now let's move to the customs bill. let me say a word or two. modification of the trade enforcement act of 2015. >> many of the members in the committee, ensuring importers could remove goods across the u.s. border is extremely important. it is important it comply with our laws and regulations. customs and border protection is on the front lines, ensuring it is protected at the border.

new provisions express american support for the nation of israel. i'm a strong supporter of israel. arabs as well. israel was our first bilateral free-trade partner. one our strongest allies in the middle east. they continue to face discriminatory and economic pressure. i believe the u.s. should stand by israel as they fight these unfair acts. demonstrate our stead asked -- steadfast commitment. we are able to include a number of important provisions to help find efforts that do discriminate against israel. i'm glad we were able to include this provision along with important measures. this was a good package. i hope that earns all of your support.

>> on collects to know in my view, this trade enforcement this is the most robust set of trade enforcement provisions in decades. i want to thank colleagues for the efforts in this. this includes the enforce act that is critically important to go after -- it allows us to have an early warning system to go after insurgents. this is important. often they do not hear about things until it is too late. i want to commend senator browned. this includes his efforts for what is called a level playing field. that is important in the steel industry. i hope colleagues will support this. this goes to the heart of whether there will be a new playbook for trade policy.

when people talk about how trade in 2015 is different than trade act in the night the 90's, this section reflects that. i hope my colleagues will support it. >> thank you. am i pronouncing that right? i didn't blow that one? ok. good. commissioner bell from the office of international trade as well as others from cbo. members could answer any questions anybody has. briefly describe the main features of the proposal. >> thank you. at this markup, the committee is considering authorizing a trade facilitation. >> is your microphone on? >> that trade enforcement

customs and border protection's and other agencies, the proposal consists of seven titles. title i concerns the trade facilitation and enforcement mission of cbp. there is the import related protection of intellectual property rights of cbp. title v establishes new requirements to combat the evasion of anti-dumping and duty orders. it is primarily for agencies other than cb the. title iv and seven contains miscellaneous provisions for trade enforcement. thank you, mr. chairman. >> to the senators have any questions regarding this? >> i do not have a question. i apologize. i want to say thank you to the chairman and the ranking members

for that level playing act and willingness to keep the sound throughout the process. senator coates also was very involved. we know what has happened. so often the injury to the industry is such because the length of time it takes an part of the court decisions over the years that eroded our ability to fight back. sometimes company shut down before they could write back. this would give us the tools to protect our jobs and companies and communities. thank you to everyone involved. >> mr. chairman, very briefly, i want to reiterate what was said. thank you for your work. thank you to the members for working with us on this.

they suffer and have suffered tremendous economic injury and do not have the recourse that will hope they would to be able to fashion a remedy and get economic justice. this comes after a generation of steel jobs having been lost. we should take the steps that the bill does. we are grateful for the support for steel and other industries as a. >> thank you. senator shuman can make his remarks. he is willing to defer to you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i like to call up number one. >> without objection. >> thank you. i would also like to ask that

several be added as cosponsors. >> without objection. >> after much discussion with some of my colleagues who indicated concerns about -- i have said all along that i think this amendment is important on its own. it worked out an agreement with chairman hatch, for which i see thank you, to offer this amendment. be asking for a vote -- we will not be asking for a vote. i discussed in recent weeks and for years now i believe currency manipulation is a most significant emerging trade challenge this country faces. according to the peterson institute for national economics, more than 20 countries have increased their foreign exchange reserves by an annual average of $1 trillion in recent years. the buildup keeps the currency significantly undervalued and

increasing their trade surplus. that has resulted in deficits going up from about 200 billion to $500 billion a year. corresponding u.s. job losses in the millions. when currencies manipulated, it hurts both exports, they are more expensive overseas, and our products are unduly lower-priced here. china is the most -- they have perfected currently manipulation to a fine art. they are at the front of the line when it comes to this activity. this administration sees it as a geopolitical necessity to ensure that the united states doesn't see grounds for china in that region of the world. if the goal is to lure countries away, it makes perfect sense

that as part of the overall effort, we also should deal with china head on to show them we will not continue business as usual in our relations with them. while i'm skeptical of it as a whole, i do not dispute that it will grow the gdp or corporate products for many multinationals. the trade agreement of the loan will not provide the tools we need to combat the specific challenge of currency manipulation which has such a tangible a detrimental impact on middle-class jobs at home. if we do not do it now, when? we have waited a long time. we have broad bipartisan support. this bill will ride alongside in not in it. many of you know i have long been an advocate on this issue and work to find solutions from many different angles.

i have begged and pleaded with administration after administration. i have negotiated with five for different treasury secretaries beginning with secretary snell -- snow. it is not different. do something on currency. you have taken the position that country negotiations is appropriate to on the nothing gets done. other country just resists china particular. the is currency manipulations as a diplomatic tool to get something else rather than force existing laws to protect the american workers, which to me is -- i've come to the exclusion if you want to protect american workers from china, different than these countries, we need to pass this amendment. where to strengthen the mechanism for the tools that are in place but are not currently

getting used. many of you have supported in the past and are familiar with it. over 60 votes on the floor of the senate several years ago. oh is bipartisan. the commerce department finds that subsidized imports are causing economic harm to american manufacturers and workers, the ministration most impose duties to counter bill the and if it inferred on foreign producers and exporters by the subsidies. rather than enforce existing law, administration and the previous one preferred to use the threat of current communication measures as a diplomatic tool to achieve other noneconomic geopolitical goals. as a result, they have to find what qualifies as an export subsidy. the have excluded currency manipulation even that it is as plain as the nose on your face.

that is why it is done. our amendment would require the commerce department to investigate whether currency under evaluation by government provides the double subsidy in the u.s. requested such an investigation. it does this by putting in place a new rule is simply says export subsidy may exist through currency manipulation and should be investigated. period. we have worked laboriously. it is compliant. we're using existing mechanisms and making sure that they apply to currency, the same mechanism people have used on other issues . we're making sure that happens with currency. this is the enforceable mechanism. we must show china we're not missing around and get something done. members of this committee, i

hope you feel an obligation as i do, especially our oversight role. we have an obligation to ensure tools are in place to protect american workers and that they are being used appropriately. to my cause of history work on this issue and support for this proposal, this is our best opportunity for the most appropriate opportunity to show that we are serious about combating the trade. you kept this bipartisan. the original bill with senator grams and collins and sessions and myself. senator grassley has been a vocal component of this issue in the past. senator isakson and carver have voted and are supportive of improvements in this space.

i know i'm forgetting some others. forgive me. china's trade economic policy of undermining the global market place which major ceos quietly admit to everyone of us they cannot say it publicly, but they know what is going on. the appropriate time is now. i urge my colleagues to support this 14th amendment. >> thank you. i understand his seal here -- zeal here. determine whether some currency misalignment is effectively a subsidy either directly or indirectly to a country's exports. if so, the sanctions can follow. i actually asked my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

it could be based on presumptions without support. currency fundamentals. an amendment would allow so many freedoms and arriving at a determination including indirect subsidies raised on some measure of under evaluation that it would prove entirely ineffective . at least that is my view. either it could or would not be made. it could lead to trade disputes. i'm concerned about it. i understand my colleagues sincerity on this.

with that, anyone else care to comment? >> i want to commend senator shuman for advancing this solution to the issue of currency manipulation. i think it is pretty clear. there is no issue that has consumed more time than these debates in currency manipulation . it is a sensitive issue. a ghost of the how -- heart of -- it goes to the heart of how we grow and protect american jobs. it reflects discussion with respect of how this is going to affect federal reserve practices and the like. i think senator schumer has figured out how to ingest the key question, which is to deal with china which clearly manipulated in past and gets an unfair advantage. this leveled the playing field for american industry and a practical faction.

i hope my colleagues will support the amendment. i appreciate my seatmate all these years working with so many of you on both sides of the aisle to come up with a practical approach at this point. >> any further comments? >> i can to offer an amendment than the trade promotion authority to the. this'll be narrowly targeted toward any objective. i'm a cosponsor. i voted for it in 2011. scf the single one of the committee meetings. he had more hair thanen. he asked about currency manipulation. i think it affects trade.

frankly, it was something the office typically handles. it is something done by treasury. it should and can be addressed. it is a narrow objective. we're talking about intervention. some of you follow their work. increase u.s. trade deficit each year. the deal trade is to be -- we sell products to other countries. the hope is we use that money to buy their product and vice versa . that is balanced trade.

when a country is an example and encourages the depreciation of their currency, you have this imbalance. we see this in terms of the trade deficit. it is driven by energy and china. a lot of this goes to the manipulation we had seen. got to address it and do it in a thoughtful way and do it in a way to avoid disputes that the chairman talked about. i can to support that amendment. >> i understand the senator's position. >> we have applied diplomatic pressure. dialogue after dialogue. often china takes one step

forward and two steps backward. if they petitioner request an investigation, it doesn't presuppose an outcome. i think it is contributed best currency is contributed to something almost unknown a generation ago. putting together their business plan and shutting down production in dayton, ohio or asheville, north carolina and moving it overseas. currency contributes to that structure and business plan. this is a chance to take away one of those incentives for companies to follow that route.

>> mr. chairman? i want to speak in favor very briefly. >> sure. >> as the senator knows because he was trade representative, there's a bill to illuminate the u.s. trade representative. he learned that one day when in the office of the trade representative. you do not get a trade deal -- you failed. the incentive is to get a deal at any cost. no deal is perfect. it requires congress to go back and take what we have learned and to occasionally modified what the agreement was.

there's one thing i think we all know here -- the chinese manipulate currency. the question is, are we going to do something about it? are we going to change? if you think this approach is fair, then supported. this is not the only thing that we could look at. this is what we negotiated. now we know this, therefore we should change that. let's change that. i encourage members to support it. >> i strongly support this amendment, i think. i think it is very clear when you have -- we're talking about a level playing field. it is one thing to have monetary policy.

it is another top governmental policy to make your currency so you get a competitive advantage. it gives you a 20% advantage over manufacturers or farmers. that is not a level playing field. what they're amendment does is allow us to be able to determine if that is what the currency policy is doing in order to get that 10 or 15 or 20% advantage. as senator portman said, we are for a level playing field. when you fix your currency value so that your manufacturers and producers and farmers have an advantage, that is wrong.

i thank you for bringing it forward. >> i will be brief. i know we have a lot to do. i would to join in support of the amendment. and an want to simply expressed frustration. i think it is evident what has happened over a long period of time on a whole range of fact this is that china for example is engaged in. when china cheats, we lose jobs. very simple. when they cheat on currency purposely undervalue it as a pernicious and destructive impact, i remember sitting with secretary geithner in my office and raising this issue. it seems that over the over, administration has said that they understand the problem. the want to do something about the problem.

i appreciate that. i think the time for raising it and pushing it and taking it in smaller steps is over. i think we need to take a more decisive and determined action to get the result which americans expect as to. they do not expect us to create some magic wand. they do expect us to take effective steps to remove a problem. i think this is hurting our workers and literally costing us jobs. >> i don't disagree this is a problem. i just do not think this is the right solution. we have your viewpoint on this. >> thank you. >> if you could pull that closer, i would appreciate it. >> we share the concerns of many

in congress regarding currency practices. we hear your concerns about the currency practices. unfair currency practices hurt our workers and our firm. that is why this administration has taken great links and measures in terms of engaging with partners and a number of others including the g7 and imf, to press this issue. there have in real progress which affect currency. it has depreciated by over 30% on a real effective basis since 2010.

japan has not intervened since 2011. there has been measurable progress. with respect to the amendment we are opposed to the legislation. first of all, it raises questions of a consistency with our international obligations. i think there are other countries that could mimic our provisions but at the same time, target our companies and workers. that would present a real concern. they could design provisions that use a different standard. there's no single universal standard that applies to currency valuation. unilateral measures will be

perceived as being counter reductive -- counterproductive and all the progress we have made. it will impede and impair our multilateral and bilateral efforts. we are concerned that unilateral measures will impair our ability to make progress in the context of -- a currency objective. i think our partners will be concerned about negotiating some sort of currency provision given that they may see unilateral measures as well. >> thank you so much for your opinion. >> i want to say thank you to senator shuman for his leadership. we have heard over and over again about china taking baby steps. we're at a point now where we

are fully engaged in a global economy. it is just not enough. with all due respect on what is coming. we want our trading partners. we want japan to know that it is not ok to manipulate currencies. people look at chinese products and see a lower price and do not understand a good chunk of that is because they cheat. this is another to integrate a way to do something about it. i think it is long overdue. i urge a strong bipartisan vote. >> with all due respect, we have tried the diplomatic route over and over again for 10 years.

we took a trip to china along with senator coburn 10 years ago an effort to get something done. this have to do something that might actually solve this problem. i have lost faith in the diplomatic back and forth. i asked for the a's in ea's -- ayes and nays. [roll call vote] >> aye. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye by proxy. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye by proxy. >> no. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to -- >> i meant to go no. tally up the vote. 18 ayes, 8 nays. >> you know how to smother me. [laughter] >> with love, mr. chairman.

>> is that the new york type of love? [laughter] >> i think you are next. >> thank you. i would like to bring the amendment number one. i would like as for unanimous consent to add chairman hatch and senator carper as cosponsors of the bill. >> without objection. >> we are all concerned about china's repeated efforts to cost us jobs. we deeply concerned. these kinds of efforts like the ones china is making -- it makes us less competitive in the global market.

make sure workers have a level playing field. this amendment is meant to complement and not substitute on currency manipulation, particularly the work of senator schumer. requires the treasury secretary to regulate conduct a detailed analysis of all trading partners using rigorous and transparent metrics. it requires extensive bilateral engagement with the country interfering with the currency market as a first. in the country filtered up appropriate policies within a year, i've amendment lays out specific and remedial actions to address the problem. this includes the ability to block a particular country including china, from the benefit of free-trade agreements including cpb.

our office solutions to confront unfair trade -- our amendment offers solutions to confront unafraid -- unfair trade practices. thank you to the chairman for his sponsorship. i call for roll call vote. and i asked that senator nelson be added. >> thank you for the work on this amendment. thank you for analysis of the international change rate policy. the memo provides tools for strengthening trade enforcement and provides for remedial actions and new evidence for congress and the american people

to weigh in a voice interest. this is a strong amendment. when that will give a greater voice to everyone here on the international exchange rate developments. an amendment that provide significant avenues for heightened surveillance. a strongly urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this amendment. any further comments. >> mr. chairman ira urge my colleagues to support the benefit that is critical to solving this to go beyond unilateral involvement. finally getting us multilateral engagements and bilateral engagements. >> any other comments? >> i want to support the amendment. i think it gives a framework we need to deal with. the process by which we put into law, strict regulations, we had

a case in the pacific northwest on solar with the company brought a case to the federal government. the federal government felt obligated to act. the key remark is to resolve these issues without getting into a trade war. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, i tend to support this amendment. i know some are suggesting those of us want to see enforceability in person minute relationship should oppose it, but i think it is fine. it is more bilateral engagement. it encourages that treasury to set up an advisory committee to advise the secretary. but it doesn't have that teeth that another bill has. i do not think this is something we should be opposing. i think we should support it. some colleagues might support

it. i think it is fine. i intend to support it. >> i think the senator has come up with an eloquent compromise. i commend you for it. >> any other comments? clerk, call the roll. [roll call vote] >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> will the clerk announced the bow? >> 26 ayes 0 nays. >> mr. chairman? >> yes? >> this is amendment 70. i'm sponsoring this amendment with my colleague, senator brown . it reflects a critically important -- that is the elimination once and for all four and injured labor. i think it is worth noting that

my former colleagues have peace the champion this issue for years that it currently is law permits the importation of goods made with indentured or forced labor if the goods are not made in the united states in sufficient quantities to meet demand. this amendment is very direct. it says that there is never a time when forced labor is acceptable. this is 2015. there is no room in our trade policy for any exceptions to that principle. back to be supporting reform in countries where children are exploited in a perpetuating the practices that promote that exportation. it is time to remove this outdated exception to ensure the product of forced indentured labor doesn't enter the commerce of the u.s. i hope all my colleagues all support this amendment. >> thank you. i appreciate the work of the

ranking member on this peter] it loophole -- member on this. it would close a loophole. look briefly at a history. we know when that came about and what history thinks. that is how outdated the provision is. since then, the u.s. has ratified the international labor organization convention. we have ratified the convention for the minimum age of work. we are a strong partner in international efforts to eradicate child labor. it is the chairman ryan's customs bill that includes the

language in the amendment. it is imperative the senate not be silent on this issue and that it lay out -- play out. child labor is never ok. >> i support the language that would prohibit importation of goods that cpb investigate and finds evidence that it produced by forced labor, including child labor. i have been working with others to find language on this topic. i will continue to work on this issue with my colleagues. i'm hopeful we can bring resolution to this issue soon. i will vote no and hopefully resolve this problem as they go along. anybody else? >> that is acceptable to me, mr. chairman. >> all those that are in favor? what?

>> i asked for roll call. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] >> aye. >> pass. >> aye. >> no. >> pass. >> no by proxy. >> aye by proxy. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> aye by proxy.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> aye by proxy. >> any other senators care to change their vote? ok. >> 21 ayes 5 nays. >> the amendment is agreed to. any further amendments? senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment that is very

straightforward. make permanent the in agency trade enforcement that is in us tr. this is done by executive order and demonstrated when they were good at bringing major trade enforcement cases. prior to having a separate senator -- and they would turn around and put on a different hat and enforce agreements. this set up a separate center. we have heard last month that they have a report that has 444 pages detailing the trade barriers. this particular agency is laser focused on addressing that. i ask how is to support this. this is very straightforward. we have this agency.

it has not been set up permanently by law. i think now is the time to do that. i asked colleagues for support. >> let me say this -- i recommend that we oppose this. there are concerns about the enforcement center. there's a lack of transparency. i'm not convinced that it has shown any real results. we must ensure that it is helping american workers through effective enforcement rather than serving as something that is merely symbolic. i would recommend a new vote on this. rex if i might take one more minute? we have seen effective cases that our country has.

auto suppliers, some agricultural cases including poultry, that has been brought by this agency. i'm hopeful that colleagues will vote yes. as for roll call to indicate that this is something that senator graham and i have been trying to do for a number of years to make permanent this agency so it is clear we have got folks that are looking at this every day on behalf and manufactures and so on and bringing cases where appropriate. thank you. >> all those in favor, say aye. >> aye. >> all those who are opposed, say no. >> idle think there were many -- i don't think there were many no's.

amendment is adopted. >> out of the abundance of caution, you realize there is a jurisdictional issue with this point. this is what is known as a catfish amendment. usda's has attempted to take over the regulation of the inspection of the process. in many cases that means it will be duplicative. they would have dual inspectors that would make it difficult for those as mrs. to stay in business. they would probably move offshore. i would appreciate the chair giving me the assurance when this bill is off the floor, we could have a debate on the floor . >> i understand your concerns. this has been a long-standing topic of debate. i'm confident this will be

addressed. >> thank you. i would draw the amendment. -- with job amendment. -- withdraw the memo. >> thank you. i will try to accomplish what i want to do here. i'm a strong supporter for protecting intellectual property. i have heard from many disappointed families and businesses in my state that foreign companies are selling counterfeit goods, particularly prominent wedding dresses, that are manufactured in the united states to unwitting american consumers who believe they are getting a high-quality dress like a very wedding dress, and then they end up with a third

rate dress at an important moment in their life and they spend a fortune trying to fix it or change it or buying a new just when they won that they got imported from abroad has "packaged as a year" and skirting u.s. trade laws. the consumer is getting to -- "packaged as a gift" and skirting the u.s. trade laws. the consumer is getting duped. our businesses that are creating these wedding and downs and prom gowns -- wedding gowns and prom gowns are suffering dramatically. and so i appreciate the chairman helping us with language that can seek to accomplish this goal of greater inspections from customs. with the understanding,-- >> i appreciate you being here.

>> this amendment is to settle a long-standing issue ever since we put the earmarked in place. it is an amendment that is consistent with legislation and was introduced back in 2012. it has to do with miscellaneous tariff bills. this is something that hope the committee will be able to support and a strong bipartisan basis. it makes him a sense for workers to have access to products that are not made here in america. i want to thank the cosponsors and others who have been involved in this. it is basically saying these critical inputs that are not

available in that u.s. need to have a predictable pathway to be dealt with. if it passes, we would be able to deal with the backlog. we would be able to have a predictable pathway for an extension. since it expired in january 2013 , they have been spending a lot more on import duties, especially higher taxes. i maintain our competitiveness and manufacturing sector. there is a recent study out. it has resulted in a tax hike. 1.8 billion dollars over the past three years. this amendment is backed by a lot of groups. i have got a letter here, along with 185 countries and associations are urging us to take quick action on this issue, including a bunch of companies

in my home state of ohio. it would resolve the earmarked concerns that many of us have had while preserving the constitutional role in trade policy. the bill was simple by that process by allowing companies to apply at least directly while preserving total transparency and increasing access to companies and breaking the logjam by the earmarked moratorium. i surely hope we could resolve this issue today. i really appreciate your work on this. i would hope with the strong bipartisan push we can get this done. >> thank you very much. they put in a great deal of work to reach a very sensible conclusion here. what this does, it seems to me,

is create a far better mechanism for companies to be able to get the exemption from tariffs that they are due. they do have to come to an individual member congress on bended knee if they qualify for this -- they do not have to come to an individual member of congress on bended knee if they qualify for this. this is a better way to do it. the congressional progress to have final say is still there. we get away from the idea that we will bestow certain favors on companies. i want to commend senator portman everyone who worked on this. a very sensible outcome. it has been a long time in coming. >> i want to commend both of you and others who have worked on this. this is a very important amendment. it is a relief to u.s.

manufacturers here it will enhance transparency and earmarked concerns. i do ask the committee for support in passing this amendment. >> mr. chairman? i'd like to add -- thank you. i like to add my voice. this is really simple. it is providing a measure of release -- release to manufacturers to be able to compete in the global marketplace and to remain competitive. the miscellaneous -- this amendment itself reduces the cost of manufacturing in our mistake and a lot of other states. these companies assert that this is critical to their ability to maintain jobs in the united states. it is regrettable that the process has been installed in recent years.

i have been working on it for years. this would be a positive step in the right direction. we are grateful that colleagues on both sides working on this. we need to make sure we can do everything we can on this to level the playing field for our firms and manufacturing firms. i support a yes vote. >> thank you. >> i'll be brief. i would encourage all my colleagues to support this legislation. this is about u.s. competitiveness. that is what is at the heart of it. why should u.s. many factors pay a duty on something that they bring in? for them to incorporate in their product that they sell around the world? to make them on competitive in a global marketplace? it is to saddle them with an undue costs in their chain of

manufacturing. i do not know why it has taken so blasted long to deal with this. let's stick a fork in this once and for all and do away with it. >> thank you. any other comments? >> mr. chairman? >> i want to say cpb -- two things. that is not something we have focused on it you brought this to our attention. second, i forgot to thank a couple of senators who worked with you in the last congress. thank you. >> thank you. any further debate? well willing to take a voice vote? you are? ok. all those in favor say aye.

>> aye. >> and he opposed? -- any opposed? [silence] >> the ayes have it. senator nelson? >> mr. chairman? thank you, mr. chairman. amendment number 65. my amendment would create a fund jointly managed and available to agencies for the enforcement of implementation of free trade agreement so we could make sure that we are enforcing these agreements. it would be capitalized through existing antidumping and countervailing duties, which are collect it.

this amendment would require the u.s. government to study current efforts of making sure that enforcement happens. this legislation makes a lot of long needed improvements to the trade enforcement regime particularly as it relates to our duties. one of the critical questions we need to ask ourselves -- did agencies have the ability to force the trade deals and the resources they need to do their job? lester the government and ability office issued a damning report on ability of the department of labor and ability to enforce labor provisions of the free trade agreement. the gao found that they had four people in its office of labor affairs who in addition to enforcing labor conditions were also responsible for negotiating them. they have 5-8 stop people monitoring and enforcing trade

agreement. essentially -- mr. chairman? >> sorry. >> essentially there were fewer staff enforcing these provisions that we have the number of countries we have free trade agreements with. agency staff told than the limited staffing and resources workplace -- sorry come severe constraints on their ability to monitor and enforce the free trade agreement. in addition, they all have what they are doing -- they are negotiating the transpacific partnership with countries like vietnam and malaysia. they also need to be closely monitored and enforced. we need to make sure that we are funding duties and the focus on making sure that we are enforcing those agreements.

my amendment would create a dedicated trust fund using the existing funds and using them for enforcing of this. i know the president wants us to have a -- for the 21st century. i support it but we have to have a team of people. we need and i thank the chair and i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> i encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. this goes straight to the heart of what citizens say. they say you are passing these agreements what you spend a little bit more time taking sure the limitation and enforcement works. what the senator is doing is laying out a strategy and sure that implementation and enforcement go hand-in-hand. the fact is that failure to

implement is going to cause people to be interested in enforcement. >> any further comment? i recommend we adopt the amendment. any objection? without objection it is so adopted. anybody else? senator bennett, i agreed to go to you. senator bennett: [inaudible] section 301 of the trade act of 1974 provides the u.s. government with real enforcement powers. right now the president can take all appropriate action if one of the laws or policies violates the international trade agreement. we can also take track -- action

if it burdens u.s. commerce. my amendment would add the environment to that list. this is a commonsense approach and reflects the reality and challenges of international trade. the amendment would allow the government to impose penalties on countries that fail to effectively enforce their environmental laws and fail to live up to the environmental commitments of our trade agreements. the u.s. leads the way and we need a way encourage trading partners to do the same. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. i asked the chair whether he has a preference for a rollcall vote. >> i think it would be fine. any objection? all those who support the amendment, please say aye. any opposed?

the amendment is adopted. >> mr. chairman you asked me to offer my amendment on the train -- bahrain to the earlier bill which i did. >> then we are done. who is next? >> just to talk about an amendment 77. we know that virtually everybody here is trying to move in the direction of leveling the playing field. lots of ways to get there. i think it is important that we focus on some of the basic challenges or impediments that a lot of our friends have. it is troubling to so many of us that many of our trading partners operate what are

sometimes known as state owned enterprises and we should take action to confront that challenge. it is made worse by the fact that we do not have tools in place to combat that or fight against it. one of the tools to fight against that would be what is contained in my amendment. i want to offer that today just to talk about it. i have an amendment that instructs the department of commerce to exclude state owned enterprises from calculations in countervailing duty petitions. it is one way to go at this problem. i realize there will be others as well as well but it is a clear and present danger if i can use a legal term to a lot of our firms when they have to compete and they have other impediments.

this is one of the most substantial. >> as i understand it the center is willing to withdraw the amendment? >> that is correct. >> than the amendment is withdrawn. i believe senator bennett is not going to offer, i believe that is all of them. >> so i think that is all the mm it's on this bill so we can move to final passage. any objection? does anybody want to record a vote? >> we need one more member so we can vote. let's get it done.

just 30 seconds. as soon as we do that we will pass this bill. ok, does anybody want a rollcall vote on this we need one more member? any objection to this? without objection this bill is passed and will be treated as such. it will be reported as modified and amended as an original bill. without objection it is passed by voice vote. i think we have gone through this pretty well, it is only

been three hours. not quite. the committee will move to a chairman's mark. that is the bipartisan congressional trade priority and account ability act of 2015. i know it has been a long day but we saved the best for last. in my opinion. the bipartisan congressional trade priorities and account ability act is just what the title says. a bipartisan agreement that will and sure congress role by making our priorities and expectations clear. the package we put before the committee today will keep the administration accountable whatever administration and it includes unprecedented transparency provisions and new procedures to make sure the trade agreements meet the standards expected by the american people. i think it is very important

bill that i hope we can pass. i hope we can pass it without amendment. the fact of the matter is it is a sensitive bill and we are working very closely with the house and with the democrats and the republicans in the house and it is going to be very tight i would prefer we do not amended. amend it. i will have the committee walk through the mark and i recognize shane warren to do so. we also have alyssa of the committee staff from the u.s. trade representative's office and the assistant secretary from the department of commerce and the assistant general counsel to us from the department of

treasury as well as terry and tom from the committee of taxation and members in a fit to answer any question you may have. would you briefly describe the main features of this proposal and we will go from there. >> the committee is considering a proposal to establish training objectives and enhanced consultation requirements. the proposal is divided into five sections. section one establishes the negotiating objectives of the united states. section two provides authority to enter into certain trade agreements if they make progress toward the traditional negotiating objectives and subject to congressional notification requirements for july 2018 or if extended by congress, july 2021. provides requirements for the

presidential confrontation and it states that the united states trade unions must meet upon request with any member of congress, provide access to pertinent documents, engage in consultation with the senate finance committee and with jurisdiction over laws that could be affected. including the establishment of a chief transparency officer. section three specifies the consultation and reports the president must provide congress before entering into negotiations and semitic trade agreements to congress. the president must meet when submitting a trade agreement to congress and for consideration. it also establishes the processes and procedures or disapproval if the president has failed or refused to notify in accordance with the required

puzzle. section five, stipulates that any amplification -- application of the trade agreement inconsistent with u.s. law will have no effect. >> i might point out that the president supports this bill as it is written. it is a sensitive bill and very difficult. i hope we do not change it. it is equally important that we don't change it so that it will pass in the house. i want to bring that everybody's attention because it is a sensitive situation and this is one of the most important bills in congress. i hope we can have some cooperation on this. but full-fledged debate is just fine with me. >> thank you mr. chairman, i

will be brief. this legislation provides a major upgrade to american trade policy. in a nutshell, it brings our trade policy into the 21st century. the fact of the matter is that much of trade law was written in the 1990's when nobody had a cell phone or iphones and a big part of what we saw to do -- sought to do is to provide opportunity to set aside the old trade playbook. the american people will never again be in the dark about major trade policy. this legislation requires by law that before the president of the united states signs tpp or any other trade agreement that it be published for 60 days.

what that means is your constituents will be sitting in a town hall meeting and will be able to bring a copy of that trade agreement and ask questions. there has never been anything like that. frankly, it is long overdue. if you believe strongly in trade why in the world would you want all of this excessive secrecy that makes the american people cynical about trade. that is representative of the kind of changes that are in this and it strengthens and makes fully enforceable negotiating objectives on labor and the environment, something we just strengthened with the bennett amendment as it relates to the environment and it includes, largely because of the incredible effort and persistence of senator carton a first ever directive on human rights and good governance.

it provides the tools for american manufacturers and farmers to help them knocked down the barriers and tara other terriers so that we can find new markets for those products made in the united states, grown in the united states. we ought to be in a position to sell them to the growing middle class in the developing world. that growing middle class will double between now and 2025. there will be over one billion people, let's pass the legislation to create the opportunity for more goods and services and products to be purchased in that region. i urge colleagues to support the legislation and i think chairman hatch that we've moved viciously and i hope we can get through this last part of tonight's work. >> let me just say this, i will

recognize any senators who want to raise questions to the panel. any questions? >> no. >> if there are no further questions, the chairman's mark is now open for amendment and let's go to a amendment. >> i file this amendment and i am not going to offer it because i think there has been some accommodation that takes care of questions i asked ambassador froman. so bear with me just a moment while i explain what i am up to and what i intend to do in the future. i want to a mention the amendment. while i do not intend to ask for a vote, i want to reiterate my concerns about trade agreements containing immigration provisions. when i was chairman and ranking

member of this committee, i opposed previous administration's attempts to include immigration provisions and i demanded that you do use -- that the judiciary committee be consulted. despite opposition from congress in 2003 included immigration agreements with china and singapore. these consultations are merely consultations and they do not provide a mechanism for ensuring that changes are not included. when the ambassador was before this committee last week, i specifically asked about the immigration divisions and he told us that they are not negotiating anything that would require any modifications of u.s. immigration laws or systems. he told us that the other countries are making ours --

the u.s. has decided not to do so. while this is reassuring, it does not stop this administration or future administrations from negotiating immigration or visa changes without congress. this is why i filed my amendment today. i want their to be no doubt that congress does not condone any negotiation of immigration laws or changes in the visa system. i do not intend to require a vote on this today because we stated that article one and section eight gives congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and the supreme court has long found that this provision grants congress clean air power over immigration policy.

we have said that for many years congress has made it abundantly clear that they do not change or require change to u.s. immigration law and practice. we asked the ambassador for assurances that it will not include provisions that would require changes to u.s. immigration law regulation policy or practice. the ambassador responded and gave us his assurances. he acknowledged that there is a chapter, but that this chapter only includes good governance provisions of transparency with respect to visa processing and cooperation on border security. he also said that this chapter includes commitments to make information on requirements for temporary entry publicly available.

the u.s. is already transparent about our processes and visa requirements and already processes visas as expeditiously as possible. in addition to the latter, chairman hatch has agreed to work with me online which that will be included in the company report to make it clear that congress does not condone negotiating immigration or visa provisions. while i will not offer my amendment today i will keep options open to alter this amendment on the floor, but only if necessary. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to call amendment number 113. in addition, that senator casey

and senator heller be added. i think you are familiar with this amendment. it deals with one of our principal trading partners, israel. it only applies to the negotiations and does not affect the tpp negotiations. it is interesting that as we are meeting on april 22, exactly 30 years ago today that the united states and israel sign the pretrade agreement. at that time it was considered an unprecedented trade agreement, the first entered into and the signing ceremony. it stressed that the agreement would benefit the economies of both the united states and israel and serve as a precedent for future agreements of countries. it is very clear that our

trading partner is being challenged today by new barriers. there are boycotts and sanctions. it represents efforts to try to deal with it by dealing with trading partners that represents an area to make sure that our international partners do not try to isolate israel. i might point out that we have made progress. when senator portman was ustr portman he was able to a competent great deal through his negotiations to prevent these types of governmental activities against israel and his trade negotiations. while we are dealing with europe, this is an important goal and it adds this as a principled negotiation and i

know that the house has taken some action, so it is not inconsistent with the house action. >> any further comment? >> and trying to leave this memo with senator carton. it is consistent with what we have been engaged with israel, expanding the trade relationship. it is a good time to do this. from the time it was founded israel has been the target of a lot of attacks. now there is also this other attack. in a way it is more pernicious because it is economic welfare. it is called the boycott, divest and sanction campaign. bds. it is the campaign to weaken one of our strongest allies and embolden israel's enemies and with this campaign that somehow we should isolate israel. it is not centrally organized but part of it calls for

boycotts special investigations and arrest warrants for israeli officials. criminal charges for private businesses that operate in israel. fortunately these kinds of campaigns and boycotts have been beaten back before. senator carton mentioned that when i was the u.s. trade representative we did a work with bahrain and oman and i was able to sign the bahrain agreement and negotiate the le mans agreement and we got them to end their boycott with israel. we know that it is an appropriate place because we have seen it happen before. i was also involved in applying pressure to saudi arabia when they got involved. it granted most-favored-nation status to all member states including israel which is something that was difficult at the time, but the right thing to do. today there are new challenges posed. the eu is one of our concerns

and unfortunately some of our european allies are engaged in this. denmark and the largest pension fund in the netherlands have all divested. denmark has threatened sanctions against israel unless they take certain actions with regard to gaza. there is a threat within the eu to boycott certain meat and dairy depending on how those products are labeled. i am pleased that some provisions requiring reports on other cities work included in the customs bill. i know that you have a strong interest in this issue but this minute is necessary because we believe that combating these anti-israeli efforts should be a principal negotiating objective. it ensures that are skilled negotiators will continue to confront this issue. the watered-down version of the amendment does not make this a principal negotiating objective and therefore it would not be enough. aipac has written a letter

today, we hope the committee will support the amendment and not dilute its language. it is essential that include principal negotiating objectives for trade negotiators which is a point of this amendment. on the 30th anniversary i would hope that we would come together and stand with israel again whether they are on the battlefield or the economic negotiating table and i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. >> i support this amendment and i hope we can pass it. >> colleagues i will be brief. i want to commend senator cartman -- senator carton and senator portman because as the son of parents who fled nazi germany in the 30's, not all family got out. we lost family. i have been especially troubled

about the rise of anti-semitism in europe and around the world. what senator cardin and senator portman are saying is that we should not let american trade policy be used in any kind of fashion that would in some ways show a tolerance for that kind of anti-semitism. i think this is a very constructive amendment, it is bipartisan i strongly support it and my sense is that we should pass this quickly and try to move it as far as possibly as quickly as possibly. >> i think senator cardin for pushing this amendment and i'm grateful to you for supporting it in the bill. i just want to say this. i find those heart of this movement to have a double standard. one that jewish people have faced throughout the centuries

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

>> want to commend both senator cardin and senator portman for their leadership this is an important amendment as i understand it. the rollcall vote has been requested. i think we have enough here. [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> clerical report. 26 aye, zero nay. >> mr. chairman, on the amendment that i talked about, i would like to ask unanimous

consent that the senator will be added. >> without objection. you had better find out. as i understand it senator portman is next with his amendment. this is the amendment we have been talking about already which is to add currency manipulation within trade promotion to authority. seven out will speak on it -- senator seven out begot in just a minute but before start i would like to ask unanimous consent that senator schumer be added as a cosponsor. we have talked about the importance of tpa and i agree with what senator wyden said. this underlying bill is

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

we negotiated a free trade agreement with and we are very careful in terms of how we do it. i heard earlier from the treasury department that there is no universal standard on what constitutes or and seek manipulation. i would disagree. the imf has standards. all of these countries we are talking about are members of the imf. the wto has established practices that are prohibited. they had said that currency manipulation should be prohibited. there are standards here and our legislation follows the standard. >> the ones we went to target our protracted large-scale interventions to gain entry unfair competitive advantage in trade. so this is not monetary policy. this is not macroeconomic policy

, including the united states. this is intervening deliberately because you want to expand your export and it has to be retracted large-scale intervention in one direction. consistent with the imf standards and the wto. our amendment says it has to be consistent, consistent with existing imf and wto principles and agreements. do we leave some discretion? yes we do. some believe we should go further. but we say that the best way to do this is to have an enforceable currency outcome but give the negotiator flexibility. flexibility as to what the remedy is and how you go about it. it does not lock the administration into a specific remedy.

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

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

lou and the administration have worked intensively to address currency practices through a number of bilateral and multilateral forum. the concern for us and the amendment offered by senator portman is it would have a significant implication and derail tpp negotiations as well as hobble legitimate monetary policy objectives. as the secretary noted, we have formally consulted with tpp countries. our partners have indicated a shared understanding with the concerns raised by congress and they have indicated they are willing to work constructively as well. however, they uniformly raise significant concerns about enforceable currency discipline and rejected the notion of subscribing to uniform

enforceable currency disciplines. for a range of reasons including the potential impact on their ability to use and to use and ploy their monetary policies as well. based on these discussions, we would expect that countries and our tpp partners would seek to identify measure standards that would seek to target our monetary policies as well and to seek to subject those two binding dispute settlements. and so this prevents a significant amount of concern for us. in fact the federal reserve chairwoman yellen has stated serious concerns about an enforceable discipline precisely because it could potentially hobble u.s. monetary policy objectives.

>> that last point, with respect to monetary policy, i think is really the flaw in this particular amendment. this amendment runs the risk of getting us into the business of establishing rules for monetary policy and in effect constraining our monetary policy and mr. chairman i would ask unanimous consent to put into the record, an excerpt of testimony from federal reserve chairman yellen to the senate banking committee and i will briefly touch on her major observances. >> i will put into the record. >> colleagues, janet yellen observed that she is very committed about the movements to the trade agreements or in any way hamper our ability to have monetary policy that was designed to address the major domestic directives of the day.

we all understand what the fed is all about is trying to find price stability and maximum employment. but trying to get this right. to calibrate that challenging balance you have to make sure that you are not restraining monetary policy. so with reluctance i have to oppose the amendment and i would urge colleagues to think through the ramifications of this amendment for american monetary policy at a time when clearly we want to grow more family wage jobs in our country and we don't want to keep federal reserve from having as much flexibility as possible with respect to the monetary tools they will need to bring that about. >> as a cosponsor -- >> let me just say i will not be

listed as a cosponsor. >> would you mind if i recognize her? >> i'm sorry mr. chairman, i thought as the cosponsor i would have a chance -- thank you very much. i did want to respond first of all to say it is a pleasure working with senator portman on this and all of my colleagues. there are rules on monetary policy and all the countries involved have signed up. they won't manipulate their currency but there is no enforcement. so we already have the monetary alice's. we are just deciding that maybe it ought to be real this time, because of what is happening in terms of job loss. so mr. chairman, i appreciate the fact that there is language for the first time and negotiating principles and an

objective that is put in. i appreciate that on currency practices but without language that says it needs to be enforceable which is what this amendment does. it just doesn't do what needs to be done. i have said so money times, but i feel compelled to say again. two years ago, senator graham and i authored a letter signed by 60 members of the senate indicating we all wanted to have enforceable currency language in any bill that passed. and that is what this does. it could go farther and say you cannot get back track authority unless you have current enforceable currency language in a trade agreement. i would be happy to do that. that is not what this says. this says as a negotiating

objective, whatever we do we just have to have enforceable provisions and i would finally mr. chairman want to know because of the strong feelings of the automobile industry and japan, i know this is often referred to as the auto amendment, which i am proud to say, they are deeply concerned and in support of this. but i would like to indicate for the record that the u.s. business and industry council is endorsing the american iron and steel institute and the alliance for american manufacturing. a whole host of auto suppliers that represent many of our states. this is very serious and if we are giving fast-track authority to negotiate trade agreements than making sure this provision is strong and enforceable is absolutely critical.

i join with my colleague in urging a yes vote. >> you are speaking for the administration on this panel? ? >> yes. >> does the obama administration regard this amendment as a poison pill? >> we are concerned about this provision with respect to derail negotiations. >> so yes you regard this as a poison pill >> we would consider it to be a poison pill. >> i want to see this legislation passed. i believe strongly in trade and

i believe it is good for the country good for wages and the economy and jobs. as much as i respect my distinguished friend from ohio and i regard him as an expert. i do worry that given the fragile compromise that the chairman and ranking member have undertaken, if something is added to this legislation which jeopardizes its passage and ultimately that to me is a path we should not go down. if the administration, president obama and his administration regard this as a poison pill, i don't know what the vote count is on the democratic side. i know this is a difficult issue and the currency in relation issues are difficult on our side as well. i am very concerned that if it

is adopted that we won't be able to achieve our objective and that concerns me greatly. >> i have to say that if this amendment passes, you can kiss tpt goodbye. would you disagree? >> i would say it would make -- >> i cannot hear you. >> i agree. it would derail the negotiation. >> this is one of the few times we can really get a good agreement with japan. we have come a long way and not just a pat -- not just japan, there are 11 nations. so i am concerned about this amendment. i have great feelings about it myself. i think it makes it difficult to carry the bill through.

i think all of us are concerned about these issues but we also have to deal with practicalities as well and i am very concerned about it. >> i support the amendment and want to salute both senators for the good long work they have done. on substance, we have agreement. the committee seems to overwhelmingly feel that currency manipulation is a bad thing. then there is the question should we add it into tpa. here i would argue to my colleagues that, we have to change the way we do trade agreements. i believe that we should do trade agreements. i certainly believe in the administration's goal of weaning these administrations away from china and putting the more in our economic world.

that is a very appealing national -- rationale. they cannot come at the expense of doing things that are so untoward and harmful to american workers. it hurts us both ways. this bill is heralded by the administration and others as a way to increase exports and jobs. i heard the ways and means chair on the tv today saying, this is the best way to increase jobs. we putting our exporters at a significant disadvantage if the countries we trade with can manipulate currency. at the same time, it hurts production here. it means our imports are unduly and unfairly cheaper. so let's have trade agreements. that is ok with me.

i lost the cfl endorsement when i was in the house. but i've come to the conclusion that with middle-class income declining and with the need to rebuild the middle class in america, that we have to rethink the way that we do trade. we didn't put it into tpa. we hope to get it done alongside tpa. but i don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong. i think there is a lot intrinsically right. we have to change the way we use trade agreements and we have to prevent our fellow nations from treating us unfairly, which has happened for a long period of time. >> i am prepared -- >> mr. chairman if i might have one more minute to make quick points. if requiring japan and the other

countries that are going to be a part of tpp to actually live up to the rules and the requirements that they not manipulate currency is in fact a poison pill and will cause the agreement not to go through then it should not go through if that is what it takes. secondly, i would argue that is a not what will happen and adding currency language that is enforceable will actually pick up votes as the process goes through. i think there will be a hard time with this whole process getting done and whenever you add currency enforcement, you actually pick up support because there is bipartisan support to do this in a reasonable thoughtful way. this amendment is a reasonable, thoughtful approach and i would

hope we could support it. >> mr. chairman -- >> mr. chairman -- >> may i ask your friend from michigan am a are you prepared to vote for the tpa? >> i am prepared to think a little better of the process. i have to say that as a compromise to my friend from texas this in my judgment is a compromise. if i had my way and could wave a magic wand, i would say you do not get fast-track authority and less you have a strong currency enforcement provision. this is strong and good, but it is in fact i believe a reasonable middle ground. it is not enough for me. >> mr. chairman i would like to say we flee that i appreciate

the candor of our friend from michigan but this at some point will be a matter of counting the votes. so if adopting this amendment does not gain us votes but loses them in the final passage that it strikes me as the poison pill. >> we will have senator portman summit up. >> let me just say to my friend from texas, pass this and you have my vote. it only takes two things. two things that there is unbelievable support for. the secretary of the treasury recognized as people around the world are manipulated currency, because we are engaged in conversation with them. my advice back is what you're doing is not working and at some point you have to get out of the way and let us put the teeth into it so you get a parameter to accomplish what you

acknowledged as a problem. mr. chairman, i understand how difficult this is i understand what the house said and what the white house said. but in this particular case, who can argue with us doing it right. this isn't a lot. you have a former trade representative trying to stick a currency manipulation thing in a bill, and they grew up learning to hate this stuff. it doesn't get you closer to a deal. we are not here to make every deal get us closer, we are here to get it right. right for america and our partners. adopt this. >> thank you mr. chairman, i liked what senator burr said. i don't do this lightly. i would make two comments about

the back and forth. first, there is no better vote counter than the web. but he hit -- but if he is voting against this because he thinks it jeopardizes the passage i think he has a blind spot. i've mentioned a couple of members who told me that mr. berg told me which is if you had currency they can support it because they are looking for the ability to say to their constituents and workers and farmers, this not only opens up markets but it does so in a way that helps tilt the playing field back toward the middle. there are members who are unable to support it because currency is not addressed. i'm not suggesting that it isn't going to be a challenge for chairman hash to move this through the process, but if that is your standard that it jeopardizes the passage, with all due respect i would say this will help us get it done. i am a big supporter of giving

the people i represent the opportunity to access the consumers outside of our borders. it creates good jobs and benefits. we have to be able to tell them that this will be fair. that is why this is the right combination. you said, it would derail the negotiations when you are pushed. i'm a tree said that, but those words were put in your mouth. have you negotiated with a trading partner before? have you dealt with the negotiating objectives? >> i have participated yes. >> so you're familiar with the fact that the negotiating objectives set out by this congress have considerable flexibility. would you agree? >> i understand --

>> i can give you examples of several trade objectives that were never accomplished in the way congress hoped because there was inherent flexibility and objectives. beyond that we provide additional flexibility. we don't tell the negotiators how to get there. on purpose. we say follow the principles that these companies agreed to abide by and thereby lighting -- violating to the detriment of the people you're trying to represent. you guys come up with a remedy. talk about retaliation. this is a specific one. i support his legislation c-span.org we don't even -- legislation. we'll even go that far. it is reasonable and balanced in the focus is on how to get more support for trade. i would agree with the statements that senator burr said. this is not about derailing or

making it harder. it is about how to be able to say with a straight face to the people who were hired, this is going to be good for you and your family to get ahead in life. mr. chairman i would hope you would get a positive phot on a bipartisan basis because i believe it will help to accomplish what you and i share that we ought to be moving forward to put america back in the business of expanding exports. >> colleagues, i voted for the schumer amendment and i voted for the bennett amendment because in my view neither of those amendments undermines america's ability to fight a financial crisis. i think this is an amendment that is a bridge too far. in particular, what swung me, and i urge our colleagues this is not the last time we will

discuss this. to reflect on what the federal reserve chair has said. janet yellen is a progressive democrat. i say that to my colleagues on this side of the aisle. she is concerned about what it will mean with respect to constraining monetary policy and the fed's ability to maintain those objectives. i urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to vote no. the bennett amendment made sense and i think this is a bridge too far. >> let me say that the chairman and i spent days and nights trying to get both houses together on the most important legislation that this administration will have this year. so this is really important stuff. i have no doubt we can handle this on something else and you

can help me find it. if you are prepared to vote i am prepared to vote. [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> the clerk will report the vote. >> mr. chairman the final tally is 11 ayes, 15 nays. >> senator menendez, you are next. >> i would like to call amendment number one, which is basically an amendment that says no fast-track for human traffickers. human trafficking in the form of sexual exploitation, forced labor, forced marriage and the sale and exportation of children is one of the great moral challenges of our time. the international labor organization estimates there

-- five million children are involved in this and it is estimated to profit $150 billion making it the second largest source of income. we should not offer our services to countries that fail to act on this. our state department puts on its tier three those countries that do not meet his -- international standards and are not making efforts to do so. my amendment says we cannot provide fast track to countries on tier three. there are 20 countries, and