[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6392-6398]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENSURING TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ACT--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 58, H.R. 1314, a bill 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.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that Senators be permitted to 
speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, well, what we just saw here is pretty 
shocking. There are always limits to what can be accomplished when the 
American people choose divided government, but of course it does not 
mean Washington should not work toward bipartisan solutions that make 
sense for our country. Trade offers a perfect opportunity to do just 
that. We on this side believe strongly in lifting up the middle class 
and knocking down unfair barriers that discriminate against American 
workers and American products in the 21st century.
  On this issue, the President agrees. So we worked in good faith all 
year--all year long--to formulate a package that both parties could 
support. The top Republican on the Finance Committee, Senator Hatch, 
engaged in months of good-faith negotiations with the top Democrat on 
the committee, Senator Wyden. They consulted closely with colleagues 
over in the House such as Chairman Ryan. They consulted closely with 
President Obama, with Democrats, with Republicans.
  The issues they had to work through were tough. Difficult concessions 
had to be made. Many believed an agreement would never emerge, but in 
the end a strong bipartisan trade package came together that was able 
to pass through the committee by an overwhelming margin of 20 to 6--20 
to 6. It was a significant win for the people we represent. It was a 
win for the Americans who look to us to secure economic growth and good 
jobs for them, not give in to the special interests who, apparently, 
would rather see those jobs end up in countries like China.
  It was a win for the security of our country and for our leadership 
around the world. The Secretary of Defense, for example, was at lunch 
with Republicans today talking about the importance to our 
repositioning to the Pacific, from a defense and foreign policy point 
of view, to get TPP. He was accompanied by seven--not at our lunch, but 
seven former Defense Secretaries of both parties said this just last 
week, ``The stakes are clear and America's prestige, influence and 
leadership are on the line.''
  So the rationale for voting yes today, a vote that would have simply 
allowed the Senate to debate the issue, was overwhelming. It was 
supported by the facts, and yet voices in the President's party who 
rail against the future won out today. I do not routinely quote 
President Obama, but today is no ordinary day. So when the President 
said,

[[Page 6393]]

``The hard left is just making stuff up,'' when the President said 
their increasingly bizarre arguments didn't ``stand the test of fact 
and scrutiny,'' it was hard to argue with him.
  ``You don't make change through slogans,'' the President reminded his 
adversaries on this issue. ``You don't make change through ignoring 
realities.''
  I think that is something worth reflecting on.
  Now this doesn't have to be the end of the story. Trade has 
traditionally been a bipartisan issue that cuts across the partisan 
divide. I suspect we have colleagues on the other side who aren't that 
comfortable filibustering economic benefits for their constituents or a 
President who leads their party.
  What we have just witnessed is that the Democratic Senate shut down 
the opportunity to debate the top economic priority of the Democratic 
President of the United States.
  I suspect some may be parking their vote, rather than buying the 
outlandish rhetoric we have heard from the left. Certainly, that is my 
hope.
  But to get the best outcome for the country, we have to be realistic. 
For instance, the idea that any Senator can make a guarantee that a 
particular bill will be enacted into law is simply impossible.
  I assure you that we would have had a different outcome on today's 
cloture motion if Senators actually wielded the power to force things 
through by sheer will alone. Obviously, we don't. What we can guarantee 
is that Senators receive a fair shake once we proceed to the debate our 
country deserves on a 21st century American trade agenda.
  We will have an open and fair amendment process. How many times have 
I said that this year? That is what we intend to do when we get on TPA. 
For my part, I can restate my commitment to processing TPA, TAA, and 
other policies that Chairman Hatch and Senator Wyden can agree to.
  The Senate has historically been a place where our country debates 
and considers big issues. This is an issue worthy of our consideration. 
Yet today we have voted to not even consider it. It doesn't mean we can 
predetermine outcomes. It doesn't mean we can even guarantee the 
successful passage of legislation once we proceed to debate it. We 
can't make those kinds of guarantees that the other side was saying are 
preconditions to even considering the President's No. 1 domestic 
priority.
  But blocking the Senate from even having a debate of such an 
important issue is not the answer. Senators who do so are choosing to 
stand with special interests and against the American jobs that 
knocking down more unfair trade barriers could support.
  So I sure hope that some of our colleagues across the aisle will heed 
the words of President Obama and rethink their choice. I hope they will 
vote with us to open debate on this issue.
  Let me reiterate. We will continue to engage with both sides. We will 
continue to engage with both sides. We will have an open amendment 
process. We will continue to cooperate in the same spirit that got us 
through so many impossible hurdles already in getting this bill to the 
floor.
  This was no small accomplishment to get it as far as it has come, 
given the various points of view on the Finance Committee. Chairman 
Hatch and Senator Wyden deserve a lot of credit for that. But they 
didn't go through all of that to stall out on the floor before we have 
the chance to do something important for the American people.
  So I hope that folks on the other side who are preventing this debate 
will seriously consider the implications. Other countries are taking a 
look at us. They are wondering whether we can deliver. We hear TPP is 
close to being finalized, and here is the headline they see--that every 
single one--with one exception, I believe--of the President's own party 
in the Senate prevented the mechanism for having trade considered, 
prevented it from even coming to the Senate floor. That is not the kind 
of headline that we want to send around the world--that America cannot 
be depended upon, that America cannot deliver trade agreements. To our 
allies in the Pacific that are apprehensive about the Chinese--and who 
thought this was not only good for their commerce but good for their 
security--what kind of message does that send?
  So I moved to reconsider. Hopefully, it will be an opportunity for 
people to think this over, and we will be able to come together and go 
forward on a bipartisan basis to achieve an important accomplishment 
for the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend, the majority leader, has one 
person to blame for our not being on the floor now debating this 
important piece of legislation, and that person is the majority leader. 
The next time he looks in the mirror, he can understand who is 
responsible for not having debate, as he said, with robust amendments. 
It is he.
  The reason for this situation we are in today is very simple. The 
Finance Committee reported four bills out by a large, bipartisan vote 
of the Finance Committee. The majority leader decided, on his own, that 
he would consider two of those and that the others would have to figure 
out some other way to get done.
  As the Republican leader said this morning in his opening statement, 
let's move to those two bills, and then we will start the amendment 
process. Do all four and start the amendment process. It is very 
logical.
  It is illogical what he is saying. Why should we only do two of the 
four reported out of the Finance Committee? It doesn't make sense.
  Now, my friend the Republican leader is very aware of motions to 
proceed. During the last 4 years, because of the Republicans' cynical 
approach to government, they basically defeated everything we tried to 
do while not allowing us to proceed on legislation. However, we are 
saying we are willing to work with you on this legislation. We don't 
want to stop moving forward on this bill. We think, though, the bill 
should be what was reported out of the Finance Committee. That seems 
the fair thing to do.
  That is all we ask--a path forward, a realistic path for all of us to 
proceed on this legislation. If we are stuck here, it is too bad. We 
shouldn't be.
  I say to my friend the Republican leader, I am always available to 
speak with him--here, telephone, my office, his office--to figure a way 
forward on this legislation.
  I have stated the last week or so that the way we should go forward 
is to have all four of the measures that came out of the Finance 
Committee lumped together and start legislating on those--to have, in 
the words of the Republican leader, a robust amendment process on those 
bills as lumped together.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader of the Senate.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, obviously the most sensitive political 
issue surrounding this is the currency issue. I want to make sure 
everybody has a clear understanding of where we are on that.
  A Senator from the committee stated: I explicitly did not offer the 
currency amendment to the TPA bill. We were told that it would not be a 
part--if it were a part of TPA, we all know it would kill it, the 
President wouldn't sign the bill. So my goal is not to use currency to 
kill the TPA bill and not to kill the TPA bill, it is to get currency 
passed. That is why we offered it to the Customs bill, a separate bill, 
on the strong view that no one disputed in committee--no one disputed 
this in committee--that we would get a vote separately--separately, I 
repeat--on the Customs bill on the floor and that it would come to the 
floor just like the other bills.
  As for currency, in the committee they agreed they would deal with it 
on the Customs bill and not on TPA. And now our friends on the other 
side are trying to bunch it all together.
  But look, we need to be clear. The currency issue on TPA is a killer. 
The President would veto the bill. It would defeat the bill. That is 
why in committee they sensibly reached the conclusion to deal with 
currency on the Customs bill. So I want to be clear about that. So when 
we get on the bill,

[[Page 6394]]

everybody will understand the significance of that issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, one word before my friend from Oregon is 
recognized--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, that is exactly what Senator Schumer 
said in committee, what I just read. That was what Senator Schumer said 
in committee. It was not clear from my notes who said it, but that is 
exactly what Senator Schumer said in committee:

       And, explicitly I did not offer the currency amendment to 
     the TPA bill. We were told that it would not be part--if it 
     were part of TPA it might kill it.

  Senator Schumer:

       My goal is not to use currency to kill the TPA bill and not 
     to kill the TPA bill, it's to get currency passed.

  Senator Schumer, further:

       And that's why we offered it to the customs bill, on the 
     view, strong view, that no one disputed in committee that 
     we'd get a vote separately on the customs bill on the floor, 
     that it would come to the floor just like the other bills.

  That is Senator Schumer in committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Schumer has been involved in the 
currency issue from basically the time he came to the Senate. It has 
been an important issue for him, and he can speak for himself.
  I am not an expert on the bill, and I don't intend to debate anyone 
here on the merits of the bill. People know how I feel about the 
legislation generally, but I am kind of an expert on the procedural 
aspect of what goes on around here.
  I suggest the best way to move forward is to come up with a program 
to have all of these bills discussed at the same time, and that is why 
we have felt the way we did and we indicated that in the vote we just 
took. So I think everybody should just take a deep breath, and I think 
there are probably ways we can move forward with this without 
disparaging either side.
  I think the vote was important, procedurally. We, as a minority--as 
the Republican leader certainly can understand, having been in the 
minority for a number of years--I think we would be better off with the 
minority having a say in what goes on in this body.
  That is the way we spoke today. We believe that, and we look forward 
to continuing the process of moving forward on this bill. We cannot be 
debating the merits of this legislation unless we figure out some way 
to move forward, and right now that process is not looking very good.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator briefly yield for a 
unanimous consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
bill manager, the ranking member of the Finance Committee is recognized 
to speak, that I be recognized to speak, and that following me, the 
chairman of the Senate Finance Committee be recognized to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the majority leader has entered a motion to 
reconsider the trade legislation. I want to be clear, both for the 
majority leader and all our colleagues here, that I am very interested 
in working with the majority leader and our colleague from the other 
side of the aisle to find a bipartisan path to get back to the trade 
legislation at the earliest possible time.
  This morning, 14 protrade Democrats met, and I can assure all the 
Senators here that these are Senators who are committed--strongly 
committed--to ensuring that this bill passes.
  Now, with respect to just another brief description about where we 
are, all the hard work that the majority leader correctly described as 
going on in connection with this legislation has been about four bills: 
the trade promotion act, Customs--which is really trade enforcement to 
help displaced workers--and then trade preferences for developing 
countries.
  Just briefly, I want to describe why it was so important for Senators 
on a bipartisan basis in the Finance Committee to tackle these issues.
  The first, trade promotion authority, helps strip the secrecy out of 
trade policy. The second is the support system for American workers. 
This is known as trade adjustment assistance, which has been expanded. 
The third finally puts our trade enforcement policies into high gear so 
America can crack down on the trade cheats. The fourth renews trade 
programs that are crucial to American manufacturers. Together, these 
bills would form a legislative package that throws out the 1990s NAFTA 
playbook on trade. It is an opportunity to enact fresh, middle-class 
trade policies that will create high-skill, high-wage jobs in Oregon 
and across our land. That opportunity is lost if this package of four 
bills gets winnowed down to two.
  In particular, dropping the enforcement bill in my view is 
legislative malpractice. The calculation is quite simple. The Finance 
Committee gave the Senate a bipartisan trade enforcement bill that will 
protect American jobs and promote American exports, which are two 
propositions that I believe every Member of this body supports. The 
enforcement legislation closes a shameful loophole that allows for 
products made with forced and child labor to be sold in our country. 
This is 2015, and there is absolutely no room for a loophole that 
allows slavery in American trade policies. If the decision is made to 
drop this bipartisan legislation, that shameful loophole would live on.
  Now, any Senator who goes home and speaks, as I do, about the virtues 
of job-creating trade policies has, in my view, a special obligation to 
ensure that American trade enforcement is tough, effective, and built 
on American values. That is what the Finance Committee's bipartisan 
enforcement bill is all about. Without proper enforcement, no trade 
deal can ever live up to the hype. This enforcement bill is a jobs 
bill, plain and simple, and it needs to get to the President's desk.
  Some elements of this package represent priorities that have 
traditionally belonged to Republicans. Other elements are traditionally 
Democratic. But taken as a whole, this is a bipartisan package that 
both sides of the Finance Committee supported strongly, with the 
understanding that its component parts would be linked together. You 
can't make this stool stand up with just two legs.
  The Senate should not begin debate until there is a clear path 
forward for each of these four bills, and I use that word specifically 
because I have talked with colleagues about it. We are going to work 
together in a bipartisan fashion. That is what Chairman Hatch and I 
have done since he became chairman, and I have been grateful to him 
because that is the way he sought to carry out his responsibilities 
when I was chairman. We are going to work together, but the challenge 
has always been to find a clear path forward for each of these four 
bills.
  So I urge my colleagues to continue down the Finance Committee's 
bipartisan route and find a path that moves all four of these bills 
forward.
  In closing, I want to reiterate that with the majority leader having 
entered into a motion to have the trade bill reconsidered, I want to 
express to my colleagues--and I see several Finance members here, 
Chairman Hatch and Senator Cornyn, a senior member of the committee, a 
member of the leadership--that I am very interested in working closely 
with both of them to find a bipartisan path and get back to this 
legislation just as soon as possible.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the chairman 
of the Finance Committee be recognized and then I be recognized 
following his remarks.

[[Page 6395]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kindness in 
doing that.
  I listened to the debate, and I have to say I am very disappointed.
  Everybody knew that Senator Schumer accommodated us--the ranking 
member and myself--in putting the language on the Customs bill. In 
fact, here is what Senator Schumer said:

       And, explicitly I did not offer the currency amendment to 
     the TPA bill. We were told that it would not be part--if it 
     were part of TPA it might kill it. My goal is not to use 
     currency to kill the TPA bill and not to kill the TPA bill, 
     it's to get currency passed. And that's why we offered it to 
     the customs bill, on the view, strong view, that no one 
     disputed in committee that we'd get a vote separately on the 
     customs bill on the floor, that it would come to the floor 
     just like the other bills.

  That was the agreement. The distinguished Senator from Oregon knows 
that was the agreement; that we were going to lump the two together, 
the TPA and TAA--although I would have preferred to have those voted on 
separately, but we agreed to do that because there was a concern on the 
Democratic side that maybe we wouldn't put TAA out. That was a 
ridiculous concern because we know TPA can't pass unless you give the 
unions what they want on TAA. So we grit our teeth and we were willing 
to do that. We put them together so we could accommodate again. And it 
was completely understood that the AGOA bill, the next two bills, would 
be voted on separately. Senator Schumer knew, and said so; that he 
realized it would give the House a very, very bad stomachache because 
they probably couldn't put this bill through with that language on it.
  I even agreed with Senator Schumer that we could have hearings later. 
He could bring up a bill. We would have hearings. We would have a 
markup on the currency matters because there are a lot of people who 
would like to see something done on currency--but not to destroy the 
TPA bill or, should I say, all of the negotiations that this 
administration has been conducting with regard to TPP--the Trans-
Pacific Partnership--with 11 nations, including Japan, which has always 
been difficult to get to the table because they have very great 
concerns there, but they were willing to come to the table. And it 
might ruin TTIP, which is 28 nations in Europe.
  Forty to sixty percent of all trade in the world would come through 
these two agreements that would be done by the Trade Representative, 
subject to the review by Congress provided in TPA, which happens to be 
the procedural mechanism pursuant to which we can assert congressional 
control over these foreign policy agreements, these trade agreements.
  So there was no agreement to bring these up all at one time. The 
first time I heard that was, I think, yesterday or the day before, and 
I was flabbergasted. To have our colleagues vote against cloture on a 
bill the President wants more than any other bill, after he talked to 
them, is astounding to me.
  So I am going to take a moment to talk about what transpired this 
afternoon because I think it warrants further discussion.
  As I stated this morning, with today's vote, we were trying to do 
something good for the American people, to advance our Nation's trade 
agenda and to provide good jobs for American workers, all of which 
would happen should we get this through both Houses of Congress and the 
President signs it into law.
  Now, to do that, we can't have killer amendments put on bills that 
everybody knows will kill it and that the President can't sign. I know 
people disagree with us on how we intended to get there. That much was 
clear from the outset. Sadly, these colleagues--who have always been 
against TPA--were unwilling to have a discussion about their 
disagreements in a fair and open debate, and, I have to say, that was 
all of them on the other side today. Instead, they voted this afternoon 
to prevent any such debate from taking place.
  We are willing to debate, we are willing to have amendments, but I am 
also only willing to abide by the agreement we have with Senator 
Schumer with regard to the Customs bill. That was the agreement, and I 
compliment Senator Schumer for being willing to put it on there because 
he knew it would kill TPA.
  Needless to say, I am disappointed by this outcome.
  While we are talking about trade policy at large, the bill receiving 
the most attention was, of course, the TPA bill, which is bipartisan. I 
made sure it was bipartisan--that we could work together, that we could 
come together, that we could all basically feel good about it--and it 
passed 20 to 6, which is astounding to even me. I didn't know we would 
get seven Democrats on the bill, and I compliment the distinguished 
ranking member for working hard to get seven Democrats on the bill. But 
still, that doesn't take away the fact that the minority leader and 
others don't want any bill at all.
  While we are talking about trade policy at large, I would just say 
the bill receiving the most attention was, of course, the TPA bill, 
which is bipartisan, supported by Republicans and Democrats in both the 
House and the Senate, by the way, not to mention the President of the 
United States and his administration.
  On April 22, the bill was voted out of the Senate Finance Committee 
by a historic vote of 20 to 6, with seven Democrats on the committee 
voting to report the bill. The bill which was President Obama's top 
legislative priority, by the way, was riding a wave of amendments 
headed to the floor. Yet, today, the mere thought of even debating this 
bill was apparently too much for my Democratic colleagues to bear. 
Nothing changed. It is the same bill we reported out of committee. I 
can remember the happy time we had talking about how wonderful it was 
to finally get this bill out of the committee, after going to 10 p.m. 
one night and actually beyond that for staff.
  This is the same bill we have been talking about for months. The only 
thing that was different today than just a few days ago was the 
strategy being employed by the opposition.
  As we all know, the TPA bill wasn't the only trade bill reported out 
of the Finance Committee in April. We also reported a bill to 
reauthorize Trade Adjustment Assistance, a bill to reauthorize some 
trade preference programs and a Customs and Enforcement bill.
  A few days before we were to begin the floor debate on trade policy, 
we heard rumblings from our colleagues on the other side, and we 
started hearing statements from some Senators, including some who had 
generally been supportive of TPA, that they would only support the 
pending motion to proceed if they had assurances that all four bills--
TPA, TAA, preferences, and Customs--would be debated and passed at the 
same time. That never was the agreement, and everybody understood that. 
These new demands brought forward at the eleventh hour were problematic 
for a number of reasons, most notably because, as reported out of the 
Finance Committee, the Customs bill faces a number of problems both 
with the White House and the House of Representatives, and my friends 
on the other side realized that in this bipartisan effort that we were 
making together. They recognized that there were problems for both the 
White House and House of Representatives that would prevent it from 
being enacted into law any time soon. I will not detail all the 
problems, but I think most of my colleagues know what they are. But I 
will say that those problems existed from the beginning and we knew 
about them at the outset. We had people on the committee who were 
totally opposed to this bill. I made sure they had a right to bring up 
their amendments. I respect them. I don't agree with them. I can't even 
agree on how they ever reached the positions that they do. But the fact 
is they have a right to do that, and we protected that right.
  Now, I might say these problems existed from the beginning. We knew 
about them from the onset. That is why the ranking member of the 
Finance Committee and I agreed at our markup to move our four trade 
bills separately.

[[Page 6396]]

  As one of the principal authors of three of the four trade bills, I 
want to be very clear because there has apparently been some confusion 
on this point. There was never a plan to move all four of these bills 
together or as part of TPA.
  While we agreed that TPA and TAA would have to move on parallel 
tracks--we did agree to that--there was no such agreement with regard 
to the other bills, only a commitment that we would do our best to try 
to get all four enacted into law, with no guarantees that they would be 
but to do our very best.
  The agreement with TPA and TAA was honored. Both the majority leader 
and I made clear today that if cloture was invoked on the motion to 
proceed, we would file a substitute amendment that included both of 
these bills--TPA and TAA.
  We also made commitments--commitments I had already made--to work 
with our colleagues to find a path forward on the Customs and the 
preferences legislation. But that was not enough, apparently. We have 
had numerous discussions regarding alternative paths for other trade 
bills. That was not enough, either. The only thing they would accept 
was full inclusion of all the trade bills at the outset of the debate. 
We could not agree to that, and they knew it.
  Of course, to be fair, some of the Democrats were not necessarily 
insisting that the four bills be part of the same package. Instead, 
they just wanted guarantees that all of them would be enacted into law. 
That is not the way it works around here.
  I do not even know how to comment on that. It is, to put it bluntly, 
simply absurd to think that a Senate leader can guarantee any bill will 
become law before a debate even begins. Yet those were the demands we 
faced over the last few days. Although they were obviously impossible, 
we worked in good faith to try to reach an accommodation with those 
who--in my opinion--were not working in good faith. And I am willing to 
forgive that. Even then, there was no path to yes.
  Of course, as we all know that the idea for demanding a ``four bills 
or no bills'' strategy did not originate in the Finance Committee. This 
demand materialized last week and came directly from the Senate 
Democratic leadership, virtually all of whom oppose TPA and their 
President on this bill, outright. Sadly, it seems they were able to 
sell this idea to other Members of their caucus, including more than a 
few who should know better.
  We were never talking about reaching an agreement with people who 
wanted a path forward on good trade legislation. We have been talking 
about an idea devised for the sole purpose of stopping progress on TPA. 
At least for today, it appears they have been successful.
  Once again, I am disappointed. A lot of work has gone into this 
effort in both the Senate and the House of Representatives--not to 
mention the administration. I, personally, have been at this from the 
very moment I took over as the lead Republican on the Senate Finance 
Committee in January 2011.
  In January 2014--more than a year ago--I introduced legislation with 
the former chairmen, Max Baucus and Dave Camp, that formed the basis of 
the bill that we had hoped to start debating this week. Both Baucus and 
Camp were committed to this effort. Sadly, Chairman Camp retired and 
Chairman Baucus was sent off to China.
  When Senator Wyden took over the committee, I worked with him to 
address his concerns about the bill, and that work continued after I 
took over as chairman this year. Even though I thought some of his 
proposals were unworkable, I bent over backwards to accommodate his 
desires, because in the end, I thought it would broaden support for 
TPA, and I wanted to please him, as my partner on the committee.
  Chairman Ryan joined us in this effort, and we did all we could to 
put together a bill and a path forward that both parties could support. 
We met with Chairman Ryan regularly. Until the last few days and the 
advent of these new demands materializing out of whole cloth, I thought 
we had been successful. Even after these new demands came up, I did my 
best to find an agreement, working right up to the vote to find a 
reasonable path forward. But, apparently, something reasonable was not 
in the cards.
  Everyone here knows I am an optimist. I still believe we can get 
something done, that we can work something out. I have told the 
President the same. I am still willing to do what it takes to pass 
these bills. I hope my colleagues will see the light here and come to 
the table with some realistic alternatives for a path forward. Until 
that happens, the President is going to have to wait on these trade 
agreements, as will all the farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and other 
job creators in our country who desperately need market access and a 
level international playing field in order to compete.
  In the future, if we see a sharp decline in U.S. agriculture and 
manufacturing and if the United States retreats from the world, ceding 
the Asia-Pacific region, in particular, to China's overwhelming 
economic influence, people may very well look back at today's events 
and wonder why we could not get our act together. I am already thinking 
that. Why couldn't we get our act together?
  I certainly hope that does not happen--that these other nations--
particularly China--take advantage of our not getting our act together. 
Perhaps, in my frustration, I am being a little dramatic. Still, I have 
no doubt that some will come to regret what went on here today--one way 
or another.
  As for me, I have no regrets. I have done all I can to get these 
important bills across the finish line. I am going to continue to do 
all I can in the future to get these bills across the finish line.
  Unfortunately, after today, it is very unclear how many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to do the same. I 
believe there are honest, good people on that side of the aisle who 
want to make this right, who want to make up for what happened here 
today. I feel confident that is so. I am going to proceed on the basis 
that that is so. I sure hope it is so because, my gosh, to put this 
Nation's foreign policy--especially in the Asia-Pacific region, in 
particular--on hold when we could be building relationships in these 
countries as never before and at the same time spurring on 
international trade as never before is a matter of grave concern to me.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, who I know has labored long and hard to get this 
bill where it is today. I know how disappointed he is at the filibuster 
by our friends across the aisle on the President's No. 1 domestic 
priority.
  I have heard it said that the U.S. economy is just one or two steps 
away--a few policy choices away--from awakening that slumbering giant 
known as the U.S. economy and growing it for the benefit of all 
Americans. Unfortunately, the filibuster that occurred today is a 
backwards step.
  I know there are some people that say to Republicans: Why would you 
want to work with President Obama? The truth of the matter is that is 
what we are here for, if we agree on the principle. We are not here to 
agree with him just to agree with him. As a matter of fact, sometimes 
it is easier to go back home and say: Well, I disagreed with the 
President.
  But this is one area where the President of the United States is 
absolutely correct. We are here not to do what he wants us to do, but 
we are here to do what our constituents--what the American people--want 
us to do. What they want is the better jobs, the improved wages, the 
sort of robust economic growth that comes along with trade agreements.
  It has been said numerous times, but I will say it again: 95 percent 
of the world lies out beyond our borders; 80 percent of the purchasing 
power in the world lies beyond the borders of the United States. Why in 
the world would we not want to open markets to the things that we grow, 
that our ranchers

[[Page 6397]]

raise, and that our manufacturers make? Why in the world would we not 
want to do it?
  You will have to ask our colleagues across the aisle, who today, with 
the exception of one Democrat, chose to filibuster this bill. I am 
intrigued to hear the numbers that were mentioned earlier: 14 protrade 
Democrats--14. I guess that means there are at least 32 antitrade 
Democrats. But I must say, on this side of the aisle, we are by and 
large a protrade party--for the very reasons that I mentioned earlier. 
We would like to work with anybody--including the President of the 
United States--to try to get our economy growing again, to open markets 
to the things that we make and grow and manufacture here in the United 
States, because it benefits the entire country, including hard-working 
families.
  The irony is that last week the Senate overwhelmingly voted on a bill 
that would guarantee Congress the time and opportunity to review a 
potential agreement between President Obama and Iran. That bill passed 
98 to 1 and will prevent implementation by the President until the 
American people, through their elected representatives, are given the 
chance to scrutinize, study, and debate that particular agreement and 
vote on it up or down. So far, the so-called deal or framework has been 
incredibly vague, and I think it is important that we understand what 
is in it.
  You can imagine that if we voted 98 to 1 to require the President to 
lay before the American people this important negotiation with Iran, 
why it is so strange that our Democratic friends do not want us to 
participate in the same process by which to vote up or down on trade 
agreements.
  Trade promotion authority, historically, has had bipartisan support 
here in the Chamber. By the way, this is not just something that will 
be extended for the next 20 months of President Obama's administration. 
This will be extended 6 years into the Presidency
of the next President of the United States.
  The Chairman mentioned that this legislation sailed through the 
Finance Committee by a wide margin of 20 to 6. And, of course, as I 
said--and I will say it again--it is supported by the administration, 
by President Obama's administration.
  It is very strange to see Democrats blocking a bill supported by the 
leader of their political party, the President of the United States. 
The excuses they gave here today are that all of a sudden they woke up 
and decided that the deal that Senator Wyden and Senator Hatch agreed 
to--which is to combine trade promotion authority with trade adjustment 
assistance--was not good enough and they wanted to renegotiate the 
deal.
  I think, from my perspective, there are really two types of folks in 
the camp across the aisle. There are those who, perhaps, would like to 
get to yes, and that means that you can have a negotiation and try to 
find a way to get to yes. But I can only gather from what was said 
earlier that there are probably 32 Senators on that side of the aisle 
who are antitrade. They are not interested in getting to yes. What they 
do is they throw up phony barriers, such as this attempt to renegotiate 
the package that was brought here to the floor. This is sort of typical 
obstructionism.
  We saw this happen in the antitrafficking legislation as well, when a 
piece of legislation passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee 
unanimously and came to the floor. And then all of a sudden, someone 
woke up and said: Well, we did not read the bill, and now we object.
  This trade tool will give Congress the opportunity to examine any 
upcoming deal that the President is trying to cut and make sure--we 
make sure; we do not take the President's word for it. We make sure the 
American people get a fair shake.
  Many of the provisions in trade promotion authority are common sense 
and they are nonpartisan. For example, if passed, TPA would give 
Congress the authority to read the full text of the trade agreement. It 
is hard to argue that this is a bad thing. It is hard to get more 
straightforward than that, but we have no guarantee without this 
provision.
  Trade promotion authority would promote greater transparency and 
accountability in the negotiations process. Some, understandably, have 
complained that up to this point the Obama administration has relayed 
very little information about this unfolding trade agreement--known as 
the Trans-Pacific Partnership--or the affected industries--that it has 
relayed very little information about the negotiations taking place 
with countries along the Pacific Rim and in Europe.
  This bill prioritizes transparency and accountability front and 
center and will require the administration to brief Members of Congress 
regularly on the progress of the negotiations. It will actually allow 
Members of Congress to attend the negotiations. How more transparent 
can you get than that? That way Congress can work directly with those 
who are finalizing this agreement to ensure, again, that the American 
people are getting a good deal.
  So through the trade promotion authority, the bill that has been 
filibustered today, Congress would have been able to get to know 
important details regarding the actual implementation of the trade 
deal.
  I am disappointed our Democratic colleagues were not able to see how 
important this legislation is, not to us, not to the President but to 
the people they represent and to the economy and wages we need to see 
grow.
  Well, as we heard from Secretary Ash Carter today at lunch, this is 
important for national security reasons as well. It is important 
America thoroughly engage in Asia with our trading partners because 
there is a strange but simple phenomenon that occurs when two countries 
trade with each other. They are sure a lot less likely to go to war 
with each other if they are doing business and talking to each other.
  From a national security perspective, we want to make sure we make 
the rules with regard to trading in Asia and that we don't default and 
let China fill the void, which they will be happy if we don't take care 
of our business.
  Trade is important to my State, and as I said, it is important to the 
United States. In the 20th century all we needed back in Texas were 
farm-to-market roads to find customers for our goods. But in the 21st 
century, our customers are not just in the next town over, they are all 
around the world. As I said, 95 percent of our potential customers live 
outside of the United States.
  This legislation would help connect American farmers, ranchers, and 
small businesses to the markets around the world which would help our 
economy. As the country's largest exporter, we in Texas know the value 
of trade firsthand because we depend on it. I know a lot of people 
think, well, Texas is just about oil and gas. Well, that is not 
actually true. We have a very diversified economy. But part of what we 
have done, which has set us apart from the rest of the country in terms 
of economic growth and job creation, is trade.
  Last year, Texas reported $289 billion of exported goods, with some 
41,000 businesses exporting goods from Texas to outside the country. 
Now, this type of trade has helped our economy grow and keep people 
employed, able to provide food for their families and other necessities 
of life. We have prospered, relatively speaking, during a time when 
much of the American economy has been relatively stagnant and trade has 
been an important part of that.
  Opening up our country to greater trade through the trade promotion 
authority would help American businesses send their goods to even more 
markets. The United States is the leading exporter of agricultural 
products. Last year alone, America's farmers and ranchers who could 
benefit tremendously from this legislation exported more than $152 
billion in agricultural commodities and products to customers around 
the world.
  In Texas, for example, in the agriculture sector, we lead the Nation 
in exports of beef and cotton. By opening up more international 
opportunities for these products, our economy would grow and our Texas 
commodities, such as beef and cotton, would become staples in fast-
growing markets like Asia.
  We also know, as I suggested earlier, that trade is not just about 
selling

[[Page 6398]]

products, it is about the jobs that are necessary to make and grow the 
products we sell. According to a report released last month by the 
International Trade Administration, as of 2014, more than 1 million 
jobs in Texas alone are supported by exporting, and in the entire 
country that figure is 11 million. So with 11 million jobs dependent on 
exports, why in the world wouldn't we want to improve our ability to 
export more abroad to other markets around the world and to create more 
jobs in the process?
  Well, TPA is important because it would allow Congress to also have 
clear oversight over the pending trade agreements. I know there is a 
lot of skepticism about the kind of deal that is being cut behind 
closed doors. We would open those doors and bring it out into the open 
and allow all Americans to examine it. And we, as their 
representatives, will exam it as well and ask the hard questions, such 
as why is this in the best interest of the American farmer, rancher, 
and manufacturer.
  We know that TPP--the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is the big 
Asia trade agreement--alone makes up about 40 percent of the world's 
economy.
  I admit I am a little disappointed that the Democrats, with the 
exception of one Senator, would choose to block this important piece of 
legislation. With so much of the world's purchasing power located 
beyond our borders, one would think that on a bipartisan basis we would 
all support opening up new access to consumers and markets for 
America's farmers, ranchers, and manufactured goods, and that should be 
a top priority.
  Unfortunately, our colleagues across the aisle did not see our 
Nation's businesses and our economy as their main priority today. I 
hope that after today's failure of this particular legislation, we will 
engage in serious negotiations.
  I agree with the majority leader, that after November 4, the American 
people gave the U.S. Senate new management. They were dissatisfied with 
the management of last year and previous years because all they saw was 
dysfunction. Well, now the U.S. Senate is starting to function again. 
We are starting to produce important pieces of legislation, such as the 
first budget since 2009. This is a great opportunity for us on a 
bipartisan basis--on a nonpartisan basis--to do something really good.
  I hope, after making the mistake of blocking this legislation, that 
our colleagues--the 14 so-called progrowth Democrats out of the 46 
across the aisle--will see fit to work with us to try and move this 
legislation forward.


           Order for Recess Subject to the Call of the Chair

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m., the Senate 
stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________