[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S256-S261]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  UNITED STATES-MEXICO-CANADA AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 5430, which the clerk will report by 
title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5430) to implement the Agreement between the 
     United States of America, the United Mexican States, and 
     Canada attached as an Annex to the Protocol Replacing the 
     North American Free Trade Agreement.

  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S257]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                              Impeachment

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, this is a serious, solemn, and historic 
day. The events that will take place this afternoon have happened only 
twice before in our grand Nation's 250-year history. The Chief Justice 
will swear in every U.S. Senator to participate as a court of 
impeachment in a trial of the President of the United States.
  Yesterday, the Senate received notice that the House of 
Representatives has two Articles of Impeachment to present. The House 
managers will exhibit those two articles today at noon. The first 
article charges the President with abuse of power: coercing a foreign 
leader into interfering in our elections, thereby using the powers of 
the Presidency, the most powerful public office in the Nation, to 
benefit himself rather than the public interest. The second charges the 
President with obstruction of Congress for an unprecedented blockade of 
the legislature's ability to investigate those very matters. Let me 
talk about each one.
  The first is so serious. Some of our Republican colleagues have 
said--some of the President's own men have said: Yeah, he did it, but 
it doesn't matter; it is not impeachable. Some of them even failed to 
say--many of my Republican colleagues, amazingly--it is wrong.
  Let me ask the American people: Do we want foreign leaders helping 
determine who is our President, our Senators, our Congressmen, our 
Governors, our legislators? That is what President Trump's argument 
will be: that it is OK to do that, that there is nothing wrong with it, 
that it is perfect.
  Hardly anything is more serious than powers outside the borders of 
the United States determining, influencing elections inside the United 
States. It is bad enough to do it but even worse to blackmail a country 
of aid that was legally allocated to get them to do it. It is low. It 
is not what America has been all about.
  The second charge as well. The President says he wants the truth, but 
he blocks every attempt to get the facts. All the witnesses we are 
asking for--he could have allowed them to testify in the House. They 
wanted them. The President is blocking.
  Again, the American people--just about all of them--are asking the 
question: What is the President hiding? What is he afraid of? If he did 
nothing wrong, why didn't he let the witnesses and the documents come 
forward in the House of Representatives?
  Put another way, the House of Representatives has accused the 
President of trying to shake down a foreign leader for personal gain, 
deliberately soliciting foreign interference in our elections--
something the Founding Fathers greatly feared--and then doing 
everything he could to cover it up.
  The gravity of these charges is self-evident to anyone who is not 
self-interested. If proved, they are not petty crimes or politics as 
usual but a deep, wounding injury to democracy itself, precisely the 
conduct most feared by the Founders of our Constitution.
  We as Senators, Democrats and Republicans, must rise to the occasion, 
realizing the seriousness of the charges and the solemnity of an 
impeachment proceeding. The beginning of the impeachment trial today 
will be largely ceremonial, but soon our duty will be constitutional. 
The constitutional duty is to conduct a fair trial, and then, as our 
oaths this afternoon command, Senators must ``do impartial justice.'' 
Senators must ``do impartial justice.'' The weight of that oath will 
fall on our shoulders. Our ability to honor it will be preserved in 
history.
  Yesterday evening, I was gratified to hear the Republican leader, at 
least in part of his speech, ask the Senate to rise to the occasion. I 
was glad to hear him say so. For somebody who has been partisan--
deeply, strongly, and almost unrelentingly partisan--for 2 months, he 
said something that could bring us together: The Senate should rise to 
the occasion.
  Far more important than saying it is doing it. What does ``doing it'' 
mean? The best way for the Senate to rise to the occasion would be to 
retire partisan considerations and to have everyone agree on the 
parameters of a fair trial. The best way for the Senate to rise to the 
occasion would be for Democrats and Republicans to agree on relevant 
witnesses and relevant documents, not run the trial with votes of a 
slim majority, not jam procedures through, not define ``rising to the 
occasion'' as ``doing things my way,'' which is what the majority 
leader has done thus far, but, rather, a real and honest and bipartisan 
agreement on a point we all know must be confronted: that we must--we 
must--have witnesses and documents in order to have a fair trial.
  A trial without witnesses is not a trial. A trial without documents 
is not a trial. That is why every completed impeachment trial in our 
Nation's history--every single one that has gone to completion--15, 
have all included witnesses. The majority leader claims to believe in 
precedent. That is the precedent: witnesses. There is no deviation. Let 
us hope we don't have one this time.
  Over the centuries, Senators have stood where we stand today, 
confronted with the responsibility of judging the removal of the 
President. They rightly concluded they were obligated to seek the 
truth. They were under a solemn obligation to hear the facts before 
rendering a final judgment.
  The leader--incorrectly, in my judgment--complained the House was 
doing short-termism and rush. The leader is trying to do the exact same 
thing in the Senate. The very things he condemns the House Democrats 
for, he seems bent on doing. Condemning short-termism? Are we going to 
have a full trial? Condemning the rush? Are we going to allow the time 
for witnesses and documents or is the leader going to try to rush it 
through? At the very same time, out of the other side of his mouth, he 
condemns the House--incorrectly, in my judgment--for doing it.
  Another thing about the importance of witnesses and documents, the 
leader has still not given a good argument about why we shouldn't have 
witnesses and documents. He complains about process and pens and 
signing ceremonies but still does not address the charges against the 
President and why we shouldn't have witnesses and documents.
  We are waiting. Rise to the occasion. Remember the history. That is 
what the leader said he would do last night, and I was glad to hear it, 
but he must act, not talk about rising to the occasion and then doing 
the very same things he condemns the House for.
  If my colleagues have any doubts about the case for witnesses and 
documents in a Senate trial, the stunning revelations this week should 
put those to rest. We have new information about a plot by the 
President's attorney and his associates to oust an American ambassador 
and potentially with the ``knowledge and consent'' of the President, 
pressure Ukrainian President Zelensky to announce an investigation of 
one of the President's political rivals. The effort to remove 
Ambassador Yovanovitch by Lev Parnas and Mr. Giuliani is now the 
subject of an official probe by the Government of Ukraine.
  My friends, this information is not extraneous; it is central to the 
charges against the President. We have a responsibility to call 
witnesses and subpoena documents that will shed light on the truth 
here. God forbid we rush through this trial and only afterward the 
truth comes out.
  How will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel if they 
rushed it through and then even more evidence comes out? We have seen 
lots come out. There has barely been a week where significant new 
evidence, further making the House case, hasn't come out as strong as 
the House case was to begin with.
  Here is what Alexander Hamilton warned of in the Federalist 65. He 
said: ``The greatest danger is that the decision [in an impeachment 
trial] will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties 
than by the real demonstration of innocence or guilt.''
  Alexander Hamilton, even before the day political parties were as 
strong as they are today, wanted us to come together. The leader wants 
to do things on his own, without any Democratic input, but, 
fortunately, we have the right to demand votes and to work as hard as 
we can for a fair trial, a full trial, a trial with witnesses, a trial 
with documents.

[[Page S258]]

  The Founders anticipated that impeachment trials would always be 
buffeted by the winds of politics, but they gave the power to the 
Senate anyway because they believed the Chamber was the only place 
where impartial justice of the President could truly be sought.
  In the coming days, these eventful and important coming days, each of 
us--each of us will face a choice about whether to begin this trial in 
search of the truth or in the service of the President's desire to 
cover up and rush things through. The Senate can either rise to the 
occasion or demonstrate that the faith of our Founders was misplaced in 
what they considered a grand institution. As each of us swears an oath 
this afternoon, let every Senator--every Senator reflect on these 
questions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I come to the floor of the Senate today 
at a moment that will be remembered in history. In just a few hours, 
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will come to this Chamber and 
will be sworn in as the Presiding Officer in the impeachment trial of 
President Donald John Trump. He will then administer an oath to each 
Member of the U.S. Senate. It is an oath that is included in our Senate 
manual. It is very brief, only 35 words, and it bears repeating for the 
record at this moment.
  Each Senator will be asked to make the following oath and 
affirmation: ``I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the 
trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, now pending, I will do 
impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me 
God.''
  In just 35 words, that oath binds all of us--Republicans and 
Democrats--who swear by that oath to do impartial justice. The Founding 
Fathers, and others, could have been much more elaborate in describing 
the process we face, but in its simplicity, this oath really tells us 
what we will face in the coming days.
  I believe more than ever, starting on Tuesday, when the impeachment 
trial begins in earnest on the floor of the Senate, America will be 
watching. Many Americans have busy lives--personal, private, family, 
and professional--and don't tune in to the political events of the 
moment as many of us do, but I think more and more will be watching 
come Tuesday. They are going to see a historic moment, only the third 
time in history when a President of the United States faces 
impeachment. What will they find? Will they find an effort to do 
impartial justice? Will they find partisanship? Will they find a real 
trial?
  I think it is important for us to realize that a real trial includes 
evidence. As a lawyer, I brought many cases to trial, a few of them to 
verdict. I had to prepare my case, not just my theory of the law or 
statement of facts but proof, real proof that came from documents and 
witnesses. That is what a real trial is about. Unfortunately, on the 
other side, the majority leader has suggested we don't need witnesses 
and that it is only evidence of the weakness of the impeachment 
charges. I think he is wrong.
  As the Democratic leader said this morning, history will prove him 
wrong because in impeachment trial after impeachment trial, evidence 
and witnesses have been presented. That is the tradition and the 
precedent of the U.S. Senate.
  If there is an effort to short circuit that, to eliminate the 
witnesses and the evidence, I think it will be obvious to the American 
people who are following this what is underway.
  In this morning's newspapers, it was reported that the President's 
defense team has been ready, anxious, if you will, for this impeachment 
trial to begin and equally anxious to end it as quickly as possible. I 
hope they don't prevail in that sentiment because a race to judgment 
may not serve the cause of impartial justice. We believe that the House 
managers should be allowed to make their presentation, and they will, 
and the President's defense team, as well. We believe that Members of 
the Senate should hear those arguments and then proceed to consider any 
additional evidence.
  What kind of evidence may be relevant? As Senator Schumer, of New 
York, mentioned just a few minutes ago, it seems that every day there 
unfolds another chapter in this story. Every day we learn of the 
efforts of the President's self-described personal attorney, Rudolph 
Giuliani, to appeal directly to the leadership of Ukraine to initiate a 
political investigation of the Biden family, to serve President Trump's 
political interest in the 2020 Presidential campaign.
  We have also heard repeatedly on the floor that there have been no 
allegations of anything that was illegal or criminal on the part of the 
President. The standard in the Constitution for impeachment does not 
require the violation of a Federal crime. Our Constitution was written 
before any statutes creating Federal crimes had been created. Rather, 
the phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' was used as a standard to 
be imposed on the President.
  But we just received information in the last 24 hours from the 
General Accountability Office, which does raise very serious concern 
about illegality of the President's action in withholding the funds 
appropriated by Congress to support the Ukrainian defense efforts 
against the invasion of Russian troops by Vladimir Putin and their 
country.
  As a Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, ranking member of 
the Defense Subcommittee, I can recall when we, on a bipartisan basis, 
decided to provide additional assistance to Ukraine in the form of 
hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars so that they could defend 
themselves against the invasion of Vladimir Putin. That money was 
appropriated and we believed would be sent in a timely way to the 
Ukrainians to defend their own country. Little did we know that money 
would become part of the bargaining between President Trump and the 
President of Ukraine as to this political investigation. It turns out 
that money was withheld until the very last moment. In fact, as I was 
offering an amendment in the Senate Appropriations Committee, and I was 
told that the night before--late the night before--the President 
finally released the funds.
  Questions were raised by Senator Van Hollen to the Government 
Accountability Office as to whether or not it was legal or illegal for 
the administration to withhold those funds. We have now received the 
statement from the General Accountability Office. They have held that 
the President's withholding of funds to Ukraine violated Federal law. 
The Government Accountability Office has a sterling reputation as a 
nonpartisan watchdog with taxpayers' dollars. GAO's legal opinion today 
concludes that President Trump and his administration violated the law 
by putting a hold on military aid to Ukraine while that country was 
trying to defend itself against an invasion ordered by Vladimir Putin.
  This is an important ruling that deserves a thorough hearing in the 
impeachment trial. It should be part of the evidence of wrongdoing by 
the President, especially as it relates to the alleged abuse of power. 
I also hope this ruling will convince the administration to speed the 
additional delivery of $250 million in military aid, which the Congress 
has also sent to Ukraine.
  I am going to yield the floor because I know one of my colleagues is 
coming to speak.
  In just a few hours, this Chamber will be transformed. As we noted 
yesterday, at about 5:38 p.m., when the clerk of the House arrived with 
the Articles of Impeachment, there was a change in the atmosphere and 
environment of this Chamber, and I can sense it even today. We realize 
we are only moments away from a historic meeting of this Chamber on the 
issue of Presidential impeachment. When we take that oath of office, 
each and every one of us, swearing impartial justice, we need to 
remember that not only is America watching but history will hold us 
accountable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


              United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, soon the Senate will vote on the final 
passage of the new North American Free Trade Agreement. I am going to 
make just a few remarks. I know Senator Toomey is here to make remarks. 
Later, he is going to offer, I believe, some procedural requests.

[[Page S259]]

  The new NAFTA is a good deal for American workers because Democrats 
in this body and Democrats in the other body stopped the Trump 
administration from going ahead with business as usual on trade 
enforcement. There has even been an effort by several Members on the 
other side in the Senate to actually block enforcement dollars. With 
Chairman Grassley's help, we were able to prevent that.
  If you write a trade agreement with weak enforcement, particularly on 
labor and environmental issues, my view is you sell out American 
workers and key industries, whether it is automobiles, whether it is 
technology, or whether it is manufacturing. Basically, you set up a 
race to the bottom on cheap wages and the treatment of labor.
  I particularly want to thank Senator Brown, my colleague from Ohio, 
who for decades has led the fight for tough trade enforcement. We spoke 
yesterday on the floor about our effort. We worked on this side of the 
aisle, but we reached out to a lot of Senators on the other side of the 
aisle as well.
  I just want to give an example of what the Brown-Wyden trade 
enforcement package does. In the past, it would take almost to eternity 
to bring trade enforcement action. I spelled out yesterday how the 
Brown-Wyden enforcement package speeds up the timeline for tough trade 
enforcement by more than 300 percent. That, in my view, throws a real 
lifeline--an actual lifeline to communities that are worried about 
whether they are going to have an economic heartbeat in the days ahead.
  I also wanted to mention--and I am then going to yield to my 
colleague, and we are going to use this time so that everybody gets a 
chance to make some remarks--that this is the first-ever trade 
agreement in which the United States locks in strong rules on digital 
trade and technology. Back when the first NAFTA came about, you didn't 
have Senators with smartphones in their pocket. You didn't have the 
internet as the shipping lane of the 21st century. What we did in this 
part of the bill, which was really bipartisan, is we protected 
intellectual property. We prohibited shakedowns of data belonging to 
innovative American companies, and I was especially involved in making 
sure that we drew on established U.S. law to defend the small 
technology entrepreneurs working to build successful companies in a 
field dominated by a small number of Goliaths.
  These rules on technology and trade ought to be the cornerstones of 
our trade policy in the years ahead because those rules on technology 
protect every single American industry--healthcare, manufacturing, 
agriculture, you name it. It is how the United States also is going to 
fight back against authoritarian governments that use the internet as a 
tool to repress their own people, bully American businesses and 
workers, and meddle with the free speech rights of American citizens.
  The bottom line here is that my colleague who sits right behind me, 
Senator Brown, was key to producing a bill that had the provisions and 
the prerequisite to getting a law, frankly, with tough trade law 
enforcement that brought, literally, dozens of Members of both the 
Senate and the House over to support this. I want to thank him and wrap 
up by saying--I am not sure that he is with us today here in the Senate 
Gallery--that Ambassador Bob Lighthizer deserves a special thanks 
today. He may be off around the world somewhere talking to additional 
trade ministers, looking for other opportunities to come up with tough 
future-oriented trade agreements. Ambassador Lighthizer is the hardest 
working man in the trade agreement business. I want to thank him for 
all his work. I have a difference of opinion with my colleague from 
Pennsylvania on these issues. We may have some procedure, but I think 
you are going to see Senators handle these issues over the next 20 
minutes in a way that reflects the seriousness of this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  I know the Senator from Pennsylvania will speak next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I want to thank the ranking member of 
our committee for all of the work that he has put into this effort, 
even though I disagree in some important respects.
  One thing I want to talk about this morning is the process under 
which we are going to consider and probably pass this legislation. We 
are considering this legislation under trade promotion authority. That 
refers to another bill--a law, actually--that we passed some time ago 
that expedites the process, forbids Senators from offering amendments, 
and allows passage of the legislation to occur with a simple majority 
vote--51 out of 100 instead of the usual 60-vote threshold. That is 
what trade promotion authority makes possible.
  It seems to me that it is very important that any legislation we 
consider under trade promotion authority be compliant with trade 
promotion authority, because, if it is not, if we allow extraneous 
provisions, for instance, then, we are circumventing the normal 
legislative process, we are circumventing the 60-vote threshold, and we 
are abusing trade promotion authority.
  One of the reasons that is so important is that this is a delegated 
authority. I remind my colleagues that trade policy is clearly, 
unambiguously assigned to Congress in the Constitution. It is our 
responsibility to manage trade, and legislation is obviously and 
undoubtedly exclusively granted to Congress in the Constitution. So our 
branch of government has exclusive responsibility for trade and 
legislating.
  What do we have here? We have a piece of legislation that deals with 
trade. When we choose to delegate our responsibility to the executive 
branch, it is very important to me that we insist that delegated 
authority be exercised properly and that the legislation that follows 
from it comply with the law.
  What I want to raise is a concern about one of several--but one 
respect, in particular--in which the legislation we are considering 
today does not, in fact, comply with the trade promotion authority 
under which this legislation is being considered. Specifically, I am 
going to zero in on a certain aspect of some of the spending that 
occurs in this bill.
  By way of background, I think it is important to know that the Senate 
has never passed a spending bill with a simple majority vote. I don't 
think that has ever happened in modern times since we established the 
60-vote threshold on any piece of legislation.
  We don't do discretionary appropriations with a simple majority vote 
because it has been the collective will of this body for decades that 
responsibility should occur at a 60-vote threshold and should be 
subject to amendments.
  Not only that, but we have discretionary spending in this bill and 
this is the first time that any trade implementing legislation has ever 
spent money. Of the 17 trade bills that we have considered in recent 
decades under fast-track authority, none of them have ever contained 
any kind of appropriations, any kind of government spending. It is not 
that there is no spending necessary for the implementation of these 
other agreements. There was. Yet that spending always ran separately in 
a different bill, in a different piece of legislation, and that piece 
of legislation was subject to amendment and a 60-vote threshold.
  Now, why is that?
  It is in order to comply with the trade promotion authority. It is in 
order to comply with the conditions of granting an expedited process.
  What the trade promotion authority reads, among other things, is that 
any provision in this implementing legislation must be strictly 
necessary or appropriate for the implementation of the trade agreement. 
Well, spending is not strictly necessary for this purpose because it 
can occur in a separate bill, and that is the way it has always been 
done.
  If we allow this to proceed on this basis--exactly as is 
contemplated--we are really going to dramatically undermine the 60-vote 
threshold for spending, and there is spending in this bill. There is 
$843 million--almost $1 billion--and it gets worse. It gets worse 
because this spending has an emergency spending designation. So it is 
not only that we are spending money in a way that has never been done 
before, and it is not only that we are spending money in a trade 
implementing bill, which we have never done before, but now we have 
decided to call it emergency spending.

[[Page S260]]

  Why is it that it gets an emergency spending designation? Why did 
someone bother to give this spending an emergency designation? There is 
a simple reason.
  Under our budget rules, if you label spending as an emergency, then 
you don't have to offset that spending if you exceed our agreed-upon 
statutory spending caps. We are at the caps, and I gather that the 
folks who wrote this don't want to have to offset this new spending 
with a reduction anywhere else in the enormous budget of our Federal 
Government. So they have designated it as emergency spending.
  This is clearly an abuse of the use of an emergency designation. I 
mean, we designate emergency spending when we have to respond to a 
tornado or to a flood or to an outbreak of Ebola. These sorts of things 
are unpredictable, sudden, devastating. Those are actual emergencies. 
This is what that provision is there for. Yet here we are, using it for 
things like doubling the staffing salary budget for the U.S. trade 
office. That is not an emergency. It is not even close.
  So I am going to offer a point of order. It is very, very simple, and 
it is very, very narrow. It is a very, very small thing. What I am 
going to do is to raise a point of order against the emergency 
designation of one of the spending lines in this appropriation. I could 
do it for all of them. I could raise an issue about the fact that there 
is spending in the first place, but I am not going to do that. I am 
going to take a very, very modest and narrow approach.
  I suggest that we raise a point of order against the emergency 
designation--against $50 million of the hundreds of millions of dollars 
altogether--that clearly is not an emergency, and that clearly, in my 
view, is inconsistent with the trade promotion authority.
  What would be the consequences if my budget point of order were to 
succeed?
  First of all, not a dime of spending would be reduced. This is not an 
attempt to cut spending. Eliminating an emergency designation does not 
cut any spending in this bill. What it would mean is that Congress 
would have until the end of the year to find an offset for this $50 
million, which, by the way, is about one one-thousandth of one penny 
for every dollar the Federal Government spends. It is a tiny, tiny 
amount of money. It means the bill will still pass because there will 
easily be more than 60 votes for this bill. Then it will go to the 
House, where it will pass because it already has passed.
  The point isn't to save money per se, for it is too small to really 
matter in that regard. The point is, are we willing to enforce our own 
law that governs the proceedings of this body?
  I think one of my colleagues is likely to respond by offering a point 
of order or a provision that will preclude the possibility of my 
offering this point of order. Not only that, I think it is going to 
preclude the possibility of any Senator's offering any budgetary point 
of order, which will be a way of saying it will be forbidden to enforce 
compliance with the TPA's budgetary rules in this legislation.
  To my colleagues, I think this is a very, very bad idea. I think to 
suggest that we are going to have this bill that is not compliant with 
the trade promotion authority and that we are going to preclude the 
possibility of raising a point of order about that noncompliance would 
be a big mistake.
  I will soon have the exact language that we will be using for this 
purpose, and we will have this discussion. Then we will have a vote on 
whether or not to preclude the possibility of enforcing our budget 
rules with respect to this implementing legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this is a very serious claim being 
made by Senator Toomey, and I don't take this lightly because the 
privilege afforded by the trade promotion authority is a very important 
matter.
  The appropriations language that Senator Toomey takes issue with is, 
indeed, trade promotion authority-compliant. The appropriations ensure 
that the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement's commitments are 
fulfilled and enforceable by providing adequate resources to do so. The 
commitments cover bipartisan priorities, including the monitoring, 
enforcement, and recapitalization of the North American Development 
Bank.
  If funds were only authorized, as Senator Toomey has suggested, there 
would be no guarantee that we would be able to fulfill the commitments 
made in the USMCA, and the credibility of our good-faith negotiations 
with Mexico and Canada is the presumption that we will carry out this 
agreement and carry it out year after year after year. Besides, 
historically, all trade bills result in changes to Federal spending and 
revenue.
  This bill has the benefit of reducing the deficit even with the funds 
discussed by Senator Toomey. Striking the emergency designations could 
lead to a sequestration of discretionary funding as regular 
appropriations for fiscal year 2020 have already been enacted. The 
emergency designation is, in this precise context--and in a very 
precise context--considered strictly necessary or appropriate under 
section 103 of the trade promotion authority 2015.
  Here is the oddity of the Senator's argument: If Senator Toomey is 
suggesting funds be authorized, I think he inherently agrees that 
enforcement funding is either strictly necessary or appropriate to 
implement the USMCA. This is a very important clarification to make; 
that the trade promotion authority language is ``strictly necessary or 
appropriate.''
  It is for Congress, then, to decide what is strictly necessary or 
appropriate. The Committee on Finance, with jurisdiction over the 
entire bill, and the Committees on the Budget and Appropriations, with 
jurisdiction over the language at issue, voted overwhelmingly to 
support the bill. It is important to note that the final appropriation 
was significantly reduced in consideration of concerns about spending, 
including my own concerns.
  Finally, I emphasize this was a negotiated outcome, which was 
necessary in order to achieve the broad bipartisan support that this 
bill is going to get--particularly to get it through the House of 
Representatives.
  I am satisfied with the final outcome, so I will make a motion to 
waive the point of order, if it is made, and I urge my colleagues to 
support waiving the point of order and to vote yes for the USMCA so we 
can deliver a victory to the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 1 minute and then for Senator Toomey to proceed with the procedural 
question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, first, I want to make sure that we can 
enter into the Record a thanks that is deserved to the bipartisan team 
here in the Senate that has made this day possible.
  Second, on one substantive point, because I associate myself with the 
remarks of Chairman Grassley, I think we need to understand that what 
the Toomey procedural issue is all about is really that of a Trojan 
horse for rolling back an aggressive effort to enforce the rights that 
workers care about and that we all care about with respect to our land, 
air, and water. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania disagrees with it, 
but I just wanted to make that point.
  The chairman is right with respect to the procedure. I just want 
people to understand what the substantive issue is. This is just a 
policy disagreement, and that is what the Senate is all about.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I will make two quick points and then 
get to the point of order.
  First of all, I disagree with the chairman. I do think the spending 
in this bill is neither strictly necessary nor appropriate, but that is 
not what the point of order is about. If my point of order is sustained 
and if the motion that is going to be made by the chairman is to be 
rejected, not a penny will be reduced in the spending of this bill, 
which is why I couldn't disagree more with my colleague from Oregon in 
his suggesting it is a Trojan horse for something. It doesn't cut 
spending by a dime from this bill. It simply means that by the end of 
the fiscal year, Congress will have to find an offset for this

[[Page S261]]

very, very modest amount of money. It is an attempt to try to enforce 
some kind of compliance.


                             Point of Order

  Madam President, pursuant to section 314(e) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I raise a point of order against the emergency 
designation on page No. 233, lines 4 through 8, of H.R. 5430.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of 
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections 
of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of H.R. 
5430, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas.

                          ____________________