[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2785-S2787]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLOTURE MOTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2:30
p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. President.
In just a few minutes, we will be holding a vote on whether to invoke
cloture to cut off debate and move to the trade promotion authority
bill, granting trade promotion authority to the President--a very
important conversation this country needs to have in terms of what we
are going to do to expand our opportunities in a region of the world
that represents 50 percent of the population of this world and that
represents 40 percent of our trade opportunities. It is a great
opportunity for this Congress, this Senate, to show how serious we are
about truly rebalancing our efforts with Asian nations.
In Colorado alone, we exported nearly $8.4 billion in goods in 2014.
In Colorado, 48 percent of all goods were exported in 2014.
Over 260,000 jobs are derived from trade with nations represented by
the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiating group. The TPP represents an
opportunity for Colorado to create nearly 4,000 new jobs, and that is
just a start.
So today's conversation is not just a vote on whether we will have
more delay on an important bill; this is about something that
represents far greater opportunity than that. The fact is, over the
past several years we have focused our time on the Middle East, and
rightfully so, but as our day-to-day attention gets grabbed by the
Middle East, our long-term interests lie in Asia and the Trans-Pacific
Partnership region.
So I hope today that Members will put aside tendencies to decide they
want to play politics with the trade promotion authority and instead,
indeed, pursue policies that will give us a chance to grow our economy,
to make more products representative with the symbol and the label
``Made in America.'' That is the chance we have today--to give our
workers a competitive advantage, to create an opportunity for increased
trade in an area of the world where we face increasing competition and
regional threats, to show that the United States will indeed be a part
of a region in the world that represents so much opportunity.
As we have seen increases in Colorado and beyond in trade and trade
opportunities, this bill represents a chance for us to continue
improving our ability to grow Colorado's economy and Colorado trade.
So to our colleagues across the Senate, I indeed hope that we will
invoke cloture today, that we will move forward on debate, and that we
will have an opportunity to continue our work to support trade and to
move toward passage of the final TPP.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President.
The trade package we are considering today is missing important
provisions that support American companies and American workers. We
cannot have trade promotion without trade enforcement. Even supporters
of fast-track and TPP--those cheerleaders, the most outspoken
cheerleaders for free trade--even those supporters acknowledge there
will be winners and losers from this agreement.
Past deals show how widespread the losses will be. Travel the State
the Presiding Officer and I represent in the Senate and look at what
NAFTA has done, look at what PNTR with China has done, look at what the
Central America Free Trade Agreement has done, and look at what the
South Korea trade agreement has done to us.
It would be a tragedy if the Senate acted and failed to help the
American companies and the American workers and the communities that we
acknowledge will be hurt by TPP. In other words, we take an action in
this body, working with the administration, and there are losers and
winners from this action. The losers are those who lose their jobs, the
small businesses that go out of business, and the communities that get
hurt by this. Those are the losers. How do you ignore them when it
comes to these trade agreements?
By excluding two of the four bills from the initial trade package, we
are excluding critical bipartisan provisions that protect workers and
ensure strong trade enforcement.
We need to make sure that our steel manufacturers and other companies
in our country are protected from unfair dumping. That is why I
introduced--along with my colleagues, Senators Portman, Casey, Burr,
Bennet, and Coats--the Leveling the Playing Field Act. We included it
in the Customs and Border Protection reauthorization with bipartisan
support. It would strengthen enforcement of trade laws. It would
increase the ability of industries--such as the steel industry, which
is so important in my State--to fight back against unfair trade
practices. It passed the Senate Finance Committee, but in the majority
leader's package and Senator Hatch's package, it is nowhere to be found
on the floor today.
We need to make sure strong currency provisions are included. The
Finance Committee overwhelmingly supported my amendment 18 to 8. We had
the support of Republican colleagues: Senators Portman, Grassley,
Crapo, Roberts, Burr, Isakson--who is sitting in the Chamber--and
Scott. Again, this provision, which passed the Finance Committee
overwhelmingly, ensures a level playing field for American businesses.
It is nowhere to be found in the majority leader's package on the floor
today.
Finally, any trade package needs to ensure we are not importing
products made with child labor. That is why the Finance Committee
passed an amendment with overwhelming bipartisan support to close a 75-
year-old loophole that allowed products made with forced labor and
child labor into this country. For 75 years, that loophole stood. We
passed that amendment 21 to 5. We had the support of Republican
colleagues: Senators Grassley, Crapo, Roberts, Cornyn, Thune, Toomey,
Portman, Coats, and Heller. But, again, this bipartisan provision is
nowhere to be found in the majority leader's package.
That is why I call on my Republican colleagues--many of whom I have
named; almost every one on them on the Finance Committee--who have
voted for either the currency amendment or the level the playing field
amendment or the prohibition on child labor amendment. Some Republican
members of the Finance Committee voted for all three of those
amendments, but they are not in the package.
I am hopeful my Republican colleagues will join Democratic colleagues
to vote no on cloture so we can bring a package to the floor that does
trade promotion authority, that takes cares of workers, and also takes
care of enforcing trade rules.
The trade package which passed out of the Finance Committee is far
from perfect. I still have grave concerns about fast-track. I know what
bad trade rules have done to my State. There is a reason these
provisions were included in the trade package. The Senate should
consider all four of them. Majority Leader McConnell says he wants to
respect committee work on legislation. Well, here is his chance.
The only way to get these important provisions to the President's
desk is to combine all four into one. We have done it in the past. Keep
in mind, every time Congress does major trade laws--2002 fast-track
included provisions on enforcement, and it included provisions to help
workers through trade adjustment assistance; the same thing in 1988 in
the trade package; the same thing in 1974 in the trade package. Why
would we bifurcate this? Why would we take out enforcement when that is
a very important part of trade?
We should not move forward with any trade package that does not
include all four bills. I ask my colleagues in both parties, those who
supported
[[Page S2786]]
our enforcement efforts in both parties in Finance, to join us and vote
no on cloture when we take the vote in the next few minutes.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the
quorum call be charged evenly to both parties.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, a few moments ago, we heard an argument
that this envisioned trade agreement will increase the number of
products that are stamped ``Made in America,'' ``Made in the United
States of America.'' Certainly that is the argument that has been put
forward for trade agreement after trade agreement after trade
agreement.
The first step in the process is to say: Look at those markets.
Wouldn't it be wonderful in that nation if we had direct access,
improved access?
Particularly, we have done a series of agreements with very low-wage,
low-environmental standards, low-enforcement nations. Well, that is the
first stage.
Then the second stage becomes: Now that we have this broader
connection, we are competing with products made in that country, so we
better make sure we open a factory there as well. And then suddenly,
instead of those products coming from the United States to a foreign
nation, in fact, those products are being made in that foreign nation.
Then comes stage three: Oh, now that we are making those products
overseas at a much lower price because of the lower wages and lower
environmental standards and lower enforcement, it does not make sense
to make those products in the United States anymore.
So that is how we lost 5 million manufacturing jobs in America. That
is how we lost 50,000 factories in America. So for those who want to
put forward the chimera, the illusion, the mirage that somehow this is
going to increase American production, American citizens should know,
in fact, that is a false promise--a false promise that has been put out
time after time after time and shown to be wrong again and again and
again.
Let's think about this: Why would you pave a path to put the workers
in your State directly in competition with workers earning 60 cents an
hour? Tell me that is advantageous to making things in your nation, and
I will tell you, you are wrong.
So let's not go down a path in which we pave a highway to essentially
destroy American manufacturing, to disrupt American manufacturing, to
decrease the competitiveness of living wages here in the United States
of America. Let's enhance and strengthen our position in the world, not
undermine it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in the remaining 2\1/2\ minutes we have, I
want to take a few seconds of it.
I urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed. All this does
is get us on the bill. We need to have a robust debate about the trade
agenda, and I am willing to do that. Of course, the centerpiece is
TPA--no question about it. I know our staffs have been working together
to find a path forward on Enforce Customs.
This is an important bill, and we need to get it through the Senate,
but to do that, we need to begin debate today.
Trade promotion authority is the key to our economic future. I hope
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will stand with me and
President Obama and vote yes so we may update and modernize our trade
laws, including TPA, and help lay the groundwork for a healthy economy
for our children and our grandchildren.
Ninety-five percent of the world's trade is outside of our country.
Trade produces better salaries--13 to 18 percent. We have worked
through all the problems in the committee. We have had plenty of
amendments, lots of debate, and we put this on the floor with the
understanding that it would be voted on.
Mr. BROWN. Would the Finance chair yield for a question?
Mr. HATCH. My time is just about gone, but go ahead.
Mr. BROWN. I would just ask, the four bills that we passed in
committee--African growth and opportunity, trade adjustment assistance,
trade promotion authority, and the Customs bill--all passed out of
committee by strong bipartisan majorities, right, and we hoped at the
time they would come together in the motion to proceed to a vote.
Mr. HATCH. I understand the question. They passed out with an
understanding between the vice chairman of the committee and me that we
would vote on them separately but would move TPA and TAA--which most
Republicans hate--we would move them together, and then we would move
the third one, and then we would move the fourth one. It was supposed
to be done that way because everybody knew that putting the Schumer
amendment on the one bill would not be acceptable in the House and
would not be acceptable to the President, and that is the problem here.
We all are prepared to have a vote on that bill, but the agreement was
that we would vote individually on all four bills. Finally, we agreed
to do TPA and TAA because your side was concerned about whether this
side would allow TAA to go through. There never had been a question
that we were willing to do that even though most of us hate that bill.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ISAKSON. I object.
Mr. BURR. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HATCH. If we could get a minute, too, I would be happy to have
that. OK.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to H.R. 1314, an act to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to provide for the right to an administrative
appeal relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt
status of certain organizations.
Mitch McConnell, Bob Corker, Joni Ernst, Bill Cassidy,
John Cornyn, Thad Cochran, Shelley Moore Capito, Deb
Fischer, John McCain, James Lankford, Patrick J.
Toomey, Roy Blunt, Ron Johnson, Pat Roberts, David
Perdue, David Vitter, Ben Sasse.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 1314, an act to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to provide for the right to an administrative appeal
relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt status of certain
organizations, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Rubio).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 176 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Carper
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--45
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
[[Page S2787]]
Cardin
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Booker
Graham
Rubio
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are
45.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote
by which cloture was not invoked.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.R. 1314.
____________________