Sen. Manchin on Secrecy in Trade Policy

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 79 (Thursday, May 21, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3202-S3212]

[...]

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1381

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor and I, like my good
friend the Senator from Massachusetts, am very concerned about the lack
of transparency in this whole process of the trade agreement, very
concerned.
I saw the TPP text. I went downstairs and I saw that. I have to say
the whole process was extremely disturbing to me. Members must go to a
classified room. Now, we do go to classified rooms, as a bipartisan
group, on many issues that are very important to this country. I had
gone down because I wanted to see for myself the transcript of the TPP,
what they have dealt with and how far they are along right now in the
negotiations.
The viewing of the documents that are very technical in nature, as we
all know, is oftentimes without a trade staffer with appropriate
clearance. So here I am, I am not able to take staff--or only staff who
has had secured clearance, and it might not be the staff on my staff
who has the expertise in this, so that takes that equation away.
We are unable to take any notes to consider what we just saw unless
we have a photographic memory. Unfortunately, I do not. I have tried
the best I can to remember and look for things I knew I was looking
for. But still yet, it is almost impossible to walk out of there having
the ability to sit down and evaluate what you just saw, and then we are
unable to talk to anyone about it--even to my staff, as I would like to
get their input, since I have been, basically, looking at the details,
and especially the public, too, has no idea about any issues that
concern them.
The secretive nature of the largest free-trade deal in America's
history truly just lacks common sense. Let me explain. In July of 2001,
President Bush at that time released the draft text of the Free Trade
Area of the Americas Agreement, the FTAA. He did this months before he
was granted fast-track authority. He wasn't afraid to let us see it. He
wasn't afraid to let the American public know what was in that. We were
able to see it, and it didn't squelch the deal. It didn't harm
anything.
They released the text of the FTAA, the different positions of 34
countries in important areas such as intellectual property rights,
investor-state dispute settlements, and antidumping duties--all very
important to our country and the jobs we have in this country.
Now we have a massive 12-country trade agreement that is currently
being negotiated, and the President wants us to grant him the fast-
track authority before not only the American people have even seen the
text but mostly even our staffs whom we delegate to work on these
intricate documents.
Our bill that we will be asking consideration for would simply
require the President to release the scrubbed, bracketed text of any
trade agreement at least 60 days before Congress would grant the fast-
track authority. This is pretty sensible, pretty reasonable. Just
release the scrubbed document that you have agreed on so far 60 days
before you ask us to give the fast-track authority.
Before any Member of Congress is asked to vote on the most expansive
bill in U.S. trade history, the American people deserve to see what is
in the bill. That is why they elect us, to make sure we are able to
confer with them, have a dialogue, and explain why we are or why we may
not be for a certain piece of legislation, especially a trade
agreement.
If this bill is as good for the American worker as proponents have
claimed, then the administration and anybody else should not find it
objectionable to see the details before Congress is forced to grant the
President trade promotion authority.

[[Page S3210]]

I want to say, in my beautiful little State of West Virginia, as I go
through it and we look back through the trade agreements that have
already been granted since NAFTA, we have not seen an uptick. In fact,
we have lost 31,000 manufacturing jobs. I, for one, am not willing to
vote to put one more job in jeopardy in West Virginia.
That is the concern we have. So what we are asking for is a very
modest, very sensible, very reasonable, commonsense approach to how we
should do the job the people elect us to do and how it should be
transparent.
At this time I yield the floor to my friend, the Senator from
Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from West Virginia,
Senator Manchin. I thank him for his leadership. I thank him for his
independence. I thank him for his partnership as we push for greater
transparency on this very important trade bill.
In the past few weeks, the public has heard a lot about the Trans-
Pacific Partnership, a massive trade deal the United States is
negotiating with 11 other trade companies. The public has heard from
supporters that it is the most progressive trade deal in history--a
deal that will benefit working families and small businesses--and they
have heard from opponents that it will only tilt the playing field
further in favor of multinational corporations and leave workers and
everyone else behind.
The public has heard a lot, but in all that time they have never
actually seen the deal itself. In fact, the press hasn't seen the deal,
economists haven't seen the deal, legal experts haven't seen the deal.
Most everyone in America hasn't seen the deal. Why? Because the
administration has classified the deal, making it illegal for any of
those people to read it.
Members of Congress, as Senator Manchin said, can read it so long as
they go into a secret room and don't leave with any notes. But even
Members of Congress are prohibited from talking about the details in
public or discussing the details with the people they were sent to
Washington to represent. And yet, in the next day or two, the Senate is
scheduled to vote on whether to grease the skids to make that secret
trade deal--the TPP--the law of the land.
This isn't how democracy is supposed to work. One of our fundamental
principles of representative government is transparency. Our government
is supposed to keep things secret from the people only if it has a very
good reason to do so. So why is this trade deal a secret? I just want
to go over the answers I have heard so far, the reasons.
Some say the administration can't release the deal because the deal
isn't finished yet. OK, so maybe there are some unresolved issues, but
everyone agrees the deal is nearly complete. It is close enough to
being done that its supporters can confidently claim it is the most
progressive trade deal in history. If you are sure that is right, then
show it to us. If some parts aren't finished, then show us the parts
that are finished. Don't keep every single word of the deal classified.
Others say releasing the text now would be tipping our hand in
continuing negotiations, but that doesn't make any sense either. Our
government has already shared the details of our positions with the
other TPP countries, and those countries have shared details with us.
That is how negotiations work. Publicly releasing what our negotiating
partners have already seen couldn't possibly undermine our negotiations
because, by definition, our negotiating partners have already seen it.
Here is another argument I have heard. Releasing the text of an
unfinished international agreement simply isn't done; it is a breach of
protocol. Well, that is not true either. As Senator Manchin pointed
out, in 2001, President George W. Bush publicly released the scrubbed
bracketed text of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas several
months before seeking fast-track authority for that agreement. At the
time, his U.S. Trade Representative said that releasing the text
``would increase public awareness and support for the trade deal.''
Guess what. Congress still approved that fast-track deal. Of course it
can be done. It has been done, and it should be done.
Still others say that publicly releasing the text would endanger
state secrets. Wow. But this agreement is not about nuclear weapons
programs or military operations. There isn't any national security
information in this deal. This deal is about things such as copyright
rules and labor standards. And I know the President doesn't think there
is any sensitive national security information in the deal. That is why
he has already committed to publicly releasing the entire text. He just
won't do it until after Congress has already voted to grease the skids
to make it law.
That brings us to the last justification--that we should all be
satisfied that the administration will release the text of the deal a
few months before Congress has to vote on whether to approve it. But by
then, Congress will have lost the ability to amend the deal, to stop
the deal, or to slow it down. In other words, by the time you--the
American public--can read the deal, your elected representatives will
have lost the ability to use your input to help shape that deal. That
sounds like a lousy arrangement to me.
So if there are no good reasons for secrecy here, that leaves only a
bad reason, and believe it or not, it is a reason I have heard people
give multiple times: We should keep the deal secret because if the
details were made public now, the public would oppose it. Well, that is
how our democracy is supposed to work.
If the TPP is mostly done and the public wouldn't support it if they
could see it, then it shouldn't become the law. That is why I have
introduced a simple bill with my friend from West Virginia, Senator
Manchin. This bill would require the President to publicly release the
scrubbed bracketed text of a trade deal at least 60 days before
Congress votes on any fast-track for that deal. That would give the
public, the experts, and the press an opportunity to review the deal.
It would allow for some honest public debate. It would give Congress a
chance to actually step in and block any special deals and giveaways
that are being proposed as part of this trade deal before Congress
decides whether to grease the skids to make that deal the law.
If this trade deal is so great, if it will work so well for America's
workers and small businesses, then make it public. We should pass this
bill today and give the American people some time to read the deal
before we tie ourselves to fast-track.
Whether you support fast-track or oppose it, whether you support TPP
or oppose it, we should all agree that we should have a robust,
informed debate on something that is this important. Anything less is a
disservice to the people who sent us here to work for them.
So I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the Committee on
Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 1381, that the
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third
time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, one concern
I have heard from opponents of the trade promotion authority is that
trade agreements currently under discussion have been negotiated behind
closed doors and that by renewing TPA, Congress would be enabling and
even encouraging further secrecy.
I am going to talk more on this in a minute, but there are 30 days
before the President signs, 60 days after he signs where this will
become well known. So I have to object to my dear colleagues' bill--I
guess it is a bill at this time. I just have to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard this concern from opponents of
trade promotion authority from time to time--that trade agreements
currently under discussion have been negotiated behind closed doors and
that by reviewing TPA, Congress would be enabling and even encouraging
further secrecy. These arguments are particularly being made about the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which is not

[[Page S3211]]

before us. Of course, we need to keep in mind that every Senator
complaining about this supposed secrecy associated with TPP has had an
opportunity to read through the current text of the agreement. And the
agreement is not yet concluded. It won't be unless we pass TPA.
At the same time, I would be very surprised if these same Senators
decrying the secrecy of the TPP negotiations also believe that contract
negotiations between unions and management should be made public or
that it would be a wise negotiating tactic for a private citizen
negotiating the sale of their home to post all the offers they have
received on the Internet.
My point is that in the midst of any high-stakes negotiation, some
level of confidentiality is essential to getting a good deal, and
especially in this case.
That said, I certainly understand the concerns about transparency,
particularly when our government is negotiating on behalf of our
country. Fortunately, our TPA bill strikes a good balance to address
these very concerns. Our TPA bill goes further than any previous
version of TPA to promote transparency and congressional oversight of
the whole trade negotiation process.
First of all, under our bill, the full text of a completed trade
agreement must be made public at least 60 days before the President can
even sign it, giving the American people unprecedented access and
knowledge of all trade agreements before they are signed and well
before they are submitted to Congress.
In addition, the President must submit to Congress the legal text of
a trade agreement and a statement of administrative action at least 30
days before submitting an implementing bill.
On top of that, our bill ensures that any Member of Congress who
wants access to the unredacted negotiated text at any time during the
negotiations will get it. In addition, Members of Congress will--once
again, at any time during the negotiations--be able to request and
receive a briefing from the U.S. Trade Representative's office on the
status of the negotiations.
Our bill also creates in statute a transparency officer at USTR who
will consult with Congress and advise the USTR on transparency
policies. This will help ensure that there are consistent transparency
policies across the Agency and promote greater public understanding of
trade negotiations.
Now, let's be clear. I, as well as other authors of this legislation,
understand the concerns we have heard from both inside and outside
Congress about the need for greater transparency in the trade
negotiation process. We have really worked hard to address these
concerns in this legislation, and in particular the concerns of the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who is a good friend, whom I
admire, and who I think has brought a certain dimension to this Senate
that is very important.
In short, any Member of Congress who is concerned about a lack of
transparency in trade negotiations should be a cosponsor of this TPA
bill--that is, of course, if they are also supporters of expanded
markets for U.S. exporters and the creation of high-paying American
jobs. Those who oppose TPA and trade agreements outright will likely
continue to use this supposed lack of transparency as an excuse to
oppose the bill.
Those with genuine concerns will see that this bill is the right
approach. And we have tried to make it the right approach. I believe it
is the right approach. I believe the administration says it is the
right approach. I know the Trade Representative says it is the right
approach. He has bent over backwards to inform us and to open his
office and to open matters into these not-yet-concluded agreements.
There is plenty of time for us to look at those agreements--any
agreement that comes--and make up our own determinations at that time.
So I don't believe the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts will be
deprived of an ability to look into these matters, completely test the
transparency, and look at these agreements in ways that I think would
please any reasonable person.
With that, I have had to object, but I hope we can pursue this bill
and get it through as soon as we can because it will be a banner day
for the President, I have to admit. He is my President, but he is not
my party; yet, he is right on this. For the life of me, I can't
understand why we are having so much difficulty with his and my friends
on the other side. We ought to be supporting a President who has bent
over backwards, through his Trade Representative and those around him,
to be as open as he possibly can on this matter, at least at this
particular time and I believe afterwards as well.
I always feel bad when I have to object to a person's unanimous
consent request, but I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Will my good friend the Senator from Utah yield for a
question?
Mr. HATCH. I will be glad to yield for a question.
Mr. MANCHIN. Senator, I have the utmost respect for you and the job
you do here every day for all of us. I appreciate that. But we have a
difference here. My difference is that I have to look at the people in
West Virginia--fewer than 2 million people--who depend on the
opportunity to make a living for themselves, and they have hard, strong
feelings about what we have done over the years in trade agreements.
They haven't seen an uptick in opportunity for themselves or their
families.
With that being said, what we have asked for here, the Senator from
Massachusetts and I, is not something that has never been done before.
I can't explain why President George W. Bush would have done this.
Maybe it was on his own volition, saying: I am going to put out this
agreement that has been scrubbed. Basically everything has been agreed
on. We will let you see it and discuss it--the American people and the
Senate and Congress that represents those people--to see if we have
total buy-in and support. If not, we can make some adjustments and
changes.

He did that. That is really what we have asked for here. I respect
your right to object, and I understand the process here. But the
American people don't have input into this, and it has a 51-vote
threshold from this day forward. So any of us who have any objections
or maybe have something that would enhance this bill don't have that
opportunity. That is the reason we have asked for this.
I know the Senator was here and was very much involved in 2001. What
was your position or your opinion when President Bush released a draft
text of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, the FTAA? Do you recall,
by any chance?
Mr. HATCH. I don't personally recall that at this time, other than
that it did pass.
Mr. MANCHIN. He let everybody see it months ahead of time before he
was granted the fast-track authority. He never even asked for TPA until
he released it. And I am sure that you were in the majority at the
time, and everyone had to support that position, I would think.
Mr. HATCH. If the Senator would yield--yes, we did. We supported the
President's position, if I recall correctly. There is nothing that says
the President can't do that. But this bill says he must at least do
certain things.
Mr. MANCHIN. That is because he hasn't offered it to us.
Mr. HATCH. This is a 6-year bill.
Mr. MANCHIN. It is a 3-3. You are right.
Mr. HATCH. There is going to be another President in 2016, whether
Republican or Democrat or otherwise.
So there is nothing that says the President can't do that, but we are
making sure he does do that. We have done it because of questions that
have been raised by people such as the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts and you. We think we have put reasonable time constraints
in there, especially since you can review the TPP as it exists--
although that may or may not be the final agreement. You can review
that now, if you want, and that is well in advance of it.
Mr. MANCHIN. Senator, again, I know you understand it. I am sure you
probably have gone down into the secured room and maybe have looked
through some parts yourself. But it is quite an onerous process. I
couldn't take my staff person who had expertise in that arena because
he did not have that clearance. So I had to go in, and I couldn't take
notes out. Then on top of that, I couldn't even speak to him

[[Page S3212]]

about what I saw because he didn't have that clearance.
I have never been through something like this. For me to go home to
West Virginia and say, with all full knowledge and my ability to make a
decision on the facts I have in front of me, that I support or I do not
support it for these reasons--I can't really do that. I am not really
sure if I could support it. Maybe I can support TPP. But I am really
objectionable to TPA by not having that opportunity to have input in
TPP.
I think that is where I fall. And with a 51-vote threshold, I am not
going to have any input to represent the people of West Virginia. With
all due respect, that is where I am on this.
Mr. HATCH. I understand the distinguished Senator. Let me say that we
all have to make our own individual decisions here.
I would encourage you to reconsider because I think we have a good
bill that is far better than it has been in the past. Frankly, it is
your administration that is putting this forward, and I am doing
everything I can to help this administration get this through.
Mr. MANCHIN. I understand.
Mr. HATCH. Remember that this is the procedural mechanism that gives
Congress the right to really know what is going on and to really look
at these matters. That is why we put in these particular provisions,
which, as far as I know, are better than they have ever been. So
Members of Congress will have an opportunity to know what is in these
bills. I don't know fully what is in TPP, myself, and I am going to be
one of the most interested people on Earth when that comes, if not the
most interested, and when we finally agree. It is still not a completed
agreement, as far as I know.
All I can say is I think we provide enough time in this bill for
anybody who is sincere enough and dedicated enough to look at it.
Mr. MANCHIN. Senator, if you do see something, let's say, as the bill
unfolds and comes to its completion, that you really think is going to
harm the people of Utah, you are not going to have any input to change
that harm. And it is only going to take 51 votes to pass it, even if
harm is in there for Utah.
Mr. HATCH. We will have the ability to take this floor, and those in
the House to take the House floor, and fight against it if you disagree
with it and it starts to get 51 votes.
The administration knows that. They know they can't do a slovenly
agreement. They have got to do a good agreement in order to get both
sides up here to, in a bipartisan way, accept the agreement for our
country.
Mr. MANCHIN. I just feel very strongly that this most reasonable
thing that we have asked for is something that was done under President
Bush. I think it was in his wisdom to put it out there before. There
was nothing to hide.
If we looked into their dialogue back at that period of time, they
felt it was necessary, as Senator Warren mentioned, to get the public's
buy-in, to get support from the public. So they were proud of what they
put into it.
I am not saying things in here aren't good and won't be good for this
country. But there might be some things that could be improved upon
that would make it much better for this country.
I have lost 31,000 manufacturing jobs since NAFTA. It is hard when I
go through my State and I look at people struggling. The jobs have not
returned. They have not come to our little State. We did not see the
uptick.
I am not saying my State represents every State, but I am sure there
are parts of every State that have been hit pretty hard by this, and we
want to make sure we get this one right. That is all we have asked for.
So I am sorry you had to object. I hope you understand our position
on this.
Mr. HATCH. I do, and I appreciate the distinguished Senator and his
efforts to represent his State. I know he does a very good job. I know
the senior Senator from Massachusetts is doing a very good job. We are
friends. This isn't going to change that. All I can say is that we
disagree respectfully. I think I have made this as palatable as we
possibly could under the circumstances.
The point I have been making is that the agreement is available 60
days before it is even signed. So it isn't as if people will not have a
chance to look at it or to fight against it or talk to the President--
whoever that might be.
The fact of the matter is that I am not sure that it should be longer
than 60 plus 60 plus, I think, another 60.
So all I can say is that I have to object, as manager of this bill. I
never feel good about objecting to something my colleagues want. I
respect your desire to have as much information as you can. I respect
the senior Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MANCHIN. Would the Senator be kind enough to yield for a question
from the Senator from Massachusetts if I would yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. MANCHIN. I yield for the Senator from Massachusetts for the
purpose of a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I just want to say to the Senator from
Utah how much I respect his leadership in this Senate and his
leadership on so many important issues.
All I want to say about this is that we are just asking for the trade
deal to be made public before we have this crucial vote about whether
there will be any opportunity in the future to amend the trade deal, to
slow down the trade deal or--as the Senator from West Virginia says--if
we really find objectionable parts, to be able to block it. We are just
asking for some transparency before we have this crucial vote on the
TPA. We don't want to see fast-track until the American public can
evaluate the deal. That is all we are asking for at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I would like the floor. But I would yield the floor to
Senator Hatch, and then ask my friends to stay on the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
California.

[...]

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 79 (Thursday, May 21, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3212-S3213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FAST-TRACK AUTHORITY

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senators Warren and
Manchin, because what they tried to do here is to give to the American
people the same opportunity they had when George W. Bush was President
and a trade deal was being negotiated. Before fast-track came up,
everybody saw the deal.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor
to their bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate that. I am proud to stand with them on this.
And I do respect Senator Hatch. He is my dear friend. But let's be
clear. When you go down to that secret room--and I had the same
experience as Senator Manchin. I couldn't take the proper staffers
because they didn't have the clearance.
This isn't about fighting ISIS or the war in Syria or any other very
high security matter. It is about a trade deal that is supposed to be
negotiated in the best interests of the people of this country.
All my friends are saying is that before we give this President the
ability to fast-track this deal, let's look at it. Here is what happens
when he gets fast-track authority: Not one Member of this Senate and
not one Member of the House can offer any amendment whatsoever.
I think the Senator from West Virginia was very clear on the point.
What if we find out that there is something horrible in there for our
State?
The Senator from Massachusetts pointed out that there are whole parts
of this deal--and I know I am not speaking out of turn here--where it

[[Page S3213]]

just says that they are still being negotiated. So how the heck do we
know what we are even voting on? And here we have given away the store
in this last vote so that we will not have an opportunity to make it
better.
When my friend talked about how many jobs were lost in West Virginia
after NAFTA, my heart sank. Those are a lot of jobs in a smaller State.
My State is a large State. We lost about 80,000-plus jobs. That is a
lot. We are a larger State, though.
Percentagewise, you had 2 million and at the time we had about 30
million. So in terms of percentages, your people suffered mightily. But
we suffered mightily. More than 80,000 families lost their jobs.
I don't want to keep my colleagues on the floor, but I am only going
to speak for 60 seconds more because my colleague from Delaware is such
a pal and said I could go before him.
I have a very simple amendment I am fighting to get a vote on. Listen
to what it is. It simply says you cannot get fast-track authority to
negotiate with any country that doesn't pay at least a $2 minimum wage.
I ask the people who are watching this debate here and at home: Do you
know that out of the 12 countries we are negotiating with, 7 of them
have less than a $2 minimum wage?
Let me be specific. Chile has a $1.91 minimum wage. Malaysia has a
$1.21 minimum wage. Peru has a $1.15 minimum wage. Mexico has an 80-
cent minimum wage.
Do you remember NAFTA? Let's do NAFTA. It is going to raise the
standard of living in Mexico, and the Mexican people won't come across
the border. We had all those factory jobs leave. And in this, Mexico is
part of this deal.
How about Vietnam? 58 cents. And how about Brunei and Singapore? They
have no minimum wage.
What kind of a chance do our workers have? I don't care how
productive they are. We have the most productive workers. The people in
these countries are very smart. They are terrific.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a
cosponsor on that amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. WARREN. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor on
that amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely, I am very proud to have Senator Warren.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. What kind of chance do our workers have? Do you think a
manufacturer in their right mind is going to stay here when they can go
to Vietnam and have some terrific people?
I know the Vietnamese community in my home State is fantastic. They
are fantastic leaders. They are fantastic workers. It is sad that the
ones who are left behind earn 58 cents an hour. What chance do our
workers have?
Now, we have 12 million manufacturing jobs left in this Nation of
ours--this greatest of Nations. What kind of chance do they have? Do
you know that I cannot get this amendment up for a vote? I think I know
the reason. They do not want to have to vote against it. I am still
hopeful. I am holding out hope. I am fighting for it. But it seems to
me when you are saying to the American people: Do you want your Senator
to have to go downstairs to a secure room, give up your electronics to
a clerk, be told that if you take notes you have to leave them behind
so the clerk can read it, but your staff cannot read it, you cannot
discuss it with the people who do not have top clearance for the trade
agreement?
Then, you have to have the amendment that Senators Warren and Manchin
have offered, which simply says: Make the trade agreement public before
we give exceptional fast-track authority to any President. I do not
care who it is--Democrat or Republican--this is not a partisan issue.
I have voted for half of the trade agreements, so I have voted for
many trade agreements but not with countries that pay slave wages.
Let's be clear.
This is a tough day for the U.S. Senate. I know we have been split up
every which way on this, but I think there are certain things we have
learned from this debate: Secrecy is no good. I respect my President. I
have talked to him. I know in his heart he is doing what he thinks is
right, but when he says this is not secret and everyone has access to
it, I say to my President and I say to my friend Senator Hatch: This is
not an open process.
The secrecy is ludicrous. It is ridiculous. It is against the
interests of the people we represent. I represent close to 40 million
people. As Senator Manchin said, those people count on us, but if we do
not know what is in an agreement, how can we be wise about what we want
to say about it and what we want to do about it?
I want to thank my friends for coming down here this afternoon. I
know this is hard on the Senate. We are going to probably be here a
very long time. But the fact is that people depend on us, and I am
proud to stand with them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

____________________