economies. the leaders indicated they were aware and moving in that direction. we expect our african trading partners to make sure they are making problem toward establishing policies that support women and men in their economies is an important part of this legislation. i would ask support from our colleagues. this is an important part of growing the economies in africa. >> seems to me that promoting the role of women and social political and economic development and subsaharan african is something we can get behind. it highlights how critical the role of women will be i want my

colleague to know i'm very supportive of this. >> i think the point of this is we see economic development through the empowerment of women. we saw great strides being made. we want to make sure they get a fair access to the resource being spent on economic activity. thank you for having this vote. >> any further comment? we'll do this by voice. all those in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed will say no. the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. >> there are some unfortunate exceptions. if my view we have misguided laws limiting americans access

to the sugar market. the worst is the tariff rate quota. because of these quotas u.s. sugar prices are consistently higher, often much higher than the world average. just yesterday, as it happens sugar trading in the world market was trading at about 13 cents per pound. sugar trading domestically in the u.s. market traded at 25 cents per pound, almost two times the world's price. these higher sugar prices are hurting our country. the american enterprise institute found higher sugar prices are equivalent to $3 billion annual tax on american families. u.s. sugar policy destroys manufacturing jobs for every sugar growing job that it saves.

my amendment would alter the gsp legislation to allow sugar from america's least developed trading partners to enter the u.s. duty free and exempt from the tariff free quota. this will help american families american manufacturers and help bolster the economy of the vulnerable nations. >> i appreciate your work but i'm going to have to oppose this amendment. it's critical for some of the least developmented countries benefitting under the program as they grow and as they develop their committees. the program equated to a tax break on u.s. manufacturers and producers. that's why i've been pushing for a quick reauthorization of the program. i'm interested in hearing any ideas about making the program more effective.

i'm happy to study this issue for closely and try to resolve it. i'm in a position where i have to oppose. anybody else have any comments? >> i do appreciate the concern of my colleague. the point i would like to make is similar to that of the chairman. it would significantly impact our nations sugar policy. now is not the time to do it. this is not the place. this is an issue that's within the jurisdiction of the senate agriculture committee of which i'm privileged to be the chairman. i'm going to make the same

request that falls within the responsibility of ag committee. i would tell the gentleman from pennsylvania who has been respect, i think you'll find all members on the ag committee are friendly open minded welcoming of your involvement but the finance committee is not the right venue to write agriculture policy or the farm bill. i would hope my colleague would with draw the amendment. i would be more than happy to work with you on how your concerns would be addressed. >> anybody else? >> just briefly i support my chairman and partner on the agriculture committee. we ask members to allow us to deal with that in the agriculture committee. thank you. >> anybody else?

>> i would like to send a strong message that senator coats supports what this amendment is trying to do and i hope the chairman will take that into consideration as just one member saying i think we have gone too long allowing somewhat egregious subsidy to continue. >> i welcome the comments. thank you. >> it's germane to this legislation because it deals with the generalized system of preferences which is what we're taking up today. i'm going to ask for the yays and nays. >> there's a lot more

complications than just the bill involved in this. they produced 700 metric tons. i would hope something more comprehensive than try to change policy in one small part at this time. thank you. >> any other comments by anybody? the clerk will call the role. >> mr. grassley. >> no. >> mr. roberts? >> no. >> mr. corning? >> no by proxy. >> mr. burger?

>> no. >> mr. isaacson? >> aye. >> mr. toomey. >> aye. >> mr. scott. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. white? >> no. >> mr. cantwell? >> no. >> mr. menendez? >> aye. mr. warner? >> aye by proxy. >> mr. chairman senator carper is aye by proxy.

>> mr. warner. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. chairman? >> no. >> chairman votes no. >> clerk will announce the vote. >> 16 nays. >> it's not agreed to. senator nelson, i think you're up next. >> you said you would prefer me to offer my amendment to the customs bill. i have filed it. i think this is a preferable

bill. >> okay. your choice. it has been in effect since 2005. they bring in yarn and fabric from outside and make it into a garments and textiles. so that the preference is conditioned on the labor department. this is super important to me. there's a town of some 1500

people. it has one industry in the town and it employs 300 people in that little town. that industry takes this stuffing of comforters that has been produce edd they make it into comforters. that business is going to fold. that's my plea, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. i urge colleagues to support the nelson amendment.

tariff levels are important. the policies were put in place is part of our free trade agreement. i think the nelson amendment interest and ought to be included. i yield back. >> textiles. the nature of congress for the past 30 years has been allow people to get in the textile business because it's easy and cheap. just like senator nelson lobbies

for the jobs it creates, 300 jobs in florida, it probably used to be three million in north carolina. we've got a textile industry that hangs on the ledge. not places that have a history of textiles. i would encourage my colleagues trade is about making it fair. the precedent you set don't make an investment, just mover overseas. go somewhere where it's cheaper.

go somewhere where labor is cheaper and you can buy cotton cheaper. it basics the ag business in the united states and unskilled workers that have a lifetime in these mills. we've gotten to be experts at transforming a 1930 mill into something different than a manufacturing facility because we've lost so many textile companies in our state. i would encourage a no vote. >> senator from north carolina expresses my view pretty well. i can't support this amendment.

i understand there are concerns surrounding bahrain's compliance under the fta. senator nelson raised one of those concerns. we should not reward countries that do not take these commitments seriously by extended additional preferential access. i think that many of my colleagues might agree with that. fiejly, these t lyly ly finally, these tpo's will require significant amounts to offset.

i would urge my colleagues to vote no. any other comments. >> thank you. it seems dealing with these trade level preferences there was a process we thought would be used to consider whether we should extend them or not. there are jobs that are depen dent upon the extension of that law. i would hope we had a regular process working with the ustr as to what is the policies on extension of these programs.

i have an amendment to deal. i would like to see that considered. i think there are unintended consequences of failure to pay attention to the deadline. >> any further comments? >> may i close in at the appropriate time i would like to close. i would second the comments. there's going to be consequences if we don't do it as ben has suggested or do it on one of these bills.

you know our activities and how much baharain has been an ally of ours. with our fifth fleet headquarters right there. i would just say this is stuffing that is made. t not made any place else as you suggested in your comments. any place else in america. we're not in competition. i agonize for you and what's

happened in the textile industry. i've tried to support north carolina not only in textiles and other things that you've lost. look at what's happened in your furniture industry. this is one part of florida that will be dramatically affected and it's possible that the united states foreign policy is going to be affected because of the news that would be received. >> does the senator desire a recorded vote? clerk will call the roll. >> mr. roberts? >> no. >> mr. enzi? >> no. >> mr. corning? >> no by proxy. >> theremr. thune? >> no. >> mr. portman? >> no. >> mr. toomey.

>> aye. >> mr. coats? >> no. >> mr. yeller? >> no. >> mr. scott? >> no. >> mr. white? >> aye. >> miss cantwell? >> aye. >> mr. nelson? >> aye. >> mr. menendez. >> aye. >> brown. >> no. >> mr. bennett? >> aye. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> chairman votes no. >> clerk will report the vote. >> the final tally is 10 ayes and 16 nays. >> the amendment is defeated. are there any other amendments?

>> i had noted in regards to nicaragua on this bill and customs bill. if we don't take these issues up we're making a policy by neglect. i think this is an issue that's important for our committee to exercise our policy of jurisdiction. i would hope we would have an opportunity to consider these issues. >> there's clear there ought to be a follow up.

>> we appreciate the comments of everybody. >> mr. chairman? could i just say i appreciate the acceptance of my amendment on the out door performance where this industry is very important to the economy with millions of jobs. the change in tariffs will help consumers. i'm pleased it's been included in this legislation. >> mr. chairman. >> yes. >> i'd like to add my thanks to senator cantwell for her leadership and you for including this in the bill. >> thank you so much. if there's no further debate i would entertain a motion that the committee order the bill reported and as an original bill. do i have any -- >> i will move. >> that's enough right there. >> all those in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed will say

no. >> the ayes have it and the resolution is ordered reported. we're going to move to the customs bill. ensuring our importers have move goods across the u.s. borders is extremely important. it is equally important that the goods coming into the country comply with our laws and

regulations. ensuring that american innovation is protected at the border. the chairman's mark contains new provisions which express america's continued support for nation of israel. i'm a strong supporter of israel. israel was our first bilateral free trade partner and strongest allies in the middle east. we need to demonstrate our commitment to israel can continue to strive through international trade. we're able to improve a number of provisions that do discriminate against israel. i'm glad we were able to improve this provision along with some

trade measures. >> it's so important to business and labor because often they don't really hear about things until it's too late. i want to commend senator brown because this includes his effort for what's called a level playing field. i think that's particularly important to the steal industry and others. i hope colleagues will support this.

this goes right to the heart of whether there's going to be a new play book for trade policy. this section reflects it. i hope any colleague will support it. >> thank you. we have gretta. as well as terry from cbo and tom, the chief of staff from jct for the members benefit to answer any questions that anybody has. could you describe the main features of the proposal. >> thank you. at this markup the committee is considering a proposal to

reauthorize the trade facilitation -- >> is your microphone on? >> the trade facilitation and trade functions of the united states custom and border protection and other agencies. the proposal consists of seven titles. title five establishes new requirements to combat the invasion of anti-dumping and duty orders. title six establishes additional trade enforcement and property rights primarily for agencyiesagencies. miscellaneous provisions for trade facilitation and trade enforcement. thank you. >> thank you.

i'm including the language of that and your willingness to keep this through the process. and senator coats was involved this this too. we know what's happened in trade enforcement. it's such because of length of time it takes in the court decisions over years have eroded our decisions to fight back. workers lose jobs companies lose business and sometimes they shut down before they can fight back and this will give us the tools to protect our jobs and our companies and communities. i thank everybody involved in that. >> mr. chairman.

>> i want to thank the ranking members for working with us on this. they would with able to fashion a remedy and get some economic justice. this comes after a generation of steal jobs having been lost. >> thank you. he's agreed to with hold his remarks so that senator schumer can make his remarks. >> he's going to offer an amendment. >> that's his remarks? he's willing to defer to you. >> thank you. i'd like to call up amendment schumer, brown portman, number

one. >> without objection. after much discussion with some of my colleagues and i've said all along that i think that this amendment is important on its on, i've worked out an agreement with chairman hatch for which i thank him to offer this amendment only here on customs. we will not be asking for a vote on tpa. now, as i've discussed with many of you in recent weeks and really for years now i believe currency manipulation is the most significant emerging trade challenge this country faces. according to the peterson institute for international economics, more than 20 countries have increased their foreign exchange reserves by an annual average of a trillion

dollars in recent years. the build upkeeps the currencies significantly undervalued increasing their trade surpluses surpluses. that has resulted in increased u.s. trade deficits going up from about 200 billion to 500 billion a year. correspondsing u.s. job losses in the millions. when currency is manipulated it hurts our exports they're more expensive overseas and products a t home because imports are unduly lowered price here. there at the front of the line when it comes to this activity. while this administration has sold the tpp as a geopolitical necessity to ensure that the united states does not see ground to china in that region of the world. if the stated goal of tpp is to

lure countries away from china's orw of influence then it makes perfect sense that as part of the overall effort we also should deal with china head onto show them we will not continue business as usual in our direct trade relations with them as well. i don't necessarily dispute that tpp will grow the gdp or corporate profits for many u.s. multinationals. the trade agreement alone will not provide the tools fwheed to combat the specific challenge of currency manipulation which has such a tangible impact on middle class jobs here at home. if we don't do it now, when? we've waited a long time. we have broad bipartisan support and this bill will ride alongside tpa, not in it. as many of you know because you've worked along side me on

this issues over the years, i've been long an advocate on this issue and worked to find solutions from many different angles over the past decade. to actually do something on currency. they have all taken the position that country negotiation is the appreciate tool and then nothing gets done was a the other country just resists. china in particular. they prefer to use currency manipulation negotiations as a diplomatic tool to get something else rather than enforce existing law to protect american workers which to me is paramount. if we want to protect american

workers, we need to pass this amendment. let me explain what the amendment does briefly. many of you have supported in the past and familiar with it. it got over 60 votes on the floor of the senate. always it's been bipartisan. under existing law if the commerce department finds that subsidized imports are causing economic harm to american manufacturers and workers the administration must impose duties to counter veil the benefit by the subsidies. as i said rather than enforce this existing law the administration and the previous one prefer to use the threat of currency manipulation measures as a diplomatic tool to achieve other non-economic geo political goals. as a result they narrowly defined what qualifies as a

counter vailing subsidy. that's why it's done. our amendment would require the commerce department to investigate whether it provides a counter available subsidy. it does this by putting in place a new rule. we have worked to make this complaint. it is. we are using existing mechanisms in the law but making sure they apply to currency. it's the same mechanisms people have used on other issues but we're making sure that happens with currency.

we must employ to show china we're not messing around. the members of this committee, i hope, feel an obligation as i do as we're likely to advocate our oversight role. we have an obligation to ensure tools are if place to protect american workers and that they are being used appropriately. so, to my colleague who is have a history of work on this issue and support for this proposal this is our best opportunity, the most appropriate opportunity to show that we're serious about combatting the trade tactic. we have kept this bipartisan. the original bill with senators graham and collins and sessions and myself and brown and stabenow. this administration -- senator grass yn grassley has been vocal on this.

china's trade economic policy of undermining the global marketplace where major ceos admit to us. they can't say it publicly because they retaliate. shotgun something should be done about it. the appropriate time is now. i urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. >> i thank the senator from new york. i understand his zeal here. to determine whether some measure s a subsidy directly or indirectly to a country's exports. if so, then the sanctions can

follow. it teams to provide for trade sanctions that can be based on assumptions without support. it would invite trade sanctions from other countries on the basis of some sorts of pre presumptions presumptions. it would allow so many degrees of freedom in arriving at a subsidy determination including indirect subsidy of undervaluation that it would prove infective. that's my view. i'm concerned about it. it raises the likelihood of trade disputes and trade wars.

i understand my colleague's sincerity on this. i intend to hold hearings on this issue and do more in the future. with that anybody else care to comment? >> i want to comment senator schumer for advancing this issue to the currency manipulation. there's no issue that's consumed more time in these debates than currency manipulation. it's 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 respect to how this is going to affect federal reserve practices and the like. i think senator schumer has figured out how to address the key question which is to deal with china which is manipulated their currency in the past to get an unfair advantage. this also levels the playing

field for american industry by in a practical fashion expanding trade remedies. i appreciate my colleague, my seat mate all these years working with so many of you on both sides of the aisle to come up with a practical approach at this point. i urge its adoption. >> any further comment? >> as i said earlier i intend to offer an amendment in the trade promotion authority debate. this will be narrowly targeted toward an objection within tpa. i want to comment on this legislation. i'm a co-sponsor. i voted for it in 2011. i remember in 2005 when i was u.s. trade representative. i happened to be at the other side of the table at one of these committee meetings. i was asked by senator schumer.

he had more hair then. he asked how feel about currency manipulation. i said i think it affected trade. i believe that all along. it's not something the u.s. trade representative office typically handles. it's something done by treasury because it's in the area of currency. it's gotten to the point it's widely acknowledged. it's focus and narrow objective to ensure we're not talking about macro economic policy. it increase the u.s. trade deficit by $500 billion each year. the idea of trade just to be philosophical is we sell products to other countries. the hope is that then we use

that money to buy their products and vice versa. that's balanced trade. when a country and china is the example, uses this as a way to distort trade and encourages the depreciation of their currency, you have this imbalance. we see this in terms of trade deficit. it's driven by two things. one is energy and the other is china. a lot of this goes to the currency manipulation. this is an important issue. we ought to address it and do it in thoughtful way that's wto consistent to avoid the kind of disputes that the chairman talked about and i intend to support the amendment on that basis today. >> i understand the senator's position and others as well. senator brown. >> i'll be very brief. i support the amendment and thank him for offering it. we have applied diplomatic

pressure. we held dialogue after dialogue. there's been improvements but it's often china does one step forward and two back ward. this bill requires commerce to investigate currency that niplation.nip manipulation. doesn't presuppose an outcome. it's contributed to something almost unknown a generation ago, and that is a contribute to increasing number of businesses putting together their business plan as shutting down production in dayton ohio or asheville, north carolina moving it overseas and selling back into the united states. currency contributes to that whole structure and whole business plan that's become all too common. it's tax law, trade law, currency. this is a chance to take away one of those incentives if you

will, for companies to follow that route which they are forced to do because of our economic system and because of the way we interacted with china. >> mr. chairman, i want to speak in favor very briefly. as senator portman knows e he was trade representative i've had in my drawer for 15 years a bill to eliminate trade representative. he learned that one day he was in my office. it was because of this. if you're the u.s. trade representative and you don't get a trade deal then you've failed. you failed. the incentive for trade representative is get a deal at any cost. we've been willing to accept that as congress and as the american people. no deal is perfect. it requires congress to go back

and take what we have learn and modify what the agreement was. there's one thing we all know, chinese manipulate currency. the question is are we going to do something about it? are we going to change it? if you think this approach is fair then support it. this is not the only thing that probably we could look at any trade agreement and say this is what we negotiated but now we know this and we should change that. this someone of those. now we know this so let's change that. i encourage members to support it. i think it's clear when you have design to manipulatione currency you're doing it for an

advantage. make your currency lower so you get a competitive advantage in the international marketplace. that gives you a 10, 15, 20 percent advantage over u.s. manufacturers, producers or farmers. that's not a level playing field. it allows us to determine if that's what the currency policy is doing in order to get that 10 or 15 or 20 percent advantage that's actionable as it should be actionable because as senator portman said we're for a level playing field fwhauz is how you'll get the maximum economic advantage of trade.

when you fix your currency value so your manufacturers and farmers have an advantage, that's wrong. the schumer amendment takes action at that and i thank him for bringing it forward. >> i'll be brief. i know we have a lot to do. i think it's evident what's happened over a long period of time. i know in my home state of pennsylvania when china cheats we lose jobs. when they cheat on currency or purposely under value it has a destructive impact.

you want to do something about the problem. they raise it in every meeting. every bilateral discussion. i appreciate that. i think we have to take a more decisive and determined action to get the result which americans expect us to. they don't expect us to create some magic wand but they expect us to take effective steps. >> i don't disagree that this is a problem. i don't think this is the right solution. could we have your viewpoint.

>> thank you. >> if you could pull that closer to you. >> for the question is, again, we share the concerns of many in congress regarding currency practices. we hear your concerns about those currency practices as well. unfair currency practices hurt our workers and our firms. that's why this administration have taken great length and great measures in terms of engaging with our trading partners in a number of different areas. the g-20, g-7 and imf to press this issue. there's been real progress with respect to currency.

china's currency has depreciated by nearly 30%. japan has not intervened since 2011. there has been measurable progress in terms of the types of gotten and in terms of appreciation as well. with respect to the proposed amendment amendment, i think from our perspective, we are opposed to the legislation. that would impose a cvd process with respect to currency undervaluation for several reasons. including some of the reasons you mentioned chairman hatch. first, it raises questions with kis end consistency with our international obligations. second, our other countries would pursue retaliatory measures that would mimic the provisions but at the same time target our companies and workers. that would present a concern. they could design a cvd provision that used a different standard, given that there is no

single universal standard that applies to current under valuation. i think also unilateral measures will be perceived as being counterproductive in terms of the g-20 and the g-7 and all the progress we've made in the international forum as well. and it will impede and impair our multi-lateral and bilateral efforts. finally, we're also concerned that unilateral measures will impair our ability to make progress in the context of tpp, assuming tpa is passed, with a currency objective as well. i think our partners will be concerned about negotiating some sort of currency provisions, given that they may also face unilateral measures as well. >> thank you so much for your opinion. i understand the senator would like to speak. >> mr. chairman first of all, i want to thank senator schumer for his leadership. it's been a pleasure to work this him and others on the

committee for a number of years. we've heard over and over again about china taking baby steps. we're at a point now where when we are in -- fully engaged in a global economy where that is just not enough. frankly, when we get to tpa and with all due respect on what's coming on tpp we want our trading partners. we want japan to know that it is not okay to manipulate your currency. it costs us millions of jobs. people look at chinese products and see a lower price and don't understand that a good chunk of that is because they cheat. this is another tool to create a way to do something about it. i think it's long overdue. i would urge a strong bipartisan vote. >> one conclusion. i appreciate our administration

making the presentation. with all due respect, we've tried the diplomatic route over and over for ten years. senator graham and i took a trip to china ten years ago in an effort to try to get something done. it's time to do something that might actually solve this problem and help america. i just have lost faith in the diplomatic back and forth. i ask for a vote. >> there is a request for a recorded vote. >> yes. >> overruled. >> mr. grassley. mr. crapo? mr. roberts? mr. ensy? mr. corning? mr. thun? no by proxy. mr. isaacson, aye. mr. tumi?

no. mr. heller? mr. heller, no. mr. scott? aye. mr. schumer? aye. ms. stavano, aye. cantwell, no. mr. nelson aye. menendez, carper, aye by proxy. mr. brown, aye. mr. bennett, aye. mr. casey aye. mr. warner aye by proxy. mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to -- >> who is it? >> i meant to vote no. >> that's fine. change that vote. >> mr. ensy, no. >> tally up the vote. >> mr. chairman, 18 ayes and 8

nays. >> you know how to smother me. >> with love, mr. chairman. >> boo. >> is that the new york type of love? that's what i'd like to know. all right. senator bennett i think you're next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to call up amendment number one as modified. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to add chairman hatch and senator carper as co-sponsors of the bill. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for all the reasons that's been said, we're all concerned about china's repeated efforts to adopt economic policyies and weaken their currency and cost jobs. some estimates, it's cost 100,000 jobs in colorado, as many as 5 million across the country. we're deeply concerned because these kinds of efforts, like the ones china's making, make overseas goods cheaper and our

goods less competitive on the global market. that's why senators carper and hatch and i are offering these amendments to make sure our businesses have a level playing field. i want to be clear about this amendment. it is meant to complement not substitute, for my colleague's work on currency manipulation, specifically the work of senator schumer. this is consistent with his bill. requires the treasury secretary to regularly conduct a detailed analysis of all trading partners, macro, economic and monetary policies. it also requires extensive bilateral engagement with a country found to be improperly interfering with the currency markets as a first step. if that country fails to adopt policies within a year our 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 trade

agreements including tpp. restricting its access to u.s. financing opportunities and prohibiting the federal government from procuring goods and services from that country. our amendment offers some real solutions to directly confront unfair trade practices and gives trade enforcement authorities a new set of tools. i encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. i thank the chairman for his co-sponsorship and ask for a vote. i'd ask unanimous consent that senator nelson willbe added. >> i want to thank senator bennett for his work. the amendment provides tools for oversight, both in the federal government and among multinational financial institutions like the imf for enhanced oversight and analysis of international exchange rate policies. the amendment provides tools for strengthening trade enforcement provides for remedial actions

and by establishing an advisory commitment on exchange rate policy provides evidence to congress and the american people to weigh in and voice their interests. this is a strong amendment and it's one that will give a greater voice to everyone here on the international exchange rate developments. and an amendment that provides significant avenues for heightened surveillance and actions. i would urge my colleagues to join us in support of this amendment. any further comments? >> i urge colleagues to support senator bennett's amendment. go beyond unilateral involvement. i think what senator bennett is doing is finally getting us multilateral engagement, bilateral engagement. i urge my colleagues to support the bennett amendment. >> any other comment? >> 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 the process by

which we put into law strict regulations and we've had a case in the pacific northwest on solar, where a company brought a case to the federal government. the federal government felt obligated to act and china retaliated against companies. the key framework here is to resolve these issues without getting into a trade war. i appreciate the fine crafting of this legislation. >> thank you senator. >> mr. chairman, i intend to support this amendment. i know some are suggesting that those of us who want to see enforceability in currency manipulation should oppose it, but i think it's fine. it's more reports. it's more bilateral engagement. it encourages treasury to set up an advisory committee to advise the secretary. but it does not have obviously the teeth that the schumer bill has or the amendment i'm going to be offering on trade promotion authority. i don't think this is something

we should be opposing. i think we should support it. i know some of my colleagues might oppose it pause it doesn't go far enough. i think it's fine. i intend to support it. >> thank you senator from ohio. >> senator bennett has come up with an elegant compromise and threaded the needle on a sensitive issue. i commend him for it. >> any other comments? >> mr. grassley? aye. crapo? aye. mr. roberts, aye. mr. enzi aye. mr. corny, aye. isaacson, aye. mr. portland, aye. mr. tumi, aye. mr. coates aye. heller, aye. mr. scott, aye.

mr. wyden aye. mr. schumer, aye. ms. cantwell, aye. mr. nelson, aye. mr. menendez, aye. mr. carper aye. mr. carden, aye. mr. brown, aye. mr. bennett, aye. mr. casey, aye. mr. warner aye. mr. chairman, aye. >> clerk announce the vote. >> 26 ayes and zero nays. >> the amendment is granted. >> distinguished senator from oregon? >> this is amendment 70, and i'm sponsoring this amendment with my colleague senator brown. it reflects a critically important value. that is the elimination, once and for all, of forced and enden indentured labor, including child labor. you want to thank senator brown

on his work on this issue and nora todd for the hard work she's put in. it's worth noting our former colleague has previously championed this issue for years. currently, u.s. law permitted the importation of goods made with indentured or forced labor if the goods are not made in the united states, in sufficient quantifytyies to meet demand. this is direct. it 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 exceptions to that principle. ought to be supporting reform in countries where children are exploited, not per peptpetuateing the practices that promote that. it is time to outdate this to be sure the products of forced and indentured labor don't sbrrenter the

commerce of the united states. i hope my colleagues will support this amendment. >> senator brown? >> i appreciate the work of ranking member wyden on this closing an outdated edd loophole on this. i think it's important to look briefly at a little history. this language in 307 of smood-holly. we know when that came about and what history thinks about it. the exception was included in 1930, before the law passed a law banning child labor. fair labor standards act, which outlawed child labor was signed into law in 1938. the convention against the worst forms of child labor. we ratified the minimum age of work. we passed laws against child labor in congress. we're a partner in international efforts to eradicate child

labor. chairman ryan's customs bill contains the exact language of this amendment. it is imperative the senate not be silent on this issue and let it play out without our involvement. child labor is never okay. >> distinguished senator, i support the language that would prohibit the goods that is found with specific evidence was produced by forced labor, including child labor. i've been working with senator wyden and others to wind compromise language on this topic. we were not able to get to an agreement in time for this markup. nevertheless, i will continue to work on this with my colleagues and i'm hopeful we can bring resolution soon. i'm going to vote no for now and hopefully resolve this issue as we go along. anyone else have comments?

>> it is acceptable to me mr. chairman. >> okay. all those in favor of the distinguished senator's -- what? >> chairman, i ask for a role call. >> mr. grassley, aye. mr. crapo? pass. mr. roberts aye. mr. enzi no. mr. corning pass. mr. thun no by proxy. mr. burr aye by proxy. mr. isaacson, no. mr. portman, aye. mr. tumi, aye. mr. coates, aye. mr. heller aye.

mr. scott no. mr. wyden, aye. mr. schumer, aye by proxy. stabano, aye. mr. menendez, aye. mr. carper aye. mr. carden, aye. mr. brown, aye. mr. bennett aye. mr. casey, aye. mr. warner aye. mr. chairman? chairman votes no. mr. corning? mr. corning, aye. mr. crapo aye by proxy. >> any other senators care to change a thought or vote? okay. announce. >> mr. chairman, the final tally is 21 ayes and 5 nays. >> the amendment is agreed to. any further amendments?

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment that's very straight forward. it's based on a bill that senator lindsay graham and i have had for a number of yaer sears, to make permanent the trade center. this was done by executive order and has demonstrated that in fact, they've been very good at bringing major trade enforcement cases. prior to having a separate center the same people negotiating agreements would then turn around and put on a different hat and actually enforce agreements. so this setup, a separate center, we've now heard from ustr that last month, they have a report that has 444 pages detailing the trade barriers, our businesses and workers and farmers face 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 straight forward. we have this agency, but it has not been setup perm then iniallyanently by law. i think now is the time to do it, and i ask colleagues for support. >> let me say this. the amendment establishes an inter agency trade enforcement center in the office of ustr. i recommend we oppose this. i have concerns about the effectively of the inter agency trade enforcement center referred to as itec. there is a lack of transparency regarding how it uses its funding and i'm not convinced it's shown real results. if we authorize itec, we must ensure it is actually helping american workers through effective enforcement, rather than serving as something that's nearly symbolic. so i would recommend a no vote on this. >> mr. chairman if i might just

take one more minute we have seen some very effective cases brought that our country has now won. auto suppliers auto parts agricultural cases including poultry, that has been brought by this agency. i'm hopeful that colleagues will vote yes. i've asked for a record role call to indicate again, this is something that senator graham and i have been trying to do for a number of years make permanent this agency, so it's very clear. we have folks looking at this every day on behalf of agriculture and manufacturers and so on. bringing cases where appropriate. thank you. >> would the senator take a voice vote? >> all those in favor, aye. opposed, say no. no. i don't think there were many opposed. the amendment is adopted. okay.

senator isaacson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i call up amendment 56 and ask the senators warner, crapo and senator casey be enlisted as co-sponsors. out of abundance of caution and respect for the chairman of agriculture committee, i realize there is a jurisdictional issue at this point. this is what's known lovingly as the catfish amendment. after the farm bill, usda attempted to take over the processing of seafood, and that means there will be duplicative inspection of seafood. in georgia, virginia other states around the country, would have dual inspectors, which makes it difficult for those businesses to stay in business. would probably move offshore. i will withdraw the amendment out of respect for the chairman of the agriculture committee but i want when the bill is brought, we can have a debate on the floor. >> thank you, senator. i understand your concerns. as you know better than anyone,

this has been a long-standing topic of debate in the senate. i'm confident this will be addressed on the senate floor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i withdraw the amendment. >> thank you senator. senator menendez in. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to call my amendment number one and i understand, i hope my understanding is correct, about the chair's 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 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, in particularly, prom and wedding dresses that are manufactured here in the united states to unwitting american consumers who

believe they're getting a high-quality dress, like a vera wang, and they end up with a third-rate dress at an important moment in their life. they spend the fortune trying to fix it or change it or going to buy a new dress, when the one that got imported from abroad as quote, unquote packaged as a gift and, thereby, skirting u.s. trade laws. the consumer is getting ingting duped at an important moment in their life. we're not getting the resources as gifts, we're not collecting the import duties. when this happens, we're derived of the revenue and our businesses that are creating these wedding and gown and prom gowns are ultimately suffering dramatically. i've visited several of these. they're all over my state and other parts of the country as well. so i appreciate the carehairman helping us with language that can seek to accomplish this goal of greater inspections from

customs. with that understanding, i would withdraw my amendment. >> i thank the distinguished chairman. senator, appreciate you being here. senator portman is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is to resolve a long-standing issue that's really been here in this body and in the house ever since we put the earmark in place. it is an amendment that's consistent with legislation that was introduced back in 2012. it has to do with mtbs. misclan miscellaneous tariff bills. i hope the committee can support this 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-sponsors, tumi casey, burr, carper, and i

know others have been interested and involved in this topic. it is saying these critical imputim inputs not available in the united states need to have a predictable pathway to the dealt with in the congress through this bill. if we pass this we would begin to deal with the backlog and beginning later this year we would be able to have a predictable pathway for extension of mtbs. since they expired in january 2013, more than manufacturers have been spending more on import duties. higher taxes to raise wages and maintain our competitiveness in the manufacturing sector. a recent study is out that shows failure to pass the mtb resulted in a tax hike on manufacturers of $748 million, economic losses of $1.8 billion over the past three years. this amendment is backed by a lot of groups. i've got a letter from the national association of manufacturers, along with 185

companies and associations who are urging us to take quick action on this, up colluding companies in my home state of ohio. this bill which reflects support from a lot of manufacturers, mark the earmark concerns we have regarding congress's role in trade policy. it would simplify the process by allowing companies to apply for this directly, while maintaining transparency breaking the log jam. so i strongly hope, mr. chairman, we can resolve this today. i appreciate your work on this, and congressman ryan's work and camp before him. i would hope that with this strong bipartisan push we can get it done. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i want to commend senator portman. he put in a great deal of hard work over a long period of time

to reach a very, very sensible conclusion here. what this does its seems to me is it creates a far better mechanism for companies to be able to get the exemption from tariffs they're due. they don't have to come to an individual member of congress on bended knee. if they qualify for this the product they need for the input of processes is not made in the united states, and therefore, should be exempt from the tariffs. this is a better way to do it. the congressional prerogative to have final say is still there. but we get away from the idea that we're going to bestow certain favors on some companies, which should never be in the process. i want to commend everyone who worked on this. it's a sensible outcome, and it's been a long time coming. >> i want to commend both of you and others who worked on this because it's a very important

amendment. the amendment seeks to provide unilateral tariff relief to u.s. manufacturers. it will enhance transparency. it will address earmark concerns by establishing a process for the miscellaneous tariff mtb. i ask the committee for support in passing this amendment. anybody else want to -- >> mr. chairman? i want to add my -- thank you. i'll add my voice. i want to thank senator portman for his work on this. this is simple in one sense. it's really providing a measure of relief to manufacturers so they can compete in a global marketplace and remain competitive. the miscellaneous -- this amendment reduces the cost of manufacturing in our state. 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 redpretable thatgrettable the process has been shalled in edstalls in recent years. i've been working on it for years and this is a step in the right direction. we're grateful we have colleagues on both sides of the aisle working on this. we need to level the playing field for our firms and, in particular, the manufacturing firms. i support a yes vote. thank you. >> mr. chairman? over here. >> senator burr. i'm sorry. >> if i could, i'll be brief, i want to thank senator portman, and i want to encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation. this is about u.s. competitiveness. that's what is at the heart of it. why should u.s. manufacturers pay a duty on something that they bring in that no u.s. manufacturer makes for them to incorporate in their product that they sell around the world? that is to make sure

uncompetitive in a 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 thank the senator. any other comments? >> mr. chairman, quickly? i just want to say two things quickly. one, i appreciate senator burr bringing this to our attention in the textile industry. it's not something we focused on until we brought it to our attention, to gain support and understanding in how this can be effective. i for gotgot to thank senator wyden. >> thank you. any further? well, is the senator willing to

take a voice vote? you are? all those in favor, say aye. aye. any opposed? the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. any further amendments to this bill? senator nelson. then senator bennet. >> mr. chairman? thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment number 65. 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 free trade agreements, in capacity building so that we can make sure we are enforcing these agreements.

enforcement fund would be capitalized through existing anti-dumping countervailing llected and this amendment would require u.s. government accountability office to study our current efforts in making sure enforcement happens. this legislation makes a lot of long-needed improvements to the trade enforcement regime, particularly with the anti-dumping and countervailing duties. one of the corrections we need to ask ourselves is do agency haves the ability to enforce our trade deals, and the resources they need to do their job? last year, the government accountability office issued a damming report about the ability of ustr and the department of labor, and their ability to enforce labor provisions of our free trade agreements. the gao found ustr had just four people in its office of labor affairs who, in addition to enforcing labor provisions of the atas were also responsible for negotiating them. they relied on the department of

labor in state, and dol has five to eight full-time staff people monitoring and enforcing trade agreements. essentially, mr. chairman -- >> sorry. >> essentially between dol and ustr, we had fewer staff enforcing these provisions than we have the number of countries we have free trade agreements with. agency staff said the limited staffing and resources were placing severe constraints on the ability to enforce our free trade agreements. they have all what they're doing on enforcement of the current agreements. we're negotiating the transpacific partnership with vietnam and malaysia, which has serious trade issues and need to be enforced. if we can't enforce our trade agreements, because we don't have enough staff, we need to make sure that we are funding with our countervailing duties

collection the focus of making sure we are enforcing these agreements. my amendment would create a dedicated trust fund using the twisting funds, and using them for enforcing of this. so i know the president wants us to have a tpa. it's for the 21st century. i think there is great economic opportunity outside the united states. i support doing tpa. we have to have the staff. we have to have the team of people. we have to have the money going to actually doing the enforcement. i thank the chair and urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> senator wyden? >> i urge colleagues to support this amend.mentamendment. it goes to the heart of what citizens say. they say, y'all are passing these agreements. spend a little more time on trying to make sure the implementation and the enforcement works. what senator campntwell is doing

is laying out a strategy to ensure that implementation and enforcement go hand and 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 colleagues support the amendment. >> any further comment? otherwise, i recommend we adopt the amendment. any objection to adopting the amendment? without objection, it's so adopted. anybody else? senator bennett, i agreed to go to you. [ inaudible ]. >> thank you, mr. chairman. section 301 of the trade act of 1974 provides the u.s. government with enforcement powers. the president can take all appropriate actions if one of the trading partners laws or policies violate an

international trade agreement. the president can also take action if a trading partner burns or restricts u.s. commerce. this has allowed the administration to take action after violations of economic labor and intellectual property rights. my amendment would add the environment to that list. this is a common sense approach that reflects the reality and challenges of international trade. this amendment would allow the united states government to impose penalties on countries that fail to effectively enforce their laws or fail to live up to the environmental commitments of our trade agreements. the u.s. leads the way in conservation and environmental protection. we need a way to encourage our trading partners to do the same. i urge my colleagues to support the amend. and i'd ask the chair whether he has -- a preference for a voice or roll call vote. >> a voice vote would be fine. any objection? all those who support the senator's amendment please say

aye. >> aye. >> any opposed? >> the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. senator nelson is next i believe. >> mr. chairman, you asked me to offer my amendment on bahrain to the earlier bill. >> then we're done. >> yes. >> that's good. who is next, anybody else? >> chairman? >> i think your amendment is next. >> mr. chairman, i'll just talk about amendment number 77. we know a number of us virtually everybody here, is trying to move in the direction of leveling the playing field. lots of ways to get there. a lot of debate about how to get there. i think it's important we focus on some of the basic challenges or impediment that is a lot of

our firms have. it's troubling to so many of us in both parties that many of our trading partners operate what are sometimes known as state-owned enterprises. we should take action to confront that challenge. it's made worse by the fact we don't seem to have tools in place to combat that or fight against it. one of the tools to fight against that would be what's contained in my amendment. i want to offer it today to talk about it. i have an amendment that instructs the department of commerce to exclude, exclude, state-owned enterprises from calculations in dumping, countervailing duty petitions. it's one way to go at this problem. i realize there are other approaches as well but i think it is a clear and present danger, if i can use the legal term, to a lot of our firms when

they have to try to compete. they have other impediments in the way. this is one of the most substantial. >> senator has expressed an interesting inging inging issue. as i understand, the senator is willing to withdraw that amendment? >> that is correct. >> the amendment is withdrawn. who is next? we have a few more amendments to go. senator bennett is not going to offer -- i believe that's all the amendments. >> great. >> i think that's all the amendments on this bill. we can move to the final passage. any objection to that? anybody want a recorded vote or can we do -- >> i vote we move -- >> need another member. >> need one more member here to vote. >> put it aside and go to the next bill. >> let's get it done.

>> we just need one more. it'll just be 30 seconds. >> just 30 seconds until we have a quorum of 14. as soon as we do that we're going to pass this bill. we got it. anybody want to roll call vote on this? >> we need one more member? do we have 14? let's get one more in here. >> we're okay. any objection to this bill? without objection, this bill is passed. it will be treated as much. it will be reported as modified and amended as an original bill. so without objection, it is passed by voice. i think we've gone through

this pretty well. it's been almost three hours. not quite. finally, the committee will move to a chairman's mark, best 995. that's the bipartisan congressional accountability act of 2015. i know it's been a long day but we've saved the best for last, of course. in my opinion, anyway. the bipartisan congressional trade priorities and accountability act is just what the title says. this is a bipartisan agreement that will ensure congress's role in negotiation of trade agreements by making our priorities and expectations clear. the package we put before the committee today will keep the administration accountable. whatever administration. it includes unprecedented transparency provisions and new procedures to make sure our trade agreements meet the standards expected by the american people.

in short, this bill opens the next chapter for u.s. trade policy. i think it's a very, very important bill that i hope we can pass, and i hope we can pass without amendment. the fact of the matter is, it's a sensitive bill. we're working very closely with the house and with both the democrats and the republicans in the house. and it's going to be very tight, to go through both bodies. i would prefer we don't amend it. to make a long story short, we have a right to bring up amendments if you'd like to. so we'll -- i will have the committee walk through the mark to recognize shane warren of our staff to do so. we have tim rife. secretary from the department of

commerce. assistant general council das from the department of trezasury, as well as terry from cvo and tom, the chief of staff from the joint committee on taxation for the member's benefit to answer any questions you may have. mr. warren would you describe the main features of this proposal and then we'll go from there? >> thank you, mr. chairman. at this markup, the committee is considering a proposal to establish congressional trade negotiating objectives and enhance consultation requirements for trade negotiations. the proposal is divided in five sections. section one establishes the trade negotiating objectives of the united states. section two provides authority for the president to enter into certain trade agreements if the agreements make progress toward the congressional negotiating objectives. and subject to congressional notification and consultation requirements before july 1, 2018, or if extended by congress before july 1, 2021.

section three provides requirements for the president's consultations with congress and the public among other requirements. the proposal states that the united states trade representative must meet upon request with any member of congress, provide access to pertinent documents including classified materials engage in close and timely consultation with the senate finance committee and all committees over jurisdiction of laws that could be affected by a trade agreement. proposal also establishes procedures for consultations with the public, including the establishment of a chief transparency officer at usdr. section three specifies the notice or reports the president must provide congress before initiating trade negotiations, entering into trade agreements and submitting agreements to congress. section four establishes the requirements the president must meet when submitting a trade agreement to congress, and for the consideration of implementing legislation subject to trade authorities procedures. the section also establishes the processes and procedures for disapproval of the use of trade

authorities procedures if the president has failed or refused to notify or consult in accordance with the requirements of the proposal. section five addresses the applicability of trade authorities procedures to trade negotiations already commenced and stipulates the trade agreement inconsistent with u.s. law would have no effect. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank you, mr. warren. i might point out that the president supports this bill. as it is written. it is a very sensitive bill. it's very difficult to -- and i hope that we don't change it. it's equally important that we don't change it so that it will pass in the house. so i want to bring that to everybody's attention because it's a very sensitive situation that we have here. this is one of the most important bills in this whole congress. so i hope we can have some cooperation on this. although full-fledged debate is

just fine with me. senator wyden? >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i will be brief. this legislation provides a major upgrade to american trade policy. in a nutshell, it brings our trade policy into the 21st century. the fair and accurate of thect of the matter is must of trade law was written in the 1990s, when nobody had a cell phone. nobody had iphones. a big 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 policy. this legislation requires by law, that before the president of the united states signs tpp or any other trade agreement

that that trade agreement be pub lushed ed -- published for 60 days. 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 tpp, and ask 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? that's representative of the changes in this. it strengthens and makes fully enforceable negotiating objectives on labor and the environment. something we just strengthen with the bennett amendment on super 301 as it relates to the environment. and it includes largely because of the incredible effort and persistence of senator carden,

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 of tariffs and other barriers so we can find new markets for those products that are made in the united states, that are made in the united states, grown in the united 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 a billion people. let's pass this legislation to create the opportunity for more of our goods and services and our products to be purchased in that region. i urge my colleagues to support the legislation. i thank you, chairman hatch, and we have moved expeditiously and i hope we can get through this last part of tonight's work expeditiously as well.

>> we're going to get through it one way or another. let me just say this. you want to recognize any senators who want to raise questions to the panel on the mark. are there any questions? >> no. >> if not, then if there are no further questions, the chairman's mark is now open for amendment. let's go to amendments. i'll recognize senator stouffer. >> now, i filed this amendment and i'm not going to offer it because i think there's been some accommodation that takes care of questions i asked ambassador frome on. be with me a moment when i explain what i'm up to and intend to do in the future if things don't work out this way. i want to mention the amendment i filed to the tpp bill. i don't ask for a vote today but i want to reiterate my concerns about trade agreements containing immigration

provisions. even before i became chairman of the judiciary committee, when i was chairman and ranking member of this committee, i opposed previous administration's attempts to include immigration provisions and nanddemanded the judiciary committee will relayed on anything dealing with immigration. usdr included immigration in agreements with china and sing mother a -- singapore in 2003. these consultations are nearly consultations, and they do not provide a mechanism for ensuring that changes to the immigration system aren't included. when ambassador froman was before the committee last week i asked him about the provisions in 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 that the 11 other countries are 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 it doesn't stop this administration or future administrations from 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 usdr ambassador froman. we stated that article i, section viii, clause iv gives congress the power to quote, establish a uniform law of naturalization, and the court long found this provision of the

constitution grants congress power over immigration policy. congress has made it clear that international trade agreements should not change, nor require any change, to u.s. imdpragsmigration law and practice. we ask 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 gave us his assurances. he acknowledged that there is a chapter on the temporary enter persons, but this only includes quote, good governance provisions on transparency with respect to visa processing and cooperation on border security. end of quote. he also said that this chapter includes commitments of other tpp parties to make information

on requirements for temporary entry publicly slabl.available. the u.s. is transparent on its requirements and visas, and already processes visas as expeditiously as possible. in addition to the letter from ambassador froman chairman hatch has agreed to work with me on language that will be included in the accompanying report to make it clear that congress does not condone usdr negotiating immigration or visa provision provisions. while i will not offer my amendment today, i will keep option open to offer this amendment on the floor, but only if necessary. thank you, members of the committee. >> thank you senator grassley. senator? >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to call up carden-portman amendment 113. >> without objection. >> i would ask consent that in

addition to menendez and warner, that casey and heller will added as co-sponsors. >> without objection. >> mr. chairman you're familiar with this amend. . it deals with israel. this amendment only applies to the negotiations so it would not affect the tpp negotiations. it's interesting as we were meeting on april 22nd it was exactly 30 years ago this date that the united states and israel signed the u.s./israel free trade agreement. it was an unprecedented trade agreement in the history of the united states. it was the first fda entered into. the signing at the house, israel's minister of commerce and industry and william brock stressed it would benefit the economies of the united states

and israel, and serve as a precedent for future agreements. it is very clear that our trading partner is being challenged today by new barriers. these new barriers are governmental boycotts and sanctions that are targeted against israel. this amendment represents a new effort to try to deal with this by dealing with our trading partners. it represents an area to make sure our international partners do not try to delegit mate and isolate israel. i might want to point out that we've made progress when senator portman was ustr portman. he able to accomplish a great deal through his negotiations to prevent these types of governmental activities against israel and the trade negotiations with our trading partners. when we're dealing with europe,

which is an important goal. it adds this as a principle negotiating objective. i know that the house has taken some action on this issue so it is not inconsistent with the house action. i urge colleagues to support this amendment. >> chairman? >> i'm proud to be leading this with senator carden. it is crucial to israel and consistent with what we have for over 30 years been engaged with in israel. 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. militaries or terrorist groups. now, there's also this other attack, and in a way it's more pernicious because it's ekconomic warfare. it's the boycott and sanction campaign campaign. other countries have attempted to weaken one of the strongest allies and embolden israel's enemies, and done so by the campaign that says somehow we

should isolate israel. it's not centrally organized but part calls for academic boycotts to special investigations and warrants for officials, businesses operating inside israel. fortunately, these kinds of campaigns and boycotts have been beaten back before. we've been successful in doing that. senator carden mentioned when i was u.s. trade representative in 2005, we did work with bahrain and oman on free trade agreements. i was able to sign the bahrain agreement and negotiate the oman agreement. we got them to end their boycotts with israel. so we know that tpa is an appropriate place for this because it's happened before. i was also involved in applying pressure to saudi arabia when they entered the world trade organization. as you probably know, saudi arabia granted most favored nation status to all member states as required to under the w.t.o. including israel, which was difficult for them at the time but the right thing to do. so look, today there are new

challenges posed. senator carden mentioned the eu is one of our concerns. unfortunately, some of the european allies are engaged in this. banks from sweden, denmark and the letnetherlands from die vestvested from israel. the israel government needs to deal with gaza. there is a threat to boycott meat dairy and poultry products from certain areas in israel depending on how the products are labeled. i'm happy that reports were included in the customs bill. i know you mr. chairman, have a strong interest in this. this is necessary because we believe combating the anti-israeli efforts should be a principle negotiating objective. it would demonstrate the issue. it would ensure the skilled negotiators would continue to confront the issue like they did with bahrain and oman. a watered down version of the

amendment is not a principle negotiating objective and wouldn't be enough. apec written a letter today. we hope the committee will support the amendment and not dilute the language. further, they said it's essential this bill includes principal negotiating objectives for the trade negotiators, which is the point of the amendment. so, again, on the 30th an shersry of the first free trade agreement with israel, i would hope we'd stand with israel again in the face of threats. there on the battlefield or the economic negotiating table, and urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> thank you. i support this amendment. i hope that we can pass it. i understand there will be a recorded vote. we'll turn to the ranking member. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. colleagues, i'll be brief. i want to commend senator carden 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 family. i have been especially troubled about the rise of anti-semitism in europe and around the world. what senator carden and senator portman are saying is that we shouldn't let american trade policy be used in any kind of fashion that would in some ways, show a tolerance for that kind of anti-semitism. so i think this is a very constructive amendment. it is 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. >> senator from new york? >> mr. chairman, thank you. i thank senator carden for pushing this amend. i'm grateful to you, mr. chairman, for supporting it and putting it in the bill. i want to say this. i find those who are part of this bds movement to have a

double standard. one that jewish people faced throughout the centuries. because they choose to boycott israel. then surrounding countries who have less human rights and less rights for women and fewer rights for lgbt people. for anybody else they don't boycott at all. if they boycott all the countries of the region, then maybe you would say ok. but they just take out israel. even though israel has far greater -- is a democracy and has far greater provisions for human rights and protections of all people than any of the surrounding countries. i find it appalling and i'm glad senator cardin has worked so hard on the amendment so that bds will not rear its ugly head into trade negotiations or trade agreements.

>> want to commend both senator cardin and senator portman for their leadership this is an important amendment as i understand it. the rollcall vote has been requested. i think we have enough here. >> aye >> aye by proxy. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. hamilton? >> aye by proxy. >> aye. >> mr. scott -- >> he's here.

i'm sorry. >> mr. widen? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye by proxy. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. aye. >> aye. mr. chairman? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye in person. >> aye. >> aye. >> i'm sorry. clerk will report. >> 26 ayes zero theynays.

>> i am very pleased that this has been accepted. >> mr. chairman, on the amendment that i talked about, i would like to ask unanimous consent that the senator will be added as a co-sponsor. >> without objection. you had better find out. as i understand it senator portman is next with his amendment. >> this is the amendment we have been talking about already which is to add currency manipulation within trade promotion to >> it's very targeted. a minute but before start i would like to ask unanimous consent that senator schumer be added as a cosponsor.

we have talked about the importance of tpa and i agree with what senator wyden said. this underlying bill is extremely important because it will extent opportunities for workers in my straight in and it's been seven years. in the meantime there have been hundreds of trade agreements negotiated by other countries. this means we have lost market share but as we do this let's be sure it is fair to american workers and right now the us. we just had a discussion about this in the context of senator's schumer's legislation. everybody around the room agrees that currency manipulation is something we ought to be prohibiting. senator schumer talked about doing it through a specific mechanism. i support that and i am a cosponsor of that legislation, but this is within trade promotion authority's, that we look at currency. the specific measure that

senator schumer talked about because it is targeted and has to do with those partners that we negotiated a free trade agreement with and we are very careful in terms of how we do it. i heard earlier from the treasury department that there is no universal standard on what constitutes or and seek manipulation. i would disagree. the imf has standards. all of these countries we are talking about are members of the imf. the wto has established practices that are prohibited. they had said that currency manipulation should be prohibited. there are standards here and our legislation follows the standards. specifically it says with regard to unfair exchange practices, the ones we want to target here are large-scale interventions to gain entry

unfair competitive advantage in trade. so this is not monetary policy. this is not macroeconomic policy including the united states. this is intervening deliberately because you want to expand your export and it has to be retracted large-scale intervention in one direction. consistent with the imf standards and the wto. our amendment says it has to be consistent, consistent with existing imf and wto principles and agreements. do we leave some discretion? yes we do. some believe we should go further. but we say that the best way to do this is to have an enforceable currency outcome but give the negotiator flexibility. flexibility as to what the it.

remedy is and how you go about it. it does not lock the administration into a specific remedy. it is meant to improve the trade agreements. it is meant to improve the competitive position of american workers. i first got involved in this issue as noted but i have become more and more convinced over time in the steel business and steel industry and the auto business strongly behind this that they are not getting a fair shake. the former secretary treasury volcker said it very well. in one week, through currency exchanges, you can undo years of benefits in terms of undoing tariffs. i would urge my colleagues to support it and i certainly support the minute that senator schumer offered. this is very targeted and focused and consistent with wto. it has to be consistent with imf

and wto for it's a pulse. i would encourage my colleagues to support it but to do it in a way that enables our workers to compete. if they are given this level playing field, they can compete and they can win in the global trade war, but we have to be sure we give them the tools to succeed. >> i would love to have the administration's viewpoint on this. do we have somebody from the illustration here? did he just step out? >> he is there, he moved to the middle. >> you are and charge so we would like to hear the administration's position. >> thank you again. as i stated earlier, secretary

lou and the administration have worked intensively to address currency practices through a number of bilateral and multilateral forum. the concern for us and the amendment offered by senator portman is it would have a significant implication and derail tpp negotiations as well as hobble legitimate monetary policy objectives. as the secretary noted, we have formally consulted with tpp countries.

our partners have indicated a shared understanding with the concerns raised by congress and they have indicated they are willing to work constructively as well. however, they uniformly raise significant concerns about enforceable currency discipline and rejected the notion of subscribing to uniform enforceable currency disciplines. for a range of reasons including the potential impact on their ability to use and to use and deploy their monetary policies as well. based on these discussions, we would expect that countries and our tpp partners would seek to identify measure standards that would seek to target our monetary policies as well and to seek to subject those two binding dispute settlements. and so this prevents a significant amount of concern for us. in fact the federal reserve chairwoman yellen has stated serious concerns about an enforceable discipline precisely because it could potentially hobble u.s. monetary policy