[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6689-6698]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           IRS BUREAUCRACY REDUCTION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                     AMERICA GIVES MORE ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1295 and H.R. 644 en bloc, which 
the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1295) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to improve the process for making determinations with 
     respect to whether organizations are exempt from taxation 
     under section 501(c)(4) of such Code.
       A bill (H.R. 644) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to permanently extend and expand the charitable 
     deduction for contributions of food inventory.

  Thereupon, the Senate proceeded to consider the bills en bloc.


                     Amendments Nos. 1223 and 1224

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Hatch 
amendments, amendment No. 1223 to H.R. 1295 and amendment No. 1224 to 
H.R. 644, are considered and agreed to.
  (The amendment (No. 1223) in the nature of a substitute is printed in 
the Record of May 13, 2015, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  (The amendment (No. 1224) in the nature of a substitute is printed in 
the Record of May 13, 2015, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12 
noon will be equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today, at this moment, we begin the debate 
on one of the most important bills to come in front of the Senate this 
year, to guarantee that Americans can find a more level playing field 
as we compete in the world economy to show that Americans should not be 
patsies for other countries that are cheating and altering records and 
information they submit to trade authorities.
  This is an opportunity to close an 85-year-old loophole that has 
allowed us to import products produced by slave labor and child labor 
and to fix our currency system so countries and their companies, 
especially in East Asia and South Asia--mostly East Asia--cannot 
continue to cheat and sell into our country with a bonus and penalize 
us when we try to sell our products to their countries.
  This body delivered one strong message this week which was 
unprecedented. I can't think of the last time the Senate spoke with 
such an emphatic voice on a trade issue. The simple message: We cannot 
have trade promotion without trade enforcement.

[[Page 6690]]

  We should not be passing new agreements while doing nothing, which 
the Senate tried to do on Tuesday, but the Senate stood up and said no. 
We should not be passing new agreements while doing nothing to enforce 
existing laws and support American companies dealing with unfair 
competition.
  We need to stand up particularly for our small businesses, which are 
always hurt to a much greater degree than large businesses. When a 
large company in Cleveland, Toledo or Lima shuts down production and 
moves overseas to Xi'an, Beijing or Wuhan, China, so they can get a tax 
break from our government--amazingly enough, this body will not close 
that tax loophole--and sell products back to our country, that 
company's bottom line may be a bit better, but the supply chain for 
those large companies--the companies in our communities in Lima, 
Toledo, Mansfield, and Wooster--that sell to those big companies have 
lost their biggest customers in far too many cases. Those businesses go 
out of business, those workers get laid off, those plants close, and we 
know what happens. That is why we especially need to stand up for those 
small businesses that play by the rules and are drowning from a set of 
imports from countries that manipulate their currency and practice 
illegal dumping. Dumping is when companies subsidize water, capital, 
land, labor costs or other inputs, such as energy, and sell under the 
real cost of production into the United States--that kind of illegal 
dumping.
  It is one thing to talk about statistics, but I want to stop and 
think about the costs of imports to our companies, communities, and 
families.
  In the State of Pennsylvania, as the Presiding Officer knows, 
especially between Pittsburgh and Philly or Western Pennsylvania, the 
area I am more familiar with because I represent the adjoining State, 
we see time after time companies in small towns--when a company shuts 
down in a place like Jackson, OH, or Chillicothe, OH, so often because 
of the size of the town, both the husband and wife each lose their jobs 
because they both work at that company, their entire family income is 
wiped out, and they are likely to lose their home to foreclosure. We 
know all of those problems that happen because we don't enforce our 
trade rules. That is why I want us to stop and think about the real 
costs to families, communities, and companies.
  In Ohio, we have seen how dumping by Korean companies has hurt our 
steel industry. Neither President Bush nor President Obama has stepped 
up on trade the way each had promised in their campaigns, and neither 
has stepped up the way that they should to preserve our workers, our 
businesses, and our livelihoods. We both promised, on Korea, 
thousands--that there would be tens of thousands of new jobs, billions 
in increased exports for our companies. Yet the reality of the Korea 
trade agreement was absolutely the opposite of that. We had major job 
loss and a major loss in the import-export ratio because of that South 
Korea trade agreement they pushed on the U.S. Congress, and the people 
here too willingly passed.
  Natural gas production has increased demand. I will explain Korea for 
a moment. Natural gas production has increased demand for the world-
class tubular steel made in plants such as U.S. Steel in Lorain, 
Youngstown, and Trumbull County. Tubular steel is the steel piping that 
is particularly strong and durable. It is subjected to great pressure 
and great heat as they drill for natural gas--in so-called fracking--or 
they drill for oil.
  Mr. President, 8,000 workers in 22 States make these Oil Country 
Tubular Goods. Each one of those jobs supports another seven positions 
in the supply chain. We know when we talk about manufacturing, it is 
never just the manufacturing jobs, as important as they are, it is the 
jobs in the entire supply that go into the assembly of the airplane or 
the automobile or the steel production of Oil Country Tubular Goods. 
These producers increasingly lose business to foreign competitors that 
are not playing by the rules. Imports for OCTG, Oil Country Tubular 
Goods, have doubled since 2008. By some measures, imports account for 
somewhat more than 50 percent of the pipes being used by companies 
drilling for oil and gas in the United States.
  Korea has one of the world's largest steel industries, but get this, 
not one of these pipes that Korea now dumps in the United States--
illegally subsidized--is ever used in Korea for drilling because Korea 
has no domestic oil or gas production. In other words, Korea has 
created this industry only for exports and has been successful because 
they are not playing fair. So their producers are exporting large 
volumes to the United States, the most open and attractive market in 
the world, at below-market prices. That is clear evidence that our 
workers and manufacturers are being cheated, and it should be 
unacceptable to the Members of this body. It hurts our workers, our 
communities, and our country. It is time to stop it.
  I toured Lorain's best U.S. Steel plant in 2013 and saw the No. 6 
quench and temper finishing line, which was part of a $100 million 
expansion project.
  The naysayers who talk about our country, workers, and businesses say 
we cannot compete because we are not up-to-date or our workers are not 
producing--all the whining from these naysayers who support these trade 
policies is insulting to our workers, insulting to our communities, and 
insulting to our small businesses. They say we are not modern enough.
  Well, look at the investment. I have seen the $100 million investment 
in Lorain, for instance, and what that means. The first time in the 
history of steel production in this world, ArcelorMittal workers 
created about 1 ton about 5 years ago. When they passed this threshold, 
1 person-hour created 1 ton of steel. They are the most productive 
steelworkers in the world, working in the most productive steel company 
in the world.
  The expansion project with Lorain's U.S. Steel plant was made 
possible, in part, because we were able to crack down on Chinese steel 
pipe imports that flooded the market with illegal and cheap products. 
They made this investment because we won that trade case. Then, along 
came Korea to again try to inflict the same damage on our producers and 
our workers. It is clear that once again we need to ensure that other 
Nations don't unfairly dump steel into the U.S. market.
  Last year, I visited the same plant and joined in with workers, 
managers, and union leaders to send one message: It is time for America 
to stand up to these lawbreakers; pure and simple, strip it all away--
these countries are lawbreakers.
  Here is the bad news: In January, U.S. Steel--in part because of 
Korea's dumping--announced 614 temporary layoffs at the plant in Lorain 
on Lake Erie. Those layoffs began in March.
  I spoke on the floor before about one of the U.S. steelworkers I met, 
Ryan, who has been out of work for weeks. He has four kids at home and 
doesn't know when or if he will be back at work. Will his home be 
foreclosed down the road if he can't go back to work? He has played by 
the rules. He has been living a responsible life, by taking care of his 
kids, paying his mortgage, engaged in the union and community as a 
good, strong, productive worker. There are hundreds more like Ryan in 
Lorain and around Ohio.
  In March, Republic Steel in Lorain announced 200 temporary layoffs. I 
say ``temporary'' because the company is hopeful that our government 
will enforce trade rules and that the dumping of steel will abate a 
bit.
  TMK is one of the largest producers of oil country tubular goods in 
the world, with a facility in Brookfield, OH, north of Youngstown. 
Since 2008, the company has invested $2 billion in their U.S. 
operations. They are keeping up on technology and modernizing their 
plant with very productive workers. But how do they compete with Korea 
or China or other nations that are cheating?
  Other companies make similar investments to stay on the cutting edge, 
but instead of expanding production to keep up with increasing demand, 
these companies operate under tighter and tighter margins and lay off 
workers. Last week, TMK announced plans to

[[Page 6691]]

reduce operating hours at three of its facilities and completely idled 
another one.
  I visited Byer Steel in Cincinnati. I spoke with Mr. Byer just 
yesterday when I met with some steel company executives, many of them 
from small businesses like his, where I first announced the Level the 
Playing Field Act to his company in Cincinnati.
  American companies--Byer, TMK, U.S. Steel, Republic Steel, so many 
others--know firsthand that they are not in a fair fight. These 
manufacturers across Ohio and all over our country suffer enough from 
unfair trade practices distorting the market. It is their workers who 
suffer even more. Think about what even a temporary layoff can do to a 
family. They are facing mounting bills, facing mounting uncertainty. 
They may have to start to turn to credit cards and payday lenders to 
get by, and then the downward spiral begins.
  I don't think too many in this body who are dressed like this and who 
have good-paying jobs and titles and far too often an adoring staff end 
up--we don't think much about this, but think about the laid-off worker 
who has for 7 years--she and her husband have lived in Lorain, where I 
used to live, which is an industrial city west of Cleveland--they have 
lived in Lorain and paid their mortgage. They are involved in their 
kids' activities in soccer and school and go to the programs at school. 
They are living lives the way we hope they would. But then she loses 
her good-paying, 18-dollar-an-hour job. She has a mortgage she meets 
every month. She has bills she pays every month. Then she loses her 
job. She faces the uncertainty of what happens next, and she faces a 
sharply declined income. At some point, her kids understand their mom 
lost her job and their dad's hours have been cut back. Then they face 
the question--and this is what we don't think much about in this body, 
people who dress like us and make good incomes and have good benefits 
and have a staff who helps them--then she has to sit down with her kids 
and say: We may lose our home because we can't keep up with these 
bills. It is not because they speculated, not because they stole, not 
because they are morally inadequate in some ways; simply because they 
lost their job.
  My State--and the Presiding Officer's State is not too far behind 
this, I don't think--my State for 14 years in a row had more 
foreclosures than the year before. That is not because Ohioans are 
irresponsible; it is because Ohioans have lost so many of these 
manufacturing jobs. They were paying their bills and meeting their 
obligations and raising their kids, and then all of a sudden they 
couldn't.
  So they have to face their 12-year-old daughter and say: Honey, we 
are going to have to move. We can't afford to keep this house anymore. 
I don't know where we are going to move. I don't know what school you 
are going to go to. I am sorry.
  I don't think people around this place think very much about the 
human face of these kinds of decisions. That is why this is so 
important.
  We can do something about this. When jobs are lost due to cheap, 
flooded, illegal imports and at the same time we aren't increasing our 
exports, we need to do all we can to stop this practice and protect our 
workers.
  The other side will say we are increasing our exports. We are a bit, 
but the imports are much higher in almost every one of these cases. 
That is why we need to pass this Customs bill that incorporates the 
Level the Playing Field Act to crack down on foreign companies that are 
cheating. We welcome competition. We are a competitive country. We 
succeed in competing among ourselves and around the world. But it has 
to be fair; it has to be a level playing field. That is why the Level 
the Playing Field Act, title V of this Customs bill, is so very 
important.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the 
quorum calls be equally divided between the parties.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. 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. UDALL. 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. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. President.


                              PATRIOT Act

  Today, I rise to express my longstanding concerns about the PATRIOT 
Act and in particular section 215, which is set to expire on June 1. A 
major use of this section--the bulk collection of Americans' phone 
records--has just been ruled illegal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Second Circuit. If we didn't already have enough concern about 
reauthorizing section 215, this decision should raise alarm bells. Yet, 
the majority leader is asking us to act quickly to reauthorize this law 
unchanged for another 5 years.
  Without significant reforms to the law, I cannot support an extension 
of any length of time, and I urge my colleagues to listen to the court 
and listen to the numerous oversight groups from within the 
administration and the millions of citizens who are saying that 
Congress needs to rethink whether this program is violating our rights 
in the name of keeping us safe.
  Ben Franklin was very fond of saying, ``Those who give up liberty in 
the name of security deserve neither.'' That is where we are today. 
Congress passed the PATRIOT Act over a decade ago after the 9/11 
terrorist attacks. Our Nation was devastated. Our security was at 
stake. But this legislation was hasty, it was far-reaching, and it 
undermined the constitutional right to privacy of law-abiding citizens. 
It still does.
  I have made my opposition clear in the years since 2001. The major 
advocates of this law--primarily former President Bush and his key 
national security officials--used a potent combination of fear and 
patriotism to drive this bill through. I was one of only 66 Members to 
vote against the PATRIOT Act in the House of Representatives. I also 
voted against the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act in 2006 and the 
FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
  In 2011, I opposed once again the extension of three controversial 
provisions of the PATRIOT Act: roving wiretaps, government access to 
``any tangible items,'' such as library and business records, and the 
surveillance of targets that are not connected to any identified 
terrorist group.
  Back in 2001, I said on the House floor that I was unable to support 
this bill because it does not strike the right balance between 
protecting our liberties and providing for the security of our 
citizens. I went on to say: The saving grace here is that the sunset 
provision forces us to come back and to look at these issues again when 
heads are cooler and when we are not in the heat of battle.
  That is exactly what we should do. To govern in a post-9/11 world, we 
have to strike the right balance, to fight terrorism without trampling 
our Constitution. We can do both. The Bill of Rights was established 
immediately following a war. Our Founders knew the tension between 
freedom and security. Our Nation was founded on the right of individual 
liberty, in stark contrast to the long tradition of total sovereign 
authority of most other governments.
  I strongly believe we should not force through a reauthorization of 
the PATRIOT Act without a hard look at the long-term ramifications of 
the law. We must look at how the law is being used for things such as 
the collection of all Americans' phone records. We must consider 
whether that use is necessary to keep us safe and whether it is in line 
with the Constitutional rights we are sworn to uphold.
  I urge our colleagues not to be swayed by the false argument that 
this provision must be reauthorized urgently, that we will be 
vulnerable to attack if we let it expire--another false argument.
  Here is the reality. This provision is being used to sweep up the 
phone calls of all Americans across this country. Yet there is zero 
conclusive evidence that it has kept us safe from attack.

[[Page 6692]]

  What we do have, however, is ample evidence that the PATRIOT Act, 
section 215, has been used to violate the privacy of everyday 
Americans. I believe it has violated the Constitution. I certainly 
agree with the Federal court of appeals which last week ruled that the 
bulk phone record collection goes far beyond what Congress intended 
when the law was passed.
  We have a decade of hindsight. Let's be honest in this debate and 
let's be thorough. The entire law bears careful scrutiny. Senators Lee 
and Leahy have introduced the USA FREEDOM Act to reform the law while 
reauthorizing the expiring provisions. I commend their efforts, but I 
think we can go even further.
  The House also overwhelmingly passed its version of the USA FREEDOM 
Act just yesterday. It deserves Senate consideration. Congress has a 
duty for robust oversight, to ensure real constitutional privacy rights 
are upheld. I pushed for this from when I was in the House. I advocated 
then for the creation of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight 
Board, also called PCLOB.
  In June 2013, after details about NSA's bulk collection program were 
made public, I led a bipartisan call for the PCLOB to conduct an 
independent review. Their review assessed the impact of NSA's spying 
program on Americans' constitutional rights and civil liberties. The 
Board concluded what many Americans had feared: One, that the spying 
program is an unconstitutional intrusion on their privacy right, and, 
two, that it has almost no impact on safety.
  The Board's oversight role is crucial. Its independent evaluation of 
section 215 demonstrates why. It has an important job, and it requires 
more support so it can do its job. That is why yesterday Senator Wyden 
and I reintroduced the Strengthening Privacy, Oversight, and 
Transparency Act, or SPOT Act. Our bill, with bipartisan cosponsors in 
the House, would strengthen the Board. This is key to real oversight, 
and it should be included as part of any reauthorization of the PATRIOT 
Act.
  The SPOT Act extends the Board's authority to play a watchdog role 
over surveillance conducted for purposes beyond counterterrorism. It 
also allows the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to issue 
subpoenas without having to wait for the Justice Department to issue 
them. It makes the Board member's positions full-time.
  Finally, it makes the Board an authorized recipient for whistleblower 
complaints for employees in the intelligence community, so they can 
take concerns to an independent organization, one that understands the 
intelligence community. I know we must protect the Nation from future 
attacks. But there must also be balance. We cannot give up our 
constitutional protections in the name of security. To do so does not 
protect our Constitution nor does it increase our security.
  We need to have a serious debate about these issues and allow 
Senators to offer amendments. This is important to the American people, 
to our security, and to our liberties. Congress cannot just leave town 
and leave this work undone.
  I voted against the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Act amendments, because 
they unduly infringed on the guaranteed rights of our citizens. I 
believe that time has shown that to be true, and the time has come to 
correct it. We all value the work of our intelligence community. Their 
efforts are vital to our Nation's security. But I believe these 
amendments are crucial.
  We can protect our citizens and their constitutional rights. We acted 
in haste before. It was a mistake then. It would be a mistake now to 
approve a straight reauthorization of that law. We need to take the 
time this time to get it right.
  I see Senator Wyden is on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today the Senate is formally kicking off 
the trade debate here in the Senate. What I intend to do, starting 
today and in the days ahead, is to come back to what I think needs to 
be the central statement of this discussion; that is, the NAFTA 
playbook. The playbook for trade in the 1990s is gone. It is a new day 
in trade policy.
  So I have summarized why the trade promotion act is not the trade 
policy of the 1990s and is not the North American Free Trade Agreement. 
What we are going to do today is essentially start with the question of 
how vigorous trade enforcement ought to be at the forefront of 
America's trade policy in 2015 and beyond, and how our new approach on 
enforcement is different than the policy of the 1990s.
  The reality is, we can pass trade agreements full of lofty goals and 
principles. You can amass all of the enforcement ideas you might want, 
but it does not do any good if you do not have real enforcement tools 
and you make sure that they are not locked in a shed.
  In my view, that has been happening for way, way too long. The status 
quo on trade enforcement simply no longer does the job. As I have 
listened for many months to Senators on both sides of the aisle, I 
believe there is widespread recognition that our approach to trade, 
particularly trade enforcement, has to change, because without that 
change, we are not going to have the best possible path to creating 
more good-paying jobs for our people in a modern and globally 
competitive economy.
  The bottom line is that those trade policies in the 1990s did very 
little--really nothing--to ensure strong enforcement of our trade laws 
to protect the American worker from the misdeeds of trade cheats. This 
bill is designed to take on the universe of aggressive tactics that our 
competitors have used. It upgrades trade enforcement laws to meet 
today's challenges.
  What we have seen in recent years is that there are some overseas who 
play cat-and-mouse games with our Customs agents, using shell 
companies, fraudulent records, and sophisticated schemes. Then they 
bully--bully--American businesses into relocating factories and jobs or 
surrendering valuable intellectual property. Too often our companies 
are spied on, and trade enforcers may, in effect, be victimized by 
those who steal secrets and dodge accountability.
  Our competitors often mask their activities by obscuring paper trails 
and perpetrating outright fraud. Now, our challenge--and I know my 
colleague the Presiding Officer has seen this as a member of the 
Finance Committee--is to get out in front of these schemes that I have 
just described. The enforcement legislation before the Senate is about 
guaranteeing that the United States has a queen on the chess board, no 
matter what competitive tactic it faces.
  That starts with a proposal I first offered years ago called the 
ENFORCE Act. Now, the North American Free Trade Agreement did nothing 
to stop foreign companies that cheat and evade duties by concealing 
their identities and shipping their products on untraceable routes.
  That is the way it used to be. That is why this legislation is not 
the North American Free Trade Agreement. The ENFORCE Act is going to 
give our Customs agents more tools aimed at cracking down on the 
behavior I have just outlined. Another major upgrade, something else 
that did not exist during those NAFTA days, is what I call an unfair 
trade alert. The new alert system would set off the warning bells long 
before the damage is done, when American jobs and exports come under 
threat.
  One of the big fears we hear today is that our enforcers are 
incapable of stopping the trade cheats before it is too late. By the 
time somebody in Washington catches on to the newest unfair threat to 
undercut an American business, the plant has been shuttered, the 
factory lights are out, and the workers' lives have been turned upside 
down. In a lot of cases, if you are talking about the small towns that 
dot the landscape of Oregon and elsewhere, that abandoned facility 
might have been the beating heart of an entire community.
  The slow pace of action in Washington, DC, should never be the reason 
Americans lose their jobs. The unfair trade alert--that was not part of 
the

[[Page 6693]]

1990s; that was not part of NAFTA. It is going to be part of our 
current policy today, helping our companies, helping our workers get 
there before it is too late.
  Next, the Congress is going to lay down clear priorities for our 
trade enforcers, priorities that are centered on jobs and economic 
growth. There is going to be more accountability and follow-through 
baked into our enforcement system. In years past, trade debate in the 
Congress used to come down to a simple transaction of trade promotion 
authority for trade adjustment assistance.
  What I said in developing this package of bills and what more than a 
dozen protrade Democrats said on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week was 
that the Senate needed to aim higher. The status quo was not good 
enough. In particular, it was not good enough in terms of enforcing the 
laws that are on the books. My guess is that in Pennsylvania and 
everywhere else--because I certainly hear it in Oregon--people say--
particularly those of us who are protrade and want to tap these global 
markets: I hear you are talking about new trade agreements. How about 
enforcing the laws that are on the books?
  What I started this morning--and I will be back again and again 
between now and the end of this debate--is to talk about why this is a 
very different approach than the approach taken in the 1990s. Tough, 
robust, effective enforcement of our trade laws is right at the core of 
a new and modern trade policy. It is a major part of what I call trade 
done right. It is how you guarantee that trade gives everybody in 
America a chance to get ahead.
  Those are propositions, in my view, that deserve strong, bipartisan 
support in the Senate, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support 
this trade enforcement law package.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Democratic side have 
20 minutes of the debate time remaining prior to noon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to be able to 
equally divide the time spent in quorum calls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. 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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        Freedom for Austin Tice

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to spend a few minutes this morning 
talking about a young man who can be described in many ways and one who 
has earned many accolades: decorated Marine Corps veteran, award-
winning journalist, Houston native, and seventh-generation Texan. But 
most importantly, this young man, Austin Tice, is better known as a 
friend, brother, and son to loving and caring parents.
  Almost 3 years ago, Austin decided to pause his law school studies to 
spend the summer in Syria as a freelance journalist. He was frustrated 
by the lack of reporting on Syria's civil war, a war that has claimed 
the lives of more than 300,000 people by some estimates--and that is 
just within the borders of Syria--and has displaced millions more who 
are living in refugee camps both in Syria and in surrounding countries. 
This huge refugee crisis affects many neighboring countries, such as 
Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, and has tremendous potential to 
destabilize the entire region.
  As a strong believer in freedom of the press, Austin wanted to let 
his fellow countrymen know what was going on in that part of the world. 
As a former Eagle Scout and Marine Corps captain, Austin's typical can-
do attitude led him to decide that he should go to Syria himself and 
report on the civil war, and that is exactly what he did. Well, as with 
most things he tried, Austin proved to be very successful. While he was 
reporting from Syria, his work was published in the Washington Post, 
McClatchy news, and other outlets.
  In August 2012, just days before he was planning to leave Syria, he 
was kidnapped, and no one has heard from him since. We still don't know 
for sure who his captors are. Sadly, we know very little. One thing we 
do know is that his parents, Marc and Debra Tice, and his entire family 
have worked tirelessly to locate him and to bring him home safely.
  This week marks the 1,000th day of Austin's captivity. I really can't 
begin to imagine the toll this ordeal has taken on Austin's family, but 
I have to say I so greatly admire the courage and conviction of his 
parents, who said earlier this week in a statement:

       We have desperately missed Austin for over 1,440,000 
     minutes--each new minute fuels our resolve to find him and 
     bring him safely home.

  While we often mark the number of days someone has been missing, it 
is important to remember that to the family and friends of someone who 
has been kidnapped, even the minutes that pass are almost unbearable. 
Austin's family is not just counting the days he has been gone and all 
the milestones he has inevitably missed, they are counting the minutes 
too.
  Austin Tice has a family who is waiting for him, missing him, and 
laboring to find any piece of information that will lead to information 
about his whereabouts, while longing for his freedom. I join the Tice 
family in encouraging the Federal Government to do everything we can to 
possibly secure Austin's safe return home.
  I also say once again to his family: We haven't given up. We will 
continue to stand by you, and we will never give up until we find your 
son and bring him safely home.
  This week, we pass another milestone, this time of 1,000 days that 
Austin has been separated from his family. I join the Tice family in 
their hope that someday soon we will be able to add another milestone 
to this story, one that marks the day of his safe return to so many who 
love and miss him.
  Today, our thoughts and prayers are with the Tice family, and I stand 
ready and I daresay all of us stand ready to do whatever we can to 
encourage and facilitate the return of this Texan, veteran, brother, 
and son.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on two pieces of 
important trade legislation. Both of these bills have been in the works 
for some time. They were among the four trade bills we reported out of 
the Senate Committee on Finance last month, and as a principal coauthor 
of both bills, I am very glad we found a way to get them to this point.
  The first bill we will be voting on is the Trade Preferences 
Extension Act of 2015. This bill will reauthorize and improve three of 
our trade preference programs: the generalized system of preferences, 
or GSP; the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or AGOA; and tariff 
preferences for Haiti. I want to take a few minutes to talk about each 
of these programs individually, starting with the GSP.
  The GSP promotes trade with developing nations by providing for 
nonreciprocal duty-free tariff treatment of certain products 
originating in those countries. The program helps beneficiary countries 
advance their economic development and encourages them to move toward 
more open economies and eliminate trade barriers to U.S. exports.
  The GSP does more than provide assistance in the developing world; it 
also assists hundreds of businesses here in the United States. Across 
our country, manufacturers and importers benefit by receiving inputs 
and raw materials at a lower cost. Approximately

[[Page 6694]]

three-quarters of U.S. imports under GSP are raw materials--parts and 
components--or machinery and equipment used by U.S. companies to 
manufacture goods here at home.
  Unfortunately, because the program expired in 2013, many U.S. 
businesses have had to deal with high tariffs on these imports for the 
last 2 years. As an example, last year alone, without the GSP program 
in place, American companies paid over $600 million in tariffs. 
Businesses in every State have been affected by the expiration of GSP 
and have a vested interest in the renewal of the program. There are 
businesses in my own home State of Utah and around the country that 
have been left with difficult decisions about downsizing, hiring 
freezes, and employee layoffs in the absence of GSP. Today, with the 
passage of this bill, we will take a long-overdue step toward solving 
these problems.
  Also included in the preferences bill are provisions for the long-
term renewal of the AGOA Program, which encourages African countries to 
further develop their economies by lowering U.S. tariffs on their 
exports. Since AGOA was enacted in the year 2000, trade with 
beneficiary countries has more than tripled, with U.S. direct 
investment growing more than sixfold in that time.
  This program has helped create more than a million jobs in Sub-
Saharan Africa. I worked with my colleagues on the Committee on Finance 
to craft reauthorization language that will improve on AGOA's past 
success, to remove obstacles to trade in Sub-Saharan Africa and allow 
both that region and our job creators here at home to benefit from 
expanded market access.
  I share many of my colleagues' belief that benefits under AGOA should 
go to countries making good-faith progress toward meeting the program's 
eligibility criteria. For example, I am very concerned that officers in 
the Republic of South Africa recently indicated they will attempt to 
renegotiate commitments made under the General Agreement on Trade in 
Services to require foreign-owned companies to relinquish 51 percent 
ownership and control to South Africans.
  South Africa also developed a draft policy that proposed changes to 
intellectual property rights laws which contained significant 
shortcomings, including inadequate protections for patents, trademarks, 
and copyrights. These are three areas I take a tremendous interest in, 
among so many other things around here. I hope very much that as they 
redraft this policy, it will include recognition of how important 
protection of intellectual property is to supporting economic growth.
  But it is not just South Africa. For example, I understand other 
beneficiaries under the program continue to impose barriers and 
limitations to cross-border data flow or otherwise limit digital trade. 
Because of these concerns, we thought it was important to create a 
mechanism under the AGOA Program which would allow for benefits to be 
scaled back if a country is found to not be making good-faith progress 
on these and other issues. That new tool is included in the bill, and 
we expect the administration to use this tool aggressively, 
particularly in the case of South Africa.
  The legislation also includes new consultation and notification 
requirements, keeping Congress informed of beneficiaries' progress.
  There are new mechanisms for stakeholders to petition the 
administration to raise awareness about potential eligibility 
violations. The bill will require these petitions to be taken into 
account when determinations are made regarding a beneficiary's status 
and in regular reporting.
  I know the AGOA Program has a lot of support here in Congress among 
Members of both parties. I think we were able to craft a bill that not 
only provides for the long-term extension of the program the 
administration was seeking but also responds to some very serious 
bilateral trade challenges we are facing today. With these changes, we 
have created a more flexible program we believe will spur greater 
development and economic integration and opportunity in the region, 
while better serving the needs of our job creators here at home. I 
believe it deserves strong support.
  Finally, the preferences bill would also extend preferential access 
to the U.S. market for Haiti. Haiti is one of the poorest economies in 
the Western Hemisphere. The Haiti preference program supports well-
paying, stable jobs in a country saddled with poverty and unemployment. 
I hope this extension will encourage continued economic development and 
support democracy in Haiti.
  This is a strong preferences bill. I expect a strong vote in favor of 
passing it later today.
  Next, the Senate will vote on the Trade Facilitation and Trade 
Enforcement Act of 2015, which includes important provisions to 
reauthorize and modernize the operations of Customs and Border 
Protection, or CBP, and significantly improve intellectual property 
rights protection in the United States and around the world.
  The Customs bill will facilitate the efficient movement of 
merchandise destined for the United States by formalizing in statute 
programs such as the Centers of Excellence and Expertise. It will also 
ensure that U.S. customs and trade laws are uniformly implemented 
nationwide and help ensure that the private sector and CBP work 
together.
  With this bill, we will also ensure that the automated commercial 
environment and the international data system are completed so that 
trade documentation can finally be submitted electrically and importers 
will no longer be required to submit the same information to numerous 
government agencies.
  In addition, the bill will modernize the drawback process by moving 
from a labor-intensive paper-based system to an electronic claims 
process that will significantly free up resources in the private and 
the public sector, and it will increase the de minimis level from $200 
to $800, reducing needless burdens on small businesses importing into 
the United States.
  Additionally, the bill strengthens our trade remedy laws and our 
ability to respond to imports that pose a threat to the health or 
safety of U.S. consumers.
  When drafting this customs legislation, I was particularly interested 
in beefing up our enforcement of intellectual property rights. The bill 
includes the strongest possible provisions with regard to intellectual 
property rights and intellectual property rights enforcement. For 
example, our bill will establish in law the National Intellectual 
Property Rights Coordination Center to coordinate Federal efforts to 
prevent intellectual property violations. It will also significantly 
expand CBP's tools and authorities to protect intellectual property 
rights at the border by requiring CBP to share information about 
suspected infringing merchandise with rights holders.
  Our bill will provide CBP with explicit authority to seize and 
forfeit devices that violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act--an 
act I put through a number of years ago--and require CBP to share 
information with rights holders who are injured by these unlawful 
devices.
  The bill contains provisions to establish a process for CBP to 
enforce copyrights while registration with the copyright office is 
pending and to significantly improve CBP's reporting requirements to 
hold the Agency more accountable for its enforcement efforts with 
regard to intellectual property.
  The bill will strengthen CBP's targeting of goods that violate 
intellectual property rights, improve CBP's cooperation with the 
private sector and with foreign customs authorities on enforcement, and 
require an educational campaign at the border. I am particularly fond 
of that last part. At my insistence, the bill includes provisions that 
will require all versions of the Customs Declaration Form that everyone 
fills out when they enter the United States to contain a warning that 
importation of goods that infringe on intellectual property rights may 
violate criminal and/or civil law and may pose serious risks to health 
and safety. I am not sure most Americans appreciate the danger that 
counterfeit

[[Page 6695]]

products can pose, as they often are not built to the same standard of 
the protected product. So I hope making people more aware of these 
dangers will help us make sure we are doing all we can to keep 
Americans safe.
  In addition to enhancing protection at our borders, our Customs bill 
will provide USTR with additional tools to improve the protection of 
intellectual property rights by our trading partners overseas in order 
to stop infringing goods at the source. For example, the bill will 
establish a chief innovation and intellectual property negotiator, with 
the rank of ambassador, to ensure that intellectual property rights 
protection is at the forefront of our trade negotiation and enforcement 
efforts and to enhance USTR's accountability to Congress on these 
issues. On top of that, the bill will give USTR more tools to increase 
enforcement for trade secrets and to ensure that countries that 
consistently fail to protect intellectual property meet specified 
benchmarks for improvement.
  I am a big fan of this bill. It includes a number of my top trade 
enforcement priorities, and I am very glad we will get a chance to vote 
on it today. Of course, it is not perfect. Some of the amendments that 
were added in committee leave me with some reservations. Most notably, 
the bill now contains provisions that purport to deal with currency 
manipulation that are, in my view, very problematic. One provision sets 
up an avenue for a countervailing duty investigation or review to 
determine whether some measure of a currency manipulation is 
effectively a subsidy, either ``directly or indirectly'' to a country's 
exports. If the government finds that the manipulation is, once again, 
either ``directly or indirectly,'' an export subsidy, sanctions can 
follow. This provision is problematic for a number of reasons.
  First of all, it is likely not compliant with our existing 
international trade commitments. It would effectively require the 
imposition of trade sanctions that, under the language of the 
legislation, could be based on presumptions without support. And it 
will almost certainly invite retaliatory trade sanctions from our 
trading partners, who will argue, and in fact have already argued, that 
actions taken by the Federal Reserve Board constitute currency 
manipulation.
  While the authors of the currency manipulation provision in the 
Customs bill may believe that there is a clear delineation between 
monetary policies used primarily for domestic economic stabilization 
and policies used to gain a trade advantage, there is not.
  When Japan engages in quantitative easing to boost its economy and 
inflation expectations, sometimes at the very urging of U.S. officials, 
is that manipulation?
  When the Federal Reserve engages in quantitative easing, with part of 
the expected benefit being downward exchange rate pressure and boosted 
exports, is that manipulation, or just domestic stabilization?
  Is Germany's persistent trade surplus somehow partially caused by 
ongoing quantitative easing activities at the European Central Bank?
  And, with respect to detection, despite the intent of the authors of 
this provision, accuracy is evidently not a concern.
  I am sure that everyone--or at least those who support this 
provision--has looked at the recent exchange rate assessments for 2013 
from the International Monetary Fund External Sector Report.
  For Japan, one IMF method suggested 15-percent yen overvaluation, 
while another method suggested 15-percent undervaluation. Yet under the 
currency manipulation provision in this bill, IMF models and methods 
are what we are supposed to use to set trade sanctions.
  For South Korea, the two IMF methodologies suggested undervaluation 
between around 7 percent and 20 percent. So when we want to set a 
punitive countervailing duty, what are our authorities supposed to do? 
Should they assume that South Korea benefited from currency 
undervaluation of 7 percent or 20 percent or some random number in 
between? Who knows.
  This provision, unfortunately, simply won't work, since it assumes 
the existence of accurate knowledge and abilities to determine some 
fundamental equilibrium exchange rates that the IMF and the economics 
profession simply do not have.
  Under the questionable provision of the bill that allows for 
investigation of currency undervaluation and potential ensuing trade 
actions, I believe the authors of the provision were overly heroic and 
mistaken in their belief about the precision of currency valuation 
methodology. The provision would appeal to models and methodologies, as 
described in IMF documents.
  The problem is that even the IMF does not use those models and 
methodologies to make definitive judgments about appropriate currency 
values, which are inherently some of the most difficult things for 
economic models to identify. It would not be difficult for our trading 
partners to use precisely the same models and methodologies to make 
countervailing cases against Federal Reserve monetary policy, resulting 
in retaliatory trade sanctions and perhaps defensive currency 
interventions.
  This is a clear road to trade wars and currency wars replete with 
competitive devaluations. Such a road is paved by the offending 
provision in the Customs bill, which basically gives our trading 
partners a template for their own accusations about currency 
manipulation and ensuing trade sanctions. This is problematic.
  And while Senators in this Chamber would like to simply decree that 
our monetary policies are just domestic economic stabilization, while 
foreign monetary policies that may look similar are manipulation, such 
self-evaluations will not be acceptable in international trade and 
agreements.
  I understand the desire among many of my colleagues to address 
currency manipulation, and I want to work with them on this issue. But 
I am convinced that the currency manipulation provision in the Customs 
bill simply will not work, and, when tried, it will simply give 
ammunition to our trading partners to consider engagement in trade 
wars, currency wars, competitive devaluations, and beggar-thy-neighbor 
monetary policies. This isn't what we should be shooting for with our 
Nation's trade policy.
  In addition to the currency language, there was another provision 
added during the markup that would require employers to report 
occupational classification data to State agencies when filing their 
quarterly wage reports. This is an entirely new burden that would be 
placed on employers throughout the country, added to all the other 
reporting burdens they already face, and would require brand new 
systems for reporting and collecting information. And in the end, it is 
not readily apparent just how valuable this new collected information 
will be.
  According to CBO, this new requirement would cost employers 
throughout the country more than $200 million between 2016 and 2020. 
Now, that may not seem like much compared to the numbers that get 
thrown around here in the Senate. But when we are talking about small 
businesses who struggle from month to month to cover their payrolls, it 
is a burden that, at least to me, doesn't appear to be necessary.
  So once again, I am concerned about this provision and the impact it 
might have. However, despite the reservations I have about the flawed 
currency manipulation concepts and language and the unfunded mandate on 
employers, I believe it is important that we vote to move the Customs 
bill forward. Overall, this is a very good bill. A lot of work has gone 
into it, and I know that it reflects the priorities of a number of our 
colleagues and Members here in the Senate, including myself. That being 
the case, I plan to vote in favor of passing this legislation later on 
today, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Once again, I am very glad to see that we are making progress on 
moving these bills through the Senate. I wish to thank all of my 
colleagues--particularly those on the Finance Committee--who worked so 
hard on these bills to get them to this point.
  These are important votes we are going to take today. I expect that 
both of these bills will receive broad bipartisan support, and I hope 
they will.

[[Page 6696]]

  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


         Remembering the Victims of the Amtrak Train Derailment

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before I address the matter at hand, I 
want to say that our hearts go out to the families of the men and women 
who lost their lives as a result of the Amtrak derailment last Tuesday. 
There are many still fighting injuries, and our thoughts and prayers 
are with them and their loved ones.
  This was a commuter train. I have ridden it personally hundreds of 
times, and it is one my colleagues have ridden.
  It was a train full of people on their way home--to their families, 
to their loved ones, to the things they like to do. So our thoughts go 
out to all of them.
  It will be our job as lawmakers to analyze why this happened, how we 
could have prevented it, and how we can best move forward to ensure 
such a tragedy is not repeated. Some of this is already underway. But 
the more pressing task in this moment of tragedy is for us to show 
solidarity with the victims and their families, and recognize their 
contributions--however large or small--to our national story.
  New York lost a few native sons and daughters:
  Abid Gilani, a senior vice president of Wells Fargo and a father of 
two.
  Rachel Jacobs, an industry leader in her field, was heading home to 
her husband and 2-year-old son as CEO of a new job at an educational 
software company.
  Jim Gaines, a software architect for the Associated Press, a beloved 
member of the staff, who was heading home to Plainsboro, NJ, to see his 
wife, 16-year-old son, and 11-year-old daughter.
  We lost Dr. Derrick Griffith, a dean of student affairs at Medgar 
Evers College in Brooklyn, just a stone's throw away from where I live. 
He spent his entire adult life working to improve urban education.
  And we lost a young man named Justin Zemser, who lived in Rockaway, 
in my old congressional district, and was studying at the U.S. Naval 
Academy. He was a tremendous young man--and I know that because I 
nominated him to the Naval Academy.
  He was a valedictorian, an earnest big brother and mentor to two 
children with autism, as well as being captain of the varsity football 
team. His family mourns his loss and so does America. He would have 
done so much for our country.
  Today, let us remember them. Tomorrow, let us work together so that 
their loss is not in vain.
  Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Customs 
bill before this body, particularly because of the strong language it 
contains on the crackdown on currency manipulation.
  I have spoken many times on this subject in the Finance Committee and 
here on the floor because I am passionate about finally passing 
enforceable mechanisms for dealing with this malicious trade tactic. 
Why? Because I am deeply concerned by the plight of the middle class in 
today's economy, where globalization and free-trade agreements have 
accelerated a downward pressure on middle-class wages and forced entire 
industries to relocate to low-wage countries.
  And I believe currency manipulation is one of the most significant 
emerging trade challenges this country faces, because it directly 
impacts wages and it directly impacts jobs.
  As this Congress is soon to reengage on a fast-track for a massive 
free-trade agreement, now is the time to think deeply and 
comprehensively about our country's trade policy and how it impacts the 
broad middle of our economy.
  To me and many of my colleagues, it does not make sense to move 
forward on the one hand with a blank check for free trade without 
passing strong worker protections on a parallel track. The global 
economy is a rough sea. We should not pass a trade package that forces 
the American worker to navigate those waters with a leaky boat and a 
deflated lifejacket.
  So to me and to many of my colleagues, this Customs bill and the 
currency manipulation issue is unquestionably germane to the larger 
debate on trade. If the goal of TPP is to lure countries away from 
China, it makes perfect sense that, as part of the overall effort with 
TPP, we also go after Chinese currency manipulation, as well.
  But beyond the question of relevance to this debate--which I believe 
is dispatched easily--this bill is substantively good trade policy. It 
contains several smart, balanced, effective measures to create a level 
playing field with our international trading partners.
  First and foremost, currency manipulation is finally attacked head-
on. Companies have asked me about this. CEOs of major companies have 
said to me: We cannot compete if we have one hand tied behind our back, 
which currency manipulation does.
  Mr. President, may I ask my colleague a question, the ranking member?
  How much time do you wish?
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague. I will be very brief.
  Mr. SCHUMER. How much time is left for the minority?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Seven?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Would you please notify me when I have taken 3 more 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Big companies have been hurt. Small companies have been 
hurt. We have lost millions of jobs because of currency manipulation, 
which makes the exports from China and other countries about 33 percent 
cheaper and imports from America to China 33 percent more expensive.
  I would say this: China seems to feel they can get away with any kind 
of trade misdeed, whether it is stealing intellectual property by cyber 
security or any other means, whether it is keeping out the best of 
American products, which they do until they can learn how to make them 
themselves in their protected market and then fight us everywhere else.
  This currency bill will finally be the first real shot across the bow 
to China that you cannot keep getting away from it. Their unfair trade 
practices hurt us in low-wage industries that were very important--
shoes, clothing, toys, furniture. Those industries have already 
suffered. But if we do nothing, it will be the cream of American 
industry where our innovation and hard work is lost to China through 
unfair means, currency and other, whether it is tech or 
pharmaceuticals. Talk to the CEOs of these companies, and they will 
tell you China does not play fair. Talk to them, and they will tell you 
that the Chinese shrug their shoulders at what we have done up until 
now. We must do something--if not in the TPA bill, alongside it--that 
shows China once and for all they cannot get away with it. I fear that 
if we do not, in 10 years we will be saying the same thing about the 
industries that we say today. The customs measure, currency measure is 
bipartisan. The currency measure passed our committee with an 
overwhelming bipartisan vote, 18 to 8, and was supported by our ranking 
member, which I most appreciate. It passed the Senate in 2011 with 63 
votes. It passed the House of Representatives with 348 votes. And a 
year and a half ago, in 2013, 60 Senators sent a letter to the 
President imploring the inclusion of enforceable currency provisions.
  In conclusion, we have to think about the big picture when it comes 
to trade policy. If we move the ledger on one side, opening up our 
markets in foreign markets, we better make sure we adequately move the 
ledger on the other side to protect our workers, curb unfair deceptive 
practices, and give our small businesses the ability to compete in a 
global economy.
  The fate of middle-class wages, middle-class jobs, and the very 
economy of this country hang in the balance. I

[[Page 6697]]

urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I wish 
to also note that Senator Schumer has provided leadership on another 
very important enforcement issue. He introduced the committee to 
something a number of years ago known as honey laundering. What this 
involved was, in effect, we set up a sting operation. In particular, 
with respect to Senator Schumer's constituents and his interest in 
tough enforcement of the trade laws, the Chinese, as my colleagues will 
recall, were found guilty of unfair trading practices. In effect, they 
would just ship honey through other countries, such as Indonesia.
  I want my colleague to know I am going to continue to work with him 
on a variety of issues.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator. If I might, I thank the Senator for 
the great job he has done under very difficult circumstances. I think 
everyone on both sides of the aisle appreciates Senator Wyden's 
intelligence, his bipartisanship, and his steadfastness.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator.
  I am going to wrap up as we move to this first vote in a few minutes 
and come back to what this debate is all about. We are starting, of 
course, with the issue of trade enforcement, but the big challenge is 
to show this country that we are putting in place a modern trade 
policy, a trade policy that sets aside once and for all the NAFTA 
playbook of the 1990s. This overall package will usher in a new and 
modern American trade policy. It must start with a tough, robust, 
effective trade enforcement package, many of the details of which I 
have outlined here this morning.
  It is time also--and this will be part of our early work--to upgrade 
and renew our trade preference programs. The businesses and workers who 
rely on these programs are waiting for this Congress to act.
  The first of these proposals enhances and extends the African Growth 
and Opportunity Act, referred to as AGOA. This has been the core of a 
close economic partnership between our country and a host of African 
nations for more than a decade. The proposal before the Senate will 
update that partnership in a way that is positive for all involved.
  Back in the 1990s--once again returning to this theme, the NAFTA 
era--the United States had no meaningful trade policies to help African 
nations facing profound economic hardship climb back from the brink. 
This renewal of the AGOA law takes the program to the next level. AGOA 
will be simpler for businesses to use. There will be less redtape to 
worry about. African countries will be encouraged to zero in on 
strategies that can make the program more effective. It will be easier 
for the United States to crack down on the bad actors and verify that 
countries stay strictly in line with the criteria for eligibility. Most 
importantly, the proposal gives all concerned--workers, businesses, 
countries, and investors--a decade of certainty.
  I am a real fan of this program. I believe it works for our country, 
for Sub-Saharan Africa, and it ought to be a cornerstone of our 
economic policy in the region.
  The second part of this package of programs renews the program known 
as the generalized system of preferences. This is an economic win-win 
because it is a shot in the arm for developing countries, and it is a 
major boost for American manufacturers, including hundreds of them in 
my home State. One of those businesses in Oregon is Stackhouse Athletic 
in Salem, which will not only be able to create new jobs, they will be 
able to offer health benefits to their workers.
  The extension of GSP will save American businesses an estimated $2 
million a day by reducing tariffs. The GSP program expired nearly 2 
years ago. As a result, businesses in my home State of Oregon paid an 
extra $4.9 million in tariffs. Renewing GSP would correct that issue 
and support as many as 80,000 jobs with manufacturers, ports, farmers, 
and retail stores. That program would be extended by this legislation 
through 2017.
  Finally, the Senate has an opportunity with this legislation to 
reaffirm our economic commitment to Haiti, one of our closest and most 
disadvantaged neighbors in the world. In my view, Senator Nelson of 
Florida has done very important work in this area. He has been our 
leader on this issue, and there is bipartisan understanding that now is 
the right time to extend the Haiti trade preferences to line them up 
with AGOA. These Haiti preferences also did not exist in the NAFTA era. 
Together, they support as many as 30,000 jobs in that country, and they 
help to drive investment and lift Haiti's economy in the long term.
  I am confident the Senate will come together to extend this package 
of preference programs because they make economic sense for America, 
and they strengthen our ties with the developing countries around the 
world.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation with our first vote.
  I will close by saying that today we begin to turn the corner on a 
fresh, modern trade policy for the times, a policy very different from 
the trade policy of the 1990s, the NAFTA era. Let's begin this effort--
begin this effort--for a new 21st-century trade policy by passing the 
legislation we will be considering shortly, both parts.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAPO. 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. Under the previous order, the clerk will now 
read the bills, as amended, for the third time.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bills to be read 
a third time.
  The bills were read the third time.


                           Vote on H.R. 1295

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, H.R. 1295, pass?
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. 
Sullivan).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 178 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Lankford
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cassidy
     Sullivan
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 60-vote threshold having been achieved,

[[Page 6698]]

the bill, H.R. 1295, as amended, is passed.
  Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made 
and laid upon the table.


                            Vote on H.R. 644

  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill, H.R. 644, pass?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. 
Sullivan).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 179 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Crapo
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--20

     Alexander
     Coats
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cruz
     Daines
     Flake
     Gardner
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Lee
     McCain
     Moran
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Shelby
     Tillis
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cassidy
     Sullivan
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, 
the bill, H.R. 644, as amended, is passed.
  Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made 
and laid upon the table.

                          ____________________