sclosed to congress before an implementing bill is introduced are not to be considered part of the relevant agreement and will have no force of law. our legislation clarifies that trade agreements must be concluded within the t.p.a. time frame and that any substantial modifications or additions made after that time will not be eligible for approval under t.p.a. procedures. so while i understand and even sympathize with those that might be suspicious of this administration and its tendency to push the boundaries of constitutional authority our t.p.a. speaks to these concerns. there might be those who worried that the it trade agreement could undermine u.s. sovereignty our bill addresses those issues. the bill makes clear any provision of a trade agreement that is inconsistent with federal or state law will have no effect. second it states specifically that federal and state laws will

prevail in the event of a conflict with the trade agreement. third, it affirms that no trade agreement can prevent congress and the states from changing their laws in the future. fourth it confirms that the administration cannot unilaterally change u.s. law. as you can see mr. president far from abdicating congress's power over u.s. trade policy, our t.p.a. bill enhances the role of congress when it comes to trade agreements. immigration, in addition to general concerns about constitutional powers and u.s. sovereignty, i've heard some express specific concerns that president obama could use the trans-pacific partnership to enact changes to our immigration laws and that t.p.a. will somehow empower him to do so. these concerns are unfounded for at least two reasons. first, immigration is completely irrelevant to the objectives to the t.p.a. agreement and administration officials have been clear and unequivocal that

no immigration provisions are under negotiation. just last week ustr michael frumin testified before the senate finance committee and said -- quote -- "i can assure you that we are not negotiating anything in t.p.p. that would require any modifications of u.s. immigration laws or system, any changes to our existing visa system. in fact, t.p.p. will explicitly state that it will not require changes in any party's immigration laws or procedures." unquote. second even if people don't trust this administration, particularly when it comes to immigration, the provisions of our t.p.a. bill, the ones i just got through talking about provide greater congressional oversight and authority over trade agreements and prevent this or any future administration from misleading congress about what is included in any trade agreement. in other words mr. president

if anyone is worried that despite their clear statements to the contrary the administration will use t.p.p. to advance its immigration agenda, they should support our t.p.a. bill. transparency another concern i've heard from people both in and out of government is that the trade agreements current lip under discussion have been negotiated behind closed doors and that by renewing t.p.a. congress would be enabling this type of secrecy. nothing could be further from the truth. in fact, the opposite is true. our t.p.a. bill goes further than any previous version of t.p.a. to promote transparency both for members of congress and the american people. under our legislation any member of congress who wants access to the negotiating text will get it and at any time during the negotiations members of congress will be able to request and receive a briefing from ustr on the status of

negotiations. in addition, the bill will require the administration to publicly release the full text of an agreement at least 60 days before they sign it, giving the american people full access and knowledge of all trade agreements before they are signed and well before they are submitted to congress for their approval. in short mr. president any member of congress who is concerned about a lack of transparency in trade negotiations should be a cosponsor of the hatch- hatch-wyden-ryan t.p.a. bill. currency the last concern i'll talk about today mr. president deals with currency manipulate. specifically i've heard from colleagues that our t.p.a. bill should include stronger enforceable standards to prevent our trading partners from engaging in currency manipulation. now make no mistake, i think currency manipulation is a serious issue. like my colleagues, i am worried

that the currency policies of a number of countries including some of our trade partners, continue to have negative consequences on u.s. businesses and workers and i believe congress should carefully consider ways to address this issue. that's why for the first time our t.p.a. bill includes a negotiating objective intended to address currency manipulation. and while i understand that some of my colleagues would like that provision to be stronger, this is a very complex issue. many have expressed valid concerns that by requiring our trade agreements to contain enforceable currency provisions, we would be inviting a number of unintended consequences, including challenges to u.s. monetary policy. in addition, most have acknowledged that such provisions would effectively derail the t.p.p. negotiations harming our farmers ranchers and manufacturers and others

that so desperately need access to these markets. it's not just me saying this, mr. president. yesterday i received a letter from treasury secretary lew expressing these very concerns about the possibility of including enhanced currency provisions in t.p.a. on top of that, ten former treasury secretaries from both republican and democratic administrations sent a letter to congressional leaders that made similar arguments. i ask unanimous consent that copies of both of these letters be entered into the record immediately following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: thank you mr. president. as you can see mr. president there is more than ample reason to doubt the wisdom of inserting stronger currency provisions into t.p.a. i think it's fair, given secretary lew's very clear statements to assume that president obama would not sign a t.p.a. bill that included such provisions.

and i think it's more than fair to say that even if he would sign such a bill it would be devastating to our ongoing trade negotiations thereby threatening growth in jobs right lear at home. that being the case, i hope my colleagues who are pursuing this route will reconsider their positions. once again mr. president, we're going to mark up our t.p.a. bill later today. i'm excited and pleased for this opportunity. i think we'll get a strong bipartisan vote to report the bill and send it to the floor. we've crafted a really good bill one that i think members of both parties can support. i know that some members have anxieties and concerns about these issues. we put the bill together with those types of concerns in mind. and as i think i've demonstrated today, anyone who is truly supportive of trade and wants to create more good jobs right here at home should support our bill.

since the day we introduced our legislation, letters and statements of support have been pouring in. i'll mention just a few here today. we've had statements from administration officials including the president himself. and to say support from the business community has been overwhelming would be a gross understatement. we've got letters from virtually every industry: farmers manufacturers, tech companies ranchers, health care companies. and i could literally go on and on. but i won't, at least not right now. instead today i'll just mention two of the many letters of support we've received from businesses and job creators. i've got a letter here from the trade benefits america coalition signed by hundreds of companies and major trade associations expressing their strong support for the hatch-wyden-ryan t.p.a. bill. i ask unanimous consent that it be entered into the record at the conclusion of my remarks.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: thank you mr. president. i've got another letter here signed by nearly 300 state and local chambers of commerce, farm bureaus and manufacturing associations all expressing their support for the swift renewal of t.p.a. i likewise ask unanimous consent that this letter be placed in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: thank you mr. president. leaders from a number of leading conservative organizations have expressing support including the cato institute americans for tax reform, american enterprise institute, american action forum, tea party express 60 plus, american commitment, american conservative union americans for job security, center for individual freedom citizens for limited taxation, competitive enterprise institute, conservative reform network, council for citizens against government waste crossroads g.p.s., digital

liability, ending spending, frontiers of freedom georgia center right coalition institute for liberty minnesota center right coalition national taxpayers union our street, rio grande foundation, taxpayer protection alliance, and the thomas jefferson institute for public policy. that's a long list and by no means contains everybody who's for this bill. and it's growing every day. as you can see t.p.a. is supported across the ideological spectrum. i suppose this is the best way i can put it. senator ted cruz coauthored an op-ed with senator ryan in support of our bill in today's "wall street journal." if both ted cruz and barack obama support our legislation it's probably safe to say that we're on to something. i appreciate all the support we received thus far for our t.p.a. bill. it's been gratifying to see and i look forward to talking more with colleagues about these issues in the coming week.

mr. president, i yield the floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the time during quorum calls until the votes this morning be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority whip? mr. cornyn: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. cornyn: i would ask unanimous consent that the quoarmt call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president in over 100 days since the 114th congress has been in session led by a new majority following the november election, this chamber can point to significant accomplishments in this short period of time. now, none of us are spiking the football or saying that, you know we've done miraculous things but it's undeniable that we have made discernible concrete progress on important matters that affect the lives and quality of life of the american people. in only three weeks into the new copping, the senate has already had more votes on amendments than the chamber did in all of last year. what that means is that on a bipartisan basis senators have been able to contribute their

ideas on legislation how to improve it and get votes on it. that was something we promised voters we'd change after the last election and in the new congress. and under the new majority leader senator mcconnell we've delivered. in just a few weeks -- and just a few weeks ago the senate passed a budget that actually balances in ten years, something the chamber has done only once since 2009. more recently we sent to the president's desk the so-called doc fix but which more importantly ensured access to the doctors and hospitals that our seniors need. we also made great strides in providing the american people a final say on the iran nuclear deal that's being negotiated now by the president's representatives, and we've made progress on bipartisan legislation that ensures that the united states will get the best deal with our trading partners in pending

negotiations opening up american goods and services to global markets, which is good for our economy it's good for jobs and it's good for better wages for hardworking american families. but i must say even with all of these accomplishments, i am most proud of the deal we were able to reach this week concerning the justice for victims of trafficking act. you know, i've noticed one thing since i have been here in washington. it's the rich and powerful seem to do pretty well. they are well-represented on "k" street and they are not hesitant about letting their needs be known. but one indicator of the character of a nation, i believe, is how that nation, our nation treats those who are the most vulnerable in our society those who actually need our help but do not have lobbyists or other people working on their

behalf in the halls of congress. so this legislation i think actually is a very positive step because what it demonstrates is that we have not fallen deaf to the cries of those who actually need our help, the victims of human trafficking. this legislation will be instrumental in helping victims of sexual abuse and trafficking recover from a life in bondage and will provide stronger fools -- stronger tools for law enforcement officials to track down and punish those who want to keep them in the shadows who bantwant to continue making profit from the pain and the anguish and involuntary servitude of typically young women between the age of 12 and 14. and often these young women these children, are treated like criminals, not the victims they truly are. with the passage of this bill, we're one step closer to reining

it in. so i want to thank our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, some of whom are here in the chamber for working with us in the spirit of trying to accomplish something important and actually getting it done. i know the distinguished ranking member on the judiciary committee, who i partner with on a number of important topics, is here and i thank hum for his contribution. the senator from washington, senator murray, who has been very important to this negotiation and getting us to "yes." and i want to say finally because i know time is short i think it's -- i'll have more to say on this later but there are literally 200 outside groups, faith-based groups, law enforcement organizations and other organizations who were on the sidelines cheering us, asking us to get this done. groups like rights for girls shared hope international coalition against trafficking women, the end child prostitution and trafficking organization and the national

association of protect children. these groups and hundreds of others across the country have literally been our boots on the ground. i also think it's important to recognize organizations like google ideas and the mccain institute, particularly cindy mccain who joined moo me in houston recently to talk about this topic. we're not done yet. we have some important votes here in a few minutes a total of eight minutes here today before we complete our work on this legislation. but i think this is a good day. this will be a good day for the united states senate and for the victims of human trafficking. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president i ask consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment number 30 -- i'm sorry. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the

amendment. the clerk: the senator from vermont mr. leahy proposes an amendment numbered 301. mr. leahy: i ask consent to dispense with further reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i appreciate what the senator from texas has said. we have worked together on things. i hope we continue to do this. but before i talk about my substitute mr. president, i want to yield the floor to the distinguished senator from washington state. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you mr. president. you know, so many members helped get this bill back on a bipartisan path, but i want to thank senators reid, cornyn, klobuchar, feinstein mikulski and leahy in particular for their work. and i also want to thank all the staff who have worked ex-treely hard to get this done especially

melanie reiner from my staff. from the beginning of this debate democrats have been very clear that this bill to help survivors should focus squarely on that goal alone. we also felt this conversation was no place for a debate about restrictions on women's health access. and while there are clear differences between the two parties when it comes to women's health i know that senator cornyn and many others agreed with us that an effort to fight back against human trafficking in our country is without question no place for gridlock and dysfunction. it shouldn't have taken this long but i am very pleased that we were able to work together, find common ground and reach an agreement. now this agreement isn't perfect. as no compromise ever is. and i'm sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would say the same thing. i believe personally there is more we can do and must do to protect and strengthen women's access to comprehensive

high-quality health care. in the 21st century there is no reason a woman should be prevented from exercising her constitutionally guaranteed right to make her own choices about her own body. that is something i couldn't feel more strongly about and i'm going to keep working to not only protect that right but expand and improve access for women across the country. but i am very glad that the amendment we are proposing this morning would provide survivors now with real dedicated funds and support including important health services. critically this amendment would take away the expansion and restriction on women's health that would have occurred under the original legislation and ensure that the hyde language is now not expanded to any new programs under this bill. mr. president, i hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this amendment so that we can pass this bill to help trafficking survivors and then move as quickly as possible to confirm our highly qualified

nominee for attorney general. i want to thank my colleagues again for their work to reach this compromise, that families and communities we serve rightly expect us to work together to solve problems and not let groid groid -- gridlock get in the way of results. i'm pleased we were able to find that common ground and a path forward for this important legislation and i am very hopeful now that we will be able to continue working together to tackle the many other challenges that our country faces. thank you mr. president and i yield the floor.

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president talking about the substitute amendment, 301, i think it brings together three very important bills that provide a comprehensive approach that might prevent human trafficking but especially help survivors rebuild their lives. first, it includes the leahy leahy-collins-mikulski-ayotte amendment to protect run away and homeless youth from trafficking. secondly it includes the klobuchar-cornyn bill as reported last month by the judiciary committee. the safe harbor bill encourages states to treat victims of trafficking as victims and not as oftentimes they're treated as criminals. finally it includes the

cornyn-klobuchar bill s. 178, but without the divisive language that limits victims' services that has held us up so long. my amendment really came about as a response to the request of survives, but also the dedicated people who work with them, people who actually see this day by day for whom it's not a theoretical thing but it's an actual day-by-day crises and they've urged to remove the harmful provision that stalled this bill for weeks. now, congress has a long history of passing legislation to address human trafficking. we did it in the leahy-crapo bill on violence against women act. and we consistently have done so without abortion politics being in the discussion. my amendment is trying to return us to the path of the bipartisan

bills that we passed in years past. importantly, my amendment is going to make sure we're preventing human trafficking in the first place. it is one thing to work with children after they become victims. i think we'd all agree it's better if we can help them before they become victims. and the best way to do that is to support runaway and homeless kids. without a safe place to sleep these children and teens are exceptionally vulnerable to human traffickers. the run away and homeless youth act passed in 1974 funds tried and true programs to help these youth stabilize their lives a testimony we heard. we have a homeless or runaway teen and they're looking for a place to stay and there's

nothing available. they are picked up almost at once by sex traffickers and then their life, their lives are just a downward spiral. the substitute amendment reauthorizes and strengthens the programs that have worked ever since 1974. it adds training for service providers so you can better identify victims of trafficking refer them to the appropriate resource. it includes language to prevent discrimination against youth homeless youth based on their sexual orientation or gender identification. a growing number, we found in the testimony before the judiciary committee a growing number of homeless and runaway youth are identified as lgbt. many of them have been thrown out of their homes for who they are. i'm a parent. i'm a grandparent.

i find this heartbreaking to me that any child any child for whatever reason would be thrown out of their home. we have to ensure these vulnerable children who have already been rejected do not face rejection again because of how they look or dress or who they love. so i urge all senators to support this amendment. it's it really should be a moral issue. if we're serious about listening to survivors and responding to their needs if we are serious about preventing human trafficking and protecting vulnerable children in the first place, this amendment is the strongest option before us. we really should be judged by what we do for the least of these. a combination of these three bills should bring us together. i urge the senate to support this comprehensive support. mr. president, several of us here in this body, both parties

had the privilege to serve in the law enforcement before coming here, as i did. mr. president, i said many times on this floor i still have nightmares today 40 years later, from some of the scenes i saw back then. i could have arrested and prosecuted the people who harm these youth but you could never give back to them who they were before they were harmed. unfortunately what i have nightmares about are happening so many more places. and -- in the presiding officer's home state as well as the home states of every single member of this body, it's happening today. these are the most vulnerable of

our citizens. and we as senators should help protect them. mr. president, yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be allowed to meet during today's session of the senate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. sanders: i object to the unanimous consent to waive rule 26 to allow the finance committee to pass a fast-track bill that will undermine the american worker. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, let me just say to my good friend from vermont the finance committee is scheduled to deal

with the trade promotion authority issue this afternoon. there are over 200 amendments. and i would just say to my friend all -- all this objection is going to do will be to require us to recess after the votes on trafficking and stay in session because we're going to finish the bill in the finance committee today. and i appreciate the senator's opposition but i wanted to make clear to him and to our colleagues that it will not prevent the trade promotion authority bill from being dealt with in finance today. we will simply go into recess after we finish the trafficking bill and stay in recess and the committee will work until it reports out the bill. so i understand your vigorous opposition to it. you've made that quite clear. it's certainly understandable. the senator has a right to do that. i'm just making the point that

this particular way to oppose it will not be successful today. mr. sanders: let me say if i might. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you. let me say to my friend, the majority leader of. i appreciate his position. but as he knows not only is there massive opposition to this t.p.p. agreement but there is a lot of concern that the american people have not been involved in the process that there's not a lot of transparency. so what we are trying to do here is to make sure that this debate takes place out in the public, that the american people have as much time as possible to understand the very significant implications of this trade agreement. and i and i respect others, will do our best to make that happen. mr. mcconnell: i understand my friend from vermont's position on this. this finance committee meeting obviously will be open to the public. there will be many, many amendments offered most of them

i expect reflecting the views of the senator from vermont. but the meeting will go forward. the committee will simply be inconvenienced by the current actions of the senator from vermont. but the committee will go forward, the senate will be in recess, the committee will meet at the earliest possible time and finish up the bill today. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president i'd ask 30 seconds to speak before the vote on the -- the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president i just want to make clear that the first amendment we'll vote on relative to the justice for victims of trafficking act will remove the hyde amendment which is the long-standing 39-year consensus that taxpayer funds will not be used to fund abortions this amendment would completely strip that hyde amendment and it would undermine

the delicate compromise that has been reached on the important legislation. the next vote we will have will be on that compromise piece of legislation the cornyn-murray-klobuchar legislation. and it would the literally cut funding for human trafficking victims as compared to this compromise. so i would urge our colleagues to stick with the bipartisan compromise and to vote against the leahy amendment. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you mr. president. i rise on earth day to speak about our children and about chemical safety. mr. president, we come in contact with thousands of chemicals every day. as i'm speaking now millions of our fellow citizens are buying groceries or goag to the -- or going to the hardware store or getting clothes or toys for their children.

they assume the government has studied chemicals in these products and determined they are safe but that is not the case. the toxic substances control act of 1976, or tsca, is supposed to protect american families and it doesn't. there are over 84,000 known chemicals manufactured in commercial products and hundreds of new ones coming on the market every year. and how many have been regulated by the e.p.a.? less than half a dozen. these are troubling numbers. almost 40 years of tosca 84,000 chemicals and counting and less than a dozen actually regulated. e.p.a. can't even regulate asbestos a known carcinogen, since losing a court battle in 1991 they can't regulate it. so for decades the risks are

there. the dangers are there but there is no cop on the beat. tsca has failed. some states are trying to fill the gaps by regulating a few chemicals but my home state of new mexico and the vast majority of others have no ability to test chemicals. they don't have a department to write regulations. without a working federal law they have no protection. even california, which probably has the greatest capacity of all states to test and regulate, has only proposed rules for three chemicals. in seven years since california passed a law to regulate chemicals, it has only begun the process on three chemicals. mr. president, that is why i and others have worked so hard to find compromise on this issue. that is why i introduced the

frank r. lautenberg safer chemicals for the 21st century act. i've come to the floor today on earth day to urge you and all of your colleagues here to make it a priority to reform our broken chemical safety law. we have a moral obligation to protect our kids from dangerous chemicals. i have been privileged to work with senator vitter on this bill. i thank him and our colleagues who have worked with us. this is a true bipartisan effort. we don't always agree on some of the issues, but we have one goal here one basic goal: reform is overdue, 40 years overdue. and i see some of my colleagues are here, so i would just ask at this point that -- that wish to speak. i would ask at this point that the rest of my statement be inserted in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. udall: thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: -- mr. cornyn: mr. president? i'd ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 971, a bill to amend title 18 of the social security act, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. cornyn: mr. president i'd further ask that the wydenatic which is at the desk be agreed to the bill as amended be read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would ask for a voice vote. the presiding officer: is there any further debate? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it.

the measure as amended is passed. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president i further ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 984 and that the bill be read a third time and that the senate vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 59, s. 984 a bill to amend title 18 of the social security act to provide medicare beneficiary access to eye trafficking accessories and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would ask for a voice vote. the presiding officer: hearing no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the measure is passed. mr. cornyn: i'd ask unanimous

consent that the motion to reconsider be made -- to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today: descrez 144, s. res. 145, s. res. 146 s. res. 147 historian emeritus. the presiding officer: object be 0 to proceeding to the measures en bloc? without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that s. 782 be discharged from the committee on environment and public works and

be referred to the committee on energy and natural resources. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: finally mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that h.r. 710 be discharged from the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs and be referred to the committee on commerce, science and transportation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i yield the floor. s. res. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president i understand there's four more minutes on this side. i see nobody -- am i correct? the presiding officer: the democrats have 3 1/2 minutes of debate remaining. mr. leahy: i see nobody seeking recognition. i yield back our time.

the presiding officer: all time having been yielded back. under the previous order the question occurs on amendment 301 offered by the senator from vermont, mr. leahy. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

volt: vote: vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote the yeas are 44, the nays are 54. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is not agreed to. the presiding officer: under the previous order the question occurs on amendment number 1124 offered by the senator from texas, mr. cornyn, for himself

mrs. murray and ms. klobuchar. a senator: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 98. the nays are zero. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: for the information of the senate, on roll call vote number 156 the yeas were 43 and the nays were 55. the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i rise to ask a unanimous consent request to call up an amendment speak briefly and then be followed by senator sanders.

the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. burr: mr. president i ask nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the united states senate. that does not include the finance committee. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order the time until 2:00 p.m. is equally divided in the usual form. mr. burr: mr. president i'd like to call up my amendment 1121. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from north carolina, mr. burr, proposes an amendment numbered 1121. mr. burr: mr. president i ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, what i'm here to do is to speak very briefly on an amendment that the senate will have an opportunity to vote on this afternoon. due to the way the sex offender registration and notification act is currently written there's a problem with sex

trafficking offenders convicted in a military justice system. some of those offenders are exploiting the cracks in that system. my amendment is, quite honestly, a fix to the problem and will help authorities and the public better track sex offenders in our communities. let me explain. currently, military sex offenders are only required to self-report to a state government after they are released from a military correctional facility. under the civilian justice system, sex offenders are extraordinary in the state before they're released. now, the state then provides their information to the department of justice to be included in both the public and the private national sex offender registry, which is where the average citizen can go and see if there's a sex offender in their neighborhood. a department of defense inspector general report issued

in august of last year revealed that an estimated 242 of 1,312 released sex offenders failed to self-report. and in that inspector general's report they said this, and i quote -- "the lack of jurisdiction for department of defense to register military sex offenders with the national sex offender registry enables military sex offenders released from military prisons to evade sex offender registration requirements." i'm not sure it can be put any plainer than that. the department of defense tried to correct the problem by working with state authorities and the u.s. marshal but underreporting continues today. differences in state laws and military reporting procedures enable some criminals to totally evade reporting and detection. now, mr. president a recent

script news report revealed grim examples of the consequences of these cracks in the system. consider the recent case of michael carr. the might convicted michael carr for posing as a gynecologist. he preyed on seven women. after spending seven years incarcerated he evaded registration upon his release. he assaulted another woman before being apprehended by civilian authorities. this assault was preventable in that community but he wasn't required the d.o.d. wasn't required to post him as a sex offender. in another case, a former officer served five years for sexually assaulting three minors in the cruelest way possible. he evadeed registration and scripts located this individual living within a mile of a school. it's scary a fed pile living

next to a school and no one knew he was there. this amendment requires the department of defense to communicate a criminal's information directly to the attorney general to improve tracking and public notification. my amendment is based on a bipartisan bill s. 409 that i introduced with the support of senator mccaskill. that bill already has the support of 15 of our colleagues -- senator ayotte, blunt, cornyn, crapo rubio sessions tillis, toomey, feinstein, king, mikulski and nelson. mr. president, my amendment costs taxpayers nothing. and it's a commonsense solution to a real problem that exists. i encourage my colleagues this afternoon when we have an opportunity to get back into votes that they support amendment 1121, and i would

yield the floor to my colleague. mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president i objected to the unanimous consent request to waive rule 26 to allow the finance committee to pass a fast-track bill because i think it's time we slowed down fast track. this trade agreement i think everybody acknowledges is of enormous consequence to working people all over this country and we need more transparency, we need to know what is in this legislation, we need to involve the american people in this discussion. and, mr. president i must say that i am extremely disappointed that on a piece of legislation which involves 40% of the

world's economy, that is the largest trade agreement in the history of the united states of america, much of the major media has virtually ignored this issue. now, you may be for the agreement, you may be against the agreement. i am strongly against it. i'll tell you why in a moment. but i would hope that we could all agree that this is an enormously important issue that deserves significant discussion on the part of the american people and their elected representatives. i find that incomprehensible that to the best of my knowledge, abc the abc television network has had zero coverage of the trans-pacific partnership, zero. cbs television, zero coverage. nbc, zero coverage.

pbs has had three mentions of the t.p.p. cnn has had zero coverage. fox television has had four mentions. and msnbc mostly because of the excellent work of ed schulze has covered it on 33 occasions, and all of this since january of 2015. so here we are engaged in a discussion -- some people are for it, some people are against it -- but how do the american people know what's going on if the major networks are virtually blocking out any serious discussion any mention of the agreement? mr. president, supporters of the fast-track bill have told us over and over again that unfettered free trade will increase american jobs and increase american wages but they have been proven dead wrong

every single time we have had a trade agreement. in other words we hear the same rhetoric. vote for nafta vote for cafta vote for the free trade agreement with china. it's going to increase jobs in america, improve life for the middle class and yet every single time the rhetoric around these past trade agreements has been proven to be dead wrong. mr. president, i was in the house of representatives in 1993 and 1994 during the debate over nafta, the north american free trade agreement and i remember all of those people who supported that agreement telling us how nafta was going to open up the mexican economy for products made in the united states of america and how it was going to create all kinds of good-paying jobs here in this country. on september 19, 1993, president

bill clinton said the following. this is what he said, and i quote -- "i, president clinton believe that nafta will create 200,000 american jobs in the first two years of its effect. i believe that nafta will create a million jobs in the first five years of its impact." bill clinton end of quote. that was president bill clinton who strongly supported that agreement. but it wasn't just president clinton who made those claims. the heritage foundation, one of the most conservative think tanks in this country said back in 1993, and i quote -- "virtually all economists agree that nafta will produce a net increase of u.s. jobs over the next decade." end of quote. that is from the heritage foundation conservative think tank. further, during the debate over

nafta in the senate in 1993, the distinguished senator from kentucky mitch mcconnell, who is now the majority leader, said and i quote -- "american firms will not move to mexico just for lower wages." end of quote. senator mcconnell. virtually every major newspaper in america had editorials saying support nafta. "washington post," "new york times," "wall street journal". support nafta. it is good for the american worker. well it turns out that nafta which, of course, was supported by every major corporation in america, supported by wall street supported by all of the big money interests well, it turns out that all of those projections regarding nafta turned out to be dead wrong. according to the well-respected economists at the economic

policy institute nafta has led to the loss of more than 680,000 jobs. not the creation of a million jobs. the loss of 680,000 american jobs. in 1993, the year before nafta was implemented the united states had a trade surplus with mexico of more than $1.6 billion. last year, the trade deficit with mexico was $53 billion. let me quote what the economic policy institute says about nafta. quote -- "president clinton and his collaborators have promised nafta would bring good-paying jobs. a rising trade surplus with mexico and a dramatic reduction in illegal immigration. instead -- this is proceeding to the e.p.i. -- nafta directly

cost the united states a net loss of 700,000 jobs. the trade surplus with mexico turned into a chronic deficit and the economic dislocation of mexico increased the flow of undocumented workers into the united states." end of quote from the e.p.i. further, mr. president let me just quote an article that appeared in "the new york times" yesterday yesterday. quote -- "mexico has become the most attractive place in north america to build new automobile factories. a shift that has siphoned jobs from the u.s. and canada. in the past tw -- in the past two years eight automakers have announced plans to open new plants or expansions in new mexico. lower costs are the swing fact at thes," "new york times" yesterday. in other words mr. president despite all of the rhetoric about how this