to run for office that other people, we run into a gender gap there. that is the same that we see in our high school and college students. that suggests that once you decide not to do it, it is hard to change that. host: the book is "running from office, why young american are turned off the politics. thank you very much. that is it for our program today . a new edition tomorrow at 7:00. see you then. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> shortly we'll go live to capitol hill as the senate

finance committee meets to discuss u.s. trade policy. this as congress gets to set legislation that will establish rules for international trade negotiations. tom donahue and the perfect of the afl-cio trade union will testify this morning. it was expected to start at 10:00 eastern today. we understand it will get a little bit later start. about 10:15 eastern. we'll have it for you when it gets under way on c-span. while we wait for that we got a preview of the pending congressional debate and a look at its current status from this morning's "washington journal." joining us now, linda dempsey of the national association of manufacturers. she is the economic affairs vice president, here to talk about trade issues specifically something called fast-track authority. guest: good morning, pedro. host: what do you make of this type of authority? guest: manufacturers, small and large, are competing in a global

economy. and it is tilted against us right now. our manufacturers are facing high barriers and -- around the world and the u.s. market is largely open. we need trade agreements to supercharge our sales and exports and opportunities in a growing global economy. tpa, the trade legislation that was introduced on a bipartisan basis last week is exactly the kind of legislation that allows these trade deals to be negotiated by congress. tpa gives our negotiators leverage at the negotiating table. it is really hard when our negotiating -- negotiators are telling other countries do we need you to lower your terrace and protect our negotiations. having tpa will make sure that our negotiators can bring back strong agreements and make our manufacturers better able to compete. host: ultimately, congress

laughter vote on it -- congress will have to vote on a package that they cannot amend and it will have to vote up or down. guest: absolutely, and this is the way we have done these negotiations since 1970 on and we have had terrorists negotiations -- tariff negotiations that way longer than that. it will be a 1000 page agreement. there are a lot of issues. and it's a negotiation. this issue that this country moves on is dependent on something happening in another country. if congress says, i don't like this one provision, you unravel the entire agreement and the it will -- and it will not be able to move forward. the president has the ability to negotiate with foreign institutions. congress has the ability to regulate trade. this helps them to work together in a way to get successful trade agreements. host: on this program we had a woman in laurie wallace talking

about agreement when it comes to jobs specifically she talked about the outsourcing of jobs because of trade agreements. i want to show you something to your response. [video clip] guest: the agreement the wade is written would make it easier for outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries, and specifically putting u.s. workers in competition with workers from countries like vietnam, which is a tpp partner where workers make less than $.60 per hour. when the president talked about opening markets, there is one catch. we already have trade agreements with more than half of the countries in this deal. in japan, the issue there is not tertariffs the issue is that it drops its currency. and it makes exports cheaper

just by dropping the currency. and there are 60 partners, 230 house members writing the president in 2013 saying the tpp have to have disciplines against cheating on currency to make sure that we could help their -- that we could sell our stuff there is that of only them selling here. the president refused. host: there would be outsourcing of jobs because of this deal? guest: there is no evidence of that. we have a lot of european, asian, other businesses investing in america, creating high-paying manufacturing jobs because they want to reach our consumer. but investments are already ongoing. the biggest investment for u.s. companies is actually europe. it is not low-wage -- countries. when we have had these issues in the past to protect our

investment overseas, which is a very important issue across many sectors, those agreements have been powerhouses to advance our exports. when companies invest overseas, they power exports to those markets. those companies that invest overseas, sustain and create jobs here, they invest more here in terms of capital investment and research and development. these agreements have already produced massive gains for u.s. businesses gains that we already have for our manufacturers. we have free trade agreements that eliminate all of these barriers, protect our innovation with just 20 countries around the world, about 10% of world gdp. it's 6% of the world's. those 20 countries purchase nearly half of u.s. exports. why? because they have lower the barriers and make it fair for us to compete in these markets.

and when you talk about investing in manufacturing there is a wage premium. we know that manufacturing jobs in the u.s. are good high jobs and pay on average about 20 than an average job -- 23% more than an average job in the u.s. economy. export intensive sectors have a wage premium even about that. host: is there a big scale manufacturer that only benefits? what about the smaller manufacturer people will call about the smaller manufacturer, like textiles and others who were deeply affected by previous trades deal like nafta. host: you bring up many issues. we have over 14,000 manufacturers as our numbers and 90% are small businesses. we hear every day about how manufacturers are able to grow. there is a company up in maryland bte technologies,

under 100 employees that sells medical equipment around the world. when korean free-trade was supported, they were able to increase their sales by 100% in two years to korea and helping to sustain jobs in maryland. we have stories like that across the country of fire equipment and truck manufacturer -- across the country. a fire equipment and truck manufacturer was able to sell it equipment overseas and support jobs here in america. it is probably more important for small businesses to get these barriers down that it is for larger business -- than it is for larger businesses. host: linda dempsey is our guest, talking about trade issues. the first call for you is from james in kentucky, democrat line. go ahead. caller: yes hello? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i have a question about

terrorists -- tariffs for the u.s.. american workers have to compete against lower wage workers in china and so forth, and american factors -- factories have to comply with higher standards. why can't we raise our tariffs on what is coming in? that would help keep our workers pay up. guest: the u.s. actually did that back in 1930, where we raised tariffs on all our goods before we had a lot of these international agreement out there. and the result was to deepen the great depression, make it harder for consumers to buy the products because prices just went up in the u.s. and it really did not add jobs to the economy. franklin delano roosevelt in

1934 started what was called the reciprocal tariff program where the u.s. negotiated with other countries, saying if you lower your tariffs, we will lower hours. and that started a several decades process ultimately resulting in the wto, the consisting of 60 countries with very basic principles in trade agreements. some of those countries that have joined, particularly those who joined earlier, have high tariffs, countries like brazil or india. they have tariffs 10 times that of the u.s. or canada. china and the wto actually agreed to lower tariffs in the

rest of the developing world. we have seen a huge increase in exports from china, but we are seeing a lot of imports from china as well. how are we going to compete absolutely? at this point, we have agreed that the u.s. tariffs rates are at the level they are. what we are trying to do with our trade program is to get other countries to eliminate all of the barriers that we have in the u.s. the tpp negotiations, if done right -- and let me stress that, pedro, because that is absolutely critical to manufacturers. we want a great -- an agreement that is the gold standard, that will eliminate tariffs and make sure our intellectual property is protected, and make sure our small businesses can use internet black arms to be able to -- internet platforms to be able to sell overseas. by moving forward on the tpp we put pressure in asia, and in

fact globally for other countries to compete. the other issue here is the u.s. has not negotiated a new trade agreements since the korea agreement in 2007. other countries are not standing by. u.s. exporters face higher tariffs than any free -- than every other major country, like china, canada, mexico, chile every member state of the european union, because those countries have negotiated these types of trade agreements. they then get special tariffs and lower barriers. our exporters are still facing those tariffs. we need to get back in to the trade game authority -- fully with tpa authority. and there are lots of other countries out there where we want to lower tariffs and barriers. host:caller: my question is, how can

you say that this president showing his current negotiating tactics and everything with iran , talking to cuba -- he gets nothing but gives everything away, and for us to go into negotiations and to really wanted to get a good deal, it almost looks like this president does things to undermine the power of this country instead of giving us power. how can your organization tell your members that you have faith that this current president is going to be up to negotiate a good deal for us? donald trump says our trade agreements with other countries are ludicrous. he says that it is awful. we are giving things away.

this president, in my opinion, will give things away. i do not want to see that happen to our country. i really think is undermining u.s. power on purpose. if your organization has faith in him, i think you are really of a wrong tree. thank you. guest: let me address that. you raise a concern that we here in some of the halls of congress, as well. it is exactly that concern that is why trade promotion authority legislation is so important. the president can go negotiate with any foreign nation he wants right now. the tpp negotiations were actually started under president bush with just a few other countries. it has expanded under president obama. this president started our negotiations with europe. what a promotion authority will do, and we have not had it since it expired in 2007, is congress,

as a whole, gets to tell the president that this is what we want you to negotiate. we want you to come and tell us what you are negotiating and how the negotiations or proceeding. we want you to share information with the public. we want you to take our views into account. at the end of the day, as pedro mentioned, the ultimate deal has to be approved by congress on an up or down bases the cause we cannot start amending a trade agreement, certainly not a trade agreement with several different countries the way both the big negotiations the united states is in right now include. >> we've leave this segment at this point. you can see the rest of it in our video library c-span.org. we'll go live now to capitol hill. the senate finance committee is meeting this morning to discuss u.s. trade policy. this is just getting under way.

senator hatch: i'd like to thank you. today we have a panel of very distinguished witnesses that will help us discuss the ongoing trade agenda. as everyone know last week senator wyden and i and house ways and means chairman ryan introduced trade promotion authority or t.p.a. we want to mark up the t.p.a. and related bills later this week. t.p.a. expired in 2007. while talks with various trade agreements have gone on since that time without t.p.a. in effect, our neighbors and negotiators have been effectively negotiating with one hand tied behind their backs because they have not been able to assure that the deal they signed is the one

congress will vote on in the end. our legislation will fix that. i want to thank ranking member wyden for his senator and assistans thus far and also -- assistance thus far and also congressman ryan. we got a long way to go but working together i'm confident we can get there. now, some expressed concerns about the process by which we're moving this bill forward. for example, i've heard arguments that we're moving too quickly without adequate discussion or examination. those concerns are in my view very unfounded. first of all, the bill on which our current t.p.a. legislation was based was first introduced in january of 2014. almost a year and a half ago. and since that time it's been available for examination dissection, discussion and comment. thousands of organizations have weighed in on the merits of that bill, including business organizations, organized labor, think tanks and advocacy groups. many members of congress are on

record either praising or criticizing that bill. officials in the obama administration expressed their support for it. true enough in our discussions, senator wyden, chairman ryan and i made some improvements of that original bill but the fundamentals remain the same and we've been very transparent as to what the changes really have been. second, in the 113th congress, the finance committee held nine hearings on trade and t.p.a. was wrote up in virtually every one of them. i know this because more often than not i was the one bringing it up. one of those hearings was devoted specifically and entirely to t.p.a. and included the testimony of witnesses across the spectrum, including one representing organized labor as well. finally, since the 114th congress convened just about fleents ago, this committee has had three hearings in which trade and t.p.a. was a major topic of discussion. today's hearing is the fourth. in other words, this is a

well-covered territory for this committee. so while i understand and respect there are sincerely held views on this topic, some of which are different than mine, any arguments that we have been forthcoming and transparent with this t.p.a. legislation are to put -- to fine point on it nonsense. i've been in the senate a long time and i think i'm generally considered to be pretty reasonable. i'm certainly willing to listen to and consider any genuine concerns that some may have about process. i want all sides to be heard. i want to have a fair and open debate. that's why we're having this additional hearing. by all means we should have a frank enough discussion about these issues and i hope we will continue to do so today. but let's not dress opposition to t.p.a. is concern about process. during the hearing last week i made two assertions about trade. i stated plainly that u.s. trade with foreign countries is a good thing. and i said that t.p.a. is the best tool congress has in its

arsenal to help influence and facilitate trade. those are pretty fundamental assertions and at the end of the day people are either going to agree with them or they won't. now, more hearings and weeks of additional delays won't change many minds one way or the other on these essential issues. with that in mind i welcome today's hearings. like i said, we have a very distinguished panel of witnesses. it doesn't get more distinguished than these two gentlemen who are before us today. and i think they will speak to the heart of these matters. i look forward to a spirited discussion. for my part i want to make clear if it's not clear enough already that i believe congress should be working hand in hand with the administration to break down barriers to foreign markets in order to give our businesses and job creators a chance to compete in the global marketplace. the united states should be a leader in international trade. we should be setting the standards and making the rules. we simply cannot afford to sit

on the sidelines and let other countries dictate where the world goes on trade. trade is an essential element of the healthy economy. we should be doing all we can to advance the trade agenda that works for america and advances our interest on the world stage. i might add this trade agreement will cover 11 nations in the trans-pacific partnership plus ours and 28 different nations in the ttip european partnership plus ours. so it involves high percentage of trade throughout the world and it puts us in a position to be able to do a good job with regard to trade and to advance our crun in many ways we will not be able to do without this agreement. now, that's where we are. i'll stop right there. senator wyden. senator wyden: mr. chairman colleagues, normally i'd make an opening statement the focus of which would be to lay out

the significant differences between this bill and the trade bills of the 1990's. and under normal circumstances i would detail that before the committee at this time. given the interest, however, with colleagues on the committee and engaging with our two witnesses -- and we thank them both, mr. trumka and mr. donohue. i visited with a number of the members of the chamber and the interest of my colleagues who are here to ask questions, i will fore bear any further statement at this time, mr. chairman. senator latch: thank you, senator wyden. our first witness is thomas j. donohue, the president and c.e.o. of the u.s. chamber of commerce, the largest business organization in the world. representing the interest of more than three million businesses across various sectors and industries. he's held this position at the

u.s. commameber since 1997. we've had a lot of -- chamber since 1997. we've had a lot of experience working together. prior that i served as president and c.e.o. of the american trucking association for 13 years. earlier in his career he served as a deputy assistant postmaster general of the united states and vice president of development at fairfield university. mr. donohue seached a bachelor's degree from st. john's bifert and a business degree from delphi university. so we welcome you, mr. donohue, to the finance committee. we're honored to have you here. we appreciate your willingness to be here today. our second witness today on this panel is richard l. trumka. he's president of the 12.5 million member american federation of labor and congress of industrial nations or the afl-cio. the largest organization of labor unions in the country. he's held this position since

2009. i might add that this organization is -- has an effect for the american citizens all over the world. one of my closest friends is the international vice president of the afl-cio. he's since passed away. what a great leader he was in this world. prior to 2009, mr. trumka served for 15 years as the afl-cio secretary treasurer. from 1982 to 1995, he was president of the united mine workers. mr. trumka has a bachelor's degree from penn state university and a degree from villanova. he's a tough guy and somebody i have a lot of respect for. these are two -- these are the two top people in this country as far as i'm concerned to appear at this hearing. they're widely divergent views perhaps, but we need to listen to both of them. i want to thank you, mr. trumka and mr. donohue.

welcome to the senate finance committee and hopefully it won't be the last time you come before this committee. so with that we'll turn to you, mr. donohue. you'll be the first witness. mr. donohue: thank you very much chairman hatch, ranking member wyden and distinguished members of the committee. as you now know, i'm tom donohue and i'm president and c.e.o. of the chamber of commerce of the united states. i'm really pleased to testify today on behalf of our three million small and medium-sized businesses, state and local chambers of commerce as well as large companies that are members of the chamber and national federation. i'm also pleased to be here with my friend, rich trumka. we appear quite often together on matters of immigration infrastructurend and a whole lot of things we agree on. when we retire we'll get a mike and ike show and go on the

road. we think we can make a good deal out of it. the chamber strongly supports the bipartisan congressional trade priorities and accountability act of 2015 which will renew trade promotion authority. t.p.a. is critical because economic growth and job creation at home depend on our ability to sell american goods and services abroad. after all, 95% of the world's consumers live outside the borders of the united states. why does trade matter to our country? in a word, it comes down to american jobs. already one in four manufacturing jobs depends on exports and one in three acres of american farms is planted for consumers overseas. all told, nearly 40 million american jobs depend on trade. nearly 400,000 jobs in utah and

a half a million jobs in oregon depend on trade, just to pick two states at random. [laughter] these numbers could even be higher but unfortunately the playing field for trade isn't always level. while our market is generally open u.s. exports face foreign tariffs and often soaring into double digits as well as a atlantic of nontariff thicket of nontariff barriers. no one wants to go into a game many points behind before the tip-off but that's exactly what american exporters are doing every day. these barriers are particularly burdensome for america's small and medium-sized companies, about 300,000 of which are exporters from the united states. the good news is that america's trade agreements do a great job leveling the playing field and

the results include significantly higher exports and new and better jobs. the chamber analyzed these benefits in a recent report entitled "the open door of trade," which we'd like, mr. chairman, to enter into the record today. senator hatch: without objection, it will be entered. mr. donohue: here's some of the highlights of that study. america's 20 trade agreement partners represent just 6% of the world's population. let me say that again. the 20 trade agreements we have around the world represent just 6% of the world's population. but buy nearly half of america's exports. by tearing down foreign barriers to u.s. exports, these agreements have proven an ability to make big markets even out of small economies. u.s. exports to new trade agreement partners have grown

by an annual average of 18% in the five-year period following an agreement coming into force. that's much faster than we typically see in u.s. export growth to other countries. the increased trade brought about by these agreements supports more than five million american jobs, according to a study commissioned by the chamber. trade-related jobs also pay well. for instance, manufacturing jobs tied to exports pay wages that average 18% higher than those that are not. the trade balance is a poor measure of whether or not your trade policy is successful, but we often hear the opponents of frayed arguments say they cause deficits. that couldn't be more incorrect. the united states -- i'm going to say this -- please listen. the united states has a trade

surplus with the 20 trade agreement partners as a group. u.s. exports of manufactured goods to our trade agreement partners generate revenue of about $55,000 for each american factory worker. many manufacturers just couldn't make payroll without these export revenues. for american farmers and ranchers, the stakes are especially high. that's because foreign markets often slap the highest tariffs on their products, and that's why our agricultural exports soared under our new trade agreements. u.s. service exports are also growing rapidly and supporting of high-wage jobs even though the potential for service industries to export is nearly untapped. but to get more of these

benefits, congress must approve t.p.a. the united states is never entered into a major trade agreement without it. a simple foreign of t.p.a. was first enacted in 1934 but the latest version expired in 2007. t.p.a. is based on the commonsense notion that congress and the white house must work together on trade agreements. t.p.a. is how congress sets priorities and holds the administration accountable in trade negotiations. a few people have claimed this is a presidential power grab. i may be uniquely qualified to comment on this. after all the chamber has not been shy about criticizing some actions of the administration when we see overreach. but t.p.a. isn't about congress

ceding power to the president. on the contrary, t.p.a. strengthens the voice of the congress on trade. without t.p.a., the administration can pursue its own priorities at the negotiating table and consult with congress only when and if it chooses. t.p.a. lets congress set negotiation goals and sets forth detailed requirements for consultation between the trade negotiators and the congress. and what should we do with t.p.a.? we should start by bringing several trade negotiations to a successful conclusion. the trans-pacific partnership agreement would open the asia pacific dynamic markets to american goods and services. it is critical that we do so because nations across the pacific are clinching their own trade agreements that exclude the united states, denying american exporters access to

these very important markets. t.p.a. gives the united states a strong hand in writing the rules for trade for this important region. it makes us an active player, not a bystander stuck on the outside looking in. t.p.p. would affirm and deepen america's ties to asia at a time when there is a perception that we're pulling back. then there's the trans-atlantic trade and investment partnership which would further remove barriers between the united states and europe. this agreement could not come at a better time. both america and europe are dealing with struggling economies, aging populations and new competition from emerging nations. the united states and the e.u. represents nearly half of the global economy. a relationship that huge,

eliminating the trade barriers could bring extraordinarily large benefits to both countries. according to a study by the atlantic council and the british embassy, the agreement would create 740,000 new jobs in america. the trade and services, which we haven't talked about enough, is another big opportunity. a free trade zone for services with 50 countries around the globe, this agreement plays to one of america's strengths. u.s. service companies are among the most competitive in the globe. from the u.s. business community's perspective, the negotiating objectives laid out in the t.p.a. bill are balanced and ambitious. they reflect the evolution in u.s. trade agreements in recent years and include the best new ideas in trade policy. and the bill strikes just the

right balance on intellectual property, which is the lifeblood of the u.s. economy. negotiating objectives had been modernized to reflect our changing economy with new provisions on digital trade and state-owned enterprises for examples. importantly, the bill directs the u.s. trade negotiators to seek comprehensive agreements avoiding exceptions or carveouts from those agreements, rules for any industry. the chamber supports the t.p.a. bills' negotiating objectives on currency practices. it says that parties to a trade agreement should avoid manipulating exchange rates to gain an unfair advantage. i believe the u.s. should continue to press economies to adapt market-determined

exchange rate systems that reflect economic fundamentals. in recent years, the g-7 and g-20 economies have affirmed that they will not target exchange rates or engage in competitive devaluations, but the notion that you can use trade policy tools to address monetary policy challenges causes concerns in many quarters. here's one for example. it's not in the u.s. interest to enter into an international agreement that would handcuff u.s. monetary policy and limit the flexibility of the federal reserve to respond to an economic crisis. the t.p.a.'s bills negotiating provision related to currency reflects a reasonable balance. senator hatch: mr. donohue, your time is up. can you wrap up real quickly? mr. donohue: oh, sure.

i was going to go as long asry could. because when i'm finished -- no, thank you. in sum this is a strong bipartisan bill. there's nothing fast about the matter in which it was done, as the chairman indicated. and given the careful balance in many areas, we urge all of the members to vote for this and get it through. to conclude, the united states cannot afford to sit on the sideline while others set the rules of trade, to create jobs growth and prosperity, our children need us to set the agenda. two quick points. to open foreign markets to american-made goods and services, we need to renew t.p.a. then we got to use the legislation to get these trade agreements. those agreements now being negotiated are going to make a fundamental difference for this country. and with all our frayed agreements, old and new, we need to ensure they're

enforced. mr. chairman, senator wyden let me thank you for having us here. we'll now hear from the other side of the argument and then we can get down to a good discussion. senator hatch: thank you. we sure appreciate your testimony and we appreciate very much your being here. we'll allow you a little extra time if you need it too so we'll turn to you and hear your testimony. mr. trumka: thank you, mr. chairman. before i start my oral testimony, i'd like to submit for the record my full testimony. senator hatch: without objection. tumtum and bipartisan letters signed by the house and the senate urging the administration to do something on currency manipulation. a g.a.o. report that says that the current labor standards need -- are weak and need to have more done with monitoring and enforcement of labor provisions. and an analysis of the

hatch-wyden-ryan t.p.a. bill by ranking member sander levin. i'd like to have those submitted in the record. senator hatch: without objection, it will be -- mr. donohue: mr. chairman, there are few materials like my formal testimony. senator hatch: we'll put them all in the record. mr. trumka: i'd like to state, mr. chairman, by stipulating that tom donohue is an expert of presidents. he goes back to abe lincoln's days. is' ably qualified to be an expert on those presidents. i want to thank you chairman hatch -- senator hatch: you're goings to have that white hair before it's all said and done. mr. trumka: i want to thank you, members of the committee, and tom donohue. for strengthening labor and environmental provisions, for reforming investment rules, for finding the appropriate balance and regulatory measures and

intellectual property protections, for fair rules of origin and finally including meaningful currency provisions among many other issues. far from being opposed to trade on principle, we have supported trade deals when warranted. some examples would be the jordan trade agreement the african growth and opportunity act, the generalized system of preferences and the re-authorization of the import-export bank. key to reforming our trade policies we believe is abolishing the outdated, unaccountable and un-democratic fast track process. the trans-pacific partnership, now being negotiated by our government, includes 12 countries and about 40% of the world's g.d.p. and the t.p.p. is designed to be infinitely expandable.

so it could be the last trade agreement we negotiate so it's especially crucial that we get the terms of this one right. and mr. chairman, the idea that fast track lets congress set the trds and -- standards and goals for t.p.p. -- i'm not talking about other agreements but for t.p.p., is an absolute fiction. the agreement has been under negotiation for more than five years and is essentially complete. so the instructions that you send them will have no affect whatsoever. congress cannot set meaningful negotiating objectives if the administration's already negotiated most of the key provisions. i might also add, this will be the worst possible time to pass fast track for t.p.p. because the leverage that you have left for those issues that are remaining is right now.

and you give that away if you pass fast track legislation. congress will lose that crucial leverage over any remaining provisions by agreeing to fast track at this late day. the administration has ignored congress' direct instructions to negotiate meaningful currency provisions and to reform the flawed investor state dispute settlement process. granting fast track now takes congress out of the picture until the agreement is complete. and while all fast track bills have gone through the charade of listing negotiatings' objectives, there have been no consequences when the administration willfully ignores or fails to achieve any or all of those objectives. america needs an entirely new trade negotiating authority not minor tweaks at the margin.

and the hatch-wyden-ryan bipartisan congressional trade priorities and accountability act of 2015 falls far short of doing that. congress must not agree to fast track a fast track bill right now, mr. chairman. the time allotted between the introduction of the bill, hearings, committee consideration and floor action is really short. and it's a sign that i believe that if it had more time and more people knew about it, more people, not less people, would oppose it. a new and effective trade negotiating authority must do the following -- it must ensure that congress approves trade agreement partners before negotiations begin. create negotiating objectives that are specific to the individual trading partners

that we're dealing with, because they're all different. ensure that congress, not the executive branch, determines whether the congressional trade objectives have been met. ensure congress has effective opportunities to strip expedited consideration provisions from trade deals that fail to meet congressional objectives or to incorporate congressional and public participation. increase access to u.s. trade policymaking, trade proposals and negotiating text for congress, congressional staff and the public. and include a broader trade and competitive package that addresses infrastructure training shortcomings and reform tax policies to ensure that all -- and i mean all can benefit from trade.

a few comments about t.p.p. to the extent that we know. bipartisan jorts of the house and senate -- majorities of the house and senate have insisted that currency manipulation must be addressed but the administration has failed to include any currency provisions in t.p.p. e.p.i., a study, said that u.s. could add as many as 5.8 million jobs to our economy by eliminating currency manipulation. on investment, the legitimate and serious concerns have been raised by both the left and the right about investor state dispute settlements. yet, the provisions of the t.p.p. have not addressed any of those concerns. on climate without a border adjustment t.p.p. will not stop manufacturing from closing

up shops in the united states, modification to t.p.p. countries with no carbon reduction scheme. in fact, you know, encourage china, not a member of this agreement, to move dirty manufacturing plants to countries that are partners to this and be able to send dirty products back here to the disadvantaged of american producers. on the labor side -- the status quo, the so-called may 10 agreement, needed further strengthening. the may 10 standards were first steps towards leveling the playing field for workers but they did little to ensure timely and effective action. let me list some of the problems. the highly touted labor action plan in colombia, combined with the may 10 language protecting workers' rights, has been totally ineffective.

since that plan has been signed 105 workers have been murdered for trying to exercise their fundamental worker rights in colombia since the labor action plan was implemented. mr. chairman, we've been told by u.s.t.r. staff their general counsel and ustr for labor told us repeatedly that murder of trade unionists and violence against trade unionists is not a violation of the labor provisions in our f.t.a.'s. so when people say this is the highest standard yet -- talking about labor -- you'll have to excuse me if i'm unmoved or i'm satisfied when they tell us directly without any equivocation that violence and the murder of trade unions for

exercising their rights is not a violation of these agreements. now, we've asked for reasonable measures to strengthen the labor chapter, but ustr have ignored those requests. they're not there. i'd also say that human rights language in the hatch-wyden-ryan bill is not binding. and the fact that several very serious human rights violators vietnam, malaysia, mexico, are already in the t.p.p. demonstrates that fast track -- fast track objectives are ignored or irrelevant. in sum to get this thing right, congress should not be constrained by misguided secrecy or speed or unaccountability of fast track.

we really urge congress to reject the outdated and un-democratic process, known as fast track, and develop instead a new trade negotiating authority for the 21st century. this is going to affect 40% of the world's g.d.p. it may well be the last trade agreement that gets negotiated and the lives of workers are at stake and the livelihoods of workers are at stake here. it's important that we get it right. i can understand my friend, tom, advocating for fast track and t.p.p. his members have benefited by it, benefited greatly. but the average working folks in this country haven't. and we need a different deal. we need to have something that really works on our behalf and

protects the lives of trade unionists from being murdered or having violence perpetrated against them and say that it doesn't, doesn't violate a trade agreement. mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. and i look forward to working with you, senator wyden to strengthen this legislation and make it better for the american worker. senator hatch: thank you, mr. trumka and mr. donohue. we know you're busy people and we know you're sincere people in your respective areas of the law. senator wyden, let's turn to you, first. senator wyden: thank you, mr. chairman. i indicated i want our colleagues ask their questions. i want to make very quick points. mr. trumka, with whom i agree so often suggested there would be insufficient public scrutiny of t.p.p.

colleagues under this legislation by law the american people will have t.p.p. in their hands for two months before the president signs it and months more before it is fully debated on the floor of the house and senate. so with that i want to have my colleagues ask questions. senator hatch: mr. don hureks as you noted in your opening testimony and as i've been saying for years now, since trade promotion authority expired in 2007, our countries, other competitors in the world marketplace have not been sitting on their laurels when it comes to trade. indeed there are hundreds of free trade agreements around the world that are currently in effect or under negotiation and the u.s. is a party to relatively few of these agreements. in your opinion, what's the

cost of the united states if we refuse to pass new trade agreements while our competitors press forward with their own? mr. donohue: well, long-term refusal -- and we've been at it for a while -- to pass new trade agreements will basically provide markets across the world to our competitors, it will cost american workers ever growing number of jobs. it will have a measurable effect on the economy of the united states and it will make us far more insignificant in the geopolitical, economic affairs of the world it would -- you know, this is the equivalent of going out and resigning from the rest of the world. we're going to say that none of this is important in terms of how we get our children and grandchildren into the economic system. we're going to say none of this is important in terms of what

affect we're going to have on the general affairs of the world. and most of always, mr. chairman 95% of the people -- we all agree to this -- that we want to sell something to don't live in the united states. that's no reason to put together agreementes that are totally irresponsible, but it is a reason to get out there in the marketplace and compete as we have since our founding, a failure to compete is a resignation from the global economy and the results would be one of the great tragedies of our time. senator hatch: mr. trumka, let me ask you a question. according to the ustr, average wages in export intensive industries in the u.s. are above those in nonexport intensive industries. the ustr also tells us with over $1 billion in services exports supporting an estimated

7,000 u.s. jobs, expanded services trade globally will unlock new opportunities for americans, unquote. according to the recent bureau of labor statistics data, close to 12% of those employed in service occupations are represented by unions. so mr. trum can the administration detailses us that it will expand exports and create more jobs in export intensive industries, including services, in turn that means more jobs in sectors with significant union representation and higher wages. with those data provided from the democratic union-friendly administration, why do you oppose agreements that can expand your membership and more importantly generate good-paying jobs, including many union jobs for middle-class workers? i just think that's a question -- what are your thoughts on that, mr. donohue, after mr. trumka finishes?

mr. trumka: well first, i'd like to comment on the question you asked tom. this isn't a choice between t.p.p. and no trade, that if we don't get no t.p.p. we don't get no trade. that's the way you made it sound and that's the way he answered. there's a lot of distance between there. what we're saying let's have a good trade agreement that really benefits people. look, those statistics that you quoted will also tell you for every trade deficit, every $1 billion in trade deficit -- and we have about 500 million -- billion dollars of trade deficit a year, there's several thousand, almost 15,000 jobs jobs per $1 billion of trade deficit. now, each one of the great agreements that we've signed so far has encouraged outsourcing and increase that deficit. it's sustaining. $500 billion a year takes jobs out of the country. i wish we could reverse that and bring it back. i swear -- i don't know where tom got his figures earlier

that we have a surplus, a trade surplus. to have a trade surplus, no figure that i know of, because goods and services and everything else has been in deficit. so a good trade bill, mr. chairman we could create jobs and it could benefit everybody. currently the t.p.p., as constituted, is not that bill. it doesn't address currency. it doesn't address the investment provisions. it doesn't address the labor provisions, and it doesn't address the environmental provisions. it doesn't address buy american provisions. there are a number of other things we listed and tried to make this agreement into something worthwhile. we've worked for five years to try to make t.p.p. an agreement that the american worker could benefit from. and precious few, fewer than you can count on one hand even

made it into the u.s.'s proposal to our trading partners. obviously you can't achieve something if you don't even propose it and negotiate for it. so i'd love to work with you to create job better than t.p.p. but a lot better than nothing because there's a lot of room between that and to imply that if t.p.p. isn't fast we're not going to do trade is just a misrepresentation, i believe. senator hatch: thank you. my time is up. senator cornyn. senator cornyn: thank you, mr. chairman. i come from a state that in 2013 counted an estimated 1.1 million jobs associated with trade. just the binational trade with mexico is estimated to support as many as six million jobs in the united states. and in terms of its impact on

small and medium-sized businesses and the people they employ 93.1% of the trade jobs were small and medium-sized enterprises with less than 500 employees. i actually believe that one reason why texas has done better than the rest of the country in terms of its economy and jobs is in large part been because of trade. we led the nation in overall exports since 2002 in beef, cotton, petro chemicals, machinery and high-tech electronics. in 2014 alone, texas manufacturers and farmers set new records of exports with nearly $290 billion worth of merchandise to buyers around the globe. so i believe that this trade promotion authority proposal that we'll mark up tomorrow is -- represents real progress. the challenge i think we have

is if absent a trade promotion authority or so-called fast track authority we're left with negotiations on behalf of 535 individual minutes of congress which is just -- members of congress which is just not feasible. what i worry about, and mr. donohue, you alluded to this, is if we don't engage with asia as -- on this trans-pacific partnership proposal, which we haven't seen by the way, mr. trumka -- i'm looking, waiting to see what the contents of it are because i don't believe -- i do believe that impact of trade does not fall uniformerly and there are things we need to do and there are things we will do with trade assistance authority to help people who are dislocated as a result of trade, learn new skills and new higher paying jobs. but mr.

jobs. what would be the consequences to the united states long-term if we don't do this and let's say countries like china step in to fill the void? terdoslavich -- mr. trumka: i think it's important to recognize that we are the largest manufacturer in the world. we are the most significant economy in the world. but that reality, what's going on around the world, sees large very large economies getting more efficient. more productive. and more engaged with one another on trade. if we are not major players in the trading affairs of the world, it will have a fundamentally negative effect on our economy, on jobs in the united states and our influence around the clobe.

now, mr. trumka, is a very passionate representative of his ideas. i would say just for the record, mr. chairman, all of our numbers on jobs from this deal or that deal all come from the commerce department. when i was talking about the significant benefit in jobs in recent trade agreements, it's very, very clear. but i think there's another point we should all look at if you would allow me to make a point. you know, the jobs that are lost in the united states in manufacturing, the great percentage of them, they go to two countries. they go to a country called efficiency. and a country called productivity. the american business system, which is the most efficient in the world, has taken 40-plus percent of the jobs out of the manufacturing process because of information technology,

robotics process engineer and supply chain management. those 40 jobs -- those 40% of the jobs are never coming back but the way we get the jobs back, which mr. trumka wants, i want, and we all want, is we do two things. number one we encourage others to come here and produce their products. you could go around this country today and you would find representatives of europe looking for places to build their factories simply because their energy is three times more costly than ours. and the second thing that we need to do in a fundamentally, efficient way is to go out and produce more things in our manufacturing plants and in new manufacturing plants that we would build and export them around the world. those are the only ways to expand manufacturing jobs in the united states.

>> i want here when the north american free trade agreement was negotiated. i can tell in you my state it's viewed as a net positive. for that region of the contry. the central free trade agreement is. senator cornyn: mart part of the consequences i visited with senator kaine down in honduras recently, you remember the influx of minors moving into the united states, and our failure to have -- help our neighbors provide not only security but also help grow their economy where they live does have residual and im-- impact on us in ways that perhaps we don't even recognize. so i appreciate the great work that you and the ranking member have undertaken on this and look forward to supporting the t.p.a. in tomorrow's markup.

>> mr. chairman, might i comment, senator cornyn? senator, you indicated that we would have to have 535 different agreements without fast track. mr. trumka: that again -- there's a whole lot in between there. and i suggest that the following things to improve trade promotion authority. ensure that congress approves trade agreement partners before the negotiation begins. create negotiating objectives that are -- -- that are specific because they are different. ensure that congress not the executive branch determines whether the congressional trade objectives have been met. enshire congress has effective opportunities to strip expedited consideration provisions from trade deals that fail to meet congressional objectives or will

incorporate congressional and public participation. we also think that the rest of the things necessary to make trade work, infrastructure, training, and tax policy. it's not we're saying you can't have it or shouldn't have it, it's this one, the one you're considering, abrogates power. you give too much power away you have no control particularly over this agreement which is completely negotiated. >> mr. chairman, we all recognize that negotiation is a give and take. you have experienced it here in our own committee in recent weeks as you, working together, have come up with a bill. mr. donahue: that's exactly what happens in a trade negotiation. and the fundamental reality is, we are in a new time. if we fail to inject ourselves at the right time and in a significant way in this trading

process, those other large and growing companies -- countries are going to do it on their own. i know everybody believes america is so essential because they are because of technology, because of our value system, and so on. we have got to keep the -- to keep that position we have got to enter into these agreements. we don't have to give away our value system. we have to deal with the things that are important, but there's no way that we can tell everybody else look, just wait about 10 years. we'll get our stuff together. we'll think about it. we'll work about it. we have got to have an expedited system. we have to have a system that lets people that do this every day, all day, professionals, to bring you the results based on what you have told them you want. but tomorrow is too late. today is time to move on these issues. senator hatch: thank you. senator schumer.

senator schumer: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this discussion today. i thank our ranking member for pushing hard to get t i want to thank both of our witnesses, mr. trumka, my believe is the greatest problem america faces is the decline of middle class incomes. it's harder to stay in the middle class. harder to gain the middle class. i know of almost no one who has tried to reverse that trend than you. thank you for your work. mr. done hue, thank you for your strong advocacy and leadership. we have worked together on many issues. immigration above all. but export-import infrastructure. and most important, you're from st. theresa's parish in brook lifpblet it's good to have you both here. -- in brooklyn. it's good to have you both here. we know the administration, when they tried to sell me on t.p.p., it's almost the geopolitics that prevails over the economics. we want to keep these countries in our osh rather than china's. if there it's an economic web between them and china and not

us it's hard to do that. i agree with that goal. with that said though, if that's one of the main goals of t.p.p. to lure countries away from china's influence, it makes perfect sense as part of the overall effort within t.p.p. or alongside t.p.p. to deal with china head on. to show them that there's not business as usual. china is our most a pashese trading partner. none of the other countries in t.p.p. do what china does. which is not only do they manipulate their currency which has cost us millions of jobs and trillions of dollars of wealth unfairly flowing from us to them they steal our intellectual property. that's been documented over and over again. and probably worse of all, when we have a good product, they don't let us in. we are at a new phase. we are doing high-end manufacturing. high-tech stuff. that's our hope and our future.

we have already had the competition with china on furniture and toys and clothing. sort of low-end stuff. but if they start stealing our intellectual property in these areas and then they keep us out or they have us for us to join joint ventures that are 51% chinese government owned and take all that information to build their own industries from their protected market and then compete with us, i don't know of anything that is more frightening to me that will continue the thing that i am -- i believe is so important, which is to get the middle class incomes going again like it was in the grand era of america from 1950 to about 2000. so i think we can do two things. and i know what china does. small companies, big companies. i had a small company in upstate snorning -- new york they needed material from china, rare earth. 500 jobs. the chinese told themmings you

want those rare earth you got to make that in china. the guy said i know that's against w.t.o., but i can't spend five years not having the good and going through the w.t.o. process. then i spoke to the business round table, just about every one of them is one of your members, i told them i thought china doesn't play fair and it's hurting our big companies. and that's why we needed curncy. we need to do more against china alongside, within, or alongside t.p.a. the position of the business round table is against that. that's six of the major c.e.o.'s, all of whom you know, mr. done hue we all know -- donahue, we all know, we can't say anything. china retaliates against us. i appreciate that. i was c.e.o. of one of these companies, might do the same thing. but he they said you keep it up. so my goal here is to do something about china. to do something about china, the

most repatious trading part nemplet i was disappointed in the efforts of president bush and i'm disappointed in the efforts of president obama. i dealt with five treasury secretaries on this issue of currency in particular from snow on. and none of them have done anything. this markup is a unique opportunity to stand -- to do something about the r apaticiousness of china tray. it's the one point in time throughout this process where congress will have the opportunity to show to china and the world it's not business as usual because they are just killing us. they are just taking everything from us. in a not fair way. the w.t.o. nonclient way and they thumb their nose and say take us to w.t.o. i say to my colleagues, now is the time if there ever was one, if not now, when? we have been trying for a long time.

this is a unique opportunity to do something about china. some of us are against t.p.a., other people are for it. but we can all agree, we had 60 people as mr. trumka mentioned signing a letter we ought to do something as part of this process with china and i hope we will. i hope we will. we cannot have weak tea. anything that is just discretionier, -- discretionary that says the administration could do something with china if they want to, i have been through the wars on this one. i have tried every administration, i spent hours with every treasury secretary, and they never will say china's a currency manipulator because the geopolitical forces are too strong the other way. unless we have something stronger than just given any administration, not just this one, more tools, it's not going to work. i hope we'll do something on currency. so my quick questions to each. mr. trumka, what do you feel about -- how do you feel about

currency manipulation as part of this? mr. donahue, not on this particular bill, which i know you're strongly for, do you believe we should be doing something on currency manipulation? that's it's a problem for our country, china's currency manipulation. mr. trumka: e.p.i. says currency manipulation costs you will five million jobs. if we eliminate we have the chance to gain almost six million jobs. we strongly support that. think it needs to be part of the agreement. i would also say though, mr. chairman -- senator schumer, that some of our partners in t.p.p. have been identified. as currency manipulators, malaysia and china. senator schumer: i do. my bill just applies to china. mr. donahue. mr. donahue: as we have debated many subjects, as we know that the china card, so to speak, is

a new shoe we'll be dealing with for many years. it's complicated by serious problems in china as well. economic problems. my view about this bill is that there is a very serious attention to currency. as it should be. and it is at a point where i would encourage moving ahead without major amendments. in terms of dealing with currency outside the bill, there are a lot of things here that are important. mr. trumka said japan is a currency manipulator. they sure were back then. but they haven't been for a long time. people would accuse the united states of currency manipulation when we were dealing with the crises of recent years when we

were handling and managing our interest rates and other factors that came out of the fed. the specific challenge that you raise about china is one that we will deal with for all of our lifetimes. i am very willing and very anxious to talk about other, beyond this agreement, other opportunities to get the facts straight, to look for ways to apply more -- i won't say aggressive, more successful pressure on these issues. i understand the point about this theft of intellectual property. i make a point that we are making a little progress but not enough. i understand what happens when they decide to make a product and don't need us any longer. the china issue needs serious discussion. we'd like to be a part of it. i don't think at this date and this time you can go beyond what

we are talking about on currency in this bill. senator hatch: thank you, senator schumer. i want to make it clear that i believe this is a serious issue. and that i don't think it should be part of this agreement which has been very fastidiously worked out. but i am willing to hold hearings and do appropriate work after we pass this bill, if we can get this passed with everybody's attention. senator cantwell, you're next. senator cantwell: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm always struck when you two gentlemen are before the committee that there are many things that you actually agree on. and work force training and ex-im bank seem to be two of those. do i have that right? you're both supportive of like apprentice programs for job

training? mr. trumka: we don't have enough of them. mr. donahue: the private sector spends something in the area of $60 billion a year on it. the public sector, rich and i have talked about this, the bill that will have to be a bill that job training and trade adjustment assistance, to follow all of these trade deals, but we really believe that has to be thought out more. we are doing all old things in job training. we can do new things to train people for new industries. the we both agree we need to do those things in the private sector and in the public sector. senator cantwell: good. we are proposing some new things, but i definitely am a big supporter of t.p.a. and don't think we should be doing t.p.a. or t.p.p. without it. i just think that this is -- mr. donahue, could you please tell the republican presidential candidates that they are wrong about the ex-im bank?

mr. donahue: well, thank you. let me say senator we don't do presidential politics. we do every other kind. wait. we talk to people that are in the public world about presidential policies. and you're damn right we tell them. because we -- senator cantwell: that the ex-im bank should be passed. mr. donahue: i have told probably three of them myself and we are -- have a little plan to have a visit with some of these people in the normal course of business and point out what the bank means to this country and to american industry in particular the thousands and thousands of small companies. senator cantwell: i want to say with my time that i'm a big -- i come from a big manufacturing state, and it has a lot of labor members in it, and it has a lot of people who support trade. in fact, probably one in three

dogs are related to trade. i support having more bilaterals multilaterals because a bunch have been done while we have been sitting around not having t.p.a. but at the same time i believe that we have to have these tools that work together like the ex-im bank, and like trade adjustment assistance, and investment in apprentice programs, and the things that go along with this. so i just hope that we can get our colleagues here to understand that it's both. and i think you hold a lot of punch to make sure that we get these things done. otherwise, then it's only shareholders at the top level benefit interesting these deals and not working people. and i think that i would put up our manufacturing skills against anybody in the world. mr. donahue: best in the world. senator cantwell: i also don't apologize for our country being a leader in aerospace manufacturing and making a great product that's worth hundreds of

millions of dollars. when people talk about boeing being a lot of the ex-im bank, it's almost as if people want us to apologize we don't make a lot of chotch i asks and ship them over to china for them to buy. we are lucky we make an expensive product with a loft skilled workers. we want people to buy those planes. i hope people will stop and realize for one second that aerospace manufacturing is a lot of jobs in the united states of america. mr. donahue: it's bad thing to make predictions because then the people you want to work hard let up. the things that you have raised, the issues of job training and some of the related issues there, we could talk about community colleges and all of that, and the thing you raise on the bank, are issues that we are pushing very hard. and i feel we are going to get there. senator cantwell: thank you. thank you very much mr. chairman. senator hatch: thank you, senator cantwell. we'll turn to senator stabenow and then senator warner.

senator stabin now: thank you to the hearing -- senator stabenow: thank you for the hearing. we are in a global economy, we know we are going to tray. this is about whether we are exporting a product or jobs. it's a question ofpolicy. we either have something that means we strengthen the middle class and it's a race to the top and we we bring other countries with us, workers with us, or a race to the bottom. i will never forget sitting in greenville, michigan, with a company that was making refrigerators a number of years ago, we were trying all kinds of ways to keep them in west michigan. finally they turned to us and said you can't compete with $1.57 an hour in wages, soarry. we can't be erased down to that. this has got to be a race up. fundamentally when we are talking about fast track let's talk about fast tracking the middle class so that we can make it a race up. one of those issues is very much

currency man national park plays. i know my colleague -- manipulation, i know my colleague, senator schumer, is talking about this. and others are talking as well. senator graham offered a letter with 60 letters of the senator, that's magic number, 60 members who said we would not support trade agreements. we wanted trade agreements to include enforcible currency language. it needs to be in t.p.a. it needs to be in t.p.p. i'm wondering, mr. trumka, if you could talk -- i know you have talked about currency and the importance of enforcing it, but talk more about what this means in terms of jobs. because from the numbers i have seen we have lost millions of jobs because we haven't enforced against china. or back when japan was doing it and they could do it again. it seems to me that's a very important part of enforcement. mr. trumka: absolutely. e.p.i. did a study and it

estimates that correcting currency manipulation would create 5.8 million jobs in this country. that's almost six million jobs with currency manipulation being corrected. if you want -- if one of the reasons you want to vote for t.p.p. is because you want the u.s. to be a world leader, well, china is excluded from this agreement. china is a leader in that area and will continue to lead with currency man national park plays -- manipulation and do nothing about t we onet change the rules for currency manipulation between us and those trading partners or china and those trading partners. it will have a dramatic effect and continual drain of jobs. everything you gain in this agreement by reducing tariffs and other things, can be obviated overnight by people manipulating their curncy. i want to say this, tom, i want to put your mind to rest i don't

like you to worry. the actions of the federal reserve do not constitute currency manipulation, according to the m.i.f. -- i.m.f. desk. you don't have to worry about that. and that cue nard can be put a -- kunard can be put to sleep. mr. donahue: others would accuse us because of the use of the fed to support us during a crisis of manipulating currency. mr. trumka: you agree it isn't currency manipulation. mr. donahue: i agree it isn't in standard terms and people recently have come out and tried to agree within the international organizations that going ahead and dealing with interest rates that way wouldn't be manipulation, and they did it because all of europe has now gone to do that to try and save their own economy. senator stabenow: foreign

currency issues versus domestic. we have economists from the right and left who have said here with the fed -- what is done here with the fed is not what we are talking about when we talk currency manipulation. i can say not just t.p.a. but after this t.p.p. and the ability to open up with japan which right now is closed. i grew up with father who had a car dealership. they couldn't put a car dealership in japan. they couldn't put cars in japan from the united states. cars made in michigan in japan right now. so trying to open that up. but one of the concerns that i -- great concerns i have is when we see japanese auto makers who have made their whole profit in the past based on currency manipulation. let's compete fair and square. that's what i'm very concerned about as we move forward in these trade agreements. thank you very much. senator hatch: senator warner. senator warner: thank you, mr.

chairman. gentlemen, it's great to see bovet you again. a couple points i want to make. one, i do fear at times that the analogies back to nafta thank goodness we are in a different world at this point. america is much more competitive on manufacturing. american energy costs because of things like you again both have supported like keystone and others make us more competitive. i think having a trade agreement strengthens our hands in terms of attracting jobs. i agree and one of the things that senator schumer and senator stabenow mentioned was currency manipulation, it needs to be address. on the currency manipulation the way i wreed senator schumer's bill, this will be a perspective tool, but japan wouldn't apply right now on currency manipulation. there's a question whether china would with its current action. should we add more tools to our tool kit going forward as

somebody who has lost money against companies in china through manipulated currency? absolutely. who have stolen our intellectual property? absolutely. but the notion of doing nothing right now and continuing a status quo would be a disaster for america. vis-a-vis china and the region. i point out to my colleagues, i wish senator schumer was still here, because most of his argument until he got to currency was in favor, you could argue, in favor of t.p.a. and t.p.p. because clearly america's position has weakened and it seems to be retreating. i point out the new york sometimes article of saturday that points out the fact that we have, as a congress, have not taken up the i.m.f. reforms. we as a congress have not ended up doing export-import bank. that we have -- the chinese have started to create ap brand new financial institution that is focused on asia, but ultimately could contest america in terms of the dollars of reserve curncy. these are things if we want to

truly protect american jobs, we ought to be worried about. so what do we do? well, there's 40% of the world we are talking about here, china's not part of t.p.p., who is going to set the framework for that region? i believe it ought to be american led. and i think the work of the chairman anti-ranking member both in terms of the added transparency, adding intellectual property, and -- trying to get the fact there are not as strong standards on environment and labor as you like, but at least there are standards. and i believe they are standards that can be enforced which has not been the case of what's happened in the past. if we take these 11 nations and combine them in what i hope would be an american-led trading entity, that this will give us an ability to actually increase our leverage vis-a-vis china who long-term i believe we have to watch on every account, both in templesgenl property theft, in temples trade advantage, in

terms of currency. but let's not miss the opportunity for america to once again reassert its national and international leadership in trade in a way that i believe will actually increase jobs, increase job opportunities and my fear is that refighting the battles of the 1990's in 2015 is not the format we ought to be looking at. let me just close with one question to mr. donahue you can come back to me as well. s.d.s., we have folks members of the senate who are saying this could open up a whole new can of worms. the ambassador has said repeatedly it does no. there are exceptions in the isda language that's put forward. this is a tool that -- isds language that's been put forward. this is a tool that's not been used in the past.

been ramped up and could undermine our labor and environmental laws. do you want to make a comment? mr. donahue: senator it's an issue that can't stand the argument. it's so much stronger than the argument when you look at it. we have -- there are three -- 3,000 trade agreements that have these provisions. we have never lost, never lost one of these issues. they have no authority to impede on federal law. if we ever lost a negotiation, it would be somebody had to pay money. but it is -- it's been in trade agreements. it provides a rational way to address issues. the only reason anyone would bring this up is a reason not to do what we are about to do here is because they didn't want to

do it. this argument doesn't carry the water. i think it's very important to understand something. we disagree 80% of the time. but we get off pretty well. i respect his positions. what's going on here, the current circumstance would like to stop this bill because it's the only way to do t i think to leave those trade bills on the side of the road to deny as the senator from michigan said, the opportunity to create lots more serious jobs in manufacturing and to sell to that 95% of the people around the world that want to buy our stuff would be a serious mistake. i respect the real strong views here, but i am telling you he's going to have a hell of a lot more members if we do these deals than he is if we don't. senator hatch: your time is up.

mr. trumka: may i respond, mr. chairman? first of all, senator, this isn't, again an issue about doing nothing or having t.p.p. this is about making t.p.p. worthy of every american and not just the members. they are going to do real fine. no matter what, they are going to do fine. it's everybody down below that that sfpblet when you say, these are some standards, they are better than no standards. we were told by the ustr general counsel that murdering a trade unionist doesn't violate these standards. the perpetuating violence against the trade une unionist doesn't violate these agreements. excuse me, excuse me if i'm not willing to accept that standard because i think the country can do better. with regard to isds, look, this is a special privilege for companies.

no individual gets access to isds. we haven't lost a case yet. we won a couple by technicalities that we would have lost. there was just a case in nova scotia two weeks ago. stone quarry. they wanted to expand a stone quarry. all around it was an environmentally sensitive area. they denied the permit to expand the stone quarry. the isds panel said you're entitled to damages. they are going to collect because they didn't get an extension of their boundaries into a sensitive environmental area. this will affect food safety, it will affect the environment it affects trade unionists i can tell you that. this is a secret tribunal that you can't control because once you give them instructions once that panel is impanled, they

have the absolute power to do what they want to do. and they have interpreted the language that you have given them fairly reasonable economic -- economy, beyond any stretch of an imagination. so senator, we can do a lot better and american workers deserve a lot better than what we are getting with t.p.p. or with this version of fast track. senator hatch: senator casey. senator casey: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the hearing. i thank mr. donahue and mr. trumka for being here. i especially want to note mr. trumka's pennsylvania roots and he's using that a lot today. i'm grateful for the opportunity because it's important we debate this. even an issue that has -- tends to divide the country and even divides both political parties

between and among themselves at times. my concern here with both trade promotion authority and t.p.p., the trade deal itself is the same concern i had about nafta and every other agreement since then. what is the impact not just broadly on pennsylvania, that's my first priority, but in particular what it means for workers and wages. and unless it can meet the test of -- that i set forth with regard to workers and wages, it's very difficult for me to support either trade promotion authority or the trade deal itself. let me focus first on wages. i would argue that -- very similar to what senator schumer said about the middle class, our central challenge as a contry, our central domestic chal -- country, our central domestic challenge is how do we solve this wage problem? there was a recent report by the

economic policy institute which very graphically and in a very alarming manner set forth the correlation between wages and productivity, world war ii basically 48 to 73. almost perfect alignment. so if productivity was up as it was in those years, 97%, wages went up 91%. that's the way it ought to work. since 1973 for a whole variety of reasons, not simply because of trade obviously, but certainly trade, i believe, is a substantial factor, we have a -- in the united states of america productivity up 74% in those 40 years, wages up nine, not 91, 9%. neither political party has come up with an answer to that central challenge. part of the debate -- part of this debate, i think -- probably should say part of the resolution of that problem is what we do on trade.

not the only part of the solution. so we see now that a recent paper by economists at the university of pennsylvania as well as other universities found that when workers are displaced by trade, and they switch jobs they suffer real wage losses between 12% and 17%. i guess, mr. trumka going to ask you, and some of this you set forth in your testimony, what is the best approach in terms of using our trade policy to adress this wage problem or lack of wake growth? mr. trumka: first of all you have to get it right on the trade authority. the fast track authority. i have laid out a series of things that would make it right so that congress has more control and can actually certify when they believe the objectives have been met. then when you look at it, we have laid out a whole chapter. in fact, we worked with the

european unions in anticipation of t tip and laid out an entire chapter about how to make labor standards better so that we don't destroy their standards in europe or our standards here. i would love to submit that to you and put it into the record. senator casey: thanks very much. i want to say for the record as well, in this section of your testimony at the very end about labor, and i'm quoting here, when you analyze the so-called may 10 provisions and how they have fallen short, i think very few americans, very, very few, very tiny percentage of americans, know the story about what's happened in some of these countries to trade unionists. the number in colombia on murders you said was 105. that's evidence enough.

even if it doesn't rise to the level of the gravity of the murder, just the intimidation and the threats failure to any kind of enforcement mechanism in place. what are we doing about that? i think virtually nothing as a country. so that's why, i think, your proposal as it relates to having giving congress more of a role in terms of weighing in on who these trading partners are and who gets in -- who gets into our agreements, is a pretty reasonable and appropriate approach. i know i'm over time. thank you. senator hatch: thank you, senator. senator menendez is next. senator menendez: thank you mr. chairman. let me say at the outset i think we all have the same goal in mind and that is jobs for our families. markets for our businesses that together build a stronger american economy. and trade may offer some new opportunities but it also brings

its challenges. we talk about breaking barriers to trade or ending barriers to trade, but i have a broader view of what those barriers are than just simply tariffs and regulations. for example lower labor and environmental standards abroad make foreign workers with fewer skills less expensive than highly skilled american workers with greater expectations for higher living standards. i think the failure to protect our intellectual property in other countries leads to cuts in the values of or investments and value of our products in international markets. so at the end of the day, for me, and i have -- i voted -- i just haven't had a knee-jerk reaction against all trade bills. i voted for some i thought the balance was right. for me trade bills have been about protecting providing opportunities for my state's workers and our businesses in a world where competition is not always fair and not always open. it seems to me we should have

the standards we set for any trade deal and the deals themselves on how well they deliver on those priorities. with that, let me ask you, president trumka, i heard your comments in the office when i was getting ready to come, now you're very passionate about workers' rights. i think a barrier to trade is also the ability to enforce the provisions of our trade agreements which i think have sadly not gone in the direction that i'd like to see. and those include the provisions of trade agreements as it relates to negotiated labor standards. so can you talk a little bit -- you started with my colleague, senator casey, about colombia. about the lack of enforcement mechanisms and would you support an amendment that would mandate that all countries must meet

negotiated labor standards prior to any new trade deal going into effect with them? in other words, to verify before we trust countries who have lax labor standards. mr. trumka: i would. the other thing i would suggest is the standard that's talked about in most of the trade agreements, including t.p.p., is the minimum wage. it doesn't talk about anything beyond the minimum wage. the minimum wage happens to be 65 cents an hour. the lack of enforcement someone of the major problems of labor standards and environmental standards. the may 10 agreement was a step in the right direction but it doesn't get us there. the truth is that the guatemalan situation where you're dealing with gross violations of the i.l.o. standards has been going on for six years now. with no end in sight. colombia we have had 105 trade unionists killed since the labor action plan was put into place,

and there's nothing they can do about it. that's why senator, getting the rules right now is so important. because no matter how great the enforcement, if the rules that you have are inadequate, no matter how great the enforcement, they don't get there. and the rules or the standards that are being told to us that are in t.p.p. are inadequate to protect american workers and discourage american manufacturers and employers from sending jobs offshore. so we are all for enforcement and i'm sure tom would agree that we want to eliminate every one of the cheaters that we can. but if you don't have the standards to enforce, you can't get the job done. senator menendez: i agree you need the right standards. even if we had standards some of us might agree to, we haven't had the enforcement mechanisms.

let me ask you, president donahue, i have long advocated for a strong intellectual property protexts in any trade deal. does the chamber believe that protecting innovation through strong i.p. protections is an important priority in any trade deal? mr. donahue: the chamber senator, has major broad system both international and domestic, on dealing with counterfeiting and the theft of intellectual property. we put a great deal of money in it. we work with individual groups and groups of countries. we have -- individual countries and groups of countries. we have had significant improvement in about 70% of the countries which are giving us much better protection of intellectual property. we are also doing it at home. because you can lose your intellectual property here in the united states faster than you can get ready to go to work.

the points made about china and others there are still issues where there's a sophisticated way of going after intellectual property. senator menendez: the current u.s. standard is 12 years of patent protection for bilodgics -- biolodgics. this is an incredibly important industry in my home state of new jersey. do you think our trade deals should protect that standard? mr. donahue: i don't know the answer to that but i will tell you something. i know more about the protection of biologics and patent deals on pharmaceuticals just in my own family. i'm dealing with that issue now. and i want to do anything i can to protect america's abilityle to drive the innovation that they are in biologics

pharmaceuticals, and other things that we are doing. you can't catch up with me on that deal. senator menendez: i'm glad to hear that. i know that you have to run after me on that part. i look forward to working with you on that issue. senator hatch: your time is up. let me just say it was kennedy and myself who drove that 12-year data exclusivity. without which we would not have a biological empire in this country. so you're talking the truth. i appreciate you raising it. senator isakson. senator isakson: thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity and learned a lot from listening to other questions. i am one that favors doing business. i sold houses for 33 years of my life before i came to congress. i never saw the perfect deal but i made a lot of deals. had a meeting of the minds. this is not a perfect deal. the question i have in my mind is to make sure this is the best deal we can get to move forward

for our coni give you this premise. two years ago a mission to india, all american jobs had gone to india, remember that, tom, when all the help desks were going with india? we went to meet with mr. murtry, the largest traded company on nasdaq. he had a cam pause in india where he woos doing backroom operations for hospitals, emergency rooms. we asked him this question, we said mr. murtry, all of america's so scared, all of our jobs are going to india because of what you're doing with lower wages and more technology and things like that. what would you tell the american people? why should we not fear india? he said a very simple reason. when i started my business, i drove an indian car, i banked with a bank of india, and drank an indian soft drink. today i drink coca-cola, i bank with citibank, and drive with ford. the point being when you do business with people you end up doing business both ways. american products were then being sold in india. today interestingly enough, 12

years later, the help desk has come back to the midwestern in united states and left india because the standards have grown in india for wages, labor laws, and things like that where they want to compare with the united states. i believe doing business is good for america. i respect the middle class. mr. trumka, i was in savannah, georgia, yesterday where we have a new plant, caterpillar has come into georgia from japan. where they have building trarkt tractors in japan they are building in in georgia. that's good for manufacturing jobs in georgia. those are the middle class jobs. it's very important that we promote jobs that promote trade because 1.2 million georgians jobs' trectly are dependent on trade. we are the eighth largest state in the union. we have over 10 million people. i want to make sure we continue to trade a vibrant trade polcy not one that looks the other way at labor standards, but one that's realistic enough to continue to do business.

because if you do business with people you have a better chance to influence your rights than if you don't do business with them. would you agree with that, tom? mr. donahue: the history of the u.s. economy from our very beginning was doing business with people around the world to bring us products we didn't have innovations we have yet achieved, and it shifted to where we are shifting products and innovations all around the world which has given us over time more influence around the world than we otherwise would have had. we could sit here for a week and talk about the value of america's export of ideas and values and products. i think the argument here should come down on this particular bill to finally, after all these years, putting us in a place to do more of what we have done for years to sell american products

to move american ideas and values and i hope we don't screw it up looking for the perfect or seeking to get rid of this bill because we really don't want to do the trade bills. mr. isakson: mr. trumka, i have a lot of respect for what you do and represent. one of the things you told me and i believe it is workers' rights and making sure people are treated right, but you have a bert way of influencing your values or exporting your values overseas if you're doing business with somebody rather than if you're folding your arms and not doing. one example, swazzyland swazzyland is in africa. i do a lot of work in africa which i think this week we'll hopefully extend an act for 10 years. in that, swazzyland was a participant until we learned they were beating up their workers for not working hard enough and long enough. we withdrew them on -- suspended them on a temporary basis. they came back to the table and

treated workers right because doing business with america was more important than abusing workers. my point is, please respond, don't we have better leverage by having influence by doing business with people to encourage them to do better in terms of treating their folks, who do we have to insist on it being a part of the deal? mr. trumka: first of all, it is important to do business with people. but the rules are important. because the rules and the trade agreements that you have been talking about have been resolving -- resulting in a $500 billion deficit in this country each and every year, trillions and trillions of dollars flowing out not coming in. that's why it's important for the rules. it's also important for the rules whenever you engage them to have the ability to help correct those things. if they are going to agree to the i.l.o. core standards, quite frankly if we are willing to agree to the i.l.o. core standards, because we haven't been willing to do that yet, then you got a chance to really

influence them. and improve their conduct. but if all you do is say, all you have to do is comply with your minimum wage and then when they don't even comply with their minimum wage, we don't have the ability to influence or change it, it goes the opposite way. senator, they look at the united states as perpetuating that bad treatment not correcting it. and we are better than that. and we can do better than that if we can right the -- write the right rules and we have an agreement we can enforce. then we can be a positive force for good around the world. but this trade agreement will not do that. mr. isakson: mr. chairman, let the record show i gave both sides a chance to make their case. senator hatch: you're up senator brown. senator brown: thank you mr. chairman. senator wyden, thank you. mr. trumka, mr. donahue, good to

see you both. mr. trumka, a lot of people accuse you and me against trade and protectionist and being stuck in the last century or even the one before the last century. did a.f.l. oppose the -- this from the beginning? mr. trumka: we engaged almost five years ago we submitted dozens and dozens, a couple hundred suggested language changes to make the agreement better. we did and still want to be able to support t.p.p., but in its current standards, it falls far short. senator brown: you could see from the amendments a number of us will offer, there will be a lot of them, mr. chairman, as you may have heard by now, that we will be offering on thursday or wednesday, i guess, you could see that this trade agreement, the t.p.a. and t.p.p. could be improved significantly if -- if

you would take two or three ideas that you have tried to constructively engage u.s.t.r. or the staff of this committee in to give me just some ideas of where we could do much better than we are doing on this. mr. trumka: with regard to t.p.a., first of all ensure that congress approves trade agreements before -- partners before they are negotiations begin. that you create objectives that are specific to each individual trading part nemplet that congress and not the executive branch determine whether congressional trade objectives have been met. we have submitted a whole chapter on labor to make it better. we have submitted a chapter on currency. we have submitted a chapter on isds, and we submit add chapter on the environment that doesn't include procurement rules, buy america, and a number of other things that we think could make t.p.p. not only a good agreement, but one worthy --

senator brown: what has been accepted? mr. trumka: less than three or four changes have even been offered from our trade reps. they haven't been included in our proposal, no. senator brown: i have tried to engage in the process both as a member and staff level with the u.s. trade representative. i pushed for better enforcement of labor standards, for immed proved state-owned enterprise language for modified investor straight provision, literally more than a dozen more. if i were anti-trade, like you, i wouldn't take the time wouldn't bother, wouldn't get my staff to put the time in. ustr claims they have had 51 meetings. the ambassador sat where you are sitting late last week. they claim they have had 51 meetings with me and my staff. that may be true. don't in a moment we have asked them for the list of meetings. and true to form they haven't responded as they so often don't to members of this committee,

let alone the rest of the house and senate. when they do with me it's not to exchange ideas or to rethink how we do things, it's to tell me why i'm wrong that my concerns are not valid. the administration has taken this approach that you're either with us or against us on trade. nothing in between. and i have heard your testimony through all of this about talking about there's t.p.p., there's present law, there's something in between that's much more desirable that we could get real agreement on. i just wonder why on trade agreements when we have seen what kinds of permanence they bring and how they affect all americans, why there is so much hostility to changing the direction of trade polcy, the american public, as you point out, is pretty cynical about this and skeptical about congress' learning nothing where this t.p.a. with some exceptions, but minor, is not much different from t.p.a. of 10 years ago. it's been 13 years since

congress passed fast track. yet the bill we are considering today is fundamentally the same. again, with small minor relatively insignificant exceptions. i'm going to continue my effort tomorrow to improve u.s. tradepolicy. i think we have real opportunity in this amendment process. my question then for you, mr. trumka, last question is, could you comment in sort of a general but substantive way on what's at stake if we don't improve u.s. trade policy? what happens to our country? i heard mr. donahue's vision that the world falls apart, more or less f. we don't engage. china takes over the world. and maybe colonizes the united states, i'm not sure where he was going with that. if you would give us your view on what actually happens if we don't do this as written today. mr. trumka: t.p.p. is 40% of the world g.d.p. and t tip another 20%. that means it will cover 60% of the world's economy. if it's not done right you'll

see the continuation of wage stagnation. you'll see the continuation of a growth between inequality growing in this country. you will see the middle class continue to shrink and get decimated. you will also see eventually the weakening of our economy because you can't continually have a massive trade deficit every year that sucks jobs out of the country and not be able to remedy that in some way or another. so one way to remedy is you stop buying other products, i guess. that would create a tremendous hardship on our economy and on the american worker. something none of us -- senator brown: i heard somebody i will close with this, not a question, just a statement that a billion dollars in service trade can translate into 7,000 jobs. that's great. it's a little bit, though, like saying the cleveland indians scored six runs yesterday.

well yeah but the tigers scored eight. when you talk about a billion dollars in services, trade 7,000 jobs, what is it when the surplus, when we are buying so much more than we are selling china, $300 billion a year, and how many jobs is that? president bush the first said 13,000 jobs for every billion dollars in trade deficit. it's pretty significant job loss that we continue to add to with one trade agreement after another. i'll stop there, mr. chairman. thank you for your indulgence. senator hatch: senator wyden would like to make a comment. then we'll turn to senator grassley. senator wyden: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i passed at the beginning because i wanted all of my democratic colleagues to have a chance to speak first. while senator brown is here i just want to be clear that i think he has had a very valid point that the playbook on

international -- >> we'll leave this hearing at this point. the u.s. house is about to gavel in. this hearing does continue online at c-span.org. the house coming in this morning for a brief speeches, as they wrap that up they'll gavel back out and return for legislative business this afternoon at 2:00 p.m. under consideration today, a measure to curtail prescription drug abuse. live coverage of the house here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., april 21 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable diane black to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker