further debate though? >> i want to thank the senator for his amendment because i share his goal in insuring the administration meets the objectives that congress sets out. but i am confidant the tpa bill already accomplishes this goal. we created two procedures for this committee to review and vote on whether the administration sufficiently achieved negotiations. this amendment does nothing to strengthen our ability to hold the administration accountable. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and i think we would be better off voting no.

any further debate? >> very briefly. it is hard to understand how having cast the votes in the senate on human trafficking and then say that has a negotiating objective, our own country that puts out a trafficking person's report and labels countries by tiers of how good to how bad they are that some of the worst offenders should get access to our market. now somebody can get off the tier three provision by cleaning up their act and then they are eligible. but i don't understand how it is a problem to make that determination and make that one of our negotiating objectives. >> we reached an agreement that solves the problem. all i can say is i appreciate the senator and his feelings

about this but i hope we vote it down. clerk will call the role. >> mr. graphing? >> no. >> mr. roberts? >> no. >> mr. roberts no. mr. cornan? >> [inaudible conversation] >> mr. thuscott? >> no. >> inaudible roll call >> mr. nelson?

mr. menendez? mr. corker? mr. bennett? mr. warner? >> chairman votes no. >> the amendment is agreed to. who is next? >> mr. chairman do we already announce? i would ask consent it will not change the outcome if you vote aye. >> without objection. >> okay. who wants to be recognized for any further amendments

>> mr. chairman? >> okay. >> i have an amendment and it states a principle negotiating objective of future trade agreements would be the mutual elimination of state-sponsored financing institutions. when the state sponsored finance institution was reauthorized in 2012, congress requires the treasury secretary and i quote initiate and pursue negotiations to reduce with the goal of eliminating subsidize programs. the treasury has failed to meaning meaning meaningfully comply. there are no explanations of what concrete steps were taken

pursuant to the law to reduce the subsidies. here is the simple reality. taxpayers are required to subsidize certain companies through the bank. that is what happened fe what happens. that is not good economics, it is not fair to the taxpayers, and the argument for why it is necessary is simple one i hear everyone else does it. that is not persuasive to me but i happen it is to many of my colleagues. this amendment does not commit what some have suggested would be unilateral disarmorment by suggesting the elimination of the bank we are asking for it to be a mutual elimination of the market distorting taxpayer burdening institutions.

i think it is an important step we can take in the right direction. mr. chairman i know your view on keeping the amendment relatively unamended so i will withdraw but i will revisit this because i don't think it is fair to force taxpayers to face this in indefinitelyly. indefinitelyly indefinitely. >> senator carter? >> i would ask for amendment number three. it is amendment 109. >> could we speak briefly on this? >> wait until we finish the last one and i will call it it. >> chairman? >> senator? >> thank you. i definitely support credit financing for exports. and i definitely support credit financing for exports when

banking organizations around the globe don't support it. i generally support trade and ge generally support helping build economies around the world. i think building economies around the world stabilizes things and when you stabilize economies around the world you stabilize the politics and policies of these governments we want to see changed. i wish the banking community would finance all of the export deals that we would like to deal. i wish they would finance all of the small business deals we would like to do but they don't. that is why we have the fda to entice them by taking the risks out of the equation. but i want to support small business exports and that is not what the fda does but this credit agencies does. i appreciate the fact my colleague withdrew this but it

doesn't cost the taxpayer money. i would say mr. chairman we need to go in the opposite direction. when we get to the floor i plan to offer an amendment that will be germane to reauthorize the banks to open markets for u.s. companies and kill the credit agencies that help small businesses and businesses in america export is the wrong idea. so i plan to continue this debate when we get to the floor but in the opposite direction. i hope my colleagues who think about trade in the context of what we want to do to grow our economy because it supportive. it is a big economic opportunity for the united states outside of the united states but too the tools and created agencies are part of the tools. >> mr. chairman, i want to inquire of my colleague here. my understanding of his reading

of the amendment is you are asking as a matter of discussion or negotiation between our trading partners in mutual you trying to level the playing field, on this. you are not trying to eliminate unilateral import/export bank you are asking for a discussion and debate relative to reaching a mutual agreement which would level the playing field. am i reading that correctly? >> if i could respond, senator from indiana is correct. what this amendment is not a unilateral elimination of the u.s. taxpayer financing entity but state there is a negotiating objective and the mutual elimination with the goal being a phase out among our trading

partners. >> mr. toomey raised an interesting point and opportunity for us to figure out a way to come to common ground on this issue. i agree with everything senator cantwell said. and the reality is we have to have this credit agency and the ability to compete because other countries around the world are doing it at much higher levels than we are. we are pikers compared to the vast majority of other countries. they sub-saharan -- subsidze way more. but senator toomey is right we should have an international forum to resolve this and knock down all of the subsidies. i think it ought to be an objective of the united states government to go to our trading

partners and work to get rid of these, they are trade distorting, and we would not have to rely on this. but in the meantime it is shooting ourselves in the foot and hurting a lot of suppliers if we simply unilaterally stop providing this support. >> senator toomey has this amendment. i don't see any reason for further discussion. i want to commend them for what he is talking about. commend the senator from washington for what she said. it something we will have to face before the end of this year. and we will have to do it. but i would like to keep moving this markup forward. we are doing pretty good. i do think it is important that we be careful not to amendment this because it is going to be difficult to get it through the house and i want it as clean and good as i possibly can for the

chairman over there who has his hands full. i know what it is to have your hands full. i appreciate everybody and the cooperation we have had. senator scott you are on. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am going to also follow senator toomey's approach and withdraw my amendment. it was to insure the accountability of regulatory nugauche ace negotiation negotiations are part of the agreement. my concern was to make sure nothing aviserates u.s. sovereignty. my amendment fought to make sure it was spelled out. but certainly it is spelled out clearly. i think it is important to recognize that often times we find ourselves in a situation

where an agreement suggests there is a different way for us to move forward as opposed to our u.s. laws. >> senator? >> okay. okay. let me just say this. i appreciate your concern, senator scott. what you expressed in relation to this amendment. but i believe these concerns can be addressed without the need for an amendment. the tpa bill has extensive requirements they must meet during, before and after negotiating an agreement. each consultation addresses the amendment and your amendment as i understand mentions regulatory harmonization.

i have a note that regulatory harmineonization is forcing anyone to change their standards. it means where our trading partners have the same standards as we do our governments will look for way do is make those regulations more efficient. if the standards are the same there is no reason for our businesses to have to fill out one form for doing business at home and another set when they sell their products in europe. i pledge to work with you senator scott, to try to resolve these in a manner that pleases you and others that support that but i would ask you to withdraw the amendment. >> thank you. i withdraw the amendment. >> senator brown. i know there are a number of amind mendments. >> i do have a number of amendments but i will only ask

for votes on two. i have a number of amendments but i will not offer all of them. i only have two i would like to offer and ask for a vote on. and to go back to currency one more time and because this so important and so many of us worked so hard on this. i would bring up amendment number 2 it very simply just in effect says the currency negotiating objective that is in tpa would be mandatory and a trade agreement would lose fast track consideration if there was not something in there on currency manipulation. it doesn't say what or how but if you don't have a provision to address this the agreement would not receive fast track consideration. and i would ask colleagues who

are concerned about some of the language in the other amendment. we are not talking about wto or anything like that. just you need to have something regarding currency manipulation to get the fast track authority. >> the amendment seeks to prohibit trade procedures for trade agreements with countries engaging in quote protracted large scale intervention unquote on foreign exchange markets for the purpose of gaining trade advantage. unfortunately the amendment runs into the problem faced by trade representatives and treasury. that problem is determining and labeling a countries at one that manipulates the bilateral exchange rate and identifying that manipulation for trade

again. i don't believe it provides enough information about how persistent this would have been what larnl quote interventions mean, whether capital control would have to be considered and nomi nominal interventions and how long the prohibition on fast tracking into a trade agreement would last. i do not believe the amendment put into place an effective mechanisms of deterance. i would urge my colleagues to not support this and i am open to anyone who wants to make comment on this. do you want to vote? >> i do. >> clerk will call the roll. >> no. >> mr. roberts? no. mr. corman? no.

mr. thune, no. corker? >> pass. >> toomey? >> no. >> mr. scott? >> no. >> mr. shuchmer? >> no. >> mr. nelson? >> no. >> mr. menendez? >> no. >> mr. brown? mr. bennett? mr. bennett no. >> mr. warner? >> no. >> chairman votes no. >> mr. portman? >> i have not had a chance to review the amendment. i looked at it i can support it.

>> mr. portman, aye. >> clerk will report. >> the tattle is 9 ayes and 17 nays. >> the amendment is defeated. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will try another and hopefully we can get bipartisan support for it. it amendez the core labor section that indicates we would have equal pay for men and women of work of equal value as set forth in the convention of 100 considering equal pay for men and women workers for work of equal value. basically, putting in place as we work with other countries to improve their standards, a stipulation as to encourage equal pay for equal work. we are negotiating with countries that have abysmal

labor standards and for women it can be a disaster in terms of the way women are paid. this would simply indicate we should empathize the importance of equal pay. >> what amendment number is that? >> i'm sorry. that is number four. amendment number four. >> you have a committee number on that? >> let me me say i cannot support this. it makes it complex to pass it. i recommend we vote no. i thank you for the amend. because i share her goal of insuring the administration meets the negotiating objectives

that congress sets out. but i am confidant the tpa bill that senator widen and paul ryan already introduced will take care of any of these matters it seems to me. i hope you will support us in this. and vote no on this amendment. if there are any further comment on this. >> i meant to ask consent for senator cantwell and senator brown to cosponsor the amendment. >> without objection. >> senator brown? >> i withdraw. >> mr. grasley? no. mr. roberts? no. mr. inaudible no.

mr. thune? no. mr. bird no. mr. isaacson? no. mr. portman? no. mr. toomey? no. mr. coats? no. mr. scott? no. mr. white? inaudible. cantwell? mr. nelson? aye. mr. brown? aye. mr. chairman? no. mr. widen? no. mr. schumer?

i am biproxy. mr. harper? the tally is 10 ayes 16 nays. >> the amendment is defeateded. mr. bennett? >> i would long to recognize bennett number one and in the spirit, the way you conducted this hearing i will withdraw the amendment but i would like to speak to it. >> i am starting to love you. >> i feel the same way. this amendment is simple. it would make clear through the new principle negotiateing objective we should contribute the elimination of poverty and hunger. this would show this isn't just a way to open global commerce

but an opportunity to combat global poverty. trade and foreign investment are playing an important role in global development. if we get trade right, we have the power to positively influence the global fight against poverty and hunger. in 2012 developing countries represented 60 times greater than official aid and that number is only growing. however, trade potential to combat poverty and hunger is not assured or sustainable without clear intent. to continue this momentum we need to make it clear eliminating poverty and hunger around the world are objectives of u.s. trade policy. this considers how trade can boast the most vulnerable and

contribute to the elimination of hunger around the world. i believe we will set an expectation of addressing hunger and poverty issues in all future trade agreements something that is at the heart of american values and our moral responsibility to assist people in need here at home and around the world. i will withdraw the amendment but look forward to working with you and the ranking members as we move to the floor >> i thank my friend from colorado. i appreciate that very much. >> we are working out some amendments and we need a few minutes and we will go to senator brown. let's have a few minutes just lapse here. [inaudible conversation] >> i hope members will stay. we will get through this as fast as we can. don't leave.

[inaudible conversation] >> senator grasley is chastising the chairman. i accept it. let's move ahead. senator brown. >> i will make it easy. thank you for moving forward and mr. chairman your tolerance. this is brown amendment number eight. now negotiating objective with respect to public health. the underlying bill doesn't include a negotiating objective of public health and this amendment incerts one. our trade agreement should

strengthen the 2007 bipartisan agreement on trade policy. that was the may 10th proposal that was adopted. our trading partners should comply with trips, the world health organization resolution on public health, innovation and property. third, they should not include obligations that could be read as limiting access to medicine and 4th quarter governments have the right to regulate and pass laws in the interest of public health without the threat of trade-related penalties. think about cases on tobacco aimed at the australian government. >> i cannot hear senator brown. >> governments have responsibility to protect public health and that includes making sure people have the medicine they need to treat infections, tb hiv and aids that affect the

poorest and most vulnerable. there is a way to strike a balance. our agreement shouldn't favor corporate interest over the health of people and developing countries. the negotiating objective of this amendment calls for and provides instructions to negotiate trade agreements that maintain our u.s. public health commitments and promote access to medicines while protecting property. i offer the amendment and i will withdraw it. >> i appreciate the offering and withdrawing. with that shall we go to the next amendment? senator thune? can i recognize you first? >> thank you mr. chairman. i just want to express my appreciation to you and senator widen for your work in putting together a modernized package i

believe will help lower barriers to exports. i want to commend you for inclusion of language in the trade negotiating objectives as they relate to trade and agriculture and prevents our trading partners from using unjustified trade restrictions or commercial requirements to keep the products out of the market. as you know many of the agriculture products we sell in nebraska like the corn and soybeans use bio technology. unfortunately they are using non-regulated products to keep them out of the market or treat them unfairly. the question i want for you mr. chairman is can you confirm that language in the tpa bill relating to trade and agriculture a in fact intended to address the full barriers that agriculture producers face including unjustified,

commercial or regulatory requirements? >> let me share the senator from south dakota that this is precisely the objective that was referenced. it is true that u.s. farmers and ranchers phase a significant barrier that restrict access to foreign markets. the trade negotiating objectives on agriculture and the tpa bill are designed to insure that our trade agreements address the full range of barriers that our producers phase. commercial regulatory or otherwise. i appreciate the senator raising this issue and i promise to work with him to insure the committee report language makes clear the intent of the statutory language prescribeed prescribed. >> i appreciate that assurance. >> senator menendez.

>> mr. chairman one of the most consistent complaints we hear about the trade deals is why we may seek the right principles in labor and environmental standards in our negotiating objectives and get good language in the deals themselves some of our trading partners fail to live up to the agreement. thes this amendment says if we provide fast track procedures for a trade deal our partner in the deal must bring their labor law into compliance with the agreement before it enters into affect with them. our point of maximum leverage is when the benefits of the deal have not been delivered. after the ink is dry on the signatures we go signatures we can find ourselves spending years trying to get a

country into compliance while they enjoy the benefit of access to our markets. yesterday during the hearing, we were reminded of examples like one country six years after they enjoyed the benefits of having our market before they ever got into their compliance with their commitments. so if we think we have the right negotiating objectives if we think we have a deal that lives up to those objectives we should make sure our partners deliver on their commitments before we give them access to our markets. if countries can't, or won't live up to their commitments, then we did not get a good deal with them, and we surely shouldn't be putting it on the fast track to implementation. i would urge support. i don't think it changes the course of events. a country can be part of the deal but they will have to have labor commitments up front. at the appropriate time i would

ask for ayes and nays. >> i would like to ask the general council from usdr is here. i would like to ask him what is the process that usdr go through before the executive branch allows a trade agreement to enter? and do you require that our trading partner meet their labor obligations. it is important to clarify where you are at this point. >> thank you. thank you widen for holding the markup. there is a rigorous process along the line of what the senator was saying a moment ago. there are three stages where usdr and other agencies work with the foreign governments closely to insure they implement their obligations. during the negotiations there

are detailed conversations about the loss. they are going on now and in the context including understanding labor laws and the kinds of changes that countries have to implement. often those countries begin to take the changes during the negotiating phase. the second opportunity for usdr and other agencies to engage is after there has been congressional approval of an implementing bill all of the agencies of the executive branch working in partnership with this committee and congress work with foreign trading partners to insure we prepare an inventory, we just did this a few years ago with agreements passed inventory of all of the changes we believe need to be made. we then spend dozens and dozens of hours with each trading partner so we understand whether

the changes are being made and insuring they are done before the president reports to the congress that the trade agreement can enter into effect. and the third stage is once the groement agreement is in effect through the use of the general council office and all of the partner agencies we work to make sure the commitments are followed through. >> i would just say colleagues i will oppose this amendment because what the senator is trying to do the motive could not be more appropriate. i don't expect countries just to meet labor obligations before an agreement goes into affect. i expect the countries to meet them on the environment, non-tariff, rules related to additional trade, all of the obligations and i think that is what mr. right said he is going

to insist on. i think that is why this is a significant upgrade from existing policy and i oppose this. >> i am confidant the tpa bill senator widen and i introduced already accomplishes this goal. we have two procedures to vote on rather the administration sufficiently achieved negotiating objectives. this amendment was nothing to strengthen the ability to hold the administration accountable. i urge my colleagues to vote against this. i am prepared to vote? >> i briefly want to speak for this amendment. thank you, mr. chairman and i appreciate the amendment. president obama and the administration is interested in

labor standards like they say they are in the speeches and promises this is a pretty easy thing for them to support. i understand the situation in vietnam which is generally accepted as the most violator right of the 12 countries, there is one union, you can join that union that is affiliated with the communist party. you don't have much choice and i don't think that is what we believe in a vibrant labor union whether you support unions or don't. we agree on freedom of assoc association to join or not join them. there is no evidence the administration is using any kind of either care or stick to move their labor laws forward. they say it takes time.

of course it takes time. but there are not mechanisms to get them to move the way they should be. >> i think our agreement does cover that. >> i will be brief. >> i listen to what was said. what he said was that one, there is a conversation about what laws a country is going to have to change to become compliant and after approval on an implementation bill there is an inventory of changes. the bottom line is all it means is you don't have in place the labor standards we are heralding to be able to have those for which that is important to be supportive of the bill. that is far different than

having the labor standards in place before the deal goes into effect. i don't understand why we want to give people access to our markets because we say they have to live under these standards but they can get the access before the standards are fully implemented. that is why with guatemala it took six years! and there are other examples of that. that is what we are trying to avoid. i don't think this is a burdensome reality. if we are saying we are getting a good deal, and that good deal is about all of the elements of being heralded by the proponents of the bill that would include environmental and labor standards. i would ask for ayes and nays. >> if i could make a couple points first. we not only have to get this through the senate but also the

house. and frankly, we will work to make sure that all commitments that are written into this bill come into compliance. it is a very important issue. but this is not the way to do it, at least in my opinion, and frankly i hope we can vote it down because i have to admit this would make this very difficult to pass this bill in the house. we have to live with the law of possibility. and it is tough enough to put this bill through. it is an extremely important bill. >> a brief remark that has been made over different amendments. >> there is a reason for it. >> i understand. but let me liken this to something else. i don't want a deal with iran for the sake of a deal at any cost. and i don't think a trade deal

at any cost is ultimately what we want. we want a trade deal that creates a level playing field and balance and creates access to markets. i don't accept the proposition that you know if we accept that proposition, we will see an iran deal we don't like maybe, and we will say we need a deal so therefore let's support it. i would hope that is not necessarily our guiding start. >> this is a strong bill. i think it takes care of what the senator is talking about. at least as far as we can go to get legislation through both bodies. if we add this to do i think we have a difficult time getting it through the house and maybe even the senate. this is a delicate bill. there is no question about it. if we pass this bill in its current form it is going to be a marvelous thing to get done. i think for both sides.

not just democrats but republicans, too. that is what we are trying to do. we spent an awful lot of time trying to make sure we can get it through both houses. frankly, we don't need the senator's language to have the administration force some of the rules. i hope our folks vote it down because it would hurt our getting it through the house and i don't want to do anything to jeopardize that. i don't mean to play that tune every time but this is a reality. we have to thing about it. i think it would be tough to even get it through the senate. with that the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. grasly? no. mr. roberts? no. >> mr. cornan? no. mr. thune? no. mr. portman? no. mr. toomey?

no. mr. heller? no. mr. scott? no. mr. widen? no. mr. schumer? yes. mr. menendez? aye. mr. brown? aye. mr. bennett? mr. warner? no. mr. chamber? no. clerk will announce the results. >> mr. chairman seven ayes and 19 nays. the amendment is defeated. the senator from pennsylvania. >> i have good news and bad news mr. chairman. >> i would like the good news. >> the good news is i am not

offering all of my amendments. good news for you but bad news for others. i would ask for a voice vote on the by-american. this is amendment number 203. it is in this series for me i guess amendment number 2. what i am trying to do with this amendment is insist the buy america provisions that have been in effect for decades adhere to this agreement so that the affect of the amendment if it were to pass and be implemented would remove fast track privileges from many agreements that weakens or undermines the buy american act. in particular and this is the basics of it in terms of the impact it would simply mean in a trade agreement, we would

insure the agreement itself does one of three things. it doesn't weaken it doesn't undermine, nor would it necessitate the waiver of the buy american act provisions itself as well as the buy american provisions of the service transportation act of 1982. i would ask for a voice vote. >> i oppose this amendment. policies like this may be intended to shell industries but the result is retaliation and closing borders to american goods. i support increasing access to the government market said of our trading partners and that is why the tpa bill has negotiating objectives related to the procurement agreement. the best way to support these

companies is to insure they are treated fairly and compete equally around the world. so i know this is well intentioned, but i really urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. any other -- >> vote vote. anyone want a roll call voice or voice vote? >> those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed to the amendment say no. >> no! >> the no's have it. i heard mr. schumer say yes. senator brown, you are next.

>> this is amendment number 17 striking the investing stake. it strike language that refers to investor state dispute settlement which provides for an extra way for corporations to sue government for regulating or passing laws. corporations in one country suing a government in another country for a health and safety law or some law they have chosen to pass even when their courts upheld it. state, local and federal governments should not have to look over their shoulder at every issue every time they decide to pass a public health measure or deny a permit for environmental reasons. that is why i oppose investor stake. the argument is to insure american investors have adequate protection so our goal should be to improve the legal system with

our trading partners so they can have their own property right and strengthen their institutions. we seek to improve institutions and raise standards in other areas like labor. but in the legal system we are setting up an alternative system separate from the courts and often not related to that country. the arbitration panels are problematic because of the view allowing investors to seek compensation where it doesn't occur. the government regulated in a non-discrimination way doesn't mean a company should be able to sue another government and be rewarded. but arbitration panel can't be promised to throw out complaints.

investors often use this to forum shop or scare a poorer country off or a government into settling by requiring investors to exhaust all reasonable available domestic remedies and i know my friends on the other side of the aisle think about frivolous cases they could be filtered out but there is no requirement in the tpt or the underlying bill. they represent parties in other state proceedings having serious conflicts of interest. an arbitrator might be a judge in one case and a private lawyer representing someone else in another case where there could be conflicts of interest. there is nothing in this tpa or tpt that addresses those conflicts of interest. this is another way tr

corporations to maximum profits by challenging government regulations they don't like in a system whose rulings with divorce from precedent. this insures future trade agreements can be concluded without the corporate hand out provision. mr. chairman i ask my colleagues to support this. >> thank you, senator brown. >> on the last point, i am oppose opposed to this amendment, the question of government hand outs, the kind of people using investor sake patience are the environmental companies, the people on the cutting edge and innovation senator cantwell is talking about. i don't consider them a corporate hand out client looking for favors. they are looking for a fair sake when you do business overseas. i have focused on the investor stake provision that tpa

ininstructs the negotiators to get the right kind of investor staid. and let me be clear on what that is. no greater right for foreign countries, and we lock in and embed america's right to regulate and we have a more transparent process, we have stronger protections for american sovereignty. the language that the amendment would strike is important to insure that any kind of investor state proviction contains protections against frivolous claims and insures transparency. these are important directives and i come back to the fact our country never lost an investor case. we have had this for decades. suggesting this is a corporate hand out when the senator talks about how a big part of

america's economic future is in renewable energy and cutting edge companies. solar wind are the kind of people with investor stake cases. i want to give a fair share. >> i agree with the member and would the senator, is there a voice vote? >> i would desire more debate and then roll call. i have things i would like to say. the ranking member talk about american right to regulate as part of the, inother than saying we have not lost a case part of the reason for that is if you look at a chart of the number of cases over the last four years, they are going like this, there are more and more cases. america will certainly lose some of these because companies around the world are going to find ways to challenge u.s. law. but my question is what mr.

rife, the u.s. right to regulate that senator widen says is included what would that be? as you know your boss and ambassador is not allowed senate staff to go in and read the tpt. i have been there with ms. todd for not much time as i would like. she is not allowed to go back so we cannot examine this. can you tell us what that means? american right to regulate and how we preserve that? >> thank you, senator brown. what it means in particularly in the existing text of our dispute settlement mechanisms that are also being negotiated in the tpt and let me read it to you. it provides that non discrimination regulartory action by a party that are designed to protect public welfare objectives such as public health safety and the

environment do not constitute indirect appropriation. >> was that a stop? and i want to explain this to my colleagues -- would that have stopped phillip morris from attacking us as they did australia on a plane packaging tobacco public health law? >> whether a company can bring a case -- >> if morris was a company? >> but in our agreement, as mr. widen said we never lost a case. >> we hear that. but that is not that meaningful. >> and there have been a number of cases where concerns were expressed but we were able to prevail. and this language is the key reason we have been able to prevail because we seek to achieve in our investor state mechanisms both the opportunity for small businesses to go

abroad and be able to sell and operate in the foreign market and get the same fair shake that other businesses do. but also at the same time to protect our ability to regulate and establish that as the principle through all investor state mechanisms. >> let me share a brief story. the government of australia passed something called the plain packaging law that said tobacco companies in australia could no longer put their logo on a cigarette package but write in black and white the name of the company in black letters so they looked alike. and they had to put a picture and i know senator hatch in his record of public health on tobacco especially is impressive and they put a picture of a diseased lung or something on there. it almost immediately affected

tobacco consumption especially among young smokers. the australian court upheld the law 6-1 after it was challenged. phillip morris went to hong kong and set-up a subsidary and sued the government of australia, this is a three-judge panel made up of not-australians for lack of a better term, suing the government of australia and the law that they had passed democratically and a court upheld it. it is being litigated now but they could overturn that law that the australia people want that protect 16 and 17 year olds from tobacco. that is the kind of power they would have in these. i have heard the president and the usdr say this tobacco issue is serious and we have to do

something about it. there is still nothing in the tpt to deal can this. but this shows how a company in one country can sue a country and overturn the sovereignty. the other issue opponents make is this protects u.s. companies against appropriation. there are two things that already can protect u.s. governments without side effects of this language. number one is opec and what it can do. and number two is you can buy appropriation insurance and why should taxpayers be on the hook instead of the private sector? if they fear this in country x why shouldn't they buy the insurance to protect themselves? it sounds like tarp three or a government bailout for the countries in the developing world. >> let me just say this i cannot support the amendment that

attempt do is strike language from the negotiating objectives that you described to a degree. i am prepared to vote on it. do you want a roll call vote? >> clerk will wall the roll. >> mr. graslyey? no. mr. roberts? no. mr. insley? no. mr. corman? no. mr. thune? no. mr. burn? no. mr. johnson? no. mr. portman? no. mr. toomey? no. mr. scott? no. mr. widen? no. mr. cantwell?

aye. mr. nelson? aye. mr. carper? no. mr. brown? aye. mr. bennett? aye. mr. casey? aye. mr. warner? no. mr. chairman? no. chairman votes no. final tally is 9 ayes and 17 nays. >> the amendment is defeated. are we getting close to the end? senator burr you are next. >> i would like to call up portman number two and that is committee number 88. and i will say to the chairman he will not love me like he loves senator bennett because i will have to have a recorded vote on this. i will be brief and i have great

affection for the chairman and i think you for the support on the issue. but i have to offer this tpa bill up as well because it is the only way i can assure we address this once and for all because this is a great need. this bill would allow companies to apply for duty suspensions on a predictable schedule. this crafted bipartisan agreement would allow for the ntb process to move forward in a post-mark era while still maintaining the role of congress. the bill will explicitly allow members of congress to submit proposal for duty suspension to the itc, which would be equally considered along with submissions from the public. this bill also insures bills are properly vetted once the provisions are assembled the bills would be considered in the same way it currently is.

this doesn't provide a fast-track process or limitations on floor amendments. i would encourage the members this is a grave issue for many manufactures. these are duties imposed on them when they purchase something. ... frankly, i believe that offering offering will let me just say the chair views this as nongermane. pursuant to rule to a the

committee rules that the amendment is not germane and the amendment is out of order. >> mr. chairman? >> senator brown. >> i have many other amendments. >> can you give us some sort of an idea how many more amendment to have? >> i'm guessing seven or eight were. five more? five more well one i am combining vitamins into one. >> would ever like to do for it's all right with you i would like to limit each amendment to three minutes per side if we can. can we do that? >> we can try but i would rather not agree to that mr. chairman because some of these are pretty lively and i don't know why we would start now doing three minutes when we did in earlier so i really would object to that that. as you know mr. chairman i started with 88 amendments. on a number of those i've worked

with you overnight and we negotiated last night in the numbers continue to strike. three minutes of 88 amendments is longer than 10 minutes of 10 amendments. >> we are fine. i'm sorry i raised it. let me just say this i would appreciate it if you would take the argument as short as you can can. >> i will do that. i would keep them shorter if you would be more convinced. thank you mr. chairman. this is an amendment on behalf of senator casey -- this commitment we are offering to prevent tpb from being a backdoor trade agreement with china, a backdoor trade agreement with china. senator menendez has raised his concerns perhaps longer than anybody and i appreciate the involvement of so many others. it makes clear that the fast-track deal isn't not

applying to other countries joining tpp. 12 countries, should be 12 countries ntpp. spells out the process for future tpp partners to join the agreement. first finance in the ways & means ways & means committee up to vote to certify the country considering joining has met the standards of the agreement. once the committee certified the senate and the house we have to vote to approve that countries joining. mast -- imagine mr. chairman reaction of the country the administration and ambassador from an decide some moment that china is going to be part of tpp. the second largest economy 1.3 billion people so much of what we wear and buy is made in that country and all of a sudden they have backdoor into tpp with no vote of congress with no input from the american people. it boggles the imagination to think that. news reports indicate that we

are monitoring closely these talks. former ambassador portman pointed that out. they flood our markets with subsidized steel imports and promote policies to undercut our manufacturing. tpp simply can't become a backdoor way to pass a free. agreement with china without a vote in congress. my amendment would ensure that not just china and not picking on anybody, just says we can name the other 11 countries or the other nine countries besides the former nafta countries u.s.-canada and mexico, we know the other nine countries by name and we can recite them. they are in the newspaper. we don't want other countries to join without the finance committee the ways & means committee in congress approving that. my amendment would ensure that china or any other country that wants to join the agreement gets congressional approval.

if there is chairman's son i would like a roll call vote. mr. chairman i want to rise in support of this and a important amendment that i want to say word about senator graham. i don't think there has been any senator on either side of this issue that has been more passionate, more dedicated and more focused on trying to make our trade was better. whether you agree with him or disagree with him i think everybody knows senator graham has made this one of the major issues that he is pursued in congress for all the years he has been here. he has had tremendous effect. some of the antidumping cases came about because of him. there are thousands and thousands of workers working today who wouldn't have worked because of unfair trade practices but they are working because of senator grimm's great work. i think think we shall salute him for what he does and i would be happy if he had 88 amendments but i don't speak for everybody. i think i speak or most of us on the rest of what i said. that and i will take myself. on this amendment senator brown

is right. china is different. china is different in the way it does trade and they are rapacious. they have a plan and china is going after the cream of american industry, the tech industry, the pharmaceutical industry high-end manufacturing. i've had two new york companies get deals in china. they sold their family jewels. ge gave china the designs for the turbines that spend so quickly to get a 10 year contract ibm just made a deal with china where they had to give away a lot of the knowledge of the software that took decades to build up but china such a huge market. it says to these companies we will give you five or 10 years of good yield and we would let you an otherwise but you have to show us how you do what you do and than the chinese company will do it. we will be stuck so just justice

over the last 20 years by doing nothing we have lost out on low and middle and manufacturing and services. we are going to lose out on the best thing we have got going if we let china keep going this way. that's why some of us are so frustrated here tonight. i very much appreciate the support from my amendment, the amendment senator brown said at a portman but i feel a passion that i want to see america stay the number one country in the world. i think if we traded fairly leeway. we have the greatest system. we have the most innovation. we come up with all the new ideas but china has begun away not to compete with us fairly and come up with the same kind of creativity. they curtail freedom too much to do that but rather they come up with rapacious trade practices and in all due respect to mr. mr. das and the administration they seem to just shrug their

shoulders. there's nothing inconsistent with going after china and supporting tpp. some of us don't support it and some of us do but there's nothing inconsistent. this amendment, i think we should accept this amendment. there's nothing wrong with this amendment and china is not the same as indonesia or singapore or even japan or korea. it deserves support and i thank senator graham for offering it. >> abu wanted wanton influence in asia we are going to have to pass tpa and we are going to have to get tpp put together right. i will send messages so we can never otherwise send so without this bill we are never going to accomplish what both of you would like to do. but me just say this. the tpa bill that senator wyden and i introduced already tackles the concern that this amendment seeks to address. arpaio already requires that the president take into account all

of the congressional negotiating objectives before commencing negotiations with any country. that will include china. if in the future china became interested in joining the tpp. section 5 a. of erbil sets out detailed consultation and reporting requirements that the president must follow before entering into negotiations with any country. the best thing we can do to counteract chinas to pass tpa so our negotiators based on american standards. if we can get japan into the tpp which we are about to do and what we intend to do is going to send a message all over asia and i think we will. to quote the "washington post" editorial board the tpp would ensure that the pacific rim plays by u.s. style rules and regulations rather than china's neo-mercantile -- so i urge my

colleagues to vote against this amendment and i appreciate the efforts of my distinguished colleague from ohio. he is a very compelling order and somebody that we have respect for here but i would like to vote on this and i recommend we vote. >> mr. chairman one point i could make in a little bit of friendly counter. whether you are for tpp or not we have differences on this committee. making sure china plays by the rules is not inconsistent with tpp. in fact it is consonant with one of the stated goals which is to keep these other countries these other asian countries out of china. so we are not trying to be inconsistent here. they can live alongside one another. i'm not talking about this amendment that the one thing i would say to my dear friend the chairman is at least to me dealing with china's rapacious

practices is more important to the american future than tpp whether you you are for it or against it. that is where we differ. and we can do both. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm going to be brief as well. i like senator schumer i have enormous respect for senator brown. i think senator brown and i have had more conversations in the last six months about how to do this than any other member and you see it reflected in section after section starting with the enforcement provision. here is how high come to being skeptical of all this and why i'm going to vote no. you don't enter into a trade agreements by osmosis. you enter into it when you have implementing language. you have to have implementing language if you can get to some of the key questions like tariffs. tpp does not include china. we all understand that given how long it has taken to get with

the countries we have gotten. i doubt it's going to be china joining tpp anytime soon. this tpa bill is going to be around for just six years so the bottom line to me is not only do you somehow just arrived at a trade agreement trade agreement and that's that's why i call it no trade agreement by osmosis reality is if china were ever to join the tpp they have to go through us first. this question of wine to hold china accountable which my seat mate for all these years made that point it made it very eloquently we are going to hold them accountable because if china were ever to join the tpp they have to show up in the united states congress first. rick -- so reluctantly i give a no vote. >> let me point out under this bill we have to give notice.

and we give advance notice on any methodology administration whatever the administration is going to do. this bill gives congress an awful lot of authority. senator menendez. see that mr. chairman briefly look, i think this has been made more difficult than the very simple proposition that it is and i think it's a simple but powerful proposition and that is that it's not about mr. chairman as you described while they will have to follow the objectives and goals in a negotiation. the question simply is, can china or any other country not be party today to tpp dock onto the agreement without a vote of united states congress and my view is that there should be a vote of the united states congress if a country is going to dock on not part of the

original parties and since you said it's over the next six years there will be the life of this administration that will be a of this administration that will be a new administration predicted that congress should have a boat at somebody's going to dock on. i asked this question several times of ambassador froman when he was here before the committee. and he assured me in his testimony that there would be a vote. well if that's the position of the administration than there is no harm to guarantee that position is here in tpp. i mean tba. why not simply adopt the amendment and make it clear that in the future china or anybody else is not a party today and is going to have a vote of the congress. that proposition has been very largely argued by my colleagues on a whole host of other things. i see it totally appropriate here as well. >> let me just say this sir. i'm prepared to vote on this. i hope the people will vote against it.

i believe that this agreement is a well-done agreement and under the circumstances better than i ever thought it would be. frankly we have the support of the president. we have to have the support of the house of representatives fighting for that and i hope our colleagues will vote for greed. >> mr. chairman i would just add with all due respect i think this is a really important amendment and i would urge colleagues to vote yes. >> thank you. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] wow. [roll call] the chairman votes no. >> the final tally is 11 ayes, 11 nays. >> the amendment is defeated. senator brown. his senator menendez next? >> thank you mr. chairman.

ein i'm indifferent to all of my colleagues i'm going to make this the last offer. i had several more but i'm going to make this the last offer. i do hope to get serious consideration because i think people understand it's not about trying to understand -- stop the tba so i would like to call up men and is number five committee 130 for consideration. basically what this is about us as we are looking ahead to new trade agreements we should be mindful of the impact that new trade agreements have on our current free trade partners. we negotiate with countries such as canada, mexico, the cafta countries in part because we recognized that their economic growth was integrally tied to the economic prosperity and the national security of the united states. now new agreements such as tpp potentially threaten to put some of our trade partners at risk

particularly those in cafta particularly rules of origin where yarn would come from china instead of the united states and the assembled in other countries in the tpp negotiations. members of the senate foreign relations committee met with the president of honduras who made it clear that his and i have heard this from other cafta countries that there is a real concern about the affects tpp has on the very enterprises we intended to have have to be able to create and enjoy. now cafta has worked in many places and if you care about the nexus between central america, citizen security not seeing the drug flows take place in not seeing unaccompanied minors come to the united states he don't want to undermine that which exists today in cafta. so this basically says it is a

principle negotiating objective we want to make sure our trade negotiators did not undermine the existing trade relationship will when they negotiate new ones and i think that's a simple but important proposition and having listened to all the cafta countries -- cafta countries leadership to think it's a real concern for them and therefore if it's as consequential as they suggest with tens of thousands of jobs lost now we have an economic set of circumstances that exacerbates the problems we are facing on her southern border so i'd urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment and i would ask for the yeas and nays. >> this is a good agreement. it's well thought out. the administration has done a very good job on it. the president supports it. and we have worked very closely with this administration to come up with what we believe will pass both houses. i urge my colleagues as sincere

as senator menendez is to vote against this amendment, let's move on. do you want a voice vote? the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] the chairman votes no. mr. burr no. >> the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman the final tally is eight ayes, -- nays. >> the amendment is not agree to. >> i'm down to my last two amendments so beyond that i'm not responsible for the lateness of the amend -- the lateness of the evening. the first amendment is number two. the first amendment is number 52 52. i'm not -- you doing them consecutively but i'll start with 52. this amendment says that

congress should certify by of votes in finance and ways and means that an agreement is not the negotiated objectives as spelled out in fast-tracked. certification occurs within 90 days to the president sending the agreement out but if the vote fails me the committee of the fast-track is stripped from the agreement in that chamber. in the underlying president certifies the agreement meets the negotiating objective when he sends the agreement to congress. but of course the president is going to say say is agreements met the standards required by congress. that shouldn't be good enough. congress this committee and the ways & means committee and the congress write the negotiating objectives. congress should therefore determine that they have been met. i urge my colleagues who play an important role in congressional certification to support the amendment and make sure we and not the president are the judges of whether or not an agreement has met the objectives. mr. chairman one of the great things about this night is a i

just found my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have this new incredible trust in the president of the united states and admiration and they seem almost to idolize him tonight that we should give him all the power entrusted to did these negotiations. instead maybe with congress and the driver seat, let congress determine if the president's certification is legitimate and real and that is why i asked for support of the amendment. >> senator cornyn really looks like he trust the president so i think he's with me on this mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman thank you and as usual senator brown is talking about a valid problem. in the past the trade promotion act in my view has been a blank check for bad trade deals and that was something that i sought to correct and is chairman hatch will tell all of you and you might suspect we have had many

spirited discussions on this particular problem. once congress passes a trade promotion act bill it has been virtually impossible to stop any trade -- trade agreement coming down the road and chairman hatch and i have proposed after literally a month of discussions, months and months and it is bicameral. there has been a change in both the senate and the house. we have proposed a new way to put the brakes on a bad trade deal. so in effect the committee will meet on a bill. we will meet for example and tpp. the committee fails to favorably report the bill for any reason that sets in place a process to make the agreement and eligible for fast-track in tpa procedures.

while we are on this topic i want to thank chairman hatch for working closely with me over these last few months and as you can imagine the discussions were pretty spirited but i think it's going to make a big difference in terms of the new measure of congressional accountability, a new measure of oversight through the negotiations and in effect when people say oh i don't know if they will ever do it the first thing is going to happen colleagues, the first and it's going to happen with respect to these new procedures to put the brakes on a bad trade agreement is the executive branch is going to have to realize when they negotiate it that may be shared brown is going to come along in this committee and seek to blow the whistle on a bad trade deal. so i think we addressed it in that proposal and for that reason i would urge no one on

this. >> senator brownback you could sum up. >> with all due respect to my member he's talking about implementing bill. this was early in the process and i guess this congress wants to rubberstamp another obama initiative or do we want to stand on its own and actually speak up for not just the rights of congress that speak up for -- i listened to a number of you. it is late mr. chairman. i've listened to a number of you talk about your state, steel in ohio and steel in indiana. we know that we have issues here. we have interest in to give this power up to the executive weather whoever the next executive is, this one are the next one advocates a responsibility. more partly in and. >> this has been unprecedented and accountability. it has never been in this bill

before this area. this bill requires the president take into account all of the congressional negotiating objectives before commencing negotiations. we really give congress a lot of authority in this bill. that would include china. it is in the future china became interested in joining the tpp. i think the senator is worried about rings at the bill takes care of. >> mr. chairman? >> i would like to think that right now ambassador from and is sitting in front of his television set just hoping to learn more about congressional negotiating objectives because i think he wants to follow whatever we tell him, every step of the way. his negotiating tactics i am sure so important to his daily life in negotiating his agreements well. we no they are not. we have all had conversations with ustr that have been putting

it mildly unfulfilling where we don't often get answers to our letters or her specific questions or we get bob on staycation -- you keep saying the president must consider all these things. he must. >> he is required to take into account. >> but that doesn't really mean a whole lot to take into account what matters is we should make the decisions here whether he has in fact taking it into account what we are telling them to take into account. that sample minting bill. we should be in the process earlier otherwise it's another obama rubberstamp initiative in the united states congress. >> senator coats. >> mr. chairman i just want to tell my colleagues i think i

speak for the chairman and all of us here that we were kind of feeling bad that we hadn't rubberstamp anything for this president and we decided to select one thing before he leaves and this is it. >> almeida said from a guy who has announced his retirement already. >> i do not associate myself with those comments by the way. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] the chairman votes no. >> the clerk will announce the results. >> bridge chairman of final tally is seven ayes, seven nays. >> anyone else wants to be recognized? >> as is my last amendment. numbers 42 and 43. double play for the benefit of the chairman. it deals with the consultation requirements for autos, auto parts and industrial products. amendments 42 and 43 i ask unanimous consent for them to be considered together

mr. chairman. specifically they require the president to assess whether a trade agreement would benefit the auto sector and industrial sector including steel before beginning negotiations. after completing the assessment the president would have to consult with the committees of jurisdiction including this committee to determine whether it's appropriate to reduce tariffs on the sector's products. these are similar consultation requirements that president must meet for negotiations on agriculture products so it's really putting in-line industrial manufacturing steel auto in line with agricultural products in terms of meeting those consultation requirements for negotiations. the sensitivity and significance of auto and steel in a number for states and for our country and our national defense makes sense to require the president to do this with due diligence before negotiating a trade agreement as we do in agriculture.

mr. chairman i asked for support from the committee. >> i oppose this amendment. is there any further debate? >> and we do a roll call mr. chairman? >> of course. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] >> the chairman votes no. >> the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman the final tally is 10 ayes 16 nays. >> is understand that senator cardin has an amendment and that should be our last amendment. am i correct? >> mr. chairman i have one amendment i'm offering and withdrawing. >> that is fine. it will be the last one. >> the amendment that i'm offering is amendment 109 which is cardin amendment 3.

>> please proceed. >> is amendment would make the good governance sections that i've been talking about in the original bill would make it a principle negotiating objective rather than an overall negotiating objective. this amendment is straightforward. improvement of the act makes no changes in the language that was negotiated on a bipartisan basis by the committee. the only changes to move it from section to a11 to section 2b. the reason for this amendment relates to effective enforcement of good government -- governance in negotiating objectives. the dispute principle negotiating objectives require the ustr to seek revisions that treat the united states principle negotiating objectives equally with respect to the availability to resort to the

settlement under the applicable agreement. the availability of equivalent dispute settlement procedures and the availability for equivalent remedies. that's a principle trade objectives. therefore by moving this from overall tube principle plea to get the enforcement that i've been talking about that sometime. mr. chairman let me make this clear and i will be glad to ask the question. we have made it clear to the str that this amendment is consistent with their negotiations in the transposition of it partnership agreement and i would urge the committee to adopt this amendment. >> mr. chairman. >> mr. wyden. >> i would strongly urge the adoption of the cardin amendment. this basically ups the ante in terms of the importance of human rights. this beefs up our enforcement.

i've been talking with chairman hatch and the house leadership on this. this is going to be acceptable and i strongly urge the adoption i think perhaps we can do it by consent or by voice mr. chairman. >> let me say the same thing. i really appreciate the distinguished senator for working with us on this and working this out. i support the amendment. i think we work well together on this and if there is no demand for a roll call vote i asked for the yeas and nays by voice vote. all those in favor of the senators amendment say aye. those opposed. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> thank you mr. chairman. i really appreciate your help and cooperation. >> senator cardin has -- senator cornyn has limarco. >> be other amendment i would --

to plan out there were other issues that i hope it will have a chance to talk about as we move forward in our discussions on human rights and good governance issues. in particular if you look at that you will find that the language in the bill strengthens transparency the effective operation the rule of law of trading partners through capacity building and other appropriate means which are important parts of a broad effort to create a democratic society promote respect and internationally recognized human rights. that is what we now have is a principle trading objective. i just want to take issue with mr. brown on one point if i might. i have had many conversations with the ustr during discussions on the tpp. i will tell you i think they have treated our desires with great respect and are working very hard on this. i know in good governance issues they are working very hard with

trading partners in order to be able to have an agreement that mr. medically forward on these issues which are important i think to having a level playing field. it's for that reason i think what we do here is very important. i hope -- i'm going to support the bill in the committee mr. chairman because i think trade professional authority, it's important we have the tpp. i'm not totally satisfied with this bill. i've been working with congressman on religious freedom issues. you will see it in the amendment i'm withdrawing that we have the religious freedom issues that i think we really need to deal with. i've been working on the anticorruption issues to deal with independent prosecutors and independent courts and making sure they are adequately funded. these are important issues and mr. chairman let me say i hope we can approve this bill is a most forward. we do benefit then we have good strong trade agreement and we do

create jobs and it's good for american businesses. we also have to make sure it's good for american work is. that is why many of us are concerned that these bills move forward will tpa be inactive along with a trade though? i know you are sincere about that but there are other issues we hope will be there to help working families as we move these bills forward. i'm prepared to support the bill in the committee and bring it to the floor but i want to make it clear i will be withholding judgment as to how i will be dealing with this bill. with that mr. chairman i really thank you for your help incorporation and i think the committee. >> let me say this. i want to thank you for your help incorporation. you have worked closely with us and i think you have got a number things done that would have been done were it not for your leadership and we are grateful to you and i'm grateful for everybody on this committee, even those that are opposed to

the bill. although not as grateful to those who are opposed but however i understand. senator wyden. >> very briefly mr. chairman just two quick points. i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to change my vote on the brown taa amendment. i've long supported the idea that the maximum amount of funding for taa was going back and forth between house and senate on this issue. i'm changing my vote won't affect the optimal but then i ask is it to be recorded as an aye on the brown laminate to increase funding. >> what does that make the vote if i can ask the clerk? >> it would make the final tally 13 ayes, 13 amex. >> the last point and i think chairman hatch -- the government's solar enforcement

case was raised earlier and i think it's important to note that this is exactly the more aggressive enforcement that our country needs to see particularly as it relates to renewable energy. that's why we have the early warning system and i'll be talking with a number of you about that in the days ahead. >> thank you senator. i ask unanimous consent to change senator thune's vote realm yea an a and senator burr's book from yea an a on the white and brown number 70 on customs. without objection so ordered. we need to give a few minutes to get some final details done and i hope we will all stay around so we can vote for this bill. oregon state.

we will keep going if anyone has any further amendments. [inaudible conversations] >> we want to vote while we are still in a mood to rubberstamp the president here. >> we have one more amendment coming and we have to vote on that before we finish tonight and i hope that will be in a short period of time. let me just say this. i am extremely grateful for all of you who have stayed and worked on this with us. those who are opposed and those who are supportive. i think it shows the committee can really work together and i think we can work together without animosity and bad feelings and i think it's a good

example of what hopefully we can do through the coming months and years together to help our country. this is an important committee. in my opinion it's the most important committee on capitol hill and i can't tell you how grateful i am for the people who are on this committee committee. intelligent people who really make a difference and take things very seriously. we have a wide for idea viewpoints from the right to the left and the left to the right and i think that makes for good discussions and better legislation in the end. we are going to have to just delay for a few minutes. >> mr. chairman can i make an inquiry of the chair? mr. chairman over here. while we are waiting for this amendment could you tell us what is the subject matter of the amendment?

[inaudible conversations] >> mr. chairman? >> i think we are prepared to close it down tonight and let me just say this. there is no further debate i would entertain a motion that they committee ordered the bill is modified and amended as an original bill. >> isom moved mr. chairman. >> okay let me finish. isn't a senator -- does send a senator wants to require a recorded vote on this though? >> yes. >> so we do. the yeas and the nays or are ordered and the clerk will call the roll on final passage of

this bill through the committee. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] >> grba report. >> the final tally is 20 ayes, six nays. >> the resolution is reported recorded. i ask technical conforming in budgetary changes to those made today in without objection so ordered. before we adjourn if i could have order. if i could have order. before we adjourn at me thank my colleagues for their participation today. i especially want to thank senator wyden for his efforts throughout this process. we have worked very well together and i have really appreciated him. as we know today was a long time coming and i want to get credit to senator wyden or his leadership and his willingness to reach across the aisle on these important issues. while the day didn't go off quite as well as i planted we

got a good debate and covered a lot of ground. i recognize there are passionately held beliefs on all sides of these issues. i commend all my colleagues for their willingness to work with senator wyden and myself to get to this point. the bills would have reported today will assure that america's trade agreements will be standard agreement effective at getting american exporters the opportunity to sell their goods and services around the globe. i firmly believe that when american exporters compete on a market governed by fair and enforceable rules they will win. i want to thank all of our staff for their tireless work on this markup. they have worked long hours to this point and i certainly appreciate them. [applause] make no mistake we are not done yet really have a lot more work to do. once again i want to thank my colleagues for being here and for working with us and their efforts on behalf of their constituents. with that, the committee is

recessed until further notice. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and expectation when they might get to the floor. >> i have no idea. another leader would like to bring it up as soon as he can. >> with the inclusion of the reauthorization bill do you think that jeopardizes its chances in the house because those are two pieces of legislation. >> we are in touch with the congressman and we will just have to see. >> thank you.

>> thanks so much. >> congratulations. >> yankee. [inaudible conversations]

>> and early november president obama nominated loretta lynch to be the next attorney general and her nomination goes to the son of arthur were joined on capitol hill by todd berger who has been following this story for "cq roll call" briefly in a capsule form what the last six months am particularly the last four months in the process of getting a loretta lynch's nomination to the senate? >> it starts almost six months ago as you mention. there were four months in the last congress for the democrats were in control of the senate and have the ability to bring up loretta lynch in a quick manner if they had focused on that. they focused instead on a lot of judges and part of that was the white house also deferred to the new republican senate majority was coming and who were calling for pushing loretta lynch's nomination off until 2015.

so in 2014 they could hold any nomination hearings or anything for her and that started this year in 2015. >> host: the republicans in control of the senate of the 114 took up the nomination in the judiciary committee in february. that passed in the judiciary committee 12-a. with republican senators senators graham flake and orrin hatch voting in favor. what is that republican support look like now going into the vote on her nomination? >> guest: in addition to those. there have been two other republican senators susan collins of main and mark kirk of illinois who have voiced their support for loretta lynch so add that to all the democrats voting and they would have enough to first of all jump over a procedural hurdle of cloture where they would need a majority of the votes of the senators present and then they would move on to an actual final

confirmation vote for her. it would be about 165 or 166 days after she was nominated. >> host: in going to the cloture vote the first procedural vote we should see on the nomination at 11:45 on thursday morning? >> guest: that's right so senator mcconnell got up and announced there was an agreement between everybody in the senate for a schedule. there will be two hours of debate tomorrow prior to the 11:45 cloture vote. you can expect republicans to get up there and talk about the issues that they have with loretta lynch mainly on immigration and her support for obama's executive action that he announced also in november. then you're going to see a lot of democrats get up there and defend loretta lynch as someone that is noncontroversial in terms of her qualifications for doing the job. then if the cloture is invoked then they would take another two hours in debate and have that

vote so that vote would happen sometime around 2:00 p.m.. >> host: what type of experience does loretta lynch or into the attorney general's position? >> guest: she has a long career in law. a lot of that is in prosecuting. currently she is the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york which is a very active district when it comes to criminal gangs narcotics trafficking and also since she has been pending in front of the senate there have been a lot of terrorism related cases that the non-file in her district. so she is very experienced in tackling a lot of these large complex cases as well as managing an office. she has won almost universal praise for her ability to work with all sides of the issues. she has gotten praise from

police officers and law enforcement leaders and she has also gotten civil rights leaders who praised her so there's a lot of contentious issues she will have to face with the doj. she has got to be able to make friends on both sides. >> host: let's go back to the republican opposition would seem strong after the judiciary committee. you're right in cq about senator sessions with a headline saying senator sessions says he won't force along the babe on the lynch nomination if he is opposing. why is he opposed in why in general are republicans republican supposed to her nomination? >> guest: republicans are really upset about obama's immigration executive action most of all when it comes to loretta lynch and her nomination. he took those actions announcing prosecutorial discretion he would be using on millions of illegal immigrants and allow them to stay in the country and that is something that they senators have said is

beyond his ability to do. he doesn't have the authority to do that but i presently and on the department of justice to give him the legal authority for that. when the senators asked her at her confirmation hearing about that issue she first tried to distance herself but eventually had to say that she did agree or it was a reasonable position that the justice department to. so in that case senator sessions sessions, one of the most vocal opponents has basically said this is a moment where it's a separation of powers issue that the president has taken too much of his authority and this is not the time to be putting in an attorney general who is not going to be standing up to the president when it comes to those executive actions and other things. there are some other issues like an independent prosecutor for the irs and whether they were targeting conservative nonprofit groups and other issues like that.

>> host: todd ruger is -- follow him on twitter. just go thanks. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ..