Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. STABENOW. I also know there has been a tremendous amount of energy going on trying to defeat this amendment in the last day, and there are a lot of comments being made on the floor. I do want to first of all say in response to comments from someone whom I greatly respect, the Senator from Tennessee, who has played an incredibly important role in moving forward on some important foreign policy issues, that I would caution that we call support for manufacturing--whether it be autos or others or supply chains or materials manufacturing--somehow a bailout when we are talking about protecting American jobs--I would point to the fact that there is a very important company, Alcoa, in Tennessee that just received an advanced technology vehicle loan. I was proud to author that loan program back in 2007 in the Energy bill. They make aluminum, as we all know, and they are retooling to be able to benefit from Ford Motor Company's policy of moving to aluminum to take 700 pounds out of the F-150 truck to make it more energy efficient. Alcoa is benefiting, a Tennessee company. I don't consider that loan a bailout any more than I consider any other loan programs we put together for manufacturing a bailout.
But I would suggest that we have literally millions of jobs across our country connected to the supply chain, whether it is autos, whether it is dishwashers, whatever it is that we are making.
We have manufacturers--large and small--telling us that if we are going to move forward and give negotiating objectives to this administration to negotiate a trade agreement with 40 percent of the global economy in Asia, we better understand that the No. 1 trading barrier used by Asian companies is currency manipulation--No. 1. I find it astounding. It would almost be funny if it were not so crazy. There are these arguments, on the one hand, that somehow, setting up a negotiating principle and just saying that if you negotiate something on currency, we want it to be enforceable for the first time--not just words--we have a lot of words. We have years and years of lots of words about currency manipulation. But this time, if you actually negotiate something, we want it to be enforceable. And somehow that is going to bring down the Trans-Pacific Partnership. If that is the case, then we have a lot more to be worried about than this amendment, in my judgment, in terms of what sounds like not a very good agreement overall.
We are continually hearing, on the one hand, that things are getting better with China, that Japan does not do this anymore, and that the Bank of Japan does not do this anymore. But if they do not do this anymore, then why do they care? How can anyone with a straight face say they will walk away from a major Trans-Pacific Partnership because we say to our negotiators, on the list of things we think are important on behalf of American businesses and workers, that we count currency manipulation in that list. And by the way, if you do something--and we do not prescribe what it ought to be--it ought to be enforceable.
I am astounded at the amount of energy going into this to say this is a poison pill. The reality is that in the House of Representatives this amendment would actually pick up votes, and there is going to be a lot of need to pick up votes in the House of Representatives.
I do not know anybody who says they are voting for this and that somehow because this is in here--or somebody who is not voting for it--they would not actually vote for the TPA.
It is amazing to me, and it is amazing to me that my partner in this is a former U.S. Trade Representative who sat at the negotiating table, who supports TPA, who is saying that this is reasonable and will not interfere with the ability to negotiate.
As I said before, I would like to go further. I would like to say that you do not get fast-track authority unless you do something on currency because this has cost us over 5 million jobs and counting. But that is what this amendment says. This creates maximum flexibility for the administration. It simply says on the list of things that are important that we care about wages, we care about the standard of living, we care about protecting the environment, we care about intellectual property rights, and we care about currency manipulation. And if you put something in there, it should be enforceable under the international rules under the WTO and meet the definition of the IMF. We are not mandating the outcome of any particular negotiation. If simply having this in here means that Japan walks away, then there is something else going on here that we ought to all be very, very concerned about.
We have also heard that this will affect countries to attack us on our domestic policy, including quantitative easing. Our amendment explicitly exempts domestic monetary policy. In fact, in the text of the amendment, it says: ``Nothing in the previous sentence shall be construed to restrict the exercise of domestic monetary policy.''
In the side-by-side by the leaders of our Finance Committee--by the way, they have no such exemptions, which is interesting. Some have contended that by adopting our amendment, particularly Japan will walk away. They really cannot have it both ways. Either the Bank of Japan is or is not doing what they have done for 376 times in the last 25 years--376 times, despite the fact that they signed on the dotted line with 188 countries, signed on the dotted line through the International Monetary Fund: We are part of the IMF, and we will not manipulate our currency. And they have done it 376 times. So if they are not going to do it anymore, why should they care that we put this in as a priority for the United States, for our workers and manufacturers? And if they care so much and if they would walk away just by our simply raising this and saying we ought to do something enforceable, it is obvious there is going to be 377. And we ought to all be extremely concerned about that, because what does that mean? What are we really talking about?
It means foreign products are cheaper here and American products are more expensive there, and in a global economy, when our manufacturers are competing not to get into Japan but competing around the world with Japan, we have already seen the results at other points in time--anywhere from $6,000 to $11,000 more on the cost of one vehicle. Think about that. As a consumer, you are going to buy a car, and there is a $6,000, $8,000, $10,000, $11,000 difference in price. That is a big deal. That is a very big deal. I mean, for all of us who say we want a level playing field on trade, that our people are smart and competent and compete successfully with anybody, we ought to care about this--that when the Bank of Japan intervenes, we are seeing anywhere from a $6,000 to $11,000 difference in the cost of an automobile. This has cost us over 5 million good-paying jobs in America.
I thought that was supposed to be our priority. That was our job--to be fighting, but not for the Bank of Japan. In fact, Ford Motor Company says they will compete with anybody around the world, but they cannot compete with the Bank of Japan. So this is about a level playing field.
Why does it matter? It is not just about selling in Japan. Unlike America, the Japanese have a preference for buying their own vehicles as a matter of patriotism in their country. I wish we had the same. So it is not just about getting into Japan, the little, small islands of Japan. It is about competing with them on everything in between. It is about the 1.2 billion people who live in India, where we are trying to sell to them and Japan is trying to sell to them. If they can sell a vehicle for $6,000 or $10,000 less, what do you think is going to happen? It is about the 200 million people in Brazil, whom we are trying to sell to and Japan is trying to sell to.
They are fighting so much, even having a negotiating principle that says: If we put language in, it ought to be enforceable. If they are fighting so much, it must be because they are really looking at those countries and saying: You know what; we want that $6,000 difference. We want that $10,000 difference. We do not want anything to get in the way of that.
Frankly, protecting Japan, Japanese automakers and suppliers, and Japanese workers is not our job. It is not our job. Our job is to stand up for American workers and American businesses, and that is what this amendment is all about.
By the way, the issue of currency manipulation affects every part of the economy--agriculture, medicines, and every part of the economy. All we are saying is to give us a shot here. Give American manufacturers and workers a shot, at least by saying in fast-track that we want something done on currency. If you do it, it should be enforceable.
Countries have been signing up for years saying they will not manipulate their currency and nobody has ever enforced it. No one has ever enforced it. All we are asking is if we negotiate something, it should have enforceable standards. It is not enough to have a handshake agreement anymore.
How many years do we have to go on and how many millions of jobs do we have to lose, when all we get is good-faith assurances and handshakes?
Let me say this. I hope when this debate is done, the intensity to defeat this amendment that our manufacturers promote--by the way, they always support free trade. These are folks who are in the global economy, and they want to trade. But if we are going to put aside American manufacturers, American suppliers, American workers, I hope the next thing we will do is to focus on fast-tracking the middle class and have as much intensity, as many late-night calls, and as many meetings together to make sure we have a minimum wage in this country, to make sure we have a long-term investment in transportation that will not only deal with safety and fixing roads and bridges and transit and rail for our farmers but that creates millions of jobs. I hope we have as much intensity on that.
I hope we have as much intensity on lowering the cost of college so kids have a fair shot to do what we want them to do, which is work hard, to get the grades, to go to college, and to go to work. I hope we have as much intensity around that.
If we had more intensity around fast-tracking the middle class, we would not have to worry so much about what we are doing on trade agreements.
I hope we have intensity about closing loopholes that are allowing companies to go overseas on paper while they still drive on our roads, breathe our air, drink our water, and send their kids to schools here but avoid paying their fair share because they moved on paper.
I hope we have as much intensity around that. I hope we have as much intensity about making sure that in this global economy, we have a race up to increased standards of living, wages with which you can care for your family and send the kids to college and do all the things that we want to do for our families rather than having a race to the bottom where somebody is told if you just work for less and lose your pension and health care, we can be competitive. So let's have fast-track. Let's have fast-track about the things that really matter to people in this country, which is getting back to having a middle class where you can stay in the middle class.
While we are at it, let's pass an amendment that makes it clear we get how important currency manipulation is--when we are giving up our right to amend a trade agreement, when we are giving up our right to be able to use a 60-vote threshold on a trade agreement. And at least there ought to be a provision in there that says: Do your best on currency. And, by the way, if you get some language, how about we make it enforceable this time? Five million jobs and counting--that is what we lost and that is enough.
I hope my colleagues will come together and support the Portman-Stabenow amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source