many people -- yes, of course. >> who came to give the evidence. witness refuses to appear, it is difficult to start the process of getting that witness before a select committee. that is why a wider inquiry will have more powers and even a select committee. >> that is my next sentence. [laughter] many people may not care in the wider world whether parliament is lied to, although i think we should. but this house came into existence to hold the sole power in the land to account, then the crown. we often fail now, and sometimes fail miserably, in holding the other powers in the land to account. that is something we must now do

properly. this is one such instance. we have colluded with the media. we depend on what date show for our election. therefore sometimes we are spineless when something like this occurs. we have left them thinking they have a bite anybody is proud of. it may even be we have fallen for the threats that have been made when we have spoken out. i know several members who have led this debate who have had to threats. and we have let one man have far too great a sway over our national life. at least berlusconi lives in italy, but murdoch is not resident in this country. he does not pay tax here and has never appeared before the select

committee of this house. no other organization would allow one man in monopoly on sports rates, for newspapers, and most movies. america, the home of the aggressive entrepreneur, does not allow it. we should not. i should to say about the proposed takeover of sky that it should be put on ice while the police investigation is ongoing. the executive and non-executive directors have failed to tackle criminality in the country, and it should be in doubt whether some of these are fit and proper people to run a media company. there are many other questions. who is paying? is it news international? what did rebecca weighed -- wade and others know, and when did they know it? why has so much material suddenly appeared in the news

international archive? i do not want to get very partisan, but i think there is one question that does remain. did the prime minister ever ask what really went on at news of the world before he appointed an editor to work at no. 10 downing street? i hope those who broke the law and those who covered it up will be brought to justice. i hope the metropolitan police will have the reputation restored. i hope the ordinary members of the public who were targeted will get justice. i hope we will all get to know the truth. even more important, i hope the british media, who for so long have had a worldwide renown for craftsmanship, for top intelligence, and for robust investigative journalism, will rediscover their true vocation -- to bring the truth to life truthfully, honestly, and legally.

none of that will happen until we establish the full, unvarnished truth. that, i believe, need a public inquiry, and it needs it now. the question is as on the order paper. i call the attorney general, mr. dominant grain. >> mr. speaker, may at first of all congratulate the honorable gentleman for having secured the debate. on behalf of the house and my own behalf, to thank him for his courage in raising these matters today. i am absolutely sure the whole house shares with him his anxiety, shock, and concern at hearing of the further allegations that have arisen over the last couple of days in relation to phone hacking, just as indeed we share his concern over the past allegations of phone hacking, and many of the other matters which he raised in the course of his speech this afternoon.

the suggestion which has now emerged that the bones of some of the victims -- phones of some of the victims of the july 7 bombings were hacked into must fill any right thinking person with revolution. mr. speaker, i hope the honorable gentleman will forgive me. by virtue of being a minister of the crown, i am of necessity more circumscribed in what i can say than what he can say in initiating the debate. i have of necessity to be quite brief. many of the issues he raised are of a rather delicate nature in view of the fact that there are criminal investigations taking place. i shall come back to that in a moment. phone hacking is a serious crime. as the house will be aware, the

courts have previously imposed sentences in two cases where it has occurred. the current police investigation is falling further evidence, and those most recent allegations we have just referred to will be considered and are being considered as part of that investigation. mr. speaker, it is precisely because of the gravity of the allegations now being made the prime minister announced a short time ago there would be a fully independent public inquiry or inquiries into these matters. those, however, must not and cannot just did -- jeopardize any criminal investigation. it is likely that much of the work of the inquiry will only be able to start once the police investigation and any prosecutions that might result from it are concluded. i say that mindful of the comments made already in this debate. but it may be possible to move

forward in some areas, but not necessarily in others. nevertheless, there is a burning desire of many people to see finality in this matter and to to be revealed. it may take some time because of that, as i am sure the house will appreciate. in the meantime, the government will seek to do all it can to progress matters further, both by consulting on appropriate terms of reference, the composition of an inquiry, whether it should be one inquiry or more than one, bearing in mind there are different issues to be considered here -- the honorable gentleman has raised issues about the conduct of the police, for example. there are also issues about the conduct of the media. can that be merged into one inquiry or should it be looked at separately? i highlight that issue. i think there is potential for there to be proper consultation on how to proceed.

thank you. >> thank you to the honorable gentleman for giving way. we have news international investigating news international and the metropolitan police investigating the metropolitan police. in terms of public confidence, is there not the case to be made that there should be independent supervision by another police force into the metropolitan police investigation so we can be satisfied we are really getting to the heart of this matter? inevitably, whatever our confidence in the met, they will inevitably know some of the characters involved. having another police force tech review of that is helpful. >> as the honorable lady knows, there are mechanisms for inquiries into the conduct of the police to be referred to the ipcc, and to bring in outside police officers to investigate. on the matter of the "news of the world," it is a matter of how it wishes to cooperate with

the police in their inquiries. i would not quite join with her in saying the "news of the world" is investigating itself. i understand they have appointed independent counsel to try to provide -- [booing] 4 give me a moment. what the "news of the world" chooses to do it is another matter. the inquiry that is taking place is a criminal investigation conducted by the police into serious criminal allegations. the question as to how that is responded to by any organization or individual is a matter for them. i draw neither the assurance more reassurance from the manner in which they choose to do it. >> so grateful to the attorney- general. the guardian has alleged today that news international used e-

mails detailing payments to the police some time ago. if that is the case, can he tell the house whether mr. pull -- poole was aware of those e-mails before he resigned as the prime minister's spokesman. if so, did he consult the prime minister or any other minister? >> i am not sure that in my capacity as the queen's attorney general that is a question to which i would necessarily have the immediate answer. what i can say to her is that there is a criminal -- there are a series of criminal investigations taking place in wider inquiry. the government is committed to there being an inquiry in the matter. i am sorry to disappoint the honorable lady. in any event, i do not think it is a position in which i am able to answer. >> as a former competition

minister, can i ask him as attorney general whether in his view the cultural secretary has the power and always have the power to refer the news corporation takeover to the proper commission? >> if i may say to the honorable gentleman, because i checked this before the start of the debate is that my right honorable friend did refer the takeover to the competition commission. what then happened -- what then -- as a result of having done so, a series of assurances were provided which satisfied him. if i may say there after i suggested he refers that question to my right honorable friend. i give way to the honorable lady.

>> did the attorney general just tell the house from whom they received those assurances? [laughter] >> those assurances were received from news international. [during] -- [jeering] and were independently validated. if i may say to the honorable gentleman, i think we have to have a little bit of care here. the process by which such a takeover comes follows what is a quasi judicial procedure. therefore, in those circumstances, what my honorable friend has to do is quite severely circumscribed in terms of his options. if the honorable gentleman feels that was not properly conducted, if i may suggest to him he should raise that with my right

honorable friend directly. i will give with first to the right honorable gentleman. >> i am very grateful to the attorney general. would he not accept that now the secretary of state for culture, media, and sport is in possession of information relating to the behavior of news corp, which information he could possibly not have been in possession of at the time he made the original decision? it must be open to him, as a matter of law, to reconsider his original decision and make the reference that is now sought. >> my right honorable friend is sitting next to me and i'm sure has noted the comments the right honorable gentleman has raised, and therefore will be in a position to respond to them if he wishes. i give way to the honorable gentleman. >> the right honorable gentleman said in the middle of the quasi- judicial process that the assurances have satisfied the

secretary of state. so why is he in the middle of the consultation process where he has not made his mind up yet and is meant to be open-minded about whether to refer this to the competition commission, if the assurances have satisfied him? the consultation is a mockery. >> my right honorable friend said he was minded to accept the assurances. he is sitting next to me. and if i may say to the honorable gentleman, he is therefore in a position both to note the strong views which the honorable gentleman has expressed, and indeed the right honorable gentleman has expressed, and i have no doubt there will be opportunities for him to respond to that in due course. >> i am very grateful to the attorney. the prime minister made reference, correctly, very correctly, in his answers this afternoon to do process. -- to due process. it is clear he was correct in

making that point. but would not due process also include, given evidence of serious criminality on the part of some people at news international, of in any event without necessarily referring it to the competition commission, to calling a pause pending further evidence? >> my right honorable friend makes a perfectly reasonable point. i have no doubt at all that my right honorable friend the secretary of state will be in a position to note his comments and reflect carefully on whether the situation has changed in such a fashion. but i come back to my original point, which is ministers of the crown have to be rather careful about simply changing decisions on behalf, in view of the fact that they have legal obligations in respect to the way in which they take this decisions.

with great respect to those who have intervened, and i am happy to feel their interventions, the debate on phone hacking is not at this stage on the takeover policies of the government. i give way. >> i am most critical to the attorney for giving way. i believe he is right when he confronts the argument to the question of competition. but does not the government, as the overall regulating authority, retain a discretion in relation to the management of this industry throughout the united kingdom? and does not that discretion, for example, allow the government to give consideration to whether the directors of any company have been fulfilling their public obligation? >> i have no doubt at all that my right honorable friend is correct in all he has said. and those are matters which can

be borne in mind by the government in reviewing the process of this takeover bid, and indeed the competition laws underlying it. i have no doubt it is correct. >> on the issue of payment of police, which is currently in the public domain since the release of the e-mails last night, has there been any discussion between the home secretary and the commissioner about this issue? and as everyone absolutely clear that the payment of police officers is a criminal offense? >> i can assure the honorable gentleman that i think nobody in this house or anywhere else is in any doubt that payments to police officers, unless they are payments made in relation to a police officer who may have separate employment, which happens sometimes, is illegal. i await any member of this house that may tell me something to

the contrary. but at the moment, i cannot think of a circumstance. i give way. >> i think the attorney general for giving way. it is a pleasure to follow the head of the select committee. there is a real question about public trust in the police. we have to be sure the police will investigate people, regardless of how powerful they maybe and regardless of whether they have to take illegal payments from them. that is a serious question that requires inquiry. >> if that situation were not occurring in this country, the rule of law would be undermined. i can assure my friend that if there was any suggestion that there were differential rules being applied because some people are powerful and some are weak, that would be a very serious matter. i give way to the honorable gentleman. >> i am grateful to the attorney general. drawing on his legal knowledge, with the attorney general confirm that were news international, with the record

of the wrongdoing they have admitted so far, were they to apply to run a minicab firm in london, they would not receive a license? if they are not fit and proper people to run a minicab firm, how can they be a fit and proper about it to take over a monopoly of a whole television channel? >> if i may say to the right honorable gentleman, so far as the question as to whether any organization is a fit and proper person to own a broadcasting license, i am sure he will be aware that question under section 3 of the broadcasting act of 1990 is a matter for ofcom and not for the secretary of state. indeed, the secretary of state would not be allowed to get involved in that matter. yes, i give way. >> grateful.

critical to my right honorable friend for giving way. -- grateful to my right honorable friend for giving way. on the last occasion these matters were debated in the house there was a lot of concern there were constitutional issues and issues of privilege which arose from the potential hacking of members of parliament's telephones. the committee on standards and privileges has produced its 14th report. in framing the inquiries which are suggested today, would it be possible to take account of the recommendations of that report which clarify what is quite a difficult situation? >> my honorable friend makes a very good point, and i have no doubt at all that along with every single representation that is made by members of this house as to how they think the inquiry or inquiries should be conducted is a matter worth taking into account. >> the attorney general is right to say it is not a matter for

the secretary of state. it is for ofcom to decide. but they can have no choice to do so unless there is a pause in the secretary of state picked decision. that is what we need. a pause so they can come to a conclusion at the end of the police investigation. >> it is a matter i am very happy to go away and check, but i think the honorable gentleman may be mistaken. i think in fact foc -- ofcom may intrude at any stage if they decide the person is not fit and proper to hold a broadcasting license. i would not want to mislead the house. i would be happy to go away and check that and write to the honorable gentleman about it. >> i am very grateful. i spoke to the chief secretary of ofcom yesterday, who told me they have the power to intervene at any stage if they determine

somebody is no longer a fit and proper person to own a media organization. >> i am grateful to my honorable friend. that does indeed confirm what i already thought. but of course that will not prevent me from going away and triple checking the matter before i write to the honorable gentleman about it. i am conscious i want to make progress. i want to allow time for debate. i have a limited ability to comment on many of the allegations made. i simply want to remind the house of something of the history of this matter. the house will be aware that it originated in november 2005, when the metropolitan police were contacted by the royal household with concerns that voice mails related to the royal family had been intercepted. i hear the honorable gentleman said he knows all of it. he may know all of it, but i think it is worthwhile of the house being reminded of some of the effect of this inquiry if it

is to have a debate. in those circumstances, the arrests took place in august 2006 for unlawful interception of phone messages. searching the business premises, police also uncovered further evidence of interception related to other individuals who are not related to the royal household. the honorable gentleman will be aware if not the house that they pleaded guilty. the only charges related to the royal family and five counts related to others in the public eye. they were sentenced to four months and six months respectively. after that time in january 2007, matters stayed essentially quiet on this issue

until july 2009, when the media reported fresh allegations related to further cases of phone hacking. the crown prosecution service then reviewed the material provided to the crown prosecution service by the police to satisfy itself that of corporate actions had been taken with respect to the material. the crown prosecution service were satisfied that the charging and prosecution was proper and it would not be appropriate to reopen the cases. it also concluded that any new information should be reported to the police for further investigation. i give way to the right honorable gentleman. >> i am grateful to the minister for giving way. it is being reported in the news this afternoon that the former director for the prosecution has been appointed by news international to advise it on those issues to do with the police at this time. >> outrageous. >> does the minister think it is important?

is there any thought from the government? >> as i am not sure that what the honorable gentleman has said is correct, i think i am not minded -- i am not minded to comment on it. my understanding of the matter -- my understanding of the matter is that lord macdonald had been appointed by news of the world to help them with their disclosure process to the police. that is a matter for lord mcdonald, in accordance with his professional code of conduct before the bar. [laughter] what i can assure the house i do not think this is necessarily a particular help to me in answering his question. [laughter]

if i may say to the right honorable gentleman, he makes a perfect to that -- perfectly legitimate point that without knowing, which i do not, the circumstances with which lauren macdonald may or may not be involved with advising "news of the world" in this matter, i do not think it is appropriate for me to comment further. >> will he give the assurance he will look into this matter when he leaves the chamber? the police minister on july 14 in good faith date comments up to the prosecution about his approach in this case. i think there is important there is clarity in these issues will we consider these matters in the house of commons. >> i entirely agree with what the right honorable gentleman said. i am happy to go away and have a look at it. as i said, ultimately a lawyer's involvement in any matter is a matter which has to be reconciled with a professional code of conduct, whether any

conflict of interest may exist. beyond that, i will write to the honorable gentleman when i have had the opportunity of looking at it. i was mentioning before we were diverted by lord mcdonald to the media reporting fresh allegations in 2009. in november 2010, the metropolitan police approached the crown prosecution service for advice about the prospect of bringing further charges, due to the non-corporation of witnesses. in the lack of further evidence, charges cannot be brought. the metropolitan police asked the "news of the world" for any new material in january of this year. following developments in the civil courts, the crown prosecution service agreed to review everything the metropolitan police had in their possession to see if there was any material that could form evidence in future prosecution of phone hacking.

on january 26, in light of the seriousness of the allegations and the fresh information that had come to light, the metropolitan police announced a new investigation. speakers, that investigation, operation greeting, which is led by deputy sue akers, in an entirely different unit in the metropolitan police from that which carried out the investigation in 2006. there are 45 experienced police officers working on the case. that illustrates how seriously they are taking the new investigation. and i think it is precisely because of the new investigation that this new information is coming to light progressively and is the subject on which the debate has been based. the prime minister said the police must be allowed to pursue their criminal investigation in the most vigorous way they can

to get to the truth. i simply say to the house that in the light of that that is one of the reasons why ministers will not be making pronouncements in detail on some of the matters which the honorable gentleman has raised. it is right to point out, and i think the honorable gentleman has pointed out, but we have had a large number of inquiries taken place. we have the police pursuing their investigation. we have a number of investigations by the parliament's committee on standards and privileges. we have also had worked by the committee of the department of media, culture, and sports select committee. i will say this in concluding my reports. i hope the house may derive some reassurance from all of that that these issues are being taken very seriously. i take them very seriously. and it is essential that no stone should be left unturned in

ensuring that anyone guilty of any criminal action is brought to justice, and that the public are provided with the truth in relation to what has happened and the lessons needed to ensure there is no rip-off -- repetition in the future. >> could i ask a simple question? why did it take you so long to take these issues seriously? >> if i may simply make a couple of remarks, this government has been in office since may of 2010. the matters clearly originate some time prior to that. moreover, i would simply point out that the issues reviving in the way they have paid back, i think it is right to say, to just before christmas. the world is not a perfect

place, but i did note the honorable gentleman's rather fair comment which he raised in opening this debate, that perhaps one should not be judgmental. i rather doubt it should be selected in the way it passes judgments. in those circumstances, what i can say to the honorable gentleman is that i am satisfied the government has acted properly in the last few months in responding to the way this story has developed. i am also satisfied, and i hope the house is satisfied, that the prime minister has responded properly to the latest allegations that have emerged today. i want to conclude. i will give way to the honorable lady. >> the attorney general is telling the house that we must await the outcome of the inquiries into these allegations. if that is the case, why is the

government going ahead, to allow an news course -- news corp to take over skype when there are serious allegations against them? surely, it should wait for the outcome. >> at the risk of repeating what i said earlier, the process of the takeover is a legal process. my right honorable friend will receive legal advice, i have no doubt, about the proper way in which he has to conduct it. and i also have no doubt that he is both listening and will listen to the representations that have been made here today, in which anxieties have been expressed on the matter. beyond that it would not be proper for me to go. i give way to the honorable lady. >> the honorable gentleman said earlier that ofcon can intervene

at any point with respect to the fit and proper person test. will the attorney general confirm that -- would you give guidance as to whether they should take into account the ongoing allocation with regard to phone hacking in applying that test? if the cannot take into account this allegation, would he give guidance as to how they should regard the phone hacking? >> i have to say to the honorable lady ofcom is a role independent of the government and i do not know if i should provide them my opinion on the matter, or the notion of independence is going to be lost. i think a really wish to bring my remarks to an end. of course i will give way to the honorable gentleman. [laughter] >> the attorney general says that the secretary of state for cloture, media, and sport will no doubt receive legal advice. but will he agree that he is not

bound by the legal advice, that he has the right as secretary of state, in his quasi judicial position, to make his own decisions? there is a book about this if he wants to read it. [laughter] >> i am sure my right honorable friend the secretary of state is very well advised and will note the right honorable gentleman's comments. in order to be equal, i give way to the honorable gentleman. >> in the interest of avoiding this happening in the future, i'll share my concerns that the code contains no demand for people to know the basis on which information which is bought has been obtained to ensure it has not been obtained through criminal acts. >> an interesting point and no doubt something which can be looked at by the present commission. i wish to conclude. i will simply say this.

these are very grave allegations. for me, in my role as attorney general, i have a curious objective as guardian of the public interest. i have no doubt the public interest will only be served if these matters are fully inquired into and if those who have committed or are alleged to have committed criminal offenses and are seen to have a profanity -- a prima face case against them will have charges brought against them. i ask the house to bring that in mind and reiterate my thanks to the honorable gentleman for the manner in which he presented this debate. superb. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i congratulate our friend for securing today's serious debate? and also for the analysis he set out of the problems and the work that he and others in this parliament have done to pursue

this issue with the vigor. and i think the whole house would want to pay tribute to their work and their determination on these issues. the events of the last few days have sent shock waves across the nation. with every hour that passes, we hear more deeply disturbing allegations, clams of private investigators paid by "news of the world" who have in the phone of a missing 13-year-old girl, erasing her messages in the search for a story, giving her parents false hope. the chapman family and others have also been targeted in similar ways. we do not know yet, until the criminal investigation is complete, what the truth is behind each of these allegations. and of course we in this house must not prejudice those investigations and any potential trials that must take place.

but we can say very loudly and very clearly that the very idea of targeting victims and their families in their darkest hour is shameful, sickening, and crawl. -- ruel -- cruel. it is not just about the invasion of privacy. it is the violation of victims and their families at a time when there are doubts about the way our society and our justice system more widely to treat victims and their families. that is what people across the country are rightfully angry and want answers. for a start, mr. speaker, this of course means the current net criminal investigation needs to be forensic and furious in the pursuit of truth. people want to know the truth about what happened. they want to know how it could have been allowed to happen in modern newspapers, and also stay hidden for so long, how it could

have been tolerated, how people could have turned a blind eye. they want to know whether the journalists risked criminal investigation, how victims and their families could be so appallingly treated, and why these allegations were not sufficiently investigated at an earlier stage. >> may i make to the right honorable lady the same point i made to the honorable gentleman? this report from the information commissioner, published in 2006, was quite clearly a harbinger and a warning for what was going on, and yet no one in the government, or indeed in the house, appeared to pay any attention to it. surely the lesson is that this rock has been in the system for a long time -- rot has been in the system for a long time. and it is a terrible thing that this house did nothing about it. >> i think the honorable member is right to say these words to all members of the house and all

members of this government and former governments. and i have talked to honorable members on our side of the house who are very clear that this inquiry that we are pulling for must look for all issues that go back historically as well. and he is right that there were warning signs. as i said at the beginning, i think it is a tribute that some parliamentarians did pick this up. but all of us need to look both at what is happening but also why too many people turned a blind eye or did not focus on the sheer horror of what was happening for too long. when i say it is clear about the investigation -- the bigger must continue. it needs to look into the heart of the darkness, where criminal investigation has been committed. it must do robust prosecution and deliver justice. of course we must not jeopardize the investigations with what we

say today in this debate, but also with the details of any inquiry. but for the police -- it is for the police and the courts, in the end, to determine the veracity of those allegations. but it is also for this parliament to make sure they can do that, are doing that, and to address the wider issues. we secondly need to know -- >> would my right honorable friend agree with me it is essential that now we know members of the public have been a fact that they should get special support, legal aid? >> , my friend makes a very important point. there may be many people who may not be troubled who may not be in a position -- some of those pursuing civil action have been able to seek legal advice. i think it is important this is the that urgently by the ministry of justice and by the attorney general. we need to also know urgently

whether the actions of journalists and private investigators have interfered with police investigations, not just in millie dowler's case but inniel morgan's case, other cases. we are also asking the attorney general, cps, and chief constables to review other high- profile cases across the country that have provoked media attention. it is important for people to be assured that those investigations have not been interfered with, and whether there are any further criminal investigations that need to take place in a wider range of cases than the one they met -- the met is currently reviewing. >> [unintelligible] we have a situation where the metropolitan police are investigating previous unsatisfactory investigations of

the metropolitan police. it is important for the public to have confidence. would she consider the possibility of involving other police forces in supervising the investigation taking place? >> i will come onto the police investigation in a moment. the current police investigation the attorney general referred to is in fact not looking at what happened in the first investigation. it is pursuing these criminal investigations. she is right that there is a further question about what happened in that first investigation and who needs to look at that, who needs to have the searching inquiry into that first investigation, the nature of the problems that arose. i do think there is a role for the ipcc to make sure there is proper, independent investigation as well. there is no doubt for all of us that we are agreed across the house that there are wider

issues at stake and that there is a case for a public inquiry, a full public inquiry now to take place. because there are wider issues about the culture that could allow these alleged events in the news of the world to go on and to be tolerated, about the wider media practices and ethical conduct, about the effectiveness of the current pcc arrangements. we have a responsibility to safeguard the right of our media to report freely on all aspects of our society, to hold up to account and scrutinize in detail the work we do in the public interest. the vast majority of journalists and editors are committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards. as my right honorable friend the shuttle culture secretary has said, alongside freedom comes responsibility. regulation is very important. but the press has to also make

it work. in january, the editor of "the financial times" accused the commission of being supine at best in response to the hacking scandal. their record on investigating phone hacking has been one of failure. i give way. >> the honorable lady is quite right. democracy -- a cornerstone is the free press. the laws governing the free press have failed. would she support that? >> i think the current arrangements for the pcc clearly have not delivered in this case. i think it is right the press should be trying to make self regulation work. but this is the issue that should be dealt with. it is now at the heart of this inquiry. it is important to restore confidence in the public, across the country, in the way in which the media operates, the

independence of the media, but also the trustworthiness of what they do. the inquiries into also cover these questions for the police. the metropolitan police commissioner stated yesterday it is inevitable that questions will be asked about the parameters of the original investigation, as well as about the regulatory role of the press commission and others. he is right, because there are three questions now. first of all, whether payments were made by the media to individual officers, some of which is clearly illegal and is corruption. secondly, about the wider relationship between newspapers and police. thirdly, why the first investigation did not reach the truth and uncover what is happening. i have spoken to the metropolitan commissioner today. he told me he believes public inquiry is to not only inevitable, but also the right thing to do. he said the police should be

held to account. it is important the inquiry must cover these issues. minister should reflect on what specialist roles there should be for police officers themselves as part of this, with the ipcc and the hmic plane part of that inquiry to ensure there is a proper investigation taking place. i will give way. >> if the right honorable lady can tell us, did the commissioner of the metropolitan police indicate that he had made a referral to the independent police complaints commission? has he done so, or has that not yet happened? >> as i understand it from our conversation this morning, he has indeed made a referral about the allegations that police officers received payments to the ipcc. the conclusion of the ipcc, as i

understand it, is that the current investigation by the met should continue but the ipcc is keeping it under review. i think it is important we have that independent investigation. i think there will be a wider question we want to reflect on in their place in our system when individual investigations might go awry or may not reach the right conclusions they need to, a role i do not think will be fulfilled by the police and crime commissions the government is proposing. that i think will in fact create greater risk for the future. the police to vital and excellent work solving crimes and supporting families of murder victims and others. that is what it is important that work is not undermined or discredited by any lack of transparency over these phone hacking allegations, and

recognizing that any area where things have gone wrong must be put right for the future. before i returned to the case for the public inquiry and what we believe public inquiry should consider, a response to the points the attorney general made about the referral to the competition commission or lack of one. he will know we have continually called for the case to be referred to the competition commission, as we believe it is the right thing to do. i hope the secretary of state of culture and media, who is here today, and the attorney general will reflect carefully on the points that have made by members on all sides of the house about the flexibility he has within the law to look at this issue again, and also to recognize the importance of the issues we of and arguing for from the beginning. i would simply say to him that these judgments need to be fair, but it is also important that

judgments are seen to be fair, and that they have public confidence as well. mr. speaker, the prime minister has agreed today that there should be an inquiry or inquiries into these issues. the attorney general, at the end of his speech, said that he refers to a number of other inquiries already under way and tried to give off some assurance that these things were being taken seriously. he will know, however, that the number of inquiries that have taken place or are taking place now gives no such reassurance. quite the opposite is true. it is the case that because so many inquiries have not gotten to the truth, whether it was by the parliamentary committee or others -- they were not able to get to the bottom of what had been happening. >> i understand the lady's point, but think she slightly misunderstood the point i was

making. i was also referring to the prime minister's statement today. a full appreciation has grown over a period of time that this is a serious issue. steps have been taken to try to deal with it. i have to say to the leader of the opposition if his government had been troubled when they themselves were in office, they could have taken steps during the period from 2006 to 2010 to do something about this. i have to say i have avoided throughout my comments today making any criticism about the with the previous government happened, and i think these remarks are uncalled for. >> i will just say to the attorney general i do respect the position from which he made his speech, but also just to warn him against any complacency about the number of inquiries. i think the key is whether the

inquiry has sufficient powers and can truly get to the heart of what has been happening. >> although the culture, media and sports committee, and another committee has been conducting inquiries, they by their nature monitor departments. what is needed is an overarching inquiry. i have discussed informally with the chairman setting up a joint inquiry between our committees. there needs to be something that covers all bases, leading to this very important subject. >> my right honorable friend is exactly right. his committee in fact has done extremely important work in these issues, and i know will continue to do so. it is also important that the inquiry has the power to not only compel witnesses, but also to get to the heart of

information and to get to the range of interconnecting issues. my right honorable friend, the leader of the opposition, has set up already in the area we believe this must cover, covering the unlawful practices including phone hacking which do appear to have been prevalent in certain sections of the newspaper industry, the ethical conduct and standards of the industry, the nature of credible regulation, and the relationship between the police and the newspaper industry. we have asked the government to decide now the nature and scope of this inquiry, to choose who should take that forward, to get these -- to get the team established in place as soon as possible without waiting for criminal inquiries to be in place, as the gibson inquiry has done. i welcome his agreement that it is possible to know whether elements can be looked at in

advance of the criminal investigation being completed. nobody wants to put that investigation at risk, but it does look at first sight as though some elements could be investigated and explored at the earlier stage rather than having to wait until the end of the process. but we do need to know which minister will be in charge of those discussions and considerations. >> does my friend not agree that whatever happens in the next few days, including the potential resignation from news international, nothing can undermine the need for a public inquiry, whatever happens? >> there is a wide-ranging nature of this and the importance of restoring confidence. but it is important which minister will be in charge of making those decisions and setting up the inquiry. we assumed it would be either the home secretary or the secretary of state or the culture of media.

but there are other responsibilities on the wider issues around the competition commission. but the attorney general needs also to consider what the prime minister's role will be in this. i think this is important. the prime minister's judgment has already been called into question by his appointment of and coulson as his media adviser despite the allegations raised about illegal practices and wrongdoing at the "news of the world" on his watch. it is alleged e-mails exposed direct payments from the news international, from the "news of the world," to police that were known about by andy coulson. there is evidence he knew about these e-mails and this is the reason he resigned in january. if so, this is extremely serious. the e-mails were only passed to the metropolitan police on june 20, even though the inquiry and

full cooperation of news international had supposedly started on january 26. was andy coulson aware of this, and did he tell the prime minister or anyone else at # 10 about these e-mails? if he did, it would mean members of the government would be aware about this information for the metric -- before the metropolitan police. it is necessary the prime minister provide immediate answers in response to these questions. the attorney general and cabinet secretary should also advise whether or not the prime minister should now remove himself from any decision making about this public inquiry. it is clear that the conduct of one of his closest employees and colleagues is a substantive issue not just for the criminal investigation, but also for the wider inquiry. this inquiry needs to be

impartial and needs to inspire confidence. it cannot be compromised by any perception of impartiality in its establishment by the ministers who are in charge of the decisions. mr. speaker, this inquiry is so important because it goes to the heart of our democracy and our society. the inquiry is not about parliament and the media or in a row between parliament and the police. it is because the media play such a vital role in our democracy that they must be accountable with clear ethical standards. it is because policing is so central to our democracy the police must be accountable when things go wrong. it is the result of the work of parliament and by parliamentarians. parliament must also press further, not just to seek truth, not just to restore the effectiveness and credibility of parts of the newspaper industry, not just to get justice, but to say on behalf of everyone in

this country we will not stand for the shameful and cool practices the we have seen. we will stand as a parliament against these shocking practices. it is not the kind of country want to be. and we will stand on the side of those, especially the crime victims and their families, who should never have found themselves dragged into this terrible debate today. we must make sure this never happens again. >> u.s. trade deals with south korea, colombia, and panama cleared hurdles in congress on thursday, but there was disagreement over a program to help displaced workers hurt by trade agreements. later, president obama and members of congress talked about debt ceiling negotiations. tomorrow, nasa will launch its final space shuttle flight.

atlantis is scheduled to lift off late in the morning, although anticipated bad weather could delay the takeoff. on fridays "washington journal," scptt -- scott pace and mark matthews will join us to talk about the future of space flight. the senate finance committee backed free trade agreements with south korea, panama, and colombia earlier. the house ways and means committee passed a similar bill, but without renewing the trade adjustment assistance program. here is part of the finance committee hearing, chaired by senator max baucus of montana, there on your screen.

>> will come to order. the committee meets today to consider draft bills of free- trade agreements with panama, south korea, and columbia. president truman once said that when there is no leadership, society will stand still. progress occurs when a brave and skillful leader sees the opportunity to change things for the better. we cannot afford to stand still and the late progress on our trade agenda. our competitors are gaining ground. u.s. exporters are losing business and opportunities for growth. while we stand still, the european union tiff trade agreement with correa entered into force last friday. canada's agreement with columbia will take effect next month. unless we act, these agreements will send the jobs we need to our competitors. in challenging times, the

american people need leadership. it is time to work together to move the trade agenda forward. this means renewing trade adjustment assistance and approving the long awaited free- trade agreements with south korea, colombia, and panama. this agenda is an opportunity to change our economy for the better, and we must seize it. the free trade agreements will improve american competitiveness, create jobs, open foreign markets, and help our economy. it is time to act. american farmers, ranchers, and businesses have been waiting too long. today we deliver on our promise. it is a one of the largest economies in the world. the fda will lower trade barriers and increase the

exports by 1/3 and cut the bilateral trade agreement in half. colombia is one of the world's comeback stories. 10 years ago it is one of the things. id yardy accounts for the second-largest draper plus in the western hemisphere. -- it already accounts for the second largest trade surplus in the western hemisphere. it made a commitment at my request to consult with korea on increase market action. this plan permits columbia to

strengthen axe and prospered axe and prosecute those that can meet -- that commit violence. the yardy implemented along with labor reforms. it is time for leadership. it is time to seize the opportunities to change things for the better. it cannot afford to stand still. trade agreements like the one we are considering a bid for the economy. this provides tax credits to workers protected by private trade. when the program was created, it

is time for american initiatives, american adaptability, and american resiliency. last night we extended it to service industry workers. they extended to non fda countries like china and india. these reforms expired in february. they must extend it in tandem. american workers must have these concerns for the program that meets their needs. it will be available. this is why i were to the chairman in the white house.

the revisions are agreed upon in the bill. there clearlyessary to ate it. there is a president directly. the law implementing in it also concluded provisions. it is the largest trading gamut -- trade agreement of the law. i have included this with the fda bill. it is not for close bills. i remain open to these options. it'll be enacted in tandem. let's demonstrate leadership and

encourage the opportunity to change things, to save jobs, and approve these trade agreements. >> today we are meeting to discuss legislation for our pending agreements. >> thank you. >> let me say this. these are free trade agreements. it is critical to helping our economy recover and generate the jobs to some have. i have appreciated working with chairman baucus on this process.

we did not always agreed. this is sometimes a sticky process. managing this committee is not an easy proposal. this is an important step in a long process, one which i hope will lead to a quick presidential submission on the senate floor. it has been a long time since the finance committee has approved trade legislation. it is useful to remind yourself -- ourselves of these marks. the mockup markup lies at the park to the consultation process. it is the only opportunity for members to debate and offer amendments.

and developed a consensus, it will be relatively quick. in my opinion it broke down last week. this contained a controversial spending program that is only march surely relate to it. it provides only 48 hours to review this highly controversial program. he said you deadly bring these agreements up. -- he would definitely bring these trade agreement up. the tickets we time to deliver over the fate of these -- we definitely took the time to deliver over the fate of these

agreements appea. this is a clear double standard. this shows one of the inherent flaws. we can do better. to be clear, i support the south. trade agreement bill. i strongly support it. i cannot condone this and use of trade promotional authority or turned a blind eye to dubious spending programs. if my amendment fails, i will vote against this up three amendments. every member joined with me and were replacing the spending program.

the bill was not an acceptable archives. it was not meant to bestablished a system we could load up the trade agreement with anything he wanted to load it up with. it puts the authority protections at risk. there is some good news. after years of delay, they will have the agreement with columbia and -- with colombia and panama. the step that support has helped us get where we are today. i am pleased to will be joining me.

thank you for this opportunity. i'll into thank you for your courtesy. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. i want to thank you for showing real leadership. you worked steadily, patiently, and effectively to bring them to us. he should be applauded for it.

each of these agreements will help create jobs and level the playing field for exporters. these trade agreements should receive strong bipartisan support. it is good for american businesses and workers to help create jobs in america. they will lower prices for american consumers. in addition, it contains a bipartisan agreement on trade adjustment assistance. , and there are parts of a varying industries that will be heard. they deserve to be buffered from the harm.

i applaud the chairman. this is the way we ought to do business. i would also like to congratulate the chairman for his insistence on it and his success in improving these exports to career. it is very important. it is important to his as well. the koreans have not kept their commitment to us. they have not lived up to the protocol. we need to make sure our ranchers do not suffer as a

result. i am pleased the administration has created additional resources. i intend to strongly support it. the colombian agreement is important to wheat and barley producers in my state. i am sure they will have a level playing field.

they have strength in labor rights and are protecting labor leaders from violence in the past decade. i will strongly support this agreement as well. this administration has improved its and brought into the finish line. thank you para >> thank you. i like to encourage senators to limit their statements to about 4 minutes. some senators have very tight schedules. i also want to go back and forth.

next will be senator great though -- senator grappo. >> it has been almost four years since we happened upon a free- trade agreement. to olympics were held. the seller system lost a planet. about a quarter of this committee's memos were there. it is time we act. if we can agree on anything, there is bipartisan agreement that we need to engage on these trade agreements. it is time that the united states has taken place on the trade front. it is a shame that they have

been blocked. they have diverted our attention to different items. we having gays in months of additional negotiations. now even special programs benefit special interests. finally we are at the next to the last one. add the capacity of the house in the senate. it is once again a stumbling backs.

it is a position of where we will be appearing it goes well we wait. it would be duty-free within three years. this is a huge issue for the united states. paul and smaller agreement is equally important for many states, colombia's sergio interest is not need repeating. more than 50% of idaho wheat depends on export markets. during the long-lasting action, colombia has large and other by lateral trade agreements.

they saw it fall from a few years ago. panama is one of the fastest- growing economies in latin america, expanding 6.2%. some terrorists are high as 81%. u.s. at a crucial goods face an average of 15 serb terror while some face terrorist as high as 260%. the list goes on. we need to engage with these free trade agreement and move forward aggressively. we need to get america back in the game.

we see these agreements jeopardize. somehow, it appears that where once again going to get stuck in a political battle over approving it. it is on behalf of the american people. it is time that we all continue that tradition and reach a bipartisan solution. they could once again through a roadblock into our progress. thank you. >> senator kerry, you are next. >> i'm one of those the hopes we get the boats quickly. -- that hopes we get to the votes quickly.

everyone is in agreement that the agreement will open at the market competitively in do we need to do. we cannot understand why the bipartisanship all through the past. they cannot be honored. they were using a spending program. this part of what is going on. historically, we have had a consensus builds up of trade. it has brought in bipartisanship together based on

the decision that when we bring it together and markets, this is a decision. a bunch of people lost their jobs. manufacturing plants moved to china. we will face the reality of the marketplace for a them. it is hard to find a job. we are not creating a fast enough. the idea that we are going to ignore the way in which we created the fabric a consensus for the last 20 years, it is astonishing to me. i hope you will recognize that the workers are not making that decision. we are. we are making a policy here. we know some people will be thrown out of work. i think it is important for us to recognize that we ought to do

something minister compared to the overall budget. i hope we will honor ronald butan's, george bush's, partisanship that existed. it can pass on its apparent. >> next. >> we need to export 1/3 of our production.

i want to congratulate the chairman for working harder to get that agreement done. we would not have an agreement with south korea without the chairman. i am not posturing. i do have some things to say. it was was some disappointment that we are here today to participate in this mock up. in the past it has been a bipartisan effort as it is told by many of my friends. despite the strong views, some of it is panama and colombia.

taa heading to do it the implementing bill. this move to attach an expansion of federal spending there is 156 weeks of guaranteed benefits. i'm not sure that is good or for any to take a look at that. i do think we need to take a look at that. we have a duty to add cost to

the taxpayer. we have to look at the offsets .or this thin the to go for $5 billion in medicare to pay for the new entitlement in the affordable care act. they have this. this is not the road to take. when to stop paying for programs. this is not coming out of imaging. it is a penalty.

i wonder about what will come down on this. when we stop proposing this. it is a piggy bank that we use. it warrant a review. is it a program to provide more generous benefits to folks that use their jobs? are the expanded programs passed? these are but if this series we

change them find jobs. there is evidence that they are not occurring. are there better ways to ship should this? these are all important questions to answer. this is a done deal. there is a standard process. i think the chairman.

but it has compromised appeare. >> let me commend you as well. we talked early on. i like to make three quick comments. they pick up on being part -- bipartisan. there is significant command for our goods and services around

the world. this gives us a chance to feed that demand. they can see it there american exports. they can put export jobs. they often pay more. this is a chance to accelerate our economic recovery through exports. we can do without raising the deficit. 0.2 deals with this trade adjustment issue. recognizing early on that this issue was certainly be a source of debate, i wanted to get some specifics into this discussion. and share the most important -- let me share the most important one.

workers would be displaced. what the results showed is that it was excellent work. we would gain hundreds of thousands of jobs in our country as a result of this agreement. there is also no question that several thousand workers would be displaced under this agreement. it seems to me that what we have an offer to do is that we stick up for those workers. it took almost a trampoline. it would be the staff of the international trade commission.

a lot of them are older workers. without that kind of assistance it will not have another chance to make a good wage like they had before they were dismissed. there was an extensive bipartisan effort. it amounts to trade cheating. they were found guilty as something that america.

i would see a building around those areas. there have a back in the tradition. thank you for the time. >> i know you have believed in free and fair trade. i'm not surprised that these agreements are here before us. i know you spoke positively about them. and no other time to spoke positively. on the other hand, i thought you'd be here sometime in 2007. some folks made an agreement with the bushes ministration to move columbia and other agreements. -- some folks made in agreement with the bush administration to move colombia and other agreements.

here we are. we ought to be painful of that. there are statistics and data that tells how much they mean to the economy. there is an increase of trade to be part of our growing economy. now as we are on the brink of real action, the president has moved the goal post once again. they have the assistance.

they have the move taa team into the bill. there are parts of taa that i support. i helped draft some of those reforms that congress pass. i know a chairman has spoken to some flexibility. they have an open and fair debate with the prospects. their separate firming part of it then.

there was a fourth bill that would address taa. i would suggest including trade promotion authority in the general system of preferences. i wish as contacted by and i was cattlemen that took a trip to korea, sent three weeks ago. one of the takeaways was that all of asia is watching how it handles a.

they came out with the message loud and clear. they come out with trading terms that they desire. we do not want that to happen. i appreciate the chairman scheduling this today and scheduling so that we have adequate amount of time to address these important issues. more members will come. >> thank you. we are back and forth. >> we will not lose another planet in the solar system. we would like to go to another planet. we are going to go to mars. i sure hope we pass these trade agreements instead of waiting around until we go to mars. i support these agreements.

i just want to say something positive about it. florida has now become the gateway to latin america for so much of our trade. my concern is the taa in t is tt

in the -- in the taa we take care of farmers which we should. i like to take care of the farmers because of the agricultural technology. that involves folks that are in texas all the way to florida. and that involves a state of maine. >> thank you. thank you for your hard work on these. i am extremely worried that i put north korea address. i think it is unnecessary.

>> thank you. it is critically important in a global economy that we focus on jobs. that is the focus for me moving forward. we are making improvements. we are allowing its to open up our products. we are able to send them to south korea. let me speak specifically today about trade adjustment assistance. i think it is important -- unfortunate that we are in a situation that something that has always been bipartisan is something that seems to be caught in a partisan divide. taa is a key safeguard for families, workers to jobs are out source. it has been part of the deal.

it is part of the deal as a work in a global economy. they are people that get caught in the middle of that. we have to audition and said to level the playing field and give workers the resources to go back to school and get an opportunity to compete in a global economy. it denied benefits because they are service workers. it produces magnetic power props. it denies them benefits because they lost their jobs.

i'm concerned about older workers in this economy. there find themselves caught in losing their job. they need to be able to just do this. it is true that michigan is the state that has and toomey people involved. then more people enrolled in the program.

it is putting the statement into the record. it is incredibly important to me that they be passed as a part of this. it is part of the commitment to do that. it is a path forward to be able to have a job. >> and while we are having this. i notice that taa is one of the main topics we have. it is a compromise for our country. he worked on it so hard and unsuccessfully that put him in the hospital.

some friends of his ticket up, broke into parts, and passed every single part. we ought to be doing that on more of our legislation incident trying to do it comprehensively. i've been working to improve job training for some time. i understand what it takes to help workers develop new skills. some colleagues have tried to make the trade adjustment assistance. one of the problems we have is the cost of duplication. it cannot be further from the truth. it provides a long list of service workers including referrals in place today.

over the course of several congresses, i worked tirelessly to pass that reauthorization. taa is just one piece of the puzzle. when you compare it, it is clear where our focus should be. we have more flexibility were funds can be given by state. those receiving benefits can be limited if they are working even part time to develop new job skills. it has no limitation and allows workers to earn money and continue their education. it can also offer more services than taa can perform now or in the future. we have little on the scope.

it belongs in the implementing legislation. it should be with a number of health care numbers. taa is being offset. >> thank you. thank you for giving the parent -- giving that. >> south korea has 25% tariff on cherries. despite this, we have $11 million more of the chair is going to korea.

it may be as much as a 45% increase. the production is our state's fifth largest production. it is $1 billion. in colombia, a similar situation apples and cherries are 15%. it would reduce those 20 immediately. it combines the sales over $9 million. too me we are getting them and said it into other markets. they continue in a much more

aggressive fashion where multilateral agreements. as my colleagues who just spoke said, and now he has frustrations. they articulated why it was so important. we have had the upside and the dislocation. taa has made it work for us. i file the amendment numbers 18. i do not know we will get to that discussion. we have to think about how we will more liberalized our process. we have the skills that in america. they are probably 10,000 job openings between boeing and microsoft. 10,000.

there when amazon, it is probably several thousand more. we need to figure it out on how to encourage employers to hire people. it is not as a replacement but as a way to supplement some of the means for the american work force. i thank you for the tremendous amount of work that has gone on to get these trade agreements where they are today. i'm glad we are at this time. is aglad that colombitaa cornerstone. >> thank you. >> i am glad we are here today talking about these important free-trade pacts. it is unfortunate that it has taken us this long to get here. i am worried that the gulf coast

continues to move on conditions for passage of these agreements. there is a dramatic expansion of adjustment assistance. by the calculation my staff has provided me, it would end as someone who claims to be displaced as a result of these trade agreements. their 2.5 years of benefits. that seems to be an extraordinary longtime for someone to claim that they cannot find work because of a trade agreements. i think that needs a lot of work. the other area i'm concerned about is the air -- present proposal to pay for this in part by medicare. we have seen that in the last

year and have that have a trillion dollars was taken from medicare to fund that. they are taking more money. this is the time when some of our friends have said that the house proposal threatens to in medicare as we know it. medicare is going broke. adjustment assistance is going to make medicare's insolvency that much more a concern. we are grateful for that.

you could sell produce overseas. last year resulted in a $7 billion in merchandise to sell this. i do think it is important for us to move these free trade agreements. i think unfortunately, it has a into the trade agreement. they are finding taa from

medicare. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate your leadership on this. let me first make a comment about trade adjustment assistance. we should not be here today. it should have been extended in february. it was brought by the republicans, our efforts to get it done earlier. it has never been a partisan issue. i know you would insist us on getting it considered. any one senator could block it. we understand that. we also have the house. we are not sure how they will respond when it is a separate bill. i think it is right to consider trade adjustment assistance. there are positives to trade. there is no doubt about it. they are people who get dislocated by trade.

that is why we have an agreement for a long amount of time. we would continue to move forward on the trade agenda. since i have been in congress, as a ranking member of the trade committee, i think i've supported almost every trade agreement. it is important for job creation. i and the stand that. -- and i understand that. maryland has evolved in a way that is important to our economy. elem colleagues to know why i agreed. i think that trade offers us an opportunity to advance international rights. i think the days of the soviet union.

the united states entered leadership by the governments in south africa. many are saying engagement is all we needed to do. the trade embargoes were critically important to changing the government. that brings me to columbia -- colombia. they are not the right country to offer a free trade agreements. let me give eight quote from our state department. "activities in colombia, insubordinate military collaboration, illegal armed groups, torture, and this treatment of detainees, arbitrary detentions, and inefficient judiciary subject, occasional harassment and,

unfounded and illegal child labor." the list goes on and on. that is the 2010 report. i know they are making progress. they are. i am pleased of the progress they are making. i know we have an action plan that is part of these negotiations. the implementation is not required. based on all these considerations, i cannot support the colombia agreement and wanted to to know why. >> next and-the center.

>> thank you. these are no-brainers. they are long overdue. these are long lost opportunities for exporters. we have seen exporters to columbia's next -- to colombia next. at the this market well evaporate. the testament today is that it is causing u.s. budget costing u.s. producers $100 million a colombia everyto t year.

since 2004, we have fallen behind china in japan. the share has shot from 21% to just 9%. attaching taa to this complicates the process. we should not anything that would hurt that. we need to expedite the path. we need to do we should have done many years ago. thank you. >> thank you. when the questions is this.

can we govern? it has been the tradition of this committee. i will have to find common sense approach. we will move forward. we need to set an example. we need to give some assurance that people can still govern. >> interestingly enough, they have negotiated this. they have been modified somewhat. i share with my colleagues yesterday a conversation i had with those from delaware. he was talking about his counterpart from south korea who is complaining about how tough this trade agreement would be on south korea.

the guy hesitated. you are right. could you do not need taa if it is respect to south career any other trade agreements. tom coburn says the we have 47 different programs designed to help equip american workers to find jobs and be able to compete in the 21st century. we will work and alatas said together. moscow to work on that. let's go through to try we will work on that to get there. let's go to work on that. meet try to find a way to the republican concerns about the vote on taa. at the end of the day, it is

important to us. if we can do that in a way that has a free shot, this is the way the place ought to do. >> >> there are 47 different programs in which we spend on this out in this country. this is somewhat duplicative. this is another, not including the 47. >> by ultimately agreeing to the negotiation on the taa extension for, what is it, 130 weeks that is fully paid for and offset, that is not a bad deal compared with some of the things we have voted for around here. let me close with this, i remember sitting next to bill clinton 12 years ago, and we

were talking about nafta. he was telling us why nafta was going to be a good deal for this country. somewhere on the way to the forum, it was not with the deal we had hoped for. i was asking are traded visor come out what went wrong with nafta and how can we make sure we did not at the same mistakes? he said some of the side agreements in nafta, they were side agreements, they were not embedded within the agreements. he said one of the things we learned in nafta was to put these in the actual agreements. my hope is that by doing so we have learned a lesson from nafta. the last thing i want to say, something that stuck in my mind, he said, we let other countries sell their stuff to us without impediment, without tariff barriers, but a lot of this country's output of these tariff barriers and non-tariff

barriers. he said is a no-brainer. it was not a exactly a no- brainer, but i think we're getting smarter. given the losses we have learned and corporate, some of the changes that are going on can they dobia, better? sure, they can do better. by passing this trade agreement or not, it is an honest argument. at the end of the day, we do more for people's lives than would otherwise be the case. >> i think the problem here is not that we should stop these treaties. the fact of the matter is that adding trade adjustment assistance under tpa sets a bad precedent. true, they did it with the nafta

agreement, and that is about the only one i can think of. the fact of the matter is that you may very well win on taa in both houses, but it ought to be decided on separately on its own merits, without shutting it in here and say we are not cooperating because we don't think it is the right thing to do. i just wanted to make that point. i appreciate all my colleagues and your feelings on this, but it ought to be done separately and on its own merits. >> thank you, senator. we have to vote. the committee will stand in recess for 15 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> the next order of business, the south korean modification for the committee in connection to be modified. the next order of business is to walk through the market. could you briefly describe the main features of the mark, and i think there is some interest to move quickly, so i urge you to respect focused concerns. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the committee is considering to documents related to the trade document. the first is a statement of

administrative action which provides the administration's views on the proper interpretation of the agreement the second document is the implementing bill which makes the changes to u.s. law that are necessary or appropriate to implement the agreement. tidal 1 provides for congressional approval of the agreement and administrative action. tidal to vote authorizes the precedent -- the president to modify the terrace and establishes rules of origin that define which goods receive preferential treatment under the agreement. title 3 creates safeguard mechanisms. it includes eight separate safeguard mechanism to address automobile searches. title 4 gives south korean goods and services access to bids and bidding procedures.

finally, title 6 provides offsets for the bill's projected revenue losses. mr. chairman, there are several changes. first, it raises the merchandising processing fee at the lower if rates. it extends the merchandize processing fee until december 17, 2020. the modification provides that in 2020, the penalties assessed on medicare providers who fail to become meaningful users of healthcare information technology will be diverted from the medicare improvement fund. that concludes my summary of that implementing bill as modified. >> thank you, and any additional information? >> we have nothing to add to the

summary given by our colleague. >> to the senators have any questions about the modified marked as created? i see no senators seeking to ask questions or offer amendments -- i apologize, but senator rockefeller? >> i have a letter from the uaw in support of the south korean trade agreement. i have a question. we have discussed this, and i will not bring this to vote, but i want to know a little about it. the recovery act made several improvements to the health coverage tax credit, and it went

from 65% to 80%, which was good. even with that, 36% of the people said that they cannot afford to buy health insurance. that is about 30,000 potential people. question one, would you agree that affordability is important to determine whether individuals participate in this program, keeping in mind the vast majority, 73% of htc recipients, are retired or unemployed. >> we always think price it is an important determinant in our estimate of the ethics. the brief answer is, yes, we think the change in credit rate is important to participation. >> would you agree that the

recovery act approved affordability to a certain extent? >> it made the net cost to the individual lower, yes, sir. >> would you agree that the subsidy as contemplated by this free-trade agreement will mean that some workers to receive help under the recovery act will not under this? >> our estimates reflect different participation compared with the 80% rate, compared with 65%, yes, sir. >> thank you. >> thank you, my authorization removed from the medical imaging services, done largely at the urging of the senator from massachusetts. imaging is critical to that state, most states, especially massachusetts, and the senator

would like a few words. >> what i really want to do is thank you for listening to our concerns and striking the provision that would have cut the medicare payments by $400 million. the reason this is of enormous concern is several. first of all, the innovators who make the cutting edge machines and put them out to the world, the physicians that rely on them, many are based in massachusetts. if you lower the medicare reimbursement for medical imaging, that leaves doctors to hold on to their old equipment lager, which means fewer patients get access to the door technologies that are better at finding early stage diseases. it so we wind up with less diagnosis, less quality of care. in addition, it also results in

job losses because manufacturers of this equipment have no choice but to respond to the increased demand or lack of it by laying off workers, shutting down factories and research facilities across the country. thousands of jobs are tied to that. i think the fact is that the menacing sector participated enormously in the entire affordable health care act, and has made significant contributions in terms of reduction and cuts. i greatly appreciate you working with me with respect to this and understanding how important it is. >> i will not oppose this because we have already worked it out, but one of the blatant pope fax -- blatant, potent fa cts is the best over use of

medical care devices. i don't understand. >> i acknowledge that there can be over use, but that is not cured by dealing with the reimbursement, that is cured by dealing with the decisions that doctors make and also with some reform issues. i would have liked to have seen some form of pork reform effort -- some tort reform effort. that is deeper into the health- care system. it is not in the reimbursement process. but again, there are things we can do to reform that, but cutting embarrassment is not one of them per tha. >> want to see if there any members of the public who might have an amendment to the south

korean free trade agreement. and if he could give the number of your own amendments. >> i call up number 28, hatch amendment no. 7. it would be committee 28. mr. chairman, this evolves -- involves the gao report. it requires gao to submit a report to committee of the nature and effectiveness of the obama administration's trade consultation process since january, 2009. for congress and private stockholders. as relates to these free trade agreements, the trade negotiations and the

negotiations of the trans- pacific partnership agreement. the bipartisan trade promotion act of 2002 requires the administration consult with congress and other stakeholders before, during, and after trade negotiations. earlier this year, the ambassador referred to "extensive consultation with the business community, labour and congress -- regarding the korea fta. but they say as the new agreement was announced, the claim from the administration apparently includes the process of consultations with a broad range of stakeholders that was widespread. claimed? really? many of the private sector stakeholder certainly did not sound like they're offering a claim to me. many of the companies and individuals with broad experience and trade agencies acknowledge the industry's at stake have been formally removed from the process.

in the case of the south korea and implementing bill, i am stunned by that description concerning the fact that about one-third of implementing bill for the fta contains offsets and the taa program that was not discussed with me, my staff, or any republican on the committee. if this qualifies as extensive consultation, i would hate to see what this administration considers to be hiding the ball. and this from the demonstration at claims to be having unprecedented levels of openness. it was certainly unprecedented, i hope never to be repeated. i think it is entirely appropriate to ask the gao to examine whether they met their mandatory consultation obligations and how effective the average has been in developing the policy, both regard to the fta's and other

ongoing negotiations. finally, this is administration has made significant changes to the industry trade advisory committee process. this report will also help inform congress as to the effectiveness of these changes and aid in ensuring that appropriate procedures are in place for ongoing and future negotiations. i will try to be brief, i hope that is brief enough. >> is there any debate? >> mr. chairman, this is an amazing amendment. i have never quite heard of asking the gao to come forth with a report on whether or not the president has been adequately reaching out to the congress. in any administration, under any

circumstances, i think that is a strange idea. in any case, we do not need a gao report to do that. i oppose the amendment. >> any other debate? >> this has a certain appeal, this amendment, but i have to oppose it for a couple reasons. basically, because the chairman camp and i have worked out an agreement which we hope will pass both bodies, and if there is a change, unless there are changes on this side, this could not open up the house bill for additional changes, and that will jeopardize this agreement. the senate can always ask for gao report. i do not think, however, that should be part of this legislation. we do not need special legislation to ask for gao

reports. i think there is a better way for this issue to be handled. i think it would be not wise to go down the road and start asking amendments to this legislation for something of the nature of not really getting to the heart of the agreement. because any senator can ask for the gao report and because this is a legislation, it would change the article. and it would open up the house to its own changes, and it would be wiser if this amendment is not passed. >> the gao report, just for my good friend from west virginia, senator rockefeller, the gao report was done in 2007. this would just bring it up to date.

it was done during the bush administration. so there is precedent. but i understand you are going to oppose it. >> if there is no further discussion, all those in favor? those opposed? have it and the amendment is not agree to. >> this is an amendment number seven, my first amendment. >> amendment 7.

mr. chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment. it is backed by democrats and republicans on and off the committee, and it is urgently because the trade sheets are on a rampage and enforcement efforts are toothless. here is exactly what is going on. the foreign trade chief, especially from china, are found guilty of dumping their goods in our country. instead of stopping the dumping, the chinese goods are shipped into korea, for example, where the goods get repacked into boxes that say, "made in korea. this is essentially merchandise

blundering. it wants the free trade agreement goes into force, my concern is that korea will become a super magnet for merchandise wandering. why, for example, would any chinese trade chief launder their merchandise through, say, malaysia when going through would bless their merchandise with duty-free status? for some time, the bipartisan group, senator snowe and i have worked on this, senator schumer, senator cardin and others, have been in an office -- have been getting back to the enforcement business to make sure that we actually bring these enforcement actions in a timely way. what this amendment does specifically is set in place concrete timetables for both

onegin and completing these investigations. it is an amendment backed by business, backed by labor, the association of american manufacturers, workers, and businesses both support the amendment, and my view, especially in light of the talks i heard from members on both sides of the aisle, for those of us who see expanding trade as absolutely essential to growing the american economy, we also need to understand we have to enforce the laws on the books. this gives us an opportunity to do it. even the customs service says this process is completely broken. i am hopeful that your staff has been for a supportive and constructive on this, and i would be happy to yield to senator snowe for any comments that she would like to make.

but labor, business, they generate revenue at a time when we need revenue. one of the few proposals that does, and i think we will hear the senator speak. >> thank you, alec to complement the senator for crafting this legislation and this amendment. on to the south korean free trade agreement. it is critically important. i have heard from numerous industries in my state and across the country how countries, specifically china, are a fading through trans shipment to other countries to avoid the duties that are levied on their imports, misrepresentation of the merchandise, underreporting the value, so there are approximately 300 anti-dumping orders in place on various products from steel mills and

papers is to certain types of colored paper, and roughly one- third of these orders and the u.s. are against chinese merchandise. not surprisingly, that is also one of the country's most went with anti-dumping and countervailing duty evasion. workers in my state and nationally depend on trade remedy laws and strong enforcement of trade remedy laws as a vital lifeline. we have an obligation every time we are considering a free-trade agreement to ensure our government is being square with workers in this country and the industry to remain competitive. that has not happened and it is one of the witnesses that continues to persist. the senator has identified a major loophole to make sure that the customs and border protection is not only identifying those attempting to evade but to make sure the levees are collected in a timely

fashion. and also to make sure the department of commerce initiates' timely actions, which is also a major problem and impediment to strong enforcement of our trade remedy laws. i know that in the paper industry and the state of maine, they initiated a case against china recently. the international trade commission ruled unanimously in favor of the industry that, in fact, china had been engaged in market distorting effects. the decision by the department of commerce finally issued anti- dumping and countervailing ordinances that offset these unfair trade practices. now it is also up to u.s. customs and border protection to make sure they are collecting these duties in a timely fashion. and it is also important to know

it was evading those duties. i think the senator's amendment goes a long way in addressing many of the gaping holes in the system, it will level the playing field for the workers and manufacturers and make sure they are on a level and competitive plainfield. i do think there are seven issues this committee has to address with respect to market- distorting trade practices by trading partners. this is one step in the right direction and hopefully there will be many more in the weeks to come. >> thank you, senator. >> i want to thank senator widen for his leadership on this. thank you, senator snowe, as well. there are so many industries affected by this as we know, china, when it comes to trade issues, does not play by the rules come up and down the line.

i think we're derelict not doing enough here. we lose millions of american jobs and trillions of american dollars because of this. one example is an industry you would not think would be subject to this, which is honey. the u.s. honey industry is under siege from imports of chinese transhipped. it is often inferior, laced with antibiotics and other things. it is the intentional mislabeling of the country of origin, costs the u.s. millions, it threatens the health of the was honey industry. at the whole industry across the country is upset about this. in my state, it is not just the duties we don't get or the honey producers, it is all of the crops -- soybeans, grapes,

cucumbers, so many others in my state are really in danger tby the fact that inferior honey on which the duty is not paid is mislabeled as coming from a country that has far higher standards but is chinese. and this is not just want out of five or 10, they do this by design. so i would urge the administration to consider putting the amendment in their proposal. i don't think it has objection, and it is the kind of thing that makes these kinds of free trade pacts and a lot easier to pass. americans are generally for free trade if they know it is a two- way street. to many americans these days think it is an advantage to the other side, to the other country, particularly china, and not to us because they don't

play by the rules. >> thank you. >> we have good anti-dumping and, of airline duty calls. the problem is enforcing them. other countries do everything they can to avoid the loss. i think we need to use every opportunity that we can to strengthen the enforcement of the laws we are to have on the books. that deal with illegal practices of other countries. china has been our number-one target as it relates to the use of transshipments. i think we have an opportunity to strengthen the enforcement of laws currently on the books. i am there to stand concern about amending this, but there is a wicked provisions of the amendment incorporated in the trade agreements. i agree with senator schumer, a public this controversial.

we would to american it -- i don't think this is controversial. we know it to the american industries to enforce the laws. >> the issue that was raised with the honey industry, the point is is spreading to a number of industries. it poses the real threat to other sectors of our economy during a very difficult time for many of our companies, during this downturn. at the point is if we cannot begin to capture this problem out and addressed it in an aggressive way and remedy it and make sure that our agencies are going to uphold the existing laws and identify those involved in the schemes, it poses a real threat to our economy because it is going to spread to other sectors, as it already has begun to do so. >> thank you, there is no

question our country has to do a much better job enforcing the free trade laws and anti-dumping laws. that is a bit of an embarrassment we have not enforced the laws we are behalf. -- we already have. i believe that a failure to do so it is in our peril, and we must act much more vigorously i think the senators for this legislation. the question is, when do we get it passed? i pledge to you, senator, i will find a way to get this legislation passed this year. perhaps we can rework it and put it in the customs authorizations bill. but that does not work will find another vehicle. we cannot amend this bill with your bill, but i applaud your efforts. >> mr. chairman, i will help you

to do that. >> thank you, senator. >> i think senator hatch as well. with your assurance that we will get it done this year, that is something that i accept and i will withdraw it at this point. colleagues, this problem is growing. it is growing because technology is boosting it. that is growing because china is planning a bigger role in our economy. the most recent numbers indicate we are collecting about 20% of what is owed. at a time when our companies are getting shellacked iand we are owed this money, when the government clearly has to secure the maximum amount of revenue, that is the recent business and labour have come together. with your assurance we will get this done this year, i will withdraw it at the time. >> think, senator, and you have my insurance. -- thank you, senator, and you

have my assurance. >> the good news is i have eight and the bad news is i will only offer for, and they have no c.e.o. impact. -- and they have no cbo impact. they would sequence the trade agreements with taa and does exactly what it describes. requires the president to certify the trade agreements, enter into force before the taa provisions include and implement the language into effect. i know there will be some on the other side that, my good friends and colleagues who will claim that the taa is absolutely necessary and appropriate to go into effect, but it is not clear

that the pending trade agreements will and fact create job loss. in fact it is expected to increase exports by 10 million, adding 70,000 jobs. i don't think it is fair that the taa would go into effect immediately upon the president's signature, while kansas farmers and exporters or any state have to wait on the president to certify that colombia, panama, and korea met the trade agreements. basically it it keeps the taa and the pending fta's at the same pace. >> is there a discussion? >> mr. chairman, the way i am thinking about trade adjustment assistance, it is we're trying to put in place again some of

the benefits under the trade adjustment assistance program for anyone who loses a job as a result of international trade, not just those who lose jobs as a result of these particular free trade agreements. so i think i would oppose the amendment. but i think we should have been placed these trade provisions, and trying to link it to the effective date of the implementation of the trade agreements, i think, would not make good sense. >> mr. chairman, i oppose any inclusion of taa in the fta and implementing bill or. . project and implementing bill or trade agreement. but i fully endorsed my colleague's amendment to postpone the expanded benefits and the to plummeting bill until

after all three fta's are entered into force. since the administration has demonstrated it favors a vote on domestic spending program over passage and -- over passage of the three fta's i think we will enter all three fta's into force as soon as possible and will prevent dithering and the bullet. senator roberts correctly said that said it is necessary and appropriate. despite the fact that the itc believes the agreement will increase exports by more than $10 billion, adding 70,000 jobs. it is not fair if taa is expanded immediately upon the president's signature will kansas farmers have to wait on the president to certify that the other countries have met the obligations of their respective trade agreements.

it has been over four years since these were included, yet u.s. exporters have been denied access to these markets all that time. the taa has not only been continued but expanded. i think enough is enough. i support the amendment. >> i would like to say to my distinguished friend from mexico that is exactly why we should not have taa in this bill. he has pointed out that it is not really relative to the free trade agreements, it is true try to get assistance to people who need it because of trade. for globalization, as i understood it before. basically, to go back to 2002. we're simply trying to put a

stimulus, $1.6 billion, back into the systems, based on the fact we're moving a trade bill. he has indicated they are not connected. so why are we doing this in the first place? all i am saying is if you are going to do it, make it fair and simply keep pace with the taa and the fta's at the same time. i don't have any farmer or rancher coming to my office wanting trade assistance,%, but they have been wanting the fta. the same folks who want the assistance or the same folks who are holding this up. i think we ought to keep pace. >> i think it is not wise to adopt this amendment on a couple reasons. taa is applied to anyone displaced by trade.

second, the 2009 proficiency expired. the chairman and i have worked out a compromise on what the provision should be. to get the compromise. we agreed to it. that is bipartisan. and the taa is for displaced workers, not just workers displaced by the agreements. all those in favor of the amendment? >> could we have the roll-call vote? >> the roll call vote is requested. [roll-call vote.

>> clerk, tally the vote.

>> 10 ayes, 14 nays. >> the amendment is not agreed to it and the amendment fails. >> i have 11 amendments and we could defeat them all real quick. >> let me ask if there are any democrats want to offer amendments. senator rockefeller? >> thank you, this is the follow

on the amendment. i am not going to insist on a vote on this. i want to say a couple things. first, the chairman has been very good in that he has raised the health coverage tax credit, tried to raise it to 80%, could not, and settled at 72.5%. i want to make very clear i am aware of his efforts on this. i think this is incredibly important for people who are eligible for this. there is a big difference on the use between 80 and 72 and 65. they all involve human beings, and where i come from, people care about that. the 65% credit individuals is to

dozen dollars out of pocket. that does not work in west virginia. when it was 80% after the recovery act, 33%, as i indicated in my questions, could not afford it. so we settled on 72%, and i would sure rather have a 72% than 65%. but i understand that the chairman has worked hard on this and i want to make that clear. so i will not push my amendment for a vote. i do want to make that point, this is not just about some ideological factor. this is about human beings. one of the differences, i guess, is that some care more about that than others. i will not push my amendment for a vote but i did want to make that point. >> that you, senator.

>did you wish to offer an amendment? >> yes, sir, it is number 64. it requires the department of agriculture -- >> i am sorry, i wanted to speak on this amendment. if i could ask my colleague to withhold for a second. >> thank you, i wanted to register as co-sponsor of the amendment, that the 80% tax credit has been a lifeline for people who have lost their jobs and health benefits as a result of trade-related business disruptions and jobs going overseas. there is a big difference between 65, 70, 80%, when you do not have a job. it is also very critical in my state and a number of others,

thousands of retirees lost their health care and retirement security but when they took over their hard earned pensions, specifically thinking about delphi retirees that have been hit hard in this credit is applied to them. i like to see 80%. i understand you had to compromise in order to get this into the bill. i congratulate you on the fact this enhanced credit is retroactive. at that it is important to ensure that is the case going forward, and i will continue to advocate for those who are in need of this tax credit to make it the strongest opportunity to help them get health care that weekend. thank you. >> senator hatch, the amendment?

it was between the two of you. >> if you want to go ahead -- i will go ahead? you don't mind? ok. i will call up amendment number 30. this regards the development of public outreach plan, on the effects of international trade on u.s. workers. this amendment requires the department of labor in conjunction with the department of congress, to develop a plan to increase outreach and education for tsa-eligible workers and the public benefits of international treaty was economy and competitiveness. unfortunately, polls show the american people are skeptical about the impact of the international trade. many of them feel it poorly. given the information, it is easy to understand. every time a plant closes or company moves part of its

production overseas, there is an article in the local paper talking about how trade is hurting the committee. rarely do you see articles extolling the benefits of trade or out international trade has resulted in increased employment at a particular factory or committed. my amendment would help bring this side of the story so the american people have a better understanding of the full effect of international trade on our economic prosperity, both today and in the future. we also hear how trade adjustment assistance help support the case for trade by helping those who may be dislocated by global competition. it is hard to stand up people say taa helps build support for trade. i think just the opposite is true. unions and other antitrade zealots use taa data to illustrate the outsourcing and job loss.

after all, the number of traded- dislocated workers is certified by the government. as the program is expanded, including community colleges, firms, farmers, and fisherman, the myth that trade is bad for the american worker finds ready fodder. instead of building the case for trade, they showed that trade is bad. efta is really just a government subsidy but -- government subsidy for this. if people believe me, but this report called outsourced. time and again, taa certifications are said it through the report to make the case that trade arms workers and the economy. it is not just the afl-cio. here is a newspaper article from the portland tribune.

it is an interesting article at best. the article cites examples of tsa-certified project tsa- certified workers as evidence of the negative effects of trade. and it provides a handy chart on the back entitled, where jobs were lost, citing specific taa certifications, companies like general electric, panasonic, and intel, portland-area employers that have laid off workers. the u.s. department of labor has certified they were due to free trade agreements. i ask everybody, if taa is good for trade and committees, who needs enemies? clearly, if we continue to provide special benefits for a particular class of workers, something has to be done to stop subsidizing antitrade propaganda, which this certainly is, the question.

-- no question. my amendment would require the department of labour to develop a plan to better educate the american worker and taa- certified employs about the overall effect of international trade on the u.s. economy. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. it is a step in the right direction and would certainly help justify what we're trying to do with these trade agreements. >> any discussion? >> mr. chairman, i don't want to subsidize antitrade propaganda. i don't think we want to subsidize pro-trade propaganda either. >> that is what we're doing. >> that seems to be what the amendment does is to subsidize pro-trade propaganda. it calls on the labor department to put together a plan for educating the public on benefits of international trade.

i support these free trade agreements, and i supported every trade agreement that has come before this congress sets i have been in the senate, but they're also negative effects from trade, and i would not want to support just a plant or direct a plan be developed to talk just about the benefits. >> if i could answer, my amendment is talking about the impact of trade, period. >> that is not what the description says. >> i would be happy to work on the language with you if you have a better way of expressing it. >> it says improved public outreach and education on the benefits of international trade. >> well -- >> i believe there are substantial benefits and i will vote for these trade agreements because of that, but i have an

amendment that i hope to have considered or we would call upon the international trade commission to give us a report 10 years after each trade agreement is entered into, as to what the actual effect of the trade agreement has spent on the u.s. economy. i think that is very useful, factual information, which members of congress ought to have and which the public could benefit from. but it would be a neutral requirement on them to give us a report on what the effect has been on the economy. >> let me do, what we do about this kind of propaganda that is not accurate? frankly, i am willing to work with people on the amendment, but we need to be able to talk about factual reality, how to portray this -- how important

trade is, and get some of the sources to be more factual. >> who put that out? >> it was the afl-cio. >> it is not our job -- >> it is not our job to let them get away with stuff like this either. if we have an obligation, it is to get the facts out. everybody agrees the trade agreements are part men are wonderful for our country, yet we have stuff like that or people think they're not because they get this propaganda. >> first of all, much of the outreach effort is being conducted by the administration. they're working to promote out. under the 2011 national strategy, and day out on national out ridge campaign strategy. they're doing this. you may not like the way they're doing it, but we can find

possibly a better way. some organization has its own view about trade, they can say with a lot to say. but i think this amendment is duplicative and not necessary. the average is been performed and that they would not be wise to adopt this amendment. all those in favor? >> roll call. >> a roll-call vote has been requested. the clerk will call the roll. [roll-call vote] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> the clerk will report the vote. >> 11 ayes, 13 nays. >> the amendment does not have sufficient votes and fails. any further amendments? >> i would call amendment no. 7. this relates to something that

is very important state of michigan, and i raise it in looking at the overall agreements because we do address the customs fees between canada and mexico as part of paying for the agreement, which caused me to want to address something that is very important in michigan that relates to the fact that we are receiving in michigan about 90% of the foreign waste that interest the u.s. in terms of trash trucks. former homeland secretary ridge visited, looking at the security risk because we are not adequately inspecting what are very dense trucks that do not have the ability to have the normal x-ray equipment see inside the trucks. it takes an additional staff to inspect them, and i have an

amendment that would add an inspection fees so we can adequately address these shipments. i also want to indicate that senator levin and i have worked with the government of canada to reduce the number of trucks coming in through voluntary agreements with local municipalities, toronto and ontario. we thank them for that. we have reduced the number of shipments coming in by 40% as a result of a voluntary agreement. they have increased landfills and recycling and have the capacity to keep all their trash in their country, but at the moment it is still coming and perry for us, this is a really important issue, and the ability to adequately -- we like to stop all the trucks, mr. chairman, but until we can do that, making sure they are adequately inspected and that it is safe coming across the bridges is very important for homeland

security. >> thank you, senator. i know how important it is. we've been working on legislation on interest kate critic interstate transport waste. i remember the canadian issue, folks very concerned about trash being brought to their states. listening to you, i could tell it is still a big issue today. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i know the issue and we're trying to help out. >> i will not ask for a vote but i appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me to get this resolved. >> thank you. it further amendments? >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is amendment no. 64 that

requires the department of agriculture to meet with china and japan within the next 120 days to discuss unresolved beef trade market access issues. our beef producers and exporters have long suffered from unfair and unscientific barriers that our foreign trade partners have imposed on our exports of beef. despite the fact that the world organization for animal health has determined that u.s. beef is safe, countries like china and japan refused to allow u.s. beef exports based on sound science. with regard to china, there has been no progress resuming beef trade after 2003 because of the numerous hurdles imposed by the government. in japan, the export situation is a little better, but not much. japan limits u.s. beef exports from animals 2