[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 80 (Friday, May 22, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3274-S3289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  ENSURING TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator withhold?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                            USA FREEDOM Act

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been having a lot of people ask me 
where we are on the USA Freedom Act of 2015, and we actually have a 
very interesting, easy choice: We can either pass the bipartisan bill 
the House of Representatives passed with a majority of Republicans and 
a majority of Democrats voting for it, or we can let the expiring 
provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act sunset at the end of the month. Some 
may prefer that. I think the House made a number of improvements which 
protect our freedoms and protect our security, and that is what we 
ought to pass.
  Some people have talked about short-term extensions. Well, we could 
have a 2-day extension or we could have a 5,000-year extension; we 
would be extending something that doesn't exist. The fact is that the 
House gave us the USA FREEDOM Act in plenty of time to act upon it, to 
amend it if we wanted to, to send it back and go to a conference. But 
now the House has adjourned and gone on recess. If we don't vote for 
their bill, we will end up at the end of the month with nothing. There 
will be nothing to extend. We could feel good about passing an 
extension, but we can't extend something that is dead.
  I have worked for more than two years with Members of Congress from 
both parties and in both Chambers to develop the USA FREEDOM Act of 
2015. It is a commonsense, balanced reform bill that protects 
Americans' privacy, while also ensuring our national security.
  The bill doesn't go nearly as far as the bill I first introduced in 
October of 2013 with Congressman Sensenbrenner. It doesn't go as far as 
the USA FREEDOM Act that was filibustered last November by Senator 
McConnell and others. At that time, the incoming majority leader wanted 
to wait and see how it would be with a Republican majority and was able 
to rally his Members to delay reform. But we shouldn't delay it any 
further. Americans deserve to have their privacy restored and their 
national security protected. There should be no more excuses.
  In the bill Senator Lee and I have introduced and supported, the USA 
FREEDOM Act of 2015--it has not just our support, it has the 
administration's support, it has the support of the Director of 
National Intelligence, the Attorney General, the FBI Director, a 
supermajority of the House of Representatives, the technology industry, 
privacy and civil liberties groups, librarians, and the NRA. I mean, 
when are we ever going to find all these groups coming together? Well, 
they came together because they know the USA FREEDOM Act is a good 
bill, and the support for our bill continues to grow.
  Just yesterday, national security experts at the conservative 
Heritage Foundation concluded that the USA FREEDOM Act ``strikes a 
balance between maintaining our national security capabilities and 
protecting privacy and civil liberties.'' Why? Because it is a 
reasonable and responsible bill. When we get the civil liberties 
groups, the NRA, the Heritage Foundation and privacy groups together, 
we have something.
  I have been here 41 years. I have seen very few pieces of legislation 
where these diverse groups come together, and they did because the USA 
FREEDOM Act is a responsible and reasonable bill. But even if they 
hadn't come together, it is the only option left for any Senator who 
wants to avoid a sunset of the surveillance authorities at midnight on 
May 31. We won't be in session. The other body won't be in session. The 
one thing that will happen is our current authorities will sunset. They 
will go away. Wow. Can't you hear the cheers from some of our enemies?
  Last year when the current Senate majority leader led the filibuster 
of the USA FREEDOM Act, we were told that the Senate needed more time 
to consider the issue and that the new Senate would take up the matter 
under new leadership. All right. We have known the sunsets were coming 
for years. That is why I brought up the bill last year. There has been 
nothing done on this urgent matter this year--no public hearings and no 
committee markups, unlike the six public hearings I held in the 
Judiciary Committee last year.
  In contrast, the House leadership has acted responsibly and 
decisively. They moved the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 through the 
Judiciary Committee and passed this bipartisan bill overwhelmingly.
  We had significant debate on this issue this week. I have heard 
Senators across the political spectrum who have spoken at length on the 
Senate floor about their views. Most of these Senators have urged us to 
reform the government's bulk collection program--which is, of course, 
the same way the vast majority of Americans feel. But there have also 
been voices urging more surveillance. We have heard the familiar fear-
mongering and demands for a data-retention mandate on the private 
telecom companies. Well, I disagree with those Senators who voiced that 
perspective, but they have at least been heard.
  Unfortunately, the clock has been running. The House worked very 
hard, they completed their work, and they left. They are not coming 
back until after the surveillance authorities are set to expire. And 
the House leadership has made clear that they will not pass an 
extension. Even if they were in session and we passed an extension, 
they made it very clear to Republican and Democratic leadership that 
they will not take it up.
  So here is the choice. It is a very simple one. We can let the three 
provisions at issue expire--some may like that; frankly, I don't--or we 
can pass the bipartisan and bicameral USA FREEDOM Act of 2015.
  We all know that the NSA has for years been using section 215 of the 
USA PATRIOT Act to sweep up phone

[[Page S3275]]

records of innocent Americans without any connection to terrorism. I am 
sure innocent Americans who may be in the Chamber or who are hearing 
what we are saying have had their phone records swept up. Well, I don't 
think anybody would feel very comfortable with that.
  We also know that the NSA used a similar legal theory for years to 
collect massive amounts of metadata related to billions of emails sent 
to and from innocent Americans--a parent to a child asking, ``how is my 
granddaughter's cold coming along?'' or ``How did my grandson do in 
school?'' or somebody writing to a friend, back and forth.
  The American people oppose this indiscriminate dragnet collection of 
their records--not only that, the courts do, too. They found it to be 
unlawful. The House of Representatives listened to the American people, 
they listened to the courts, and they voted overwhelmingly to end this 
program through the USA FREEDOM Act and assumed, of course, that the 
Senate would do what the courts have said and what the vast majority of 
the American people said.
  Last November, when Senator McConnell convinced his caucus to block 
the USA FREEDOM Act, I warned that we would not have much time in the 
new Congress, and that the American people were demanding action. 
People should go back and see the number of letters and emails that 
came pouring in to the Capitol saying: We want this passed. Yet, here 
we are--Congress racing against the clock to act before the sunsets 
take effect next weekend.
  Well, this is a manufactured crisis. I think there are some who hope 
that enough Senators will be scared by the prospect of these 
authorities expiring that they will blindly vote in favor of a clean 
extension even though that will go nowhere. We have all seen this movie 
before. We know that opponents of the USA FREEDOM Act simply want to 
delay again. Well, I don't frighten.
  Many Americans, especially my constituents, are wondering what 
opponents of the USA FREEDOM Act have been doing for the past six 
months? They are rapidly approaching a sunset that has been on the 
books for years--the original sunset provision written by myself and 
Republican leader Dick Armey. It is not as though this deadline 
suddenly snuck up on the leadership or the chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee, who is just now considering alternative proposals.
  Remember, we are just a few days away from the expiration date. But 
despite this urgency and the extensive debate we have been having for 
many months, the only bill that has been filed by the opponents of the 
USA FREEDOM Act is a 2-month rubberstamp of the USA PATRIOT Act 
provisions--a bill the Senate sponsors know cannot pass the House even 
if they were in session. And because they are not in session, if we 
were to pass it here, it would become a ``nothingburger'' because there 
would be no law to extend.
  I read in the press that there may be an alternative proposal in the 
works. It may include a provision to keep the bulk collection program 
in place for more than two years. But even if we could legally pass 
that, it is entirely unnecessary.
  Just this week, the NSA Director stated in a letter to Leaders 
McConnell and Reid that the NSA only needs 180 days to transition to 
the new targeted program established by the USA FREEDOM Act. Not 2 
years. The 180-day transition has been part of the USA FREEDOM Act for 
more than a year. And during all the negotiations about the bill, 
neither the NSA nor the intelligence community ever raised a concern 
with me about this provision. In fact, we have on the record that they 
support it.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the 
May 20 letter from Admiral Rogers, the head of NSA.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                      National Security Agency

                            Fort George G. Meade, MD, May 20 2015.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators McConnell and Reid: The USA Freedom Act would 
     establish a 180-day period for transitioning from the current 
     bulk-collection program for telephone metadata to a model 
     where queries would be carried out against business records 
     held by telephone service providers. Several questions have 
     been raised about the feasibility of the 180-day deadline.
       Should the USA Freedom Act of 2015 become law, NSA assesses 
     that the transition of the program to a query at the provider 
     model is achievable within 180 days, with provider 
     cooperation. We base this judgment on the analysis that we 
     have undertaken on how to make this model work. Upon passage 
     of the law, we will work with the companies that are expected 
     to be subject to Orders under the law by providing them the 
     technical details, guidance, and compensation to create a 
     fully operational query at the provider model. We are aware 
     of no technical or security reasons why this cannot be tested 
     and brought on line within the 180-day period.
       We very much appreciate the time and attention the Senate 
     continues to devote to this important issue.

                                            Michael S. Rogers,

                                     Admiral, U.S. Navy, Director,
                                         National Security Agency.

  Mr. LEAHY. We all know this last-ditch attempt at further delay is 
just too late. We have two options: Pass the USA FREEDOM Act or let the 
provisions expire. A growing majority of the Senate--a straight up-or-
down vote--supports the USA FREEDOM Act. If we pass it today, the 
President can sign it today or tomorrow.
  Also, the intelligence community says: Is the law going to be here or 
is the law gone? By passing the USA FREEDOM Act, they can move forward 
with the certainty they need to protect the American people.
  Senator Lee and I, along with a bipartisan group of Senators ranging 
from Senator Durbin, to Senator Heller, to Senator Schumer, to Senator 
Cruz--and that is going across the political spectrum--are moving for a 
responsible path forward.
  We have worked for 2 years on this bill to end the NSA bulk 
collection of Americans' phone records. Republicans and Democrats have 
worked together for 2 years to end the NSA's bulk collection of 
Americans' phone records, something that every one of us, at a townhall 
meeting--I do not care what State you are in, if you ask Americans ``Do 
you want a bulk collection of all your phone records?'' you know what 
the answer would be: ``Of course not.''
  The clock has run out, but there is a responsible choice before us. 
Let's pass the USA FREEDOM Act today. Then we will have important 
reforms, we will keep America secure, and we will not have all of these 
authorities expire.
  Mr. President, I see other Senators on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for Senator Daines 
and I to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Chuck Johnson

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great Montana 
journalist. I got to know Chuck Johnson some 16 years ago when I was 
running for the State senate, but his distinguished career started long 
before that.
  While attending the University of Montana School of Journalism, Mr. 
Johnson was accepted to be a congressional intern here with the 
journalists in Washington, DC. That gave him a taste of political 
reporting.
  In 1972, Chuck Johnson was assigned to cover Montana's Constitutional 
Convention for the Associated Press. Little did he know at that time 
that this assignment would launch his professional career covering 
Montana politics, and little did he know that he would be writing 
history as he watched Montanans draft one of the most progressive State 
constitutions in the country.
  In his long career, Chuck Johnson covered 9 Governors, 9 U.S. 
Senators, 10 Congressmen, and more legislative sessions than I can 
count, including the years I had the honor of serving the great State 
of Montana in Helena. He pushed for increased media access and stood up 
for more transparency and for a reporter's right to be in the room. 
Thanks to Chuck, Montana now has a requirement that political caucuses 
are open to the press.
  Mr. Johnson and his colleague Mike Dennison worked hand in hand for 
years at the Lee State Bureau and

[[Page S3276]]

wrote powerful stories that had sweeping impacts across our great 
State. So when news broke yesterday that Lee Enterprises was closing 
its State Bureau and Mr. Johnson would be retiring, the world of 
politics was buzzing. While a few politicians might be relieved, many 
of us recognize what a loss for journalism and for Montana this will 
be. As Chuck leaves political journalism, he leaves a giant hole that 
will be difficult, if not impossible, to fill.
  In the day of a 24-hour news cycle and a demand for immediate 
information, the people of Montana still count on Chuck Johnson to 
present the facts. Even though he started writing his stories on a 
typewriter, he has adapted with the times, learning how to tweet.
  Known as the ``Dean of the Capitol Press Corps,'' Mr. Johnson would 
take young reporters under his wing, teach them how to understand the 
governmental process, and share his vast knowledge of Montana politics.
  From his reporting on taxes and budgets, he has a way of making it 
easy to make sense to the average reader. But where his reporting 
really stands out is in his ability to track and understand campaign 
finance. He has been known to plow through election reports late on a 
Friday night when all of the other reporters have called it quits and 
gone to bed, digging for a story, holding elected leaders accountable, 
and reporting the facts.
  It is his integrity, his commitment to the truth, and fair reporting 
that have earned the respect of politicians and readers alike from both 
sides of the aisle.
  It is in that spirit that I would ask my colleague Senator Daines to 
join me.
  I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from the State 
of Montana, Mr. Tester.
  I also rise today to recognize the career and service of Chuck 
Johnson, a longtime Montanan, a Montana reporter who will be entering 
into a well-deserved retirement at the end of next week.
  Chuck's career covering Montana politics began more than 40 years ago 
when he was asked to cover the Montana Constitutional Convention for 
the Associated Press. Since then, he has covered nearly two dozen 
sessions of the Montana State Legislature and countless political 
conventions.
  I remember seeing Chuck late at night at conventions, giving up a lot 
of his personal time for the sake of covering these stories across our 
State. He has covered hundreds of elected officials and has been a 
steady presence on Montana's campaign trail.
  Over the past two decades, Chuck has led political reporting for Lee 
Newspapers, and he spent the past 10 years working alongside his fellow 
Lee State Bureau colleague Mike Dennison.
  If it has to do with Montana politics, Chuck has probably covered it. 
I am told Chuck has the best political campaign button collection in 
all of Montana. Chuck's life has been spent in Montana. He grew up in 
Helena, and he went on to earn his degree in journalism at the 
University of Montana.
  I can speak as a Montana State Bobcat. I know that Chuck is a 
testament to the quality of journalists produced by the University of 
Montana School of Journalism. It goes without saying as a Bobcat, I do 
not always see eye to eye with Chuck on important issues, like who to 
cheer for during the Brawl of the Wild or which colors are better--blue 
and gold or maroon and silver. But I do know that Chuck took a fair 
amount of joy in seeing this Bobcat receive a Montana Grizzlies shirt 
after a disappointing Cats loss during the 2013 game.
  Setting aside our personal allegiances, it has been a great privilege 
and tremendous honor to work with Chuck in my years representing 
Montana and being involved in Montana politics.
  With Chuck's retirement and the closing of the Lee State Bureau, 
Montana is saying farewell to not only a talented and dedicated 
reporter but also a historian of our State and a mentor to countless 
young reporters looking to make their own mark in Montana's news media.
  I thank Chuck personally for his years of service to Montana and his 
lifelong commitment to making our State's government open and more 
accessible to all Montanans. He has made a lasting mark on the State of 
Montana. His depth of knowledge and his lifetime of experience will be 
difficult, if not impossible, to replace, and his byline on newspaper 
stories across Montana will be greatly missed.
  Chuck, congratulations on your retirement. We appreciate all you have 
done, and we wish you the very best.
  I would like to yield back to the senior Senator from Montana, Mr. 
Tester.
  Mr. TESTER. Thank you, Senator Daines. It was a pleasure to share the 
Senate floor with you this afternoon.
  As Chuck Johnson retires and puts away his pen and his notebook, I 
want to say thank you to Chuck. In this body, we often think we are 
irreplaceable when we are not. I will say this about Chuck Johnson: It 
will be a long time before Montana sees someone as good as Chuck in the 
reporting corps. So, as a body, we honor Chuck Johnson's contributions 
to Montana, to our country, and to our democracy.
  Good luck, Chuck.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Highway Bill

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I want to talk today about one of the 
things we need to do before we leave here--the extension of the highway 
bill. And nobody is satisfied with a short-term extension of the 
highway bill. I would be among the group who would be least satisfied 
with that. But as we look at what has happened so far this year, we 
moved in a positive way in a number of areas. We don't have time while 
we are here to do what we need to do to have a truly long-term highway 
bill.

  The last two bills under the two previous Congresses--the two 
previous Senates--were very unhelpful and unsatisfying in many ways: a 
6-month extension of the highway bill--you cannot build roads and 
bridges 6 months at a time. Not only can you not do the work 6 months 
at a time, you cannot get the kind of competitive bidding process and 
planning to do this work in the right way. Before that, we only had a 
2-year bill. I will be very disappointed if we cannot beat both of 
those standards. The reason to do the 2-month bill today will be the 
important reason that, one, we have enough money left, because of 
winter conditions, that we can do 2 months of further construction with 
the money that is available, and that way we don't do anything to slow 
down construction here at the best building time of the year.
  We need to work really hard in the next 2 months--and we should be 
working right now, and I know we are working right now--to come up with 
that long-term solution that lets us look at the transportation needs 
of the country in a way that allows us to compete. So many great things 
are out there in the next few decades for our country, but they all 
involve a transportation system that works.
  I think the country is clearly ready to make things work again. I was 
so pleased in the last Congress that we were able to add the advanced 
manufacturing bill to the arsenal of things we had. Senator Brown and I 
worked together and passed that bill. Now we have the arsenal we need 
to be in the position of making things again. The right kind of energy 
policy can clearly get us to where we make things again.
  Certainly what is going to happen in agriculture, manufacturing, and 
health care technology--all great opportunities with great potential, 
but we have to have a transportation system that works. We are the best 
located country in the world to deal in the commerce of the world. We 
are the best located country in the world to connect with the 
marketplace of the world, but we have to have a transportation system 
that allows us to do that.
  I hope we are working hard, and I believe we are, to find what we 
need to do to fill that gap between what the current gas tax creates--
at the Federal level I don't think there is any likelihood of 
increasing that tax in the next few years. We need to look at what that 
tax creates and what funding source is out there that helps us fill the 
gap between the gas tax and reasonable aspirations for our 
transportation system. This is one of the areas

[[Page S3277]]

the American people think the government address.
  There may be an argument about whether it should involve the Federal 
Government or the State government or how this works in terms of the 
government, but we know this is something we can't do for ourselves.
  Since the very earliest days of the Congress, what the Federal 
Government could and should do regarding interstate commerce and 
transportation--and the Constitution itself talks about building postal 
roads and it talks about interstate commerce.
  Hopefully, we will take this vote today or tomorrow or whenever we 
take this vote, to be sure that we continue the construction already 
underway, but don't stop for a minute in working on this process until 
we get a highway and bridge and construction bill for transportation 
that allows us to move forward and to move forward for a significant 
future of what we need to do.
  We are going to lose the advantages we have if we don't maintain and 
improve the transportation network we have. I look forward to seeing 
that happen and encourage my colleagues to vote for that 2-month 
extension, but don't give a moment's relaxation seeking the multiyear 
highway bill--the multiyear transportation bill--that the country 
really needs.


                 Memorial Day and Choices for Veterans

  Also, Mr. President, I wish to talk about one other subject before we 
take this work period for Memorial Day. This is an important time to 
honor those who have served, those who have sacrificed, people who have 
given their all for the country or even those who have served and were 
able to live a full life after service. We honor them on Memorial Day 
as well.
  As I am thinking about Memorial Day this year, I am continuing to be 
frustrated with how we treat our veterans. The Veterans' Administration 
system is not what it should be, and it continues, it seems to me, that 
the Veterans' Administration wants to focus on what is good for the 
Veterans' Administration instead of what is good for veterans. I am 
tired of it. I think many people in the country are tired of it, and we 
need to do something about it. We got a report in our State this week 
about one of the St. Louis facilities--the John Cochran Hospital. This 
hospital has had seven acting directors in 2 years. It is a hospital 
with problems. It is a hospital that is not serving veterans the way it 
should, and it has had seven acting directors in 2 years. I cannot 
contact the same director twice before they are gone, and the new 
director is trying to figure out what the problems are. It seems to me, 
before they can figure out what the problems are, there is another new 
acting director.
  We just had an inspector general report on that hospital, and the 
inspector general report found 45 areas that needed improvement at a 
Veterans' Administration hospital. These are issues such as dirty 
patient care areas, expired medication, and inadequate staff training. 
We are not talking about having the most expensive or the best or the 
most up-to-date equipment; we are talking about getting the medicine 
off the shelf that is retired or having patient care areas that are 
clean. Certainly, like everywhere else at this facility, just simply 
getting patients scheduled to come has been a problem.
  The Director of the Veterans' Administration, Mr. McDonald, needs to 
change the VA, not manage the VA. He came to this job with well-
heralded management experiences, but this is not just a management job; 
this is a change job, and he needs to make those changes. There is no 
excuse for a 2-year vacancy in a troubled facility. There is no excuse 
for not looking at every way they can to provide more choices for 
veterans.
  It is clear the Congress wants to have more choices. Senator Moran, 
from Kansas, has a bill I am proud to cosponsor that emphasizes one 
more time--just in case we were not clear enough last year that we want 
veterans to have choices--that we want veterans to have choices. There 
is no reason for veterans to drive by a facility that could do a better 
job than a veterans facility only to stand in line at a veterans 
facility.
  There are a few things the VA system should be better at than anybody 
else. They should be better at dealing with post-traumatic stress and 
they should be better at prosthetics, the replacement of arms and legs. 
This is something that--at least since before the Civil War--the 
Veterans' Administration has always been pretty good at because they 
had a lot of tragic reasons to be good in this particular area.
  There is no reason to believe the Veterans' Administration hospital 
is necessarily the best place to get your heart stent put in. There is 
no reason to believe the Veterans' Administration is necessarily the 
best place available for you to have your cancer treatment. There is no 
reason to believe the Veterans' Administration is the best place to go 
and have your kidney surgery. We ought to let veterans go to the best 
place. We ought to let veterans have more choices, particularly young 
veterans.
  Last year, I sponsored a bill called the Excellence in Mental Health 
Act. By the way, we are launching that program right now and looking 
for the first eight States that are properly qualified facilities and 
want to treat mental health just as they do all physical health.
  The Excellence in Mental Health Act brought forth the mental health 
community and the law enforcement community. Veterans group after 
veterans group--particularly young veterans--said they want to have 
more choices. They want to be able to go to places where they can take 
care of their health care problem in a way that works with their family 
and in a way that works with their work.
  These are important choices and Congress has spoken but apparently 
not quite loud enough. The Veterans' Administration wants to say, if a 
veteran is within 45 miles of any facility, whether it provides the 
service they need or not--the most technical reading of the law would 
suggest it really doesn't matter if they need a heart transplant. If 
they are within 45 miles of a facility where they can get their blood 
pressure checked, then they don't qualify for the program that gives 
them more choices. That is a ridiculous interpretation of the law.
  We will do our best to try to make the law clearer, but I think the 
Veterans' Administration could make it clearer if they wanted to. They 
are afraid to compete, and we should wonder why they are afraid to 
compete.
  We looked at the problems at the Cochran Hospital and other 
facilities. We should understand why they are afraid to compete. This 
is not the way veterans should be treated. This is not the way we 
should be honoring our veterans. It is not the way we should be going 
home on Memorial Day, and I hope we commit ourselves to do a better job 
on this topic and, more importantly, to force the Veterans' 
Administration to do the job it is supposed to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, at some point soon, I presume, the Senate 
is going to adjourn for the Memorial Day week break, and I want to say 
a few words on some of the important issues we are now confronting.
  I suspect later today there will be a vote on the TPP. I suspect that 
those who are for the TPP have the 60 votes necessary to pass it. I 
know there are a number of amendments that will be offered, and I will 
support the strongest of those amendments. But the bottom line is, in 
my view, that the TPP is a continuation of failed trade policy which 
has resulted in the loss of millions of decent-paying jobs in this 
country, which has resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of 
manufacturing facilities as corporations have shut down in America and 
moved to China, Mexico, and to other low-wage countries.
  In my view, it is wrong to ask American workers to compete against 
people in Vietnam, where the minimum wage is 56 cents an hour, to 
compete against people in Malaysia where, in some cases, you literally 
have indentured servitude, people who have lost their ability to leave 
the country and are working for incredibly low wages in horrendous 
working conditions. That is not what a trade policy should be.
  I hope our colleagues in the House have more resolve than we have had 
in the Senate, and I hope they stand up and say enough is enough. 
Current trade policies have failed. We need

[[Page S3278]]

trade policies that work for the average American and not just for the 
multinational corporations.


                        Free College For All Act

  Mr. President, I also want to say a word on another issue that I know 
is of deep concern in the State of Vermont and I am quite confident is 
of concern in 49 other States as well. We are in a competitive global 
economy right now, and we have hundreds of thousands of bright, young 
people who want to go to college, get a higher education but today are 
unable to afford that higher education.
  Here we are desperately needing to have the best educated workforce 
in the world so we can compete effectively, and what we are saying to 
our bright, young people is, sorry, you are not going to be able to get 
the education you need in order to get the high-quality jobs that are 
available in this country.
  What we are saying to hundreds of thousands of those young people is, 
no, you are not going to be doctors, you are not going to be nurses, 
you are not going to be scientists, you are not going to become 
teachers, you are not going to be able to become employees in high-tech 
companies because you just don't have the education.
  Frankly, I think that is absolutely absurd not only for the dreams of 
low- and moderate-income young people who want to make it into the 
middle class, but also it is absurd if we are talking about the future 
of this country having a strong economy.
  Thirty years ago, the United States led the world in terms of the 
percentage of our young people who had a college degree. Today, we are 
in 12th place. We are in 12th place, and we are competing against 
countries all over the world that understand the importance of their 
young people getting the education that is needed in this day and age.
  We are also facing a related problem in that we have millions of 
people--many of whom are no longer young--who are dealing with 
incredibly oppressive and large student debt. The average graduate now 
of a 4-year college is approximately $29,000 in debt. That is the 
average. So there are many more who are graduating $30,000 or $40,000 
in debt. If a person goes to graduate school, that number goes much 
higher.
  I recall speaking some months ago to a young woman in Burlington, VT, 
whose crime was that she went to medical school and is now practicing 
primary health care among low-income people, which is exactly what we 
need to see happening in this country. Yet she is saddled with a 
$300,000 debt. I talked to dentists who are also practicing in 
community health centers, where we need them. We have a major dental 
crisis in this country. They are saddled with a $250,000 debt.
  Now, what is absurd about the current student debt situation is that 
at a time when a person can go out and get an auto loan for 1 percent 
or 2 percent, millions of our young and middle-aged people are paying 
interest rates on their student debt of 4, 5, 6, 7 percent, and even 
higher than that. So how does it happen that a person can go out and 
get an auto loan for 1 or 2 percent, how does it happen that a person 
can refinance their home mortgage to take advantage of low interest 
rates, yet people are stuck with 5, 6, 7 percent in interest rates on 
their student loans? It makes no sense to me at all.
  The other part of that is that over a 10-year period, the Federal 
Government now makes over $80 billion in profits from student loans. 
Frankly, I would rather see the Federal Government make that money than 
the private banks. But, in fact, the Federal Government should not be 
profiting off of the loans that were needed by low- and moderate-income 
students and their families. That is not a way to make money.
  So I have introduced legislation called the Free College For All Act, 
and it is a very simple piece of legislation. What it says is that, No. 
1, we are going to make in this country tuition-free college for all 
public colleges and public universities in America--tuition-free. We 
are going to do that by establishing a matching grant program of 2 to 1 
from the Federal Government--$1 for the State. When we do that, it will 
mean that every qualified young person in this country who wants to get 
a higher education will be able to go to their State colleges, their 
State University and do it tuition-free.
  Now, is that an expensive proposition? It is an expensive 
proposition. But I think long term, by having a well-educated society, 
by allowing young people today who cannot afford to go to college to 
get that education, from an economic point of view, we will gain 
significantly by this legislation.
  This legislation is also paid for in a fair and progressive way. It 
says to the people on Wall Street who have made huge, huge sums of 
money by speculating in a whole lot of arcane and dangerous financial 
tools that we are going to establish in this country a tax on stock 
transfer--a transfer-stock fee--of one-half of 1 percent. That will 
raise more than enough money to provide a tuition-free education in our 
public colleges and universities.
  So this is an issue that I am going to pursue. I think it is 
important, if we want to deal with income inequality and if we want to 
make sure that everybody in this country gets the education they need, 
regardless of the income of their families.


                            USA PATRIOT Act

  Mr. President, there is another issue I wish to very briefly touch on 
as well today. That issue deals with the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA and 
civil liberties in this country. Let me make a few basic points.
  There is nobody in the Senate, there is nobody in the House who does 
not understand that there are terrorist groups out there that want to 
attack the United States of America and our allies and that want to do 
us harm. There is nobody in the Senate or in the House or, I think, in 
the United States of America who does not believe that as a nation we 
have to do everything we can to protect the people of our country from 
terrorist attacks. There is no debate on that. What the debate is about 
is how we protect the American people without undermining the 
Constitution of the United States of America or undermining the privacy 
rights of the American people.
  I think everybody does understand and should understand that modern 
technology in all of its forms--from iPhones to a dozen or 100 
different ways--has greatly outstripped public policy in terms of 
protecting privacy rights. By and large, the privacy rights we have on 
the books now were written years and years before the development of 
the technologies we see right now.
  It is absolutely imperative that as a nation we begin a serious 
conversation, which includes some of the most knowledgeable people in 
this country--people who know about what technology can do today and 
what it can do tomorrow, people who are concerned about civil liberties 
and privacy rights, our law enforcement officials, our national 
security people, and Members of Congress. What that discussion should 
be about is pretty simple: How do we protect our country against 
terrorism at the same time that we protect our privacy rights and our 
constitutional freedoms.
  As we consider whether to reauthorize parts of the PATRIOT Act, we 
must take stock of where we are today. It is no secret that NSA 
collects vast sums of information and at one point or another has 
collected information on virtually every person in this country who 
uses a telephone. That is no great secret. Since June 2013, we have 
learned that the NSA collects phone call metadata, including the 
numbers of both parties, location, time, and duration. They collect 
text messages, email chat, and Internet browsing history; smart phone 
app data, including Google Maps, which can pinpoint a person's location 
to within a few yards. They collect maps of people's social networks, 
bank and credit card transactions. This is just the tip of the iceberg. 
There is undoubtedly much more being done that we simply don't know 
anything about.
  Further, local governments and other agencies are also collecting 
information about the movements and the habits of law-abiding 
Americans. When we drive down the street, there are cameras that can 
take pictures of license plates. There are cameras on street corners, 
cameras in private buildings. The government knows where we are 
traveling and how long we are gone. Let's be clear. While today we are 
focusing appropriately on the role of the Federal Government in issues 
of civil liberties, we must also understand that

[[Page S3279]]

it is not just the government that is collecting information on law-
abiding Americans. In fact, the private sector's collection of 
information is just as intrusive and equally dangerous. Private 
companies, private corporations know a whole lot about what we do. Our 
every move can be tracked by a smart phone. Almost two-thirds of the 
American people, by the way, have smart phones.
  Private companies can know what we read, what we are emailing about, 
what Web sites we visit. They know when we have purchased a ticket, and 
they know where that trip is taking us. They know whether we are going 
on a plane or a train or a bus. When we go to a grocery store, our 
discount card gets scanned and the grocery store knows exactly what we 
are eating. It is the same situation at the pharmacy. They know what 
kind of medicine we are buying, enabling people to make judgments about 
one's health. They know when a woman is pregnant based on her 
purchases. In the name of fitness, people are wearing watches and 
Fitbits that record our heart rate and exercise pattern and how much we 
sleep.
  In the wrong hands, this information could prevent us from getting 
health insurance through our jobs. It could even prevent us from 
getting hired in the first place. In other words, enormous, enormous, 
undreamed of amounts of information are out there and, in the wrong 
hands, that could be a real danger to our country and to the lives of 
millions of innocent people.
  This is what the attack on privacy looks like. Someone can access our 
phone calls. They can access our credit card records. They can comb 
through our purchases. They can analyze our spending habits. They can 
access our emails and our contacts. They can track our movements. 
Pretty much anything and everything we do these days can be tracked and 
recorded.
  Now, many of my colleagues come to the floor of the Senate and talk 
about America being a free country. Well, if somebody knows everything 
we are doing, maybe it is time to recognize that we are not quite as 
free as we think we are. I know that in response to the argument I am 
raising, people will say: Well, trust these large corporations; trust 
the government. They are honest people. By and large, many of them are. 
I am not suggesting otherwise.
  In terms of government policy, however, let us not forget that 45 
years ago we had a President of the United States named Richard Nixon. 
And what Richard Nixon believed was that anything the President of the 
United States did, by definition, was legal. The President can break 
into his or her opponent's political headquarters--not a problem. He is 
the President. He can spy on people--not a problem. He is the 
President.
  So I ask my colleagues and the American people--and I do not suggest 
for one second that this is true of the Obama administration. But I ask 
the American people to think about what happens in the future if we 
have a President who really does believe that he or she is the law, 
that he or she can or should have access to the kinds of information 
that are out there. Think about the incredible power the administration 
has, the potential for blackmail, the political advantages that 
administration has.

  People say: Well, it is a pretty crazy idea. It is never going to 
happen.
  Well, a lot of things have happened that we never thought could 
happen.
  It seems to me that now is the time for us as a nation, for us as 
elected officials to have a very important conversation about how we 
balance our need--of which there is no debate--to protect the American 
people against terrorist attacks while at the same time we respect the 
privacy rights and the constitutional rights of our people and how we 
maintain America as a free and open society.
  I got involved in this issue a number of years ago when I voted 
against the USA PATRIOT Act. I remember some librarians in the State of 
Vermont came to me and they said: You know, as a result of section 215 
of the USA PATRIOT Act, law enforcement officials--the FBI can come to 
a librarian and demand that the librarian provide information about the 
books people are borrowing from the library.
  Of course, section 215 goes a lot further than that.
  Do we want to be a nation in which we are looking over our shoulders 
and worrying about the books we are reading because somebody may say: 
Oh, well, you are reading a book about Osama bin Laden; clearly, you 
must be a terrorist. Is that really the kind of fear we want to see 
established in this country?
  So I say to my colleagues, it is great to come to the floor and talk 
about freedom, but what freedom is about ultimately is the right of 
people to do what they want to do in a law-abiding way without harming 
other people. That is called freedom. In my view, people have a right 
to make a telephone call today without that information being collected 
by the government. People have a right to go on the Internet and send 
an email with the absolute assurance that as law-abiding citizens their 
visits to a Web site or the emails they send will not be tracked by the 
government. People have a right to go to a grocery store and make 
purchases without somebody knowing what they are buying.
  I intend to introduce legislation shortly which will call for a 
comprehensive review of data collection by public and private entities 
and the impact that data is having on the American people. I don't know 
if this is a progressive piece of legislation or a conservative piece 
of legislation, but I would hope this concept would have broad support 
across the political spectrum from people who actually do believe in a 
free society, that our young people should not be worried about the 
kinds of books they read or the Web sites they visit.
  We must bring together leaders in the technology world, people who 
not only know what technology today is doing as far as invading our 
privacy rights but what the future holds, because I am quite certain 
that every single day, this technology is growing more and more 
sophisticated and more and more intrusive, and sitting down with people 
who are experts on technology--we have to have civil libertarians, 
people who understand what the First Amendment is, what the Fourth 
Amendment is, what our Bill of Rights is about, what our Constitution 
is about, and, of course, involved in that discussion must be law 
enforcement and our security experts. The goal of all of this must be 
to create legislation which does everything we can to protect the 
safety of the American people but also protects our privacy rights and 
our constitutional rights.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle on that legislation.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I have been on the floor a number of times this week talking about 
the importance of trade and talking about the need for us to expand 
more exports around the world. The United States has not been in a 
position for 7 years to do that. That is why trade promotion authority 
is incredibly important to our workers, our farmers, and the people we 
represent. By doing so, we will give people a shot at actually 
increasing their salary and their family's income because trade jobs 
tend to pay better and have better benefits.
  In my home State of Ohio, 60 percent of our soybean crop is exported. 
We want to be sure those farmers have access to more markets. Twenty-
five percent of our manufacturing jobs--factory jobs--are now trade 
jobs. So these exports are very important.
  Unfortunately, what has happened over the last 7 years is that as we 
try to sell our products and our services to the 95 percent of the 
world outside of our borders, it is getting harder because other 
countries are concluding trade agreements with each other.
  So during this time when the United States has basically been sitting 
on the sidelines, other countries have negotiated trade-opening 
agreements. This means lowering tariffs and nontariff barriers, 
actually taking market share away from us that we would otherwise have. 
So this is an important issue. If you are for jobs, you should be for 
exports. You should be for the U.S. Government helping our workers and 
helping us to be able to knock down these barriers.

[[Page S3280]]

  Other countries tend to have higher tariffs. They tend to have higher 
nontariff barriers. So this is part of what we ought to be about in 
this body. I am glad we are finally taking this up. The administration 
now supports this. That is good. However, as we do that, we also have 
to be darn sure that the playing field is more level.
  What do I mean by that? Well, we know that other countries have 
higher tariffs than we do, on average. But they also do other things 
that make it harder for our workers to compete. One is that they 
subsidize their products. We know this because we have taken a number 
of these countries to court--meaning the World Trade Organization--
about this very topic.
  Here in the United States, we have the ability, if a company is 
selling into our market with a subsidized product, to seek relief for 
that. We should. It is not fair. Second, some countries just want to 
dump their products here in the United States at below their cost. Why? 
It is kind of like what they say in business: This is a loss leader. 
They will take a loss on it, but they will get market share and knock 
out a U.S. competitor. That takes jobs away from us. That is also not 
fair.
  Again, there are international tribunals that deal with this, but 
also we have our laws here in this country that say: If you are dumping 
your product here in the United States, that is considered unfair. A 
company can bring a case. If they can prove they are materially 
injured--that the company is materially injured--they can find some 
relief there.
  So as we are expanding opportunities for trade all around the world, 
which is a good thing, we also have to be sure that our laws work to 
protect our workers who are not getting a fair shake. By the way, a lot 
of these workers are doing everything right, everything that is being 
asked of them. They are going through worker retraining to learn how to 
operate the most highly technical, sophisticated machines that are the 
most efficient.
  Frankly, that often results in fewer jobs, but it results also in 
very high quality U.S. products that are being made with the best 
technology. Some of these workers have been asked to make concessions 
in their pay or their benefits in order to be competitive. What they 
say to me is: Rob, you know we are in a global marketplace. We know we 
are going to have to compete. We know it is not just about competing 
with Indiana anymore; it is about competing with India, China, Japan, 
Brazil, and the European Union. So we are willing to become more 
competitive, to learn these skills, to play by these global rules. But 
once we do that, we want that playing field to be level.
  That is fair. That is the least that they should expect from us here 
in the Congress--to ensure that while they are making these changes to 
be more competitive that we are watching their back. That is what a lot 
of the debate has been about with regard to this trade promotion 
authority vote that we are having.
  This is the opportunity for Congress to express its will as to what 
these trade negotiations ought to look like. It is not about a specific 
negotiation, the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the TTIP negotiations 
with the EU or other bilateral relationships, it is about establishing 
what Congress believes ought to be the right rules going forward.


                           Amendment No. 1299

  I am very hopeful that today on the floor we will have the 
opportunity to vote on a couple of different amendments related to 
this. One that the Presiding Officer is very well aware of is a strong 
interest of mine. It is ensuring that other countries do not manipulate 
their currency so that their exports are less expensive to us and our 
exports that we send to them are more expensive. That is not fair.
  When they intervene deliberately in their currency for that purpose 
and do it in a large-scale and protected way, that is called currency 
manipulation. There are rules against it. The International Monetary 
Fund has rules against it. As an example, every one of the partners in 
the trade agreement that is being negotiated now with the Pacific 
countries--every one of those countries in the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership--has signed up to those obligations already.
  So the amendment we will be voting on today simply says: Here is the 
standard that you have already agreed to. Let's say that when you are 
negotiating a trade agreement with us to lower barriers--both here in 
the United States, to give them more access to our market, and to give 
us more access to their market, which, as I said earlier, is something 
we have to be doing to help our farmers and our workers--let's be sure 
that those benefits cannot be undone by them going in and manipulating 
their currency, which is a market distortion.
  Most countries would say: We agree with that. We are not doing it. 
Currently that is true. I don't think any of the 12 countries we are 
talking about here are currently doing it. I will say that they have in 
the past. Since 2012, I do not believe Japan has been doing it. Don't 
take my word for it. Listen to the International Monetary Fund and the 
Department of Treasury. They give us a report every year on this.

  But before that, they did it over 300 times. It makes it a whole lot 
harder for us to compete. Again, our workers and our farmers are 
willing to be the most productive, the most efficient. They know they 
have to compete. We should applaud them for that. We should support 
them and help them. But they want to be sure that after they have done 
all of that and after we have reduced some of these barriers, the 
playing field does not tilt, making it easier for these other countries 
to send their products here, which outcompete ours because of currency 
manipulation.
  That is what that issue is all about. There will be two amendments, 
one of which will be offered by Senator Hatch and one offered by me and 
Senator Stabenow. The one that we are offering is one that does have 
teeth in it. In other words, it seems to be an enforceable provision. 
But it leaves the discretion within the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative to determine how that is done. This is an office that I 
had the honor of holding at one time. I had the great honor of 
representing our country all around the world in negotiating agreements 
and talking about these very issues with other countries.
  I can tell you that sometimes other countries may not want to talk 
about it, but at the end of the day, they know that currency 
manipulation is bad for everybody. It is bad for the international 
trading system. It is tempting to do because short term, it makes your 
exports less expensive. If you want to be an export-driven economy, as 
China is, that helps sometimes.
  But it is not ultimately in anybody's best interests. So let's have 
these disciplines, but let's make them enforceable, so that there is 
some ability for us to truly stop this manipulation, to discourage it, 
to have disciplines in place. That is what that amendment is going to 
be about. By the way, I know the administration has said they do not 
support this. It is interesting because here is Secretary Lew's letter 
this week to Congress: ``Holding our trade partners accountable for 
their currency practices has always been important to this 
administration.''
  Well, let's hold them accountable. I agree with him. I agree with 
this letter. I do not agree with his recommended veto threat to the 
President, should we actually put accountable language into trade 
promotion authority. So I hope they will stick with this letter and not 
his recommendation to the President. The President himself has talked 
about this.
  He has talked about his opposition to currency manipulation, and, by 
the way, so have 60 Senators. This was in 2013. They are not all 
currently serving in the Senate, but 60 Senators actually signed a 
letter saying: ``In our trade agreements, we must have accountable, 
enforceable currency manipulation provisions.''
  So most of this body has been on record in the past. This is what the 
President said back in 2007. It was not this week, but it was 2007. He 
said he would work with his colleagues in the Senate to ensure that any 
trade agreement brought before this Congress is measured not against 
the administration's commitment--not just a commitment, but that we 
will do this--but instead against the rights of Americans to protection 
from unfair trade practices, including currency manipulation.
  So the notion that the President might veto this because it has 
protections against currency manipulation--I

[[Page S3281]]

do not think so. I think he understands the importance of trade 
promotion authority. I certainly do. I think he knows that we need to 
get off the sidelines and get back in the business of negotiating 
agreements that make sense for our farmers, our workers, and our 
service providers.
  But I think in his heart, he also realizes he has to have this 
discipline in place. The alternative, by the way, would be interesting. 
You could end up with lowering tariffs and nontariff barriers in this 
agreement. Then one of these countries that has previously been 
involved in currency manipulation, such as Malaysia or Japan could step 
in and do it again and undo so many of the benefits. That would be 
pretty tough to explain to our constituents. We had the opportunity to 
address this and chose not to. Some are concerned about this being a 
poison pill. I would just say the obvious. If you have more protections 
in here, it won't be harder to pass this in the House of 
Representatives, because the concern, obviously, a lot of people have 
is that trade is somehow not fair.
  I agree that we ought to pass trade promotion authority. It is 
incredibly important to the people I represent. It is incredibly 
important to our country. It is even a geopolitical issue now because 
America's footprint in that region of the world, Asia-Pacific, should 
be greater. We are competing with China in so many respects. One is 
with regard to commerce.
  China is one of those countries that are negotiating agreements 
pretty rapidly with countries all throughout the region. It is 
important that we get back in the business of establishing those trade 
ties. That is the geopolitical issue.
  I would even say it is a national security issue and a strategic 
issue. But it is also just important to our economy. We all want to 
give this economy a shot in the arm. This weak recovery we are working 
through right now is weaker because we are not seeing the gains in 
exports we would otherwise see if we were opening up these markets. By 
the way, we only have free trade agreements with 10 percent of the 
global GDP.
  If you think about it, we don't have an agreement with the EU or with 
China or with Japan or with many other large economies, such as Brazil. 
But with about 10 percent of the world we do have trade agreements. We 
send 47 percent of our exports to that 10 percent of the world. From 
Ohio, by the way, it is more than half. It is about 52 percent of our 
exports. But again, as we do that, let's be darn sure that we are 
leveling that playing field, that we are addressing these issues we all 
know exist, whether it is dumping products here or whether it is 
illegally subsidizing products or whether it is manipulating currency. 
It seems to me that this is the right balance. It seems to me that this 
is something that Congress owes the people I represent--to watch their 
backs, to make sure they get a fair shake.
  The other amendment that I hope we will have the opportunity to vote 
on this afternoon is being discussed right now in another room off this 
Chamber. It is an amendment that ensures that you have a more level 
playing field with regard to being able to bring these cases against 
companies that sell their products in the United States unfairly 
because they sell them at below cost, they dump them or they subsidize 
them.
  There are governments that do a lot of subsidization. Again, that is 
another market distortion. We should fight against it. The rules that 
are currently in place have been there a long time. They are consistent 
with the World Trade Organization. Other countries have these rules in 
place as well. But I will tell you that the way in which companies seek 
relief and get relief right now is far from perfect, because so often, 
by the time a company can show that they are materially injured--which 
is the standard--it is too late. The market share is gone. Many of the 
workers are gone. Sometimes the companies themselves are gone.
  This legislation is going to be offered by Senator Brown, my 
colleague from Ohio, and me. Senator Brown has been talking about this 
issue on the floor. He is passionate about it. When we travel around 
the State, both of us, to places such as Cleveland, Toledo, Youngstown, 
and Dayton, we hear about this issue.
  We hear: Yes, we can operate on a level playing field, but please 
help us to ensure that when we find a product that is subsidized and 
when we find a product that is being dumped here, we have the chance to 
be able to get the relief that we deserve.
  So this amendment enhances those protections for Ohio workers seeking 
relief from these illegally undersold or subsidized imports. By the 
way, the amendment is now backed by over 80 trade associations and 
companies, including some great companies in Ohio: Nucor, 
ArcelorMittal, U.S. Steel, Timken, and others. It is a commonsense, 
bipartisan measure that basically says that workers should not have to 
lose their jobs before their company can get relief from these illegal 
actions. And 78 out of 100 of my colleagues here on the floor of the 
Senate recently backed a Customs bill that included this language. So 
there is a lot of support for this here on the floor.
  We would love to get this included in this legislation because this 
is the legislation that is the most likely to move through the House 
and to the President. This is the legislation where it ought to be, 
given that we are talking about how to expand exports. That is good. 
But also ensure that we have more fairness in terms of international 
trade situations.
  Last night on the floor, I was talking about AK Steel, in West 
Chester, OH. They have 4,000 workers in the State of Ohio. I talked 
about their production facilities in Zanesville, OH. Some 250 workers 
are there--UAW workers. They make grain-oriented electrical steel. It 
is a specialty steel. It is exported all over the world.
  I went through what happened to them. They were exporting it to 
China. China illegally shut out this kind of specialty steel. They lost 
92 percent of their exports to China, even though it was illegal for 
China to do it. The U.S. Government took China to the World Trade 
Organization and won. China then appealed that. China used all the time 
they could to avoid complying with that order. By the time it was over, 
it was 5 or 6 years. They lost 92 percent of their exports. So they 
lost hundreds of jobs in Ohio because they couldn't get into that 
Chinese market.

  By the way, it is now happening in the European Union. For other 
purposes--apparently because of concern about other products--the 
European Union is also now blocking some of this specialty steel made 
in my home State of Ohio.
  So it happens overseas; we know that. Yet, when this same company 
goes to our Commerce Department and our International Trade Commission 
to seek relief for illegally traded imports coming in--these are 
imports which are illegally traded--they have a hard time getting 
relief in time for it to be helpful to them being able to get on their 
feet. So American products are shut out of China and the EU, but 
American workers cannot get the help they deserve in a timely manner to 
keep illegally traded imports from flooding our market.
  This amendment would change that. This is the amendment we have been 
talking about. It is called the level the playing field amendment. It 
helps protect thousands of American jobs that would otherwise be put at 
risk because our trade laws frankly haven't kept up with the speed of 
international commerce.
  I had some Ohio steel pipe and tube manufacturing companies in my 
office yesterday. As some of you know, Ohio is a leader in this part of 
the steel industry, which is a growth industry for the most part 
because there are a lot more oil and gas wells, natural gas wells 
cropping up around the country. These companies employ thousands of 
workers across my State.
  Frankly, they are having a tough time because of the market--nothing 
to do with imports but the fact that the price of oil is such that it 
is harder to justify drilling new wells. So the fracking has slowed 
down and they have lost some business.
  But the other thing that has happened is there has been a surge of 
foreign imports. So there are now a record number of imports of pipe 
and tube products coming into this country at a time when our companies 
are already seeing kind of a soft market because of the lower price of 
oil and less activity in the oilfields and natural gas fields in Ohio 
and around the country.

[[Page S3282]]

  So there are companies, such as TimkenSteel, which has over 1,000 
workers in Canton, OH, that are continuing to make investments in their 
plants so they can be updated, modern, and the most efficient plants in 
the world.
  They just made a $300 million investment. Indeed, I was there 
recently. I was able to visit with them and see some of their new 
investments. It will be one of the most modern steel plants in the 
world. Their export products are very impressive. They send them all 
over the world. These are engineered steel products. Just yesterday, 
they told me they are now approaching about 50-percent capacity. That 
is barely breaking even for them. By the way, they are at a higher 
capacity than most in the industry these days. Again, it is a 
combination of a soft market and a record number of imports of pipe and 
tube products.
  A little further east, in the Mahoning Valley, Vallourec in 
Youngstown also produces pipe and tube products. Some of you have 
followed Vallourec because it has been in the news. It is kind of a 
poster child for what American manufacturers should be doing, which is 
investing in plant and equipment. It is the first new steel mill in 
Mahoning Valley in probably a couple of generations. It is very 
exciting. But, boy, they are having a tough time right now. Even though 
they have invested in their infrastructure and they are doing all the 
right things and they are becoming more competitive, they are having a 
tough time.
  Some of you may know about them because actually just a couple of 
years ago President Obama was in that factory in Youngstown using it as 
a backdrop to tout our American manufacturing comeback.
  A record level of import penetration is now causing incredible 
disruption in their production. These imports are entering our country 
at very low prices, and we all suspect this is the basis for a future 
trade remedy case. Again, it is either dumping, selling below cost, or 
a subsidized product. They want to make sure they have the ability to 
bring this case before it is too late. Our trade remedy laws haven't 
kept up with the fast pace of the global economy. Vallourec had 1,200 
workers in Youngstown just a couple years ago. They have now had to 
furlough 300 workers, and I am told they are at about 20 percent 
capacity.
  Last week when I was on the floor, I talked about another company, 
Wheatland Tube, which is also in Mahoning Valley. I now have an email 
from one of the officials at Wheatland Tube, and this is what he said:

       As an individual employed in manufacturing, I understand 
     better than most that trade is a key component for economic 
     growth.

  He starts off saying they know we need to trade. Then he says:

       However, it's important for U.S. manufacturers (i.e. steel 
     pipe and tube producers) to have the tools to challenge 
     unfair trade, and that's why I believe that ANY and ALL 
     future trade agreements considered must include enforcement 
     provisions to ensure that trade is conducted fairly.
       As a U.S. citizen who makes a living in manufacturing . . . 
     provisions included in the Leveling the Playing Field Act--

  That is the amendment I am talking about--

       will close loop holes in the trade laws to ensure that 
     companies can access these laws to challenge trade distorting 
     practices. I also support language in the TPP that prevents 
     currency manipulation and the ``dumping'' of foreign products 
     in the U.S.
       It's essential that provisions to close loop holes in trade 
     laws are included in a final trade bill. After all, there's a 
     huge difference between FAIR trade and FREE trade. JMC Steel 
     Group--

  Which is the parent of his organization--

       relies on these laws, and has utilized them in recent years 
     to challenge trade distorting practices that have injured our 
     industry and our employees. Without laws to regulate unfair 
     trade, I know my job--

  "My job,'' he says--

       and the jobs of thousands of other manufacturing workers, 
     is at risk.

  So to Mike Mack, who sent me this email from Wheatland Tube in 
Warren, OH, I appreciate your expressing your point of view, and I 
appreciate your supporting this amendment. I appreciate the fact that 
you understand that trade is important and that you have to be 
competitive. And that is not easy. It requires some concessions, and it 
requires some sacrifices. But once you do that, we have to be sure we 
have their back.
  When these American pipe and tube manufacturers were in my office 
yesterday, they said one thing that really worried me. They said: If 
our trade remedy laws aren't fixed and fixed quickly, one of us will 
not be at this table next year because we will be out of business.
  These are good companies. These are companies that are doing the 
right thing. And they are telling me: Look around the table. There are 
several of us here now. At least one of us may not be here next year.
  Because of these concerns we are hearing from workers and companies, 
we are offering a very simple and modest clarification of U.S. law 
regarding the definition of ``material injury.'' In fact, I believe it 
is actually exactly what Congress intended originally.
  The proposed legislation makes no changes to the definition of 
``material injury.'' Instead, the legislation clarifies that ``the 
[International Trade] Commission shall not determine that there is no 
material injury or threat of material industry to a domestic industry 
merely because the domestic industry is profitable or because the 
performance of the domestic industry has recently improved.'' I think 
this clarification underscores what the current language already shows. 
The definition of ``material injury'' is not intended to be so 
burdensome on U.S. companies that they have to go under or at least see 
job loss before they can get the relief they deserve.
  I hope this amendment will be supported, as it was in the Customs 
package. I hope we can get it to the floor for a vote. I think it is 
incredibly important that we make sure this goes along with something 
that is also very important, which is to expand our exports all around 
the world.
  We want to be sure American companies that are being harmed by 
illegal imports feel we are here to back them up and know they won't 
have to wait and watch as subsidized or dumped imports put them on the 
verge of going out of business and laying off hundreds, if not 
thousands, of workers.
  So the whole notion here is that before companies are gravely or 
severely injured, they have the chance to make their case, that they 
can have confidence that the U.S. trade laws will be enforced as 
Congress originally intended them to and that they will be able to 
compete on this level playing field.
  Protecting workers and jobs is not a partisan issue; this is 
something both sides of the aisle believe in. It is about fairness. It 
is about ensuring that those factory workers and towns all across 
America understand that as we expand exports, as we open trade between 
countries, we are also looking out for them and ensuring it is done in 
a fair way.
  But if they are willing to work hard, play by the rules, they can 
indeed not just succeed but thrive here in this, the greatest country 
on the face of the Earth, the country that has this economy that has 
been in the past the envy of the entire world, on the cutting edge. We 
need to get back to that. We need to continue making things in this 
country. We need to continue encouraging innovation and creativity. In 
doing so, we will be able to have the kind of robust economic recovery 
all of us hope for. Part of this is trade, more exports, and being sure 
it is fair. Part of this is ensuring that in this body, we provide 
those rules of the road. If we do so, I believe we will not only be 
able to help the people we represent, as we should, but also begin to 
rebuild a consensus around the importance of trade.
  Some of you have probably followed what is going on in the House this 
week with regard to trade promotion authority. It is tough to find the 
votes, and I think that is reflective of the fact that a lot of our 
constituents back home are skeptical. They are skeptical about trade 
because they have seen too often, as I mentioned earlier, that other 
countries were not playing by the rules, and I gave the specific 
examples of the U.S. steel company trying to sell its product in China 
or the EU and being blocked but not getting relief here.
  We can fix this. It is not a matter of changing our posture on trade. 
We are a country that is courageous. We believe in trade. We are not 
going to

[[Page S3283]]

shrink from it. But we are also a country that believes in rules and 
believes in taking care of the people whom we represent so that they 
are not unfairly treated in the international marketplace. That is what 
this debate is about.
  I hope we will have a good vote on the currency manipulation 
amendment we talked about. Whether or not we will be able to get up the 
other amendment is still a matter of debate, as I understand it. I hope 
we will be able to work through that and offer this incredibly 
important amendment, which is bipartisan, called level the playing 
field that I talked about. I think having votes on both of those 
strengthens trade promotion authority. Frankly, it makes it easier to 
get that legislation through the House and also, in the end, get 
America back in the business of helping the workers and farmers and the 
service providers whom we represent.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            The PATRIOT Act

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we will be talking about the PATRIOT Act 
and the USA FREEDOM Act that has been offered, and I think it is an 
important issue. I believe the PATRIOT Act provides critical tools that 
have helped protect America, and I believe it does so without any 
infringement on constitutional rights.
  Some say we have to compromise rights or balance rights against the 
threats. Maybe sometimes we have to do that. But when we wrote the 
PATRIOT Act in the Judiciary Committee--of which I am a member, Senator 
Leahy is a strong libertarian, Senator Hatch is a strong libertarian, 
Senator Hatch was chairman, Senator Leahy was ranking member, I had 
been a Federal prosecutor for 15 years; people like Jon Kyl and Dianne 
Feinstein and so many others worked on it for months--it wasn't passed 
in a few days without thought. People talked about it. It was on the 
radio and television, we got letters, we had hearings with professors 
and constitutional scholars, law enforcement officers, some public and 
some classified briefings, and we tried to write a bill, and I believe 
did, that provided the Federal Government an expedited method to access 
phone call data, metadata as it is called, under section 215 of the 
act.
  Now, this data has no content--no phone communications at all. It is 
just phone numbers, even less than you get on your telephone bill when 
it comes to you in the mail every month. That data is maintained at the 
telephone companies in their records. Everybody who makes a phone call 
should know that, if they are alert to the world. So that record is not 
your personal record. That record is the telephone company's record.
  Now, if you have documents at home, if you have records in your desk, 
records anywhere in your house, if you have a gun or drugs that are 
illegal in your house, nobody can come in your house, they can't go 
into your car, can't go into your glove compartment or trunk without a 
court order because it is within your custody and you have a right, 
under the Fourth Amendment, to be free from an unreasonable search. The 
law enforcement officer has to get a court order, backed up by facts, 
before they can breach that Fourth Amendment.
  Of course, the Fourth Amendment simply says that your right is 
against unreasonable search and seizure. It doesn't say the government 
can never conduct a search. An unreasonable search and seizure is what 
the Constitution talks about. I would say, first and foremost, it is 
reasonable the government be able to identify certain matters of 
evidence that could prevent a 9/11-type attack on America that could 
cause the deaths of thousands of Americans.
  So what is it that is provided for under this act? I am raising this 
because I think my colleagues have misunderstood it, and they are more 
worried about it than they should be. In fact, I think many of their 
worries are based on a false understanding of how the system works and 
a false understanding of how law enforcement is conducted in America 
every day.
  So these telephone companies all maintain these records and they are 
accessible by law enforcement. And it does not take a court order, 
colleagues; it takes a subpoena. A subpoena is an order for production 
issued by an entity empowered to issue subpoenas.
  The basic standard for a Drug Enforcement Administration agent to get 
people's telephone records that are in the possession of a telephone 
company is the administrative subpoena. They do not have to go to a 
judge, they do not have to go to the U.S. attorney or any Federal 
prosecutor. They are empowered if the documents are relevant to an 
investigation they are conducting because they are not an individual's 
possession; they are the phone company's records. This is done every 
day.
  Now, oddly, the FBI doesn't have that power. The FBI is the Agency 
charged with the responsibility of investigating and stopping terrorist 
attacks, but they have never been given this power. They have to issue 
their subpoenas simply by calling the Federal prosecutor in the U.S. 
attorney's office. I was a U.S. attorney for 12 years, an assistant 
U.S. attorney for 2\1/2\. I approved hundreds and hundreds, thousands 
of subpoenas.
  In almost every major investigation you want telephone toll records. 
You are investigating a drug dealer and you capture somebody and he 
starts providing evidence. He says: I talked to the main drug dealer. 
How many times? Hundreds. Did you use a phone? Yes. So you immediately 
subpoena the telephone records. Those come right in, and they can prove 
he is telling you the truth. He has made 50 or 100 phone calls to the 
main drug dealer. That corroborates his testimony and builds truth and 
power in the prosecution's case that this person is indeed a drug 
dealer and this witness is telling the truth.
  Now, there are all sorts of reasons for getting documents. That is 
just one of them, but it is done every day by a subpoena. As I said, a 
subpoena does not require a judge's approval.
  So this all got stirred up in the PATRIOT Act, and we set up this 
procedure with judicial oversight where the phone companies' phone 
data--metadata--is simply put in one secure system that is accessible 
by the Federal Government. I don't believe that violates any 
constitutional rights. It is just a mechanism by which to further the 
system. And before they can access it, the FBI, the National Security 
Agency, has to have more proof and put out more evidence and go through 
more hoops than the drug enforcement agent does to get your telephone 
records. Remember, these records have no names. They have nothing but a 
telephone number, the date the number was called, and how long the 
conversation was.
  Nobody is accessing those records for personal gain. Only 30-some 
people in the United States have the ability to access this system. 
That is the way it works, and so I believe, colleagues, this does not 
in any way impact the integrity of the constitutional right to be free 
from unreasonable search and seizure under the Constitution.

  Somebody may say: Well, they could abuse that. Well, they could abuse 
it, that is true. But I have to tell you, I have seen this system. I 
have seen the people who operate it. They are not out there trying to 
corruptly spy on politicians or anyone else. I don't know how they 
could use the system to do that anyway. Anybody who works at the 
telephone company can access your telephone toll records now. So how 
much security do you have in your telephone toll records, pray tell?
  But these people aren't doing that. They are intensely focused. If 
they have information connecting a phone number to a foreign terrorist 
or terrorist organization and they can see other people have called 
that number. They can do some preliminary investigations and if there 
is a hit and some information that coincides with other data they have, 
they may be able to investigate it. That may lead to other information 
that may stop an attack on the United States of America.
  These people are not after drug dealers, they are not after bank 
cheats, fraudsters or armed robbers; they are

[[Page S3284]]

after terrorists. That is all they are authorized to use the system 
for.
  I just have difficulty having the words to express how I feel about 
this.
  So this system can save this country from massive attacks. We know, 
and our officials are telling us, there are more threats out there than 
before.
  A lot of people watch these television programs, these CSI shows and 
things, and they get the false impression of the power of the American 
Government to conduct surveillance and the extent to which it is 
limited. I have worked with FBI agents, DEA and IRS agents. They are 
not risking their careers. They are not signing false statements. You 
see that sometimes on television. Even the heroes do things that 
violate the rules. In my experience, none of the Federal officers I 
dealt with violated the rules. If criminals walked, they walked. Even 
though they desperately needed some information, the agents do not lie, 
defraud or cheat.
  I will tell you, these people at the NSA aren't doing that. They are 
patriots. They are the best kind of people you want to have serving in 
America. So I think this is an exaggerated thing.
  I hope, colleagues, we will spend more time identifying and looking 
through the challenges we face, the threats we face in America, and 
that we will examine this program and be sure we fully understand what 
is at stake and the advantages that it brings. The President has given 
us examples of what will happen. Director Comey of the FBI said that 
losing these authorities would be a big problem as the Agency uses 
section 215, the key section, in about 200 cases a year to get records 
through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
  By the way, colleagues, the Internal Revenue Service can issue an 
administrative subpoena to get your bank records. I think they have the 
power to issue telephone toll records too--but, no, not here in this 
system. You have to go through the court process.
  We talk about the roving wiretap authority that would expire if we do 
not reauthorize these programs. That is used in counterespionage and 
counterterrorism investigations and it allows the FBI to conduct 
surveillance on a person who may be using a burner phone. In other 
words, using a telephone and then throwing it away and switching to a 
new phone so they maintain their ability to communicate without 
interception.
  This is important when you actually do get a warrant that allows a 
title III wiretap of a terrorist phone. You get this ability when you 
go to court. In the affidavits I have seen--in all 12 years as a U.S. 
attorney, I think I had one or two wiretaps approved--they were 
hundreds of pages of affidavits. You have to monitor it all. It takes 
tremendous time, but if you are after a terrorist, a wiretap can be a 
decisive and important matter.
  Then, you face the problem of, well, you have a wiretap and it names 
the phone and the number of it, but he throws that phone down and picks 
up another one. How do you deal with that? So this allows a roving 
wiretap and provides a mechanism for a person who changes phones, and 
it is consistent with the fundamental principle we use in drug cases 
and organized crime cases.
  In a Washington Times article published today, the President of the 
Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund and former Assistant Director of the 
FBI, Ron Hosko, said:

       ISIS is singing a siren song calling people to their death 
     to crash on the rocks--and it's the rocks that ISIS will take 
     credit for. They're looking for those who are disaffected, 
     disconnected and willing to commit murder. So if we're 
     willing to take away tools, OK, congressman, stand behind 
     it [and] take the credit by putting the FBI in the dark.

  In other words, be sure we will be taking credit for shutting off the 
ability of our investigators to protect America.
  President Obama said it is indeed helping protect America. Last year, 
he said:

       The program grew out of a desire to address a gap 
     identified after 9/11. One of the 
     9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar, made a phone call from San 
     Diego to a known al-Qaida safehouse in Yemen. NSA [the 
     National Security Agency] saw that call, but could not see 
     that the call was coming from an individual already in the 
     United States.

  They didn't have the legal ability or a system at that time that 
could do it.
  The President went on to say of the telephone metadata program:

       Section 215 was designed to map the communications of 
     terrorists, so we can see who they may be in contact with as 
     quickly as possible.

  Speed is critical.
  The President went on to say:

       This capability could also provide valuable information in 
     a crisis. For example, if a bomb goes off in one of our 
     cities and law enforcement is racing to determine whether a 
     network is poised to conduct additional attacks, time is of 
     the essence. Being able to quickly review telephone 
     connections to assess whether a network exists is critical to 
     that effort.

  I think the President is right about that. We don't have superhuman 
abilities in this country. We don't monitor everybody's phone calls. 
There is no way humanly possible Federal agents can do that. But once 
they identify someone who is being connected to a terrorist group, they 
can at least follow their phone number and whom they may be calling.
  Passing the House bill I believe is not the right thing. The bill 
would eliminate entirely the database through which our intelligence 
analysts are able to quickly access information to connect the dots.
  The bill ends these programs. It just does. It ends the metadata 
program, replacing it with a nonexistent, untested system. It relies on 
the hope that private telephone companies will agree to retain this 
data. But these companies have made it clear they will not commit, and 
flatly refuse to commit, to retaining this telephone data in their 
computer systems for any period of time as contemplated by the House-
passed bill, unless they are legally required to do so--and the bill 
does not require them to do so.
  One provider said the following:

       [We are] not prepared to commit to voluntarily retain 
     documents for any particular period of time pursuant to the 
     proposed [House bill] if not otherwise required by law.

  The House has refused to put that in.
  Colleagues, when I was prosecuting, phone companies kept the data 3 
years, some phone companies more. One rural phone company never got rid 
of their data. It was amazing how often older phone calls helped 
connect the dots, improved facts that are critical in a prosecution.
  For example, somebody says: I never called John Jones, and then you 
find 50 calls from their phone document to John Jones. These things 
have tremendous importance. When we are looking to prevent an attack on 
America, trying to produce intelligence to prevent enemy attacks on 
this country, just the fact that one individual is calling another 
individual who is known to be a terrorist is exceedingly valuable 
information. My goodness, maybe it is an innocent call, but it is 
worthy of looking at and investigating. That is how investigation work. 
That is how crimes are solved. That is how attacks are stopped. One 
shred of evidence, one bit can lead to new bits that can lead to more 
and more evidence and reveals an entire organization poised to attack 
our country.
  Let me repeat. I don't believe we have a violation of the 
Constitution. I am absolutely convinced the procedures utilized in this 
process are utterly consistent with the policies approved by thousands 
of court cases nationwide that law enforcement uses on a daily basis to 
investigate tax cheats and drug dealers. And we can't use these same 
tactics against terrorists who are enemies of the United States and 
seek to perhaps blow up and kill thousands of people?
  I think this is a mistake. I urge my colleagues to be careful about 
it.
  Yesterday, we received a letter from the Sergeants Benevolent 
Association. It pleads with us to do a short-term extension of the 
program: Congress, do your duty. The letter says:

       With provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act set to expire in 
     less than two weeks, the responsible course is to pass a 
     short-term extension of the expiring authorities--including 
     section 215. This will allow time for the Senate to undertake 
     the kind of serious deliberative process critical national 
     security issues demand and that the American people expect of 
     ``the world's greatest deliberative body.''

  I think we are doing that now. That is my opinion. I was present when 
the law was drafted, and we tried to be sure we did that and I believe 
we did. Some of the concerns are real. A lot of good people are 
concerned about it. So I think it is time for us to slow down, go

[[Page S3285]]

back to the basics, lay out this program, see what the complaints are, 
and then see if they are justified. If they are, the program will have 
to end. But I don't believe it needs to end, and right now we are 
heading on a path that will end it.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Republican Leadership In Congress

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I read this morning's news, I was 
intrigued and struck by a Pew Research poll. Pew conducted a national 
survey to gauge Americans' satisfaction with Congress. Unsurprisingly, 
Americans are disillusioned with the Senate and the House Republicans.
  I guess that is kind of an understatement, if you look at the content 
of the poll. Despite constant self-congratulations from the Republican 
leadership, the American people are rejecting the Republican leadership 
in Congress.
  Just listen to a few of these findings: Seventy-two percent of 
Americans disapprove of the job being done by Republican leaders in 
Congress. That is an alltime high; just 4 percent of Americans say 
Republicans in Congress have exceeded expectations--4 percent; even 
self-identifying Republicans object to how their party has governed; 55 
percent of Republicans disapprove of Republican congressional 
leadership's job performance; fewer than 4 in 10 Republicans say their 
party is doing a good job representing their views, but among the 
results of the Pew survey, there is an especially troubling trend. The 
survey found that 65 percent of Americans say Republicans have failed 
to live up to their campaign promises; only 27 percent of Republicans 
believe their party is keeping its campaign promises--not Independents, 
not Democrats but Republicans.
  ``Integrity'' is a simple word, but here in the Capitol it is 
everything. As elected officials, all we have to offer our constituents 
is our integrity. If we are not as good as our word, then we are no 
good for anything.
  It is appalling that 5 months into this new Congress, most Americans 
believe the congressional Republicans cannot be trusted to keep their 
word.
  What were those promises Republicans made? How about this one from 
the majority leader: ``Our focus would be on passing legislation that 
improves the economy, that makes it easier for Americans to find jobs, 
and that helps restore Americans' confidence in their country and their 
Government.''
  That is what the majority leader said last year, but his record this 
year tells a completely different story. So far this year, Republicans 
have ignored the needs of their constituents. Just look at how Senate 
Republicans have spent their time so far this year:
  The Keystone Pipeline legislation, which is a handout to billionaires 
and certainly special interests, is a bill that brings foreign oil into 
our country and then ships it right back to the foreign nations; a near 
shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, even as ISIS and other 
terrorist groups were threatening our Nation; a senseless delay over 
funding for victims of human trafficking took weeks to finally finish; 
an unprecedented delay in the confirmation of the Attorney General of 
the United States being held longer than any prospective Attorney 
General in the history of the country, not only of her but many, many 
judges, not even holding hearings for them and other Cabinet and sub-
Cabinet officers--not even holding hearings.
  Of course, there is nothing on the calendar because the committees 
are reporting nothing out of the committees.
  They passed an immoral budget that cuts taxes for the wealthiest 
individuals and corporations, while attacking working families and 
seniors; a trade bill that is tantamount to aid for foreign 
corporations and does nothing for the middle class; procrastinating a 
reauthorization of job creating legislation such as the highway bill.
  We are going to be asked in the next few hours to extend the highway 
bill for the 33rd time--33rd time--for a couple of months. What a 
shame, when we have 64,000 bridges that are structurally deficient, 50 
percent of our highways and roads are in really bad need of repair.
  Now, 65 percent of Americans say yes, 53 percent of Republicans say 
so, too, that they are not living up to their campaign promises. So who 
can argue with that?
  One need only look at Senate Republicans' legislative agenda to 
realize there is nothing on the horizon that helps working American 
families. At this rate, Congress will finish this year with nothing to 
show the middle class--nothing.
  This trade bill, as I mentioned this morning, is a handout to 
multinational corporations and does nothing for the middle class, 
except cause them to lose jobs that will be shipped overseas. But the 
wealthiest 1 percent have reaped benefits during this first 5 months of 
this Congress. That is why Americans--72 percent of Americans--
disapprove of the way Republicans are leading Congress.
  But there is still time to right the ship. There are many things we 
can do in the Senate to help boost the middle class. We can pass a 
highway bill that immediately injects jobs into our economy, while 
ensuring that our businesses and families have safe roadways, rails, 
and bridges to navigate. We can give American workers a livable wage 
and ensure that no full-time employee is living in poverty.
  We can address the mounting burden that student loan debt has on our 
economy, which is worse than any other debt, more than credit card 
debt, more than anything else. There are many other things we can do 
for American families that have not been done.
  It is clear Republicans are not accomplishing much on their own, so 
why not work with us? Democrats are willing.
  Together, we can all keep our word to our constituents. We can follow 
through on our commitment to help middle-class Americans and get them 
the help they need and deserve.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with the distinguished ranking member of the Finance 
Committee, Senate Wyden.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.


                 Outstanding issues in the trade debate

  Mr. HATCH. First of all, I want to thank Senator Wyden for his 
efforts in trying to accommodate the priorities of Members of the 
Senate during debate on this bill. We have been hard at work trying to 
address various concerns. Now, as we approach a final vote, we need to 
talk about some outstanding issues that we have not been able to 
resolve during this debate.
  Specifically, there are four issues that we are committed to 
addressing.
  First, during this debate we developed language to address Member 
concerns about immigration policy, particularly the concerns that trade 
negotiations could be used to alter U.S. immigration law or policy. An 
amendment filed by Senator Cruz during the floor debate clarified this 
issue.
  Second, one of the provisions of the TPA bill relates to forced labor 
and human trafficking. Senator Menendez championed an effort to include 
these provisions in the bill reported by the Finance Committee. Since 
that time, Senator Menendez worked with us to refine these provisions 
and to improve their operation. We supported an amendment filed by 
Senator Menendez to make these refinements.
  There is also strong bipartisan interest in providing more robust 
direction for trade in the fishing industry. Senator Sullivan has been 
a leader in this area.
  Finally, there were proposed amendments to strengthen U.S. trade 
remedy laws. Senators Brown and Portman were key leaders in this area 
and filed an amendment to address this issue on the floor. We supported 
this amendment as well.
  I believe there was strong bipartisan consensus in favor of all four 
of these efforts. Unfortunately, we were unable to address them during 
consideration of the TPA bill on the floor. Going forward, I want to be 
clear that we are committed to address all four of these concerns in 
the context of the future conference of the Trade Facilitation and 
Trade Enforcement Act, which has already passed the Senate. I have a 
letter here from Chairman Ryan of the

[[Page S3286]]

House Ways and Means Committee committing to work with us on these 
issues when that bill goes to conference.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                     Washington, DC, May 22, 2015.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ron Wyden,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden: As the Senate 
     is considering the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities 
     and Accountability Act, I would like to convey that I intend 
     to seek adoption of legislative changes to H.R. 1907, the 
     Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, when it 
     is considered in the House. These changes will include the 
     following four provisions:
       Legislation sought by the House Congressional Steel Caucus 
     (H.R. 2523), to make improvements to the antidumping and 
     countervailing duty laws;
       The text of Senate Amendment 1384, offered by Sen. Hatch 
     and Senator Cruz, to ensure that trade agreements do not 
     require changes to U.S. immigration laws;
       The text of Senate Amendment 1430, offered by Senator 
     Menendez, related to human trafficking; and
       The text of Senate Amendment 1246, offered by Senator 
     Sullivan, related to opportunities for trade in fish, 
     seafood, and shellfish.
       I look forward to continuing to work with you on this 
     important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Paul Ryan.

  Mr. HATCH. I would ask Senator Wyden if he is willing to work with me 
to address these issues in this fashion.
  Mr. WYDEN. I agree, that these are very important issues that we are 
committed to addressing in the coming conference on the Trade 
Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act.
  I will note that the Brown-Portman trade remedy legislation was 
included in the Senate version of the bill. I think it would be 
appropriate to try to address these other issues in that context as 
well, and I commit to working with Chairman Hatch to do so.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into 
a colloquy with Senators Hatch and Wyden.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             NEPALI EXPORTS

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Senators Hatch and Wyden, I appreciate your work on 
the trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance 
legislation. As you have said, this bill authorizes the President to 
conclude high-standard free-trade agreements, which are expected to 
tremendously benefit California and the Nation. It also reauthorizes 
the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program to provide retraining and 
income support for workers displaced by international trade. In 2013, 
more than 7,000 Californians received assistance from this program.
  While I support H.R. 1314, I remain concerned that the United States 
must do more to help the people of Nepal recover from the earthquake 
and aftershocks that have devastated the country. As you know, the 
earthquakes have killed nearly 10,000 people, displaced more than 2.8 
million others, and damaged or destroyed more than 500,000 homes. The 
U.S. Geological Survey estimates losses could exceed Nepal's $20 
billion annual gross domestic product, which is a truly staggering 
figure for such a poor nation.
  While the international community has rushed to provide humanitarian 
aid, the United States can do more to assist Nepal's long-term economic 
recovery.
  Senator Hatch, do you agree that the United States should consider 
providing preferential treatment to Nepali exports to help the country 
recover?
  Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Yes, I agree. The United 
States came to Haiti's aid after it suffered a devastating earthquake 
in 2010. We should do the same for Nepal today.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator Hatch. To that end, I have filed 
an amendment, No. 1438, that would provide nonsensitive Nepali exports 
duty-free treatment in the U.S. market. Doing so would be consistent 
with our response to Haiti's devastating earthquake in 2010 and would 
attract much needed international investment in Nepal during this time 
of need.
  While I understand that we will not have an opportunity to further 
amend H.R. 1314, I ask you to provide your commitment to work include 
my legislation in the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 
2015--also known as the Customs enforcement bill--or a similar bill as 
reported by a conference committee to reauthorize trade facilitation 
and trade enforcement functions and activities.
  Mr. HATCH. You have my commitment to do so.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator Hatch. I appreciate your 
commitment to assisting Nepal.
  Senator Wyden, do you also commit to include my Nepal legislation in 
the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015?
  Mr. WYDEN. Yes, I also commit to include your Nepal legislation in 
the Customs enforcement bill.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate Chairman Hatch and Ranking 
Member Wyden's work on this bill, and agree that this bill provides 
accountability and transparency. On immigration, I have expressed 
concerns every step of the way about the executive branch negotiating 
changes to immigration laws through trade agreements. Even before I 
became chairman of the Judiciary Committee--in fact, when I was 
chairman and ranking member of the Finance committee--I opposed 
previous administrations' attempts to include immigration provisions in 
trade agreements.
  Because of that, I demanded that the Judiciary Committee be consulted 
on anything related to immigration. That has been done, and that has 
helped stop the administration in recent years from including 
provisions in trade agreements requiring changes to the immigration 
laws.
  During consideration of this bill in the Finance Committee this year, 
I asked USTR Ambassador Froman about this issue, and specifically if 
they were including anything on immigration in the next agreement, 
specifically the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He gave us assurances that 
they were not. Ambassador Froman was clear that other countries are 
making offers to each other in the area of temporary entry, but that 
the U.S. has decided not to do so.
  Nevertheless, Chairman Hatch and I wrote him a letter after he 
testified, and he wrote back with more assurances. Ambassador Froman 
acknowledged that there is a chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
agreement on the temporary entry of persons, but that this chapter only 
includes ``good governance provisions on transparency with respect to 
visa processing and cooperation on border security.'' He also said that 
this chapter includes commitments of other Trans-Pacific Partnership 
parties to make information on requirements for temporary entry 
publicly available. The U.S. already is very transparent about its visa 
application processes and eligibility requirements, and already 
processes visas as expeditiously as possible.
  When the committee took up the bill, Chairman Hatch and Ranking 
Member Wyden, at my request, included language in the accompanying 
report that would make it very clear that Congress will not tolerate 
changes to immigration laws, policies, or practices. This language is 
very strong and sends a signal to negotiators that trade agreements 
will not pass if they require changes to our immigration system, 
prevent us from changing our immigration laws or policies or even just 
repeat commitments we may have unfortunately made in previous trade 
agreements.
  I appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Member's attention to this 
issue.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the trade 
legislation before the Senate.
  What we have done so far has been to consider:
  No. 1, the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. This bill extends 
a number of trade preference programs related to Africa and Haiti. It 
also reauthorizes the Generalized System of Preferences Program, which 
expired in 2013.
  No. 2, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. This 
bill includes new trade enforcement mechanisms to protect American 
workers from unfair trade practices. The

[[Page S3287]]

legislation also includes a complete ban on importing goods created by 
child labor, which I strongly support.
  No. 3, trade adjustment assistance. This bill reauthorizes Federal 
assistance for worker retraining and income support to those displaced 
by trade. In fiscal year 2013, 7,609 Californians received training 
under the program, so I believe it is critical that we continue this 
assistance.
  No. 4, trade promotion authority. This bill authorizes the President 
to conclude free-trade agreements with our trading partners. In 
exchange, those agreements will receive an up-or-down vote in the 
Congress.
  I voted for these bills because they will update our trade policy in 
a smart, effective way.
  The process of considering these bills has enabled me to see the 
extraordinary importance of trade to California's economy.
  In 2013, California's total gross domestic product was an estimated 
$2.2 trillion. That makes it the eighth largest economy in the world, 
surpassing that of Russia and Italy and soon to overtake Brazil. The 
services industry--both high-skilled professional services and lower 
skilled jobs in accommodation, food and administration--have lead 
California's economic recovery since the 2008 recession. In fact, 66 
percent of all new jobs in California created over the past year were 
in services.
  Trade is critical to sustaining this job growth. In 2013, California 
exported $114 billion in services, which was a 58-percent growth since 
2006. California's services exports substantially contributed to the 
overall services trade surplus of the United States, which reached over 
$200 billion in 2013.
  The Trans-Pacific Partnership is expected to boost services exports 
even more by prohibiting customs duties for digital products; applying 
the same nondiscrimination standards for digital goods as manufactured 
goods; prohibiting countries from requiring companies to transfer their 
technology, business processes, or intellectual property; and requiring 
strong and enforceable intellectual property rights. From Silicon 
Valley to Hollywood, these expected provisions will continue to drive 
California's services exports and our overall economy.
  In 2014, California exported $174.1 billion in total merchandise 
goods, supporting more than 775,000 jobs. That is a near 11 percent 
increase in jobs since 2009.
  Now, there is a common perception that only large businesses benefit 
from trade. That has not been the case in my State. Small and medium-
sized businesses--and their employees--have led the way in merchandise 
exports in California. Some 75,175 companies exported from California 
in 2013, of which 95.8 percent--72,032--were small and medium-sized 
businesses. Increased trade could grant these firms with new 
opportunities to grow, and their employees could see higher wages as a 
result. According to an economist at Dartmouth's Tuck School of 
Business, businesses that export pay wages on average 15 percent more 
than firms that do not. For a high-cost State like California, higher 
wages are a top priority. Increasing our exports is a commonsense means 
to that end.

  I am confident that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will help 
California's small and medium businesses and our overall economy 
because that has been my State's experience with our existing free-
trade partners.
  In 2014, of California's total merchandise exports, $70.4 billion 
were to nations with which the United States already has free-trade 
agreements. Over the past 10 years, exports from California to these 
free-trade partners grew by 50 percent. If the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership substantially reduces tariff barriers--as other agreements 
have--California's exports will benefit substantially.
  Today, my State's exports of computers and electronic products face 
tariffs as high as 35 percent; transportation equipment face tariffs as 
high as 70 percent; machinery face tariffs as high as 70 percent; and 
health products face tariffs as high as 30 percent. Reducing tariffs on 
these manufactured goods has proven to be a boon to California's 
economy, and I hope we can keep moving in that direction.
  Finally, California agriculture relies on export markets. The State's 
agricultural exports were valued $21.2 billion in 2013. That is far 
more than any other State. This trade has helped the state's 
agricultural industry become the largest by value in the United States. 
In fact, the California Department of Food and Agriculture reports that 
California's 77,900 farms produced $44.7 billion in output in 2013. 
This is a massive sum, and it will only grow with trade.
  According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture study, under TPP 
nationwide agriculture exports are expected to increase 54 percent by 
2025.
  For California's products, reduced tariffs and scientific-based 
sanitary and phytosanitary standards will be key. For example, 
California dairy products face a tariff of up to 35 percent in Japan, 
while California walnuts face a tariff of 30 percent in Vietnam. In 
Australia, California beef has been blocked due in part to unfounded 
fears of mad cow disease. Reducing these trade barriers is expected to 
benefit dozens of agricultural commodities in my State--especially 
fruits, tree nuts, vegetables, dairy, beef, wine, confections, rice and 
citrus exports. In fact, TPP can sustain the growth of California's 
agricultural exports to those countries, which from 2009 to 2013 
increased in value from $4.8 billion to $7.5 billion. Overall, it is 
apparent that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will continue to support 
the immense success of California's farmers, ranchers, and producers.
  Mr. President, the fact is that California relies on trade. It has 
been critical for our economic recovery and will be vital for 
sustaining our growth. Therefore, I am pleased to support passage of 
trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance. With trade 
promotion authority in place, I hope the President can send to Congress 
strong and fair trade agreements.
  While the Trans-Pacific Partnership holds tremendous promise, it is 
my hope that the Obama administration concludes a final agreement that 
I can support.
  I look forward to reviewing the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the 
coming months.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, International trade is a vital part of our 
Nation's economy. Nearly one-third of the country's gross domestic 
product is supported by trade in goods and services and, indeed, my 
State of Rhode Island exported goods totaling $2.4 billion in 2014. It 
is also a key component of our international partnerships and global 
security efforts.
  However, the question today is not whether we should engage in trade. 
It is about the bill before us, and whether trade promotion authority, 
TPA, so-called ``fast-track,'' is in our best interest. It remains my 
view that Congress has a critical role to play in thoroughly vetting 
trade agreements. Passing this legislation takes away this role, 
reducing Congressional approval to an up-or-down vote. The bill before 
us today would also prohibit amendments and limit debate to just 20 
hours. I believe that the scope and complexity of modern trade 
agreements demand more time for debate and a greater ability to 
contribute than this framework provides.
  Further, this bill allows for a 6-year grant of TPA, meaning that any 
trade agreement under any administration over the next several years 
could receive this expedited approval. A number of trade agreements are 
currently being negotiated and it is impossible to know what additional 
trade deals may be pursued and what other factors, both here and 
abroad, may change over the course of the next several years. Given 
this, I do not think that Congress should vote to limit its own 
oversight, particularly for such a long period of time.
  I also have concerns about the negotiating objectives set forth in 
this package. We need negotiating objectives that are enforceable. 
Without stronger and more concrete language on a number of key issues 
including currency manipulation, labor, and environmental standards, 
these negotiating objectives are unlikely to make an impact or be seen 
as a critical component for reaching a deal by our partners. For this 
reason, I joined Senators Portman and Stabenow and many of our 
colleagues in cosponsoring and voting for amendment 1299, which, had it

[[Page S3288]]

passed, would have established a negotiating objective that urges the 
administration to press for rules against currency manipulation that 
are enforceable and consistent with IMF obligations. Without 
strengthening this and other objectives within TPA, they become mere 
suggestions, failing to afford critical protection to American workers 
and interests.
  I commend the work of Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden, along 
with Senator Brown and other colleagues, to find a path forward for the 
customs and African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA, reauthorization 
bills that we passed last week, which I was pleased to join a majority 
of my colleagues in supporting. I am also pleased that a path forward 
has been found for Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, which I have 
consistently supported. Most recently, I cosponsored Senator Brown's 
amendment to raise TAA funding levels to better support workers who 
have been displaced by trade. We all know that trade is not a tide that 
equally lifts all boats, and, so while I am pleased that TAA appears to 
be moving forward at this time, I am disappointed that the Brown 
amendment to enhance support for TAA did not pass.
  We need to set the highest bar for our trade policy. It needs to 
advance our strategic and national interests while ensuring that 
American workers are in the best position to compete in this global 
economy. They deserve nothing less, and, in my view, TPA simply does 
not do enough to protect workers in my State of Rhode Island and across 
the country. For these reasons, I must oppose this legislation.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, today I will vote to approve the 
Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act, which 
will grant the President trade promotion authority, TPA, through 2021.
  This was not an easy decision, but one I am confident is right for 
North Dakota. Exports are critical to the bottom line of our State's 
agricultural producers as well as our manufacturers.
  Agricultural exports means jobs. In 2013, North Dakota exported over 
$4 billion in agricultural products ranging from beef to wheat to fresh 
vegetables. USDA estimates that in 2013, every $1 billion in U.S. 
agricultural exports, 7,580 American jobs are required. For North 
Dakota that translated into more than 30,000 jobs supported by 
agricultural exports. We must do everything we can to expand 
agricultural exports to support existing jobs and create new ones.
  In 2013, total North Dakota grain exports totaled over $3.5 billion. 
North Dakota-grown hard red spring and durum wheat exports made us the 
No. 2 wheat exporting State in the Nation, with exports valued at over 
$1.2 billion in 2013. North Dakota was also the No. 2 exporting State 
for soybeans in 2014/15, exporting 182 million bushels. These 
commodities are exported around the world, but especially to the 
Pacific Rim and Europe, where the United States is currently 
negotiating free trade agreements which will remove barriers which make 
us less competitive.
  North Dakota is also an important exporter of manufactured goods like 
farm machinery. CNH Industrial's plant in Fargo exported nearly 35 
percent of the Case IH and New Holland Agriculture 4wd tractors it 
manufactured in 2014. The plant is supported by 23 North Dakota 
suppliers from across the State, among others.
  I continue to have concerns with several provisions of this bill and 
our overall trade policy, particularly as it relates to currency 
manipulation and investor-state dispute settlement. As we have heard 
time and again, currency manipulation is one of the biggest threats to 
U.S. competitiveness, costing us millions of jobs. I supported 
amendments which would strengthen our negotiating position relating to 
currency, and I will continue to fight for policies which put U.S. 
exporters and workers on an even playing field.
  Any trade package must also include strong enforcement provisions and 
assistance for workers whose jobs are impacted by trade. That is why I 
insisted the Senate vote on a Customs and enforcement bill as a 
condition for my support for moving TPA forward. This TPA bill also 
includes an important extension of trade adjustment assistance to make 
sure those negatively affected by new trade agreements receive the 
education and training they need to get new jobs and support their 
families.
  Additionally, I received a commitment from the U.S. Trade 
Representative that he will continue working to improve the integrity 
of the investor-state dispute settlement system. I will continue to 
work to ensure this process does not put foreign companies at an 
advantage over our American industries or threaten the sovereignty of 
our States.
  I also fought for and secured a path forward for voting for the 
Export-Import Bank in June, before the bank's charter expires, as part 
of my negotiations on TPA. When we talk about the United States' trade 
policy, we cannot leave out important tools which help our small 
businesses export and thrive. That includes reauthorizing the Export-
Import Bank.
  Today's vote is just the beginning of our work to open markets for 
our farmers, ranchers and workers. We live in a global economy. We can 
compete on a global playing field while also making sure we focus on 
building and supporting American jobs and businesses. I will continue 
to fight for North Dakota as we negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
Agreement and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership to ensure 
that we not only have free trade, but fair trade.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Access to Community Care for Veterans Act of 2015

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I wish to bring S. 1463 to the attention of 
my colleagues.
  The topic of the bill is one my colleagues have heard me speak about 
numerous times before in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, where I am a 
member. Just yesterday, I addressed this topic in the appropriations 
subcommittee markup of veterans and military construction, where I am a 
member and have many times on the Senate floor. The issue is the 
Department of Veterans Affairs and its interpretation of the CHOICE 
Act.
  My colleagues will remember we passed the CHOICE Act back in August 
of last year. The important provision for today's conversation is what 
that law says, which is, if a veteran lives more than 40 miles from a 
VA facility, the Department of Veterans Affairs must provide services, 
if the veteran chooses, at a location in his or her home community.
  Unfortunately, the Department of Veterans Affairs has interpreted it 
in a way that eliminates the opportunity for a veteran who happens to 
live within 40 miles of a facility from accessing that care, even 
though that facility doesn't provide the service the veteran needs.
  S. 1463 corrects that problem. It indicates that the 40-mile rule 
applies only in the circumstance where a veterans facility provides the 
service the veteran needs. The Senate has previously voted on this 
provision. In fact, in our budget, it was adopted 100 to 0 on a 
rollcall vote.
  I think what I am presenting is something that is very 
noncontroversial. There is no fiscal consequence to the current 
spending. This is money that was appropriated in the CHOICE Act and 
should be something that can pass on a unanimous consent request, which 
I will make momentarily.
  The question may be why are you doing this? It is because it is 
important and needs to be corrected quickly. This bill, if adopted 
today by unanimous consent, will go to the House of Representatives 
where it can be considered.
  I also hope what happens here is that the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, which I believe can correct this problem on its own volition, 
will do so, and when they see the Senate pass this legislation, 
hopefully by unanimous consent, they will respond and solve this 
problem immediately.
  There is no reason this can't be done by the Department, and I will 
outline the explanation of why that is true by reading the CHOICE Act 
and by the report that confirms our position.

[[Page S3289]]

  Before I ask unanimous consent, I also wish to thank a number of my 
colleagues, but in particular I thank the chairman of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, who has worked side by side with me to make certain 
this legislation ultimately becomes law. In fact, the chairman and the 
ranking member, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, have 
committed to me that on every occasion, should the House not pass this 
bill--I will say it this way: Three options can occur. If we pass this 
by unanimous consent today, the House picks it up, passes it, sends it 
to the President, the President signs it, and that would be a great 
outcome. Secondly, we pass this bill, the Department of Veterans 
Affairs realizes they can do this on their own, and that would be a 
great outcome. Thirdly, if neither one of those things happens, the 
chairman has committed to me that he will work side by side with all of 
us on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and with other Senators to 
make sure, at every opportunity, the language included in this bill is 
included in every bill related to veterans affairs that is on its way 
to the White House. The chairman will work with me to make sure this 
language is enacted into law.
  I ask, through the Chair, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, if 
what I am indicating is accurate and have him explain his thoughts on 
this topic in the few moments we have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, responding through the Chair to the 
Senator from Kansas, his language is precisely the language that was 
introduced by the committee in the Senate, which we were going to send 
to the House, but it got lost in the negotiations on the extension of 
the authorization in the House. A technical difficulty is the only 
reason it wasn't already a part of it.
  I wholeheartedly endorse everything the Senator from Kansas said and 
pledge to him that if for some reason the House does not adopt the 
language, we will take it up immediately in the Senate when we have our 
next markup meeting in the Veterans' Affairs Committee and take care of 
it.
  I personally wish to acknowledge Senator Bennet and Senator Gardner 
for all the work they have done. We went to Colorado together to visit 
the VA hospital, which is the genesis of where this motion comes from. 
They have been champions for this, and I am glad we are reaching a 
resolution in the motion that will be made shortly to adopt the House 
position on the authorization. We will see to it that the hospital in 
Denver remains open until we can solve the problems we have in the 
Denver hospital.
  I thank the Senator from Kansas for his cooperation, and I commend 
him on his language. I confirm everything he said as being accurate, 
true, and correct.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and very much 
appreciate his commitment to veterans. This is not about a specific 
piece of legislation, it is about keeping our commitment to those who 
served our country, always, every day but especially in advance of 
Memorial Day.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1463, introduced earlier 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1463) to amend the Veterans Access, Choice, and 
     Accountability Act of 2014 to modify the distance requirement 
     for expanded availability of hospital care and medical 
     services for veterans through the use of agreements with non-
     Department of Veterans Affairs entities.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 1463) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, 
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

                                S. 1463

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Access to Community Care for 
     Veterans Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FOR EXPANDED 
                   AVAILABILITY OF HOSPITAL CARE AND MEDICAL 
                   SERVICES FOR VETERANS THROUGH THE USE OF 
                   AGREEMENTS WITH NON-DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS ENTITIES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 101(b)(2) of 
     the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 
     (Public Law 113-146; 38 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(B) resides more than 40 miles (calculated based on 
     distance traveled) from a medical facility of the Department, 
     including a community-based outpatient clinic, that is the 
     closest such medical facility to the residence of the veteran 
     that is able to provide to the veteran the hospital care or 
     medical services that the veteran needs;''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to 
     care and services provided under section 101 of the Veterans 
     Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 
     113-146; 38 U.S.C. 1701 note) on and after such effective 
     date.
       (c) Emergency Designations.--
       (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) is 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 
     933(g)).
       (2) Designation in senate.--In the Senate, the amendment 
     made by subsection (a) is designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 
     (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2010.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from 
Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

                          ____________________