Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, first, let me thank Chairman Hatch for our partnership over these many months, and let me be clear at the outset that I agree with much of what Chairman Hatch has said. What I would like to start with is what I think is the bedrock principle of this debate about trade and put it all straightforward and upfront; that is, this is about trade done right. This is not the trade policy of the 1990s. This is not the NAFTA playbook. It is not even the 2002 TPA package. I realize the Presiding Officer was not in the Senate at that time. After my opening remarks, I am going to start outlining the 30 progressive changes in the 2015 TPA package that were not in the 2002 program to show how different this trade policy will be.

The point of what I have started with--this focus on trade done right--is to drive home the potential for more good-paying jobs for our workers. This would be true in Oregon, Utah, Iowa, and across the land. In my State, one out of five jobs revolves around exports. The export jobs often pay better than do the nontrade jobs.

The reason I bring this up is I do not think there is any more pressing economic issue in our country than finding ways to increase wages for Americans and particularly the middle class and those who aspire to be middle class. The facts demonstrate clearly that the export jobs often pay better than do the nonexport jobs. The reason that is the case is because there is often a very large value-added component. There is increased productivity. The fact is, when we grow things in Iowa or Oregon or any other part of the country and make things in America and we add value to them, then we can ship them somewhere.

What the Department of Commerce has found in a number of their analyses is that those export-related jobs often pay better than do the nonexport jobs.

The reason I am starting with this is that this is particularly relevant given the potential market that is out there for the people of Oregon, Iowa, and every other part of our country. The analysis shows that by 2025, there are going to be about 1 billion middle-class consumers in the developing world--1 billion people with a significant amount of disposable income. I think they want to buy the Oregon brand, they want to buy the American brand. They are going to be interested in buying our computers. They are going to want to buy our wine and agricultural products. They are going to buy our helicopters. They are going to buy our planes. They are going to buy a whole host of products. The question is, Are Americans going to reap the fruit of those export opportunities? That, fundamentally, is what this is all about with respect to exports and particularly employment opportunities.

The reality is that our markets are basically open, but a lot of the countries that are part of the region we are looking at for the first agreement--what is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership--have markets that are much more closed. They have double- and triple-digit tariffs. I suspect the Presiding Officer is very concerned about the double- and triple-digit tariffs on agricultural commodities. Certainly, the people of Oregon are very concerned about the consequences of those huge tariffs on our agricultural goods.

So, as we start this discussion, right at the center is this focus on what I call trade done right and my view that trade done right can create an enormous array of economic opportunities for hard-working middle-class Americans who deserve to have us come up with policies that shape a better future for them rather than the alternative.

Make no mistake about the alternative. If we walk off the field, China comes onto the field and China says: Fine; we are happy to write the rules.

To me--I am going to outline this--what Chairman Hatch and I and others have produced is a policy that will force standards up as opposed to much of what critics say about past trade policies, that they drive--it is a race to the bottom, that it drives standards down. This is a piece of legislation which is going to drive up standards.

With that, I am going to start outlining the differences between the 2015 TPA package and the 2002 TPA package. I am going to start with the requirement for labor, the environment, and affordable medicines.

In 2002, there was no requirement for trading partners' laws to comply with core international labor standards. Let me repeat that. In 2002--more than a dozen years ago--there was no requirement for trading partners' laws to comply with core international labor standards. Under the package Chairman Hatch and our colleagues and I on the Finance Committee have produced, trading partners must adopt and maintain core international labor standards, and there are trade sanctions if they do not comply. It could not be more different--the rules from 2002 TPA and the rules for 2015 under what Chairman Hatch and I and others on the Finance Committee insisted on.

Let's talk about the environment. I mentioned labor first. Let's talk about the environment. In 2002, there was no requirement for trading partners' laws to comply with common multilateral environmental agreements. In 2015, under the bipartisan Finance package, trading partners must adopt and maintain common multilateral environmental agreements, and there are trade sanctions if they do not comply. Again, 2002 and 2015--the differences could not be more stark with respect to environmental protection.

With respect to affordable medicines, in 2002, there were no provisions balancing intellectual property protections to ensure access to medicines for developing countries. In 2015, there are directives for trade agreements to promote access to medicine and foster innovation.

I do want to yield to the distinguished majority leader, but I wanted to begin this debate--particularly when Chairman Hatch is on the floor--by highlighting the differences between 2002 and 2015, particularly in areas so important to the American people, such as labor, environmental protection, and access to medicines.

I know we all want to hear from the distinguished majority leader.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, before he leaves the floor, I just wish to respond to a couple of the points made by our colleague from Alabama, because he brings up issues that Chairman Hatch and I talked a great deal about during the discussion of this proposal. I would just like to respond very specifically to some of the concerns raised by the Senator, my friend from Alabama.

My friend from Alabama said there would be no scrutiny--those were his words--of this particular agreement, and that it would be passed through as quickly as possible without any discussions.

Now, that certainly is an area where I have been very concerned. Chairman Hatch has been concerned that there hasn't been enough discussion in the past. So Chairman Hatch and I have changed this, and I want to be very clear what is going to happen now.

First, for a full 60 days before the President of the United States signs an agreement--starting with TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership--it would have to be made public for those full 60 days before the President signs it. Then after that, there would be close to 2 additional months when the American people would have the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, or any other, in their hands before anyone casts a vote on an actual agreement on the floor of the Senate or in the other body, in the House of Representatives.

So as to this idea that my friend from Alabama has said, that there wouldn't be any scrutiny of anything, we are starting to get a little flack that it would be out there for too long before people started voting. But what this----

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. I was happy to listen to my colleague.

What this means is the people of Alabama, Iowa, Oregon, and everywhere else could come to one of our townhall meetings, have the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement in our lap, and ask questions of their elected representatives about a trade agreement for close to 4 months before it was voted on here or in the other body.

I am going to have to leave for a meeting to talk again about how we are going to see if we can find some common ground, but I do want to address one other point that my colleague made, and that deals with this question of middle-class wages.

My colleague and I agree completely that middle-class people are hurting. There is no question about it. We have millions of middle-class people in this country walking an economic tightrope, balancing their food bill against their fuel bill and their fuel bill against their housing bill--no question about that.

The difference of opinion here, between two Senators who enjoy each other's company, is that my colleague from Alabama says the principal problem is trade--that trade is the reason for this. Respectfully, the data from the Department of Commerce shows that export jobs--which is the focus of this bill and the focus of trade done right--pay better than do the nontrade jobs because they have a value-added kind of benefit to them. That is why--and I note for my friend from Alabama, who cares a great deal about the steel industry--the steel industry sent a letter to Chairman Hatch and me saying they were for this. The American steel industry sent a letter to Chairman Hatch and me saying they were for this because they know this is connected to producing more high-skilled, high-wage jobs, particularly in manufacturing, where my State is a leader.

So the question then becomes this: What are the big challenges? Certainly, technology is one, and globalization is one. Chairman Hatch and I have talked about flawed tax policy. I think it is particularly ominous that the tax breaks go for shipping jobs overseas rather than rewarding the manufacturers and those who produce what I call ``red, white, and blue'' jobs.

But during the time that I have here on the floor, I am going to be talking about the differences between this trade promotion act proposal and the last one of 2002. Nothing could illustrate the differences more than the new requirements for transparency and opportunity for the American people to weigh in. The facts are that, as a result of what Chairman Hatch and the Finance Committee have put together, the American people, before a vote is cast--before a vote is cast on a trade agreement here on the floor of the Senate or on the floor of the other body, the American people are going to have those trade agreements in their hands for pretty close to 4 months.

If my colleague wants to ask a question, I am happy to yield my time to him.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source