[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 23, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4525-S4529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLOTURE MOTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11
a.m. will be equally divided.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, later today the Senate will once again have
an opportunity to vote on whether to renew trade promotion authority.
The Senate has already considered this issue once and the House has
voted on it twice, each time demonstrating strong bipartisan support
for TPA. My hope is that we can get to a similar result with today's
vote in the Senate.
We need to be clear about what is at stake. The United States is
currently negotiating a number of trade agreements with some of our
most important trading partners in the world. If the Senate fails to
approve this bill, neither Congress nor the American people will have a
strong voice during these negotiations. As a result, our Nation will
not be able to get the best trade agreements possible, if we are able
to advance any trade agreements at all. Some people, including some of
our colleagues, may be fine with that result. They do not think we need
trade agreements to promote a healthy economy. But nothing could be
further from the truth.
As we all know, most of the world's consumers live outside our
borders--95 percent of them. In addition, the vast majority of economic
growth in the world is likely to occur outside of the United States
over the next decade. If our workers, farmers, ranchers, and service
providers are going to be able to compete in these growing markets, we
must have open access to these markets and fair trade rules to boot.
Without strong trade agreements, neither of these is possible.
When it comes to international trade, we cannot stand still. If we
don't lead and set the rules of the game, other nations will and our
economy will be left behind.
The United States continues to be a leader in agricultural exports
throughout the world. In fact, we still export more agricultural goods
than any other country. In addition, the United States continues to
boast an enormous manufacturing base that supplies consumers in every
corner of the globe.
We also lead the world in technology, digital services, and
innovation. Indeed, not only do we lead the world in creation of
intellectual property, America essentially created the modern digital
landscape.
The United States also continues to lead in trade in services,
exporting more than $700 billion in services in 2014 alone. That is
more than twice as much as the United Kingdom, the world's second
highest services exporter.
I ask that the Parliamentarian let me know when my 10 minutes has
expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. HATCH. In other words, we know we can compete on the world stage
when the rules are fair and the playing field is level. That is why I
am such a strong proponent of this TPA legislation. This bill, which is
the product of a great deal of work and a lot of bipartisan
cooperation, will have a powerful and positive impact on industries
throughout our economy, on consumers, and, of course, on American
workers as well.
In an America that embraces international trade, I believe even those
individuals who encounter a temporary setback can find new
opportunities, can out-work, out-produce, out-think, and out-innovate
our global competition so long as the groundwork has been laid to give
them those opportunities. That is why we need strong trade agreements,
and that is why we need TPA.
As you can surely tell, I feel very passionately about free trade,
and I know many of my colleagues are just as passionate in their
opposition. But as Congress has considered this legislation, I think we
have had a full and fair debate on these issues. We have been
transparent on the substance of the bill and in the way things have
moved forward. Both sides have been able to make their case to the
American people.
It is at times such as these when working in Congress is the most
rewarding. We have the opportunity to hear so many different accounts,
sift through mountains of data and research, meet with hundreds of
interested parties representing thousands of our constituents, and work
through hotly contested differences. Then, after all of that work, when
circumstances are right, we are able to come up with bipartisan
legislation that addresses the needs of our country, our constituents,
and our economy. That is what we have been able to do with this TPA
debate, which is a debate that has been going on for many years now.
I still want to work with those who may not share all my views on all
these issues. One way we have agreed to do that is to help ensure that
trade adjustment assistance, or TAA, will be extended. As you know, TAA
has been included in the trade preferences bill the Senate will
hopefully vote on later this week after we pass TPA.
I have said many times that I am not a fan of TAA. Personally, I
think the program is redundant and ineffective. However, after 38 years
here in the Senate, believe me, I am well aware that everything is not
about me. I understand TAA is a priority for a number of my colleagues
and that it continues to be the price of admission for many who want to
support TPA. The Senate majority leader recognizes this as well, which
is why he has committed to ensuring that TAA gets a fair vote here in
the Senate and a fair opportunity to pass.
Throughout this process, we have done all we can, within reason, to
accommodate the concerns of Senators. I am very appreciative of all the
support we have received from Members on both sides of the aisle. We
couldn't have gotten this far without that support.
Now it is time to finish the work--to pass this bill and get it to
the President's desk. We need this bill to ensure that our
constituents' voices are heard in the trade negotiating process. We
need this bill to give our trade negotiators the tools they need to get
a good deal. And we need this bill to expand access to foreign markets
so that we can grow our economy and create new and high-paying jobs
here at home. That is what this bill is all about and why we have been
working on this process for so long. We are very close to the finish
line, and we need just one more burst of energy and a few more steps to
get us there.
I urge all my colleagues who support free trade, open markets, and
the advancement of American values and interests abroad to join me once
again in supporting TPA and working with me
[[Page S4526]]
and with my colleague Senator Wyden to get all the pending trade bills
passed in the Senate and signed into law.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, over the last several weeks on the floor of
both this body and the House, we have heard Members, colleagues, say
they are tired of the old 1990s North American Free Trade Agreement
playbook on trade. They are concerned that the package which is once
again before the Senate is more of the same.
Here is my message on why this legislation needs to move forward. If
you believe those policies of the 1990s failed to protect American
workers and strengthen our economy, this is our chance to set a new
course. This is our chance to put in place higher standards in global
trade on matters such as labor rights and environmental protection, to
shine some real sunlight on trade agreements and ensure that our
country writes the rules of the road.
The fact is, in 2015, globalization is a reality. The choice is
whether to sit back and allow globalization to push and pull on our
economy until in ways dictated by countries in China. So our choice is
either to move now and get into the center of the ring and fight for a
stronger economic future, protect our workers and promote our values,
or remain tethered to many of those old policies of the 1990s.
I say to the Senate today: If you believe, like me, that it is time
once and for all to close the books on the North American free-trade
era in trade, this legislation deserves your support.
In my hometown paper recently, there was an opinion article, and it
stated that this trade bill lays out ``a hard-and-fast checklist for
the TPP, holding the Obama administration accountable for meeting its
goals and conditions.'' The article goes on to say that this
legislation ``will reorient priorities and improve the process for the
TPP and other trade agreements in the future.'' I completely agree with
that view, but the Senate doesn't have to take my word for it. Those
are the words of Tim Nesbitt, the past president of the Oregon AFL-CIO,
who has disagreed with me on trade often over the years. Yet now he
states that this legislation we will vote on today provides a fresh
opportunity for trade done right.
When it comes to core American values--labor rights, environmental
protection, and human rights--this legislation raises the bar and
demands more from our trade negotiators than ever before.
We have talked a lot about a race to the bottom. My view is that if
our country doesn't fight to protect worker rights and the environment
with tough, enforceable trade agreements, those priorities are going to
wither away. China is certainly not going to take up the banner for
American values in trade. So if you believe America should stop a race
to the bottom on labor rights, environmental safeguards, and human
rights, this legislation is our chance to lift up global standards.
I want to talk for a moment about the economic potential of this
legislation. What we all understand we need to do is make things here,
grow things here, add value to them here, and then ship them somewhere.
My State knows how to make this happen, and so do many others. About
one out of five jobs in Oregon depends on international trade. Almost
90 percent of them are small and medium sized. And what we know is that
in many instances those jobs pay better.
The fact is, if our farmers want to sell their products in Japan--and
this is true of agriculture all over America. A lot of our farmers face
average tariffs of 40 percent. That is right. If you want to export
some jam to Vietnam, it will be marked up by 90 percent. If you want to
sell a bottle of wine--and we have wine growers with prosperous
businesses all over the country--they have to fork over 50 percent of
the value to the government. So if we believe other countries should
open their markets to American exports, like the U.S. is open to
theirs, this is our chance to break down the tariffs and other
barriers.
I want to touch for a moment again on how different this is than the
1990s. In the 1990s, nobody could have imagined the right tools to
protect the modern Internet. Twenty-five years ago, it was impossible
to make a living by setting up a business online. A cell phone was as
big as a brick. In fact, the NAFTA negotiations began a year before the
first Web site was set up. Today, Internet commerce is at the heart of
our economy. If we want to cement America's leadership in the digital
economy, this is our chance to vote for trade policies that will
protect a free and open Internet.
Now, I wish to mention again, apropos of how different this is, that
I have felt for some time that critics of past trade policy have been
spot on with respect to a lot of this secrecy which is just gratuitous.
If we believe deeply in trade, as Chairman Hatch and I do, and want
more of it, why should we have all this unnecessary secrecy which just
makes people cynical about trade?
So we have brought sunshine to this trade debate in a way that is
unprecedented. For the first time, before the President can sign a
deal, the full text has to be released to the public for 60 days.
Before we can have votes in the other body and in the Senate, there
will be no fewer than 4 months where people can open a proposed trade
deal and read it for themselves.
So picture that: For 4 months, the American people will have in their
hands--starting with the TPP--what the trade agreement is all about.
That is simply unprecedented.
I wish to close the question of how we are going to proceed from
here. This has obviously been a complicated piece of legislation. I
appreciate the Senate and House leaders have committed to moving trade
adjustment assistance alongside trade promotion authority as well as a
proposal that originated with Senator Brown to strengthen our
critically important trade enforcement laws. While the goal of enacting
trade policies is a tool to give all Americans a chance to get ahead,
trade adjustment assistance is an absolute must-pass bill, and I am
confident it is going to get through Congress to the President's desk.
That bill includes the vitally important program also that creates new
opportunities for impoverished nations in Africa.
The Customs enforcement bill is also moving forward on a bipartisan
basis, and there is important work there to be done. The Senate must
resolve differences in the enforcement bill with the other body. I wish
to make it clear this morning that I expect that conference to respect
Democratic priorities. My Democratic colleagues and I will be laying
down markers on several of our top priorities. I discussed those
priorities with Chairman Ryan last night. Those priorities include
provisions in the Senate bill championed by Senator Shaheen to help our
small businesses, provisions authored by Senator Bennet to address
enforcement environmental laws, and Senator Cantwell's important trade
enforcement trust fund.
In my view, the Congress has an opportunity in this legislation to
show it can work in a bipartisan way to take on one of the premier
economic challenges of our time. Our job is to get past the policies of
the 1990s and move toward getting trade done right.
Colleagues, let's pry open foreign markets and send more of our
exports abroad. Let's fight for the American brand and the Oregon brand
against the trade chiefs and the bad actors who are blocking our way,
and let's raise the bar for American values and open our trade policies
to sunlight.
I urge all in the Senate to vote yes on cloture today and to support
this package as it advances this week. In effect, we get three
important bills done this week and set in motion.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, 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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the motion to invoke
cloture on TPA, the so-called fast-track legislation. I am still
incredulous, as I have watched this trade nondebate, if you will, at
the speed at which, time after time, the majority leader has tried to
shut down debate. It has happened again and again, and that is
compounded by the secrecy of this whole process.
[[Page S4527]]
I can't count the number of times in my State of Ohio and in meetings
in Washington, with people from all over the country, that people have
said we have little or no access to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. TPA,
in the past--fast-track--has actually been sort of a rule book for how
we should negotiate trade agreements and, at the same time, has been a
direction on how to negotiate these trade agreements and a rule book on
how it is presented on the Senate floor. Yet none of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership negotiations by Ambassador Froman have been informed at all
by a TPA because we haven't had a TPA yet. We haven't even had an
instruction booklet in the past. At the same time, we have gotten the
worst of both worlds because we are voting on TPA, and we really
haven't been able to see what is in TPP. I know supporters of TPP will
say we are going to have 60 days now, but Members are casting their
votes now--where 60 votes are required and they have maximum leverage--
to put no final point on it, just giving up the leverage they have as
we are still kept in the dark on what is happening.
Let me give one example before I get to where I think we are making a
mistake by moving so quickly today, in essence, fast-tracking fast-
track.
One example, my office and I personally have repeatedly spoken to the
President of the United States and the U.S. Trade Representative,
Ambassador Froman, repeatedly asking them to fix some of the language
on tobacco. Because one of the things that apparently--we really don't
know for sure--the Trans-Pacific Partnership does is it gives even more
power to American tobacco companies--more power to American tobacco
companies to have influence over laws in particularly small countries
which don't have the wherewithal and can't afford the huge legal bills
a large tobacco company can afford to write public health law.
If a small country wants to write a law to protect their children
from marketing of tobacco products--which is what we have done in this
country--the U.S. tobacco company or British tobacco company can--let's
keep it here. The U.S. tobacco company can threaten a lawsuit against
those countries, and those countries are probably going to back off
because they probably can't afford to go to court with the big American
tobacco company. Even something as clearly violative of the public
interest and of public health as what damage Big Tobacco inflicts on
children has not, to our knowledge, been addressed. Again, so much of
this is secretive that we don't even know that.
That is why there is anger in this country and why there is--so many
people in this country tell me, so many in my State: Why are you moving
so fast? Why is this coming up right now? Why don't we know more about
this whole process?
Yet again, the majority leader is shutting down debate. He will be
joined, I assume, by a small number, a distinct, small number of
minority Democrats, getting up over the 60-vote margin so they can shut
down debate, so they can move the TPA--the fast-track--forward, so they
can get the Trans-Pacific Partnership down the road.
No matter which side of the TPP debate, no matter which side of the
trade promotion authority, TPA, fast-track--no matter which side you
are on, it is clear that our trade policy creates winners and losers.
It is clear. Even the most vigorous cheerleaders for free trade--the
Wall Street Journal editorial board, for instance--even the strongest
free-traders, even though people who reflectively support these free-
trade agreements acknowledge there are winners and losers.
They will argue that these trade agreements create more jobs than
they lose. I don't agree with that. They argue that. Put that aside.
But they also acknowledge that people lose jobs because of decisions we
make.
We are about to pass fast-track here. We are about to pass trade
promotion authority, leading probably to the Trans-Pacific Partnership
having a reasonable chance of passage. We are about to do that. We are
making that decision here. Members of Congress, people who are well
paid, with government-financed retirements and health care--we are
about to make those decisions, and we know--we are knowingly making
that decision, acknowledging that some people will lose their jobs
because of a decision we make, but we are not going to take care of
those workers. We are going to pass today the TPA, the trade promotion
authority, fast-track. We are going to pass that and ignore those
workers. How shameful is that that we know the decisions we are making
in this body--we are making the decisions, the President of the United
States makes this decision, the House of Representatives has made this
decision, the Senate is about to make this decision, we are making this
decision, knowing people will lose their jobs because of our actions.
Yet we are unwilling to provide for those workers who lose their jobs.
Let me give a little history, a special message to Congress. In
January of 1962, President Kennedy said:
When considerations of national policy make it desirable to
avoid higher tariffs, those injured by that competition
should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact.
Rather, the burden of economic adjustment should be borne in
part by the Federal Government.
That is President Kennedy at the advent, at the beginning, at the
creation of the trade adjustment assistance, the support for workers
who lose their jobs because of--again, I repeat--decisions we make in
this body, in the House of Representatives, in the White House. We make
decisions on trade. We know people will lose their jobs. We should help
them. It should be our moral responsibility to help them.
Senator Vance Hartke of Indiana said: ``No small group of firms and
workers should be made to bear the full burden of the costs of a
program whose great benefits enrich the Nation as a whole.''
This is as true today as it was 53 years ago. It is not a Democratic
idea. It is not a Republican idea. Everyone from the Cato Institute--a
libertarian-oriented think tank in Washington, a bunch of well-paid
scholars who make pronouncements from on high about various kinds of
public policy issues--to the Wall Street Journal--a similar body but
one with greater ability to disseminate information--even those two
venerable institutions admit the trade agreements do not create winners
everywhere.
A Cato Institute trade briefing says, ``All of those job losses are a
painful but necessary part of the larger process of innovation and
productivity increases.''
I am always a bit amused when people who--again, well-educated, good
pay, dress like this, good benefits, good retirement, good health
care--make pronunciations saying: Well, job losses are painful--not to
us, of course. The same as editorial writers who make these decisions,
these pronouncements on trade, they are not losing their jobs. People
in my State are losing jobs on these fair trade agreements. We are
going to inflict this pain. As the Cato Institute and the Wall Street
Journal say, by the decisions we make, we are going to inflict pain on
these workers. People are going to lose jobs in my town of Mansfield,
OH. People are going to lose jobs where I grew up. People are going to
lose jobs in Cleveland where I live now. People are going to lose jobs
in Zanesville and Newark because of decisions we make today on fast-
track, because of decisions we will make next year on the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. People are going to lose their jobs, but we are going to
vote today to cut off debate, and we are going to forget, at least
temporarily, about helping those workers who lose jobs because of
decisions we make. How immoral is that? How shameful is that? What a
betrayal we are inflicting on those workers if we make this decision
today.
Former Wall Street Journal economics editor David Wessel writes,
``Even [free trade's] most fervent admirers concede trade creates
winners and losers.''
I will debate until the cows come home the net benefits of these
trade agreements. I think they are net job loss. But even if you
believe these trade agreements are net job-gainers--I don't think there
is a lot of evidence of that--but even if you believe that, we know
people lose their jobs because of decisions we make. That is why
Republicans in the past have supported trade adjustment assistance in
principle and in policy going back decades.
Fifteen years ago, President George W. Bush said, ``I recognize that
some
[[Page S4528]]
American workers may face adjustment challenges''--that means they get
thrown out of work. It is a nice way a President might talk about
people he has left behind. Put that aside. ``I recognize that some
American workers may face adjustment challenges as a result of trade.''
At least to President Bush's credit--I wish his words would be
followed today on this floor by the majority leader, by Republican
Leader McConnell as he cuts off debate and leaves behind trade
adjustment assistance. President Bush said, ``I support helping these
workers by reauthorizing and improving trade adjustment assistance
programs that will give workers impacted by trade new skills, help them
find new jobs quickly, and provide them with financial assistance.''
I can give lots of stories about people I know in Youngstown, Lima,
Dayton, Hamilton, and people in Portsmouth who lost their jobs because
of trade, but at least they have gotten a helping hand from a
government that used to have their backs and believe in them--at least
until today--from a government that actually will extend that hand and
help them retrain. Maybe they can become a nurse, maybe they can work
in information technology, maybe they can become a radiology
technologist at the local hospital.
Earlier this year, my colleague John Cornyn--Republican from Texas,
the senior Senator and assistant Republican leader--told reporters that
``there is no doubt that the benefits of more trade do not fall
uniformly. There are some segments of the economy that don't prosper as
well.''
We know that. We have seen that acknowledgement across the board. Yet
today Leader McConnell is going to cut off debate, even though
decisions we have made have cost people their jobs. That is why we have
a moral obligation. It is not a new idea. It is not a partisan idea. It
is universally accepted. Trade deals don't benefit everybody. That is
why this moral obligation to include trade adjustment assistance in any
package with TPA is so important.
We can't send a framework for a new trade deal to the President's
desk without assistance for the workers who will be left behind, but
that is not what we are doing today. Today, it is full-speed ahead, cut
off debate, move ahead on fast-track, move ahead on trade promotion
authority.
I assume a number of my Democratic colleagues are going along with
it. I hope the wrath of people in this country--if the House and Senate
refuse to do what some of their leaders say they will, that they will
pass trade adjustment assistance, that they will take care of those
workers--if they don't live up to that promise--and many times in the
past they haven't lived up to similar promises--a lot of my colleagues
are going to go home and face people who say: Wait. You made a
decision. I got thrown out of a job because of a decision you made,
because of a decision you made as a House Member, because of a decision
you made as a Senator, because of a decision you made, Mr. President. I
was thrown out of work, and you passed on June 23--or whatever today
is--fast-track without taking care of me, even though it was your
decision that I lose my job.
What kind of government--what kind of principles do we live under
here?
In March, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in
National Review Online:
To be sure, any trade deal, while a net plus overall,
produces winners and losers. But the TPP will be accompanied
by so-called Trade Adjustment Assistance, training and
subsidies to help those negatively affected.
Again, Krauthammer, as he is about 95 percent of the time, is wrong.
He is wrong that it is going be accompanied by the trade adjustment
assistance. The assumption all along, even among TPP proponents, has
been that TPA would be passed in tandem with aid for workers. But you
know, even though that is what we did first here, Republicans in the
House of Representatives are unwilling to vote for them together. They
are just not going to vote. Speaker Boehner, for some reason,
acquiesced to the President of the United States, pulled them apart,
and had separate votes. Think about the message we will send. If we put
another huge trade deal--parenthetically, once-majority leader,
Republican leader Trent Lott said: You can't pass a trade agreement in
an even-numbered year. Do you know why he said that? He said that
because people don't like trade deals in this country. People know
NAFTA sold them out. They know CAFTA sold them out. They know PNTR with
China sold them out. They know Korea sold them out. We heard these
promises over and over.
With NAFTA, we were promised 200,000 jobs in 2 years. Thank you,
President Bush 1, and thank you, President Clinton, for that. We lost
680,000 net jobs. Central America Free Trade Agreement--thank you,
President Bush 2, for that. Promises were made, big promises about job
increases, big promises about wages going up. It didn't happen. Wages
stayed flat. Jobs were lost. Thank you, President Bush 2, for that.
Korea, South Korea Free Trade Agreement, negotiated in part by
President Bush, pushed through the Senate by President Obama--thank
you, Mr. Presidents of both parties, for that. They told us 70,000 jobs
would be created out of the South Korea Free Trade Agreement. No, we
have lost 75,000 jobs.
Using the same formula that we have--we have seen this over and over.
We know what happens. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that
between 2009 and 2012, two-thirds of displaced manufacturing workers
who did find new jobs ended up taking lower paying jobs. Most of those
workers saw wage losses of more than 20 percent.
You can debate whether the gains others experienced make these losses
worth it. I don't think they do. I think if you have traveled darned
near anywhere--if Members of Congress spent a little more time with
people who can't contribute to them, with people who don't belong to a
local rotary club, with people who might just work hard, play by the
rules, not make a lot of money, barely make it, sometimes have their
house foreclosed on, sometimes lose their job--if we would spend a
little more time with people like that, I think we would see how these
trade agreements are working.
There is a debate to be had. I will cede it is debatable, whether
these trade agreements--whether the evidence is that they create jobs
or lose jobs. I think it is pretty clear they lose jobs. But there is
no debate. There is no debate on what actually happens here. Because of
decisions--I will repeat--before this vote coming up in about 60
seconds, because of decisions we make in this body--the President
makes, Senators make, Congress men and women make--because of decisions
we make in this body, people in our States, whether it is Arkansas or
Arizona, Oregon, Utah or my State of Ohio, people lose jobs because of
decisions we make. There is no question people lose jobs because of
decisions we make. Anything short of providing for those workers who
lose their jobs today, not doing this on a promise--we are basically
trusting the majority leader who doesn't really like, I understand, the
Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. We are relying on the word of
Speaker Boehner, who doesn't particularly like trade adjustment
assistance. We know most of the Members of his party in the House of
Representatives do not particularly like trade adjustment assistance.
We are going to rely on their promise.
We are voting today on the fly. We are saying to workers in this
country: Yes, we have made decisions that may have cost you your job.
We are going to try to help you when you lose that job, but we are
still going to go ahead today and do that. That is why I asked my
colleagues to vote no on this motion today to invoke cloture on trade
promotion authority.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The 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
[[Page S4529]]
Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a
close debate on the motion to concur in the House amendment
to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2146, an act to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Federal law
enforcement officers, firefighters, and air traffic
controllers to make penalty-free withdrawals from
governmental plans after age 50, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Johnny Isakson, David Perdue, Chuck
Grassley, Thom Tillis, Marco Rubio, Daniel Coats, John
Cornyn, Michael B. Enzi, Kelly Ayotte, Orrin G. Hatch,
Roger F. Wicker, Deb Fischer, Rob Portman, Cory
Gardner, Richard Burr, Roy Blunt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.
2146 shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) and the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Lee).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Corker) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 37, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 218 Leg.]
YEAS--60
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Carper
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Coons
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Enzi
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
Cardin
Casey
Collins
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Paul
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--3
Corker
Lee
Menendez
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are
37.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Vote Explanation
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for
rollcall vote No. 218, the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to
concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2146,
trade promotion authority. Had I been present, I would have voted
nay.
____________________