Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a memorial to the extraordinary life and service of Jerry Hildebrand printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, a Native American expression on the circle of life offers insight into a life well-lived:

If you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced. Live

your life so that, when you die, the world cries and you

rejoice.

On Sunday, the world cried when Elouise Cobell left the Earth. Elouise was a brave member of the Blackfeet Nation from my home State of Montana. She fought tirelessly for what was right.

On Sunday, the world lost a great hero. Native American people everywhere lost a champion. Her husband Alvin and son Turk, along with her entire extended family, lost an admired and irreplaceable loved one. And I can say with deep gratitude, having worked with her for many years, that I lost a dear friend.

Through her persistence and determination, she drew attention to the Federal Government's mismanagement of Indian trust lands. She deserves the highest recognition and thanks for helping close a chapter on a bitter history of broken promises.

For more than 100 years, the Federal Government did not fairly compensate Native Americans in Montana and across the Nation for revenue generated from their land. The Federal Government squandered and wasted billions of dollars in not paying Native Americans revenues they were due. It was Elouise who took up the cause. Others wouldn't; she did. She knew it was wrong. She knew it, and she had a mission. She worked tirelessly through the courts until the judicial system finally recognized what she had uncovered. The judge in the case decried the Federal Government's action as ``fiscal and government irresponsibility in its purest form.''

I was proud and humbled to work with her on the legislative plan to help settle the longstanding Indian trust lawsuit. Last year, we passed bipartisan legislation to provide a long-overdue conclusion for hundreds of thousands of folks in Indian Country.

Recently, I joined my colleague, the present occupant of the chair, Senator Tester, who introduced legislation to award Elouise with the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest honor possible from Congress.

Elouise Cobell fought for many who could not fight for themselves and brought a voice to many who died before being able to see justice served. May we never forget Elouise's long battle to right this wrong. May Elouise's memory continue to inspire everyone who believes justice is worth the fight. And may the Creator welcome Elouise home with joy and tenderness as we offer our thoughts and prayers to her loved ones. Our hearts are heavy as we mourn Elouise. Because she lived a life worth living, she lived a life worth rejoicing.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I would like to speak against the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, amendment No. 740.

This Chamber approved three free-trade agreements last week and did so with overwhelming support. But for many, that support hinged on passage of a robust trade adjustment assistance program, otherwise known as TAA.

Last month, the Senate approved trade adjustment assistance, and during floor consideration an amendment similar to the one offered by Senator McCain was rejected. Why was it rejected? I will tell you why. Because a majority of Senators in this Chamber want to help small businesses. We want to help small businesses improve their competitiveness, and we want to help small businesses take advantage of the opportunities trade provides.

But this amendment would end the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program. It would end the only program specifically designed to help small manufacturers hurt by import competition. It would end the program that helps companies adjust, retool, and stay competitive in an increasingly global economy.

In 2010, trade adjustment assistance for firms enabled 330 companies to devise strategies that got them back on track. It helped them identify new markets. It helped them improve inefficiencies. It helped them restructure their debt, and it helped them find new financing.

The results proved that the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program works. Ninety-eight percent of the companies that participated in the program are still in business after 5 years. Without trade adjustment assistance for firms, many of these companies would be out of business and their workers out of jobs.

The program has helped create or retain more than 50,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs since 2006. I would think that with unemployment at such high rates--over 9 percent--and with the large vote in this body on the currency amendment with respect to the Chinese manipulation of currency, it makes eminent sense to help American workers who lost jobs, not prevent help to American workers who have lost jobs on account of trade. And that is what the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program does--it helps American workers who have lost jobs on account of trade.

Senator McCain's amendment will put those jobs at risk. I don't think that is what this body wants to do. We should be creating jobs, not destroying them. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the English poet, Thomas Gray, once said: ``Commerce changes the fate and genius of nations.''

The United States has always understood that commerce improves our fate and sharpens our genius. We know opening the channels of commerce creates new opportunity, generates new ideas, and forms new partnerships.

We know global commerce makes us more competitive, more innovative, and more productive--but also sometimes more difficult.

Today, the Senate has a historic opportunity to build on this legacy by approving our free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. These agreements will increase exports of U.S. goods and services. They will create tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs. They will bind us even more closely to the three important allies.

Colombia, especially, has returned from the brink of becoming a failed state to being the third largest economy in Latin America and one of its most respected leaders. It is astounding just how far Colombia has come. It has a lot further to go, but considering the state of Colombia 15, 20 years ago, with the narcotics trade, paramilitary forces, and assassinations, it is amazing how far they have come. A lot of this goes to the courage of the Colombian people, and especially to the leaders. It has not been easy, to say the least.

Panama is the crossroads of global commerce and among the fastest growing economies in the Western Hemisphere.

South Korea is the world's 15th largest economy, our seventh largest trading partner, and a strategic ally in a very volatile region of the world.

Now, more than ever, we need to expand commerce and improve our economic fate. Clearly, with unemployment at 9.1 percent, our economy is growing too slowly. Consumer demand is too weak, and American workers, farmers, and ranchers are desperately seeking new markets and customers for their products.

The Colombia, Panama, and South Korea trade agreements will help U.S. exporters gain new customers in three lucrative and fast-growing markets. They will increase U.S. exports by up to $13 billion each year. They will boost our GDP by more than $15 billion, and they will support tens of thousands of urgently needed American jobs. It will help the jobs picture--clearly, it will not solve it, but it will help.

These agreements will help folks such as Errol Rice, a fifth generation cattle rancher from Helena, MT. Earlier this year, Errol testified before the Finance Committee on the importance of the South Korea trade agreement. He told us that South Korea is the fourth largest market in the world for U.S. beef, and it is growing rapidly.

Errol welcomed the commitments I secured to increase funding for market promotion and fully implement our bilateral beef import protocol. But he underscored that our position in the South Korean market is at risk. Australia, a large beef exporter, is racing to conclude its own trade agreement with South Korea. By approving our agreement with South Korea today, we will help Errol and all American ranchers maintain their competitive edge, increase sales, and create jobs in their communities.

Trade agreements improve our economy only if they create a level playing field for U.S. exporters. We cannot allow our trading partners to gain unfair advantage by failing to respect workers' rights or protect the environment.

That is why the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea trade agreements include robust labor and environmental commitments that were basically made in 2007, with all the labor and environmental framework included in these agreements. These commitments require our trading partners to uphold internationally recognized labor rights, including the right to organize and bargain collectively. That is in the agreement.

They also required our partners to protect the environment, and these obligations are fully enforceable, just like the commercial obligations in the agreements. In many cases, our free-trade agreement partners have gone the extra mile to meet our high standards. Colombia is the best example. Many of us are concerned about labor violence in Colombia. We believe the death of even one union member is one too many.

I urge my colleagues to consider the progress Colombia has made in recent years and the commitment of the Colombian Government to continue that progress.

Colombia demonstrated this commitment in April when President Obama and Colombian President Santos agreed to the Labor Action Plan. In that plan, Colombia made specific and groundbreaking commitments to strengthen worker rights, protect workers from violence, and prosecute the perpetrators of violence.

Colombia has fulfilled every commitment to date. It has hired 100 new inspectors to enforce workers' rights. It has cracked down on the abuse of cooperatives. It has expanded protection of union members. It has sentenced to prison 47 people found guilty of killing

union members. There is still more to be done, but Colombia has demonstrated remarkable progress.

By approving the free-trade agreement, we will be able to enforce labor rights in Colombia, including the rights addressed by the action plan. If we reject the agreement, however, we lose our ability to ensure that labor conditions in Colombia will continue to improve. This is a very important point. Other countries' trade agreements with Colombia don't have the labor protection provisions. The U.S. one does have labor protection provisions that are very strong. If we don't ratify this agreement, then workers in Colombia will not be protected because other agreements don't protect them.

These trade agreements will also help us rise to the challenge of China. Today, China is the No. 1 trading partner for South Korea and No. 2 partner for Colombia and Panama. If we approve these agreements, we will give American exporters a leg up on competitors from China and other countries. If we reject them, China's advantage and influence in these markets will only grow.

After we approve these agreements, we should begin thinking about the next steps for our trade agenda. We should invite our new free-trade agreement partners to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, negotiations. We need to negotiate a Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and extend these agreements to better facilitate even more jobs in America.

Colombia, Panama, and South Korea have demonstrated that they are willing to make the far-reaching commitments that our trade agreements require. Their participation in the TPP negotiations will help us achieve a high-standard 21st-century agreement that spans the Pacific.

Thomas Gray was correct when he said commerce changes the fate and genius of nations. There is no better example than the United States. We have benefited greatly from trading with foreign nations. In these tough economic times, we need to embrace these benefits now more than ever. For the sake of American exporters seeking to grow and create jobs, let's approve these three free-trade agreements.

One final point. I think it is fair to say that as we engage in commerce worldwide in countries around the world, we are not totally pure. We don't wear white hats, and other countries are not Darth Vaders and wear black hats. But it is true the shade of gray of our hats are a lot lighter shade of gray than the shade of gray of their hats, which is a darker shade. That is especially true in the American, Asian, and African countries--maybe a little less true in European countries.

These agreements are no-brainers. Why do I say that? Because with respect to Colombia and Panama, products, goods, and services coming to our country today are virtually duty free, virtually no tariffs, or nontariff trade barriers.

On the other hand, American products going to those countries today face very high tariffs and trade barriers, especially with agriculture but also in manufacturing goods. The figures are quite startling, frankly. So it is a no-brainer. These are, for the first time virtually, free-trade agreements. It is a freebie for U.S. exporters and American companies exporting products into Colombia and Panama. They are really free.

With respect to Korea, it is very similar. Korean manufacturing tariffs, tariffs that Korea has on U.S. goods are more than twice as high as U.S. tariffs on Korean-manufactured goods. Tariffs that U.S. companies face in trying to export to Korea are twice as high today as are the tariffs the Korean manufacturers face when they try to sell products in the United States. The average Korean tariff on U.S. agricultural goods is 54 percent. The average tariff on American agricultural goods that we are trying to sell in Korea is 54 percent, about 5 times as high as the tariff on Korean agricultural products as they attempt to ship to the United States.

That is why this is a no-brainer. This is so simple. Everybody should be for this agreement. It creates a more level playing field. I urge my colleagues to support this agreement. When they read the agreement and understand the terms, it should go through with no opposition because we are, in fact, helping Americans, American jobs.

The only wrinkle I hear about is Colombia. I have been there. When one is in Colombia--and I have known their leaders, the past two Presidents--it is clear that they have made huge progress. If we reject this agreement, I submit that the progress made thus far will slip, and the conditions in Colombia will start to deteriorate.

We must pass these three trade agreements. Also, the U.S. political- geopolitical position in South America is critical. If we adopt this agreement, that will enhance America's geopolitical position in South America. If we don't do it, Colombians are going to say: We have given up on the United States. We have been trying to negotiate this for over 5 years. Then where are they going to go? They will embrace Venezuela or China.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining time be yielded back, with the exception of 15 minutes, to be equally divided between Senator Baucus and the Republican leader, with Senator Baucus controlling the first 7\1/2\ minutes; that upon completion of their remarks, the Senate proceed to votes on passage of H.R. 3080, H.R. 3079, and H.R. 3078 as provided under the previous order; that there be 2 minutes, equally divided, in the usual form between the votes; and that all after the first vote be 10-minute votes.

Mr. President, my remarks will be brief because we are at a point, finally, where we are passing these three trade agreements.

The Colombia, Panama, and South Korea Free Trade Agreements will increase U.S. exports by $13 billion, boost gross domestic product by more than $15 billion, and support or create tens of thousands of American jobs.

These agreements will provide an economic boost at a time when our country sorely needs it. But the value of these agreements goes well beyond dollars and cents. In recent years, critics of the United States have argued we have surrendered our leadership role on international trade. They claim our government, with its divided powers and narrow and changing partisan majorities, is incapable of forming a consensus for expanding trade, let alone a consensus on other political matters, including reducing our national debt.

Today, we have the opportunity to prove our critics wrong. These agreements were negotiated by a Republican President, improved by a Democratic President, and will be supported by strong bipartisan majorities in the House and in the Senate. They demonstrate the best of American values--open markets, transparent regulation, and respect for labor rights and the environment. They set the standard by which all trade agreements will be judged, and they put to rest any doubt the United States will engage its global partners to establish trade rules that are both free and fair.

By approving these agreements, we will also bind ourselves even more closely to three of our most important allies, and we will demonstrate to countries around the world that the United States is a good and dependable partner.

One decade ago, Colombia was on the brink of collapse. Armed conflict raged, drug traffickers flourished, violence against workers flared, and the economy stagnated. The United States pledged its support for Plan Colombia. With that plan, we provided more than $7 billion to Colombia to fight drug trafficking, spur development, and protect human rights.

With our assistance, Colombia has achieved amazing progress. It is healing from the wounds of conflict. It has demobilized 50,000 former combatants, stemmed the flow of illegal drugs and the violence associated with it, and it is reducing labor violence and strengthening worker rights. If we approve our free-trade agreement with Colombia, we will help Colombia solidify and build on these gains, and we will reap for ourselves the benefits of our significant investments in this important country.

Panama has been a friend and ally since its early days as a nation. In the early 20th century, the United States built the Panama Canal, which remains the world's greatest commercial hub. We helped the Panamanian people restore democracy in 1989 after 20 years of military rule.

Today, Panama is among the fastest growing countries in the Western Hemisphere. It is both the crossroads of international trade and a global financial center. It is also a close partner in the fight against the illegal drug trade. With the Panama Free Trade Agreement, we will further strengthen our relationship for decades to come.

South Korea is a strategic ally in a region clearly vital to U.S. national interests. Despite living under the constant threat of a dangerous and erratic neighbor, South Korea has become the 15th largest economy in the world. Last year, it served as President of the G20 group of countries.

This trade agreement we have concluded with South Korea is our largest bilateral agreement in nearly two decades. It will ensure our commercial relationship is as strong as our 60-year security partnership.

These free-trade agreements will deliver significant economic benefits to the American people. Let us renew a bipartisan consensus on trade, reaffirm U.S. leadership in the global economy, and cement our ties with three important partners. Let us approve our free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.

I might add, before I yield to the Republican leader, that the order of the agreements is, first, on Panama, then South Korea, and then Colombia.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, what is the regular order?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, we are now voting on the Panama TPA to provide lucrative new opportunities for American farmers. It will level the playing field for American exporters and do a lot of stuff.

Let me say this. Basically, we accept virtually all Panama's products duty free--virtually. Panama has significant duties on products going into Panama. This is a free-trade agreement. It is a freebie. I urge Members to vote for it so now we can export more products to Panama. Vote for this agreement.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Ohio showing us the big, long stack. Those are all the tariffs Panama is going to get rid of and reduce so we can sell more products to Panama. I appreciate the Senator pointing that out to us.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we are now on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I am not going to take a lot of time. I think most Senators know how they are going to vote.

Let me say I have visited Colombia. I am extremely impressed with the progress Colombia has made. Colombia was a failed state, a failed country about 10 years ago. With America's Plan Colombia and the assistance we have given, the narcotraffic is dramatically down, the labor killings are dramatically down. Clearly, we don't want one labor member killed or anyone killed in Colombia. But the fact is there is tremendous progress in Colombia. Colombia is so important to America's geopolitical future and to South America. If we cut and run, Colombia is going to run away from the United States. We will not be trusted. They will go to other countries, including Venezuela, China, and so forth.

I urge my colleagues who are on the fence--who are on the fence--to vote for this because that is a vote for the future. The glass is half full.

Mr. President, I think this is a great day. It shows America is moving forward, is forward-leaning, forward-looking. I thank the countries with whom we have reached these agreements. They, too, have shown courage. I hope this is a good model we can pursue in the future.

In that vein, I would like to thank some people who worked extremely hard on this agreement. They are members of my staff, beginning with my chief trade person, Amber Cottle; Mike Smart, Hun Quach, Chelsea Thomas, Gabriel Adler, Rory Murphy, Danielle Fidler, Sarah Babcock, and Jane Beard.

I also very much thank the staff who works for my good friend and colleague, Senator Hatch, beginning especially with Everett Eissenstat. We have been a real team, and I believe very strongly that not much is accomplished in this body if you try to go it alone, if you try to do it by yourself. Rather, much is accomplished with teamwork and working together, and I thank very much my team, and very much I thank the team from Senator Hatch. It is nice to see Everett over there nodding his head. He knows teamwork really works.

Mr. President, I thank you, also, very much.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I rise to speak at this watershed moment in the U.S.-China relationship. This is a relationship that will affect our children's future. And how we manage this relationship now will help determine the long-term strength of our Nation.

Warren Buffett has an answer for anyone who questions America's future.

As he said earlier this year:

The prophets of doom have overlooked the all-important

factor that is certain: Human potential is far from

exhausted, and the American system for unleashing that

potential--a system that has worked wonders for over two

centuries despite frequent interruptions for recessions and

even a Civil War--remains alive and effective . . . Now, as

in 1776, 1861, 1932 and 1941, America's best days lie ahead.

I agree.

America has the world's best universities, a tradition of brilliant entrepreneurship, and the drive and ingenuity of our people.

We gave the world the light bulb, the airplane, the Polio vaccine, the personal computer, and the Internet. We have been the world's engine of innovation for more than a century.

But we cannot rest on our laurels. We can and must rise to the challenge of China. This is a challenge I recognized long ago. That is why I led the effort to grant permanent normal trade relations to China, so we could begin to get China to play by the rules.

That is also why I have traveled to China eight different times, to stress to their leaders the importance of playing by those rules.

China has grown explosively during that time period. It is now the second-largest economy in the world. And it continues to expand.

China's growth presents real opportunities for American entrepreneurs and workers. Over the last decade, our exports to China have increased by close to 500 percent. That is eight times faster than the growth of our exports to the rest of the world. China is now the third-largest market in the world for U.S. exports. And it is the number one market for U.S. agricultural exports.

But we should not blind ourselves to the very real challenges that China also poses to American entrepreneurs and workers. Too often, China seeks an unfair advantage in international trade, including by manipulating the value of its currency.

In my most recent trip to China last November, I met with Vice President Xi Jinping and other top leaders. We discussed a broad range of issues.

On currency, my message was clear: China needed to allow its currency to appreciate more quickly to market levels. If not, the U.S. Congress likely would take up--and pass--currency legislation.

Since my trip, China has only allowed its currency to appreciate by 3 percent. The Chinese government continues to intervene to keep its currency significantly below its real market value. That is why I intend to support this bill.

I did not come to this decision lightly. I have never favored unilateral approaches. But the time has come to take action.

And the United States needs a thoughtful China policy that takes action on other fronts as well. The currency issue is only one of many problems facing American companies in China.

The problem of intellectual property theft in China is enormous. To cite but one example, an astounding 80 percent of the software installed on Chinese computers is pirated. That represents an enormous lost opportunity for U.S. software companies, who lead the world in innovation.

And China bars many of our exports from entering its market at all. China shuts out American beef exports entirely. And it imposes barriers that effectively prevent the entry of U.S. companies into its banking, insurance, and telecommunications sectors.

So while this bill addresses an important piece of the puzzle, it is not enough for China to appreciate its currency. China can and must take action to address these other problems as well.

Ultimately, though, America's future as a great economic power will not be dictated by what China does. It will be dictated by what we do. It is about us.

It is about the principles that made America great. It is about our freedom, our justice, our democracy, and the will, creativity, and endurance of our people. And it is about what we must do to get our own house in order so that we can continue to compete and win on the global stage.

We must focus on policies and initiatives that encourage American entrepreneurship.

We must nurture and protect American innovation, both at home and abroad. That is why I introduced a bill to strengthen the research and development tax credit and make it permanent.

We also must reform our Tax Code to unleash new investment and make college more accessible. That is why I have been holding a series of Finance Committee hearings to pave the way for tax reform.

And we must work together to open export markets around the world. That's why I strongly support the pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.

We took an important step last month to pave the way for these trade agreements when we renewed trade adjustment assistance with a strong bipartisan vote. It is now time to approve the trade agreements themselves so that American entrepreneurs, workers, farmers, and ranchers can unlock the potential of these key export markets.

So as we debate this bill, let us not forget that the currency issue is only one of many challenges in our relationship with China. Let us also be mindful of our larger challenges both at home and abroad. And let us continue to nurture American entrepreneurship here at home so that we remain the world's engine of innovation.

As long as we do so, we can be sure that, as always, America's best days lie ahead.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, 18 years ago, Mary Ellen Nelson started in my Kalispell office. In that time, Mary Ellen earned the respect and admiration of her colleagues both in my offices across the State, in Washington, DC and with the Finance Committee. Staff always enjoyed getting the chance to talk with Mary Ellen and hear her words of wisdom. I have treasured her caring nature and thoughtful advice and am grateful for all her hard work over the years. It is important to note: my staff members don't just work for me--they work for all Montanans. Mary Ellen has served the young, the old, the successful, the downtrodden, and Montanans of all political stripes. It has been an honor to have her on staff and to work together for the State we cherish.

Working for VISTA is what brought Mary Ellen to Montana where she met and married her husband Ray of 34 years. A few years later they moved to Kalispell where she worked for the school system and the mentally disabled children of Flathead Valley before her work in the U.S Senate. Mary Ellen's compassion to others resonates in her dedication to her family, community and the constituents of Montana. Mary Ellen has helped thousands of Montanans work their way through Social Security, Medicare, and other issues throughout the years. Her calm, nurturing character and commitment to helping others have benefitted thousands of Montanans throughout her 18 years of service.

A few years ago when Mary Ellen's two sons were graduating from college, I told her that graduations and weddings were important events and needed to be celebrated. The same is true of retirements. Mary Ellen will be enjoying her hours with her family, including her son Matthew in Kalispell, son George and daughter-in-law Monica in DC, her 90-year-old father, Leo Holland, and visiting her first grandchild Dominic who was born on Mary Ellen's birthday January 24 of this year. Mary Ellen, congratulations, good luck, and enjoy your retirement. Thank you for your many years of service in my office, the U.S. Senate, the community of Kalispell, and countless Montanans for your tireless work to help others. We are sure going to miss you, your talents, and your warm and accommodating personality.

Mary Ellen is proud of her Irish heritage so I would like to end with this Irish Retirement Blessing:

May you always have work

for your hands to do.

May your pockets hold

always a coin or two.

May the sun shine bright

on your windowpane.

May the rainbow be certain

to follow each rain.

May the hand of a friend

always be near you.

And may God fill your heart

with gladness to cheer you.

I wish to thank Senator Bingaman for raising this issue, and Senator Stabenow for clarifying the intentions. I would like to echo the Senator's comments and reiterate the importance of ensuring that a full and affordable oral health benefit and the consumer protections we so carefully drafted apply equally to the pediatric oral care benefit whether offered by a stand-alone dental plan or a qualified health plan in an exchange.

Mr. BINGAMAN: I thank Senators Baucus and Stabenow for their assistance in clarifying this issue.

Mr. President, I want to thank all those Montanans who have participated in TAA and have shared their stories with me. They include Jerry Ann Ross, Wilfred Johnson, Daryl Blasing, Larry Netzel, Albert Drebes, and Kris Allen.

These Montanans embody the ideals of the TAA Program, which encourages people to keep trying, even when they have been let down or let go. Their hard work and perseverance led them to their success today.

I also want to thank a few more Montanans. These folks work tirelessly to deliver the TAA program and to help people like Jerry Ann and Larry get good-paying jobs. I want to recognize and thank the following: Kathy Yankoff, Elaine Eidum, Laura Gardner, and Wolf Ametsbichler.

And I want to thank the educational institutions that have helped to train these workers to find good-paying jobs. These include Flathead Valley Community College, University of Montana, especially the College of Technology; and Helena College of Technology.

I know these names are just a few of the many American success stories across the country.

For those Americans who have good paying jobs, keep at it. And for those of you who are looking for a job, help is on the way.

I am proud to support these Montanans. I am proud to support TAA.

Mr. President, the book of Ecclesiastes contains wisdom that should guide us today, and I am paraphrasing. This is not exactly what the Scriptures say: For everything there is a season and a time for every matter under the Sun. Or, to state it more colloquially, there is a time and place for everything. Some times are better than others; some places are better than others.

My colleague from Texas offered an amendment that required the President to sell F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan. I, respectfully, note the debate on this trade adjustment assistance bill is not the appropriate time, season, or place to raise this issue. This is a trade bill. This is not about sales of F-16s to Taiwan or to any country. It is a wholly different subject. It has nothing to do with what we are trying to debate today and focus our attention on so we can get this legislation passed.

The adoption of an amendment on an unrelated and controversial issue of Taiwanese arms sales would derail the carefully negotiated bipartisan agreement on trade assistance. If this

amendment would pass of itself, irrespective of the merits, it would derail passage of trade adjustment assistance because it would be an amendment. So it would go over to the other body, they would have to work with it, maybe concur with it, include maybe other amendments, and it would, perhaps, come over here again.

We have an agreement between the House and Senate and White House where we pass both trade adjustment assistance and then we can pass the free-trade agreements and most everybody wins. This amendment ultimately would imperil passage of the three pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.

I know my good friend--I suspect; that would be presumptuous of me-- but I suspect my good friend from Texas is very much in favor of those three trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. I know a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle also support the sale of F-16s to Taiwan.

But to paraphrase Ecclesiastes, this is an issue that should be debated at another time. Not here. At another time.

Just 9 days ago, Senator Cornyn introduced legislation on the F-16 issue that tracks the substantive language of this amendment. That amendment has been referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where it belongs. That is, in fact, the right way to deal with this issue, through consideration by the committee of jurisdiction.

In the spirit of Ecclesiastes, I, therefore, urge my colleagues to save this issue for another day to vigorously discuss and debate it, to look at the merits, to see what makes sense and does not make sense. But that is for another day. We should vote against the amendment at this time. It could be a very meritorious issue, I am not passing judgment on it, but this is not the time and place. If it were adopted, it would severely jeopardize the passage of trade adjustment assistance and also the free-trade agreements which are supported by many Members of this body.

Amendment No. 650

I would like to speak on another matter, and that is the Thune amendment. The Thune amendment looks backwards to the past when we should be looking forward to the future. I understand Senator Thune will offer his amendment very soon today.

The bill before the Senate restores urgently needed job training for American workers impacted by trade. It also clears the path for Congress to approve our job creating trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. The bill reflects the understanding among the Senate, the House and the President, about how to move the trade agenda forward. But the Thune amendment looks, not forward, it looks backwards. It calls for a new government report on the harm from delaying the pending free-trade agreements. No one disputes the harm; that is not the issue. The issue is how quickly can we adopt them.

Harm; that is, delay, is well documented, and there is blame to go all around, so we should not waste scarce resources to score political points; that is, it is not worth time trying to point the finger of blame anywhere. Rather, it makes much more sense to get the job done; that is, pass the free-trade agreements. And passage of the trade adjustment assistance will mean passage of the free-trade agreements. So we should instead use our resources to identify foreign trade barriers that impede U.S. exports. We should help small businesses succeed in global markets, and we should monitor whether our trade partners are abiding by the rules.

So let's look forward, not to the past. Let's avoid further delay of our trade agreements. Let's defeat this amendment and send to the House a clean bill on trade adjustment assistance.

Amendment No. 651

Speaking on another amendment--first was the Cornyn amendment, second was the Thune amendment, and now is the Rubio amendment, which will be voted upon soon--I urge my colleagues to vote against Senator Rubio's amendment. It would limit trade adjustment benefits only to workers who lose their jobs as a result of imports from a country with which the United States has a free-trade agreement. The United States has only about 17 free-trade agreement partners. We do not limit our trade just to those countries. There is a lot of trade around the world. The United States trades with virtually every country in the world, not just to countries with which we have free-trade agreements. In fact, we export to nearly 200 countries around the world. Remember, we have only 17 free-trade agreements, but we export to nearly 200 countries around the world.

Under this amendment, the Rubio amendment, workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade with 8 of our top 10 trade partners, including China and Japan, would not receive TAA benefits. Why? Because there is no free-trade agreement with those countries. It makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, the Rubio amendment would say to workers around the country, if you lose your job due to trade with China, you are out of luck. If you lose your job due to trade with India, you are out of luck. Only if you lose your job with a country with which we have a free-trade agreement do you get assistance.

The Rubio amendment would significantly, therefore, limit the number of workers who get help under trade adjustment assistance. Why would we want to do that? Why would we want to do that at a time when 14 million Americans are looking for work? Trade adjustment assistance helps Americans get the important retraining they need to find good-paying jobs, and now is not the time to shut out those Americans.

So for these reasons--and also because passage of the Rubio amendment would jeopardize passage of trade adjustment assistance and jeopardize the passage of free-trade agreements--I urge my colleagues to oppose that amendment as well.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent the votes with respect to amendments and passage of H.R. 2832, the GSP bill, occur at 4:30 p.m.; that all after the first vote be 10-minute votes; that prior to the vote in relation to the Cornyn amendment, there be 10 minutes equally divided, with remaining provisions of the previous order remaining in effect; finally, the amount of additional time this agreement adds for debate on the bill and amendments prior to the votes be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, this bill addresses our country's most urgent priority--jobs. It helps American workers acquire the skills they need to compete and win in the global economy. It gives American businesses better access to the materials they need to make world-class products, and that is just the beginning. It also opens the door to an ambitious trade agenda, an agenda that will increase U.S. exports, grow our economy, and create jobs. That agenda includes our pending free- trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.

The first step is to renew the trade adjustment assistance. Trade adjustment assistance has been an essential part of U.S. trade policy for nearly 50 years. When we negotiate trade agreements, we create new economic opportunity and spur growth but also increase competition. TAA helps American workers and businesses meet that competition with job training, income support, health coverage, and technical assistance.

Over the years we have reformed TAA to keep pace with the changing global economy. In 2009 we extended TAA to cover service industry workers and workers whose jobs shifted overseas to any country, and we increased funding for job training and health care. But the 2009 reforms expired. They expired last February.

Congress has never approved one free-trade agreement, much less three, with TAA expired. This year must be no exception. This legislation will restore the 2009 TAA reforms and responsible program cuts to achieve necessary cost savings. This legislation will clear the path to consider and approve our free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.

If we do not approve this legislation we will impose a roadblock that could derail our three free-trade agreements. We cannot afford to fail. Weak consumer demand at home threatens to stall our recovery. We need these agreements to increase sales of U.S. farm products, manufactured goods, and services abroad.

The International Trade Commission estimates that these agreements will boost U.S. exports by $13 billion. Most important, these additional exports will increase economic growth and support tens of thousands of American jobs. We cannot delay.

This summer, for example, trade agreements between the European Union and Korea, and between Canada and Colombia entered into force. U.S. exporters are losing sales to their European and Canadian competitors. American jobs are at risk. Let's restore U.S. trade adjustment assistance for American workers, let's expand trade preferences for the benefit of American manufacturers, and let's move quickly to our pending free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, it is my understanding there will be two votes at approximately 12:30. One is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, and another by the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain. I wish to explain, in a few minutes, why I think it is advisable for the Senate to not adopt either of those two amendments. Let me first address the amendment offered by my good friend from Utah, Senator Hatch.

There are a lot of people looking for work. Today, about 14 million Americans are looking for work. More than 6 million have been out of work for at least 6 months. These Americans are looking to put in a good day's work and looking to provide for their families. At the same time, many employers cannot find enough skilled workers to fill the jobs that are open. It is very difficult, because employers need people with specialized skills. This is becoming more and more true with each passing year. We need workers who are good at math. We need workers who are good with their hands, who are trained in high-tech manufacturing. The bottom line is, employers need an educated and skilled workforce. Trade adjustment assistance can help bridge this gap. Trade adjustment assistance can train workers and connect them with employers who are looking to grow their businesses.

Let me mention a fellow who has been a big beneficiary who has been helped by this program. His name is Kris Allen. Kris lost his job at Montana Tunnels in Jefferson City, MT, in 2009. Because of trade adjustment assistance, he was able to go to school at Helena College of Technology. He wanted to be a diesel mechanic. He made the dean's list most of the semesters. In May of 2011 he graduated. In fact, he got his degree on a Friday and started work the very next Monday. His new job at a trade company in Belgrade earns him $18 an hour. Kris has not stopped there. He continues to hone his skills at Montana Resources keeping up to date on the latest technology and machinery.

In this fast-paced globalized economy, human capital is the key to our country's competitiveness and economic vitality. Americans such as Kris know the benefits of a good day's work, and he could not have done this without trade adjustment assistance. That is why I must oppose the Hatch amendment. The amendment would withhold trade adjustment assistance benefits to this bill until a free-trade agreement with South Korea and Colombia and Panama is approved. It would delay Americans such as Kris from getting the help they need to find good- paying jobs, and the amendment would delay businesses such as New Holland Trade Company from hiring employees and growing their company.

The Senate is here this week to consider the GSP trade adjustment assistance bill. It is my hope the Senate will pass it in short order and will send the bill to the House, which is expected to pass it shortly.

We have an agreement, and that is an agreement between the leadership of both the House and Senate, an agreement on how the Congress will consider trade adjustment assistance and also how to consider free- trade agreements. There is no need to legislate this process. In fact, doing so could substantially delay the process and disrupt disagreements, not just disrupt trade adjustment assistance but disrupt passage of free-trade agreements.

I might add that there is a difference between the legislative process with respect to trade adjustment assistance and free-trade agreements. Trade adjustment assistance is legislation. It goes through the usual legislative process. It can be delayed. There is no requirement that it be voted on.

That is not true with free-trade agreements. Once the President sends up a free-trade agreement, it enjoys a certain fast-tack process under which there must be a vote in both bodies after a certain period of time. It is not imperative between the legislative process in one and the special fast-

track process for the other. It is why the agreement was reached encouraging trust on both sides for the trade adjustment assistance amendment to be passed by both bodies first before the President can send up the free-trade agreements. He has indicated he will do so.

I have very strong assurance from the White House that is the case. In fact, that is the agreement with the leadership, that if the trade adjustment assistance passes, then the free-trade agreement will come up and be voted on and passed in the House and then voted on and passed in the Senate.

The best way to support our trade agenda and the best way to support free-trade agreements is to not accept the amendment as offered by my good friend from Utah so we can get both passed very quickly.

Amendment No. 625

Virtually, the same is true with respect to the amendment offered by Senator McCain. I oppose Senator McCain's amendment. He wants to go back and undo some of the progress that was made in trade adjustment assistance. Let's start with the 2002 trade adjustment assistance law. That made important changes in trade adjustment assistance. In fact, I helped write that law.

In 2002 trade adjustment assistance covered manufacturing workers, and it covered workers whose jobs shifted to countries with which we had a free-trade agreement. So it covered workers who were in manufacturing who lost their jobs, and then it covered workers whose jobs were shifted to countries with which we had a free-trade agreement. Other aspects of American employment, such as services, did not cover the jobs that shifted to countries with which we did not have a free-trade agreement.

That 2002 law not only covered manufacturing workers and workers whose jobs shifted to countries with which we had a free-trade agreement, it also doubled training funds. Doubled it. Training is so critical. It also provided a new tax credit to help Americans better afford health insurance for themselves and their families. That is no small item. We all know how hard it is to get health insurance especially for individuals in small firms. We are not talking about big companies. We are talking about individuals who have lost their jobs. We also know how expensive health care is; therefore, there is a great need for health insurance. Again, that 2002 change of the trade adjustment assistance doubled training funds. Training is so important in today's modern society, and it provided a new tax credit to help Americans better afford health insurance.

Our economy has changed since 2002. America's strength in manufacturing expanded to include a robust services sector, which is now 80 percent of our economy. Madam President, 80 percent of our economy today is services. It is all different facets. It is call centers, insurance, and everything you can think of that is characterized as services. America's trade with foreign nations has expanded to countries such as China and India, big countries with which we do not have free-trade agreements. The service sector has expanded just since 2002, and we have trade with other countries with which we do not have free-trade agreements.

I believe trade adjustment assistance should cover workers both in manufacturing and services. It should cover workers whose jobs move to any country, especially China, whether it is an FTA country--free-trade agreement country--or not.

These changes in realities have prompted me and my colleagues to update that program, to update it from what it was in 2002. It was updated in 2009. When they updated it in 2009 the law brought trade adjustment assistance more fully to the 21st century by providing Americans with training for the new economy. Unfortunately, those expanded provisions expired in February. They are gone. That had a big impact. Thousands of workers were denied access because the expiration of the expansion of trade adjustment assistance.

For example, more than 1,000 service sector workers in both Texas and Virginia were denied TAA benefits when the 2009 law expired earlier this year. These workers likely will be eligible under the trade adjustment assistance compromise I negotiated with Chairman Camp. Chairman David Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and I and our staffs spent a lot of time getting an agreement on trade adjustment assistance, what the provisions should be, how far the expansion should go, and how it should be paid for. It was an agreement, a bipartisan agreement. There is not much of that around here, but we worked hard and got the job done.

I must say, however, under Senator McCain's amendment, these service workers I mentioned would remain shut out. They would not qualify. I think it is time to bring us into the modern world. It is time to provide equal access to all Americans regardless of whether they work on a factory floor or a call center. It should not matter. If you lose your job on account of trade, you should get trade adjustment assistance benefits regardless of whether the job moves to Mexico, a country with whom we do have a free-trade agreement or if the job moves to a country such as China, a country with whom we do not have a free- trade agreement.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose the McCain amendment. I think it is unwise. I might also add that if either of these two amendments pass, guess what. It gets all gummed up over in the House. The House, therefore, cannot take up the clean trade adjustment assistance amendment. We have to go back all over again, amend it again, back and forth.

Do you know what that is going to do? It is going to do two things: That is going to jeopardize passage of then updated trade adjustment assistance. Guess what else it is going to do. It is going to jeopardize passage of free-trade agreements. I think a vast majority of the Members of this body and in the other body, together, want both of these matters passed.

I must say if we had amendments here, despite them being defective on the merits, if amendments are added, it is going to delay the process further. The House will have to amend it again, send it back over here, and it is going to very much delay both the trade adjustment assistance and the free-trade agreements. For those reasons I urge that those amendments not be agreed to.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this country has an extremely high unemployment rate. We all know a lot of people are losing jobs and some are losing jobs on account of trade. The world has changed, even as recently as 2002. In 2002, the law said: OK. If a person loses a job on account of jobs going to a free-trade country, they are eligible for trade adjustment assistance, but it has to be a manufacturing job.

That was changed in 2009 because the country has changed. There are a lot of countries with which we trade that are not FTA partners--China, India. It makes eminent sense, if someone loses a job on account of trade with any country, that person should be eligible for trade adjustment assistance and not just with FTA countries.

Secondly, we expanded that to services. Eighty percent of the workers in our country are in the services sector, not the manufacturing sector. That addition was also provided for in 2009.

For technical reasons also, if this amendment passes, it jeopardizes both TAA as well as FTA because everything has to be renegotiated. So I urge this amendment not be agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hatch or his designee be recognized to offer amendment No. 642; that following the Hatch amendment Senator Cornyn be recognized for debate only for up to 15 minutes; then Senator Kyl or his designee be recognized to offer amendment No. 645 anytime prior to 5 p.m.; that the time until 5 p.m. be for debate on the Hatch and Kyl amendments and be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that at 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Hatch and Kyl amendments, in that order; that there be no amendments, points of order, or motions in order to either amendment prior to the votes other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that each amendment be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; and there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote.

Mr. President, I very much thank my friend for bringing this up. Moldova is a country which joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, and for various reasons--basically, it is Jackson-Vanik or the relic of Jackson-Vanik--Moldova has not been granted PNTR. But Moldova has made huge, successful strides in its government, in its political and economic reforms. I am very impressed with Moldova. It is a friend to the United States.

Although we cannot deal with that issue on this bill, I want to make it very clear to my friend from Arizona that we will take up legislation this year to ensure that Moldova is granted PNTR status and becomes a full member in the world community. I make that pledge to my friend from Arizona to get that done this year.

And I thank the Senator for standing for the people of Moldova.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Cole, a fellow in the office of Senator Pryor, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of H.R. 2832, the Generalized System of Preferences Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to the next vote.

Mr. President, I agree with much of what the minority leader said. I very much believe we should negotiate free-trade agreements with other countries. I think we are behind the curve. Other countries are negotiating. We are being left behind. We should negotiate agreements that are good agreements.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky, however, is the 2002 version. A lot has changed in the last 10 years. There are environmental provisions, labor, and China is very much a competitor. I think it would be unwise to extend TPA because there are changes in the world today that this version does not reflect. It has to be updated to the current times.

Second, if this amendment would pass, then we wouldn't be getting free-trade agreements. The Speaker has made it very clear he wants a clean bill and then he will take up TAA--this bill--which many of us support by a large margin, and then he will take up the free-trade agreements. So if this body wants TAA and wants the FTAs, we have to vote against this amendment at this time.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.