capital hill, a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governments. it is $13.95 plus shipping and handling through the c-span online store at cspan.org. >> tonight, some of today's debate on the veteran's choice program and an effort to reduce wait time. and kevin mccarthy talks about foreign policy at the reagan presidential library. >> today in the senate a bill to grand the president trade promotion authority failed in a procedureal vote that would have allow allowed the whitehouse to negotiate deals with other countries and get a straight up and down vote. after the deal the senators discussed how to to move forward

and the implications on the vote. we begin with majority leader mitch mcconnell. >> what we gistjust saw is pretty shocking. there are always limits to what could be accomplished when the american people chose divided government. 'but of course it doesn't mean washington shouldn't work toward bipartisan solutions that make sense for our country. trade offers a perfect opportunity to do just that. we believe in lifting up the middle class and knocking down unfair barriers that discriminate against american workers and products in the 21st

century. on this issue the president agrees. we worked in good faith all year long to formulate a package both parties could support. the top republican on the finance committee, senator hatch, engaged in several months of negotiation with senator wyden. they talked with chairman ryan consulted with president obama, with democrats, with republicans, the issues they had to work through were tough. difficult concessions had to be made. many believed an agreement wouldn't be merged. but at the end, a bill passed 20-6 through the committee.

20-6. it was a significant win for the people we represent. it rosswas a win for the americans that look to us to secure economic growth and good jobs for them and not give into the special interest of these who would rather see the jobs ends up in countries like china. it was a win for the security of our country and for our leadership around the world. secretary of defense was at lunch with republicans today talking about the importance to our repositioning to the pacific from a defense and foreign policy point of view to get tpt. he was accompanied by seven people of both parties said this: mistakes are clear and america's influence and leadership are on the line.

so the ration for not voting yes today, a vote that would have allowed the senate to debate the issue was overwhelming. it was supported by the facts. and the voices in the president's party who rail against the future want out today. i will routinely quote president obama but today is no ordinary day. so when the president said the hard left is just making stuff up. when the president said their bizarre arguments didn't quote stand the test of fact and scrutiny end quote it was hard to argue with him. you don't make change through slogans the president reminded the advisaries. you don't make change by

ignoring the realities and that is something worth reflecting on. this doesn't have to be the end of the story. trade has traditionally been a bipartisan issue that cut across the partisan divide. and i suspect we have colleagues on the other side when are not that comfortable filibustering the economic benefits for their voters or a president who leads their party. what we just witnessed here is the democratic senate shutdown the opportunity to debate the top priority of the democratic president of the united states. sususpect some may be parking their vote rather than buying the outlandish rhetoric we have heard from the left. certainly that is my hope. to get the best outcome for the

country we have to be realistic. for instance, the idea that any senator can make a guarantee that a particular bill will be enacted into law is simply impossible. i assure you we would have had a different outcome on the closure measure if the senate had yielded the power to force things through by sure will alone. obviously we don't. what we can guarantee is senators receive a fair shake on the 21st century trade agenda. we will have an open and fair amendment process. how many times have i said that this rear year? that is what we intend to do this year. for my part i can restate my commitment to processing tpa and taa and other policies senator

hatch and chairman wyden can agree to. the senate is a place with the country debates and considers big issues. this is an issue worthy of our consideration but today we voted not to even consider it. it doesn't mean we can't predetermine outcome. it dozen mean we can even guarantee the successful path of legislation i cannot make those garnties garn guarantee of what the other side is a precondition to consider the president's number one priority. blocking the senate from even having a debate on such an important issue is not the answer. senators who do so are choosing to stand with special interest

and against the american jobs knocking down more unfair trade barriers with obviously support. so i sure hope some of the colleagues across the aisle will heed the word to president obama and rethink their choice. i hope they will open the debate to us. let me reiterate, we will continue to engage with both sides. we will continue to engage with both sides. we will have an open amendment process process. we will continue to cooperate in the things that got us through so many hurdles today. this has been an accomplishment getting it as far as it has and senator hatch and senator wyden deserve a lot of credit for

that. they didn't go through all of that to stall out here before we have a chance to produce something important for the american people. so i hope that folks on other side who are preventing this debate will seriously consider the implications of this. other countries are taking a look at us. they are wondering whether we can deliver. we hear tpt is close to be finalized. here is the headline they see. every single one with one exception of the president's only party in the senate presented the mechanisms for having trade considered prevented it from coming to the senate floor.

that is not the kind of headline we want to send around the world. that america can't be depended upon. that america can't deliver trade agreements. to our allies in the pacific apprehensive about the chinese and thought the was good for commerce and security what kind of message does that send? i move to reconsider. this is an opportunity for people to think this over. and it will be able to come together and go forward on a bipartisan bases to achieve an important accomplishment for the american people. >> democratic leader. >> my friend majority leader has one person to blame who is not on the floor debating this and that person is the majority

leader. next time he works he can understand who is responsible for not having to pay as you said with the robust amendments. it is him. mr. president, this situation we are in today is simple. the bills were put out by a large vote in the finance committee. the majority leader decided he would consider two of those on this own and the others would have to figure out another way to get done. as the public leader said this morning in his opening statement we will strike the amendment process. it is very logical i just said. it is ill logical what he is saying. why only two of reports from the finance committee? why only those two?

it doesn't make sense. the republican leader is very, very aware of motions perceived during the last four years because of the republicans cynical approach to government. they basically defeated everything we tried to give with regard to legislation. however, they are saying they are willing to work with legislation. we don't want to stop the vote on this bill. we think the bill should be what was reported from the finance committee. that seems a fair thing to do. we want to set a realistic pass for us in this legislation. if we are stuck here it is too bad. we should not be. i say to my friends i am always available to speak with him. here telephone, my office i

have stated the last week or so we issued no part on this. i want all four coming out of the finance committee lumped together. have in the words of the republican leader a robust process on those bills as lumped together. >> mr. president? >> mr. president, obviously the most sensitive political issue surrounding this is the currency issue. i want to make sure everybody has a clear understanding of where we are on that. i explicitly did not offer the currency amendment to the tpa bill; to the tpa bill. we were told that it would not be a part, if it were a part of tpa, we know it would kill it because the president wouldn't

sign the bill. my goal is not to use currency to kill the tpa bill and that is why we offered it to the custom bill. a separate bill. on the strong view no one disputed this in committee that we would get a vote separately on the custom bill on the floor and it would come to the floor just like the other bills. so currency in the committee agreed to deal with on the custom bill and not on tpa. now our friends on the other side are trying to bunch it together. it will defeat the bill and the president will veto it. that is why they reached the decision to deal are currency on the custom bill. i want to be clear about that.

when we get on the bill everybody will understand the significance of that issue. >> mr. president? >> democratic leader. >> mr. president? >> majority leader. >> that is what i just read in committee. it was clear from my notes. that is what senator said in committee. quote an explicitly i didn't offer the currency amendment to the tpa bill. we were told it would not be part of the tpa it would kill it. my goal is not to use currency to kill the tpa bill or kill the bill at all. it is to get currency passed and that is why we offered it on the custom bill and no one disputed getting a vote separately on the floor.

it would come to the floor like the other bills. that is senator schummer in committee. >> the senator has been having conversations on this. it is an important issue and we can speak for himself on this. mr. president, i am not an expert on the bill and i don't intend to debate anyone on the merits of the bill. i am an expert on the procedureal aspect of what goes on around here. i suggest the best way to move forward is coming up with program to have all of these bills discussed at the same time. that is why we felt the way you did and we indicated that in what we took. i think everybody should take a deep breath and there are ways to move forward on this without

disparaging either side. i think the vote was important. as the republican leader certainly can understand having been in the minority for a long number of years i think we are better off having a say what goes on in this body. we spoke that way today, we believe that and we look forward to continuing the process of moving forward on this bill. we cannot end the merits of this legislation unless we figure out a way to move forward and that process is not looking good right now. >> senator cornyn? >> will the senator yield for u unanimous consent? >> i would ask after the film manager, the ranking member of the finance committee, that i be recognized to speak following me the chairman of the senate finance committee be recognized

to speak >> objections? >> mr. president, the majority leader has entered a motion to reconsider the trade legislation. and i want to be clear both to the majority leader and all of our colleagues here that i am very interested in working with the majority leader our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to find a bipartisan path to get back to the legislation at the earliest possible time. mr. president, this morning, 14 pro-trade democrats met. and i can tell you all of the senators here that these are senators who are committed, strongly committed, to insuring this bill passes. with respect to just another

brief description about what we are mr. president, all of the hard work that the majority leader correctly described as going on in connection with this legislation, has been about four bills. the trade promotion act customs which is really trade enforcement, help for displaced workers, and trade preferences for developing country. and just briefly i want to describe why it was so important to senators on a bipartisan bases in the finance committee to tackle these issues. the first, trade promotion authority helped strip the secrecy out of trade policy.

the second is the support system for american workers. this is known as trade adjustment assistance that has been expanded. trade enforcement is put in high gear so america can crackdown on the trade cheats. and the fourth renews trade programs that are crucial to american manufactures. together these bills reform legislative packages that throw out the 1990's master playbook on trade. it is an opportunity to enact fresh, middle class trade policies that will create high school high wage jobs in oregon and across the land. that opportunity is lost if this package of four bills gets

widowed down to two. mr. president is dropping enforcement bills. and my view is legislated again. this will protect jobs with two propositions and every member of this body supports the enforcement legislation closes a shameful that allows products. this is 2015. there is absolute no room in this. this legislation is a shameful

loophole that will live on. any senator that goes hockey and speaks about being against job creating policies that has in my view a special operation. the finance committee, bipartisan, enforcement bill is all about everyone working together. without proper enforcement no trade deal with every live up to the hype. this enforcement bill is a jobs bill plain and simple and needs to get to the president's desk. some elements of this package represent priorities that have traditionally belonged to republicans. other elements are traditionally democratic. but taken as a whole, despite

partisan packages both committees had an understanding that the component part would be linked together. you cannot make this stool stand up with just two legs. the senate should not begin debate until there is a clear path forward for each of these four bills. i use that word specifically to talk with colleagues about it. we are going to work together in a bipartisan fashion. that is what chairman hatch and i have done since he became chairman and i have been grateful to him because that is the way he sought to carry out his responsibilities when i was chairman. we will work together. but the challenge has always been to find a clear path forward for each of those four bills. i urge my colleagues to consider

down the finance's committee bipartisan route, find a path that moves all four of these bills forward, and in closing, i want to reiterate with the majority leader entered into a motion to have the trade bill reconsidered i want to express to my colleagues and i see several finance members here, chairman hatch senator cornyn senior member of the committee, and i am interested in working closely with both of them to find a bipartisan path to get back to this legislation just as soon as possible. with that mr. president, i yield. >> mr. president? >> majority. >> i would ask unanimous consent that the chairman of the finance committee be recognized and i recognized following his remarks. >> without objection. >> i listened to the debate here

and i am very disappointed i have to say. everybody knew that the senator accommodated us ranking member myself in putting the language on the custom bill. here is what the senator said "explicitly i did not offer the currency amendment to the tpa bill. we were told it would not be part of if it were part of tpa it might kill it. my goal is not to use currency to kill the tpa bill. and not to kill the tpa bill. it is to get currency passed. that is why we offered it through the custom bill on the strong view that no one disputed in committee that we get a vote

separately on the customs bill on the floor. that it would come to the floor just like the other bills" that was the agreement. the distinguished senator from oregon knows that was the agreement. we would lump them together. we agreed to do that because the was concern hon the democrats side that maybe we would not put tpa out. that was a ridiculous concern. we know tpa can't pass unless you give the young ones what they want. we put them together so they can come again. the next two bills would be voted on separately. we understood that.

and they knew and said it will give the house a bad stomach ache because it could not put the language through with that on. i agreed with the senator that we could have hearings later he could bring up the bill. we would have hearings, a markup because there is a lot of people who would like to see something done on currency but not to destroy the tpa bill or should i say all of the negotiation negotiations this administration has been discussing regarding the trade promotion authority of 11 nations including japan which has been very difficult to get to the table because they have very grave concerns there. but they were willing to come to the table.

it might ruin t-tip which is 28 nations in europe. 40-60 percent of all trade in the world would come through these agreements that would be done by the trade representative subject to the review by congress provided in tpa. it is the procedure mechanisms pursuant to which we can assert congressional control over the foreign policy agreements/trade agreements. there is no agreement to bring them up one at a time. i thought flabbergasted.

voting against cloture on a bill their president want more than any other bill. after he talked to all of them. mr. president, i will take a moment to talk about what transpired this afternoon because i think it warrants further discussion. i stated this morning that today's vote we were trying to do something good for the american people to advance our nation's trade agenda and provide good jobs for american workers all of which happened should we get it through both sides of the house. we cannot have killer amendments put on bills that everybody knows will kill it. and that the president can't sign. did you know the president intended to get there.

sadly these colleagues, who have been against tpa always and now they are willing to have disagreements about a fair and open debate and i have to say that was all open on the other side today and instead they voted this afternoon to prevent any such debate from taking place. we are willing to debate we are willing have to amendments but only willing to abide by the agreement we have with the senator with regard to the customs bill. that was an agreement and i compliment the senator for not putting it on there knowing it would kill tpa. i am disappointed by this outcome needless to say. we are talking about trade policy at large but the bill receiving the most attention was the tpa bill which is bipartisan.

i made sure it was bipartisan. but we could work together and come together. and we could all basically feel good about it. it passed 20-6 which is as astounding. it doesn't take away the fact the minority leader and others don't want any bill at all. while we are talking about trade policy policy. there is bipartisan support in the house and senate not to mention the president of the united states and his administration. it is voted out of the senate committee by a historic vote i

mention 7-6 with seven democrats voting to report the bill. the bill that was president obama's top legislative priority. yet the mere thought of debating this bill today was apparently too much for my democratic colleagues to bear. nothing changed, mr. president. it is the same bill we reported out of committee. i can remember the happy time we had talking about how wonderful it was to finally get this bill out of the committee. this is the same bill we have been talking about for months. the only thing that was different today than just a few day uzgo was the strong of being employed by the opposition. we know the tpa bill wasn't the only bill reported from the finance committee in april. we reported a bill to

reauthorerize trade adjustment assistance. a bill to reauthorize some trade programs and a custom and enforceal enforcement bill. we heard rumblings a few days before beginning and heard statements from some senators including those who were support supportive of tpa. but they were only going to discuss this if all four bills were debated and passed at the same time. that was never the agreement. these new demands brought forward at the 11th hour were problematic problematic. the custom bill faces a number of problems with the whitehouse and the house of representatives. my friends on the other side realized that. in this bipartisan effort we were making together.

they recognized there was problems for both the whitehouse and house of representatives why were prevented from enacting it into law any time soon. i will not detail those problems mr. president, but i think most of my colleagues know what they are. i will say the problems existed from the beginning and we knew about them at the outset. we had people on the committee who were totally opposed to this bill. i made sure they had a right to bring up their amendments. i respect them. i don't agree with them. and i cannot even agree on how they ever reached positions they do. but the fact of the matter is they have a right to do that and we protected that right. now i might say these problems existed from the beginning. we knew about them at the outset and that is why the ranking member of the finance committee and i agreed the markup to move the four trade bills separately is one of the authors of three of the four trade bills i want

to be clear because there has been some confusion on this. there is no such agreement with regard to other bills. only a commitment we would do our best to get all four enacted into law with no guarantee they would be. the agreement was honored. the majority leader and i made clear if cloture was a vote we would file an amendment that included both of these bills. tpa and taa. we made commitments to work with our a >> caller:eges to find a path forward on the custom and preference legislation. but that wasn't enough.

we had discussions on trade deals. the only thing they would accept. all of them will be enacted. that is not the way it works around here. to comment on this and put it bluntly this is simply absurd to think a senate leader can guarantee any bill will become law before a debate begins. those were the demands we faced over the last few days. they were obviously impossible but we were in good faith to reach accommodation with those who in my opinion were not working in good faith. even then and i am willing to

forgive that even then there was no path to yes. as we know, the idea for demanding four bills or no bills strategy did not originate in the finance committee. this demand materialized last week and came from the senate democratic leadership virtually all of whom oppose tpa and their president on this bill outright. sadly it seems they were able to sell this to other members of the caucus including a few who should know better. we were never talking about reaching an agreement with people who wanted a path forward on good trade legislation. we were talking about an idea device deviced for the sole purpose of stopping progress on tpa. they appear to be successful today. i am disappointed mr. president. a lot of work went into this with the senate and house of

representatives and not to mention the administration. i have been at this from the very moment i took over as the republican on the senate finance committee in january of 2011. in january 2014 introduces legislation to form the bases of the bill we hope to start debating this week. balks and camp were committed to this effort. sadly chairman camp retired and balks was sent off to china. i worked with senator wyden to address concern and that was continued after i took over as chairman this year. i thought some of the proposals were unworkable but i bent over backward to accommodate this desire because i thought it would broaden support for tpa and i wanted to please him. chairman ryan joined be and we did all we could to put together

a bill and path forward both parties could support. we met with chairman ryan regularly. until the last few days with the new demands materializing i thought we had been successful. even after the new demands came up, i did my best to find an agreement working up to the vote to find a reasonable path forward. but something reasonable wasn't in the cards. i believe we can get something done still. we can work something out. i am an optimist. everyone here knows that. i told the president the same. i am willing to do watt it takes to pass these bills mr. president, and i hope my colleagues see the light and come forward with alternatives to a path forward. until that happens the president has to wait on the trade agreements and all of the farmers, ranchers manufacturers and other job creators in the

country. we could see a decline in u.s. agriculture and manufacturing and if the u.s. retreats from the world, the asia pacific region over to chinese influence, people will look back ad at today's events wondering why couldn't we get our act together. i am thinking that already. i hope it doesn't happen. if these other nations, particularly china, take advantage of not getting our act together. and in my frustration perhaps i am going dramatic i still have no doubt some will come to regret what happened here today one way or another. as for me i have no regrets. i have done all i can to get the important bills across the finish line and continue to do all i can in the fiche future to

get the bills across the line. it is unclear how many are willing to do the same. i believe there are honest good people on that side of the aisle who want to make this right and make up for what happened here today. i feel confidant that is so. i will proceed on the bases that is so. and i sure hope it is so because my gosh to put this nation's foreign policy especially in the orient in particular -- to put it on hold when we could be building relations like every before and at the same time spurring on international trade like never before it is a matter of great concern to me. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> majority?

>> mr. president, i want to congatulate the chairman of the finance committee who has labored long and hard to get the bill where it is today. i know how disappointed he is at the filibuster by our friends across the aisle on the president's number one domestic priority. i have heard it said that the united states economy is one or two policy choices away from awakening the slumbering giant known as the u.s. economy and growing it for the benefit of all-americans. and unfortunately what the filibuster occurred today is a backward step. and i know there is some people that say to republicans why would you want to work with president obama. the truth of the matter is that is what we are here for. if we agree on the principle. we are not here to agree with

him just to agree with him. sometimes it is easier than going back home and saying i disagree with the president. but this is one area where the president of the united states is absolutely correct. we are here not to do what we wants us to do but what the american people want us to do. what they want is the better jobs, improved wages the robust economic growth that comes along with trade agreements. it has been said numerous times, but i will say it again, 95% of the world lies out beyond our borders. 80% of the purchasing powers lies beyond the borders of the united states. why wouldn't we want to open markets to the things we grow that are ranch raised and our

manufacturers make. why wouldn't we want to do it? you will have to ask our colleagues across the aisle that with the exception of one democrat chose to filibuster the bill. 14 pro-trade democrats? 14! well i guess that means there are 32 anti-trade democrats. i must say on this side of the aisle we were by and large a pro-trade party. for the very reasons i mentioned early. and we would like to work with anybody, including the president of the united states to try to get our economy growing again, to open markets to the things we make and grow in the united states because it benefits the entire country, including the hard working families. you know the irony is that week the senate voted on a bill that would guarantee congress the

time and opportunity to review a potential agreement between president obama and iran. that bill passed 98-1. and it will prevent imp implimentation of anything before we can study the agreement and vote on it up or down. so far the so-called dealer framework has been vague and i think it is important we understand what is in it. you can imagine we voted 98-1 for this about this important negotiation with iran. why it is so strange our democratic friend don't want us to take part in the same process

of voting on trade agreements. trade promotion authority has historically have bipartisan support in the chamber. and this isn't something extending for the next 20 months of president obama's administration. this will extend six years in the presidency of the next president of the united states. this legislation sailed through the finance committee by a wide margin. 20-6. and i will say it again it is supported by the administration. by president obama's administration. so it is very strange to see democrats blocking a bill supported by the leader of their political party; the president of the united states. and the excuses they gave here today that all of a sudden we woke up and decided well the deal that senator wyden and senator hatch agreed to come is

to combine trade promotion authority with trade adjustment assistance wasn't good enough and they wanted to renegotiate the deal. well, i think, from my perspective, all are really two types of folks in the camp across the aisle. there are those who perhaps would like to get to the yes and that means you cannot have a negotiation and try to find a way to get to yes. but i can only gather from what was said earlier is there were 32 senators on the other side of the aisle that were anti-trade. they are not interested in getting to yes. so they are throwing up phony barriers like this attempt to renugoingsre renegotiate the package on the floor. this is typical of restructural behavior.

we saw this with anti-traffic anti-trafficking legislation as well. it came to the floor and then someone woke up and said we didn't read the bill and now we object. well this trade tool will give congress the opportunity to examine any upcoming deal that the president is trying to cut and make sure we make sure we don't take the president's word for it we make sure the american people get a fair shake. many of the provisions in the trade promotion authority are just common sense and non-partisan. for example, in the past the tpa gave congress the authority to read the text of the trade promotion authority. it is hard to argue that is a bad thing. it is hard to argue more straightforward than that. we have no guarantee without

this promotion. someone complained but to this point the obama administration has relayed very little information about this unfolding trade agreement known as the transpacific partnership or the affected industries. he has relayed very little information about the countries taking place. this bill prioritizes it front and center and requires the administration to brief memberoffs congress regularly on the progresses of the negotiation negotiations and allow members of congress to attend the negotiations. how much more transparent can you get than that? congress can work directly with the people finalizing the agreement and insure the american people are getting a good deal. so the bill that has been fill

bust -- filibustered today would have given good details of the trade difficult. i am disappointed our democratic colleagues were not able to see how important the democratic legislation was to not to us or the president, but the people they represent. we need to see growth in the economy and with the wages. as we her from secretary ash carter today at lunch this is an important for national security reasons as well. it that america is thoroughly engage in asia with our trading partners because you know what? there is a strange but simple phenomenon that occurs when two counties trade with each other. they are sure a lot less like to go to war with each other if they are doing business and talking to each other. so from a national security

perspective, we want to make sure we make the rules with regard to trading in asia and we don't default and let china fill the void, which they are happy to do over time if we don't take care of our business. trade is important to my state, it is important to the united states and in the 21st century all we needed was farm to market roads to find customers. but in the 21st century our customers are not just the next town over. they are all around the world. 95 percent of our potential customers live outside of the united states. this legislation would help connect american farmers, ranchers, and small businesses to the markets around the world and help our economy. as the world -- or i should say the country's largest exporter we in texas know the value of

trade because we depend on it. people think texas is just about oil and gas. but that is not actually true. we have a very diversified economy. part of what we have done that sets us a part from the rest of the country in terms of economic growth and job creation is trade. last year texas reported $289 billion of exported goods with 41,000 businesses exporting goods from texas to outside of the country. now this type of trade has helped our economy grow and keep people employed able to provide food for their families and other necessities of life. we have prospered relatively speaking during a time when much of the american economy has been relatively stagnant and trade has been an important part of that. opening up our country to greater trade through the trade

promotion authority would help american businesses send their goods to even more markets. the u.s. is the leading exporter of natural products. last year farmers and ranchers who could benefit from this legislation, exported more than $152 billion in agriculture products to customers around the world. in texas, for example, in the agriculture section, we lead the nation in exports of beef and cotton. by opening up more international opportunities for these products, our economy would grow, and the texas commodities like beef and cotton would be staples in fast-growing markets like asia. we know as i suggested earlier that trade is not about sewing

things. it is about making the things we sell. as of 2014 more than 1 million jobs in texas alone are supported by exports. by exporting. in the entire country that figure is 11 million. so with 11 million jobs dependented on exports why in the world wouldn't we want to improve our ability to export abroad to more markets around the world and to create more jobs in the process? well tpa is important because it would allow congress to have clear oversight over the pending trade agreements. i know there is a lot of uncertainty about what kind of deal is being cut behind closed doors. we would open the doors and bring it out into theome open and let all-americans examine it and

let us representatives examine it as well and why is this the best interest of the american farmer. we know trade promotion authority makes up 40 percent of the world's economy. so i admit that i am a little disappointed that the democrats with the exception of one senator would chose to block this important piece of legislation. with so much of the world's purchasing power located behind our borders you would think on a bipartisan basis we would support opening up new access to consumers and markets for america's farmers, ranches, and manufactured goods. that should be a top priority. unfortunately today, our colleagues across the nation didn't see our nation's businesses and economy as their main priority.

i hope that after today's failure of this particular legislation we will engage in serious nugauche aceegotiationnegotiations. about but i agree with the majority after november 4th the united states gave new management to the people. they were dissatsedified -- dissatisfied with the prior years because all they saw was dysfunction. now we are starting to see bills like the first budget since 2009. this is a great opportunity on a non-bipartisan bases to do something really good. i hope after making the mistake of blocking this legislation, that our colleagues, the 14th so-called pro-growth democrats out of the 46 across the aisle will work with us to try to move

this legislation forward. >> now some of the debate before the vote on trade promotion authority. we will har from opponents of the bill, senator barbara boxer and bernie sanders, and supporters of fast track authority, senator john carper and senator thune. >> i appreciate the leadership of senator wyden on this because if you leave out concern bills that help workers then you are left with a package that ignores their needs. i do want to say that i hope we will not proceed to this debate on this free trade agreement. i stand here as someone who comes from california where i have voted for half of the trade

agreement and voted against half. so i think i am a fair voice of what we should be doing. if there is one unifying principle about the economics of today it is this: the middle class is having a very hard time in america today. perhaps the worst time in modern history. a new study made it clear ow it is being hollowed out. we have dynamic workforce and entrepreneurs in my state. we are doing well. but the study found the lowest paid 12 percent of california workers have seen their real wages decline by 12 percent since 1979. ... about that. this is a great country. we always say we have to be optimistic about tomorrow.

you do everything right you play by the rules and your income for your family in real terms goes down by 12%. there's something wrong with this. i think everyone will say they want to do more for the middle class, and there is a straightforward agenda we could turn to 0 to do just that, and instead what do we turn to: a trade agreement that threatens the middle class that threatens the middle class. so what should we be doing here, not confabbing that threatens the middle class, that threatens the middle class so what should we be doing here? not confounding in a corner over there about how to push a trade bill on this floor that doesn't help working america. we should pass a highway bill. the highway bill is critical. good-paying jobs but businesses that thrive in all of our

communities. more than 60,000 of our bridges are structurally deficient. more than 50% of our roads are not in good condition but oh no, even though the highway bill expires we have no more authority to expend money at the end of may. they are bringing forward a trade bill that is a threat to the middle class. why do we increase the minimum wage? the minimum wage needs to be raised. oh no, they don't want to do that. they haven't done it in years. states are doing it. oh no, let's keep people working full-time in poverty. so instead of confab thing on how to push a trade bill we had to be raising the minimum wage. what else should we be doing?

we should make college more affordable. we have people here on social security in this country that are still paying off their student loans. that is a shame upon america. they can't even refinance their student loans so instead of confabbing in the corner why don't we raise the minimum wage. why do we pass a highway bill that is funded to help middle-class people? it's all a matter of perspective my friends. we still haven't done it will pay for equal work so women are not making what they should and that hurts our women when they retired. they have lost more than $40,000 of income so instead of standing in the corner and figuring out how to bring a trade bill to the floor they ought to be fixing equal pay for equal work.

they ought to be fixing student loans for our students. they ought to be passing a highway bill. they ought to be increasing the minimum wage and they ought to deal with currency fairness because of our trading partners they play with their currency in order to push forward their products. but oh no that is not on the agenda. we could have an agenda for a vibrant middle class but instead of that we are moving toward a trade bill. now, i know there are some who disagree with me who come down to this floor and say we are going to create jobs in this trade bill and is going to be great. well let them explain how we are not going to see some of the 12 million jobs that are manufacturing jobs in america not with the country to pay 56 cents an hour.

another country, $1.19 an hour. i know they will disagree with me. they are making all of these promises and you know the more i hear it the more i hear the echoes of the massive debate. now that was a long time ago and i was here than. in 1988 i voted for fast-track of dougherty to allow the administration to negotiate the north american free-trade agreement. then five years later i saw the deal. it was a bad deal and i voted now but it was too late because when i saw the deal i knew i couldn't fix fix it because that is what fasttrack is and what this majority is saying to us is vote for fasttrack and give up your rights senator boxer from amending this so they say well

it's very transparent. go down and look at it. let me tell you what you have to do to read this agreement. follow this. you can only take a few of your staffers who happen to have a security clearance because god knows why, this is secure. this is classified. it's nothing to do with defense. it has nothing to do with going after isis. it has nothing to do with any of that but it is classified so i go down with my staff that i can get to go with me and as soon as i get there the guard says to make hand over your electronics. okay i give over my electronics. then the guard says you can't take notes. i said i can take notes? well you can take notes but you have to give them back to me and i will put them in a file.

i said wait a minute i'm going to take notes in and you are going to take my notes away from me and then you are going to have them in a file and you can read my notes? not on your life. so instead of standing in the corner trying to figure out a way to bring the trade bill to the floor that doesn't do anything for the middle class that is held so secretively that you need to go down there and hand over your electronics and give up your rights to take notes and bring them back to your office they have to come over here and figure out how to help the middle class, how to extend a highway bill, how to raise the minimum wage. how to move toward clean energy how to fix our current scene manipulation abroad. so anyway take you back to 1988. i vote for fasttrack.

instead of a million new jobs that were promised, by 2010 the united states had lost 700,000 jobs. so instead of standing in a corner figuring out how we are going to lose more jobs we have to do something that works for the middle class. let me tell you what happened with nafta. instead of improve pay for our workers which was promised nafta pushed down american wages. it empowered employers to take their workers either accept lower wages and benefits or we are moving to mexico. instead of strengthening our economy it increased our trade deficit to mexico which now this year hits $50 billion. before and after we had a trade surplus in mexico now we have a trade deficit creates so instead of standing in the corner and

figuring out how we can have more trade deficit we have to do something to help the middle class. i want to talk about something that happened in california in santa ana right after nafta. the city had worked hard to keep the mitsubishi plant that assembled big screen tvs securing tax credit to help them stay competitive. even after nafta passed company officials promised they would keep the plant in santa ana but guess what folks three years later mitsubishi close the plant plant. company officials said they had to cut costs especially labor cost so they were moving their operations to mexico. we lost 400 good paying middle-class jobs even though everyone promised nafta would never do that this is going to be wonderful and i got suckered into voting yes on fasttrack.

and i fear we see this pattern again. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. so we have 12 .3 million manufacturing jobs in this country and we are looking at a transpacific partnership deal the largest trade deal in history covering 40% of the world's economy. tell me, what chance do are people who work in manufacturing half against countries that pay less than a dollar an hour. in one case i think it's 56 cents, 57 cents. 70 cents an hour. i stand corrected. of the 12 countries in the tpp three have minimum wages that are higher than ours australia and new zealand and canada but most of the countries have far lower wages including chile with

a minimum wage of $1.38, vietnam with a minimum wage of 70 cents brunei and singapore they don't even have a minimum wage. they don't even have a minimum wage. so i think i have laid out the argument as to why all these promises about better wages more jobs fall flat on their face when you look at that last free trade deal and this one is with more countries. and then there's the investor dispute settlement or isp s. which will allow polluters to sue for unlimited money damages. for example they can use it to try to undo the incredible work in california on climate change by claiming that they were put at a disadvantage by having to live with california's laws.

polluters can seek to undermine the president's clean power plan or the toxic mercury pollution under the mercury toxic standard or they could sue because they had to use spend a little money to make sure they didn't dump toxins into our waterways, drinking water. we have seen this happen before. s.c. meyers did it. lone pine resources suit. the redcoat group suits. they notified or ruin 2010 to launch it in 800 million investor claim against the government because they said that their trade agreement was violated because it said that they didn't probably have to install all these anti-pollution devices and yet through force them to do it and what happened was polluter pay turned into polluter skeptics say you have a

trade agreement that threatens 12 million manufacturing jobs. you have the trade agreement that is pushing off the floor all the things we need to do for our middle-class. you have a trade agreement that sets up this extra judicial board that can overcome america's laws as former labor secretary robert wright has warned consequences could be disastrous. he called the tpp a trojan horse and it local race to the bottom giving big corporations a way to eliminate any and all laws and regulations that get in the way of their profits. so we should set this aside it not go to this work together as democrats and republicans for true middle-class agenda for a robust investment in our roads bridges and highways. to fix our immigration system i

think senator leahy is on the floor. he put together comprehensive immigration reform bill that was amazing but it got stopped and it got stuck and it never happened and you have got workers in the dark that are afraid to come out into the sunlight and that puts downward pressure on wages. let's pass that. let's make college more affordable, ensure equal pay for equal work and currency fairness. we can do it. and mr. president i'm going to take about three minutes and talk about my last issue today and that is the toxic reform bill that passed out of the environment and public works committee and i would ask unanimous consent to put my full statement in the record. >> without objection. >> well i have some great news on the bill. the original bidder udall bill is gone and in its place is a

better bill. that is the great news. the bad news is it's still not a really good bill. we have to do better and we can do better. what we did in this bill is understand that we had to negotiate certain things out of it and one of the things we had to negotiate with was how far the bill went, the original dell in preempting state laws and we have addressed that. credit goes to 450 organizations who while they still oppose this bill pushed hard for those changes and credit goes to senators whitehouse and merkley and booker who told me they wanted to try to negotiate some changes and i'd bless them and they went and did it.

for that i have to thank senator who is no longer with us ted kennedy who once taught me he said as the chairman you need to understand sometimes that you have to turn to your colleagues and let them move forward and i was happy to do that. and so the changes that came back were a part fix on prevention and a full fix on preempting air laws and water laws when it comes to toxins. code enforcement has been fixed so we are very pleased. what is not really fixed however is we want to make sure the state has had more latitude to move. we want to make sure if there is a cancer cluster among kids or adults around this country that we can see the federal government moved to help them. we want to make sure that asbestos is addressed directly

in this bill because 10,000 people a year die because of asbestos exposure. we want to make sure if there's a chemical stored near a water supply that in fact that will receive priority. what chemical is an there? we saw happen in west virginia and senator manchin wrote a really good bill with me. we should address that i'm as happy to see we got some bipartisan votes on those last two fixes. so we have to fix this bill and anyone who comes to the floor and says it's perfect and i just don't agree with them but that's not important in what i i think. it's what 450 groups think. they think the bill has to be fixed so let's be clear the people who say we have to fix the bill which protecting amendments include the american public health association, the

public health nursing the asbestos disease awareness organization the consumers union, institute for agriculture and trade policy, the national disease alliance, the national hispanic medical association, the birth of sex research for children physicians for social responsibility, the maryland nursing association that massachusetts nursing association national association of hispanic hispanic nurses, the association of women's health obstetric and neonatal nurses, the bladder cancer advocacy group the breast cancer action action, huntington breast cancer coalition kids versus cancer, lung cancer alliance. it goes on and on. i ask unanimous consent to put the full list of this list into the record. >> without objection. >> i say to my colleagues that bidder udall bill is much better than it was when it was

introduced in these 450 groups did everything in their power to help us fix the bill. we are halfway there. and i hope we can negotiate some more fixes and maybe we can do that. if we can pass for five of these amendments we are on our way but if we can't fix the bill and it does come here there will be a lot of talking about how to fix fix itfix it are a lot of talking, a lotof standing on feed a lot of rallies with group so that's the choice the senate faces. and in the end in the end we will deal with this but i come to the floor today to thank my colleagues who helped negotiate this bill from a disaster to a better bill and i also want to make sure that these 450 organizations, just extraordinary, standing up for

safer chemicals healthy families families, and nrdc. these groups were so fantastic. they never allowed people to talk them down, to bully them out of their -- and i stand with them 100%. the asbestos disease awareness you are incredible. we have some hope here and all we have to do is keep on fixing this bill and it could come to a good place. mr. president i so appreciate the patience of my colleagues. i have talked long about two bills that are very important. i hope we will not get on this trade l. and i hope we will move to agendas of the middle-class. thank you very much. >> the senator from delaware. >> i want to hearken back to six months to the election of last november. for me there were at least three

takeaways from that election. one of those is the country wanting us to work together. number two they wanted us to get things done and among the things they want us to get done are strengthening the economic recovery that's been underway now for several years. senator boxer has referred to a couple of things that went beyond that to-do list. a six-year transportation bill. we have built highways and bridges and transportation systems by making some more initiatives. and reform that provides our tax code on the business at more

competitive with the rest of the world. and we also need to acknowledge as the president has done that 95% of the world's market lies outside of our borders. 95%. the fastest growing part of that market around the world is asia. the president has suggested, supported strongly that trade agreement that would involve some nations including a half-dozen here. and the other half in asia. that altogether encompass 40% of the world trade market. the president is not suggesting that we just open up our markets so other countries can sell more of their stuff here. they argue that for the most part. the goal of this trade agreement is to open up these other markets in other countries so we can sell our goods by up

products and services they are. this is a top priority for this administration. this should be a top priority for democrats and republicans. a priority that compromises ways that are fair to workers and middle class families. leaders come here to suggest a -- path forward and i hope we will not reject it. what we have suggested as we allow a cloture motion to move to the floor and give debate on pieces of legislation that are part of a transportation agreement. we have seen this movie before. in fact we have seen in any number of times before. we have given trade promotion authority to every president since world war ii except for president nixon. it's almost impossible for congressmen to negotiate a trade

deal whether three nations are 11 nations. that is why we have trade promotion authority. the majority leader said let's move these four bills, let's begin the debate. democrats already realize the great future here could in the past republicans have rejected our efforts almost every time to include trade assistance. when folks are displaced from their jobs and they get help with health care and job training and have an opportunity to put their life back together. in this case but with this legislation today that trade promotion authority which expresses our views of congress what our priorities are to our negotiating partners overseas and in return for doing that.

the other thing that we get out of moving tpa with taa together is that we get up front the assurance that we will look after. it's the best trade assistance we have ever had in least in terms of the way it helps displaced workers. they may not be affected by this agreement but are affected by other calamities in our economy. not just the manufacturing sector but the service sector as well. so i suggest this to my colleagues. let's spend the time between now and 230 this afternoon trying to figure out how we can establish him confidence and faith and trust here that if we moved to this bill that will not be just to consider trade promotion

authority and trade assistance. we will have an opportunity to consider the other pieces of legislation as well. there is a lot riding on this a lot riding on this. the economic recovery of our economy does not rise or fall simply on the passage of this legislation and the conclusion of the negotiations but it sure would help. it would help bolster a stronger economic recovery. just as with the passage of the transportation bill. just as it would cybersecurity legislation. and on and on and on, so i will close with this thought. the debates we have had here in recent months with respect to the negotiations between the five permanent members of the security council the germans and the iranians on our efforts to make sure the iranians don't develop a nuclear weapon. we have said again and again the old reagan slogan trust and

verify and except for the iranians we say ms. trust but verify ms. trust but verify. i would suggest to my colleagues especially on the side of the aisle let's take out a -- we don't trust the republicans that they are going to do what they say they do. we have an opportunity to verify and to verify comes with a vote later on. we moved to the bill and if at the end of the day we are not happy with what has happened we feel like we have been given a raw deal in workers and middle class families and be given a raw deal we have a chance to verify and they vote not to move the bill off the floor. we would not provide cloture to end debate. that is where we have our final vote, our final vote. i hope you'd keep that in mind in with that mr. president i yield the floor. thanks very much. >> mr. president later today the

senate will vote on whether or not to proceed to a bill that was ported out of the senate finance committee in which i served the trade legislation and what is order for marker blowout this is that we are on the cusp here in the united states senate of passing a major piece of legislation bipartisan legislation in which a republican majority in the united states senate is working with the democratic president to give him trade promotion authority something that would be very good for our economy and if the democrats here in the senate don't blow it this could be a major hallmark achievement of this congress but my understanding is there is an effort on the other side now to prevent us from getting on the bill to debate it and i hope that as democrats contemplate that now that they will think long and hard about what they will be doing. not only will they be underlined

that -- undermining their own president who is very much for this, they will be hurting the american economy because every president literally back to fdr has had trade promotion authority in which he has the ability to negotiate trade agreements with our trading partners in a way that congress ultimately has to approve but in a way that expedites and gives maximum leverage to get the best trade agreement possible so we are taking up that legislation today but it's all going to depend on senate democrats and whether or not they want to proceed to this bill or not. i certainly hope as i said they will come to the conclusion that it's in the best interest of our country, our economy and certainly i think in the best interest of creating it bipartisan achievement in which they are working with their own president and republicans here in the united states senate. mr. president when 96% of the world's consumers outside of the borders of the united states.

max essential to growing our economy and opening new markets for products marked made in the usa. over the past few years exports have been a bright spot in our economy supporting an increasing number of american jobs each and every year. in fact in 2014 export supported 11.7 million u.s. jobs and made a or 10% of our nation's economy. my home state of south dakota alone exports more than 15,000 jobs in industries that range from farming and ranching to machinery and electronics. we need to continue to open markets around the globe to american goods and services and the best way to do that mr. president is through new trade agreements. countries with which we have free and fair trade agreements purchased substantially more promise than other countries. in fact in 2013 free trade

agreement countries purchase 12 times more goods and services per-capita from the united states than on free. agreement countries. let me state that mr. president 2013 come those countries with which we have a free trade agreements purchased more goods per-capita from the united states than those countries with whom we do not have a free trade agreement. it's not just american farmers and ranchers and manufacturers who benefit from trade agreements. american consumers benefit as well. trade agreements give american families access to a greater friday of goods and lower prices. u.s. chamber of commerce estimates that trade increases american families purchasing power by $10,000 annually. for american workers increased trade gives more opportunity and could increase taxes to high-paying jobs in manufacturing jobs tied to

exports pay on average 13 to 18% more than wages in other areas of our economy. unfortunately while trade agreements are proliferated around the globe the united states has not signed a new trade agreement five years. altogether the united states has just 14 trade agreements currently in effect. mr. president that's a lot of lost opportunity for american workers and business. since trade agreements have proved to be the best way to increase demand or american products and services. a big reason for the lack of trade agreements in recent years is the fact that trade emotional authority expired in 2007. as i said earlier since 1934 if you go back to the administration of fdr almost all of the united states free trade agreements have been negotiated using trade promotion authority or similar streamlined process. trade promotion authority is

designed to put the united states in the strongest possible position. in the tpa congress sets guidelines for trade negotiations outlines the priorities the administration has to follow. in return congress promises a simple up-and-down vote on the resulting trade agreement instead of the long amendment process in a final deal looking nothing like with what was originally negotiated. that simple up-and-down vote is the key. let's are negotiating partners know that congress and trade negotiators are on the same page which gives other countries the confidence they need to put their best offers on the table and that in turn allows for successful and timely conclusion to the negotiations. currently the administration is negotiating to major. agreements that have the potential to vastly expand the market for american goods and services in the pacific or the

transpacific partnership is being negotiated with a number of asia-pacific nations including australia japan new zealand singapore and vietnam. if this agreement is done right we would have huge benefits for american agriculture among other industries. currently american agricultural products face heavy tariffs and many transportation -- poultry tariffs ntpp countries for example can reach a staggering 240% reducing the barriers to american agriculture agricultural process that would have enormous benefits for american farmers and ranchers. agricultural producers in my state of south dakota have contacted me to tell me how trade benefits their industries and have urged the most effective way to secure trade agreements that will benefit south dakota farmers and ranchers. a leader of the south dakota dairy producers association wrote to me about the transpacific partnership agreement which it could have

significant advocates for south dakota dairy farmers and urged me to vote in favor of trade promotion authority to the transpacific partnership talks he said and i quote have the potential to be positive for dairy industry but only if the united states insists on settling for nothing less than a balanced deal that delivers net. and that trade benefits passing tpa is a key part of getting their end quote. this was a dairy dairy producer in my state of south dakota. mr. president passing tpa is a key part of getting their. neither the transpacific partnership for the e.u. trade agreement is likely to be completed in a timely fashion without trade promotion authority. if we want to make sure that trade negotiations achieve the goals of american farmers and manufacturers trade or motion authority is essential.

a bipartisan bill that we are considering on the senate floor reauthorizes trade authority that includes a number of important updates like provisions to strengthen the transparency of the negotiating process to ensure the american people stay informed -- informed and contains provisions that i pushed for to require negotiators to ensure the trade agreements promote digital. as well as trade and physical goods and services. given the increasing importance of digitally enabled commerce in the 21st century economy it is essential that our trade agreements include new rules that keep digital trade free from unnecessary government interference. mr. president is trade authority bill will help ensure that any trade deals united states anderton two will be favorable to american farmers and ranchers manufacturers and will hold other countries accountable for their unfair practices. passing this bill is essential

to prevent american workers and businesses from being left behind in the global economy. since republicans took control of the senate in january democrats and republicans have come together on a number of issues to pass legislation to address challenges that are facing our country. i hope that this bill will be our next bipartisan achievement. the president has made it clear that he supports this bill and key democratic senators are working to make sure that it passes. i hope mr. president that the rest of the democratic party in the united states senate will come together with the president republicans to get it done. as president obama said the other day and i quote we have to make sure that america writes the rules of the global economy because if we don't write the rules for trade around the world guess what china will. and they will write those rules in way to get give chinese workers and businesses the upper hand and locks american made

goods about end quote. that mr. president from president obama. put another way of america's deals to lead on trade other nations will step in to fill the void and they will not have the best interest of american workers and families in mind. it's time to pass trade promotion authority so we can secure favorable new trade deals to ensure that american goods and services will compete on a level playing field around the globe and mr. president american workers and american consumers can see that benefits that come along with that. i hope that will be the outcome of the vote today mr. president and i hope again it will be a major achievement for the senate a bipartisan achievement with which both sides work together for the good of our economy for the good of jobs for the good of higher wage levels for the good of workers and a more independent economy for which our consumers benefit.

mr. president i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> the senator from vermont. >> thank you mr. president. mr. president 2:30 this afternoon the senate will be voting on a motion to proceed to the fast-track bill that the finance committee recently approved. i will be strongly opposing that legislation. here is why. mr. president in a nutshell here is the reality of the american economy today. while we are certainly better off than we were six and a half years ago this truth is for the last 40 years the american middle class has been disappearing. the truth is that today we have some 45 million americans living in poverty almost the highest rate in the modern history of america. and while the middle class continues to shrink we are seeing more income and wealth

inequality than at any time in our country since 1929 and it is worse in america than any major country on earth. today, 99% of all new income is going to the top 1%. today the top one tenth of 1% owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. in the last two years mr. president the 14 wealthiest people in this country are seeing an increase in their wealth of $157 billion. add 157 billion is more wealth than is owned by the bottom 130 million americans. how does that happen and why is it happening? we have seen a huge increase in technology, productivity is way

off and the reality is that most working people should be seeing an increase in their income yet median family income has gone down by $5000 in 1999. how does that happen? why is it happening that it in their the richest country in the history of the world almost all the new wealth is now in the hands of the few of the vast majority of the american people who are working longer hours for lower wages. there are a lot of factors that let me tell you our disastrous trade agreements nafta, cafta trade relations with china are certainly one of the major reasons why the middle-class is in decline and why more and more income and wealth goes to a handful of people on the top. mr. president the sad truth of the matter is many of the new

jobs created in this country today are part time and low-paying jobs. 30 or 40 years ago working people who maybe had a high school degree cold go out and get a job in a factory. they never got rich. it wasn't glamorous job but they had enough wages and benefits to make it into the middle-class. but since 2001 we have lost almost 60,000 factories in america. today when young people graduate high school they don't have the opportunity to work in a factory or union job to make middle-class wages. their options are walmart. their options are mcdonald's, low wages, minimum benefits and companies that are vehemently antiunion. mr. president the sad truth of the matter is that we are in a

race to the bottom. not only have our trade agreements cost us millions of decent paying jobs but they have depressed wages in this country because companies at virtually every multi-major national corp. gration in this country have outsourced jobs shed millions of american jobs but they say to workers if you don't like the cuts in health care, you don't like the cuts in wages we are going to go to china and we can hire people there for a about an hour. sadly mr. president transpacific partnership agreement follows in the footsteps of these other disastrous to free trade agreements that have force american workers to compete against desperate and low-wage workers around the world. mr. president over and over again and i've heard this so

many times. i heard it just on the floor this morning. supporters of fast-track have told us that unfettered free trade will increase american jobs and wages and will be just a wonderful thing for the american economy. sadly however, these folks have been proven wrong and wrong and wrong time after time after time. i hear the same language every time. what they say proves not to be true. let me just mention to use some quotes from the supporters of nafta. this is what people were telling us about how great the free trade agreement for the nafta free trade agreement would be. on september 19, 1993 president bill clinton said the following. he was the worst president pushing nafta in the same way that president obama is today wishing the tpp. this is what clinton said and i

quote. i believe nafta will create 200,000 american jobs in the first two years. i believe nafta will create a million jobs in the first five years of its impact end of quote. in 1993 liberals like the clinton the very conservative heritage foundation 1993, this is what they said and i quote. virtually all economists agree that nafta will produce a net increase of u.s. jobs over the next decade. 1993 the distinguished senator from kentucky are majority leader mitch mcconnell said and i quote american firms will not move to mexico just for lower wages. mitch mcconnell. president clinton is what the heritage foundation is what mitch mcconnell said, did that turn out to be correct? what happened was exactly the opposite of what they said. according to the well-respected

economist of the economic policy institute nafta has led to the loss of more than 60080000 jobs. in 1993 the year before nafta was implemented the united states had a trade surplus with mexico more than 1.6 billion. last year the trade deficit with mexico was 53 billion so all that we heard about nafta being so good for american workers turned out to be dead wrong. what about china? we were told the chinese market was going to be opened billions of people, what an opportunity to create good jobs in america. this is what the proponents of. relations with china had to say. president clinton again in 1999, bill clinton quote in opening the economy of china at the agreement would create unprecedented opportunities for american farmers workers and companies to be successful in

china's market. this is a good deal for america when it comes to the economic consequences and quote a conservative economist at the cato institute in 1999, this is what they say. the silliest argument against pntr is that chinese imports would overwhelm u.s. industry. in fact american workers are far more -- than their chinese counterparts pntr would create far more export opportunities for america than the chinese unquote. wow. were they wrong. economic policy institute estimated that pntr with china has led to the net loss of 2.7 million americans -- go to any department store in american walk in the door. where other products made made? china, china made? china, china, china, vietnam and other low-wage countries. in fact it's harder and harder to buy products not made in china.

for all those people who told us what a great deal pntr with china would he turned out to be wrong, dead wrong. in fact our trade agreement with china has cost us almost 3 million jobs. in 2001, the. deficit -- trade deficit with china was -- today is 342 billion. in 2011 on another trade agreements u.s. chamber of commerce proponents of unfettered free trade strongly supporting tpp. the chamber of commerce told us we had to pass a free trade agreement with south korea because it would create some 280,000 jobs in america. 280,000 jobs, lot of jobs. it turns out front again. the reality is economic policy institute recently found a korean free trade agreement has led to the loss of some 75,000

jobs. and now mr. president the obama administration says trust us. forget what they said about nafta. forget what they said about korea. forget what they said about china. this one is different. cross our fingers hope to die this one is really really different. and yes it may be true that every corporation in america corp. corporations that have shut down factories in this country to move to china are supporting this agreement. wall street whose greed and recklessness have almost destroyed the american economy are supporting this agreement. yes it is true that the pharmaceutical industry who charges us the highest prices on prescription drugs they are supporting this agreement but not to worry. we should trust these guys. they really have they really are thinking of the american middle class and working families. trust us. when they tell us the trade

agreement will be good for working people yes we should really trust them. meanwhile every trade union in america, the vast majority of the impairment of groups in this country, they are saying be careful about tpp, vote no on fast-track. mr. president here is the reality of the american economy. since 2001, we have lost 60,000 factories in this country and we have lost over 4.7 million manufacturing jobs. in 1970, 25% of all of the jobs in this country were manufacturing. today that figure is down to 9%. the point here is that by and large especially for the unions those manufacturing jobs pay working people a living wage not a walmart wage, not a mcdonald's wage.

our demand must be to corporate america who tell us every night on tv to buy this writer, to buy this. sneakers, to buy this television, to buy whatever it is that maybe just maybe they might want to start manufacturing those projects here in united states of america pay our workers a decent wage rather than look all over the world for the lowest possible wages for which they can exploit workers who are desperate. mr. president i was very disappointed because president obama chose the headquarters of nike to the benefits of the tpp. nike epitomizes white disasters unfettered free trade policies during the past four decades have failed american workers. nike does not employ a single manufacturing worker could make shoes in the united states of america, not one worker. 100% of the shoes that are sold

by nike are made overseas in low-wage countries. when nike was founded, this is the transformation of the american economy and it's not just nike but when nike was founded in 1964 just 4% of u.s. footwear was imported. in other words remanufactured the vast majority of the shoes in the sneakers that we walk. today nearly all of the shoes that are brought into united states are manufactured overseas overseas. today over 330,000 workers manufacture nikes products in vietnam where the minimum wage is 56 cents an hour. i hear president obama and other proponents of tpp talking about a level playing field. they have to compete on a level playing field. does anybody think competing against people, desperate people who make 56 cents an hour is a

level playing field and fair to american workers? of course we want the poor people all over the world to see an increase in their standard whipping and we have to play an important role in that but you don't have to destroy the american middle class to help low income workers around the world. in vietnam not only is the minimum wage 56 cents an hour, independent labor unions are -- and people are thrown in jail for expressing their political beliefs. is that the level playing field that president obama and other proponents of free trade are talking about? back in 1988 phil knight the founder of nike said that nike had become synonymous with slave wages forced overtime and arbitrary abuse. phil knight was right. in fact factories in vietnam where nike shoes are

manufactured have been cited by the workers rights consortium for excessive overtime wage theft and physical mistreatment of workers. today mr. knight is one of the wealthiest people on this planet planet, worth more than $22 billion. while mr. knight's network has more than tripled since 1999 the average vietnamese worker who makes nike shoes earns pennies an hour and that is pretty much what unfettered free trade is about. a handful of people like phil knight between -- become multi-multi-millionaire some poor people all over the world are exploited and paid pennies an hour. mr. president it is not just nike and it is not just vietnam. another country that is part of the transpacific archbishop is malaysia. today there are nearly 200,000 electronics factories in malaysia for high-tech products

from apple dell intel motorola and texas instruments are manufactured and brought back to the united states. get the tpp has approved that number will go up substantially but what is wrong with that? it turns out may the workers in electronics plants in malaysia are being forced to work there under horrible working conditions. according to a two-year investigation the labor abuses in malaysia and investigation which was commissioned by the u.s. department of labor 30 -- 32% of the industry's nearly 200,000 migrant workers in malaysia were employed in four situations because their passports have been taken away because they were straining to pay back illegally high recruitment fees. in other words american workers are forced to compete against people in malaysia, immigrant workers whose passports have been taken away who can't leave the country while working under

forced labor situations. so mr. president let me conclude by saying this. all of us understand the trade is good. it's a good thing but i think most of us now have caught on to the fact that the trade agreements pushed by corporate america pushed by wall street pushed by the pharmaceutical industry are very very good if you are the ceo of a major corporation that they are a disaster if you are an american worker. so it is my view that we have got to rebuild manufacturing in america. it is my view that we have got to create millions of decent paying jobs in america. it is my view that we need to fundamentally rewrite our trade agreements so that our largest export does not become decent paying american jobs. so i would urge my colleagues to

vote no on the fast-track agreement. let us sit down and work on trade agreements that work for the american middle class, that work for our working people and not just for the ceos of the largest corporations in this country. and with that mr. president i yield the floor and i believe there will be the absence of a quorum.

>> what is also true is that it is not unprecedented to say the least for the united states senate to encounter procedural snafus. that was true when democrats were in charge. we have talked before about how that has been true when republicans have been in charge of the united states senate and what we are hopeful is that every member of the united states senate can summons the spirit on display at the senate finance committee to work through this procedural snafu and the good news is that we have seen statements in public already today from people like leader mcconnell from senator wyden and even senatortch who obviously was instrumental to crafting this bipartisan compromise to a willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion to

untangle this procedural not that the senate right now is mired in. so we are obviously going to continue to remain engaged with members of the united states senate that the truth is most of our discussions are focused on substance and the senate has a process for working through these procedural challenges and we are pleased to see democrats and republicans both indicating a willingness to work through these procedural challenges.

..

activities on the international space station. >> the only time i felt a shiver of fear go up my back was on the dark side of the earth looking at eastern australia in the darkness and watching a shooting star come in between me and the earth. at 1st i have the standard reaction of wishing upon a star but then i had the sobering realization that that was just a huge rock going 20 miles a 2nd that missed us and made it to the atmosphere. if it had hit us we would have been dead in an instant >> sunday night at 8:00 o'clock eastern and pacific on c-span q&a. book tv --

♪ >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress bio and contact information and twitter handles district maps order your copy today. $13.95 plus shipping and handling. choice is a federal program that allows veterans on weightless for care to get treatment from private healthcare providers the committee held a hearing on the implementation of that program and heard from veterans affairs department officials, veterans advocates, and healthcare providers.