[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 25 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S836-S846]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRADE FACILITATION AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2015--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 644,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Conference report to accompany H.R. 644, a bill to
reauthorize trade facilitation and trade enforcement
functions and activities, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 10:30
a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate is poised to take a major
step forward in advancing a robust agenda for international trade that
better reflects the realities of the 21st century global economy. It
provides real benefits for our country.
Later today, the Senate will vote on and hopefully pass the
conference report for H.R. 644, the Trade Facilitation and Trade
Enforcement Act of 2015, legislation that we originally passed last
May.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wyden follow my
remarks in this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. I am coauthor of this legislation, and many of the
provisions in this conference report have been in the works for several
years. I also chaired the conference committee that was charged with
reconciling the differences between the Senate-passed and House-passed
versions of this bill.
In my view, the committee was a huge success. I believe our report
represents a strong bipartisan, bicameral agreement to address a number
of trade policy priorities.
I want to talk about some of the specifics of this legislation, which
most of us generally refer to as the ``Customs bill.'' Once this bill
is signed into law--and I hope it will be in short order--it will enact
policies designed to achieve three main goals.
The first goal is to facilitate and streamline the flow of legitimate
trade into and out of the United States. The bill makes a number of
changes to reduce bureaucracy and improve consultation among executive
agencies, Congress, and the private sector. These changes will
facilitate trade and improve our competitiveness by reducing
unnecessary burdens and delays created by our overly bureaucratic
system, which, in turn, will help create jobs and grow our economy.
The second major goal of the Customs bill is to improve enforcement
of our trade laws. It does so in a number of ways. For example, the
bill establishes a new, improved process at CBP for dealing with
evasion of our anti-dumping and countervailing duties laws and provides
clear direction and robust rules for identifying and addressing
currency manipulation on the part of our trading partners. It also
includes dramatic improvements to better protect U.S. intellectual
property rights. This has been a high priority for me, as most of my
colleagues know, and it is a high priority for my people in the State
of Utah, whose economy is highly dependent on strong intellectual
property rights. Combined, these enforcement provisions will provide
greater protection for American workers and consumers and help ensure
that foreign competitors will not have unfair advantages in the global
marketplace.
The third major goal of the Customs conference report is to
strengthen the trade promotion authority statute that we enacted last
year, reflecting various priorities and concerns from Members of both
parties. For example, the bill clearly and strongly reaffirms that
trade agreements should not include--and TPA procedures should not be
used dealing with respect to--immigration policy or greenhouse gas
emissions. It also creates a new negotiating objective to remove
barriers facing American fishermen who export into foreign markets, and
it provides important procedures related to the reporting of human
trafficking.
While this Customs bill was specifically designed to address these
three policy goals, it goes further to address other priorities as
well. For example, the bill will combat politically motivated boycotts,
divestments, and sanctions against Israel, bolstering our already
strong economic ties with one of our most important strategic allies.
And it provides trade preferences for Nepal in order to provide
economic recovery in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake last
year.
Before I conclude, I do want to note that a number of my colleagues,
as well as businesses and job creators around the country, were hoping
that the conference report on the Customs bill would include a
reauthorization of the miscellaneous tariff bills, or MTBs. I want to
make clear that I support MTBs and want to get them passed. That is why
they were included in the original Senate-passed version of the Customs
bill. There are, of course, some procedural concerns that complicate
the MTBs, particularly over in the House, which have made it difficult
to reach a workable compromise. However, the conference report does
include a strong sense-of-Congress statement reaffirming our shared
commitment to advancing MTB legislation in a process that provides
robust consultation and is consistent with both House and Senate rules.
I also want to reaffirm my personal commitment as chairman of the
Senate Finance Committee to work with my colleagues to find a path
forward on MTBs that will work for those on both sides of the Capitol.
Needless to say, I am very pleased with how this conference report
turned out.
I have many people I want to thank, and I will thank them once the
bill gets done. For now, I specifically want to thank the vice chair of
the conference committee, Chairman Kevin Brady, for his work on both
the committee itself and on the substance of the report.
I also want to thank the ranking member of the Finance Committee,
Senator Wyden, for his efforts to ensure passage of this conference
report. It is a pleasure to work with Senator Wyden, and we have very
much been able to work in a bipartisan way as we worked on this
committee together.
Last spring, Republicans and Democrats on the Finance Committee came
together to draft and report four major pieces of legislation, three of
which have already been signed into law. That, of course, included our
TPA bill, a bill to renew important trade preferences programs, and
another bill to reauthorize the Trade Adjustment Assistance program.
The fourth was our Customs bill, the one we will hopefully pass today.
These four bills represented the priorities of Members throughout the
Senate and on both sides of the aisle. Collectively, they will shape
the policy landscape on trade--not just here in the United States but
around the world as well--for years to come. Perhaps more importantly,
they also represent what is possible when Members of both parties work
together to achieve common goals.
Of those four bills, the Customs bill is the only one that hasn't
been enacted into law. I am cautiously optimistic that we will rectify
that later today. I am hoping that, just like the three other trade
bills, the Customs bill will pass with broad, bipartisan support.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote later today to advance the
Customs bill
[[Page S837]]
to the President's desk and to put in place these much-needed reforms.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a list of supporters of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement
Act of 2015.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015
List of Supporters
Airforwarders Association, Alliance to End Slavery and
Trafficking, Aluminum Extruders Council (AEC), American
Apparel & Footwear Association, American Association of
Exporters and Importers, American Cable Association, American
Chemistry Council, American Commitment, American Consumer
Institute, American Honey Producers Association, American
Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), American Petroleum
Institute, American Trucking Association, American Wire
Producers Association, Americans for Tax Reform, Association
of Global Automakers, BACM, California Fresh Garlic Producers
Association, Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance, Cargo
Airline Association, Christopher Ranch, Center for Freedom
and Prosperity, Center for Individual Freedom, Citizens
Against Government Waste, Coalition to Enforce Antidumping &
Countervailing Duty Orders, Coalition of Services Industries,
Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws, Competitive Carriers
Association, Competitive Enterprise Institute.
COMPTEL, Computing Technology Industry Association,
Consumer Action, Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, Council
for Citizens Against Government Waste, Crawfish Processors
Alliance, CTIA--The Wireless Association, Digital Liberty,
Discovery Institute, Etsy, Express Delivery and Logistics
Association, Fashion Accessories Shippers Association,
Footwear Distributors & Retailers of America, Foreign Trade
Association, Freedom Works, The Garlic Company, Garment
Association Nepal, Gemini Shippers Association, Global
Automakers, Heartland Institute, Hispanic Heritage
Foundation, Hispanic Leadership Fund, Hispanic Technology &
Telecommunications Council, Independent Women's Forum,
Independent Women's Voice, Information Technology &
Innovation Foundation, Institute for Policy Innovation,
Institute of Makers of Explosives, International Trade Surety
Association, The Internet Association.
ITTA--The Voice of Mid-Size Communications Companies,
Jeffersonian Project, Latino Coalition, Leggett & Platt Inc.,
LessGovernment.org, LULAC, Madery Bridge Associates, Media
Freedom, Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., Multicultural Media,
Telecom and Internet Council, Municipal Castings Association,
National Association of Black County Officials, National
Association of Chemical Distributors, National Association of
Foreign-Trade Zones, National Association of Manufacturers,
National Association of Neighborhoods, National Black Caucus
of State Legislators, National Black Chamber of Commerce,
National Cable & Telecommunications Association, National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Caucus of the Black
Aged, National Coalition for Black Civic Participation,
National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of
America, National Foreign Trade Council, National Hispanic
Council on Aging, National Industrial Transportation League,
National Organization of Black County Officials, National
Puerto Rican Coalition, National Retail Federation, National
Tank Truck Carriers, National Taxpayers Union.
NOBEL Women, Nucor Corporation, Outdoor Industry
Association, R Street Institute, Reusable Industrial
Packaging Association, Semiconductor Industry Association,
SER--Jobs for Progress, Sioux Honey Association, Small
Business and Entrepreneurship Council, Spice World, Inc./
Valley Garlic, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, TechFreedom,
Technology Councils of North America, Travel Goods
Association, United Spinal Association, U.S. Black Chamber,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Fashion Industry Association,
U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Hispanic Leadership
Institute, U.S. Internet Service Provider Association, United
States Council for International Business, United States
Telecom Association, University of British Columbia Fisheries
Centre, UPS, Vessey & Company, Women Impacting Public Policy.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the distinguished
Senator from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Hatch for his good work
and his very gracious comments.
I note our colleagues have been very patient, so I ask unanimous
consent that following my remarks, Senator Alexander be recognized for
7 minutes and, immediately after Senator Alexander, Senator Stabenow be
recognized for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Colleagues, this bill is about coming down hard on the
trade cheats who are ripping off American jobs.
The truth is, past trade policies were often too old, too slow, or
too weak for our country to fight back. This legislation says those
days are over. The legislation ushers in a new day and a fresh, modern
approach--a tougher approach--to enforcing trade laws that start moving
our Nation to a policy that I call getting trade done right. It is
about creating tough trade enforcement policies, seeing them through,
and standing up to anybody who tries to get around them. No matter how
a Senator chooses to vote on a particular new trade agreement, I hope
that stronger trade enforcement and fighting back against the trade
cheats would be a priority for every Senator.
The reality is, the amount of cheating that is going on is
staggering. It takes your breath away. We saw it a couple of years ago
when we set up a sting operation and in effect invited the cheaters to
have at it. We were deluged with those who wanted to skirt the laws,
use shell games, sophisticated schemes, and fraudulent records to evade
duties. You would smile at some of the inventiveness involved if we
didn't see how painful it was for the American companies getting ripped
off this way.
One of the most common schemes--one of the biggest loopholes involves
something called merchandise laundering. In effect, when a company gets
busted for violating the trade laws, the countervailing duty laws, in
effect they go to another country and slap a label on it and are able
to skirt the laws. Because his companies that make honey were victims
of this, at one point Senator Schumer, my colleague on the Finance
Committee, said: What is going on is honey laundering, but it is not
very sweet for the people who are getting ripped off. That is what we
seek to change.
I could thank a lot of colleagues of both political parties for their
good work here, but I just want to single out a few on our side. I know
Senator Hatch is going to say more about colleagues on his side.
I particularly want to praise Senator Brown. Senator Brown led the
fight repeatedly to close outlandish loopholes that allow products made
with slave and child labor to be imported into the United States. What
the old law basically says is that economics trumped human rights--that
if there was an economic reason for using slave and child labor, you
could do it. We have closed that loophole. There was bipartisan support
for it, and I commend Senator Brown for this.
Senator Stabenow made a successful effort to have a more coordinated
approach so that the left hand and the right hand would know what was
being done in terms of trade enforcement. We now have a trade
enforcement center that is going to do that.
Senator Cantwell worked to ensure that we have an important new trust
fund--a trust fund for trade enforcement. It ought to be a priority to
lock in all of the funds necessary to help protect our workers and
businesses.
Senator Shaheen led the fight in order to ensure that smaller
businesses had a bigger seat at the table in terms of the effort to
reach new markets. I commend her for it.
Senator Bennet in particular did very good work with respect to trade
enforcement in the environmental area. The package directs the trade
negotiators to act against illegal fishing and the trade of stolen
timber--something the Senator from Arkansas and I know a great deal
about. I am also very pleased because Senator Bennet and others worked
hard to ensure that this legislation goes further than ever before to
fight the currency manipulators and stop them from undercutting our
workers and our businesses.
At the end of the day, Democrats and Republicans came together. There
were spirited debates about trade agreements and whether to pass new
ones. What this is all about is just the opposite--just the opposite--
of a new trade agreement. This is about making sure we get tough and
enforce the laws on the books for what we already have. There shouldn't
be any dispute about that, and, certainly in the Finance Committee,
Democrats and Republicans were united.
Finally, I want to make one last point. I am glad the distinguished
Senator from Tennessee is on the floor. I am very pleased that there
has been an agreement with the majority leader,
[[Page S838]]
the Senator from Tennessee, and the senior Senator from Illinois so
that the ideas Senator Alexander wants are going to get heard on the
floor of the Senate. His interests are going to be heard and discussed
fully. I want to assure him that there aren't going to be any kind of
procedural delays and objections when that is done. He is going to have
a chance to have his concerns heard and a vote on them, based on what I
have been told about the agreement with the majority leader.
In this bill, there is a chance for the Congress to finish the job of
something I think is also important, and that is to say on a permanent
basis--a permanent basis--we are not going to have regressive taxes on
Internet access and discrimination, particularly against working
families for whom, if there were regressive taxes on working families
who rely on Internet access to get information about education and
employment opportunities, we would harm those families at a time when
they are already walking on an economic tightrope, balancing their food
bill against their fuel bills and rent bill against energy costs. We
shouldn't have regressive taxes on Internet access. With this
legislation, we can ensure that will not happen. It has been a
bipartisan effort for nearly 20 years, and with this we can say no to
those regressive taxes as a result of the work that was done. As I
noted, the concerns Senator Alexander wishes to raise are going to be
heard in the future as well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his
courtesy this morning. I appreciate the senator's remarks on allowing
our different points of view to come to the floor and let's vote on it.
He is speaking, of course, about the Marketplace Fairness Act, which is
a 12-page bill which represents a two-word issue: States' rights.
The Majority Leader has said we'll have the ability to vote on that
sometime before the end of the year. It is a bipartisan bill. It passed
the Senate 2 years ago with 69 votes. It recognizes that States have
the right to decide for themselves whether to collect their State sales
taxes from all of the people who owe the taxes or some of the people
who owe the taxes. It would allow States to do that if they simplify
tax administration and exempt small online sellers from collection
requirements. It would create a pathway for States and localities
across the country to begin collecting an estimated $23 billion
annually in uncollected taxes--taxes that are already owed. They can
then use that money to balance their budget, to reduce other taxes, to
pay for vital services.
I don't think Tennessee or any other State should have to play
``Mother, may I?'' with the Federal Government when deciding whether to
collect, or not collect, a State tax that is already owed.
I can say to our friends on both sides of the aisle, the States are
not going to put up with this for very much longer. If Congress
continues to be an obstacle to States making their own decisions about
their tax structures, governors are going to be suing companies around
the country and say, if you are going to sell in our State, you are
going to collect the tax that everybody owes. At that point, all those
businesses are going to run to us and say: Please pass the Marketplace
Fairness Act.
I don't think we get any wiser about flying to Washington--one hour
in my case--every week than the Governor and the legislature about what
our tax structure ought to be. We don't like an income tax in
Tennessee, so we have a sales tax. We don't need any incentives from
Washington to force us to pass an income tax in Tennessee.
Let me say a word about the vote today. I ask the chair, since I
noticed the Senator from Michigan is on the floor, to please let me
know when all but 30 seconds has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. ALEXANDER. As far as the vote today goes, this distinguished body
seems to have developed a case of amnesia. We seem to have forgotten
what happened in 1994. 300 Republicans stood on the steps of the
Capitol with the Contract with America and said: If we break our
contract, throw us out.
One goal of that contract was to stop Washington from imposing
unfunded mandates on States. One of my most vivid memories is Senator
Bob Dole running around the country with a copy of the Constitution and
reading the Tenth Amendment to Governors. The Tenth Amendment says:
``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States. . . .
''
He said that. I was there. We were both running for President at the
time. The Tenth Amendment was the heart and soul of the Contract with
America. Senator Dole was good to his word. The first bill in the
Senate after the Republican Revolution in 1994 was a bill prohibiting
unfunded mandates. Republicans opposed unfunded mandates then. They
should oppose them today. According to the Republican conference rules,
``The Senate Republican Conference believes that Congress should not
create new federal unfunded mandates on state and local governments.''
However, today the vote we are about to cast breaks that promise. The
Customs bill has a provision that permanently extends the so-called
Internet Tax Freedom Act. It prohibits State and local governments from
taxing access to the Internet. It tells seven States that are currently
collecting a tax that they can't continue to collect. These seven
States will lose $100 million in 2020 and several hundred million each
year after that.
This was not even considered by the House or the Senate when they
passed the bill. It was airdropped in violation of rule XXVIII, so the
vote we are casting today, a ``yes'' vote, violates the Contract with
America, violates the Senate Republican rules, and violates the
Senate's rules.
I will agree there may be a Federal interest in not taxing Internet
access. I agreed with that in the 1990s. Maybe for the first three
years there should have been a moratorium when the Internet came along,
but where will it end? If you tell States they can't tax access to the
Internet, you can also tell them they can't tax access to telephones or
food or gas because all of those are important to interstate commerce.
It is wrong for Washington to be telling States what their tax
structure ought to be. We are not any wiser than the Governor of
Tennessee. We're not any wiser than the State legislature in Tennessee.
We should leave those decisions to them.
That is my objection to the bill today. Instead of voting to oppose
another unfunded mandate that tells States what not to do, Congress
should consider passing the Marketplace Fairness Act later this year.
We should not fall into this bad habit that existed before the
Republican revolution of 1994, of assuming that just because we were
elected to come to Washington, suddenly we are wiser than all the
Governors and all of the legislatures. They are not quite as wise, we
are saying. We ought not to be telling them what to do about their tax
structure. We ought to leave that to them as the Senate Republican
rules say, as the Contract with America said, and as the Tenth
Amendment to the Constitution says. Let States do their job, and let us
do our job.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Michigan.
Flint, Michigan, Water Crisis
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I commend my friend and colleague
from Tennessee and share his feelings about passing the Marketplace
Fairness Act. I hope we are going to see that happen as soon as
possible.
I am joined on the floor by my dear friend and colleague from
Michigan. We are united in speaking out about the urgent crisis in
Flint.
If you will let me know when I have consumed 6 minutes, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
Ms. STABENOW. Over the last couple of weeks, we have been negotiating
and negotiating with the chair of the Energy Committee, the ranking
member, and with other colleagues on the other side of the isle. I want
to particularly thank our ranking member who has stood with us day
after day in the effort to make sure we can get some help for the
children and the families of Flint. I thank our colleagues on this side
of the aisle for standing with us as well.
We have been looking for an opportunity, a way to come together to
help
[[Page S839]]
a group of Americans. That is what we do in the Senate. When someone
has a crisis, we work together, State by State, to step up and be able
to provide some assistance as Americans.
I have had the honor and pleasure to negotiate a number of bipartisan
agreements while I have been here almost 16 years, working with
colleagues to pass a very complicated farm bill, working on many
different issues together across the aisle. I know that when you want
to get things done, you can. It is just a matter of having the will to
do it. When you don't want to get things done, you come to the floor
and attack the people you are supposed to be negotiating with and you
negotiate in the press. Unfortunately, that is what we have seen in
recent days. That is why we are so deeply concerned about the fact that
there is not the resolve to come together to be able to help the
children of Flint, the families of Flint, and then move on with the
Energy bill that there is bipartisan interest in passing.
Every time we have thought we had an agreement, we changed things to
reflect a proposal, a structure from the majority on the Energy
Committee, and every time we think we have something, the rug has been
pulled out from under us after hours and hours of work. Frankly, I feel
like Charlie Brown when Lucy is pulling the football away time after
time. That is exactly what has been happening.
We have had one exception though. I want to give a real thank-you and
shout-out to Senator Inhofe because we spent all last weekend putting
together a bipartisan, fully paid-for proposal that not only will help
the families and children of Flint but create the opportunity for
colleagues across the country to get help with water infrastructure
projects.
There are multiple areas. We have them in Michigan, other areas
outside of Flint. They are not devastated like Flint is with their
entire system corroded, the children poisoned, and the water system
shut down, but there are multiple issues around water. We joined
together with the distinguished chair of the EPW and have come together
in good faith with a proposal we can't get a vote on, unfortunately. We
cannot get the willingness to put before us where we could vote
together on something that would address Flint but also help others.
I thank Senator Inhofe, and we are going to continue to work with him
to get that proposal or some other comprehensive proposal in front of
us.
It has also been extremely disappointing, though, to see Republican
leadership come to the floor, colleagues who have had millions, in
fact, billions of dollars funneled to their States for various
emergencies over the years, come and tell us that what is happening on
lead poisoning for these children, what is happening in Flint where you
can't drink the water today, yesterday, the day before, 18 months and
longer now, tomorrow, the next day, where you have to bathe these
babies in bottled water, brush your teeth in bottled water, try to
figure out how to take a shower in bottled water, that this is a local
issue.
Right now we have a fully funded Federal Disaster Relief Fund that we
passed last year in the omnibus--fully funded, billions of dollars.
Over the years it has paid for a water main break in Boston, a chemical
spill in West Virginia, a fertilizer plant explosion in West Texas.
Local issue? State issue? I am not sure why that was Federal,
necessarily. Right now there is somewhere between $6 billion and $7
billion sitting in an account to respond to disasters, and we are only
asking for a very small amount of those funds, to see and recognize and
respect and care about the children and families of Flint, MI, a small
withdrawal from that account to help children who have been poisoned by
lead--9,000 children under the age of 6. Some parts of the city lead
exposure is so high. It is higher than a toxic waste dump. How would we
feel if this were our children, our grandchildren? I know how I would
feel.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 6 minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Presiding Officer.
I am going to take 1 additional minute to emphasize the fact that
yesterday our colleague from Texas said we are too optimistic trying to
get help, while at the same time the President was signing a Federal
disaster declaration allowing additional Federal aid for 25 counties in
Texas.
Since 2005, we have sent $9.75 billion to Texas, including $1 billion
that I got in the farm bill on livestock disaster assistance, which is
not a major issue in the State of Michigan, but it is for other
colleagues, and $1 billion has gone to someone who said: We, as a
group, should not care about Flint, MI.
Let me just say, I think the folks in Flint deserve their money back.
They have been paying to help Americans across this country, and now
they don't have the dignity or respect to be able to have some small
assistance to stop the poisoning and to create some dignity and respect
for these families and help for these children.
This child is an American too. We are not going to stop. We will
negotiate in good faith. We will continue to do that, but we are not
going to stop until we recognize, support, and help the families of
Flint.
Mr. President, I would like to yield the remainder of my time to my
friend from Michigan, Senator Peters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Pesident, I wish to thank Senator Stabenow for her
leadership on this issue and I share her frustration. We have been
together, standing up, fighting to bring resources to Flint to deal
with this absolutely catastrophic situation in Flint, MI. We have
reached out to our Republican colleagues. We have had some very
positive conversations, but as we have those positive conversations, as
the Senator said in her comments, it seems as if it unravels right when
we are very close to making it a reality. As a new Member of this body,
I am completely at a loss for understanding why that is. Why is it that
Members of the Senate can't step up for all Americans who are
suffering?
As you mentioned in the disaster fund, we have a disaster fund that
is designed specifically for events like we have seen in Flint. You
mentioned the West Texas explosion. We have had water main breaks in
Massachusetts, a Caribbean oil corporation refinery explosion in Puerto
Rico, a bridge collapse in Minneapolis, a chemical spill in West
Virginia. The list goes on and on. When we have had some sort of
tragedy around this country, the U.S. Senate steps up and says: We are
compassionate. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is
about the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for debate has expired.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, we need to do that as well. We have pay-
fors for the disaster fund. We identified and came forward with a pay-
for that would end a tax loophole--a tax benefit--for golf courses
where wealthy individuals can give an easement to a golf course and
donate land. If we eliminate that--in fact, some Republicans have
argued for the very elimination of this tax deduction--it will help to
pay for the infrastructure and it will help to pay for the children of
Flint.
I know some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to
protect those wealthy donors and their golf courses, but I believe the
children of Flint are more important. I believe the people of Flint are
more important. The fact that they have been poisoned by lead--
something that creates irreparable damage to their brains--is something
that will impact their lives forever.
How can you look into the face of the children of Flint knowing they
have this brain damage as a result of this catastrophic situation and
yet say no to a disaster fund to pay for it, say no to closing a tax
break for wealthy folks who are giving land to golf courses? How can
you put golf course easements ahead of the children of Flint? We need
to stand up as a body and understand that this is a crisis of
unimaginable proportions, and we can do better. The United States can
do better. The Congress can do better.
The fact that we are not coming together to do this is why people
have such disdain for this body--the Senate and the House--because they
think
[[Page S840]]
that in times of crisis, we pick and choose whom we help. Let's not
pick and choose whom we help. Let's help everybody. Let's help the
people of Flint. Let's help the children of Flint and show that we are
a compassionate country and that we do not pick and choose. Everybody
should get our support.
I hope we can come together and compromise. We need to take some of
these pay-fors and do what is necessary to address this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question,
I wish to ask the Senators from Michigan whether they were aware that
the Governor has made a request of the Michigan Legislature for at
least $195 million to help the families and the community of Flint?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for debate has expired.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I just want to ask the Senators from
Michigan whether they are aware of the request that the Governor has
made to address the crisis that they have identified in Flint and
whether they feel like that money, the $195 million, would be applied
to the same problem they have identified.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I may respond to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. The Governor of Michigan sent a letter to the President
asking for close to $800 million in disaster assistance to deal with
all of the issues we are talking about. What we have been working to do
is ask for Federal help for about 25 percent of that, with the balance
of it being paid for by the State of Michigan.
The State of Michigan certainly has incredible culpability related to
this matter. We understand they are addressing this issue, and it is
about time that they did that. It does not take the place of our
helping the people of Flint and helping to solve this issue as much as
any other issue we have talked about today.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know all time has expired. I yield the
floor, and we will continue this discussion at some other time.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the conference
report to accompany H.R. 644, an act to reauthorize trade
facilitation and trade enforcement functions and activities,
and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, David Perdue, Pat Roberts, Roy Blunt,
Chuck Grassley, Shelley Moore Capito, Richard Burr,
Mike Crapo, Thad Cochran, John Thune, John Hoeven, Tim
Scott, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, Kelly Ayotte, Tom
Cotton, Orrin G. Hatch.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
conference report to accompany H.R. 644, an act to reauthorize trade
facilitation and trade enforcement functions and activities, and for
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 73, nays 22, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]
YEAS--73
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--22
Alexander
Baldwin
Boxer
Brown
Durbin
Enzi
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Reed
Reid
Rounds
Schatz
Schumer
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--5
Cruz
Graham
Rubio
Sanders
Sullivan
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 73, the nays are
22.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I would like to announce for our
colleagues that we expect the Chair to put the question to the body on
adoption of the conference report once we are finished with speakers,
which will be around noon; then there will be another vote at 1:45 p.m.
this afternoon on an Iowa district judge before leaving for the recess.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Madam President, for your recognition.
Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session
to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 365; that the Senate
proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination
and, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. On behalf of Senator Rubio, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. UDALL. Madam President, this is about the nomination of Roberta
Jacobson to be Ambassador to Mexico. This is one of the critical
positions with one of our Nation's largest trading partners. It has now
been vacant for over half a year.
Important work is left undone. We also have in this individual,
Roberta Jacobson, a highly qualified career nominee. She is ready to
serve. She has solid support on both sides of the aisle. There is no
doubt in this Senator's mind--and I think many Senators' minds--that we
need a strong Ambassador in Mexico City to represent our interests.
Mexico is working with us to stop those who cross our southern border
illegally. Mexico is our third largest trading partner. One million
American citizens live in Mexico. It is our top tourist destination
with millions of U.S. visitors going to Mexico every year. There is a
lot of work to be done on combatting illegal drug trade, including the
trafficking of illegal opioids, reforming the judiciary, and creating
economic opportunities on both sides of the border. That is something
we are working on together, and we are working together to address
immigration issues while cracking down on deadly border violence.
In New Mexico, we know the importance of this position and this
partnership with Mexico. My State shares a border with Mexico; we also
share a cultural heritage and trade that grow with Mexico every year.
Exports from New Mexico to Mexico have soared from over $70 million 15
years ago to $1.5 billion a year now. Over 36,000 jobs
[[Page S841]]
in my State depend on U.S.-Mexico trade. Arizona, California, and Texas
also share similar and deep relations with the Mexican people, and not
confirming this nominee harms those States as well.
Let me just say a word about Roberta Jacobson. She is a dedicated
public servant. The LA Times has called Roberta Jacobson ``among the
most qualified people ever to be tapped to represent the U.S. in
Mexico.'' Roberta has worked on the Merida Initiative to fight drug
trafficking and organized crime in Mexico. She has served ably as
Assistant Secretary for the Western Hemisphere Affairs at the State
Department.
Last year the President reestablished diplomatic relations with Cuba.
After over 50 years of a failed policy with Cuba, Roberta helped
negotiate this historic shift, giving the United States an opportunity
to engage with the Cuban people. Time and again she did her job and she
did it very well. She was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee with bipartisan support. This was weeks ago, and still we
wait for this nomination to come to the floor and get a vote.
It is hard to explain to my constituents that we do not have an
ambassador to Mexico because a few Senators disagree with the
President's policy on Cuba. They don't understand it. The folks back
home don't understand it, and neither do I. This is not just the
President's team, this is our team. This is America's team working on
trade, on security, moving our economy, and moving all of us forward.
We need an ambassador in Mexico City. Roberta Jacobson is more
qualified to serve than anybody that has been put up in many, many
years. I know we have an objective now, but I would urge my colleagues
to sort this out and bring it to the floor, and I would ask the
leadership to make this a priority.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the
conference report to accompany the Trade Facilitation and Trade Customs
conference report on which we just had a cloture vote. I was very
pleased to see 73 U.S. Senators vote in favor of proceeding to and
getting a final vote on the conference report. It is important because
this legislation represents the most significant update to our trade
enforcement policies in over a decade, and its passage today and
enactment into law will demonstrate yet again that this Congress is
working in a bipartisan manner.
This bill is important for a lot of reasons. First and foremost, this
legislation is about trade enforcement. This bill gives the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection new tools to combat unfair trade
practices, thus protecting American jobs and American workers. These
enforcement provisions are important to a wide range of American
manufacturers, which is why the National Association of Manufacturers
and the American Iron and Steel Institute strongly support this bill.
In fact, there are approximately 100 organizations and businesses that
have expressed public support for this bill. For any Senator who has
manufacturing in his or her State, supporting this conference report
should be a no-brainer.
These enforcement provisions are important to many other sectors of
the economy as well. Take honey producers, for example, who in my home
State make South Dakota one of the top honey-producing States in the
Nation. Back in 2011, I was the ranking member of the Trade
Subcommittee of the Finance Committee, and Senator Wyden was the
chairman of that subcommittee. We held a hearing on the topic of how
America can better enforce our trade laws, and we heard testimony from
Richard Adee, a well-known honey producer in my home State of South
Dakota about the problem of honey laundering. Simply put, honey
laundering is the practice of unscrupulous honey producers in China
using third-party countries to circumvent tariffs on dumped Chinese
honey. Over the past decade this has been a major problem, costing U.S.
honey producers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue.
As one example of this practice, consider Malaysia, a nation with the
capacity to produce about 45,000 pounds of honey annually. Get this:
Malaysia has exported as much as 37 million pounds of honey to the
United States in a year--well beyond its production capacity. Clearly
this honey is not coming from Malaysia. It is Chinese honey being
transshipped through that nation.
The legislation we are considering today is finally going to give
customs the tools it needs to help crack down on this practice. This
will not only benefit honey producers in my State, it will benefit
farmers all across the country whose crops depend upon bees for
pollination and will benefit American consumers who can buy American
honey with confidence.
While this bill is about enforcing our trade laws, it is also about
making it easier for American businesses to engage in trade. This is
especially important to small businesses that may not always have the
resources or the expertise to access foreign markets.
The conference report before us includes a provision that I authored
with Ranking Member Wyden that would update the so-called de minimis
threshold for imports from $200 per product to $800 per product. The
bill also includes an amendment that Senator Bennet and I offered at
the Finance Committee, calling on our trading partners to follow our
lead in this area. What this simply means is that if someone starts a
small business selling goods on the Internet and he or she needs to
import a component part in order to make a product, we are going to
significantly reduce the paperwork and cost involved in doing so. This
is the reason that online marketplaces such as Etsy and eBay, as well
as express shippers like UPS and FedEx, are so supportive of this
legislation. These companies understand what millions of American
entrepreneurs understand: The Internet truly is the shipping lane of
the 21st century.
This bill will empower more Americans to engage in global commerce
both through the Internet and through more traditional means. This
conference report will also help to ensure that access to the Internet,
which is so important for global commerce, remains unencumbered.
This legislation includes a provision to make the existing ban on
Internet access taxes permanent--something that Senator Wyden and I
have championed and a measure that has broad bipartisan support. The
Internet Tax Freedom Act has been extended eight times since it was
first enacted in 1998. As I mentioned earlier, the Internet is
increasingly a gateway to economic opportunity, often in the form of
accessing new markets abroad.
As the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, one of my top
priorities is expanding access to high-speed Internet from our inner
cities to our most rural communities, and keeping access to the
Internet unburdened by new taxes is an important step in that
direction.
This Internet tax freedom provision is strongly supported by a broad
spectrum of technology, cable, and telecom companies. It is also
something that will benefit America's manufacturers. As the National
Association of Manufacturers wrote recently in an op-ed supporting this
bill: ``The Internet has become a critical piece of infrastructure for
manufacturers in the United States, and permanently extending the ban
on state and local taxes on Internet access will continue to foster
investment in broadband networks.''
I was especially pleased that we were able to include a provision in
the conference report granting States that already apply taxes on
Internet access more than 4 years to adjust to the new law. I am
confident this will give Congress the time necessary to address other
important issues relating to Internet taxation.
Enactment of the permanent ITFA provision in this bill will clear the
path for consideration of legislation empowering States when it comes
to collecting sales taxes that are owed. I intend to continue to
support efforts to ensure that we have a level playing field when it
comes to the taxation of Internet commerce--something that is very
important in my home State of South Dakota.
Last but certainly not least, I want to point out that this
conference report includes provisions strongly in support of our ally,
the State of Israel. Unfortunately, we have seen a disturbing
[[Page S842]]
trend in recent years where some nations are attempting to discriminate
against Israeli-made goods for political reasons. This legislation
creates a new principal trade-negotiating objective under trade
promotion authority designed to discourage these unfair practices
against Israel. Once this conference report becomes law, if a foreign
nation proposes a new trade agreement with the United States, that
nation will need to demonstrate that it does not have politically
motivated discriminatory policies in place against our strongest ally
in the Middle East.
I commend Senator Cardin and others who worked diligently to update
our trade laws with respect to harmful actions against the State of
Israel. I am pleased that we are finally seeing these efforts come to
fruition.
Enactment of this legislation into law will represent a win for
American manufacturers and farmers, a win for American producers, who
have been harmed by unfairly traded Chinese goods, a win for small
business owners looking to engage in global commerce, a win for
consumers who depend upon Internet access that is accessible and
affordable, and a win for those of us who want to stand up and support
the State of Israel when that nation is being unfairly targeted. But
all of that will be at risk if we do not pass this conference report.
The House of Representatives has been very clear that it will not take
up this bill again. All the good things in this bill that I mentioned
will die. They will not become law if we do not pass the conference
report as it is. The House approved this conference report over a month
and a half ago. It is past time that we do the same. Let's get this
done today and send this bill to the President for his signature. Let's
continue to work together on other issues that still need to be
addressed.
I thank Finance Committee Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden for
all of their hard work in getting us to this point. I hope the Senate
will go on record--and I urge my colleagues to support this important
trade enforcement legislation--in what I hope will be a very big and
decisive vote.
This legislation is good for America. It demonstrates once again that
the Senate takes seriously its responsibility to get results and get
things done for the American people. It is good for our economy, it is
good for jobs, and it is good for the overall health and vitality of
our country.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today to express my concerns with
the Customs conference report. While I support the Customs provisions
in this conference report, as well as the Internet tax moratorium, I
cannot support the way these issues were merged in conference.
I have said for years that the Internet Tax Freedom Act should be
paired with e-fairness legislation because I think it is reasonable to
tell the States that when we take away their ability to tax Internet
access, we are giving them the ability to collect the State and local
sales and use taxes already owed on remote sales. It is beyond time for
Congress to give States that right. Congress's failure to act has
created a burden on our States and local governments, which are losing
billions in tax revenue that they need for local responsibilities.
As a former mayor and State legislator, I understand how important
sales tax revenue is to State and local governments for maintaining
schools, fixing roads, and supporting local law enforcement, fire
departments, and emergency management crews.
Congress's inaction on e-fairness legislation implicitly blesses a
situation in which States may be forced to raise other taxes, such as
income or property taxes, to offset the growing loss of sales tax
revenue. In December, in-store sales were about the same as the year
before, but Internet sales grew by about 40 percent.
To be clear, we are talking about a substantial loss in revenue. In
2012, States missed out on an estimated $23 billion in uncollected but
owed use taxes from all remote sales. About $61 million of that would
have gone to my home State of Wyoming. Those numbers increase every
year as online sales increase. States missed the opportunity to collect
an estimated $26 billion in remote sales and use taxes in 2013. Wyoming
lost an estimated $81.2 million, so $61 million to $81 million.
Congress's failure to act is also hurting our local stores, which
hire local people who support local events and help out in the
community. The same stores that are required to collect State and local
sales and use taxes while their online and catalog competitors are not.
As a former small business owner, I believe it is important to level
the playing field for all retailers--in-store, catalog, and online--so
an outdated rule for sales tax collection does not adversely impact
small businesses and Main Street retailers. I have given the example
before of a friend in Sheridan who has a camera store. He has people
come in and look at some very expensive cameras and get all of the
instructions and find out about all of the accessories. Then they just
take a little picture of the bar code on that and order it online. The
difference in price? The sales tax. He provides the service, but loses
the sale, and it is because the sales tax is not collected online. That
is not fair. I used to have a shoe store. The same thing is true. They
can get the fit they need, the adjustments they need, and know exactly
the shoe they want. Check the bar code online. What is the difference?
The sales tax. It really hurts if they order it in front of you.
Televisions, bicycles--there are all kinds of examples of this same
sort of thing happening.
This issue also affects online stores. More and more States are
successfully implementing their own laws to ensure they can collect
these remote sales and use taxes. They are doing it piecemeal. This
will create a patchwork of complicated, uniquely tailored, and
incongruent laws for all businesses to comply with.
For many years I have worked with all interested parties to find a
mutually agreeable way to solve this problem. But instead of taking up
legislation that prevents taxation of Internet access and also helps
State and local governments and businesses, we have a conference report
before us that includes the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which was just
dropped in without any separate vote or debate. The Senate has not
considered it in the committee nor on the floor.
Instead of considering this inserted issue now, we should have
combined it with legislation that restores States' sovereign right to
enforce State and local sales and use tax laws. What I am proposing is
not a tax on the Internet. I am opposed to that. Rather, e-fairness
legislation would give States the option to collect their sales and use
taxes already due on all purchases.
Unlike this airdropped Internet Tax Freedom Act provision, the Senate
has overwhelmingly voted in support of e-fairness with a bipartisan
group of 69 Senators supporting the Marketplace Fairness Act in the
last Congress, and we were not even able to get a vote on our
amendment.
I thank my colleagues who have worked so hard on this issue,
especially Senators Durbin, Alexander, and Heitkamp. I thank the
businesses, the trade groups, the State and local governments, and all
of the other stakeholders who have helped us educate offices about this
issue. I thank the leader for listening to our concerns about this
conference report. But ultimately I oppose the conference report
because, while Congress should pass the Customs bill and this provision
this year, Congress should also pass e-fairness legislation this year
that allows States to collect the sales and use taxes they are owed for
remote sales already.
I yield the floor.
Amending 19 U.S.C., Section 1501
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, the bill we will be voting on shortly
contains a provision amending 19 U.S.C., section 1501, which relates to
the liquidation of entries into the U.S. The provision in the
conference report amending section 1501 is intended to ensure in cases
where liquidation occurs by operation of law, the 90-day timeframe for
the voluntary reliquidation of an entry by Customs and Border
[[Page S843]]
Protection begins on the date of the original liquidation.
I would ask my colleague, Senator Wyden, the ranking member of the
Finance Committee, if that is his understanding of this provision as
well.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I agree with Senator Hatch. That is the
intent of the provision amending 19 U.S.C., section 1501.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I am pleased to have been one of the
conferees to H.R. 644, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act
of 2015.
There are many important provisions in this legislation, some of
which I helped to draft.
There is one such provision that I particularly want to highlight.
Honey producers in my State of South Dakota as well as producers of
honey, crawfish, garlic, and mushrooms around the country, have
suffered for 15 years because of unfair dumping from China. Senator
Wyden and I have worked together for 5 years to ensure that the trade
laws were enforced in these cases.
Unfortunately, the latest struggles have been more with U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, CBP, than with Chinese dumpers.
Duties collected on dumped imports and all interest on those duties
from 2000 and 2007 were to be paid to the injured domestic producers to
allow them to reinvest and rebuild. For reasons that defy simple
explanation, CBP ignored the direction of the statute to pay all
interest to producers and instead deducted some types of interest from
payments to producers.
In effect, this practice amounted to forcing South Dakota honey
producers to pay for the delays caused by Chinese dumpers, the U.S.
insurance companies that posted bond for the duties, and in some cases
of CBP itself. This practice defies the plain language of the statute
and cost domestic producers tens of millions of dollars over the years.
During the Finance Committee markup of this legislation, Senator
Grassley, Senator Nelson, and I offered an amendment which is included
in this conference report that corrects CBP's misreading of the law.
This is an important victory for honey, crawfish, garlic, and mushroom
that have suffered from Chinese dumping and CBP's unfounded practice.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I wish to support the trade
enforcement conference report--legislation that will level the playing
field for American businesses and help them reach foreign markets.
This bill is aimed at supporting American businesses in an
increasingly global economy. It makes sure our economic competitors
play by the rules and helps our small businesses sell their products to
new markets overseas.
This bill passed the Senate 78-20 last March, with every single
Member of the Democratic Caucus supporting it.
While I recognize that there were changes made in the conference
committee, this legislation still contains critical mechanisms to
ensure fair trade for American businesses and workers.
I believe that the United States can out-compete and out-innovate any
economy in the world, but to do that, we need a level playing field,
and that means making sure our competitors are playing by the rules.
This legislation contains some of the strongest trade enforcement
provisions that we have seen in decades. It gives Federal authorities
the tools they need to enforce U.S. trade laws at the border and hold
our trading partners accountable. It includes the ENFORCE Act, a
critical measure to ensure that businesses and workers harmed by unfair
trade can have their claims investigated and resolved quickly. And it
strengthens the Treasury Department's ability to address currency
manipulation.
This bill also contains language I authored that makes sure that our
small businesses are able to take advantage of new trade opportunities
and reach new markets. Even though 95 percent of the world's customers
live overseas, less than 1 percent of small- and medium-sized
businesses in the United States sell to global markets. By comparison,
more than 40 percent of large businesses sell their products overseas.
The conference report includes my small business trade amendment,
which would help narrow that gap by reauthorizing the successful State
Trade and Export Promotion grant program, better known as the STEP
program. STEP was created as a pilot program to help States work with
small businesses to reach in the international marketplace, and just a
few years in, it has been a great success. Already, the STEP Program
has helped small businesses reach 85 country markets, resulting in over
$1.1 billion in export sales for a return on Federal taxpayer
investment of 19:1. In reauthorizing this program, we are giving small
businesses a real chance to expand their markets, grow their
businesses, and create new jobs.
I want to thank Senate Finance Committee Chairman Hatch and Ranking
Member Wyden for working with me to include my small business trade
amendment in the final bill.
The conference report before us today will keep American companies
competitive. It will help small businesses sell overseas. And it will
help drive innovation online.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and oppose efforts to
prevent it from moving forward today.
(At the request of Ms. Murkowski, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, as the final piece of the
robust trade package that we completed last year, the Customs report
that accompanies the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act
allows authorities to aggressively enforce U.S. trade laws and provides
enhanced authorities to protect obligations gained under international
trade agreements and rights under U.S. intellectual property laws.
In my home State of Alaska, trade currently supports more than 90,000
jobs, which is more than one in five of all jobs in the State. Per
capita, Alaska is one of the top exporters in the country. We are the
top exporter of fish and seafood products in the Nation.
I worked hard to secure a provision in the Customs package that, for
the first time, establishes a principal negotiating objective on
fisheries that reduces or eliminates tariffs and nontariff barriers,
eliminates subsidies that distort trade, and opens new markets for
American fish, seafood, and shellfish products around the globe.
With the global marketplace becoming more competitive and
increasingly challenging, it is vital that the United States focus its
efforts on maximizing our ability to export our goods and services
abroad in order to create more opportunity and good-paying jobs for all
Americans.
Mr. ENZI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Remembering Philip Rock
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this morning at Old St. Patrick's Church
in downtown Chicago, there was a funeral service for an extraordinary
public servant, the late senate president Phil Rock.
On January 29, Illinois lost one of its most principled leaders and
one of its finest public servants. He was a good friend of mine and a
good friend of my wife's as well.
Before retiring from politics in 1993, Phil Rock represented
Chicago's Oak Park and parts of the West Side of the city of Chicago.
He spent 14 of those years as the longest serving Illinois Senate
president. During part of that time, I had the opportunity to be by his
side and to work as his senate parliamentarian.
People used to say Phil Rock was born a Catholic, a Democrat, and a
Chicago Cubs fan, but not necessarily in that order. Phil was also a
dedicated public servant.
Before Phil Rock became a public servant, he almost became a priest.
He was born and lived much of his life in the Midway Park section of
the Austin part of Chicago. He attended Quigley Preparatory Seminary
and went on to the University of St. Mary of the Lake in Mundelein, IL.
But instead of becoming a priest, he became a lawyer.
[[Page S844]]
After graduating from Loyola Law School--newly married to his wife
Sheila--he took a different path than his colleagues. He decided not to
join a big law firm. He chose to enter public service. He worked for
Illinois State attorney general Bill Clark in 1965, and by 1967 Phil
was the chief of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Division. He chose to
enter public service at a difficult time--the turbulent 1960s. The
country was torn over the Vietnam war and many social issues. The 1968
Democratic Convention was a painful reflection of our Nation's
troubles.
Instead of turning away from public service, at that time Phil Rock
decided to dive in and make a difference. In 1970 he was elected to the
Illinois State Senate, where he ascended quickly in both the Democratic
Party and the State senate as an institution. Within a year he was
elected Democratic State committeeman for the Sixth District. A couple
years later he became assistant senate minority leader. In 1979 Phil
Rock was chosen by his colleagues to be the senate president. At the
time, Illinois was facing tough times. Illinois was hard hit by the
national recession and some of the highest urban unemployment rates in
the country. Once again, Phil did not waver. Through his leadership,
Phil helped guide the State through a storm of a recession.
Phil was a loyal and passionate Democrat, but he understood that
compromise was always an important part of success. ``Bipartisanship''
wasn't a dirty word for Phil Rock; he worked with everybody. He just
wanted to get things done for his constituents, as well as the people
of the State. His word was his bond. When his allies made unreasonable
demands, Phil was firm and said no.
When the day's legislative work was done, though, you could still
find Phil presiding--usually over a barbecue pit near the State
capitol. Legislators from both political parties came by; they wouldn't
miss it. Phil would hand them a cold drink, and they would have a great
evening together.
Hardly any of Phil's parties ended without Phil being requested to
sing ``Danny Boy,'' which he did in a spirited fashion. On St.
Patrick's Day, you could always count on Phil Rock and his fellow State
senator Bob Egan being close to a piano, singing great Irish tunes. The
events were always bipartisan, with Democrats and Republicans coming
together. This is a lesson in friendship and cooperation which all of
us should remember today.
Phil leaves a proud legacy. He had a wonderful sense of fairness and
a strong voice for the most vulnerable in communities across the State.
Phil exemplified what Hubert Humphrey called ``the moral test of
government.'' He authored and passed more than 450 major pieces of
legislation in his career. He earned dozens of awards from
organizations across the State of Illinois, from Cairo to Zion.
Among his legislative accomplishments, Phil started Illinois's I-
SEARCH Program for missing children, which provides State funding to
provide information almost instantly to save those kids. He also
championed laws for mandatory insurance for newborns and the State's
original Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act. One of his proudest
achievements was sponsoring legislation for the Nation's first school
for the deaf and blind in Glen Ellyn, which today has been named after
him, the Philip J. Rock Center and School.
Phil passed away last month at the age of 78. His legacy shines
brightly from Oak Park to Springfield and across our State. My wife
Loretta and I want to offer our condolences to Phil's wife of more than
50 years, Sheila; their four kids, Kathleen, Meghan, Colleen, and John;
and, of course, the grandkids.
Phil Rock was a tireless advocate for the little guy, he was a giant
in Illinois politics, and he will be missed.
Madam President, last year I joined a bipartisan majority in the
Senate to pass a Customs reauthorization bill. It was strong, it was
meaningful, and it really set out to modernize our Nation's customs
system and strengthen the enforcement of U.S. trade laws.
One of the greatest concerns Americans have about trade and trade
agreements is that when they are cheated on by other countries, we
don't enforce them, and the losers are American businesses and
employees. So I like that Customs bill. I like that version and the
strong language on currency manipulation which has cost a lot of
American jobs and hurt U.S. businesses. It strengthened our commitment
to combat human trafficking around the world. It would allow us to
safeguard our climate policies under future trade agreements.
The conference report that is back to us now and before the Senate at
this moment is a much different bill. Let me say there are provisions
of it that are good and important. I strongly support the ENFORCE Act.
The provision would allow us to have a level playing field so that
companies, such as Illinois companies, could ensure that other
countries play by the same rules when it comes to trade. These strong
anti-dumping rules are vital to prevent foreign companies from dumping
cheap steel products and other goods that undercut domestic prices and
put our companies out of business and employees out of work.
I recently had representatives of the steel industry come by my
office, and they explained the dramatic increase in imports of steel
product, particularly rebar from Turkey. They can't understand how
Turkey can sell its rebar in the United States so cheaply, putting
American businesses at a disadvantage. Turkey takes scrap metal from
the United States and transports it across the ocean, transforms it
there into rebar and steel, and ships it back to the United States--and
they are still able to charge less.
The folks in the steel industry here say: We are ready for
competition, but something else is going on here.
There is clearly a subsidy when it comes to Turkish steel. And the
net result is that companies like Granite City Steel in Granite City,
IL, and companies across the United States are being threatened.
Some countries are dumping their products in the United States. They
are selling them for less than the cost of production to run American
businesses out of business and to put our steelworkers out of work.
The ENFORCE Act puts some teeth into this process, and it is one of
the sections in this bill I would wholeheartedly support if it were a
separate piece of legislation. But that is not how bills are presented
to us in the Senate. We are given an array of issues and topics in
every bill, and we have to decide whether at the end of the day the
bill is worth voting for even if there are provisions in it that we
like and some that we hate.
The inclusion of this important legislation is not enough to overcome
my concerns with the overall bill.
Unlike the Senate-passed bill, there was a provision airdropped into
this bill at the last minute in conference that really creates a
problem. It is called the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act. What it
means is, with this legislation, we are by Federal law prohibiting
State and local governments from imposing taxes on access to the
Internet. Generically, I think that is a good thing to do, to encourage
use of the Internet and not to create hardships on families, students,
and individuals who use the Internet, but let's go into this
conversation with our eyes wide open.
If you use a telephone to make a call to someone, you are likely
going to face a tax from your State or local unit of government on
telephone services. If, however, you do what my wife and I try to do
every weekend and Skype your grandkids, you are using your computer for
that conversation, and there is no tax on your use of that computer.
Some people say, ``Good. I didn't want to pay the tax.'' But remember,
local and State taxes go to sustain critical services in communities.
What we are doing with this bill is prohibiting States and localities
from, in most cases, imposing taxes on Internet services. So we are
closing the door to State and local units of government raising revenue
that they might view as reasonable and fair to sustain police
protection, fire protection, and all the demands they face. That is the
reality of this provision.
What we had hoped to do was, at the same time, say that State and
local units of government could collect sales tax on Internet sales.
Let me explain. More and more Americans are turning to the Internet to
buy things, our family included. You go to the usual vendors on the
Internet, and in some cases, if they decide to, those Internet
[[Page S845]]
retailers collect the local sales tax. So when I give my home address
in Springfield, IL, they check the ZIP Code, and they decide that when
I make the purchase, they will collect the sales tax on the Internet
sale of a book, for example, and they will remit that amount to the
treasury of the State of Illinois. But it is not required, and many
Internet vendors do not collect the sales tax. So what happens? State
and local units of government don't get the benefit of the sales tax
from Internet purchases.
However, if I decided, instead of buying a book on the Internet, to
buy it at a local bookstore in Chicago or Springfield, I would pay a
sales tax. Well, people are learning this. As they learn this, they are
changing their shopping habits.
A friend of mine, Chris Koos, is the mayor of Normal, IL. He is an
extraordinary person beyond Normal, as far as I am concerned. He is
also a businessman as well as mayor. He has a business that sells
bicycles and running shoes. He tells me people will literally come into
his store and say: I need size 11 New Balance shoes. What do you have?
They bring out the running shoes, and people try them on, stand in
front of the mirror, and say: Thanks a lot, Chris. I appreciate it.
They will then write down the number for the New Balance running
shoes, go home, buy them on the Internet, and not pay a sales tax.
Well, Chris is the loser. Here he is with a good, solid business in
Normal, IL, that not only provides good service and good products but
collects--as required by law--the sales tax on transactions, the sales
tax going to the State and to the community to sustain basic services.
So when people use his store as a showroom and then buy on the Internet
and not pay the taxes, of course the State and the community lose.
What we had hoped to do was to put these two things together and say
that if we are going to prohibit State and local units of government
from imposing taxes on access to the Internet, at the same time, we
will require Internet sellers and retailers, to collect sales taxes for
purchases. That would be remitted back to the State and local
government so at least there was some balance. It isn't as if we are
closing the doors to State and local units of government for what they
might have otherwise collected.
Unfortunately, only half of what I just described is included in this
bill. The prohibition against State and local governments collecting
taxes on Internet service is included, but sales conducted over the
Internet is not included. That is unfortunate.
Initially, I opposed this bill and said that this was brought into it
at the last minute, that it has nothing to do with customs whatsoever,
and that it should never have been included. It is the kind of thing
that I think gives us a bad name sometimes when it comes to the way we
write bills. I opposed it. I then ended up deciding to talk to
Republican Leader Senator McConnell. With his assurance that we will
get a shot at calling the marketplace fairness or internet retail tax
this year--either if it is sent from the House or if it originates in
the Senate--I have dropped my opposition to the overall bill--although
I will vote against it, I am not working against it--and the earlier
rollcall indicated strong support.
With that in mind, I yield the floor and say that I will continue to
oppose the Customs bill for the reasons stated, but I am happy that
Senator McConnell and I have been able to reach an agreement on the
path forward toward marketplace fairness or efairness.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, as we move toward final passage of the
conference committee report on H.R. 644, the Trade Facilitation and
Trade Enforcement Act, I would like to take just a few minutes to
reflect on how we got here and to thank the many individuals who made
this moment possible.
This conference report concludes what has been an historic 13 months
for trade legislation in the U.S. Senate. When I began my tenure as
chairman of the Senate Finance Committee early last year, one of my
foremost goals was to strengthen and modernize U.S. international trade
institutions and policies. It was an audacious goal. After all, it is
not like we had not tried before. Years of stagnation had enabled
countless trade problems to accumulate, many of them crying for
legislative resolution. Everyone agreed that something needed to be
done, but again and again, our efforts were stopped. Well this Congress
was different.
Working together in a bipartisan way, we were able to advance
legislation to strengthen congressional oversight of trade negotiations
through reauthorization of trade promotion authority, or TPA. I intend
to vigorously employ TPA's new oversight tools in reviewing the Trans-
Pacific Partnership that the Obama administration concluded in October
and signed last week. While the verdict is still out on TPP, the
efforts of the individuals who made that possible should not go
unrecognized. So I would like to acknowledge the hard work of
individuals such as Ambassador Mike Froman, former Deputy U.S. Trade
Representative Wendy Cutler, and the Assistant U.S. Trade
Representative for Southeast Asia and the Pacific, Barbara Weisel.
Their tireless commitment to advancing the interests of the United
States abroad deserves to be recognized and applauded.
I also would like to thank my staff, who worked behind the scenes to
help negotiate and craft legislation that will serve our Nation for
many years to come. I believe that the Senate Finance Committee
leadership team of Chris Campbell, Mark Prater, and Jay Khosla is among
the finest that I have had the pleasure to work with in my many years
of Senate service. Our trade team, consisting of chief trade counsel
Everett Eissenstat, Shane Warren, Douglas Petersen, Rebecca Eubank,
Andrew Rollo, Kevin Rosenbaum, Paul Delaney, Greg Kalbaugh, and Kenneth
Schmidt consistently demonstrated that teamwork, motivation, and drive
can produce great results; and this bill we are considering here is no
exception. I also would like to thank our outstanding speech and
communications team, consisting of Bryan Hickman, Julia Lawless, Aaron
Fobes, Amelia Breinig, and Joshua Blume; and of course, our fine tax
team, including Nick Wyatt, Eric Oman, Jim Lyons, and our chief
economist, Jeff Wrase.
Bipartisanship was critical to all of our work over the past year,
especially on trade. For their steadfast commitment and determination
to our shared goal of producing strong, bipartisan legislation, I would
like to recognize Senator Wyden and his team: Josh Sheinkman, Mike
Evans, Jayme White, Elissa Alben, Greta Peisch, Anderson Heiman,
Tiffany Smith, and Todd Metcalf.
I also would like to thank Senator McConnell and his staff: Sharon
Soderstrom, Brendan Dunn, Terry Van Doren, and Hazen Marshall, who
provided us with support and leadership throughout this process.
Finally, let me thank my House colleagues, Speaker Ryan, Chairman
Brady, and their staffs Austin Smythe, Joyce Meyer, Angela Ellard,
Geoff Antell, Steve Claeys, Nasim Fussell, and Casey Higgins. On the
Democratic staff, I would like to acknowledge the hard work and
contributions of Ranking Member Sandy Levin and his staff, Jason
Kearns, Beth Baltzan, Katherine Tai, and Keigan Mull.
Finally, this conference report would not have been possible without
the excellent work done by Tom Barthold from the Joint Committee on
Taxation, the Senate Legislative Counsel's office, especially Margaret
Roth-Warren and Thomas Heywood, and the Congressional Budget Office,
especially Teri Gullo, Ann Futrell, Susan Willie and Mark Grabowicz.
The support of the legislative affairs staff at U.S. Customs and Border
Protection also was essential for getting this conference report right,
and I especially want to acknowledge John Pickel, Ned Leigh, and
Kristin Isabelli.
I am proud of this conference report and pleased that we were able to
pass it with a strong, bipartisan vote. It took many hands to bring us
to this moment, and I am truly thankful for all of their hard work.
This bill shows that, through persistence and hard work, we can
accomplish great things.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[[Page S846]]
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I know of no further debate on the
conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the conference
report?
Hearing none, the question occurs on agreeing to the conference
report.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
Sullivan) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 20, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 22 Leg.]
YEAS--75
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--20
Alexander
Boxer
Brown
Durbin
Enzi
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Markey
Menendez
Mikulski
Reed
Reid
Rounds
Schatz
Schumer
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--5
Cruz
Graham
Rubio
Sanders
Sullivan
The conference report was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________