[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 80 (Friday, May 22, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3290-S3299]
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 Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record a letter from Judge Stephen Schwebel, who is both a dispute 
arbitrator and president of the International Court of Justice. This 
letter provides a useful perspective on the investment matters that 
have been discussed this week.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      May 5, 2015.
     Senator Ron Wyden,
     Senate Finance Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wyden: I have been asked to comment on 
     statements that have recently been circulated that oppose 
     inclusion in the projected Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) of 
     provision for investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). 
     Please permit me to note that I addressed criticism of ISDS a 
     year ago at some length in a speech to the Congress of the 
     International Council for Commercial Arbitration. A copy of 
     that speech is attached. I believe that it is of current 
     pertinence.
       For my part, as a former Judge and President of the 
     International Court of Justice, with experience going back to 
     1954 in international arbitration between States, between 
     corporations and States, and in international commercial 
     arbitration, I remain convinced that investor-State dispute 
     settlement is a progressive development in international law 
     and relations that should be preserved and nurtured. It 
     should certainly be included in the TPP and in the comparable 
     transatlantic treaty under negotiation as it has been in more 
     than 3000 bilateral investment treaties, and in important 
     multilateral treaties, notably NAFTA and the Energy Charter 
     Treaty.
       A letter of April 30, 2015 written to leaders of the Senate 
     and House by five distinguished professors of law and 
     economics and a former Circuit Court Judge criticizes 1SDS 
     because it allows foreign investors to avoid U.S. courts by 
     resorting to arbitral tribunals. The letter fails to take 
     account of the fundamental fact that treaties are reciprocal. 
     If the United States seeks to have disputes that arise 
     between American investors and foreign governments not 
     resolved by foreign courts, some of which may be less than 
     objective in their treatment of foreign investors; if the 
     United States seeks to substitute the rule of law for its 
     exercise of diplomatic protection which if and when 
     episodically extended is often ineffective; if the United 
     States seeks to avoid the gunboat diplomacy of earlier era, 
     then it must be ready to extend to foreign investors 
     investing in the United States the option of recourse to 
     international arbitration which their governments 
     reciprocally extend to U.S. investors. It is of course true 
     that U.S. courts generally have high standards in their 
     treatment of foreign parties. It is also true that the 
     substantive provisions of treaties providing for investor/
     State arbitration are consistent with U.S. Constitutional 
     guarantees. In point of fact, few arbitral cases have been 
     filed against the United States in ISDS proceedings and so 
     far the United States has won them all.
       A report of the Transnational Institute of 2012 charges 
     that a small group of arbitrators has decided a majority of 
     investor/State disputes, that this group is ``riven with 
     conflicts'', and that they exhibit a ``strong market 
     orientation''. An example cited is that of Marc Lalonde ``who 
     has served on the board for energy and mining company 
     Sherritt International'' while energy and mining cases 
     ``account for half of the 30 cases in which he has served as 
     arbitrator''. But in fact Mr. Lalonde earlier was a very 
     senior official of the Government of Canada for some 20 
     years, serving as a Minister of the Crown--a cabinet officer, 
     in American parlance--for Health and Welfare, Status of 
     Women, Federal-Provincial Relations, Justice, Energy, Mines 
     and Resources, and Finance. By parity of reasoning, he should 
     exhibit not a strong market orientation but a strong pro-
     State orientation. In point of fact, Mr. Lalonde exhibits an 
     impartial orientation and has the confidence of both 
     governments and investors, as his colleagues in the field do 
     as well. If they did not, the system of investor/State 
     arbitration would not have flourished as it has.
       Charges by groups and individuals that the ISDS process 
     manifests ``a serious pro-company tilt'' are contrary to 
     fact. Of 144 publically available arbitral awards, as of 
     January 2012, where arbitrators resolved a dispute arising 
     under a treaty, States won 87 cases, and investors won 57. 
     ICSID statistics show that of its disputes decided in 2013, 
     jurisdiction was declined in 31%, the award dismissed all 
     claims in 32%, and an award upholding claims in part or in 
     fill issued in 37%. These figures in the large hardly support 
     the allegation of a bias against States. If investment 
     arbitrators were truly influenced by the prospects of 
     remuneration for extended proceedings and for further 
     appointments, why would they terminate so

[[Page S3291]]

     many arbitral proceedings at the jurisdictional stage? 
     Moreover, the large majority of international arbitral awards 
     are unanimous, a fact that suggests that arbitrators are not 
     unduly responsive to the interests of the party that 
     appointed them.
       In short, the integrity of ISDS is demonstrably high.
           Your sincerely,
                                              Stephen M. Schwebel.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to be brief because I know 
Chairman Hatch and I are going to be propounding some unanimous consent 
requests here in a moment.
  On this currency issue, I want it understood that this is a serious, 
serious issue, and it is absolutely essential that our trade laws 
include tough enforceable currency rules and that we put in place those 
rules without doing damage to American monetary policy or to our 
ability to tackle the big economic challenges in the days ahead.
  The Senate has a choice between the amendment offered by Senator 
Hatch and me and the amendment offered by Senator Portman and Senator 
Stabenow. My view is this. The Portman amendment could outsource the 
question of the Federal Reserve's intent and decisionmaking to the 
whims of an international tribunal. This could take tools out of the 
economic toolbox that we could need--need greatly--during a potential 
financial crisis. We hope it will never happen, but the bottom line is 
the Congress must not set up the possibility of collateral damage for 
the Fed and our dollar.
  The right solution, which Chairman Hatch and I have worked to offer 
as an alternative, will make sure that America gets the upside of 
cracking down on currency manipulators and avoids the downside of 
limiting the Federal Reserve's toolkit of monetary policy. Our view is 
that we strike the right balance. We make sure that we are going to 
have the widest array of effective tools available, including strong, 
enforceable rules. I think we ought to take that route. The alternative 
could subject our country to disputes over our own monetary policies. 
That means, as I indicated, that the alternative--the Portman-Stabenow 
amendment--would, in effect, outsource questions of the Federal 
Reserve's intent to the whims of an international tribunal.
  Now, the Portman amendment tries to carve out domestic monetary 
policy. It sure sounds like a good idea. But when we have opened 
ourselves up to attack over our policies, other countries will not have 
to take our word that our policies are on the up and up. Even with that 
carve-out, other countries can still come after us.
  For example, many countries argued that our quantitative easing 
policy unfairly devalued the dollar. They were dead wrong on that. But 
the Senate shouldn't do anything that could strengthen the hand of 
those countries that want to attack our monetary policies.
  Now that Chairman Hatch is here, I wish to propound a unanimous 
consent request.
  Over the past few days, Chairman Hatch and I have been working in a 
bipartisan and cooperative fashion to come up with a balanced package 
of amendments that can be voted on. I very much appreciate the work of 
the chairman and his bipartisan leadership and particularly of my 
northwest colleague, Senator Murray. It appears regrettable that we 
have come up short, but for the benefit of colleagues, I wish to 
propound a unanimous consent request that would be acceptable to our 
side. These are amendments that I believe are important for the Senate 
to consider as part of this debate.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following first-
degree amendments to the Hatch substitute be made pending during 
today's session of the Senate and that no other first-degree amendments 
be in order:
  Cruz-Grassley No. 1384 on immigration; Menendez No. 1430 on 
trafficking; Sullivan No. 1246 on fish and shellfish; Warren No. 1328 
on financial services; Daines No. 1418 on Indian tribes; Donnelly No. 
1406 on training programs; Sessions No. 1233 on congressional approval; 
Boxer No. 1371 on minimum wage; Paul No. 1383 on bonuses for cost 
cutters; Manchin No. 1413 on State effects; Paul No. 1408 on auditing 
the Fed; Cardin No. 1230 on human rights; Brown-Portman No. 1252 on 
leveling playing field; Whitehouse No. 1387 on unregulated fishing; 
Markey No. 1308 on clean air and water; Merkley No. 1404 on food 
information; Casey-Murphy No. 1436 on Buy American; Baldwin No. 1317 on 
trade remedy; Bennet No. 1309 on poverty/hunger;
  Further, that the time until 5 p.m. today be equally divided in the 
usual form; that at 5 p.m. today the Senate vote in relation to the 
following amendments in the order listed: Hatch-Wyden No. 1411 on 
currency; Portman-Stabenow No. 1299 on currency; Warren No. 1327 on 
ISDS; Flake No. 1243 on striking TAA; Brown No. 1251 on China docking; 
Cruz-Grassley No. 1384 on immigration; Menendez No. 1430 on 
trafficking; Sullivan No. 1246 on fish and shellfish; Warren No. 1328 
on financial services; Daines No. 1418 on Indian tribes; Donnelly No. 
1406 on training programs; Boxer No. 1371 on minimum wage; Manchin No. 
1413 on State effects; Cardin No. 1230 on human rights; Brown-Portman 
No. 1252 on level playing field; Whitehouse No. 1387 on unregulated 
fishing; Markey No. 1308 on clean air and water; Merkley No. 1404 on 
food information; Casey-Murphy No. 1436 on Buy American; Baldwin No. 
1317 on trade remedy; Bennet No. 1309 on poverty/hunger;
  Further, that no second-degree amendments be in order to the 
amendments prior to the votes; that all after the Brown amendment No. 
1251 be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold for adoption; that 
upon disposition of the Bennet amendment No. 1309, all other pending 
amendments, including Sessions No. 1233, Paul No. 1383, Paul No. 1408, 
Inhofe No. 1312, McCain No. 1226, and Shaheen No. 1227, to the Hatch 
substitute be withdrawn; that all postcloture time be considered 
expired; and the Senate vote on the adoption of the Hatch substitute 
amendment, as amended; finally, if cloture is invoked on H.R. 1314, all 
postcloture time be yielded back, the bill, as amended, be read a third 
time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of our side, I have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendments and call up the following amendments: Cruz No. 1384; 
Menendez No. 1430; and Brown-Portman No. 1252; further, that amendment 
No. 1252 not be subject to any points of order under rule XXII.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on my reservation, I don't have a problem 
with the Senate voting on the three amendments included in Chairman 
Hatch's request, but there are a number of other important amendments 
that are not included in that request that colleagues on my side feel 
very strongly about and want to have the Senate vote on. Because the 
chairman's request would not allow these important additional 
amendments to be considered, I must object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as everybody should know, both the 
distinguished Senator from Oregon and I have tried to work these 
amendments out, and we were unsuccessful. There were objections and, 
therefore, I apologize that we weren't able to do more. But cloture was 
invoked, and that is the rule, I guess.


                    Amendment No. 1411, as Modified

  I wish to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Hatch-Wyden 
amendment No. 1411. If adopted, our amendment would strengthen the 
negotiating objective in the TPA bill relating to currency 
manipulation. Specifically, it would provide our country with a 
multitude of tools to address currency manipulation in the context of 
free-trade agreements, including enhanced transparency, disclosure, 
reporting, monitoring, and cooperative mechanisms, as well as 
enforceable rules.
  As we all know, this amendment is filed as an alternative to the 
Portman-Stabenow currency amendment, and it is superior in a number of 
ways.
  I know that many of my colleagues are sincerely concerned about 
currency manipulation and want to do something to address this issue. I 
share

[[Page S3292]]

those concerns, which is why Senator Wyden and I introduced this 
alternative currency amendment that provides a more sensible approach--
one that has been endorsed by leaders in the administration, the 
business community, and elsewhere.
  Unlike the Portman-Stabenow amendment, the Hatch-Wyden amendment 
would not derail the TPP negotiations. Unlike Portman-Stabenow, the 
Hatch-Wyden amendment poses no threat to America's monetary 
independence. Unlike the Portman-Stabenow amendment, the Hatch-Wyden 
amendment would prevent future trade and currency wars. And unlike 
Portman-Stabenow, the Hatch-Wyden amendment would promote greater 
monitoring and transparency of our trading partners' currency practices 
and keep manipulation practices out of the shadows. And, probably most 
importantly, unlike Portman-Stabenow, the Hatch-Wyden amendment would 
not kill TPA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. In fact, 30 seconds will be fine.
  Indeed, of the two currency amendments that are now pending in the 
Senate, the Hatch-Wyden amendment is the only one that stands a chance 
of ever becoming law.
  I urge my colleagues to support our amendment to allow us to more 
effectively address currency manipulation without killing the TPA bill.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All postcloture time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1411, as modified, 
offered by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S3292, May 22, 2015, in the first column, the following 
language appears: . . . on agreeing to amendment No. 1141, as 
modified.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: . . . on agreeing 
to amendment No. 1411, as modified.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Mr. WYDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 186 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--29

     Baldwin
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Casey
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     King
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Enzi
       
  The amendment (No. 1411), as modified, was agreed to.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S3292, May 22, 2015, in the middle column, the following 
language appears: The amendment (No. 1141), as modified, was 
agreed to.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The amendment (No. 
1411), as modified, was agreed to.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



                           Amendment No. 1299

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 1299, 
offered by the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, for herself and Mr. 
Portman.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address just 
for 1 minute, equally divided between Senator Stabenow and myself, this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I am not 
going to object--I think the Senator deserves a minute, but I would ask 
that I be given a minute after he finishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, we just adopted an amendment that puts 
this Senate squarely in opposition to currency manipulation. Now the 
question is whether we have the courage of our convictions. The only 
difference between the amendment we just voted and the one we are about 
to vote on is whether we actually have enforcement as part of that.
  I want you to be able to tell your workers that you not only disagree 
with currency manipulation but you want to be able to do something 
about it.
  I yield for my colleague.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, you have just heard a former U.S. Trade 
Representative who has led negotiations, a Senator who supports fast-
track, tell you that this is a reasonable policy to include in TPA. 
Sixty Members signed a letter a year ago to the President of the United 
States saying any new trade agreement must include enforceable currency 
provisions.
  This amendment makes that letter mean something. Currency 
manipulation has cost us 5 million jobs and counting. Enough is enough. 
Please join us in supporting the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Portman-
Stabenow amendment No. 1299. This is important to me. There has been a 
lot of debate and discussion on this amendment. Currency manipulation 
is a complex issue. But the fact is the vote on this amendment is not 
complex at all. A vote for the Portman-Stabenow amendment is a vote to 
kill TPA. We know that. The administration has made it abundantly clear 
that President Obama will veto any TPA bill that contains this 
amendment.
  A vote for the Portman-Stabenow amendment is also a vote to kill TPP. 
We know that as well. Many of our negotiating partners have already 
indicated that they will not agree to standards required by this 
amendment.
  The President of the United States opposes this amendment. The 
Secretary of the Treasury opposes this amendment. The Secretary of 
Agriculture opposes this amendment. All living former Treasury 
Secretaries, Republicans and Democrats alike, oppose the approach taken 
by this amendment.
  All I can say is, that being the case, I urge my colleagues to vote 
no on the Portman-Stabenow amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1299.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. Cornyn. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 187 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Capito
     Cardin
     Casey
     Collins
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Boozman
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee

[[Page S3293]]


     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Enzi
       
  The amendment (No. 1299) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 1327

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 1327, 
offered on behalf of the Senator from Massachusetts, Ms. Warren.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be heard for 2 
minutes on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to also be heard 
for 2 minutes in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, together with Senator Heitkamp, Senator 
Manchin, and a dozen other Senators, I propose a simple change to the 
fast-track bill. This amendment protects America's sovereignty and the 
rule of law by turning off fast-track for trade agreements that include 
investor-state dispute resolution--ISDS. This is not a partisan issue. 
Experts on the left and the right agree that ISDS is a real threat. 
According to the director of trade policy at the Cato Institute, 
purging both the TPP and the TTIP of ISDS makes sense economically and 
politically. In a recent letter, more than 100 law professors wrote 
that ISDS threatens domestic sovereignty and weakens the rule of law. A 
provision to give corporations special rights to challenge our laws 
outside of our legal system should not be part of our free-trade 
agreements.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield to Senator Heitkamp.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I would like to take just a few minutes 
to say I want everyone to remember the day you voted on this amendment 
because in 10 years, when you look back and you see the mischief that 
will be created with ISDS without controls and without a broader 
framework for investor-state dispute settlements, you will be 
questioning why you did not support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Colleagues, for three decades, our country has never lost 
an investor dispute case and never paid one dime in penalties. Let me 
repeat that. We have never lost an investor dispute case and have never 
paid a dime in penalties. Here is our record: 17 cases, 17 victories.
  These provisions are about raising the world to our economy's level 
of safety for investment. Without these protections, our small 
businesses with investments abroad will have nowhere to turn if a 
corrupt government steals a factory or a crooked judge targets them 
unfairly.
  Each of our States has businesses that started in a garage, grew up, 
and looked abroad for new chances to expand. Let's make the world safer 
for the American brand.
  I urge rejection of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1327, offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Ms. Warren.
  Mr. CARDIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 188 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--60

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Enzi
       
  The amendment (No. 1327) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 1227

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the 
Shaheen amendment No. 1227, as it is not germane to the substitute 
amendment.
  I also ask unanimous consent that the votes in this series be 10 
minutes in length and that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to 
each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute on my small business amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I understand it is not germane, so we 
are not going to vote on it. But I think it is important, as we are 
thinking about trade, to keep in mind that 40 percent of large 
corporations are able to trade internationally, but among small and 
medium-sized businesses, it is only 1 percent. Yet, 95 percent of 
markets are outside of the United States. What this amendment would do 
is it would allow small businesses to be able to get access to those 
international markets because it would provide help for them in 
exporting.
  This is a program we passed with the Small Business Jobs Act. It 
worked very well. We need do this.
  There is no score to this amendment. The CBO said there is no cost, 
and this is something we can do. We can help our small businesses, 
where two-thirds of jobs are being created. I hope that my colleagues 
will consider this in the future and that we can get this passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. We 
intend to work with her and see what we can do. I want to put that in 
the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair sustains the point of order, and the 
amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 1251

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 1251, 
offered by the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown.
  There is 2 minutes equally divided.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, before President Obama or President Hillary 
Clinton or President Lindsey Graham decides that China should be 
admitted to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, this amendment ensures that 
Congress play a role in that decision. A vote for this amendment is not 
a poison pill. It does not kill TPP or TPA. This amendment simply 
spells out a process for future countries to join the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership. It would require the President to notify Congress of 
intent to enter into negotiations, and it would require certification 
from Senate Finance and House Ways and Means and final approval by a 
vote of both Houses of Congress.
  It is pretty simple. Before the world's second largest economy--the 
People's Republic of China--becomes part of TPP, there should be 
vigorous public debate and there should be congressional approval.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Brown 
amendment,

[[Page S3294]]

No. 1251. I agree that it would not be advantageous for the United 
States to become part of a trade agreement that includes China--or any 
other country, for that matter--without adequate oversight and approval 
by Congress. However, all of our existing trade agreements require 
congressional approval before new parties can be added after the 
agreement is signed. It is also required under our TPA bill.
  The very possibility of a trade agreement with the United States is a 
powerful incentive we can use to encourage other countries to raise 
their standards and institute reforms in order to meet the objectives 
of existing agreements. If we require a separate congressional vote 
before our negotiators can even talk to new countries, we will be 
giving up one of our best tools that we can use to spur reform and 
advance our country's values abroad.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Brown amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 189 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cardin
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Enzi
       
  The amendment (No. 1251) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 1226

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 1226, 
offered on behalf of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is to try to repeal one of 
the great ripoffs in the history of this body. We waste $15 million a 
year on a catfish inspection office which is not only duplicative but 
disgraceful. This is a classic example of protectionism and the kind of 
thing we are trying to avoid with a free-trade agreement. It is an 
outrage.
  Nine times the Government Accountability Office has said this is a 
waste of millions of taxpayer dollars. It is outrageous, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote aye on the amendment, because it is an absolute 
outrage and disgrace.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished Senator's 
amendment, but I have to raise a point of order against McCain 
amendment No. 1226, as it is not germane to the substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the 
amendment falls.


                    Amendment No. 1312, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now ocurs on amendment No. 1312, 
as modified, offered on behalf of the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. 
Inhofe.
  There is 2 minutes of debate.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am afraid this may end up out of order. 
If we are going to pursue this further, it seems as though the 
forgotten continent has always been, in our experience, the African 
continent. So we are going to address equal trade with Africa, and that 
is the upcoming area on which we need to be concentrating. Ten years 
from now, we will look back and see that those were the real, live 
economies, and we have to quit ignoring them.
  I withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with regret that I raise a point of 
order against Inhofe amendment No. 1312, as it is not germane to the 
substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the 
amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 1243

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 1243, 
offered on behalf of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Flake.
  There is 2 minutes equally divided.
  If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, speaking against the Flake amendment No. 
1243, this amendment would strike the extension of the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Act. I support trade, but I am not going to tie the hands of 
the American workers from getting retrained or small businesses from 
getting Ex-Im support or making sure that we have enough people to do 
enforcement. If we are going to have trade, we will also have to have 
the tools to do trade.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the Flake amendment and keep TAA.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this trade package is about bringing our 
policies into 2015. This amendment would throw us back into the 1950s.
  President Kennedy, who first proposed TAA, called it a program to 
afford time for American initiative, American adaptability, and 
American resiliency to assert itself. To me, those sound like sound 
bipartisan priorities.
  This package will expand TAA and help ensure workers are not knocked 
off stride in tough times. Let's not turn our backs on this country's 
workers. Let's not break the bipartisan compact this bill represents.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I urge support for the amendment. Time and 
time again when we do TAA, along with TPA, we find GAO--or whoever 
studies it--finds that it is duplicative and wasteful. There are other 
Federal programs that do the same thing. And we find that people are 
claiming that because the stipulations are so loose, people in jobs 
that have nothing to do with trade or nothing to do with dislocations 
because of trade are actually claiming benefits because of it.
  It is a large bill, and it is duplicative and wasteful, and we ought 
to get rid of it.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1243.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. HATCH (when his name was called). Present.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford

[[Page S3295]]


     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Tillis
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--62

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Hatch
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Enzi
       
  The amendment (No. 1243) was rejected.


                             change of vote

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 190, I voted nay and 
intended to vote yea. Since it will not change the outcome of the vote, 
I ask unanimous consent that I be recorded as voting yea.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 1221, as Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 1221, 
as amended, offered by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.
  Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, all time is 
yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Lankford
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Casey
     Collins
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Enzi
       
  The amendment (No. 1221), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum call with respect to the cloture vote be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I don't want to take too much time, but I 
do just say in advance of this next vote that I am very appreciative of 
my colleagues who have worked with us to get to this point. This next 
vote is obviously a big one. I hope we can keep together. The 
bipartisan coalition of Senators who have helped get us this far has 
been important. I think we will once again.
  I just want to reiterate that this is a good bipartisan bill, one 
that reflects the priorities of Senators from both parties and in both 
Chambers of Congress. This next vote will take us one step closer to 
allowing Congress to set the terms of our trade negotiations and giving 
our negotiators the tools they need to get the best deals possible. 
This bill will do a lot of good for the American economy, our workers, 
and our job creators looking to sell more of their products overseas.
  But we are not there yet. We need to get past this next hurdle. I 
urge my colleagues to vote yes on cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, the Senate now has an 
opportunity to throw the 1990s NAFTA play book into the dustbin of 
history and begin a new forward-thinking era in trade. This can be a 
momentous day for creating more economic opportunity for our people, 
transparency and sunshine and the forward march of American values.
  The legislation can help us pry open the booming markets for our 
exports. It will strengthen the American brand in the fight against 
trade cheats and bad actors who block our way. It will raise the bar 
for worker rights, environmental safeguards, and human rights. It will 
help strip out the excessive secrecy that makes people skeptical about 
trade. Colleagues, in a sentence, this is how you begin to get trade 
done right.
  I yield the floor and urge support for cloture.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 1314, an 
     act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for 
     a right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse 
     determinations of tax-exempt status of certain organizations.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Orrin G. Hatch, Daniel 
           Coats, John Boozman, Thom Tillis, Mike Rounds, Pat 
           Roberts, Richard Burr, John Barrasso, Mike Crapo, Jeff 
           Flake, Tom Cotton, Shelley Moore Capito, David Perdue, 
           Chuck Grassley, Dan Sullivan.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on H.R. 
1314, as amended, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Lankford
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cardin
     Casey
     Collins
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez

[[Page S3296]]


     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Enzi
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are 
38.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, soon the Senate will vote on final passage 
of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2015. This is a 
historic piece of legislation that will renew trade promotion 
authority.
  As I have already said here on the floor many times, this bill has 
been a long time coming. I personally have been focused on this for the 
last 4 years, but I know that for those whose lives and livelihoods 
revolve around American trade, the wait has been much longer.
  This is an important bill, no doubt about it, and likely the most 
important bill we will pass this year. It is important to President 
Obama, and I know it is important to many of us here in this Chamber. 
It shows that when the President is right, we will support him.
  From the beginning, TPA has been a bipartisan effort. Despite the 
difficulties we have faced here on the floor, I am glad it has remained 
that way throughout the process.
  I am very appreciative of all those who have put in so much time and 
effort to get the bill to this point.
  Going back to last year, I want to thank the former chairmen, Max 
Baucus and Dave Camp, who helped get the ball rolling on this TPA bill.
  I would especially like to thank the staff, who put in a great deal 
of time on the initial draft of this legislation, including Amber 
Cottel, former staff director of the Senate Committee on Finance; Bruce 
Hirsh, former chief trade counsel; and international trade counsel Lisa 
Pearlman.
  I want thank my colleagues on the Committee on Finance, whose input 
and support has been instrumental both in drafting and developing this 
legislation as well as helping it move forward. Most notably, I thank 
the ranking member on the Committee on Finance, the coauthor of this 
current legislation, Senator Ron Wyden. His commitment to his 
principles and constituents has been admirable. Although it has taken a 
lot of time for the two of us to get to this point, his efforts have 
undoubtedly improved the substance of the bill and helped broaden its 
support. I very much appreciate the efforts of Senator Wyden in the 
drafting the bill and getting it through the committee and here on the 
floor.
  There are other Senators who played key roles in getting us to where 
we are. I want to thank our distinguished majority leader and the 
majority whip. I also thank Senators Carper and Murray.
  Obviously, every Senator who has voted and worked to get us to this 
point deserves thanks. I will thank you all individually as the clerk 
calls the roll for this last vote.
  Of course, I want to thank my staff on the Committee on Finance, who 
worked long hours for many months to get us here, and Senator Wyden's 
staff as well. On the Republican side, I particularly want to thank 
Everett Eissenstat for leading the way, and his family, Janet, Alex, 
and Jacob Eissenstat, for lending him to us for so many hours. I want 
to thank the rest of the Republican trade staff: Shane Warren, Rebecca 
Eubank, Karen Rosenbaum, Sahra Su, Andrew Rollo, and Kenneth Schmidt. I 
also want to thank my senior team: Chris Campbell, Mark Prater, Jay 
Khosla, Jeff Wrase, and Bryan Hickman. And of course I need to thank 
our communications team: Julia Lawless, Aaron Forbes, Amelia Breinig, 
and Joshua Blume.
  On the Democratic side of the committee staff, I want to thank Josh 
Sheinkman, Jocelyn Moore, Mike Evans, Jayme White, and Elissa Alben for 
all their hard work, and others as well who worked on that side.
  I also thank the Senate Republican leadership staff, who put a lot of 
blood, sweat, and tears into this endeavor. From their staffs, I need 
to particularly thank Sharon Soderstrom, Hazen Marshall, Brendan Dunn, 
Terry Van Doren, Erica Suares, Antonio Ferrier, Russ Thomasson, and 
Johnny Slemrod. From the Republican cloakroom staff, I want to single 
out the efforts of Laura Dove, Robert Duncan and Megan Mercer.
  Of course, we need to mention the efforts of our attorneys at the 
legislative counsel's office, particularly Margaret Roth Warren and 
Thomas Haywood, who did a lot of heavy lifting in putting together the 
bill and the amendments.
  The Parliamentarian's office has been immensely helpful as well. From 
their staff, I would like to thank Elizabeth McDonough, Leigh 
Hildebrand, Thomas Cuffie, and Michael Beaver.
  Throughout this process, we received assistance from the United 
States Trade Representative. I thank Ambassador Froman and his staff 
for all their assistance in this effort.
  Really, the list of people I need to thank is too long to cover in a 
single floor speech. I just hope it is clear to everyone on both sides 
of the floor who worked on this bill just how appreciative I am.
  As far as the Senate is concerned, we have one more vote to go on 
this bill, but that is not the end for the bill. I am committed to 
working with my colleagues in the House and with the administration to 
get this bill across the finish line. As I said earlier this week, for 
me, the work on TPA doesn't finish until we have a bill on the 
President's desk.
  I look forward to continuing this particular effort and to working 
with my colleagues on whatever challenge comes next.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be brief.
  It would be an understatement to say there have been strong 
differences of opinion here in this Chamber and in our country with 
respect to this legislation. I have said from the very beginning that 
opponents of this effort--trade promotion authority--have a number of 
very valid points.
  There is no question in my mind, colleagues, that there has been way 
too much secrecy in the past, so Senator Hatch and I set out to make 
some very significant changes in that. Now, starting with the TPP but 
with all other agreements, the American people will have that agreement 
in their hands for close to 4 months before anybody votes here in the 
Senate or in the House on TPP or a trade agreement. I think that is a 
step toward a sunshine trade policy.
  Second, I thought opponents were spot-on with respect to their 
comments that we needed a completely new regime with respect to 
enforcing our trade laws. Again and again the American people say: What 
are you talking about in terms of passing a new trade deal if you 
aren't doing a better job of enforcing the laws on the books? So we set 
about to put in place a tough enforce act to go after cheats. We had 
Senator Brown's leveling the playing field, which I think is a very 
important piece of legislation, and an early warning system so that for 
the first time, rather than waiting until it is too late, businesses 
and labor unions and others would see what is coming. I think that is a 
significant step forward.
  Many skeptics said there isn't an aggressive approach to protect 
labor and the environment. It essentially gets shunted to the side. Now 
we have enforceable standards in this area.
  Because of the good work of Senator Ben Cardin, for the first time, 
colleagues, human rights will be a significant factor in trade 
legislation.
  Finally, we put in place a new process so that this body can put the 
brakes on a bad deal. We have always talked about fast-track because we 
want people to have an opportunity to consider a new agreement. We also 
ought to put the brakes on a bad deal.
  I will close with this point: At the end of the day, colleagues, we 
have always known that one of the paths to more good-paying jobs in our 
country is exports. There are going to be 1 billion middle-class 
people--1 billion--in the developing world in 2025. These will be 
people with money, colleagues. They are going to buy our wine, our 
computers, our helicopters, our planes, and all kinds of goods and 
services with the American brand. They are going to buy

[[Page S3297]]

our products because they buy and use our products with great pride. We 
all ought to appreciate the opportunity for more exports.
  I know there are strong differences of opinion on this legislation. I 
want it understood that we tried especially hard--and I appreciate the 
help of Chairman Hatch--to address as many of those concerns as we 
possibly could.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. For the information of all Senators, we are using 
postcloture debate time now. No Senator has to speak if he or she 
chooses not to. Any Senator who speaks will be limited to 1 hour. So 
this can go on for as long as Senators want or for as short a time as 
Senators prefer, provided no one is seeking recognition. But if anyone 
does seek recognition, they are limited to 1 hour, at which point the 
Chair puts the question. So I can't tell you with specificity when the 
vote will occur, but it will occur when no one is seeking recognition.
  Once this bill is concluded later this evening, under the regular 
order, the cloture motions on the two FISA bills will ripen an hour 
after we convene tomorrow, which could be as early as 1 a.m. tonight.
  So just to reiterate, if no Senators are seeking recognition, we 
would move to a vote shortly. If any Senator seeks recognition, they 
are limited to 1 hour. At the end of that, if no other Senator is 
seeking recognition, we will put the question and start the vote.

  So I know of no other debate on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I am seeking recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I think it is important, at this point in 
time, for us to be reminded of the concerns of working people across 
our Nation.
  This has been an intense debate, because so often, in the course of 
the trade agreements we have pursued, the balance on the other end has 
been simply that millions of jobs have left this Nation.
  We have lost 5 million jobs and 50,000 factories. That is a 
tremendous loss for workers across the States seeking for the 
foundation of successful families because there is no government 
program that can compare to the value of a living-wage job.
  What we have seen in the wake of NAFTA and the free-trade agreements 
that have followed is not only a tremendous loss of jobs but a 
tremendous increase in inequality in this Nation.
  Now, we have heard the opinion of some that this is a completely 
different structure and that we should not be concerned about this 
being the result of this particular agreement, this particular set of 
standards, that are going to be brought back to us in the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership. I disagree, and I disagree deeply, and I am going to tell 
you why.
  Let's start with the most fundamental issue on level playing field, 
which is wages that are roughly comparable.
  The old agreements have no minimum wage. This agreement has no 
minimum wage. We are creating a structure of a group of seven very poor 
nations with very low wages, five affluent nations with higher wages. 
Think about the difference between running an operation in Vietnam or 
Malaysia or Mexico with a minimum wage of less than $2 per hour and in 
Vietnam a minimum wage of only about 60 to 70 cents, depending on what 
part of the country you are in.
  Think of the difference between that and the minimum wage in the 
United States. It is a 10-to-1 differential. If you throw in the type 
of benefits and the labor standards and the environmental standards, it 
is a differential of probably at least 20 to 1. That is why we are 
losing jobs in manufacturing. Now, is there anything that puts a 
minimum wage into this agreement and addresses this key missing factor? 
There is not.
  Then let's turn to the rest of the labor and the environmental 
objectives that are embedded. We have heard a lot that we are now going 
to have enforceable environmental standards and enforceable labor 
standards. But the fundamental structure disagreement is the same as 
agreements we have had before.
  Now, I applaud my colleagues who are working to tighten the 
enforcement on cheating on tariffs. That is important. But those are 
not enforceable labor standards and those are not enforceable 
environmental standards.
  Therefore, we can look back at the history of similar agreements and 
say: When did we ever bring any sort of action on environmental 
standards government-to-government?
  The answer is: We have not.
  When did we ever bring a complaint on labor standards?
  The answer is: We have done it once. We did it in Guatemala. That was 
7 years ago. We still don't have any resolution of that single 
complaint, that single challenge.
  So in order to have something that was fundamentally different, we 
would have to have something like snapback tariffs--a situation where a 
country deeply violated its promises on labor standards, deeply 
violated its standards or promises on environmental standards, and that 
there be some sort of quick and certain reversal of the benefits of 
trade agreements, but there is nothing like that in this agreement. 
There is no change.
  So here we are, repeating the same basic structure that has existed 
in the other agreements, with no changes for America and therefore no 
improvement for the workers of the United States of America.
  Now, there are objectives that have been placed into fast-track, but 
those objectives require an agreement to come back with areas to be 
addressed, such as human rights and so forth that have been much 
vaunted. Those are objectives. Those are not standards.
  If we were serious about saying what an agreement had to have in it 
to come and get the privileges of fast-track, we would have converted 
those objectives into standards. That was one of the amendments that we 
never debated on the floor of the Senate, so we never wrestled with 
this deep deficiency.
  Then, of course, we have the investor-state dispute settlement 
portion of this, and we have been affirmed here that we normally win 
when we are challenged. And that is correct--we have mostly won when we 
are challenged. We have won because we have out-lawyered the other side 
because, in general, we don't expropriate. But we have not won under 
all the trade agreements.
  We lost a case on tuna that was dolphin-free or dolphin-friendly tuna 
labels. Why did we lose it? Because under the WTO, Mexico challenged 
it. Under WTO, they challenged it and said: This discriminates against 
the way we fish, and we lost. We lost on turtles. We lost on cotton.
  What happened last week? Well, we lost on the labeling of food grown 
in the United States of America. The WTO said we cannot label our beef 
as USA made or raised or born or harvested.
  I tell you this. I want to live in a country where, if our 
legislators, at the local level, at the State level, at the Federal 
level, want to pass a law that informs every citizen about where food 
is grown because the citizens want to know, it should be possible to do 
so.
  We should not give away our sovereignty to international panels that 
can make decisions that wipe out our consumer laws or our environmental 
laws--and there was a proposal to make sure we did not end up with that 
in this agreement, and it was defeated.
  So we still have this substantial risk of losing future cases, just 
as we lost on dolphins, just as we lost on turtles, and just as we lost 
last week on the labeling of food in the United States of America.
  This particular issue of labeling our food goes to the heart of who 
we are--free people who want to make decisions for the health and 
safety of our families. The way we do that is when we buy things, we 
find out information, and that information has to be on the label.
  I was reading here earlier an article about how shrimp is raised in 
Vietnam. It is farmed in pools, and it doesn't meet any of the 
standards we would like, so they get artificial documentation and it is 
shipped at high volumes into the United States. Consumer Reports came 
out with a report recently,

[[Page S3298]]

and they said: Don't buy shrimp unless it is produced in the United 
States, particularly don't buy it if it comes from Vietnam.
  There is another example of why we should, if we want to be able to, 
have labels on our food that say ``Made in America'' or ``Made in 
Vietnam.'' Consumers should have a choice, so they can see Consumer 
Reports and find out that shrimp is full of deadly bacteria, when they 
receive Consumer Reports, and find out that shrimp is full of 
antibiotics that are put in because of deadly bacteria, and they don't 
want their children exposed to those bacteria. If they don't want them 
exposed to bacteria, they should be able to make that decision, but we 
can't do that if we give away our sovereignty to international dispute 
resolution panels.
  So there are a host of problems inherent in this trade agreement and 
in this fast-track that have not been resolved.
  We have not addressed having a minimum wage and steadily over time 
reducing the disparity between the lowest paid countries and the 
highest paid countries so our workers will not be at this massive 
disadvantage.
  We have not addressed the enforcement of labor provisions because we 
have not developed anything different from what we have done before, 
and we are unable to enforce them. We have only tried once, and we are 
still out after 7 years with Guatemala. We haven't even tried with the 
environmental side, it is so difficult.
  We have left intact an international panel of corporate lawyers who 
on one issue can be the advocate, on the next can be the judge. It is 
full of conflict of interest. We haven't addressed that.
  So here is the bottom line: Do we want to live in an America where 
the middle class is going to be wiped out because we have pulled out 
all the barriers between very low-wage countries, low-enforcement 
countries, low-labor-standard countries, low environmental standards, 
and our economy--which then creates tremendous pressure for our own 
wages and standards to diminish. Why does it create pressure? Because 
companies say: You know what. If you push for higher wages or better 
working conditions, we are going to move our factory overseas or they 
say: You know what. We already have a factory overseas. We are going to 
increase our production there and decrease our production here. That is 
the pressure here on wages and working conditions in the United States 
of America.
  What about the people overseas? This agreement is designed so 
companies who are producing in China--which will not be part of the 
agreement at this point in time--can say: If you raise your wages and 
your working conditions, we will go to Malaysia, and if Malaysia raises 
theirs, we will go to Vietnam.
  So it isn't good for the foreign workers any more than it is for the 
American workers.
  There was an article yesterday in the Washington Post. The columnist 
or the op-ed writer said: It is basically like this. This agreement is, 
like previous agreements, very good for the investor class. Because if 
companies can produce things at the lowest possible cost, that will 
raise their stock prices.
  However, he said, it is really bad for the working class because less 
and less will go to the workers under these types of competitive 
pressures between the United States or taking the work overseas or 
between one nation overseas and another nation overseas.
  So I will conclude this simply by saying: This is why I voted against 
this fast-track, because this fast-track is deeply flawed. It does not 
address the fundamental issues that have been identified in previous 
agreements. Going down this track and bringing the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership to this Chamber, with no ability to mend it, no ability to 
extend debate because debate will be limited, no ability to hold it to 
the normal standards in the Senate in terms of closing the debate--
because of all that, this is simply the wrong direction to go.
  In this final effort, in this final set of time before we take the 
final vote, let's recognize it is important that we, as Senators 
representing the citizens of the United States, not simply fight for 
the investor class; let's fight to make work work for working 
Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. 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. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I know of no further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate?
  If not, the question in on the engrossment of the amendment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Lankford
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Casey
     Collins
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Enzi
       
  The bill (H.R. 1314), as amended, was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           order of business

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the benefit of all Senators, let me 
indicate where we are. Without reaching an agreement to go forward, 
which we have not reached at this point, the next vote will be at 1 
a.m. If that changes, I will be the first to let everyone know. If it 
does, obviously we will try to expedite the process. But as of this 
moment, we will be voting at 1 a.m.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Order for Recess

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the remarks of Senator Wyden for 5 minutes, the Senate stand in recess 
subject to the call of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as we bring this very dramatic chapter in 
U.S. trade policy to its conclusion in the Senate, I wish to take a few 
minutes to acknowledge the many people who helped in ways large and 
small to

[[Page S3299]]

bring about the passage of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade 
Priorities and Accountability Act.
  First and foremost, I thank Chairman Hatch for his partnership 
throughout the process. I think Chairman Hatch and I can smile a bit 
looking back on some very spirited debates in the process of getting to 
this point. I do want colleagues to understand that Chairman Hatch has 
been a true leader in this bipartisan effort in the Finance Committee 
and on the floor. I thank Chairman Hatch and his staff for all they 
have done.
  I think both Chairman Hatch and I also want to acknowledge our 
partner in the House, Chairman Ryan. All through the discussions, 
Chairman Hatch, Chairman Ryan, and myself, all tried to make sure that 
we would have a bipartisan, bicameral collaborative effort. The three 
of us obviously don't see eye to eye on everything, but we thought it 
was very important to try to come together and move an extraordinarily 
important and challenging economic policy forward for the country. 
Chairman Ryan has been there every single step of the way, and we look 
forward to returning the favor as he moves this historic package 
through the House and on to the President's desk.
  We also thank Leader McConnell for his work in shepherding this 
package through the process. It has not been easy, but Leader McConnell 
has had a single-minded focus in terms of getting this bill across the 
finish line.
  While we are on the subject of Senate leadership, I especially want 
to acknowledge the extraordinary contributions of my Pacific Northwest 
colleague Senator Murray and her staff. Over the last few years, 
colleagues, we have seen time and time again Senator Murray demonstrate 
her extraordinary ability. She is a person of modest size, but she is 
sure good at getting big things done. This bill is no exception, and it 
could not have happened without her leadership and help.
  Finally, I note Chairman Hatch and I wish to thank all the members of 
the Finance Committee because they had a lot of good ideas, and they 
were constructive in terms of bringing this debate along, recognizing 
that we had strong differences. Every single member of the Finance 
Committee made a meaningful contribution, whether it was to the policy 
or to the process. Chairman Hatch and I want to say that when you look 
at a full recounting of all the great work done by Finance Committee 
members, if we were to do it all night, we would keep you all the way 
through the recess.
  I wrap up with a quick word of my thanks to my staff who have done an 
exceptional job putting the legislation together: Jayme White, Elissa 
Alben, Greta Peisch, Anderson Heiman, Keith Chu, Malcolm McGreary, 
Danielle Deraney, Kara Getz, and Juan Machado.
  I close by way of saying I think it is fair to say that there were a 
lot of observers, both in and outside this body, who thought it would 
not be possible to move forward on an issue like this--which is going 
to affect 40 percent of the global economy--in a bipartisan fashion. We 
know there are going to be a billion middle-class consumers in the 
developing world in 2025, and they want to ``Buy American.'' They like 
our brand.
  With the extraordinary leadership of Chairman Hatch and many others 
who contributed to this effort, I think once again there is going to be 
a very significant array of economic opportunities for the people we 
represent to get high-skill, high-wage, export-related jobs with 
products and services that we sell to these countries.
  So I close this part of the debate tonight--again, as we began, I 
think, 7 months ago, Chairman Hatch, by telling you that this, to me, 
is what we are sent to do, tackle the big issues in a bipartisan way.
  With that, I yield the floor.


                Recess Subject to the Call of the Chair

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in 
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
  Thereupon, the Senate, at 9:36 p.m., recessed subject to the call of 
the Chair and reassembled at 11:13 p.m. when called to order by the 
Presiding Officer (Mr. Sessions).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


               USA FREEDOM ACT OF 2015--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.R. 2048.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 87, H.R. 2048, a bill to 
     reform the authorities of the Federal Government to require 
     the production of certain business records, conduct 
     electronic surveillance, use pen registers and trap and trace 
     devices, and use other forms of information gathering for 
     foreign intelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal 
     purposes, and for other purposes.

                          ____________________