Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 80 (Friday, May 22, 2015)

[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

NAYS--37

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.

____________________