a recent paper by economists at the university of pennsylvania as well as other universities found that when workers are displaced by trade and they switch jobs and suffer real wage losses, between 12 and 17%. i guess mr. trumka i ask you and some of this you set forth in your testimony. what is the best approach in terms of using our trade policy to address the wage problem or lack of wage growth? >> first of all, you have to get it right on -- trade authority

the fast track authority. i've laid out a series of things that would make it right so congress has more control and can certify when they believe the objectives have been met. we've laid out a whole chapter. we worked with the european unions in anticipation of ttp and laid out an entire chapter how to make labor standards better so we don't destroy their standards in europe or our standards here. i would love to submit that to you and put it in the record. >> thanks very much. i want to say for the record as well, in the section of your testimony at the very end about/hqñ labor, i'm quoting here, when you analyze the may 10th provisions and how they have fallen short i think very few americans, very, very few, tiny

percentage of americans know the story of what happened in these countries to trade unionists. the number in colombia on murders you said was 105. that's evidence enough but even if it doesn't rise to the level of gravity of a murder, just the intimidation and threats and the failure to have any kind of -- any kind of enforcement mechanism in place what are we doing about that? i think virtually nothing as a country. that's what i think your proposal as it relates to having given congress more of a role in terms of weighing in on who these trading partners are and who gets in -- who gets into our agreements is a pretty reasonable and appropriate approach. i know i'm over time. thank you. >> thank you senator. senator menendez is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i think we all have the same goal in mind and that is jobs for our families markets for our businesses that together build a stronger american economy. and trade may offer some new opportunities but it also brings challenges. we talk about breaking barriers or ending barriers to trade but i have a broader view of what the barriers are than just simply tiresome regulations. for example lower labor and environmental standards make foreign workers with fewer skills less expensive than highly skilled american workers with greater expectations for higher living standards. i think the failure to protect our intellectual property in other countries leads to cuts in the values of our investments and value of our products in international markets. at the end of the day for me -- and i voted -- i haven't had a

knee jerk reaction i thought the balance was right but for me trade bills have been about protecting and providing opportunities for my state's workers and our businesses in a world where competition is not always fair and not always open. it seems to me we should judge standards set for any trade deal and the deals themselves on how well they deliver on those priorities. so with that, let me ask you president trumpke we -- i heard your comments in the office when i was getting ready to come and i know you're passionate about workers rights. i think a barrier to trade is also the ability to enforce the provisions of our trade agreements, which i think have sadly not gone in the direction that i would like to see. and those include the provisions of trade agreements as it relates to negotiated labor

standards. so can you talk a little bit -- you started with my colleague senator casey with columbia but the lack of enforcement mechanisms and would you support an amendment that would mandate all countries must meet negotiated labor standards prior to any new trade deal going into effect with them? in other words to verify before we trust countries with lax labor standards. >> i would the other thing i would suggest right off the bet, the wage talked about in the trade agreements is the minimum wage. vietnam happens to be 60 cents an hour. the lack of enforcement is one of the major problems in labor standards and environmental stap dards. the agreement with a step in the right direction but doesn't get us there. the gautuatemalaguatemalan situation

where dealing with gross violations of the standards has been going on for six years now. with no end in sight. colombia since the labor action was put into place and there's nothing they can do about it. that's why senator getting the rules right now is so important because no matter how great the enforcement, if the rules you are are inadequate, no matter how great the enforcement, they don't get there. and the rules or standards that are being told to us that are in tpp are inadequate to protect the american workers and discourage american manufacturers and employers from sending jobs offshore. so we are all for enforcement and i'm sure tom would agree we want to eliminate every one of the cheaters that we can.

but if you don't have the standards to enforce, you can't get the job done. >> i agree. you need the right standards, but even when we've had standards that some of us might agree to we haven't had the enforcement mechanisms -- >> that's correct. >> that's absolutely right. >> i've long advocated for strong intellectual property protections in any trade deal. does the chamber believe that protecting innovation through strong ip protections is an important priority in any trade deal? >> the chamber has a major broadened system both international and domestic on dealing with counterfeiting and theft of intellectual property. it's put a great deal of money in it. we work with individual countries and we work with groups of countries. we have had very significant

improvement in about 70% of the countries which are giving us a much better protection of intellectual property and also doing it at home because you can lose your intellectual property here in the united states faster than you can get ready to go to work. the points made about china and others, there are still issues where there's a sophisticated way of going after your intellectual property. >> let me ask you one final question, the current u.s. standard is 12 years of patent protection for buy logics this is an incredibly important industry in my home state of new jersey where we are the medicine cabinet to the world. do you think our trade deal should protect that standard? >> i don't exactly know the answer to that but i will tell you something i know more about trade about the protection of

biologics and patent deals on pharmaceuticals just in my own family, dealing with that issue now and want to do anything i can to protect americans ability to drive the innovation that they are in biologics and pharmaceuticals and other things we're doing. you can't catch up with me on that deal. >> i'm glad to hear that. i know that you'll have to run after me on that part. i look forward to working with you on that issue. thank you. >> your time is up. it was kennedy and myself who dreamt that 12-year data xlusivety without which we would not have a biological empire in this country. you're talking the truth and i appreciate you raising it. senator izaacson. >> thank you mr. chairman i appreciate the opportunity and learned a lot from listening to other questions, i'm one that

favors doing business. i sold houses for 33 years in my life before i came to congress. i never saw the perfect deal but made a lot of deals. we had a meeting of the minds. this is not a perfect deal but the question i have in my mind to make sure it's the best deal we can get to move forward for our country. i give you this premise few years ago took a mission to india, all of americas jobs have gone to india, we went to meet with the owner of emphasis, now the largest traded company on the nasdaq. he has an 80 acre campus in india where he was doing back room operations for u.s. hospitals and emergency rooms and help desks for corporations. we asked him all of america is so scared all of our jobs is going to india because what you're doing with lower wages and more technology and things like that. would you tell the american people? why would we not fear india? a very simple reason. when i started my reason, i

drove an indian car and drank an indian soft drink. today i drink coca-cola and bank with citi bank and drive a fords. the point being when you do business with people you end up doing business both ways. american products were then being sold in india and today interestingly enough 12 years later, the help desks have come back to midwestern united states and left india because standards have grown for wages and labor laws and things like that, they want too compare a playing field with the united states. i respect the middle class. i was in savannah, georgia yesterday where we have a new plant coming into caterpillar coming to georgia from japan now building tractors they were building in japan, building them in georgia and shipping them back to japan. that's good for manufacturing jobs in georgia. those are middle class jobs. it's very important we promote jobs that promote trade because 1.2 million georgians jobs are

dependent on trade. we have 10,400,000 people. i want to make sure we have a vibrant trade policy not one that puts the other way currency manipulation, not one that looks the other way in labor standards, but one that is realistic enough to do business because if you do business with people, you would have a better chance to influence your rights than if you don't do business with them. would you agree with that? >> the history of u.s. economy from our very beginning was doing business with people around the world to bring us products we didn't have innovations we had not yet achieved and it has shifted to where we're shifting products and innovations all around the world which has given us over time more influence around the world than we otherwise would have had. we could sit here for a week and talk about the value of americans export of ideas and

values and products. i think the argument here should come down on this particular bill to finally after all of these years putting us in a place to do more of what we've done for years to sell american products and move american ideas and values and i hope we don't screw it up looking for the perfect or seeking to get rid of this bill because we really don't want to do the trade bills. >> i really have a lot of respect for what you do and people you represent. and one of the things you talked about meant a lot to me and i believe in seriously is workers rights and not doing business with people that abuse other people. but you have a better way of influencing your values orrjq&&lh @r(t&háhp &hc% importing your or exporting your values overseas if you're doing business with somebody rather than if you're fold your arms and not doing it. one example, in africa, i do a lot of work in africa with the african growth and opportunity

act which this week we extend for ten years. in that swathy land was a participant. until we learned up they are beating workers for not working hard enough and being productive enough and withdrew them on a temporary basis. they came back to the table and started to treat workers right. doing business with america was more more than than abusing their workers. so my point is i would like you to respond to this don't we have better leverage by doing business with people to encourage them to do better in terms of way they treat their folks or do we have to insist on it being part of the deal? >> first of all, it is important to do business with people, but the rules are important because the rules and trade agreements you've been talking about have been resulting in a $500 billion deficit for this country each and every year trillions and trillions flowing out not coming in. that's why it's important for the rules. it's also important for the rules whenever you engage them to have the ability to help

correct those things. now, take -- if they are going to agree to the core standards and quite frankly, if we're willing to agree to the ilo core standards because we haven't been willing to do that yet, then you've got a chance to really influence them and improve their conduct. but if all you do is say all you have to do is comply with minimum wage and when they don't even comply with their minimum wage, we don't have the ability to influence or change it, it goes the opposite way senator. they look at the united states as perpetuateing that bad treatment. and we're better than that. we can do better than that if we write the right rules and have an agreement that we can enforce. then we can be a positive force for good around the world but this trade agreement will not do that. >> mr. chairman i gave both

sides a chance to make their case, let the record show. >> senator brown, you're up. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. trumka and donahue good to see you both. a lot of people accuse you and might accuse me of being against trade and protectionists and being stuck in the last century or even the one before the last century. did afl oppose the idea of tpp from the beginning? >> absolutely not. quite the contrary. we engaged almost five years ago. we've submitted dozens and dozens, a couple hundred suggested language changes to make the agreement better. we did and still want to be able to support tpp but in its current standards it falls far short. >> you could see from the amendments that a number of us

will offer there will be a lot of them, mr. chairman, as you may have heard by now, that we'll be offering on thursday or wednesday -- wednesday i guess you could see that this trade agreement, tpa and tpp could be improved significantly if -- if you would take two or three ideas that you have tried to constructively engage ustr or staff of this committee in to give me some ideas of where we could do much better than we're doing on this? >> well with regard to tpa, first of all, ensure that congress approves trade agreements before -- partners before they are negotiations begin. that you create objectives that are specific to each individual trading partner. that congress and not the executive branch determine whether congressional trade objectives have been met. we've submitted a whole chapter on labor to make it better. we've submitted a chapter on currency, we've submitted a

chapter on isds and we've submitted a chapter on the environment that doesn't include and procurement rules by america and number of other things that we think could make tpp not only a good agreement but one worthy of the american -- >> little of this has been accepted? >> well, in fact, less than three or four changes have been offered from our trade -- >> i heard you say that in the testimony. >> they haven't been included in our proposal, no. >> like you, i've tried to engage in the process both at a member and staff level with u.s. trade representative. pushed for currency disciplines and better enforcement of labor standards for improved state-owned enterprise language for modified investor state provisions more than a dozen more. if i were anti-trade, like you, i wouldn't take the time and bother and get my staff to put the time in it makes in this effort ustr claims they had 51

meetings and ambassador froman sat what you were sitting they claim 51 meetings with me and my staff. that may be true. i don't know we've asked for the list of meetings and true rethink how we do things. it's to tell me i'm wrong and my concerns are not valid. the administration has taken the approach you're either with us or against us on trade. i heard your testimony throughout all of this. there's tpp. there's something in between. it's much more desirable that we can get agreement on. i just wonder why on trade agreements when we've seen what kind of permanence they bring why there's so much hostility to changing the direction of trade

policy. the american public, as you point out, is pretty cynical about this and pretty skeptical about congress's learning nothing with some exceptions but minor is not much different of tpa from years ago. it's been 13 years since congress fast track with small significant exceptions. i think we have real opportunity in this amendment process. my question for you is, can you comment in a general but substantive way on what's at stake if we don't improve u.s. trade policy, what happens to our country? i've heard the opinion that the world falls a part, more or less.

if you would give us your view of what happens. >> ttp is 40% of the gdp and t pip is the other% percent. you'll see the continuation of wage stagnation and any quality growing inging in this country. we'll continue to see the middle class shrink and get decimated. not be able to remedy that in some way or another. one way to remedy is you stop buying other products i guess. that would create a tremendous hardship on our economy and on the american worker.

>> it can translate into 7,000 jobs. that's great. it's a little bit like saying the cleveland indians scored six runs yesterday. yeah, but the tigers scored 8. when you talk about a billion dollars in services, trade it's 7,000 jobs. what is it when the surplus, when we're buying so much more than we're selling. i'll stop there. thank you for your indulgence.

>> thank you very much. i passed at the againing because i wanted my democrat colleagues to have a chance to speak first. i think he's had a very valid point that the play book on international trade has to change. trade agreements in 2015 have got to be very different. the president, to his credit, said in the state of the union that the past agreements haven't livid up to the hype. we've got to make sure our trade policies are not part of a time warp. all you have to recognize that 25 years ago nobody had an iphone, nobody was texting. china was an economic power house. it's a different world.

what is different with respect to the legislation to be considered this week and in effect the old play book and the first year -- area is on trade enforcement. it's got to focus on protecting american jobs high skill american jobs that pay good wages. for example, it includes the bipartisan brown colleagues on the other side to go after tax change. it includes an upgrade on 301. something i think our friends in labor have been right about. it includes a measure to have warning bells go off earlier in our industry and jobs are

threatened than to go off more loudly. that's number one. number two with this legislation the united states will aim higher in trade deals. they will be embedded in if tax if first time there will be a new provision to focus on human rights. touched on the secrecy question. the public and lots of people in the congress are in the dark about what was being debated with respect to trade. those days are over. the american people are going to be able to sit at a town hall meeting for up to four minute months with the actual text of the agreement so they can ask

questions about their member of congress. fourth the legislation goes further than any trade promotion build to protect american sovereignty and guarantees the trade deals cannot change u.s. law without congressional action. no back door to let anybody skirt our laws. finally, legislation and chairman hatch knows about this because we had a lot of spirits conversations about it this protects congress ability to put the brakes on a bad deal. this is not a green liegtsght for the tpp or anything else. it is an opportunity for congress to stop a bad deal in its tracks. the last point i'll make responds to why i've been in this since the beginning. i think many brown and mr.

trumpka are spot on in talking about the middle class that they get a better break because wages have been stagnant for them for a lot of years. in developing world the middle class is going to double between now and 2025. that means there's going to be a billion middle class consumers in the developing world. i want them to buy our products. i want them to buy our eggs and computers and cars and helicopters and our bikes. that's a chance for people to get high skill, high wage jobs. let's fight here for the oregon brand and the american brand. i think everybody shows we'll have a spirited debate.

i'm committed to doing this in way that works for our middle class families for our businesses. we can get this right trade done right it will be a winner for american families. i want to thank you for the opportunity to wrap this up look forward to working with you and our colleagues tomorrow. >> since i was absent, i don't want the witnesses or anybody else to think i don't have an interest in this trade issue. i had a hearing on justice reform in the judiciary committee that i chair. i just got done with that. i thought i ought to come by and

speak my support for moving ahead on trade agreement. to me it's common sense when 95% of the people live outside the united states and we're an exporting nation that whatever we can do to get our product sbooss into other countries and countries that have higher trade barriers than what we have and most countries do that leveling the playing field and that's a word we use around this hill so many times. it gets overuse edd. it creates jobs.