[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7690-7701]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       ENSURING TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1314, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1314) 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.

  Pending:


[[Page 7691]]

       Hatch amendment No. 1221, in the nature of a substitute.
       Hatch (for Flake) amendment No. 1243 (to amendment No. 
     1221), to strike the extension of the trade adjustment 
     assistance program.
       Hatch (for Inhofe/Coons) modified amendment No. 1312 (to 
     amendment No. 1221), to amend the African Growth and 
     Opportunity Act to require the development of a plan for each 
     sub-Saharan African country for negotiating and entering into 
     free trade agreements.
       Hatch (for McCain) amendment No. 1226 (to amendment No. 
     1221), to repeal a duplicative inspection and grading 
     program.
       Stabenow (for Portman) amendment No. 1299 (to amendment No. 
     1221), to make it a principal negotiating objective of the 
     United States to address currency manipulation in trade 
     agreements.
       Brown amendment No. 1251 (to amendment No. 1221), to 
     require the approval of Congress before additional countries 
     may join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
       Wyden (for Shaheen) amendment No. 1227 (to amendment No. 
     1221), to make trade agreements work for small businesses.
       Wyden (for Warren) amendment No. 1327 (to amendment No. 
     1221), to prohibit the application of the trade authorities 
     procedures to an implementing bill submitted with respect to 
     a trade agreement that includes investor-state dispute 
     settlement.
       Hatch modified amendment No. 1411 (to the language proposed 
     to be stricken by amendment No. 1299), of a perfecting 
     nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senate will shortly vote on cloture on 
the Hatch substitute amendment, legislation to renew trade promotion 
authority and trade adjustment assistance. I know some of my colleagues 
have concerns about the process. Let me say that I also share those 
concerns.
  From the very beginning of our discussions over 3 years ago on the 
renewal of TPA, I have done all I could to listen to all of my 
colleagues and address their concerns.
  I first worked with Chairman Baucus to find a way to update TPA in a 
way that addresses many of the issues that have arisen since 2002, 
including concerns over labor and the environment.
  When Senator Wyden became chairman of the Finance Committee, I again 
went to the negotiating table to try to address many of the 
transparency and procedural issues he raised, and we again came to a 
bipartisan compromise.
  When many of my Senate colleagues said renewal of TAA was a necessary 
component to passing TPA, I again did my best to meet those concerns, 
even though I myself have significant reservations about the program.
  Throughout the Finance Committee consideration, I tried to conduct an 
open and fair process, which allowed many Members of the committee, 
even those who opposed TPA, the opportunity to be heard and to have 
their amendments adopted. As a result, the committee reported out four 
pieces of trade legislation, all with strong bipartisan support.
  I will acknowledge that the process on the floor has not gone the way 
any of us would like. At the outset of this endeavor, I stated my 
commitment to a full, fair, and open debate over our TPA legislation. 
The majority leader made a similar commitment, and I know that was our 
intention. Indeed, from the very beginning, we had planned to hear 
everyone's arguments and consider a number of amendments.
  This is how the Senate is supposed to function. Once again, we 
intended to let it function that way. Unfortunately, there were some 
who did not want to let that happen. They were, from the very 
beginning, committed to slow-walking this process and preventing 
regular order. That is just a fact.
  I know there are some who want to blame the majority leader for 
filing cloture and trying to move this process forward. I am sure some 
are thinking of voting against cloture this morning in protest. That 
would be a grave mistake.
  Let me remind my colleagues that we tried to move to the bill at the 
beginning of last week. I know, after the many recent long days on the 
floor, that seems like a long time ago, but I think everyone here can 
recall what happened.
  We attempted to get on the bill, and we were prevented from doing so. 
After we found a way to address our colleagues' concerns, we were 
finally able to begin debate on the TPA bill, but even then the process 
was slow-going.
  As debate began, the majority leader attempted to keep the Senate 
open on Friday and into the weekend to allow Senators to debate and 
offer amendments. However, the Senate minority leader objected, which 
prevented the process from moving forward and set us back even further.
  Then, we came to this week and debate finally began in earnest. 
Shortly thereafter, a new strategy emerged, wholly supported by the 
opponents of TPA. The strategy has been simple: Prevent any amendments 
from being called up and object to any and all unanimous consent 
requests.
  I have been here on the floor all week, and I have witnessed 
firsthand the deployment of this plan to frustrate the process and to 
prevent a full and fair debate on trade policy. Now here we are facing 
a cloture vote and the prospect of cutting off debate. It is 
unfortunate that it has come to this, but given the total lack of 
cooperation we faced and continue to face on this bill, this is really 
the only option left.
  Invoking cloture is not the end. If we can get agreement with our 
colleagues, I expect there will still be opportunities to call up and 
vote on amendments, but we cannot just sit around and wait for 
solutions to come together on their own.
  If any Senator has a proposal for a path forward that will reasonably 
satisfy the various demands and objections that have been raised and 
allow us to break the logjam on amendments, I am all ears. Until then, 
our only choice is to press forward. We could extend this debate 
forever and still not satisfy every demand; there is no question about 
that. But this bill is far too important.
  I have done all I can to address legitimate concerns, and as a 
result, the bill is supported by me, Chairman Ryan from the House Ways 
and Means Committee, Ranking Member Wyden from the Finance Committee, 
and, most importantly, the President of the United States.
  Let's be real here. We need to get this bill passed. Just this 
morning, I read that a ministerial that was to begin this month has 
been canceled, in large part due to the fact that Congress has not 
approved this bill.
  Our Nation's economic health and prestige are on the line here today. 
The TPA bill is the only way Congress can effectively assert its 
priorities in our ongoing trade negotiations. It is the only way we can 
ensure that our trade negotiators can reach good deals with our trading 
partners. It is the only way we can ensure that our pending trade 
agreements even have a shot at reaching the finish line.
  As I have stated many times here on the floor this week, I am well 
aware that some of our colleagues here in the Senate oppose this bill 
outright and will do everything in their power to keep it from passing. 
As much as I have tried to change hearts and minds on these issues, 
there is very little I can do about that. But I also know that there is 
a bipartisan majority of Senators who support TPA and who, despite 
concerns about process, want to get this done. We are still in a 
position to reach a positive outcome on this bill.
  I said at the beginning of this debate that this was quite possibly 
the most important debate we will have this year in Congress. It is 
President Obama's top legislative priority. It is a very high priority 
for many of us in Congress. On the substance, this is a good TPA bill, 
one Senators from both parties can support. It needs to pass. We need 
to pass it for the American workers who want good, high-paying jobs. We 
need to pass it for our farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and 
entrepreneurs who need access to foreign markets in order to compete. 
We need to pass it to maintain our standing in the world and continue 
to advance American values and interests on the world stage. We need to 
pass it to demonstrate to the American people that despite our many 
disagreements, their elected representatives are capable of addressing 
important issues and solving real problems.
  There is a path forward here, one that will still allow us to be 
successful,

[[Page 7692]]

but in order to get there, we need Senators to support cloture this 
morning.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on cloture. It is 
crucial, it is of paramount concern, and it is something very highly 
wished for by the President of the United States and by a bipartisan 
majority in this body.
  I hope we will vote yes on cloture here today.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Presiding Officer for giving me the 
opportunity to share some remarks.
  I do believe Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden allowed a good debate in 
the committee. Unfortunately, we have not been able to have the kinds 
of amendments here on the floor that they allowed in the committee, so 
we are moving to this massive bill with very little debate, even on the 
fast-track policy. If that is adopted and TPP appears before us here on 
the floor, there will be no amendments on it.
  In a few moments, we will vote on whether to shut off debate on the 
fast-track authority legislation. I see no reason that we have to rush 
this.
  I will just note that we have the highway bill expiring, and we have 
the PATRIOT Act expiring. Those are crises which need to be dealt with 
this week. This bill does not have to be done in that fashion.
  This will be a crucial vote. Fast-track is an affirmative decision by 
Congress to suspend several of its most basic powers for the next 6 
years and to delegate those powers to the Chief Executive.
  Under the fast-track procedure, the President, not Congress, writes 
implementing legislation for any yet-unseen global trade pact. That 
legislation, no matter its contents, cannot be amended in any fashion. 
No individual Member of Congress can alter any line of text or remove a 
single provision that violates the will of Congress. That legislation, 
once called up, is guaranteed a speedy path forward--only 20 hours of 
debate--and the vote threshold is lowered to a simple majority. No 
matter how far-reaching the global trade agreement, Congress cannot 
subject it to the 60 votes applied to important legislation before the 
Senate or the 67 votes applied to treaties, as it really should be. 
Congress will have preapproved swift consideration of sweeping global 
pacts before the text has been made available and seen by a single 
Member of this body or the American people.
  As usual through these processes--and too often--amendments are being 
constricted and blocked through one maneuver or another. The net result 
is we are coming down to a cloture vote without any amendments having 
been voted on.
  Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I sent a letter to the President of the 
United States asking how fast-track and the vast Trans-Pacific 
Partnership would impact the jobs and wages of American workers. It is 
a simple question. Would it increase or reduce manufacturing jobs and 
wages in the United States? Shouldn't we know that? Is that an improper 
question to ask? He has refused to answer. I think the reason he has 
refused to answer is because the answer is not good and will not be 
well received. They want us to shut off debate and move forward without 
having these fundamental questions answered.
  For too long, the United States has entered into trade deals on the 
promise of economic bounty, only to see workers impoverished and 
businesses disappear. Dan DiMicco, the chairman Emeritus of Nucor 
Steel, explains that this is because these free-trade deals have not 
been free-trade deals at all. Instead, they have been ``unilateral 
trade disarmament,'' where we lower our barriers to foreign imports but 
they retain their barriers to our exports to those countries. This is 
what is fundamentally at stake here. A lot of people, in their 
religious view of free trade, don't care whether other countries have 
barriers. Their view is that we should welcome more imports. Mr. 
DiMicco has called this the ``enablement of foreign mercantilism,'' a 
philosophy of trade that is too often present around the world and 
certainly in the Asian sector.
  Consider this in the context of automobiles. The Wall Street Journal 
published a story 2 days ago about how the American auto sector could 
be jeopardized by TPP. The Journal wrote:

       In the transportation sector, led by cars, the TPP could 
     boost imports by an extra $30.8 billion by 2025, compared 
     with an exports gain of $7.8 billion.

  So the imports of automobiles would increase by $30.8 billion and our 
exports would increase by only $7.8 billion. That was a study written 
by Peter Petri, professor of international finance at Brandeis 
University.
  Well, having dramatically more imports than exports is not going to 
add jobs. Perhaps that is why we cannot get an answer. In other words, 
job-killing imports would vastly exceed any growth in foreign exports, 
thereby putting more Americans out of work.
  We have seen this story before. The South Korea trade deal--and I 
supported that. I have great respect for the South Korean and the 
Japanese business acumen. But the South Korean trade deal, which was 
supposed to boost our exports by more than $10 billion, actually ended 
up increasing our exports less than $1 billion. If truth be known, it 
was $0.8 billion. Instead, the deal boosted South Korean imports to our 
country by more than $12 billion and nearly doubled the trade gap 
between our two nations, which was already large.
  They say: Well, this time it is different. Trust us. Give us 6 more 
years of executive authority to pass any global deal we like under 
fast-track. No deal has ever been blocked.
  Well, respectfully, the American people don't trust you. Here is what 
the Pew Poll reported recently: Twenty percent of Americans think these 
trade agreements create jobs and 50 percent say it destroys jobs.
  Have we been adding jobs in manufacturing or losing jobs in 
manufacturing? We have been losing jobs in manufacturing. Are the 
American people so wrong in that conclusion? Forty-five percent of 
Americans think trade reduces wages; only 17 percent say it increases 
them. By contrast, 72 percent of Vietnamese believe this trade 
agreement would increase their salaries.
  Because TPP is a living agreement, it can be changed after adoption. 
It says in the language of the agreement where it has this living 
agreement language that this is unprecedented. This is the first time 
this has been put in a trade agreement. The Congressional Research 
Service tells us that, too.
  We are now creating a foreign international entity--one more 
international entity--with a commission that meets and votes and makes 
decisions that are binding on the United States of America. Frankly, I 
think this great Nation is exposing itself to too many of these 
agreements. Tying down the ability of the world's greatest power and 
economic engine, the United States, is weakening our ability to 
function in a way that sovereignty should allow us to function. 
Dangerously, this agreement creates a new governing global authority 
that would add new members of their choice, change the terms of the 
agreement, and even subject U.S. citizens to its ruling--adjudicated in 
an international tribunal.
  It is time for Congress to defend its shareholders--our 
shareholders--the American people. It is time to return to the regular 
order and to the principles of sound governance and to assert, not 
surrender, the power of Congress to the overreaching Chief Executive. I 
am therefore going to oppose shutting off debate that actually has not 
even begun.
  I am frustrated that two of my reasonable amendments that I think 
would have had a very good chance of passing have been blocked and 
apparently will not get a vote. I don't think we have any need to shut 
off the debate today and to advance to a bill where we have had too few 
amendments and where we have had a steadfast refusal by the President 
of the United States, who is pushing every way he can to get this 
agreement adopted, until he answers the question: Will it improve 
manufacturing or further reduce manufacturing, as our previous 
agreement

[[Page 7693]]

with South Korea did? It reduced manufacturing. Will it increase jobs 
or reduce jobs? All they promised--and they promised this repeatedly--
is that it will increase jobs in the export sector. They don't say what 
it will do on net, when we have three, four times as many imports as we 
do exports, on net. As in the past, it appears this agreement will 
clearly reduce jobs and reduce wages as well, and reduce manufacturing.
  We can't have a strong nation without a manufacturing sector--we just 
cannot. We can't be a strong nation without a steel industry--we just 
cannot. We need to ensure in these trade agreements--when we open our 
markets, what these countries want so desperately is access to the U.S. 
market. That is something of great value. We should not give it away 
until they agree to open their markets. That is what a good deal is. 
That is not what is in this deal, and it will not be in the agreement. 
It will be like previous agreements.
  Mr. President, how much time is left on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I don't see any others here. I will just discuss this a 
little bit more.
  When Mr. Damico, who has been involved in world trade competition for 
years, said we are enabling mercantilism, what he is saying is that our 
trading partners have a goal that we don't seem to have, and that is to 
maximize their exports and minimize their imports.
  They want access to the U.S. market. They have a mercantilist 
philosophy, and that is what it is, really. That philosophy allows them 
to put up nontrade barriers, nontariff barriers, to use currency 
manipulation and other tactics to make it difficult for the United 
States to penetrate their market. They say they have signed a trade 
agreement, and they will agree on tariffs, for example, but they still, 
on net, don't open their market as effectively as we open our markets. 
That is the reality.
  As a result, we have had a continual decline in manufacturing. We 
have seen a surge in our trade deficits. March was the highest trade 
deficit in almost a decade. The whole first quarter was horrible. Our 
trade deficits are increasing.
  If this agreement is passed, will it increase or decrease our trade 
deficits? Isn't that a fair question to ask? Will it increase or 
decrease our trade deficits? They will not answer. Unfortunately, the 
answer is it is going to increase our trade deficits. We know that. If 
it were not true, they would be hollering about how it is going to 
greatly reduce our trade deficits. They would be saying, on net, we are 
going to have more jobs. They would say wages would go up.
  The truth is we are not negotiating these agreements effectively, and 
the net result is it is going to weaken manufacturing, allow a 
reduction in jobs, and really put downward pressure on wages.
  I hate to have to oppose this legislation at this time, but I have 
come to that conclusion. I have supported most of the trade agreements 
in the past.
  I understand that we are in a global economy, and we have trading 
partners around the world. There is no way we are going to reverse 
that. Globalism is here to stay. We need to be a part of it. But it is 
time for our Nation to protect our manufacturing and our workers from 
unfair competition.
  We cannot take the view, as some do and say openly, that if our 
competitors manipulate their currency to make their products cheaper 
and they penetrate our market and close American businesses as a 
result--we cannot say: That is all right; we have cheaper products. 
Don't worry about it. In the long run, somewhere along the way, it will 
all work out.
  That is a guiding principle for the people pushing this legislation. 
They won't admit it, at least the politicians won't, publicly, but we 
know that is the guiding principle. I say that is a mistake. I say that 
is an extreme position. I say that we do have an interest in protecting 
our jobs, our manufacturing, and the ability of the American people to 
have a good job, to have a retirement plan, to have an insurance 
policy. I think that is important.
  So I urge that we back off this agreement now. Let's reevaluate it 
and have the President of the United States answer the question: Will 
we create higher wages or lower wages? Will we increase manufacturing 
or reduce manufacturing? Will we increase wages or not?
  I thank the Chair, and I reserve the remainder of the time on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I echo the words of Senator Sessions, my 
colleague from Alabama.
  These free-trade deals are not free trade. If they were free trade, 
they would be a couple of pages long that simply listed the tariffs 
that we are eliminating as incentives. Instead, these are a collection 
of special interest deals that take us somewhere else from where the 
proponents said they would.
  Senator Sessions said something interesting: This is really about 
jobs. They would be making claims about jobs. Instead, they make claims 
about geopolitics in China and all of that. That is fine, but there are 
certainly other ways to deal with that better than we have.
  We have seen big promises. We saw them from the first President Bush 
as he negotiated NAFTA. We saw them from President Clinton when he 
pushed NAFTA through Congress. We saw them from President Clinton on 
PNTR with China, which was not a trade deal but certainly acted like 
one in many ways in terms of what happened with China then. We saw them 
with the second President Bush with the Central America Free Trade 
Agreement. And we are seeing them now with President Obama and South 
Korea.
  On South Korea, President Obama's administration promised an increase 
of 70,000 jobs and promised wages would go up. They always say more 
jobs, higher wages, but then we ended up losing 75,000 jobs under the 
South Korea Free Trade Agreement.
  Today we are voting on whether to end debate on the fast-track bill. 
If people are a little confused, it is very understandable. We are 
going to end debate, but we have barely begun it.
  Historically, when we do trade agreements in this town--as bad as 
they have turned out to be for the American public and working families 
in places such as Reno and Cleveland, and smaller towns such as 
Mansfield and Lima, and really small towns such as Jackson, OH--when we 
passed these trade agreements, at least we have had open debate where 
we could offer amendments. The last time we did fast-track legislation 
on the Senate floor, there were 3 weeks of debate. This is about 3 
days. We considered 50 amendments. We have considered two so far.
  The majority leader came to the floor at the end of the first full 
day of debate and said we are filing cloture to shut down debate. At 
the end of the first full day of debate, they began the process of 
shutting down debate. The majority leader promised an open process.
  I don't get it when my Democratic colleagues--I guess I get it with 
the free-trade fundamentalists here and people who are not as 
independent as Senator Sessions and the total party loyalists who will 
always vote with their leadership. But I don't get it when Democrats in 
this body, who really do genuinely care about workers, as do many 
Republicans--why they are willing to shut down debate because the 
majority leader says let's shut down debate.
  We had two votes on Monday night and none since. Six amendments are 
pending, but votes for them haven't been scheduled. Two hundred 
amendments have been filed. At least 30 Senators have filed amendments 
and a number of Senators have filed multiple amendments. We have 200 
amendments filed and 2 votes and 6 amendments pending, even though the 
6 amendments that are pending don't have any schedule on how they are 
going to be dealt with. At least one of them has been second-degreed, 
basically obviating or taking away any ability to vote strictly on that 
amendment. We

[[Page 7694]]

had two votes on Monday night, no votes on this issue since, and as for 
the six amendments themselves, who knows how they are going to be 
disposed of. That is an open process?
  People on my side of the aisle are willing to vote to shut down 
debate when 25 of their Democratic colleagues and another--I don't 
know, a half dozen; I don't know how many Republicans--are also 
offering amendments. So 200 amendments have been filed by--I just found 
this. Forty-six Senators have actually filed 200 amendments on an issue 
we haven't considered in 13 years, and we are going to shut down debate 
at the end of the first full day of consideration.
  We had a truly open legislative process the last time we did it. I 
think it was a Republican Senate at the time. It was a very closely 
divided Senate. We have been promised repeatedly that is what this 
underlying bill deserves. It is what the American people deserve.
  Keep in mind this fast-track legislation means that we will be 
considering--it opens the process, opens the door to two trade 
agreements that encompass 60 percent of the world's economy. Forty 
percent of the world's economy is in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and 
an additional 20 percent with the United States and the European Union, 
the so-called TTIP agreement. Again, after two votes, the majority 
leader filed for cloture at the end of the first full day of debate.
  We are not being unreasonable. We have played this straight. We are 
simply asking for the Senate to debate this important legislation. I 
really don't understand how any Senator in either party, when half of 
the Senate has offered amendments--200 of them and counting and every 
day there are more amendments offered--how we can shut down debate when 
200 amendments have been filed by 46 Senators. We are simply asking for 
votes on our amendments. I don't care when we complete it. I don't care 
if we right now defeat cloture and then come up with some kind of a UC 
to give us votes on 25 or 50 of these amendments with time scheduled so 
we can finish. I don't care if we finish today or Friday or Saturday or 
Sunday or stay to Memorial Day or come back a week after Memorial Day 
and finish. It really doesn't matter about the time. I know a lot of my 
colleagues don't want to go home this week and have people who are 
angry because they know these trade agreements don't serve the public 
interest, and we know there are millions of Americans who have lost 
jobs because of decisions we make here.
  We make decisions here that throw people out of work. Even the Wall 
Street Journal editorial page, the greatest cheerleader--the most 
vigorous, vociferous cheerleader for free trade of any newspaper in the 
country, I believe--even they acknowledge that people are thrown out of 
work from trade agreements because of the dislocation. We are going to 
leave here and vote on this without even having amendments on how to 
take care of those workers and how to do trade enforcement. It simply 
doesn't make sense.
  Amendments such as the Brown-Portman Leveling the Playing Field Act 
amendment include much-needed trade enforcement provisions in this 
trade promotion bill. It was for all intents and purposes unanimously 
accepted in the Finance Committee. It has all kinds of Republican 
cosponsorships and all kinds of Democrat cosponsorships. My colleagues 
in the leadership in both parties, even though the leadership in both 
parties doesn't reflect the majority of the Members of both parties--
that is the way it is sometimes--but we are asking for a vote on that. 
We haven't been given that yet--an actual vote. There have been 
promises, but there has been nothing really substantive in the end.
  These provisions on a level playing field are supported by the White 
House and by House Republicans who have asked them to be included in 
fast-track. They are supported by numbers of U.S. industries that face 
an onslaught of unfairly traded imports and need our trade remedy laws 
to be as strong as possible.
  We are not debating the Brown-Portman amendment. We are not debating 
any amendments. We are simply rushing to conclude consideration of this 
fast-track bill.
  We are fast-tracking this whole idea of a fast-track process. Why is 
that good for our country or our workers or our small manufacturers and 
the supply chains of all of these big industries? Why is that good for 
our communities?
  We have waited 8 years, and this has to be done today. Eight years we 
have waited for this. We had one full day of debate. Then the majority 
leader shut down the debate, after one full day of debate.
  What we do in this fast-track bill will have implications for years 
to come. It will affect the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the 
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, both permanent trade 
agreements that represent more than half the world's economy.
  I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. This will affect both TPP, 40 percent of the world's 
economy, and then a year or so later, TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and 
Investment Partnership, the United States-European Union agreement--
both permanent trade agreements. There is 40 percent in TPP of the 
world's economy, and 20 percent in TTIP of the world's economy. These 
are permanent trade agreements that represent a huge part of the 
world's economy.
  This bill will affect global labor standards, it will affect global 
environmental standards, it will affect international intellectual 
property standards, and more and more and more. That is why Senator 
Sessions has spoken out so effectively against it. That is why people 
in both parties are insisting they get these amendments, that they are 
voting against cloture until they get these amendments--Members of this 
body who have supported cloture in the past for a whole host of things.
  Why we are rushing to end debate before it has truly begun is 
mystifying. Regardless of whether they support or oppose the underlying 
bill, I hope my colleagues recognize the importance of getting fast-
track legislation right--not getting it done by Memorial Day, some 
artificial deadline that somebody somewhere set but getting this trade 
legislation right.
  The Senate has not given the underlying bill the attention and 
deliberation it deserves. It has not given the amendment process the 
ability to--let alone to work its way through but even to get off the 
ground. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture and ensure that a 
reasonable number of amendments get considered.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I can report there has been an all-night 
effort to try to work out this issue to bring parties together, 
particularly around our colleagues being able to offer more amendments, 
and on the issue of the Export-Import Bank--something I favor very 
strongly, and Senator Cantwell makes a very important point that we 
have trade agreements, but it is also important to have financing 
tools, which is what the Export-Import Bank is all about. So we have 
been working throughout the night trying to address both of those 
issues, Export-Import Bank and the question of our colleagues being 
able to offer more amendments.
  When you hear the words ``TPA'' and ``TPP,'' it sounds like a company 
that has been through too many mergers, but the fact is these terms are 
enormously important to America's economic future. Our markets are 
basically open. Many countries hit us with double- and triple-digit 
tariffs on our exports. Export jobs often pay better than the nonexport 
jobs do because there is a lot of value added in the process.
  The vote today will begin the efforts to replace the outdated trade 
rules of the 1990s with a modern set of trade rules that can help 
America get more of those good-paying jobs.
  When you talk about international trade, the first thing you have to 
focus

[[Page 7695]]

on is the estimate is, in the developing world, there are going to be 
about 1 billion middle-class consumers. Those are middle-class 
consumers with money--money in their pockets--and they can buy American 
goods and American services. They can buy our wonderful ag products 
like Oregon wine. They can buy helicopters and bicycles and planes and 
computers. There is enormous affection around the world for buying the 
American brand, for buying the Oregon brand.
  With modern trade rules, we can make sure our exporters are able to 
get the kinds of goods and services that those billion middle-class 
consumers are going to want to buy, and that is always what drives the 
modern economy--middle-class consumers buying goods and services. One 
billion people in the developing world are going to be middle class in 
2025.
  Chairman Hatch is with me on the floor. What we have sought to do for 
now about 7 months is replace the old 1990s playbook on trade with a 
modern one. That is important because in the 1990s nobody had iPhones, 
nobody was texting. We are talking about a very different time.
  Here is an example: Opponents have often, and I think with 
substantial legitimacy, talked about how there has been way too much 
secrecy associated with trade. If you believe deeply in trade, as I do, 
and you want more of it, why would you want to have all this secrecy 
that just leaves the American people with the view that something is 
being hidden back in Washington, DC?
  So Chairman Hatch and I came together and put in place the most 
transparent policies on trade in our country's history. For example, by 
law--by law--before the President of the United States signs the Trans-
Pacific Partnership, that document has to be public for 60 days before 
the President signs it. On top of that, there are probably another 2 
months that take place before anybody in the Senate or anybody in the 
House on the floor of those bodies actually votes. What that means--and 
I want to give the opportunity to my colleague to make closing 
remarks--what it means is, as part of the new day on trade policy--in 
the past a lot of Americans were in the dark about trade policy. Now 
they will be able to come to a townhall meeting of their elected 
officials, such as the ones I plan to hold in a few days at home. The 
American people will be able to come to a townhall meeting, and 
starting with the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, have that 
document in their hands for close to 4 months before their elected 
representative has to vote. That is what Chairman Hatch and I have 
sought to do in terms of coming up with a modern trade policy.
  I think it is appropriate that my colleague--and I appreciate his 
partnership--will have a chance to wrap this up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I appreciate my partner and his kind comments and his 
intelligent comments here this morning.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the 
following amendments en bloc: 1, Boxer No. 1371; 2, Whitehouse No. 
1387; 3, Brown No. 1252, to level the playing field; 4, Feinstein No. 
1424; 5, Menendez No. 1430; 6, Paul No. 1383; 7, Paul No. 1408; 8, 
Sullivan No. 1246; 9, Sessions No. 1233; 10, Cruz No. 1384; 11, Cardin 
No. 1230; 12, Paul No. 1408.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, again, I 
appreciate the generosity of Senators Hatch and I think Wyden on this. 
Some 200 amendments have been filed by 46 Senators. We have had two 
votes. We have six pending, but the six pending--they have had some 
interesting adjustments in terms of second-degree amendments, in terms 
of not being actually called for votes. Now we have an offer of nine 
more. That is a good step, but the majority leader came to the floor at 
the end of the first full day of debate to file cloture to shut down 
debate. We had only two votes all week.
  I would like to have more votes. I think all of us on all sides of 
the discussion on this debate--the pro-free-trade Republicans and the 
anti-free-trade Republicans, the pro-free trade Democrats and the 
overwhelming majority of Democrats who don't like the way the rules are 
under TPA--would be willing to come together and pick out 20 or so 
amendments of the 200 that have been offered by 46 different Senators 
and have that debate with time limits. We should do all of that.
  Instead, we have nine amendments here. As I said--in case I didn't 
say it three times--we have had only two votes so far. There are nine 
amendments here. Most of these amendments--including level the playing 
field, which seems to have unanimous support--level the playing field 
is nongermane. So if Senators vote for cloture now, then all of those 
nongermane amendments are dropped and most of these nine will not see 
the light of day.
  Madam President, I object to the UC.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I just want to point out that we tried to 
bring this bill up Thursday, then Friday. It was objected to. Then we 
brought it up Monday. We only had two amendments. Then Tuesday, 
Wednesday, and now today there have been logjams all the way through.
  Now, look, I have been as fair as anybody could be. I have tried to 
accommodate my colleagues on the other side, and we were not making any 
headway.
  So I thought that by calling up these 12 amendments, that would 
resolve it. But if not, we should proceed with the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I would again reiterate our offer. I 
don't know that I can do it exactly in a UC request. But I reiterate 
our offer that we sit down--that the leaders sit down--and discuss 15 
amendments a side--15 Republican amendments, 15 Democrat amendments--
and that we have a serious negotiation without cloture hanging over our 
head that will drop all of these nongermane, very serious enforcement 
amendments.
  We had a vote last Tuesday where for the first time in 25 years a 
trade motion was actually defeated. The whole point of that vote was 
that we wanted enforcement as part of TPA, TAA. That is what this has 
been all about.
  But in this UC request, most of the enforcement--for instance, level 
the playing field, but also some other things--will drop because they 
are nongermane.
  I offer to Senator Hatch if there is a way of having this discussion 
and really moving forward----
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Hatch 
     amendment No. 1221 to H.R. 1314, an act to amend the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a right to an 
     administrative appeal relating to adverse determinations of 
     tax-exempt status of certain organizations.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Orrin G. Hatch, Daniel 
           Coats, John Boozman, Thom Tillis, Mike Rounds, Pat 
           Roberts, Richard Burr, John Barrasso, Mike Crapo, Jeff 
           Flake, Tom Cotton, Shelley Moore Capito, David Perdue, 
           Chuck Grassley, Dan Sullivan.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
substitute

[[Page 7696]]

amendment, No. 1221, offered by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, to 
H.R. 1314, be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 62, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 183 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Lankford
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cardin
     Casey
     Collins
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 62, the nays are 
38.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I am very happy the Senate has 
decided to take another step forward on this very important initiative 
not only of the President's but of the majority party's as well, and I 
thank the folks on the other side who are also similarly inclined.
  Let me just make it clear. Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden have done 
a terrific job. They are open to continuing to try to get amendments. 
We still have the opportunity to do that. As everyone knows, it 
requires some level of cooperation because anybody can object to 
somebody else getting an amendment. But Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden 
are anxious to do additional business, to open it up for more 
amendments, and with everybody's cooperation, that could be achieved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I think it would be appropriate--we have 
gotten to where we are--that we have a quorum call so we can find out 
where we are on amendments. There is agreement out there; we just have 
to see how we can get it arrived at. So I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, will the Senator withhold so I can make a 
short speech, less than a minute?
  Mr. REID. Of course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague from Nevada.
  Madam President, I thank all our colleagues for their support in 
helping us get this far. This last vote was a major step forward on 
this important legislation. We have a few more votes we are going to 
have to do, and we are getting very close to maybe doing this very 
important bill. I hope that now that we have taken this step, we can 
find a way to finish this legislation in short order, and I am willing 
to work with my colleagues to get us there.
  Once again, I thank everyone who supported this today. It means a lot 
to me personally.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Nelson pertaining to the introduction of S. 1430 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the time, and 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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we are going to be voting, we hope, on an 
amendment that is called the antidocking amendment. It observes, by 
reading the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that there apparently is a path 
for the executive branch to allow another country to become part of the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership without a vote of Congress.
  In other words, as to the world 's second largest economy, China, the 
administration, this President or the next President, could decide 
that, well, China should join the 12 countries already part of TPP if 
we affirm this vote down the road with TPP.
  If China could join--the second largest economy in the world--they 
would backdoor, if you will, because of the administration's 
willingness to do it, with no input from the public, with no input from 
the Congress.
  Our amendment is really simple. It sets up a process over a 90-day 
period. If a President wants to bring a country into the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership, that country would have to meet certain criteria, the same 
kinds of criteria that we have seen with these 12 countries, including 
sex trafficking and some labor law and other things.
  Then Congress would actually vote. Congress would get 90 days to 
decide, up or down, whether a country can join TPP after it is up and 
running. The country that most concerns us, of course, is China. So 
when you hear this amendment discussed, you will hear China used as an 
example, because its economy, obviously, is so large. It passed Japan 
as the world's second largest economy, I believe, a year or so ago.
  We just want to make sure that our integrity and the integrity of 
these 12 countries--12 other countries--is preserved. The way to do 
that and for the public to be heard is that Congress has to make the 
decision on whether another country can join.
  That is what our so-called docking amendment does. I know Senator 
Franken is about to take the floor. I want to say a couple of other 
things. This amendment is in no way meant to kill TPP. It simply spells 
out the process for future countries to join.
  Here is exactly how the process would work. The President would 
notify Congress about an intent to enter negotiations. It would require 
certification from the two committees--Ways and Means in the House, 
Finance in the Senate. Then it would ultimately come to a Senate vote. 
That is how this would work to protect, I think, the public interest 
and to give the public input into what countries actually join the TPP. 
It makes sense, I think, for all countries involved.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            USA FREEDOM Act

  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. I am a proud cosponsor of this bicameral, 
bipartisan bill which brings much-needed reform to the Federal 
Government's surveillance programs, including an end to the bulk data 
collection program that the intelligence community has said is not 
necessary, that the public has said they don't support, and that the 
Second Circuit has ruled as unlawful.

[[Page 7697]]

  I am particularly proud to have developed the bill's transparency 
provisions with my friend Senator Dean Heller of Nevada. We are greatly 
indebted to Senator Lee and to Senator Leahy for their leadership and 
their tireless work.
  Americans understand, as I do, that our job here is to strike an 
appropriate balance, making sure, on the one hand, that we are 
safeguarding our national security, without trampling on our citizens' 
fundamental privacy rights, on the other hand. But the public cannot 
know if we succeed in striking that balance if they do not even have 
the most basic information about our major surveillance programs. That 
is why my focus has been on transparency, because I want to make sure 
that the American people are able to decide for themselves whether we 
are getting this right.
  I support the USA FREEDOM Act because it moves us in the right 
direction on all of these fronts. On June 1, several national security 
authorities will expire. The House acted responsibly and passed USA 
FREEDOM, a bill that reflects the combined efforts and agreement of 
Republicans and Democrats, members of the intelligence and law 
enforcement communities, and advocates for privacy and civil liberties, 
as well as members of the tech sector and business communities.
  This legislation ensures that the necessary authorities continue in 
force through 2019, and it makes important reforms that will actually 
improve national security. You do not need to take my word for that. 
The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General have 
told us, in no uncertain terms, that we ought to pass the USA FREEDOM 
Act and promptly.
  Yet some of my colleagues are attempting to present us with a choice 
between reauthorization of the soon-to-expire authorities with no 
reform whatsoever or complete expiration of those authorities. That is 
profoundly unfortunate, because we have a compromise bill that has 
overwhelming support and was overwhelmingly approved by the House of 
Representatives by a vote of 338 to 88.
  It draws broad-based support from business, from civil society, and 
within the government. I believe that the only thing that would stop 
this bill from garnering similar strong bipartisan support here in the 
Senate is if Republican leaders who oppose this bill pressure my 
Republican colleagues to filibuster. I really hope that does not 
happen. I hope it does not happen because USA FREEDOM's reforms 
represent real and meaningful progress. The bill ends the old program 
for the bulk collection of telephone metadata, which, according to 
reports discussed at a hearing last year, principally gathered call 
records from landlines. It replaces that program with a more targeted 
approach that permits the collection of call detail records, including 
prospective collection of those records. You get a warrant, and you 
collect those prospectively, based on the government's reasonable, 
articulable suspicion of a link to international terrorism.
  Now, I believe that is a much more sensible approach. I know that 
some of my colleagues disagree. Last November, one of my colleagues 
suggested that bulk collection is preferable to a targeted approach 
because Americans' privacy would be at risk if the government were 
``going to have to go to those companies and ask for the data.''
  But of course, no matter what, we have to go to the companies and ask 
them for the data. The records at issue here are the phone company's 
business records. That is what they are. I should also note that those 
companies have both legal and business reasons for why they retain and 
protect these records as they do, from the potential for billing 
disputes to commercial analytics to regulatory concerns.
  The FCC regulations require them to hold on to telephone call records 
for 18 months. None of that has changed. It bears emphasizing that the 
relationship USA FREEDOM calls for between phone companies and the 
government is nothing new. Our Nation's law enforcement and 
intelligence agencies have long worked with phone companies to obtain 
specific records, either historic or prospective records, when 
conducting domestic criminal investigations or carrying out sensitive 
national security investigations such as FISA wiretaps.
  So we have been doing this for a long time. The intelligence 
community, national security, law enforcement experts, and American 
businesses, not to mention the House of Representatives, all understand 
that we have to strike the right balance. We need to safeguard our 
national security, but we need to do it in ways that do not unduly 
tread on privacy and civil liberties.
  Leaders across these different public and private sectors have 
managed to come together to strike that balance in the USA FREEDOM Act. 
That is where my work with Senator Heller comes in. We recognized that 
when the public lacks even a rough sense of the scope of the 
government's surveillance programs, they have no way of knowing if the 
government is getting that balance right. So there needs to be more 
transparency.
  Since the Snowden revelations came to light 2 years ago, a steady 
stream of news reports has provided details about NSA programs that 
collect information about both foreign nationals and the American 
people. Despite these disclosures, it remains impossible for the 
American people to get even a basic sense of the real size and scope of 
these programs. Americans still don't know the number of people whose 
information has been collected under these programs. They have no sense 
of the extent to which U.S. persons are affected and, particularly, 
have no way of knowing how often the government has searched that 
information, such as call detail records of Americans. Senator Heller 
and I crafted transparency provisions to make sure Americans get that 
kind of information. That way the American people can better judge the 
government's surveillance programs for themselves.
  Under USA FREEDOM, the government will be required to issue detailed 
annual reports for each of the surveillance authorities at issue. 
Importantly, the government will have to tell the public how many 
people have had their information collected, and for certain 
authorities--like those permitting the targeted collection of call 
detail records or the communications of foreigners abroad--the 
government will also have to say how many times it has run searches for 
Americans' data.
  The USA FREEDOM Act doesn't just require the government to be more 
transparent. We also make it possible for American businesses to 
provide their customers with more information about what they are asked 
to turn over to the government. This is not only good for transparency, 
it is good for our economy. It has been estimated that the Snowden 
revelations are costing American companies billions of dollars because 
people have lost trust in those companies, often assuming that all 
companies are handing over all of their information to the government.
  So by allowing companies to report the size and scope of the 
government's requests, the public can get a better sense of what 
information is actually being turned over, and the bill makes clear 
that a company that has not received any national security requests 
from the government is free to say so.
  All of this will calm fears, both here and abroad, and allow American 
companies to better compete with their foreign counterparts.
  The provisions Senator Heller and I wrote will expand the options 
that companies have to issue their own transparency reports and allow 
companies to issue those reports more quickly. But we also listened to 
the intelligence community to make sure we were striking the right 
balance and ensuring that ongoing investigations are not jeopardized by 
additional transparency.
  Now, look, to get the broad, bipartisan support we needed, Senator 
Heller and I had to compromise a great deal. We didn't get everything 
we wanted when we initially negotiated our provisions last year, and we 
had to compromise further still this year, particularly with regard to 
government reporting under section 702, which authorizes the 
collection, for intelligence

[[Page 7698]]

purposes, of communications of foreign persons abroad. I am 
disappointed the bill doesn't include all of the requirements we agreed 
on last year and that were included in the Senate bill last Congress, 
which had 58 votes.
  But I am committed to pressing my colleagues to revisit this issue in 
the future--hopefully before the sunset of section 702--in 2017. That, 
of course, is the Internet traffic of foreign persons abroad who are 
suspected of being terrorists.
  But in the meantime, the good news is that after all the give-and-
take, our provisions that did get included in the bill will usher in a 
new era of transparency about our Nation's surveillance agencies. They 
will allow the American public to see--on an annual basis--whether the 
government really makes good on its promise to end bulk collection, and 
they will give those of us in Congress important tools as we work to 
continually improve our country's laws.
  The transparency provisions are an essential part of USA FREEDOM, and 
the bill overall is a step in the right direction for reforming our 
Nation's intelligence laws. It is a step that the House has already 
taken on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. It is a step that the 
Senate should take as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly on an amendment I 
have filed regarding a crisis we are experiencing in the H-2B visas.
  In North Carolina, we have a very large seafood industry, and we have 
a crisis that is shared by a number of other States that have the 
seafood industry with respect to the availability of H-2B visas, and 
the busy time is just about to start in a couple of weeks. It is the 
worst possible time for this industry.
  We literally have jobs that have been created by people such as Don 
Cross and his brother and their Pamlico Packing Company in Grantsboro, 
NC. They simply can't find workers to do this job. It is going to ruin 
their business, and it is unacceptable. These are jobs these folks have 
created, like the Crosses, and they can't be filled. The jobs are 
waiting to be filled.
  It is affecting other businesses we have in the shrimp and crab 
industries, but it is also affecting other businesses--will affect 
other businesses--such as grocery stores, restaurants, and other 
industries, like tourism, across the country.
  The problem I have--and the nature of the amendment I will speak to 
briefly--but I have reached out to the Department of Homeland Security 
to ask a series of questions, and I simply haven't received answers. 
That is why I decided to offer an amendment--or to file the amendment.
  DHS has refused to issue more work visas, even though the statutory 
cap of used visas has most likely not been reached. DHS claims the cap 
has been reached, and that is really odd because it is unusually early 
for them to take that position.
  This is what I think the real truth is. Not every business applying 
for these visas is using them. DHS normally approves more visas so we 
make it more likely that we reach the cap, but we don't believe they 
have done that this year.
  That is why we have asked for an audit, to make sure we know how many 
applications were actually approved, how many visas are actually used 
by the State, within the State, and how many of those visas are 
actually putting legal, migrant, immigrant workers into these jobs.
  This year, they haven't even done an audit. We simply want to know 
why.
  I think DHS is playing games with the numbers, and I demand answers. 
DHS seems eager to help the illegal population get acclimated, but they 
don't seem to place a priority on American businesses that need these 
people to come and work in our seafood processing facilities, not only 
in North Carolina like Don Cross's Pamlico Packing Company but packing 
companies across the coast.
  I have had a discussion with a number of Members on the other side of 
the aisle. They share our concerns, and we are all working trying to 
simply get the answers.
  So what my amendment does is--until we get the answers, until we 
solve the problem, we want to suspend the travel for all DHS employees 
to government conferences and symposiums until the Agency provides more 
transparent data as to how the H-2B program is being administered for 
this fiscal year and for the three previous fiscal years.
  I want answers and I want action. We have businesses in North 
Carolina and across the country in the coastal States that need these 
workers, and we want answers now.
  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. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1381

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor and I, like my good 
friend the Senator from Massachusetts, am very concerned about the lack 
of transparency in this whole process of the trade agreement, very 
concerned.
  I saw the TPP text. I went downstairs and I saw that. I have to say 
the whole process was extremely disturbing to me. Members must go to a 
classified room. Now, we do go to classified rooms, as a bipartisan 
group, on many issues that are very important to this country. I had 
gone down because I wanted to see for myself the transcript of the TPP, 
what they have dealt with and how far they are along right now in the 
negotiations.
  The viewing of the documents that are very technical in nature, as we 
all know, is oftentimes without a trade staffer with appropriate 
clearance. So here I am, I am not able to take staff--or only staff who 
has had secured clearance, and it might not be the staff on my staff 
who has the expertise in this, so that takes that equation away.
  We are unable to take any notes to consider what we just saw unless 
we have a photographic memory. Unfortunately, I do not. I have tried 
the best I can to remember and look for things I knew I was looking 
for. But still yet, it is almost impossible to walk out of there having 
the ability to sit down and evaluate what you just saw, and then we are 
unable to talk to anyone about it--even to my staff, as I would like to 
get their input, since I have been, basically, looking at the details, 
and especially the public, too, has no idea about any issues that 
concern them.
  The secretive nature of the largest free-trade deal in America's 
history truly just lacks common sense. Let me explain. In July of 2001, 
President Bush at that time released the draft text of the Free Trade 
Area of the Americas Agreement, the FTAA. He did this months before he 
was granted fast-track authority. He wasn't afraid to let us see it. He 
wasn't afraid to let the American public know what was in that. We were 
able to see it, and it didn't squelch the deal. It didn't harm 
anything.
  They released the text of the FTAA, the different positions of 34 
countries in important areas such as intellectual property rights, 
investor-state dispute settlements, and antidumping duties--all very 
important to our country and the jobs we have in this country.
  Now we have a massive 12-country trade agreement that is currently 
being negotiated, and the President wants us to grant him the fast-
track authority before not only the American people have even seen the 
text but mostly even our staffs whom we delegate to work on these 
intricate documents.
  Our bill that we will be asking consideration for would simply 
require the President to release the scrubbed, bracketed text of any 
trade agreement at least 60 days before Congress would grant the fast-
track authority. This is pretty sensible, pretty reasonable. Just 
release the scrubbed document that you have agreed on so far 60 days 
before you ask us to give the fast-track authority.

[[Page 7699]]

  Before any Member of Congress is asked to vote on the most expansive 
bill in U.S. trade history, the American people deserve to see what is 
in the bill. That is why they elect us, to make sure we are able to 
confer with them, have a dialogue, and explain why we are or why we may 
not be for a certain piece of legislation, especially a trade 
agreement.
  If this bill is as good for the American worker as proponents have 
claimed, then the administration and anybody else should not find it 
objectionable to see the details before Congress is forced to grant the 
President trade promotion authority.
  I want to say, in my beautiful little State of West Virginia, as I go 
through it and we look back through the trade agreements that have 
already been granted since NAFTA, we have not seen an uptick. In fact, 
we have lost 31,000 manufacturing jobs. I, for one, am not willing to 
vote to put one more job in jeopardy in West Virginia.
  That is the concern we have. So what we are asking for is a very 
modest, very sensible, very reasonable, commonsense approach to how we 
should do the job the people elect us to do and how it should be 
transparent.
  At this time I yield the floor to my friend, the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from West Virginia, 
Senator Manchin. I thank him for his leadership. I thank him for his 
independence. I thank him for his partnership as we push for greater 
transparency on this very important trade bill.
  In the past few weeks, the public has heard a lot about the Trans-
Pacific Partnership, a massive trade deal the United States is 
negotiating with 11 other trade companies. The public has heard from 
supporters that it is the most progressive trade deal in history--a 
deal that will benefit working families and small businesses--and they 
have heard from opponents that it will only tilt the playing field 
further in favor of multinational corporations and leave workers and 
everyone else behind.
  The public has heard a lot, but in all that time they have never 
actually seen the deal itself. In fact, the press hasn't seen the deal, 
economists haven't seen the deal, legal experts haven't seen the deal. 
Most everyone in America hasn't seen the deal. Why? Because the 
administration has classified the deal, making it illegal for any of 
those people to read it.
  Members of Congress, as Senator Manchin said, can read it so long as 
they go into a secret room and don't leave with any notes. But even 
Members of Congress are prohibited from talking about the details in 
public or discussing the details with the people they were sent to 
Washington to represent. And yet, in the next day or two, the Senate is 
scheduled to vote on whether to grease the skids to make that secret 
trade deal--the TPP--the law of the land.
  This isn't how democracy is supposed to work. One of our fundamental 
principles of representative government is transparency. Our government 
is supposed to keep things secret from the people only if it has a very 
good reason to do so. So why is this trade deal a secret? I just want 
to go over the answers I have heard so far, the reasons.
  Some say the administration can't release the deal because the deal 
isn't finished yet. OK, so maybe there are some unresolved issues, but 
everyone agrees the deal is nearly complete. It is close enough to 
being done that its supporters can confidently claim it is the most 
progressive trade deal in history. If you are sure that is right, then 
show it to us. If some parts aren't finished, then show us the parts 
that are finished. Don't keep every single word of the deal classified.
  Others say releasing the text now would be tipping our hand in 
continuing negotiations, but that doesn't make any sense either. Our 
government has already shared the details of our positions with the 
other TPP countries, and those countries have shared details with us. 
That is how negotiations work. Publicly releasing what our negotiating 
partners have already seen couldn't possibly undermine our negotiations 
because, by definition, our negotiating partners have already seen it.
  Here is another argument I have heard. Releasing the text of an 
unfinished international agreement simply isn't done; it is a breach of 
protocol. Well, that is not true either. As Senator Manchin pointed 
out, in 2001, President George W. Bush publicly released the scrubbed 
bracketed text of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas several 
months before seeking fast-track authority for that agreement. At the 
time, his U.S. Trade Representative said that releasing the text 
``would increase public awareness and support for the trade deal.'' 
Guess what. Congress still approved that fast-track deal. Of course it 
can be done. It has been done, and it should be done.
  Still others say that publicly releasing the text would endanger 
state secrets. Wow. But this agreement is not about nuclear weapons 
programs or military operations. There isn't any national security 
information in this deal. This deal is about things such as copyright 
rules and labor standards. And I know the President doesn't think there 
is any sensitive national security information in the deal. That is why 
he has already committed to publicly releasing the entire text. He just 
won't do it until after Congress has already voted to grease the skids 
to make it law.
  That brings us to the last justification--that we should all be 
satisfied that the administration will release the text of the deal a 
few months before Congress has to vote on whether to approve it. But by 
then, Congress will have lost the ability to amend the deal, to stop 
the deal, or to slow it down. In other words, by the time you--the 
American public--can read the deal, your elected representatives will 
have lost the ability to use your input to help shape that deal. That 
sounds like a lousy arrangement to me.
  So if there are no good reasons for secrecy here, that leaves only a 
bad reason, and believe it or not, it is a reason I have heard people 
give multiple times: We should keep the deal secret because if the 
details were made public now, the public would oppose it. Well, that is 
how our democracy is supposed to work.
  If the TPP is mostly done and the public wouldn't support it if they 
could see it, then it shouldn't become the law. That is why I have 
introduced a simple bill with my friend from West Virginia, Senator 
Manchin. This bill would require the President to publicly release the 
scrubbed bracketed text of a trade deal at least 60 days before 
Congress votes on any fast-track for that deal. That would give the 
public, the experts, and the press an opportunity to review the deal. 
It would allow for some honest public debate. It would give Congress a 
chance to actually step in and block any special deals and giveaways 
that are being proposed as part of this trade deal before Congress 
decides whether to grease the skids to make that deal the law.
  If this trade deal is so great, if it will work so well for America's 
workers and small businesses, then make it public. We should pass this 
bill today and give the American people some time to read the deal 
before we tie ourselves to fast-track.
  Whether you support fast-track or oppose it, whether you support TPP 
or oppose it, we should all agree that we should have a robust, 
informed debate on something that is this important. Anything less is a 
disservice to the people who sent us here to work for them.
  So I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the Committee on 
Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 1381, that the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third 
time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, one concern 
I have

[[Page 7700]]

heard from opponents of the trade promotion authority is that trade 
agreements currently under discussion have been negotiated behind 
closed doors and that by renewing TPA, Congress would be enabling and 
even encouraging further secrecy.
  I am going to talk more on this in a minute, but there are 30 days 
before the President signs, 60 days after he signs where this will 
become well known. So I have to object to my dear colleagues' bill--I 
guess it is a bill at this time. I just have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard this concern from opponents of 
trade promotion authority from time to time--that trade agreements 
currently under discussion have been negotiated behind closed doors and 
that by reviewing TPA, Congress would be enabling and even encouraging 
further secrecy. These arguments are particularly being made about the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which is not before us. Of course, 
we need to keep in mind that every Senator complaining about this 
supposed secrecy associated with TPP has had an opportunity to read 
through the current text of the agreement. And the agreement is not yet 
concluded. It won't be unless we pass TPA.
  At the same time, I would be very surprised if these same Senators 
decrying the secrecy of the TPP negotiations also believe that contract 
negotiations between unions and management should be made public or 
that it would be a wise negotiating tactic for a private citizen 
negotiating the sale of their home to post all the offers they have 
received on the Internet.
  My point is that in the midst of any high-stakes negotiation, some 
level of confidentiality is essential to getting a good deal, and 
especially in this case.
  That said, I certainly understand the concerns about transparency, 
particularly when our government is negotiating on behalf of our 
country. Fortunately, our TPA bill strikes a good balance to address 
these very concerns. Our TPA bill goes further than any previous 
version of TPA to promote transparency and congressional oversight of 
the whole trade negotiation process.
  First of all, under our bill, the full text of a completed trade 
agreement must be made public at least 60 days before the President can 
even sign it, giving the American people unprecedented access and 
knowledge of all trade agreements before they are signed and well 
before they are submitted to Congress.
  In addition, the President must submit to Congress the legal text of 
a trade agreement and a statement of administrative action at least 30 
days before submitting an implementing bill.
  On top of that, our bill ensures that any Member of Congress who 
wants access to the unredacted negotiated text at any time during the 
negotiations will get it. In addition, Members of Congress will--once 
again, at any time during the negotiations--be able to request and 
receive a briefing from the U.S. Trade Representative's office on the 
status of the negotiations.
  Our bill also creates in statute a transparency officer at USTR who 
will consult with Congress and advise the USTR on transparency 
policies. This will help ensure that there are consistent transparency 
policies across the Agency and promote greater public understanding of 
trade negotiations.
  Now, let's be clear. I, as well as other authors of this legislation, 
understand the concerns we have heard from both inside and outside 
Congress about the need for greater transparency in the trade 
negotiation process. We have really worked hard to address these 
concerns in this legislation, and in particular the concerns of the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who is a good friend, whom I 
admire, and who I think has brought a certain dimension to this Senate 
that is very important.
  In short, any Member of Congress who is concerned about a lack of 
transparency in trade negotiations should be a cosponsor of this TPA 
bill--that is, of course, if they are also supporters of expanded 
markets for U.S. exporters and the creation of high-paying American 
jobs. Those who oppose TPA and trade agreements outright will likely 
continue to use this supposed lack of transparency as an excuse to 
oppose the bill.
  Those with genuine concerns will see that this bill is the right 
approach. And we have tried to make it the right approach. I believe it 
is the right approach. I believe the administration says it is the 
right approach. I know the Trade Representative says it is the right 
approach. He has bent over backwards to inform us and to open his 
office and to open matters into these not-yet-concluded agreements.
  There is plenty of time for us to look at those agreements--any 
agreement that comes--and make up our own determinations at that time. 
So I don't believe the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts will be 
deprived of an ability to look into these matters, completely test the 
transparency, and look at these agreements in ways that I think would 
please any reasonable person.
  With that, I have had to object, but I hope we can pursue this bill 
and get it through as soon as we can because it will be a banner day 
for the President, I have to admit. He is my President, but he is not 
my party; yet, he is right on this. For the life of me, I can't 
understand why we are having so much difficulty with his and my friends 
on the other side. We ought to be supporting a President who has bent 
over backwards, through his Trade Representative and those around him, 
to be as open as he possibly can on this matter, at least at this 
particular time and I believe afterwards as well.
  I always feel bad when I have to object to a person's unanimous 
consent request, but I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Will my good friend the Senator from Utah yield for a 
question?
  Mr. HATCH. I will be glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Senator, I have the utmost respect for you and the job 
you do here every day for all of us. I appreciate that. But we have a 
difference here. My difference is that I have to look at the people in 
West Virginia--fewer than 2 million people--who depend on the 
opportunity to make a living for themselves, and they have hard, strong 
feelings about what we have done over the years in trade agreements. 
They haven't seen an uptick in opportunity for themselves or their 
families.
  With that being said, what we have asked for here, the Senator from 
Massachusetts and I, is not something that has never been done before. 
I can't explain why President George W. Bush would have done this. 
Maybe it was on his own volition, saying: I am going to put out this 
agreement that has been scrubbed. Basically everything has been agreed 
on. We will let you see it and discuss it--the American people and the 
Senate and Congress that represents those people--to see if we have 
total buy-in and support. If not, we can make some adjustments and 
changes.
  He did that. That is really what we have asked for here. I respect 
your right to object, and I understand the process here. But the 
American people don't have input into this, and it has a 51-vote 
threshold from this day forward. So any of us who have any objections 
or maybe have something that would enhance this bill don't have that 
opportunity. That is the reason we have asked for this.
  I know the Senator was here and was very much involved in 2001. What 
was your position or your opinion when President Bush released a draft 
text of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, the FTAA? Do you recall, 
by any chance?
  Mr. HATCH. I don't personally recall that at this time, other than 
that it did pass.
  Mr. MANCHIN. He let everybody see it months ahead of time before he 
was granted the fast-track authority. He never even asked for TPA until 
he released it. And I am sure that you were in the majority at the 
time, and everyone had to support that position, I would think.

[[Page 7701]]


  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator would yield--yes, we did. We supported the 
President's position, if I recall correctly. There is nothing that says 
the President can't do that. But this bill says he must at least do 
certain things.
  Mr. MANCHIN. That is because he hasn't offered it to us.
  Mr. HATCH. This is a 6-year bill.
  Mr. MANCHIN. It is a 3-3. You are right.
  Mr. HATCH. There is going to be another President in 2016, whether 
Republican or Democrat or otherwise.
  So there is nothing that says the President can't do that, but we are 
making sure he does do that. We have done it because of questions that 
have been raised by people such as the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts and you. We think we have put reasonable time constraints 
in there, especially since you can review the TPP as it exists--
although that may or may not be the final agreement. You can review 
that now, if you want, and that is well in advance of it.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Senator, again, I know you understand it. I am sure you 
probably have gone down into the secured room and maybe have looked 
through some parts yourself. But it is quite an onerous process. I 
couldn't take my staff person who had expertise in that arena because 
he did not have that clearance. So I had to go in, and I couldn't take 
notes out. Then on top of that, I couldn't even speak to him about what 
I saw because he didn't have that clearance.
  I have never been through something like this. For me to go home to 
West Virginia and say, with all full knowledge and my ability to make a 
decision on the facts I have in front of me, that I support or I do not 
support it for these reasons--I can't really do that. I am not really 
sure if I could support it. Maybe I can support TPP. But I am really 
objectionable to TPA by not having that opportunity to have input in 
TPP.
  I think that is where I fall. And with a 51-vote threshold, I am not 
going to have any input to represent the people of West Virginia. With 
all due respect, that is where I am on this.
  Mr. HATCH. I understand the distinguished Senator. Let me say that we 
all have to make our own individual decisions here.
  I would encourage you to reconsider because I think we have a good 
bill that is far better than it has been in the past. Frankly, it is 
your administration that is putting this forward, and I am doing 
everything I can to help this administration get this through.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I understand.
  Mr. HATCH. Remember that this is the procedural mechanism that gives 
Congress the right to really know what is going on and to really look 
at these matters. That is why we put in these particular provisions, 
which, as far as I know, are better than they have ever been. So 
Members of Congress will have an opportunity to know what is in these 
bills. I don't know fully what is in TPP, myself, and I am going to be 
one of the most interested people on Earth when that comes, if not the 
most interested, and when we finally agree. It is still not a completed 
agreement, as far as I know.
  All I can say is I think we provide enough time in this bill for 
anybody who is sincere enough and dedicated enough to look at it.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Senator, if you do see something, let's say, as the bill 
unfolds and comes to its completion, that you really think is going to 
harm the people of Utah, you are not going to have any input to change 
that harm. And it is only going to take 51 votes to pass it, even if 
harm is in there for Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. We will have the ability to take this floor, and those in 
the House to take the House floor, and fight against it if you disagree 
with it and it starts to get 51 votes.
  The administration knows that. They know they can't do a slovenly 
agreement. They have got to do a good agreement in order to get both 
sides up here to, in a bipartisan way, accept the agreement for our 
country.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I just feel very strongly that this most reasonable 
thing that we have asked for is something that was done under President 
Bush. I think it was in his wisdom to put it out there before. There 
was nothing to hide.
  If we looked into their dialogue back at that period of time, they 
felt it was necessary, as Senator Warren mentioned, to get the public's 
buy-in, to get support from the public. So they were proud of what they 
put into it.
  I am not saying things in here aren't good and won't be good for this 
country. But there might be some things that could be improved upon 
that would make it much better for this country.
  I have lost 31,000 manufacturing jobs since NAFTA. It is hard when I 
go through my State and I look at people struggling. The jobs have not 
returned. They have not come to our little State. We did not see the 
uptick.
  I am not saying my State represents every State, but I am sure there 
are parts of every State that have been hit pretty hard by this, and we 
want to make sure we get this one right. That is all we have asked for.
  So I am sorry you had to object. I hope you understand our position 
on this.
  Mr. HATCH. I do, and I appreciate the distinguished Senator and his 
efforts to represent his State. I know he does a very good job. I know 
the senior Senator from Massachusetts is doing a very good job. We are 
friends. This isn't going to change that. All I can say is that we 
disagree respectfully. I think I have made this as palatable as we 
possibly could under the circumstances.
  The point I have been making is that the agreement is available 60 
days before it is even signed. So it isn't as if people will not have a 
chance to look at it or to fight against it or talk to the President--
whoever that might be.
  The fact of the matter is that I am not sure that it should be longer 
than 60 plus 60 plus, I think, another 60.
  So all I can say is that I have to object, as manager of this bill. I 
never feel good about objecting to something my colleagues want. I 
respect your desire to have as much information as you can. I respect 
the senior Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Would the Senator be kind enough to yield for a question 
from the Senator from Massachusetts if I would yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I yield for the Senator from Massachusetts for the 
purpose of a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I just want to say to the Senator from 
Utah how much I respect his leadership in this Senate and his 
leadership on so many important issues.
  All I want to say about this is that we are just asking for the trade 
deal to be made public before we have this crucial vote about whether 
there will be any opportunity in the future to amend the trade deal, to 
slow down the trade deal or--as the Senator from West Virginia says--if 
we really find objectionable parts, to be able to block it. We are just 
asking for some transparency before we have this crucial vote on the 
TPA. We don't want to see fast-track until the American public can 
evaluate the deal. That is all we are asking for at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would like the floor. But I would yield the floor to 
Senator Hatch, and then ask my friends to stay on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
California.

                          ____________________