[国会记录第161卷79号(2015年5月21日星期四)S3202-S3212] [...]一致同意请求。1381 Manchin先生。主席先生，我来到地板上，就像我的好朋友来自马萨诸塞州的参议员，非常关注在这一整个过程中缺乏透明度，非常有关。我看到了TPP文本。我走了楼下，看到了这一点。我不得不说整个过程对我来说非常令人不安。成员必须去一个分类的房间。现在，我们确实去了分类室，作为两党集团，在这个国家非常重要的许多问题上。金博宝正规网址我沮丧，因为我想为自己看看TPP的成绩单，他们处理了什么以及他们现在在谈判中有多远。观看本质上非常技术性的文件，就像我们所知道的那样，在没有具有适当清关的贸易人员的情况下通常是常时。 So here I am, I am not able to take staff--or only staff who has had secured clearance, and it might not be the staff on my staff who has the expertise in this, so that takes that equation away. We are unable to take any notes to consider what we just saw unless we have a photographic memory. Unfortunately, I do not. I have tried the best I can to remember and look for things I knew I was looking for. But still yet, it is almost impossible to walk out of there having the ability to sit down and evaluate what you just saw, and then we are unable to talk to anyone about it--even to my staff, as I would like to get their input, since I have been, basically, looking at the details, and especially the public, too, has no idea about any issues that concern them. The secretive nature of the largest free-trade deal in America's history truly just lacks common sense. Let me explain. In July of 2001, President Bush at that time released the draft text of the Free Trade Area of the Americas Agreement, the FTAA. He did this months before he was granted fast-track authority. He wasn't afraid to let us see it. He wasn't afraid to let the American public know what was in that. We were able to see it, and it didn't squelch the deal. It didn't harm anything. They released the text of the FTAA, the different positions of 34 countries in important areas such as intellectual property rights, investor-state dispute settlements, and antidumping duties--all very important to our country and the jobs we have in this country. Now we have a massive 12-country trade agreement that is currently being negotiated, and the President wants us to grant him the fast- track authority before not only the American people have even seen the text but mostly even our staffs whom we delegate to work on these intricate documents. Our bill that we will be asking consideration for would simply require the President to release the scrubbed, bracketed text of any trade agreement at least 60 days before Congress would grant the fast- track authority. This is pretty sensible, pretty reasonable. Just release the scrubbed document that you have agreed on so far 60 days before you ask us to give the fast-track authority. Before any Member of Congress is asked to vote on the most expansive bill in U.S. trade history, the American people deserve to see what is in the bill. That is why they elect us, to make sure we are able to confer with them, have a dialogue, and explain why we are or why we may not be for a certain piece of legislation, especially a trade agreement. If this bill is as good for the American worker as proponents have claimed, then the administration and anybody else should not find it objectionable to see the details before Congress is forced to grant the President trade promotion authority. [[Page S3210]] I want to say, in my beautiful little State of West Virginia, as I go through it and we look back through the trade agreements that have already been granted since NAFTA, we have not seen an uptick. In fact, we have lost 31,000 manufacturing jobs. I, for one, am not willing to vote to put one more job in jeopardy in West Virginia. That is the concern we have. So what we are asking for is a very modest, very sensible, very reasonable, commonsense approach to how we should do the job the people elect us to do and how it should be transparent. At this time I yield the floor to my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts. Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from West Virginia, Senator Manchin. I thank him for his leadership. I thank him for his independence. I thank him for his partnership as we push for greater transparency on this very important trade bill. In the past few weeks, the public has heard a lot about the Trans- Pacific Partnership, a massive trade deal the United States is negotiating with 11 other trade companies. The public has heard from supporters that it is the most progressive trade deal in history--a deal that will benefit working families and small businesses--and they have heard from opponents that it will only tilt the playing field further in favor of multinational corporations and leave workers and everyone else behind. The public has heard a lot, but in all that time they have never actually seen the deal itself. In fact, the press hasn't seen the deal, economists haven't seen the deal, legal experts haven't seen the deal. Most everyone in America hasn't seen the deal. Why? Because the administration has classified the deal, making it illegal for any of those people to read it. Members of Congress, as Senator Manchin said, can read it so long as they go into a secret room and don't leave with any notes. But even Members of Congress are prohibited from talking about the details in public or discussing the details with the people they were sent to Washington to represent. And yet, in the next day or two, the Senate is scheduled to vote on whether to grease the skids to make that secret trade deal--the TPP--the law of the land. This isn't how democracy is supposed to work. One of our fundamental principles of representative government is transparency. Our government is supposed to keep things secret from the people only if it has a very good reason to do so. So why is this trade deal a secret? I just want to go over the answers I have heard so far, the reasons. Some say the administration can't release the deal because the deal isn't finished yet. OK, so maybe there are some unresolved issues, but everyone agrees the deal is nearly complete. It is close enough to being done that its supporters can confidently claim it is the most progressive trade deal in history. If you are sure that is right, then show it to us. If some parts aren't finished, then show us the parts that are finished. Don't keep every single word of the deal classified. Others say releasing the text now would be tipping our hand in continuing negotiations, but that doesn't make any sense either. Our government has already shared the details of our positions with the other TPP countries, and those countries have shared details with us. That is how negotiations work. Publicly releasing what our negotiating partners have already seen couldn't possibly undermine our negotiations because, by definition, our negotiating partners have already seen it. Here is another argument I have heard. Releasing the text of an unfinished international agreement simply isn't done; it is a breach of protocol. Well, that is not true either. As Senator Manchin pointed out, in 2001, President George W. Bush publicly released the scrubbed bracketed text of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas several months before seeking fast-track authority for that agreement. At the time, his U.S. Trade Representative said that releasing the text ``would increase public awareness and support for the trade deal.'' Guess what. Congress still approved that fast-track deal. Of course it can be done. It has been done, and it should be done. Still others say that publicly releasing the text would endanger state secrets. Wow. But this agreement is not about nuclear weapons programs or military operations. There isn't any national security information in this deal. This deal is about things such as copyright rules and labor standards. And I know the President doesn't think there is any sensitive national security information in the deal. That is why he has already committed to publicly releasing the entire text. He just won't do it until after Congress has already voted to grease the skids to make it law. That brings us to the last justification--that we should all be satisfied that the administration will release the text of the deal a few months before Congress has to vote on whether to approve it. But by then, Congress will have lost the ability to amend the deal, to stop the deal, or to slow it down. In other words, by the time you--the American public--can read the deal, your elected representatives will have lost the ability to use your input to help shape that deal. That sounds like a lousy arrangement to me. So if there are no good reasons for secrecy here, that leaves only a bad reason, and believe it or not, it is a reason I have heard people give multiple times: We should keep the deal secret because if the details were made public now, the public would oppose it. Well, that is how our democracy is supposed to work. If the TPP is mostly done and the public wouldn't support it if they could see it, then it shouldn't become the law. That is why I have introduced a simple bill with my friend from West Virginia, Senator Manchin. This bill would require the President to publicly release the scrubbed bracketed text of a trade deal at least 60 days before Congress votes on any fast-track for that deal. That would give the public, the experts, and the press an opportunity to review the deal. It would allow for some honest public debate. It would give Congress a chance to actually step in and block any special deals and giveaways that are being proposed as part of this trade deal before Congress decides whether to grease the skids to make that deal the law. If this trade deal is so great, if it will work so well for America's workers and small businesses, then make it public. We should pass this bill today and give the American people some time to read the deal before we tie ourselves to fast-track. Whether you support fast-track or oppose it, whether you support TPP or oppose it, we should all agree that we should have a robust, informed debate on something that is this important. Anything less is a disservice to the people who sent us here to work for them. So I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 1381, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Utah. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, one concern I have heard from opponents of the trade promotion authority is that trade agreements currently under discussion have been negotiated behind closed doors and that by renewing TPA, Congress would be enabling and even encouraging further secrecy. I am going to talk more on this in a minute, but there are 30 days before the President signs, 60 days after he signs where this will become well known. So I have to object to my dear colleagues' bill--I guess it is a bill at this time. I just have to object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Utah. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard this concern from opponents of trade promotion authority from time to time--that trade agreements currently under discussion have been negotiated behind closed doors and that by reviewing TPA, Congress would be enabling and even encouraging further secrecy. These arguments are particularly being made about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which is not [[Page S3211]] before us. Of course, we need to keep in mind that every Senator complaining about this supposed secrecy associated with TPP has had an opportunity to read through the current text of the agreement. And the agreement is not yet concluded. It won't be unless we pass TPA. At the same time, I would be very surprised if these same Senators decrying the secrecy of the TPP negotiations also believe that contract negotiations between unions and management should be made public or that it would be a wise negotiating tactic for a private citizen negotiating the sale of their home to post all the offers they have received on the Internet. My point is that in the midst of any high-stakes negotiation, some level of confidentiality is essential to getting a good deal, and especially in this case. That said, I certainly understand the concerns about transparency, particularly when our government is negotiating on behalf of our country. Fortunately, our TPA bill strikes a good balance to address these very concerns. Our TPA bill goes further than any previous version of TPA to promote transparency and congressional oversight of the whole trade negotiation process. First of all, under our bill, the full text of a completed trade agreement must be made public at least 60 days before the President can even sign it, giving the American people unprecedented access and knowledge of all trade agreements before they are signed and well before they are submitted to Congress. In addition, the President must submit to Congress the legal text of a trade agreement and a statement of administrative action at least 30 days before submitting an implementing bill. On top of that, our bill ensures that any Member of Congress who wants access to the unredacted negotiated text at any time during the negotiations will get it. In addition, Members of Congress will--once again, at any time during the negotiations--be able to request and receive a briefing from the U.S. Trade Representative's office on the status of the negotiations. Our bill also creates in statute a transparency officer at USTR who will consult with Congress and advise the USTR on transparency policies. This will help ensure that there are consistent transparency policies across the Agency and promote greater public understanding of trade negotiations. Now, let's be clear. I, as well as other authors of this legislation, understand the concerns we have heard from both inside and outside Congress about the need for greater transparency in the trade negotiation process. We have really worked hard to address these concerns in this legislation, and in particular the concerns of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who is a good friend, whom I admire, and who I think has brought a certain dimension to this Senate that is very important. In short, any Member of Congress who is concerned about a lack of transparency in trade negotiations should be a cosponsor of this TPA bill--that is, of course, if they are also supporters of expanded markets for U.S. exporters and the creation of high-paying American jobs. Those who oppose TPA and trade agreements outright will likely continue to use this supposed lack of transparency as an excuse to oppose the bill. Those with genuine concerns will see that this bill is the right approach. And we have tried to make it the right approach. I believe it is the right approach. I believe the administration says it is the right approach. I know the Trade Representative says it is the right approach. He has bent over backwards to inform us and to open his office and to open matters into these not-yet-concluded agreements. There is plenty of time for us to look at those agreements--any agreement that comes--and make up our own determinations at that time. So I don't believe the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts will be deprived of an ability to look into these matters, completely test the transparency, and look at these agreements in ways that I think would please any reasonable person. With that, I have had to object, but I hope we can pursue this bill and get it through as soon as we can because it will be a banner day for the President, I have to admit. He is my President, but he is not my party; yet, he is right on this. For the life of me, I can't understand why we are having so much difficulty with his and my friends on the other side. We ought to be supporting a President who has bent over backwards, through his Trade Representative and those around him, to be as open as he possibly can on this matter, at least at this particular time and I believe afterwards as well. I always feel bad when I have to object to a person's unanimous consent request, but I do object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia. Mr. MANCHIN. Will my good friend the Senator from Utah yield for a question? Mr. HATCH. I will be glad to yield for a question. Mr. MANCHIN. Senator, I have the utmost respect for you and the job you do here every day for all of us. I appreciate that. But we have a difference here. My difference is that I have to look at the people in West Virginia--fewer than 2 million people--who depend on the opportunity to make a living for themselves, and they have hard, strong feelings about what we have done over the years in trade agreements. They haven't seen an uptick in opportunity for themselves or their families. With that being said, what we have asked for here, the Senator from Massachusetts and I, is not something that has never been done before. I can't explain why President George W. Bush would have done this. Maybe it was on his own volition, saying: I am going to put out this agreement that has been scrubbed. Basically everything has been agreed on. We will let you see it and discuss it--the American people and the Senate and Congress that represents those people--to see if we have total buy-in and support. If not, we can make some adjustments and changes. He did that. That is really what we have asked for here. I respect your right to object, and I understand the process here. But the American people don't have input into this, and it has a 51-vote threshold from this day forward. So any of us who have any objections or maybe have something that would enhance this bill don't have that opportunity. That is the reason we have asked for this. I know the Senator was here and was very much involved in 2001. What was your position or your opinion when President Bush released a draft text of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, the FTAA? Do you recall, by any chance? Mr. HATCH. I don't personally recall that at this time, other than that it did pass. Mr. MANCHIN. He let everybody see it months ahead of time before he was granted the fast-track authority. He never even asked for TPA until he released it. And I am sure that you were in the majority at the time, and everyone had to support that position, I would think. Mr. HATCH. If the Senator would yield--yes, we did. We supported the President's position, if I recall correctly. There is nothing that says the President can't do that. But this bill says he must at least do certain things. Mr. MANCHIN. That is because he hasn't offered it to us. Mr. HATCH. This is a 6-year bill. Mr. MANCHIN. It is a 3-3. You are right. Mr. HATCH. There is going to be another President in 2016, whether Republican or Democrat or otherwise. So there is nothing that says the President can't do that, but we are making sure he does do that. We have done it because of questions that have been raised by people such as the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and you. We think we have put reasonable time constraints in there, especially since you can review the TPP as it exists-- although that may or may not be the final agreement. You can review that now, if you want, and that is well in advance of it. Mr. MANCHIN. Senator, again, I know you understand it. I am sure you probably have gone down into the secured room and maybe have looked through some parts yourself. But it is quite an onerous process. I couldn't take my staff person who had expertise in that arena because he did not have that clearance. So I had to go in, and I couldn't take notes out. Then on top of that, I couldn't even speak to him [[Page S3212]] about what I saw because he didn't have that clearance. I have never been through something like this. For me to go home to West Virginia and say, with all full knowledge and my ability to make a decision on the facts I have in front of me, that I support or I do not support it for these reasons--I can't really do that. I am not really sure if I could support it. Maybe I can support TPP. But I am really objectionable to TPA by not having that opportunity to have input in TPP. I think that is where I fall. And with a 51-vote threshold, I am not going to have any input to represent the people of West Virginia. With all due respect, that is where I am on this. Mr. HATCH. I understand the distinguished Senator. Let me say that we all have to make our own individual decisions here. I would encourage you to reconsider because I think we have a good bill that is far better than it has been in the past. Frankly, it is your administration that is putting this forward, and I am doing everything I can to help this administration get this through. Mr. MANCHIN. I understand. Mr. HATCH. Remember that this is the procedural mechanism that gives Congress the right to really know what is going on and to really look at these matters. That is why we put in these particular provisions, which, as far as I know, are better than they have ever been. So Members of Congress will have an opportunity to know what is in these bills. I don't know fully what is in TPP, myself, and I am going to be one of the most interested people on Earth when that comes, if not the most interested, and when we finally agree. It is still not a completed agreement, as far as I know. All I can say is I think we provide enough time in this bill for anybody who is sincere enough and dedicated enough to look at it. Mr. MANCHIN. Senator, if you do see something, let's say, as the bill unfolds and comes to its completion, that you really think is going to harm the people of Utah, you are not going to have any input to change that harm. And it is only going to take 51 votes to pass it, even if harm is in there for Utah. Mr. HATCH. We will have the ability to take this floor, and those in the House to take the House floor, and fight against it if you disagree with it and it starts to get 51 votes. The administration knows that. They know they can't do a slovenly agreement. They have got to do a good agreement in order to get both sides up here to, in a bipartisan way, accept the agreement for our country. Mr. MANCHIN. I just feel very strongly that this most reasonable thing that we have asked for is something that was done under President Bush. I think it was in his wisdom to put it out there before. There was nothing to hide. If we looked into their dialogue back at that period of time, they felt it was necessary, as Senator Warren mentioned, to get the public's buy-in, to get support from the public. So they were proud of what they put into it. I am not saying things in here aren't good and won't be good for this country. But there might be some things that could be improved upon that would make it much better for this country. I have lost 31,000 manufacturing jobs since NAFTA. It is hard when I go through my State and I look at people struggling. The jobs have not returned. They have not come to our little State. We did not see the uptick. I am not saying my State represents every State, but I am sure there are parts of every State that have been hit pretty hard by this, and we want to make sure we get this one right. That is all we have asked for. So I am sorry you had to object. I hope you understand our position on this. Mr. HATCH. I do, and I appreciate the distinguished Senator and his efforts to represent his State. I know he does a very good job. I know the senior Senator from Massachusetts is doing a very good job. We are friends. This isn't going to change that. All I can say is that we disagree respectfully. I think I have made this as palatable as we possibly could under the circumstances. The point I have been making is that the agreement is available 60 days before it is even signed. So it isn't as if people will not have a chance to look at it or to fight against it or talk to the President-- whoever that might be. The fact of the matter is that I am not sure that it should be longer than 60 plus 60 plus, I think, another 60. So all I can say is that I have to object, as manager of this bill. I never feel good about objecting to something my colleagues want. I respect your desire to have as much information as you can. I respect the senior Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. MANCHIN. Would the Senator be kind enough to yield for a question from the Senator from Massachusetts if I would yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor. Mr. MANCHIN. I yield for the Senator from Massachusetts for the purpose of a question. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts. Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I just want to say to the Senator from Utah how much I respect his leadership in this Senate and his leadership on so many important issues. All I want to say about this is that we are just asking for the trade deal to be made public before we have this crucial vote about whether there will be any opportunity in the future to amend the trade deal, to slow down the trade deal or--as the Senator from West Virginia says--if we really find objectionable parts, to be able to block it. We are just asking for some transparency before we have this crucial vote on the TPA. We don't want to see fast-track until the American public can evaluate the deal. That is all we are asking for at this point. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California. Mrs. BOXER. I would like the floor. But I would yield the floor to Senator Hatch, and then ask my friends to stay on the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from California. [...] [Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 79 (Thursday, May 21, 2015)] [Senate] [Pages S3212-S3213] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] FAST-TRACK AUTHORITY Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senators Warren and Manchin, because what they tried to do here is to give to the American people the same opportunity they had when George W. Bush was President and a trade deal was being negotiated. Before fast-track came up, everybody saw the deal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to their bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate that. I am proud to stand with them on this. And I do respect Senator Hatch. He is my dear friend. But let's be clear. When you go down to that secret room--and I had the same experience as Senator Manchin. I couldn't take the proper staffers because they didn't have the clearance. This isn't about fighting ISIS or the war in Syria or any other very high security matter. It is about a trade deal that is supposed to be negotiated in the best interests of the people of this country. All my friends are saying is that before we give this President the ability to fast-track this deal, let's look at it. Here is what happens when he gets fast-track authority: Not one Member of this Senate and not one Member of the House can offer any amendment whatsoever. I think the Senator from West Virginia was very clear on the point. What if we find out that there is something horrible in there for our State? The Senator from Massachusetts pointed out that there are whole parts of this deal--and I know I am not speaking out of turn here--where it [[Page S3213]] just says that they are still being negotiated. So how the heck do we know what we are even voting on? And here we have given away the store in this last vote so that we will not have an opportunity to make it better. When my friend talked about how many jobs were lost in West Virginia after NAFTA, my heart sank. Those are a lot of jobs in a smaller State. My State is a large State. We lost about 80,000-plus jobs. That is a lot. We are a larger State, though. Percentagewise, you had 2 million and at the time we had about 30 million. So in terms of percentages, your people suffered mightily. But we suffered mightily. More than 80,000 families lost their jobs. I don't want to keep my colleagues on the floor, but I am only going to speak for 60 seconds more because my colleague from Delaware is such a pal and said I could go before him. I have a very simple amendment I am fighting to get a vote on. Listen to what it is. It simply says you cannot get fast-track authority to negotiate with any country that doesn't pay at least a $2 minimum wage. I ask the people who are watching this debate here and at home: Do you know that out of the 12 countries we are negotiating with, 7 of them have less than a $2 minimum wage? Let me be specific. Chile has a $1.91 minimum wage. Malaysia has a $1.21 minimum wage. Peru has a $1.15 minimum wage. Mexico has an 80- cent minimum wage. Do you remember NAFTA? Let's do NAFTA. It is going to raise the standard of living in Mexico, and the Mexican people won't come across the border. We had all those factory jobs leave. And in this, Mexico is part of this deal. How about Vietnam? 58 cents. And how about Brunei and Singapore? They have no minimum wage. What kind of a chance do our workers have? I don't care how productive they are. We have the most productive workers. The people in these countries are very smart. They are terrific. Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor on that amendment. Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Ms. WARREN. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor on that amendment. Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely, I am very proud to have Senator Warren. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mrs. BOXER. What kind of chance do our workers have? Do you think a manufacturer in their right mind is going to stay here when they can go to Vietnam and have some terrific people? I know the Vietnamese community in my home State is fantastic. They are fantastic leaders. They are fantastic workers. It is sad that the ones who are left behind earn 58 cents an hour. What chance do our workers have? Now, we have 12 million manufacturing jobs left in this Nation of ours--this greatest of Nations. What kind of chance do they have? Do you know that I cannot get this amendment up for a vote? I think I know the reason. They do not want to have to vote against it. I am still hopeful. I am holding out hope. I am fighting for it. But it seems to me when you are saying to the American people: Do you want your Senator to have to go downstairs to a secure room, give up your electronics to a clerk, be told that if you take notes you have to leave them behind so the clerk can read it, but your staff cannot read it, you cannot discuss it with the people who do not have top clearance for the trade agreement? Then, you have to have the amendment that Senators Warren and Manchin have offered, which simply says: Make the trade agreement public before we give exceptional fast-track authority to any President. I do not care who it is--Democrat or Republican--this is not a partisan issue. I have voted for half of the trade agreements, so I have voted for many trade agreements but not with countries that pay slave wages. Let's be clear. This is a tough day for the U.S. Senate. I know we have been split up every which way on this, but I think there are certain things we have learned from this debate: Secrecy is no good. I respect my President. I have talked to him. I know in his heart he is doing what he thinks is right, but when he says this is not secret and everyone has access to it, I say to my President and I say to my friend Senator Hatch: This is not an open process. The secrecy is ludicrous. It is ridiculous. It is against the interests of the people we represent. I represent close to 40 million people. As Senator Manchin said, those people count on us, but if we do not know what is in an agreement, how can we be wise about what we want to say about it and what we want to do about it? I want to thank my friends for coming down here this afternoon. I know this is hard on the Senate. We are going to probably be here a very long time. But the fact is that people depend on us, and I am proud to stand with them. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware. ____________________