of united nations security council resolutions including resolutions 1718, 1874, 2087, and 2094. according to a more cautious assessment from south korean officials, north korea appears that they will be able to deploy a fully operational submarine capable of launching a ballistic missile and only -- in only four to five years. this launch is the latest confirmation of pyongyang's growing nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities while the obama administration seems to have fallen asleep at the switch with regard to our policy to deter the growing north korea threat. according to the director of national intelligence's 2015 worldwide threat assessment, north korea's nuclear weapons and missile programs pose a serious threat to the united states and to the security environment in east asia. we should remember that north korea tested nuclear weapons on three separate occasions

already. in 2006, 2009 and in february of 2013. most recently, nuclear experts have reported that north korea may have as many as 20 nuclear warheads, a number that could double by next year and that pyongyang has the potential to possession as many as 100 warheads within the next five years. we know north korea is a nuclear proliferator. having cooperated with the syrian regime on their nuclear weapons program before israeli jets destroyed that facility in 2007. we know that north korea's conventional arsenal is rapidly expanding and threatens not only our close allies in south korea and japan but also could threaten the united states, our homeland, in the near future. according to the d.n.i., north korea has also expanded the size and sophistication of its ballistic missile forces, ranging from close-range ballistic missiles to icbm's while continuing to conduct test launches.

in 2014, north korea launched an unprecedented number of ballistic missiles. the d.n.i. report goes on to say, and i quote that pyongyang is committed to developing a long-range nuclear-armed missile that is capable of posing a direct threat to the united states. a direct threat to the united states. we should not forget that north korea is an aggressive, ruthless regime. it's not even afraid to kill its own people, its own innocent people. on march 26, 2010, north korean missiles sank a south korean ship killing 46 of her crew and several months later shelled a south korean island, killing four more south korean citizens. it also quickly is developing other tools of intimidation as well such as cybercapabilities as demonstrated by the attack on the south korean financial and communication system in march 2013 and the infamous sony pictures hacking incident in november of 2014. we should also not forget that

this regime remains one of the world's foremost abusers of human rights. the north korean regime maintains a vast network of political prison camps where as many as 200,000 men women and children are confined to atrocious living conditions and are tortured maimed and killed. on february 7, 2014, the united nations human rights council released a report dedealing north korea's horrendous record on human rights. here is a description of some of the torture methods common in north korea as described by former north korean state security officials interviewed for the report. "the room had wall shackles that were specially arranged to hang people upside-down. various orator tour instruments were also provided, including long needles that would be driven underneath the suspect's fingernails and a pot with hot water-chili pepper concoction that would be poured into the

victim's nose. as a result of such severe torture, suspects would often admit to crimes that they did not commit." this report makes for horrifying reading and gives us a glimpse of the utter depravity of this regime. what then is the united states' policy to counter north korea's belligerence on human rights abuse? the answer is precious little. the policy of strategic patience has been a failure. all that our so-called patience has done is allowed the regime to significantly advance its military capabilities and to systematically continue to torture its own people. i call on the administration to immediately reverse course and to begin the process of applying more pressure to the north korean regime through additional financial sanctions increased military engagement with our allies in the region and more assertive diplomacy with china which wield significant control over the fate of the regime. we should never negotiate with pyongyang without imposing strict preconditions that north

korea take immediate steps to halt its nuclear program cease all military provocations and make credible steps to respecting human rights of its people. we should not forget a deal with the united states over 20 years ago, north korea pledged to dismantle their nuclear program. today we are reaping the harvest of failed policies of engagement with a regime that has no respect for international agreements or international norms. as it negotiates with other rogue states that seek to obtain nuclear weapons to threaten the free world i urge the administration to draw the appropriate conclusions from our failed north korea policy. and, mr. president as we talk about human rights violations, as we talk about violations of international norms just in the reports today headline stories north korea said to execute a top official with an antiaircraft gun. this is a country violating

human rights, killing its own people and willing to watch as its own people starve to death. now killing people in reports with antiaircraft guns. this is a regime that doesn't deserve strategic patience but deserves the full commitment of the united states in our efforts to make sure that we are bringing peace to the region and long-term peace to the world. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you mr. president. mr. president, last week, we passed an important bill that protected the rights of the american people. it said the people in congress have a right to be involved in an agreement the president negotiates on iran's nuclear program. well, that was an important piece of legislation. i was glad to see it passed with

overwhelming bipartisan support. the bill on trade promotion authority that we have been talking about this week is also very important. this bill is about united states trade with other countries and the proper role that congress should play in that. it's also very much about america's future. that's why republicans are so committed to this piece of legislation. the problem is senate democrats have pulled the rug out from under the american people and the president. they have blocked the senate from even considering this important piece of legislation. this isn't a normal story of democrats versus republicans or senator reid versus senator mcconnell. oh no. this is a story about senator reid versus president obama. america's economy grew by just 0.2% in the first quarter of this year. when the democratic leader orders orders the senators on

his side of the aisle to block this bill, is he saying that the american people should be satisfied with 0.2% growth? is that satisfaction? if we're going to get america's economy going and growing again we need to increase opportunities for america's farmers, ranchers and manufacturers to sell their products overseas. according to the commerce department 95% of the world's customers live outside the united states. that means billions of people around the world who want to buy american products. that means creating jobs for americans who make those products. it means lower prices for many of the products that americans want to buy at home. it means more money more money for the american economy, which is good for all of us. now, all of that comes from more

u.s. trade with other countries so this bill, this bill that we're debating right now is very important to american families and to the american economy. trade promotion authority is a valuable tool. it helps make sure that there are strong rules that hold other countries accountable for their unfair trade practices. it also helps us forge agreements to tear down the barriers that block american goods from foreign markets. the sooner that we renew trade promotion authority the sooner american families can start reaping the benefits. it is outrageous that senate democrats are keeping us from taking this step to help these families all across the country. the benefits of trade are substantial, substantial for places like my home state of wyoming. exports from wyoming to other countries amounted to almost $2 billion last year. $2 billion.

wyoming chemistry alone exported nearly a billion dollars worth of material. one of our most important chemical exports is soda ash which is a chemical used to make things like glass and detergents. it's the largest inorganic chemical export in the united states and it's responsible for thousands, thousands of american jobs. our producers face high tariffs in some countries and they are competing with china for the customers. if we pass this bill and we follow that up with the kind of trade deals it allows, we could add another $40 million in soda ash, new soda ash exports. that means a lot of jobs here at home. trade promotion authority helps give american producers a fair chance to compete for business overseas. in wyoming our farmers and ranchers also export beef, lamb and grain. we export machinery minerals and energy from our oil and gas

producers. wyoming's presence in the global marketplace has been increased and we as a nation cannot afford to stop that progress now. we need more access to more markets, and we need fair competition. so the question is why are the democrats standing in the way of all of that? democrats are blocking more than just the money for american workers in our economy. economic prosperity itself strengthens our nation and makes it more secure. ronald reagan once said our national security and economic strength are indivisible. he understood that national defense is expensive and that american needs -- and that america needs a strong economy to pay for it. reagan understood that american trade with other countries can help strengthen our military alliances as well. american goods sold overseas provide an american presence all around the world.

they are economic boots on the ground. now, the secretary of defense ashton carter said something similar in a speech last month. he said our military strength ultimately rests on the foundation of our vibrant unmatched and growing economy. vibrant, unmatched and growing. he said that the kinds of trade deals that this bill would promote are as important to me, he said, as another aircraft carrier. that's from the current secretary of defense agreeing with what president ronald reagan said years ago. the defense secretary also talked about what all of us here in the senate know to be true. if america does not continue to lead in global commerce and does not attract more trading partners, someone else will. now, more likely than not that's going to be china. america needs to step up and start negotiating effective

fair and enforceable trade agreements or we're going to be allowing china to write the rules for global trade. if that happens, every senator every senator here knows that those rules will not favor american workers and american exports. senate democrats know that, and they're still standing in the way of this legislation. last year, our exports supported nearly 12 million american jobs. that's an increase of two million jobs since 2009. it's great news but it's not enough. according to the latest numbers that came out last friday, there are another 17 million americans, 17 million americans who are either unemployed, working part time because they can't find full-time work or who have absolutely given up and have stopped looking for a job. 17 million americans who are waiting for our economy to really start growing again.

we need to create more stable, long-term jobs for those americans who have been left behind by the weak economy over the past six years. more u.s. trade with other countries can help make that happen. this trade promotion authority bill is the first step toward reaching that goal. democrats know that. why are they fighting so hard then to make sure that this bill fails? why are they fighting so hard to block those jobs? this legislation would give the president a clear road map a road map to follow while negotiating trade deals. it also ensures that congress and the american people have a say, a say about whether a deal goes through. that part to me is extremely important. i mentioned the fight we just had with the white house to make sure the american people and congress can review an agreement with iran over its nuclear

program, while this bill says right up front that congress will get to have an up-or-down vote on any trade deals. this isn't about expanding the powers of the president. i know a lot of senators have serious concerns about how president obama has abused his authority in unchecked and unprecedented ways. a lot of americans have those same concerns. this bill is not just about this president. it's about the next president and the one after that. it's about american workers american families, and growing the american economy for all of us. it's about making sure that america continues to lead and americans continue to prosper. american exports to other countries are the key to this. this bill -- this one right now on the floor -- can make sure all of that happens and it makes sure that the american people have their say. it's time for senate democrats to call off their destructive

fight with the president. it's time for senate democrats to stop blocking trade stop blocking jobs, and stop blocking progress for american families and for our economy. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. murphy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut.

mr. murphy: i ask that key dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you mr. president. on may 42015 officer broi an moore was -- brian moore was killed in the line of duty. this was an exceptional young police officer in new york city. he was young enough that he still lived in his father's home but he was experienced enough old enough that he had already become a decorated officer in the nypd. he had made over 150 arrests since joining the department just five years ago. commissioner bill bratten sawed in his very brief career he had already proved himself to be an exceptional young officer. we've heard a lot about law enforcement gone wrong but the reality is that every single day

police officers are under threat are in danger, and all brian moore did was pull up on the evening of may 2 behind someone that was acting in a suspicious manner. and as they began talking to him, the man turned and fired at the car. officer moore was struck in the cheek. he had flaw to his brain. 90 -- he had trauma to his brain. 90 minutes after the shooter was arrested the man who perpetrated this crime he did it with one of two stolen weapons from a 2011 robbery in perry, georgia. people said l of of him, "he was a great kid. i can't say bad thing about him. he always had a smile on his face." he was an officer who was rising

through the ranks very, very quickly, beloved in his community. he grew up on long island. tragically and ironically, in a town with an athletic field that the high school named after edward byrne another alumnus of that high school who was killed in the line of duty as a rookie in 1988. we now hand out millions of dollars in byrne grants all across the country. another alumni of this particular high school shot down. brian is one of 86 people across this country who are killed by guns every day 2,600 a month and 31,000 a year. not every single one of these deaths is preventable. i don't know whether brian moore's was preventable. but what i know is that many of these deaths are preventable that there has to be a reason why these numbers are so out of whack with every single other

country in the industrialized world. and a lot has to do with the reality of this place. that as these numbers continue to ring up day after day month after month year after year at catastrophic levels, we do absolutely nothing about it. and, mr. president we've got to start thinking about not just the cost to the families -- and i.t.it's not just the mother and the father and the brother and the sister. if you look at the pictures of brian moore's funeral they're heartbreaking in the tragedy that is washing over the family members. the average homicide by gun has 22 different victims that are affected by that, and it often leads to cycles of violence in which there are killings for retribution, in which the trauma spirals lives of children and brothers and sisters downward. but let's just look for a second

at the cost of one murder. now, here are some numbers overall. a recent study showed that the annual cost of gun violence in america is $229 billion with a "bmentb." that is $47 billion more than apple's 2014 worldwide revenue. but here's just the cost of one murder -- $441,000 in direct costs,87% of it paid for by taxpayers. over $400,000 to lock up the perpetrator, $2,000 when he's charged and sentenced $11,000 for mental health treatment for the victim's families, $10,000 for the victim's hospital expenses $450 just to transport to the hospital, and then $2,000 for police response and

investigations. that's not why we should take on the issue of gun violence in this country. we should do it simply to try to stop this scourge of murders. but if you just care about being a good steward of the taxpayers' dollars, then $441,000 a year that could be saved just by eliminating one of the 86 a day seems like a pretty good deal. mr. president, jose araho from millford connecticut was working in bridgeport when he was shot at his job on a construction site after a suspect asked for a job and was referred to the company's office. he started to head for the office and he shot jose. a family friend said he was a gentle giant. whenever he walked in, there was a smile on his face.

he always gave you a strong handshake. he is nice, generous, a man of peace. another friend said, "he's such a great person. if the world had more people like him what a beautiful world we would live in." jose leaves behind a 5-year-old son. sanjan patell was working like millions of other americans putting in his hours as a manager at a citgo gas station when he was shot four times by an apparent robber at the station. the perpetrators took money and store merchandise. they stole a box of cigars. they killed this guy over a box of cigars. sanjay's wife was six months pregnant at the time. he told her that he didn't want her to work while she was pregnantnant in part because she was injured in a house fire.

her husband took excellent care of her and the baby. he brought her ice cream and breakfast in bed. this is my first baby, she said, and my husband was so happy. mr. president, the stats are overwhelming whether it be the number of people killed by guns or the cost to the u.s. taxpayers. i try to come down here every couple weeks just to give voice to the victims of gun violence, figuring if the numbers don't move this place maybe the stories of those that are lost will. i can only tell a few a day but it would take me, frankly more time than we have here for debate on the floor to tell 86 stories every single day. this isn't just about the fact that i come from newtown connecticut. this is about the fact that there is a regular drumbeat of gun violence throughout this country. and by doing nothing in the united states senate and house week after week, month after month, year after year, we

effectively become economies complicit in these murders. we solicitly endorse this epidemic of gun violence when we don't even try to make gun traffickingtrafficking illegal. at a federal 4re68. level. when we don't stand with 90% of the american public, the vast majority of gun owners, 80% to 90% of gun owners, and say you shouldn't be able to get a gun if you are a criminal and you should prove you are not a criminal before you guy a gunning, -- before you buy a gun. and we don't endorse simple gun safety technology to make sure that the gun that was used to kill officer moore can't be used by someone that isn't its intended user, its owner. it's technology developing that we could help, that we could assist that would cut down on the use of stolen firearms in order to kill. in order to hurt people. and so i'll just keep coming down to the floor whatever chance i get to tell a handful

of these tragic stories from connecticut to new york to chicago to los angeles giving voices to the victims of gun violence so that someday some how the united states senate will recognize though we can't eliminate these numbers though we can't bring them down to zero by smart commonsense legislation, we can make sure these numbers are much, much lower than they are today with much much less tragedy visited on american families and much, much less cost to american taxpayers. i yield back, mr. president and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i move we suspend the quorum call. i would ask for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: mr. president all across the country right now people are honoring the men and women who serve in law enforcement as we honor national police week. i was cochair of the senate law enforcement caucus. senator coons and i founded that caucus when we came to the senate a little over four years ago, and i'm proud to be able to speak on behalf of those who serve and their families. i just had a meeting with the

federal law enforcement association talking about the challenge of these jobs and the challenge to families, the importance of understanding the moment you're in. one of the observations i made to them going back to legislation i worked on a few years ago to allow police officers to carry their weapons when they went from state to state is that you may not remember everybody that you arrested, but everybody you arrested remembers you. and the vulnerability of police and their families is sometimes equal and sometimes exceeds the vulnerability of those of us that the police every day step up to protect. this is a week when we really take a moment to recognize that, we take a moment to recognize those who serve. i want to pay tribute today particularly to two missouri officers who were killed in the line of duty last year, deputy

sheriff matthew chissom of the cedar county sheriff's office and eddie johnson jr. sheriff chissom was tragically killed november of last year. he was 25 years old and deputy sheriff chissom was shot and killed while conducting a traffic stop. he had served with the cedar county sheriff's office for just under two years and deputy sheriff chissom is survived by his wife, by his young son and clearly that family has paid a tremendous price for the willingness of their husband and father to step up and defend us. officer eddie johnson jr. of alton, missouri, was involved in a fatal vehicle crash while responding to a structure fire october 20 of last year. in addition to being an officer with the alton police

department officer johnson also served as the fire chief of the volunteer fire department and as a reserve deputy for the oregon county sheriff's department. he was 45 years old. he was -- he is survived by his wife and their three children. so in a difficult -- so difficult things happen to those who -- who serve. we saw two of our officers, the st. louis county police officers at ferguson, missouri, that were shot recently as someone was shooting into a crowd. they are expressing concern about police activity, but the very people trying to be sure that that crowd was able to express that concern were then the victims of violence that has not yet been really figured out

why the person that fired those shots was shooting at a crowd whether he was shooting specifically at police in that crowd or just shooting into the crowd or what that person was doing. but people who -- the desire of people who serve and put on that uniform every day is to serve and protect. that's their number one goal i'm confident in virtually every case of taking that job. the number one hope of their family is that those people come home safely at the end of their shift. it's a -- life is uncertain in many ways but more uncertain when you actually decide you're going to pursue a service to others that put you in -- intentionally in harm's way. people who are not only prepared to serve willing to serve prepared to stand in the way of

danger to others but willing to stand in the way of danger to others. it's a determination of what to do that other people don't make and don't bear the responsibility the same way so it's important for us right now i think to think about those who serve. my colleagues, i was glad to join senator cardin as a cosponsor with others of the national blue alert act the rafael ramos and jane lu national alert act. this bill created a national alert system to apprehend violent criminals who have seriously injured or killed police officers. these two officers were killed while in their squad car. this alert system would be used to quickly get that information to other police agencies and to

the public as you are trying to find someone who would think about doing that sort of thing. we passed that bill on april 30. the house of representatives passed it yesterday. it's now on the way to the president's desk and a good thing for us to step up and be willing to do. this is a job where you go to work every day not knowing what's likely to happen that day. we saw events in my home state in ferguson missouri, last august that brought attention to the danger that police face. i heard even the president talking about baltimore just a few days ago made the comment that we have difficulty in communities and difficulty in people's lives. people not prepared for opportunities and they don't get

opportunities, and the president said something like this and then we send the police in to these environments and we act surprised when -- when bad things happen, when unfortunate things happen, when violence occurs when police are in the middle of a situation that suddenly doesn't work out the way any of us would want it to. police are dealing with major problems. when i cosponsored with senator stabenow last year the excellence in mental health act trying to be sure that we're dealing with people's behavioral health problems like we deal with all other physical health problems one out of four adult americans has a behavioral health problem that's diagnoseable according to the n.i.h. almost always treatable and then one out of nine have a behavioral health problem that severely impacts how they function as an individual, according to the national institutes of health.

we had no greater support of that effort to try to begin to treat behavioral health like all other health than we -- than the police organizations around the country who stepped forward and said this is -- this is a problem that we deal with all the time, and there are better ways to deal with it than expecting police officers to deal with someone whose behavioral health problem leads them into -- into violence or into another situation. and by the way people with behavioral health problems with more often the victims of violence than they are the perpetrators of violence, but so often part of what we ask police to respond to. we expect police to be psychiatrists and psychologists and first responders and experts at protecting others, and then we can easily begin to want to question what equipment they used what uniform they were

told they needed to have on for the exercise that they were about to participate in, the act -- the public safety moment they were about to be part of. these are hard jobs, and they are difficult jobs that often come into the moment of difficulty in other people's lives. people who for whatever reason do something that they would normally not do, react in a way that they might normally not correct or react out of incredible frustration because of the situation they found themselves in, but we expect the police to step forward and immediately be able to respond to that situation in a way that protects others. does every police officer do the right thing every time? probably not. do almost -- does almost every police officer do their very best to do the right thing every

time? absolutely they do. it's the exceptions that get attention, as they should, but for those of us who every day benefit and benefit in this office in this building and in the work we do. i remember on 9/11, one of my memories of 9/11 is i'm one of the last people to leave the capitol building. the police officer who is there telling me to get out as quickly as i can as she says that to me i realize as i'm leaving the door i'm leaving the door to try to get to a safer place but the police officer just says you need to get out of here right now is still standing at the place she told me you need to get out of here right now because whoever else might have been left in the building, she was trying to be sure they got out of the building, too. that is what we expect the police to do. that's what their families know every day when they go to work

they may be called on to do, to do extraordinary things. and for those who serve we're grateful. this is an important week to be grateful to police officers that we see and police that are helping us that we don't see so i am pleased to be here, mr. president, to thank them for their service. on another topic mr. president i'd just like to say that i hope we can move forward with the ability to have trade agreements. i was disappointed yesterday that we weren't able to move forward and not vote on a trade agreement but to vote on the framework that at some point in the future would allow us to negotiate a trade agreement. you can't get the final negotiation on a trade agreement unless the people you're negotiating with know that that trade agreement's going to be voted on yes or no by the united states congress. it can't be an agreement that the congress can go back and

look at and say well, we really don't like that provision we don't like this provision. let's send it back, let's not do what they said that they were willing to do as part of this negotiation. trade is good for us. trade in almost all cases is about tearing down barriers to our products because we have very few barriers to those that we trade with. so trade is almost always an opportunity to sell more american products in other countries, particularly as it relates to the most likely first agreement we get if we get trade promotion authority that agreement, the trans-pacific will make a huge difference on the way that part of the world develops. if they develop based on a trade relationship where the rule of law matters a trade relationship where not every -- everyone is treated in a way

that you're looking for the way to come back and have more ability to work together in the future where you're working on trade relationships that not every ounce of profit has to be made on any one deal because you're always thinking about what happens next, we have great opportunities there and they do, too. that part of the world will be dramatically different ten years from now and even more different 20 years from now if our system becomes a system that becomes the basis for how they move into their economic future and create economic opportunity for them and for us as opposed to the other alternatives which are much more colonial in nature, much more cynical in nature, much more likely to be there's one big trading partner and there's one little partner in every deal. that's not the way this works. that's not the way it should work. but we can't get to that final

opportunity for american workers unless we have an agreement that we understand what happens to that agreement once it's been negotiated. the best thing -- the best offer does not come until the people on the other side of the negotiating table know that they're doing this under trade promotion authority authority that every president since franklin roosevelt has had and every president since franklin roosevelt asked for in their first term until this president who didn't ask for it until his second term and then clearly didn't do anything to push for it until after the congressional elections last year. but this is a six-year ability to create more opportunities for american workers and jobs that provide good take-home pay for american workers. i hope that the unfortunate decision not to move forward and get this done is a decision that the senate quickly has a chance to rethink, revote on, and move

forward. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed on -- to h.r. 1314 which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of h.r. 1314, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth. mr. cotton: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: it's been nearly two years since the syrian tyrant attacked his own people with gas crossing president obama's so-called red line of the at the time, president obama grudgingly called for airstrikes against assad but hesitated at the moment of decision. when secretary of state kerry opened the door a negotiated

solution, vladimir putin barnled in allowing assad the pretext of turning over his weapons to avoid u.s. airstrikes. street-smart observers were on to assad's game. he only needed to keep a tiny traiks fraction of his arsenal to attain. because most of syria's chemical agents were old potentially unreliable and danger arks the regime actually benefited by giving the west to pay for the removal of the old stockpiles. and where are we now? exactly where a few of my colleagues and i warned that we would be. news reports just this week indicate that the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons has discovered new evidence of sarin gas and v.x. nerve agent nine months after the organization declared syria had disposed of all of its

chemical weapons. in the meantime, assad has simply shifted to chlorine gas which is also prohibited by the chemical weapons convention, even though syria signed that convention as part of president obama's deal in 2013678913. i am appalled that the syrian regime has retained chemical weapons but i can't say i am surprised. anyone with eyes to see knew the message president obama had sent when he flinched in 2013 in the face of assad's brazen and brutal use of sarin gas on civilians, it only emboldened assad to continue testing u.s. resolve. of course, the fallout goes far beyond syria. the failure to enforce the u.s. red line has severely damaged u.s. credibility around the world. i hear this message from leaders of countries not just in the region but across the globe. the message sounds most loudly with iran where the ayatollahs

continue their pursuit of chemical weapons ability with impunity. ware reaping the fruits of president obama's weakness in 2013. there are two simple lessons we must draw from the sad sequence of events. first, our country's word on the international stage must be good and it must be credible. when a president draws a red line and fails to back it up, it only emboldens our enemies and makes america appear as the weak horse. remember, osama bin laden famously said that when dpiffen a choice between a weak horse and strong horse people will by nature root for the strong horse. president obama looks like the weak horse. second, we cannot trust tyrannical regimes to abide by agreements unless we force them to do so. this means that any agreement with iran about its nuclear weapons program must contain the most stringent conditions, imposeds most intrusive

verification procedures and ultimately prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. the framework agreement president obama has reached with iran meets montana meets none of those standards. the administration's concealment of syria's cheating surely foreshadows how it will look the other way when iran cheats on any final deal. assad's cheating on his chemical weapons agreement today is devastating for the people of syria. but iran's cheating on a nuclear dpreament in the future can be catcatastrophic for the united states and the world at large. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i hadi'dask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: in february, mr. president, the director of the national counterterrorism center estimated that nearly 20,000 foreign fighters had joined isis or other related groups in syria. among those some 3,000 were from western countries. in other words many of them had either american passports or those that are part of the visa waiver program and could travel really without anything other than that passport in the country. and over 150 were from the united states.

just last week in describing the widespread nature of this growing threat, f.b.i. director james comey said that the f.b.i. is working on hundreds of investigations in the united states hundreds of investigations. in fact, according to comey all 56 of the f.b.i.'s field divisions now have open inquiries regarding suspected cases of homegrown terrorism. again, not people coming from syria or afghanistan or someplace in the middle east. these are often americans who've become radicalized due to the use of social media or the internet. as much as five years ago we saw at fort hood texas a major in the united states army, nidal hasan, who had been radicalized by a cleric, anwar al allah al-alaki.

major hasan killed 14 people in a terrible terrorist attack there at fort hood texas. so today we're not just worried about a major attack on a significant culture or economic hub. we also have to worry about isis-inspired terrorists all around the kurntion even as country even as we witnessed in my home state of texas on may 3. mr. president, when you begin to look at the story that i'll ask to be made part of the record written by "the new york times" on may 11, 2015, it explains how this new threat of homegrown terrorism is inspired.

and i'll just -- i'll read a few pieces of it. "hours before he drove into a texas parking lot last week and opened fire with an assault rifle outside of prophet muhammed cartoon contest elton simpson, 30, logged on to twitter. follow@abuhasan moved to syria two years ago to join the islamic state and has become one of the extremist groups celebrity hackers. well there's a question as the article goes on to say, whether or not mr. simpson and his colleague who came i believe

from phoenix arizona and traveled to garland texas to carry out this attack, whether they were actually recruited ahead of time by isil or whether isil just claimed credit after the fact but as the article goes on to say, it was the first time that the terror group had tried to claim credit for an operation carried out in its name on american soil. yet mr. simpson the article goes on to say appears to have been part of a network of islamic state adherence in several countries including the group's hub in syria who have encouraged attacks and highlighted the texas event as a worthy target. mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent that this article be made part of the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: so what f.b.i. director comey has expressed concern about recently is

apparently very real. i.t. as real as the daily newspaper on recounting the attack on may the 3rd in garland, texas of all places. terrorists are sending a clear signal to those in the united states and other western countries: if you are can't fight us abroad, we're going to bring the fight to you. in your own country. this heightened threat environment has led pentagon officials to raise the security level at u.s. military bases. the last time the threat level was raised to this level was the 10th anniversary of the september 11 attacks. i still remember when former admiral bobby enman who served for a long time in the navy and then also in the intelligence community, was asked about 9/11. he said, it wasn't so much a failure of intelligence as it was a failure of imagination. nobody imagined that terrorists

would hijack a plane and fly it into one of our nation's highest skyscrapers and thus, in the process, killing 3,000 -- approximately 3,000 people. so we need to remember not to have a failure of imagination when it comes to the tactics used by terrorists and those who inspire them abroad. remarks like those from director comey and the director of the our national counterintelligence center are certainly troubling ones for us to hear, and it counsels caution mr. president -- counsels caution. while the united states has been mostly successful in thwarting attacks on our homeland since 9/11 the threats are still very real. in fact, the terrorist threat has evolved and become more complex in recent years. now, in texas we rightly

recognize that the role of government should be constrained to focus on core functions. at the federal level, of course, this means things like passing a budget. but surely it also means protecting our country and it's security and the security of the american people. which brings me to some business that we're going to have to conduct here in the united states congress sometime within the next couple of weeks before the certain provisions of the u.s. patriot act expire on june 1. i believe if we allow these provisions to expire our homelandhomeland security will be at a much greater risk. so i think we need to talk a little bit about it and explain not only the threat but what our intelligence community and our national security officials are doing working with congress and the administration to try to make sure that americans are

safe. and the patriot act is part of it. now, i recognize that there are many who perhaps haven't read the patriot act or perhaps whose memories have dimmed since those terrible events on 9/11, who think we don't need the patriot act. but i would argue that the patriot act serves as a tool for bell generalsintelligence and law enforcement officials to protect our nation from those who are seeking to harm us, and three of those useful tools will expire at the end of the month. including section 215 which allows for the national security agency to access certain types of data including phone records and there's been a lot of misunderstanding and frankly some of it downright deceptive about what this does when, in fact section 215 is a business records collection provision and it happens to be applied to collecting phone records. but not the contest of phone

records. this is one of the misleading statements that are made by some of the folks who think that we ought to let this provision expire. so right now under current law that's set to expire jun the 1st. our intelligence community can can -- expire june the 1st. our intelligence community can get basically three types of information about a phone record who's -- the calling and receiving number, the time of the call and the durationment -- tur -- duration. that's it. no content. no names or addresses. you can't even get a cell tower identification that would tell you where the call is coming from. so much has been said about this program, as i said, much of it misleading or downright false but i want to focus now on the oversight that's built into this program because i think that americans understand that we need to take steps in a dangerous world to keep the american people safe.

but they also value their privacy and justly so. we all do. and so it's important to remind the american people and our colleagues as we take up this important provision of law about what we've already built into the law to protect the privacy of american citizens who are not engaged in a communication with foreign terrorists or being inspired by foreign terrorists to commit acts of terrorism here in the homeland. so let me talk about the barriers that we've created in the law for a n.s.a., national security agency, analyst to overcome before seeing any real information from this data. first, for the n.s.a. to have access to phone records at all all -- at all -- a special court must approve an order requiring telephone companies to provide those call records to the

agency. that's been -- order has been in place since roughly 2006, where the foreign intelligence surveillance court the specialized court created by congress for this purpose has issued an order requiring the telephone companies to turn over these call records. again, not content nothing name and address but merely the sending number, the receiving number and the duration. that's the core information that is required. together with the duration of the call. so it's important to point out that these records include only the most basic limited information. it does not include the information i suggested earlier earlier -- content names and addresses and the like. so the national security agency is not as some have assumed

wrongly able to retrieve old phone conversations. they don't collect that sort of information. nor are they able to simply listen in on any american's phone conversation under this authority. that would be a violation of the protections that congress has put in place under the provisions of the patriot act. but for an analyst at the n.s.a. to even search for or yourry the data -- query the database, it must go through even more. the analyst must be able to demonstrate to the fisa court the foreign intelligence court that there is a reasonable, articulatable decision that this person is associated with terrorism.

this is similar not the same, but similar to protections offered under the constitution. where law enforcement agencies would have to come in and establish probable cause that a crime has been committed before a search would be allowed. but since this is a investigation into foreign induced terrorist activity the standard that congress set was a reasonable articulable decision that the person is associated with terrorism. and if the court discerns that that standard has been met then they can grant access to the conversation. but not under any other circumstances. if the n.s.a. believes that the phone numbers belong to someone who intends to attack our country the agency must go back to court another time to be granted other abilities to surveil that individual. in addition to these checks and balances between the national security agency and the courts, all three branches of government

have oversight over this program and strong oversight of the intelligence community is absolutely essential to safeguarding our freedoms and our liberty. now, because this is by and large a -- parts of this program are classified, you're not going to hear public debates about it, and, indeed, that puts defenders of the program at some disadvantage. because those who attack it, sometimes in a misleading or deceptive sort of way it's very difficult to counter that with factual information when they're talking about a program that parts of which are classified. so our enemies don't know exactly what we're doing hopefully because then they can wire around it. but we live, of course, in a world with many threats and as i said, many in our backyard and many of them can be thwarted with good intelligence and law enforcement. and i make that distinction on purpose. intelligence and law enforcement

now, law enforcement as we learned in 9/11, we can't just treat terrorism as a criminal act. it is a criminal act but if we're going to stop it we need good -- access to good intelligence to thwart it before that act actually occurs. it's not enough to say to the american people well, we will deploy all of the tools available to law enforcement to prosecute the person that murders innocent people. we need to keep the commitment to protect them from that innocent slaughter in the first place. and the only way we do that is by using legitimate tools of intelligence like this program i'm discussing. earlier this year, for example the u.s. frustrated a potential attack by a man from ohio. he was an isis sympathizer and had plans to bomb the building that we're standing in today. the u.s. capitol.

that attack -- potential attack was thwarted by the use of good intelligence under the limitations and strictures and the procedures that i've described a moment ago. over the past two years the f.b.i. has told us that they've stopped 50 american citizens from joining the islamic state traveling overseas to join them and then coming back. so clearly the intelligence community has a vital role to play in safeguarding the american people and our homeland. some in the intelligence community have said that the bulk data collection that i've described here briefly has led to a safer united states and it's because of programs like this that we are much better off than we were pre-9/11. and that's really important. because the last thing i would think we would want to do here in congress is to return us to a

pre-9/11 mentality when it comes to the threat of terrorism both abroad and here at home. and to make it harder for our national security personnel to protect the american people. so i believe the portion of the pay patriots -- pay the -- pay patriot act provides our intelligence community with the tools to protect our homeland. we had a briefing yesterday by the office of the director of national intelligence, by the f.b.i. director, by d.o.j. personnel and by the leader of the national security agency. it was held downstairs in a secure facility because as i said much of that was classified. much of it we can't talk about without alerting our adversaries to ways to circumvent it. but all responsible members of congress have taken advantage of

opportunity to learn about how this program works as part of our oversight responsibilities. and i remain convinced that this program like many others have helped keep us safe while using appropriate checks and balances to ensure that our liberties remain intact. and congress, by maintaining strong oversight of these and other government programs, i think we can have a win-win situation that both protects the american lives and protects american liberties. mr. president, i want to draw my colleagues' attention to a opinion piece that appeared today in the "wall street journal" written by michael b. mukasey, who, of course, was the former united states district judge and more recently attorney general of the united states

from 2007-2009. general mukasey writes in this article about the second circuit opinion that has prompted so much recent discussion about this section 215 of the patriot act and the bulk metadata collection process that i've described here a moment ago and i think he makes some really important points. first of all he makes the important point that it's a good thing that congress has created a special foreign intelligence surveillance court because the second circuit court of appeals no matter how good they are as judges they just simply don't have the experience to deal with parsing the law on intelligence matters and things like this 215 provision that i talked about a moment ago. and he makes the important point that intelligence by its nature is forward looking and our

criminal justice system, which is what most courts have experience with is backward looking. in other words something bad has already happened and then the police and investigators and prosecutors are looking about bringing somebody to justice for committing an act -- committing a criminal act. but our intelligence community is supposed to look forward and to help prevent those terrible accidents or incidents from occurring in the first place. the second point that general mukasey makes in this article is that the panel -- the third -- the second circuit panel of judges assumes that many members of congress are simply unaware of these provisions of the patriot act that i mentioned earlier, section 215 this metadata collection, which is just a terrible and glaring mistake on the part of the second circuit panel. as i pointed out yesterday just

as we have done on many times previous members of the senate and the congress generally have regular or periodic, at least briefings on these intelligence programs as part of our oversight responsibilities. and for the second panel circuit to suggest that congress didn't know what it was talking about when it authorized these programs and when it wrote this provision of the law is simply erroneous. and the third point that general mukasey makes is that judges didn't even stop the program in the first place. so it makes you really wonder why they handed down their opinion about three weeks before the expiration of this provision, which congress was going to have to take up this matter anyway unless they wanted to have some impact on our deliberations here. so what general mukasey suggests is i think good advice, is that there needs to be an appeal to

the second circuit en banc court and then to the united states supreme court to get a final -- a final word. we don't need to settle on what he calls a rube goldberg procedure that would have data stored and searched by the telephone companies who he says whose computers can be penetrated and whose employees have neither the security clearance or the training of the n.s.a. staff. so mr. president, i would commend this article to my colleagues. i would ask it be made part of the record by unanimous consent, and i would yield the floor to the majority leader. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent at 1:00 p.m. today the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 80, the nomination of sally yates to be deputy attorney general that there be one hour for debate, equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of time the senate proceed to vote

without intervening action or debate on the nomination and that following disposition of the nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table no further motion be in order to the nomination, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that the senate -- that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session and the motion to proceed to h.r. 1314. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president may i ask unanimous consent to

speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you mr. president. i'm here today for the 99th time to remind us that we are sleep walking our way toward a climate cat strove and that it is time to wake up. noaa, the national oceanic and atmospheric administration of the united states, recently announced an ominous milestone. this march for the first time in human history the monthly average of co2 in our atmosphere exceeded 400 parts per million. this chart shows the global concentration of carbon dioxide over the last few years as measured by noaa. the level varies with the

seasons, the earth sort of inhales and exhales carbon dioxide as the seasons pass, but overall you can see the steady prominent upward march of co2 levels, rising right here to above 400 parts per million for the month of march 2015. scientists at noaa's mauna loa observatory in hawaii first measured an atmospheric concentration of co2 above 400 parts per million in 2013. for the very first time. it reached up, it touched 400 parts per million for the first time and then receded again. now, two years later as we

continue dumping carbon pollution into the atmosphere, the average weakly air sample from noaa's entire global network of sampling stations measured an average a monthlong average of over 400 parts per million for the entire month of march. that is a daunting marker. global carbon concentrations haven't been this high for at least 800,000 years. much longer, much longer than humankind has walked the earth. and every year, that concentration increases. the fact that increasing levels of carbon in the atmosphere warm

the planet has been established science for 150 years. science on this was being published in scientific journals when abraham lincoln in his top hat was walking around washington. we've pumped more and more carbon pollution into the atmosphere, we've measured corresponding changes in global temperatures. now, there is some mischief afoot. people who cherry-pick the data to create false impressions to create false doubt. well the honest thing to do is to look at all of the data and when you look at all of the data, you see long-term warming. you see warming so obvious that scientists call the evidence unequivocal. unequivocal. that's about as strong a science

word as you can have. evidence of the changing climate, the consequences of un checked carbon pollution abounds, more extreme weather rising sea levels and warming and acidifying oceans, all as predicted. these changes are already starting to hurt people. through more severe heat waves parched fields, flooded towns and homes altered ecosystems, and threatened fisheries. we certainly see the fisheries change at home in my state of rhode island. we are already starting to pay the price of our continued and reckless burning of fossil fuels. dr. james butler, the director of noaa's global monitoring

division says -- i'll quote -- "elimination of about 80% of fossil fuel emissions would essentially stop the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. but concentrations of carbon dioxide would not start decreasing until even further reductions are made. we need to cut our use of fossil fuels. we need to cut energy waste and we need to generate more of our energy from clean and renewable sources. we need to do it and we can do it. we have the technologies and the policies available right now. we can choose to level the playing field for clean energy to make polluters pay for the climate costs of their pollution, and to move forward

to a low carbon economy the one with the green jobs, with the american innovation, with the safer climate. but we're not going to get there with business as usual. which brings me to the fast-track trade bill which i'm glad to say failed its procedural vote in the senate this week. a bill that would make it easier for the administration to commit the u.s. to new sweeping trade agreements. the first agreement waiting to get through is the trans-pacific partnership, some call it the t.p.p. which is being sold as -- quote -- "a trade deal for the 21st century." but when it comes to climate change the fast-track bill and the pacific trade bill aren't 21st century solutions, they are business as usual. past trade deals not have been kind to workers in rhode island. i've been to rhode island factories and seen the holes in

the floor where machinery had been unbolted and shipped to other countries for foreign workers to perform the same job for the same customers on the same machines. that's what we saw from trade bills. but trade advocates always say it's going to be wonderful but then what do we see? jobs offshored again and a huge trade deficit. past u.s. trade deals have required participating countries to join some multilateral agreements to protect endangered species, whales and tuna to keep the oceans free of pollution and protect the ozone layer by reducing the use of cfc's and other ozone depleting gases. but i haven't seen much enforcement and everywhere you look things are getting worse. i am not impressed.

and when it comes to climate change the fast-track bill is silent. there's no mention of, let alone protection for commitments that the united states and other countries might make to cut carbon pollution. the united nations framework convention on climate change is the main international agreement for dealing with climate change. the u.s. senate ratified this treaty in 1992, and since then under various administrations the united states has taken a leading role under the framework to reach global accord, particularly work to reach a global accord in paris later this winter. the paris accord is perhaps our last best hope to put the world on a path that avoids severe climate disruption, even climate catastrophe.

that fast-track bill and the pacific trade bill ought to enable and support our trade partners to live up to their climate agreements. those bills ought to protect countries that act to address climate change, and in particular they ought to protect them from the threat of trade sanctions or from corporate challenges seeking to undermine sovereign countries' climate laws. these 21st century agreements on trade ought to match our 21st century commitments on climate. but they don't. fast-track is silent on the united nations framework convention on climate change, and on climate change more broadly. fast-track provides no protection for our own or any other country's climate commitments. and we've heard nothing to

suggest the pacific trade bill will be any better. what we do know about the pacific trade bill is not encouraging. the pacific trade bill in its agreement under negotiation as we see it now includes the horrible investor state dispute settlement mechanism called isds. a mechanism that allows big multinational corporations and their investors to challenge a country's domestic rules and regulations outside of that country's judicial process outside of any traditional judicial process outside of appeal outside of traditional judicial baseline principles like precedent. increasingly these isds challenges are being turned

against countries' environmental and public health standards. fossil fuel companies like chevron and exxonmobil have brought hundreds of disputes against almost 100 governments when those governments' policies threaten corporate profits. in fact, more than 85% of the more than $3 billion awarded to corporations and investors in disputes has come from challenges against natural resource energy, and environmental policies. last week on the floor i compared the big tobacco playbook -- that's the one that was found by a federal court to be a civil racketeering enterprise -- i compared that playbook to the fossil fuel industry scheme to undermine climate action in the u.s.

the comparisons are self-evident. well the tobacco industry is in on the trade challenge game as well. challenging countries' antismoking measures under the guise of protecting free trade. if a country wants new health or environmental rules big multinationals can use this isds process to thwart them. they don't necessarily even have to bring the challenge. just threatening to seek extrajudicial judgments in the millions or even billions of dollars from panels stacked with corporate lawyers can be enough to make countries stop protecting the health of their

citizens. we've seen the polluters use these tools already. this is not conjecture. it is what is happening. why open up u.s. climate regulations to this risk? why put our commitment to climate action at the mercy of these sketchy panels? what will keep the fossil fuel industry from threatening smaller countries in paris to discourage them from climate accords? where are the safeguards? why should we accept trade deals that don't keep safe from that kind of threat a country's legitimate efforts to control carbon pollution? why give the polluters this club?

it's not news to congress that the fossil fuel industry doesn't play fair. it plays rough. we see that every day. the fossil fuel industry has used citizens united to beat and cajole the republican party in congress into becoming the political arm of the fossil fuel industry. the party that brought us theodore roosevelt the party that brought us the environmental protection agency, the party of my predecessor john chafee, who is still reveered across rhode island as an environmental it now has become the political arm of the fossil fuel industry and is not its high point in history. and so it's a party that winds up behind climate denial. if the fossil fuel industry is willing to impose its will that

way on the united states congress, why would we trust them with this isds mechanism to threaten and bully governments around the rest of the world? a 21st century trade deal ought to acknowledge the 21st century reality of climate change. we have right now the technology and the ingenuity to address this problem and to boost our economy into the future. for the first time in years we have international momentum to address this threat, but it doesn't make sense to act on climate change in paris and undermine climate action in our trade deals. we need to wake up to that little problem too. mr. president, i thank you for your attention and i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. succession session mr. president, i'd -- mr. sessions: mr. president i'd like to share some thoughts on the nomination of sally yates to be deputy attorney general the second in command of the united states department of justice. it's a very important position. she's had over the years a good background, i think in general for us to consider that she would be able to handle that job in an effective administrative way. she understands the system. she's been in the department of justice for a number of years and i have no concern with her personal integrity or work ethic. her desire to do well.

however, congress and the executive branch are in a collision course here. a lot of our members choose not to think sufficiently about it or consider the gravity of it, but i've got to say colleagues, congress needs to defend its institutional powers. and we have certain powers that we can use to defend constitutionally the responsibilities we have and to reject an executive overreach where the president and his executive branch overreaches. not many, but we have some real powers that we can use. apparently it's all right for the president to use all his powers and more. it's perfectly all right i suggest, that we in the united states senate use the powers we clearly and unequivocally and indisputably have. so i just want to tell you how i

see the situation with this nomination. i asked her directly at the november 20 -- at her confirmation hearing as a member of the judiciary committee could she answer "yes" or "no" did she support the president's amnesty. basically she said yes she did. she was as acting deputy attorney general supervises that legislation and supports it . she said she stood -- quote -- "i stand by those pleadings" which i suppose she should. two things about that: historically the attorney general of the united states understands that their role is

different from a lower official, but indeed has to advise the president on matters of constitutional authority tell the president "no" when a strong-willed president wants to do something that's not correct. they're not a judicial officer. they're part of the executive branch. they should try to help the president achieve things that the president wants to achieve as a matter of policy. i don't dispute that. but at some point if the president is seeking to do something clearly unconstitutional or illegal they should tell the president so and not acquiesce, in my opinion. the honorable thing to do, as has been done in the past, is to resign. but if an attorney general is firm and clear and stands in a firm position, then often the president will back down and avoid a constitutional crisis and keep our government going in the right way.

so the deputy attorney general is the department's second-ranking official, functions as chief operating officer. the 25 components are 93 united states attorneys -- i was a united states attorney for 12 years, 15 years in the department of justice. proud of that service proud of the department of justice. they report directly to the deputy and 13 additional components report to the deputy through the associate attorney general. on a daily basis the deputy attorney general decides a broad range of legal policy and operational issues by their own web site. ms. yates i suggest is a high official and an official who holds a position unlike united states attorney or some section chief, that is involved in the

policy-making of the department of justice. in addition to that, she acknowledged to us that the litigation going on in texas before judge andrew hahn none is under -- judge andrew hannon is under her direct supervision and she is moderating lawyers who are under a position of the attorney of the united states, states attorney general. a majority of them filed a lawsuit and they contend the president's executive amnesty first in 2011 or 2012 and now last november, an even more dramatic assertion of executive power, that i believe is contrary to our governmental framework. that's -- she's direct super visor over that litigation. on april 7 of this year, judge andrew hannon issued a

blistering opinion in the litigation that's ongoing that the just department attorneys had -- quote -- "made multiple misrepresentations" to the court both in writing and orally that no action would be taken pursuant to the 2014 department of homeland security directive until february 18, thirvet -- february 18, it 2015. i'd like to read comments from the judge's opinion. judges take this seriously. judge hanen said this, whether by ignorance or omission, purposeful misdirection or because they were misled by their clients the attorneys for the government misrepresented facts. close quote. he didn't say that lightly. the united states attorneys federal prosecutors when they appear in court have an absolute

duty to follow the truth. it's a responsibility that every judge knows and every government attorney knows and when a government attorney goes into court and are asked are they ready, they reply the united states is ready, your honor. and they have a duty to respond consistent with the integrity of the united states of america. we all know that. the judge went on to say this representation was made even as the government was in the process of draining over 100,000 three-year renewals under the revised daca, the first amnesty issue. goes on -- quote -- "in response to this representation, counsels for the states agreed to a schedule more favorable to the government and the court granted the government's request not

only to file or serve reply but also to have additional time to do so. the states now argue that they would have sought a temporary restraining order but for the government's misrepresentations. a review of the chronology of events attached as an appendix to this order certainly leads credence to the state's claims." close quote. well that's a pretty serious allegation. not only did they misrepresent key facts but they used that misrepresentation to achieve a favorable schedule which often in litigation is important. the judge goes on to say "the explanation by defendant's counsel for their conduct after the fact is even more troublesome for the court. counsel told the court during its latest hearing that she was unaware that these 2014 daca

amendments were at issue until she read the court's february 16, 2015 order of temporary injunction and memorandum of opinion and order. counsel then claimed that the government took prompt remedial action. this assertion is belied by the facts. even if one were to assume that counsel were unaware that the 2014 daca amendments in their entirety were at issue in reading this court's federal opinion, a factual scenario still does not suggest candor on the part of the government." close quote. just to assert here, government counsel have an absolute duty of candor to the court. it's a serious charge by the federal judge. it goes on -- quote -- "the february opinion was issued late in the evening on february 16,

2015 based on the representation that nothing would happen on dapo or the revised daca until february 25, 2018. as the february opinion was finalized and filed at not counsel could not have been expected to review it until the next day yet for the next two weeks the government did nothing to inform the court of the 1,881 revised daca approvals. instead less than a week later on february 23, 2015, the government filed a motion to stay and a notice of appeal, despite having have had -- having had almost a week to correct any misunderstanding, confusion or misrepresentation the government did not reply promptly. instead it again did nothing. surely an advisory to this court or even to the court of appeals could have been included in either document filed during

this time period. yet counsel for the government said nothing." close quote. so the court goes on -- quote -- "mysteriously, what was included in the government's february 23 motion to stay was a request that this court rule on the motion 'by the close of business february 25.' in other words within two days. had the court complied with this request, it would have cut off the right of states to file any kind of reply if this court had ruled according to the government's requested schedule, it boo have ruled without the court or the states knowing that the government had granted 108,000 applications pursuant to the revised daca despite its multiple representations to the contrary. so the attorneys were saying

they -- to the contrary, closed quote. so the attorneys were telling the court they hadn't issued any of these orders and they'd stopped it, while in account far, 108,000 had -- while in fact 108,000 had been issued. "while this court is skeptical that government attorneys could have easily obtained the daca documents, this court finds it even less conceivable that the government could have thought so after january 15, 2015, given the interplay between the court and the counsel at that hearing. regardless, by their own admission, the government attorneys knew of it, at least as of february 17 2015 yet they stood silent. even worse they urged this court to rule before disclosing that the government had already

issued 108,000 three-year renewals under the 2014d -- 2014 daca amendments contrary to statement." the judge goes on to say "another week passed after the motion to stay was filed and still the government stood mute. still the government's lawyers were silent. finally, after waiting two weeks after the states had filed their reply, the government laws filed their advisory. that same night at 6:57 p.m. central standard time. thus even under the most charitable interpretation of these circumstances and based solely on what counsel for the government told the court the government knew its representations had created 'confusion' by keeping quiet about it for two weeks while simultaneously pressing this court to rule on the merits of

the motion. at the march 19 hearing, counsel for the government repeatedly stated to the court that they had acted promptly to clarify any confusion they may have caused but the facts clearly show these statements to be disingenuous. the government did nothing but act -- did anything but act promptly to clarify the government created confusion." and the judges goes on to quote the american bar association model rules of professional conduct that require a lawyer to act with complete candor in his or her dealings with the court. under the rules of conduct a lawyer must be completely truthful and forthright in making representations to the court. fabrications misstatements half-truths, artful truths and misstatements may be acceptable, albeit lamentable in all other

aspects of life but in a courtroom, when the attorney knows both the court and the other side are relying on complete frankness, such conduct is unacceptable. well, i don't think that's a little matter. i'm just saying, this nominee had those lawyers under her supervision at the time this occurred. and we've had a lot of talk over the years from democrats and republicans about demanding higher standards of professionalism among government prosecutors and lawyers. i think that's a legitimate demand. we've had two -- too many examples of failures. sometimes lawyers -- i've seen it -- before the government have been unfairly criticized. i don't think there's any dispute that the judge's findings in this case represent an accurate statement of the misrepresentations and disen

again -- disen again oneness -- disingenuousness. has anyone saying that miss yates knew this? i'm just saying if you're the responsible supervision shouldn't you take some action to deal with it? and none has been taken to my knowledge, even at some point they suggested they've done nothing wrong. basically the department of justice has said the court is incorrect in its finding which i don't think can be justified. and we also have an additional recent misrepresentation that the court has expressed concern about of 2000, individual being approved subsequent to that order and the judge's concern about that.

now, okay, so you say well, maybe she's not responsible for that. but i do believe the deputy attorney general acting now is responsible for taking action against attorneys who breach proper standards of ethical conduct. take an investigation and do something about it. but we're -- we're drifting too far, in my opinion into a post-modern world where rules don't seem to make much difference that you can just redefine the meaning of words and you can just say when someone's caught in wrongdoing, well we didn't mean it, that's not correct the facts are different when the facts show what the facts show. that's an unhealthy trend in this country i think. particularly it's unacceptable in the department of justice. that's a great department. it has high standards.

it's filled with many of the best lawyers of the highest integrity anywhere in the world. but sloppy work disen again -- disingenuousness cannot be acceptable and i believe the department of justice needs to do more. and the primary responsibility, it seems to me, is the deputy attorney general. well, what about the fundamental problem of congress' power to deal with a president who overreaches? a president who makes law rather than enforce law? we've learned from elementary school congress makes law; the president enforces law. the chief executive cannot make up law he can't issue decrees and then declare they're the law of the land. how fundamental is that? professor jonathan turley at george george washington university, a

constitutional expert a supporter of president obama testified before our judiciary committee and other committees a number of times over the years for the democrats mostly i think, the times i remember. and this is what professor turley has warned congress about and i urge colleagues to understand what we're considering here. quote -- "i believe the president has exceeded his brief. the president is required to faithfully execute the laws. he's not required to enforce all laws equally or commit the same resources to them but i believe the president has crossed the constitutional line in some of these areas." he's basically referring to the daca this amnesty business. quote -- "this goes to the very heart of what the madisonian system is about. if a president can unilaterally change the meaning of laws in

substantial ways or refuse to enforce them it takes off-line that very thing that stabilizes our system. i believe that members will be -- will loathe the day that they allow this to happen." he's testifying before the house of representatives talking directly to members of congress. "you will loathe the day that you allow this to happen." quote -- "this will not be our last president. there will be more presidents who will claim the same authority. the problem of what the president is doing is that he is not simply posing a take -- a danger to the constitutional system, he is becoming the very danger the constitution was designed to avoid; that is, the concentration of power in a single branch. this nutorian orbit that the three branches exist is in a delicate one but it is designed

to prevent just this type of concentration." that's what professor turley said right to those members of the house of representatives. he goes on to say, "we are creating a new system here something that is not what was designed. we have this rising fourth branch in a system that's tri-partheid. the system of gravity is shifting and that makes it unstable. and within that statement, you have the rise of the uber presidency. there could be no greater danger for individual liberty and i really think that the framers would be horrified by that shift because everything they've dedicated themselves to was creating this orbital balance and we've lost it." i think this -- we need to listen to this. the president is stepping out

issuing orders that nullify law actually creating an entirely new system of immigration that congress rejected. he proposed all this. the congress flatly refused to pass it. and so then he declares he has the power to do this system any way and he's doing it. finally, this judge has stopped it for the moment. but professor turley is talking about the deep constitutional questions and what is our duty here. it's not a question of what you believe about immigration or how the -- you should believe the laws are to be written or enforced. we can debate that. but they should be unanimous agreement -- but there should be unanimous agreement on both sides of the aisle that the president enforces the laws that we have the laws duly passed by congress, not create some new law and enforce them. mr. turley goes on, "i believe

that congress is facing a critical crossroads in terms of its continued relevance in the process. what this body cannot become is a debating society where it can issue rules and laws that are neither complied with or not complied with by the president. a president cannot ignore an express statement on policy grounds. is this congress truly the body that existed when it was formed snr are -- formed? does it have it is same gravitational body that was given to it by the framers?" that's what mr. turley says. then he looks directly at the members of the house congress and says this -- quote -- "you're the keepers of this authority. you took an oath to uphold it. and the framers assumed that you would have the institutional

wherewithal and frankly ambition to defend the turf that is the legislative branch." i think that's a legitimate charge to the members of congress house and senate. professor turley goes on to say this "the current passivity of congress represents a crisis for members, crisis of faith for members willing to see a president assume legislative power in exchange for insular policy gains. the shorm-terminess larry victories achieved by this president will come at a prohibitive cost if the balance is not corrected. constitutional authority is easy to lose in the transient shift of politics. it's far more difficult to regain if a passion for the constitution does not motivate members of congress perhaps a sense of self-preservation would be enough to unify the members.

president obama will not be our last president. however, these acquired powers will be passed on to his successors. when that occurs, maibz my loathe the day -- members may loathe the day that they remained silent as the power of government shifted so radically to the chief executive. the powerful personality that engendered this loyalty will be gone but the powers will remain. we are now at the constitutional tipping point of our system. if the balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before this president leaves office and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority." what is our authority? how do we reassert power? i believe it's perfectly constitutionally appropriate for us to tell the president of the

united states we're not going to confirm your deputy attorney general of the united states who's directly supervising the lawsuits -- the litigation that's going on that undermines our power and undermines the constitutional authority of the people's branches. and we're not going to confirm them and allow them to continue to go to court every day and take a position directly contrary to the authority been given by the constitution to the congress. that's pretty simple. we have that power. we can confirm or not confirm any member to any position in congress. we absolutely should not abuse that power. we shouldn't attack people personally attack their ethics just because we disagree with their policies. miss yates is, i think a

responsible person but she is the point person, the supervisor of the litigation that has gone awry in a number of ways in texas and fundamentally is seeking to advance an unconstitutional power for the chief executive. i don't believe it's a little matter. i think it's a big matter. so therefore i have chosen and say i'll not vote for her confirmation on that basis. some of our members haven't thought this through yet but sooner or later we're going to have to confront the stark question of how long can we remain effectively silent in the face of presidential overreach. professor turley in january of this year -- again that was last fall, i believe -- in january of this year he added

these words. "if there is an alternative in unilateral executive action, the legislative process becomes purely optional and discretionary." in other words if the chief executive can execute an alternative power to pass laws and execute policies he wants if they're contrary to congress' will then the legislative process becomes purely optional and discretionary. it has to be mandatory. can't be that our power is optional. he goes on to say "the discretion to use or ignore the legislative process" -- he goes on to say this -- quote -- "the real meaning of a president claiming discretion to negate or change federal law is the

discretion to use or ignore the legislative process." no actor in the madisonian system is given such a discretion. all three branches are meant to be -- are meant to be locked in a type of constitutional synchronous orbit held stable by their counterveiling gravitational pull. if one of those bodies shifts, the stability of the system is lost. close quote. so the president does not have power to ignore the legislative process. we're going to regret the day if we remain silent on this issue. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity of sharing this. i don't know if anybody much is listening at this point. certainly the american people were horrified at the executive

amnesty carried out by the president last year. he announced it before the election but held off afterwards but still there's no doubt in my mind that many of the people that went to the polls in november were voting a rejection of this kind of executive overreach. it was a message of this past election. we've taken our seats now in january, a new congress is here and professor turley has said we need to act. and we're not acting. professor turley has said you need to stand up to the chief executive, this chief executive while he's in office now. if you don't we go to another election cycle the powers he's aggrandized to himself will be claimed by the next president. truly so. that's a grim warning he's given us and i'm ready -- i think

it's time for us to stand up and be clear about this. so regretfully i feel compelled to carry out one of the powers that congress has clearly been given, the power to confirm or reject nominations for high office. i believe we should reject the nomination for the department of justice deputy who is advocating and pursuing a lawsuit that goes against the constitutional powers of the congress and therefore i'll be voting no on the nomination. i thank the chair and would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president i rise to bring attention to the tragic amtrak derailment that took at least seven lives and caused over 140 injuries including an associated press member from new jersey, jim gaines of plainsboro, new jersey. and our thoughts and prayers are with the families who lost their lives. to those of us from new jersey and those who live along the northeast corridor, they are our neighbors, our friends our relatives.

they could be us and it hits especially close to home. i know because i take amtrak virtually every week back to new jersey. there was a period of time last night when i didn't know the whereabouts of my son rob who was scheduled to be on amtrak back to new york. but i later found out that he was on the next train immediately behind the one that derailed and thankfully he was safe. i'm grateful for that. but others were not so lucky. but "luck" should not be america's transportation policy. it's imperative that the cause of the derailment is fully investigated so that we can prevent tragedies like this in the future. i've already been on the phone with transportation secretary anthony fox and continue to closely monitor the situation. i want to recognize the extraordinary work of our first responders. once again firefighters, police

officers emergency responders showed us what bravery is really all about. they ran to the crash site to save lives while others were running away and for that we should all be grateful. now, we don't know what caused this accident but we do know that we need to invest in 21st century systems and equipment and stop relying on patchwork upgrades to old rusted, 19th century rail lines. you know, i -- i travel amtrak, as i said, virtually every week. i travel the accela, which is supposed to be the high-speed rail. it's like shake rattle and roll. as a member of the senate foreign relations committee i've traveled in other countries in the world like japan and they have a bullet train for which you virtually cannot feel anything while you're on the train going in speeds far in excess of what we call

high-speed rail. now, there are still many questions we don't know the answer to. was there human failure? was there a mechanical failure? were there infrastructure issues? or was it a combination of issues? what we do know is that our rail passengers deserve safe and modern infrastructure. new jersey, for example is at the heart of the northeast corridor. it has long held a competitive advantage with some of the nation's most modern highways and extensive transit network and some of the most significant freight corridors in the world that the confluence of some of the largest and busiest rail lines, interstates and ports. in a densely populated state like new jersey, the able to move people and goods safely and efficiently is critical to our economy and critical to our quality of life. but unfortunately in recent years, new jersey and the nation as a whole has fallen behind. we have 20 years maximum --

maximum -- before the hudson river tunnels are taken out of service. 20 years may sound to maybe some of our young pages like a long time. but it's a flash of the eye. think about what happens if we take either or both of those tunnels out of service without an alternative. tunnels that are absolutely essential to moving people and goods in a region that contributes $3.5 trillion to our nation's economy. 20% of the entire nation's gross domestic product. nationwide 65% of major roads in america are in poor condition. one in four bridges in our nation need significant repair. there's an $808 billion backlog in highway and bridge investments needs. on the transit side there's an $86 billion backlog of transit

maintenance needs. maintenance needs. not expanding just maintaining that which we have. and it will take almost $19 billion a year through the year 2030 to bring our transit assets into good repair. these are just a handful of the statistics underscoring our nation's failure to invest in our transportation network. but we have to get beyond looking at the numbers on a page we have to talk about what congress' failure to act means to the people we represent. to every community every community -- every commuter, every family, everyone who travels every day and every construction worker looking for a job. failure to act means construction workers now face a 10% unemployment rate at a time when our infrastructure is crumbling around us. they won't get the work they need. it means a business can't compete in a globalized comep

because their goods can't get to market in time. -- economy because their goods can't get to market in time. it means a working mother is stuck in traffic and can't get home in time for dinner with her kids. and in the very first cases -- cases like we saw yesterday on amtrak -- it might very well mean that a loved one is lost in a senseless tragedy. in congress, we too often read it infrastructure like it's an academic exercise, like it's numbers on a page that we adjust to score political points or balance a budget or make an argument about what types of transportation are worthy of our support. but that's not the real world. in the real world the choices we make have an impact on people's lives on their jobs on their incomes. they have an impact on our nation's ability to compete. they have an impact on the safety of americans and america's ability to lead the economy globally in the world. we in congress are failing to recognize the real-world impacts

of the choices we make about our transportation infrastructure. we have a passenger rail bill that expired in 2013. we have a highway trust fund on the brink of insolvency with no plans -- no plans -- to fix it sustainably. we have a crowded and outdated aviation system that we refuse to adequately fund. we have failed to upgrade with presently available technologies that can reduce the number of failures. we have a appropriation bills aiming to cut already low funding levels of amtrak in particular to meet an arbitrary budget cap for the sake of a political point. i can't understand that. i can't understand it. we are living off the greatest generation's investment in infrastructure in this country and we have done nothing to honor that investment to

sustain it or to build upon it.and yet mr. president nothing we're doing is aiming at fixing the problem and our inaction comes at an extraordinarily high cost. so i -- i can tell you as the senior democrat on the subcommittee on mass transit i categorically reject the idea that we can't afford to fix our transportation system. the truth is we can't afford not to fix it. the amtrak disaster last night is a tragic reminder that we have to act. we are reminded of the tragic consequences of inaction and the impact of inaction on the lives of workers and families on their lives and their ability to get to work and do their jobs with confidence that they will be safe. so as a member of the finance committee and a ranking member of the transit subcommittee, i've been advocating that we act as soon as possible. we can't keep pretending the

problem is going to resolve itself if we just wait long enough. we simply can't afford to wait. and i hope that everyone in this chamber, democrats republicans and independents alike will come together, will work together and make real progress in building a future that we can be proud of. we can start by putting politics aside and think about the safety of the american people think about the future think about america's competitiveness and finding common ground to do whatever it takes to invest in america's railroads ports highways and bridges and invest in our future. so let's not wait until there is another tragic headline or to see the consequences of what flows as people along the entire northeast corridor are trying to figure out alternatives in the midst of a system that is now shut down for intercity travel. and all the transit lines of

states and regions within the northeast corridor that depend upon using amtrak lines to get to different destinations for their residents. to get people to one of the great hospitals along the northeast corridor. to get people to their nation's capital to advocate with their government. to get people and their sales forces of companies to work. to get home. let's not wait until we have another tragedy to think about the consequences of our transportation system, what it means to the nation. or to see until the next time which lives are lost.i think we can do much better, mr. president, and i have faith that hopefully this will be a crystallizing moment for us on this critical issue. and with that, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president i have pushed for a vote for several weeks, and now i know we're finally going to confirm sally yates to be our next deputy attorney general of the united states. i think it means we'll have a fine commendation -- i'm sorry. the presiding officer: will the senator suspend for one moment? mr. leahy: of course. the presiding officer: under the previous order the senate will proceed to execute -- or to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination department of justice sally yates of georgia to be deputy attorney general. the presiding officer: there will now be up to one hour of

debate equally divided in the usual form. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: thank you. mr. president, i am delighted that we do have the confirmation of sally yates before the body. i think she will be easily confirmed. i know that there had been a delay of several weeks getting her here, but i want to thank senator isakson who worked so hard to get her before thiseneral is critical to the efficient functioning of the department of justice. we're actually fortunate here, we'll have an attorney general a deputy attorney general whose backgrounds are very similar. both have shown their ability as law enforcement officers. both of whom have been prosecuting the major issues, and sally yates those who know her, she was born and raised in atlanta georgia. she grew up seeing the justice system as a force for good. for more than 25 years she did

serve as a prosecutor in the u.s. attorney's office for the northern district of georgia and for the past five years she served as u.s. attorney in that district. she was unanimously confirmed by the senate in 2010. since january of this year, she has served as acting deputy attorney general. i have been at briefings she has given to members of the senate. i have also been at briefings where -- at the white house where she has briefed the president on issues before the country. she is an experienced and dedicated prosecutor with a well-deserved reputation for fairness integrity toughness. she is a confirmed leader in this crucial position. i know sally yates is going to serve as distinction as our next deputy attorney general of the united states. i thanked her for her willingness to continue to serve this great nation, but now i wanted to publicly congratulate her on this well-deserved

appointment, and i would ask consent that my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president i want to talk about another related issue. last week after five long months, loretta lynch was finally sworn in as the 83rd attorney general of the united states. i know she is going to to be an exceptional attorney general. she had an exceptional deputy in sally yates. i want to speak here about the remarkable service of eric holder who has just left as attorney general. many don't realize that he came to the justice department as a 25-year-old law school graduate in 1976. he served at nearly every level of the department over the past four decades. i believe that we owe him our

gratitude for his commitment to public service. i also know on a personal basis how much marcel and i appreciate the friendship we have with eric and his wonderful wife sharon. when eric holder was first nominated in 2008, i spoke on the floor and i said that we needed an attorney general who as robert jackson said 68 years ago serves the law and not factual purposes and approaches his tasks with humility. well that's what i said we needed and that's what we got. that's the kind of man eric holder is, that's the kind of attorney general he has been. he understands our moral and legal obligation to protect the fundamental rights of all americans and to respect the human rights of all people. his leadership over the past six years tells us that.

i was there when he was sworn in as the 82nd attorney general. he was there his family was there, his wife, mother, children others. when he was sworn in, he immediately changed the tone of the department. mr. president, as he finished taking the oath, you heard this roar throughout the whole -- the marbled halls harbled and granite halls of the department of justice. the building literally shook with cheers. the dedicateed professionals knew the department was once again going to be dedicated to a nonpartisan search for justice for all americans. these are men and women highly professional highly dedicated appointed by both republican and democratic administrations who set aside politics, they just want professionalism and now

they knew with eric holder they would get it. his decision to dismiss the charges brought during the bush administration against former senator ted stevens because of prosecutorial misconduct was a courageous decision, but more importantly it sent a strong message that misconduct would not be tolerated under his watch, and the department would adhere to the highest ethical standards. and the sense of fairness and justice also led eric to restore what he fondly refers to as the conscience of the nation the civil rights division of the justice department. attorney general holder has said he considers his work on voting rights among the most important during his tenure. in the last six years he has had his work cut out for him. after the supreme court's disastrous decision in shelby county versus holder where a narrow majority gutted the voting rights act the attorney general recommitted the justice

department to safeguarding the right to vote for every american and he did so at a time when his constitutional rights were under attack. it has been sprewell important. for eric holder, this cause is not due. it's as deep as his family roots, which include the work of his late sister-in-law sievian malone sharon's -- vivian malone sharon's sister who fought against segregation as a college student seeking admittance to the university of alabama in 1963. i know that eric is deeply proud of her and of the countless brave men and women who fought for equal voting rights and civil rights for every american. and i and my family believe that

history will count correct the misguided practices of a previous administration. he sought to bring this nation forward with an acute understanding that the fight for civil rights is not a single movement of five decades ago. the fight as he knows continues. attorney general holder recognized the constitutionality of the defense of marriage actould no longer be defended by the justice department. and the supreme court's decision to strike down section 3 of doma vindicated his decision. some argue it is the justice department's duty and obligation to defend the constitutionality of that statute, but just as our country came to see separate as inherently unequal, i believe

attorney general holder's decision will only be further vindicated with time. discrimination has no place in our laws. rooting it out takes leadership. it's the kind of leadership eric holder is known for. he also recognizes the inequities in our criminal justice system and the consequences of mass incarceration. our criminal justice system served to imprison too many offenders for too long. this has resulted in our federal prisons at nearly 40% overcapacity now consuming over one quarter of the justice department's budget. and this growth has been largely driven by our misplaced reliance on drug mandatory minimums. the mandatory minimums often see no difference between drug couriers and drug kingpins.

the attorney general's smart on crime initiative. along with congress' effort to reform our nation's sentencing laws has been an essential step toward addressing these problems. no attorney general in our nation's history has recognized then equities of our criminal justice system more than eric holder. he's proven that addressing these inequities leads to a more effective system. in fact, with eric holder as our nation's chief law enforcement officer, last year, for the first time in 40 years the overall crime rate and the overall incarceration rate declined together. and the attorney general's commitment to fairness went well beyond sentencing reform. i look at the calm that he brought when he visited ferguson missouri, in the midst of chaos and fear.

he helped to bridge the distrust between law enforcement and the ferguson community and deserves praise for the justice department's investigation of that police department as well as the circumstances surrounding that shooting. the justice department's report that came out of the investigation, these reports are scrupulously fair and fact based. his work has made the city of ferguson reassess its unethical practices, but it's also given a path for both law enforcement and the police community alike. now go to own other part. i share attorney general holder's belief that we should not be afraid to prosecute terrorists in our federal courts in accordance with the rule of law. with eric's leadership we proved

we can hold terrorists accountable by paychecking them answer for their crimes in public -- by making them answer for their crimes in public for the world to see. since attorney general assumed office the department of just has had 180 terror-related convictions. that's truly one of his finest aisht ccomplishments because -- accomplishments because i know the number of people, including some 0en this floor, that would stand up and say these terrorists, we should lock them up in guantanamo. we are afraid to let them come in our country. we should not allow them here. and eric holder said, what are we afraid of? we have the finest criminal justice system in the world. bring them here. let the rest of the world see what happens. and one by one he did. and they were all convicted. and they're all serving

extremely difficult sentences. but what he said is, don't turn our backs on the values of america by locking them up in guantanamo something that is a place that so many of us feel should be closed. let us come before our court system. let's make sure they're adequately represented bodge sides. but the list of his accomplishments goes on. the attorney general's leadership has ensured the most vulnerable americans are protected by the justice department including those who have suffered from hate crimes, domestic violence appeared human trafficking. he's guided the department's steadfast implementation of vital legislation which passed through congress, including the matthew shepherd and james byrd jr. hate crimes prevention act and the leahy-crapo violence against women reauthorization act. these historic civil rights bills greatly expanded

protections for the lgbt community, for rape victims and for native american domestic violence victims. there's one mo led the fight on so many of these issues. i can tell my fellow senators it would have been impossible to pass them without eric holder's commitment to protecting the most vulnerable among us. because who needs the protection more than the most vulnerable among us? now, i talked about how when he returned to the justice department in 2009 career attorneys lined the hall to welcome him back, one of their own. talk about how the cheers shook

those walls. it's been a very difficult time for the department. during the previous administration with scandals and politicized hiring, the denunciation of difl rights, the u.s. attorney firing scandal and the legal opinions defending the use of torture. six years later on his final day at the department, those same professionals appointed by both republican and democratic administrations, lined the highways in gratitude to eric holder for restoring the integrity of the department. eric holder restored the public's confidence in the department. he leaves the a department that is now living up to its name: the department of justice. i'm thankful for his dedicated

unwavering service to our country. we have a better department of justice because of eric holder's leadership. we are a better nation because of eric holder. mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: mr. president would the senator withhold his request? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president just a quick comment, if i may about this tragedy that is now up to seven deaths and about 150 people that have been injured in this amtrak derail many. there's a report -- derailment. there is a report out of the "wall street journal" just a few minutes ago that apparently the train was going at 100 miles an hour going into a curve. that the curve speed should have been 50 miles an hour.

now, if that's the case, that would indicate that the conductor would not have been aware of what was happening or was negligent in what was happening. but there's something that we can do about that, and it's called positive-train control. unindeed, this is an issue facing all of the railroads and the infrastructure is very expensive expensive, and the question is, how much should it be delayed in the future, because it's not ready to go. positive-train control would in places where there is potential danger or potential of two trains colliding that there is automatic monitoring and electronically it would change

the speed of the train. interestingly, amtrak in the northeastern corridor has some of this positive-train control already on the track. but pearptsly apparently it didn't at this particular location. in which case it begs the question: what do we need to do, if this ultimately is what is by the nhsb investigation determined to be the cause? well, one of the things that this senator would suggest is we certainly don't want to cut amtrak's budget. to the contrary, i would think that we would want to increase amtrak's budget. now, amtrak -- i'm rounding numbers here -- but basically

has about $3 billion in revenues but they have about $4 billion in expenses. the difference is mapped by the federal government the difference is mapped by the federal government. that difference in the past has been about $1.4 billion. the house is considering legislation that would cut that down to $1.1 billion when in fact amtrak is asking for $2 billion. is the funding just the question question? i don't think we know until we know the ntsb investigation report. however, we should know this: that railroads and roads and bridges and other infrastructure are in desperate need of repair and enhancement and expansion.

and that's going to take revenue. now, is this country going to allow ourselves to be considered a third-rate country in our infrastructure? and, oh, by the way that's not even to speak about what infrastructure does when you build it, how many jobs. if you talk to road builders, they'll tell you, for every $1 billion that it creates thousands and thousands of new jobs. confronting the safety issue is what we are focused on here with this terrible accident. our heart goes out to the victims. but, at the same time, we've got to look to the future, and we've got to get our heads out of the -- our collective heads out of

the sand and start producing the funding for infrastructure investment. i think back to the time in the depths of the recession as the senator from vermont will recognize. the depths of the recession ... we were going to do an economic stimulus bill. we tried to get increased infrastructure spending, and we were voted down in the stimulus bill. well here we are years later out of the recession the economy is returning the jobs are increasing, but our infrastructure is still crumbling. now, i speak this as the ranking member of the commerce committee, and fortunately we have a chairman that feels the same and senator thune and i are going to be working on this as well as things that i've

suggested just a moment ago about positive-train control to improve the safety of our traveling public. mr. president, i have one more thing i'd like to say but -- mr. leahy: is it on the pending business? mr. nelson: it is not. would the senator want me to stop then so you can talk about the assistant attorney general? mr. leahy: if we could. mr. nelson: of course. of course. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. leahy: i thank my deer friend, the senior senator from florida. mr. president, earlier i put -- i spoke briefly put in a full statement praising sally yates. in my words on the floor i also speak-- ialso spoke about the senior senator from georgia, about all the help he has given on this. i want to make sure i also include the distinguished presiding officer who under our

rules can't speak from the bench. but i would note for the other senators how his testimony was so supportive of sally yates and also in the committee she and i served he voted for sally yates. thus both he and his colleague senator isakson were extremely valuable in this. i don't want anybody to think i was not aware of that. but especially i would say to both senators from georgia who are on the floor i'm deeply appreciative, and i yield to the senior senator from georgia. stack zach wcialgmr. isakson: well, you thank the--wcialg i thank the senator for his kind remarks. salary quillian yates would not be before us if it were not for the senator from vermont. i think it is fortuitous and a good owe men that the junior

senator from georgia is the presiding officer at a time when we'll elect sally quillian yates to her position. alsally yates is a human being i have known for almost 25 years. she has been a lead prosecutor in the northern district of georgia. she's prosecuted democrats republicans, independents, olympic park bombers anybody that violated the public trust any abuse of power sally yates has gone after them and she has won. she is fair, smart intelligent and as a georgia bulldog -- and i realize the junior senator from georgia is a georgia tech -- she is a double-dog, a bachelor's and master's degree from university of georgia and graduated magna cum laude from the university of georgia law school. she will be a great deputy attorney general of the united states of america. i ask you to vote and send a unanimous vote for sally quillian yates to be deputy u.s. attorney. with the distinguished chairman

of the committee coming on the floor, let me say that senator grassley has been of immeasurable help in ensuring that sally quillian yaitz gets to this position. i thank him for his support. unless he has something to say i yield back the balance of our time. since he doesn't, i yield back my time and the balance of the majority time. mr. leahy: mr. president if we have nobody here seeking recognition, i understand we have a few minutes left, i'm perfectly willing to yield back that time also and do yield it back. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not the yeas are 84, the nays are 12. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president this morning i restated my commitment to working with senators in a serious way to move our country ahead on trade and the economy of the 21st century. i said that we need to allow debate on this important issue to begin and that our colleagues across the aisle need to stop

blocking us from doing so. that's the view from our side. it's the view from the white house. and it's the view of serious people across the political spectrum. i've repeatedly stated my commitment to serious warn ways forward bipartisan ways forward on this issue. now serious and bipartisan does not mean agreeing to impossible guarantees or swallowing poison pills designed to kill the legislation but it does mean pursuing reasonable options that are actually designed to get a good policy result in the end. that's why i've agreed to keep my party's significant concession of offering to process both t.p.a. and t.a.a. on the table. it's why i've said we could also consider other policies that chairman hatch and senator wyden agreed to. and that's why i've underlined my commitment to an open amendment process once we get on the bill. of course, our friends across

the aisle now say they want a path forward on all four of the trade bills the finance committee passed and this isn't just an issue for our friends on the other side, there's a great deal of support on our side, on our side, for many of the things contained in these other bills. however, as the senior senator from in a democratic -- a senior senator from in the democratic leadership reminded us yesterday we have to take some of these votes separately or else we kill the underlying legislation. so the plan i'm about to offer will provide our democratic colleagues with a sensible way forward without killing the bill. a plan -- the plan i'm about to offer will allow the regular order on the trade bill while also allowing senators the opportunity to take votes on the customs and preference bills in a way that quill not imperil the increased american exports and american trade jobs that we

need. we would then turn to the trade bill with t.a.a. and t.a.a. as -- t.p.a. and t.a.a. as the base bill and open the floor to amendments as i've suggested all week. it's reasonable, so i look forward to our friends across the aisle now joining with us to move forward on this issue in a serious way. so mr. president i ask unanimous consent that at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow, may 4 the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 57, h.r. 1295 and calendar number 56, h.r. 644, en bloc, that the hatch amendments at the desk, the text of which are s. 1267 and s. 1269 respectively, be considered and agreed to, that no further amendments be in order, and that at noon the

bills as amended be read a third time and the senate then proceed to passage on h.r. 1295 as amended. followed by a vote on the passage of 644 as amended with no intervening action or debate and that there be a 60 affirmative-vote threshold needed for passage of each bill and that if passed the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. i further ask following disposition of h.r. 644 the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the failed cloture be agreed to, the motion to reconsidered the failed cloture vote on the motion to proceed to h.r. 1314 be agreed to, and that at 2:00 p.m. the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to h.r. 1314. further, that if cloture is invoked, the 30 hours of postcloture consideration under

22 be deemed expired at 10:00 p.m. on thursday night. the presiding officer: is there objection? the democrat leader. mr. reid: reserving the right to object mr. president. first of all, i want to take a very brief moment to express my appreciation to my democratic colleagues who have been understanding and vocal in their opinions as to what we should do to move forward. i also extend my appreciation to the republican leadership, the republican leader for having this suggestion to go forward. we've worked together the last 24 hours i think we've come up with something that is fair. a bipartisan majority of the finance committee reported out four trade measures, fast-track trade adjustment assistance trade enforcement and a bill expanding trade for africa. we want a path forward on all four parts of this legislation.

yesterday we made it clear we didn't accept merely a fast-track foreign trade agreements. we also must enforce the trade agreements we make. the proposal today provides that path forward. i look forward to consideration today and tomorrow of the trade enforcement passage and the africa bill. once we proceed to the fast-track measure the majority leader has offered an amendment process that in his words be open, robust and fair. i appreciate that offer. this is a complex issue one that deserves a full and robust debate. once we get on the trade bill, democrats want to debate and vote on a number of amendments and so with that background and the understanding we have on both sides i do not object. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i rise -- could i propound a question of the majority leader.

i prefer to propound the question first. as i understand the african bill and the trade enforcement bill will be in tandem together and not subject to amendment an then we'll go to t.p.a. and t.a.a. which will be open to amendment, is that correct? mr. mcconnell: the senator from georgia is correct. mr. isakson: in that case i will not object but i ask unanimous consent senator coons and i be able to make a one-minute statement. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. isakson: in the committee on the act we put an amendment to ensure a review of trade practices vis-a-vis poultry and other issues important to the united states. we would have offered an amendment on the floor had it been possible without this u.c. but with this u.c. coming forward and not objecting we have gotten permission to talk to ambassador froman who has assured us an out-of-cycle review whenever necessary to review the trade practices of south africa vis-a-vis poultry and i commend him for doing that

and want to memorialize it in the record. i yield to senator coons. mr. coons: i thank senator isakson of georgia and express my shared concern if we are going to proceed to a long-term renewal of the growth and opportunity act which provides duty-free access to u.s. markets to sub-saharan african countries that there is an enforcement that those of house support free trade also support fair trade and effectively enforcement. and as the good senator from georgia commented we are acting in reliance upon a regulars by the united states trade representative that there will be enforcement action taken if appropriate on access to the markets in south africa. with that i thank the president and yield the floor. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request of the majority leader? without objection so ordered. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president before he leaves the floor i want to thank the senate majority leader for working with us in a constructive fashion to make it possible for all of the vital parts of the trade package to be considered. i look forward to working closely with him and colleagues, i will say that what has been done through the cooperation of the majority leader and the minority leader is in effect to say that trade enforcement will be the first bill to be debated and in doing so it drives home yesterday's message of 13 pro-trade democrats who together said that robust enforcement of our trade law is a prerequisite to a modern trade policy. and in making this the first

topic for debate, it is a long- overdue recognition that strig russ trade enforcement has got to be in the forefront not in the rear, and a recognition that the 1990's nafta trade playbook is being set aside. mr. president, i'm going to be brief at this point but i'd just like to give a little bit of history as to how we got to this point. mr. brown: mr. president would the senator from oregon yield for a moment? thank you. i want to thank senator wyden for his work on the customs bill that we will be debating, the bill to which he's referring. especially his amendment that we worked on on prohibition of child labor closing an 85-year loophole, if you will, allowing child labor in far too many cases and we as a nation

were importing goods produced by child labor. i appreciate his support and senator hatch's support early in the process before the markup began on our level the playing field language which is important to a number of industries to make the playing field more level as senator wyden was sane, and third the importance of currency. we know how many jobs we've lost in my state and all over the country because of what's happened with people gaming -- countries gaming the currency system. i just wanted to express my thanks to senator wyden. mr. wyden: mr. president before he leaves the floor i want to thank senator brown for again and again putting in front of the committee and all senators the importance of this issue, and i just want to read a sentence from the paper yesterday that really puts a human face on this enforcement issue that senator brown has so

often come back to. a quote here from "the new york times" that says "candymakers want to preserve a loophole" -- this is the loophole that was closed in the customs bill. the article goes on to say the candymakers want to preserve this loophole that allows them to import african cocoa harvested by child labor. now, what senator brown has said is without in effect this enforcement language, this vigorous enforcement language that's in the customs bill, we would basically be back in yesteryear's policy, back in what we had for decades and decades where youngsters would be exploited in this way. so we're going to talk about trade here for a few days, and i think colleagues and certainly my colleagues on the finance

committee know that i strongly support expanded trade. i look at the globe and there are going to be a billion middle-class people in the developing world mr. president in 2025. they're going to have a fair amount of money to spend and we want them to spend on the goods and services produced in the united states. so we support expanding those opportunities, increasing those exports. and the reality is expanding trade and expanding exports and enforcing the trade law are two sides of the same coin, because what happens at home, i have community meetings in all of my counties had several just here in the last couple of weeks. the first question that often comes up is a citizen will say i hear there's talk about a new trade deal. well how about first enforcing

the laws that are on the books? and that's why the group of 13 protrade senators yesterday wanted to weigh in right at the outset of this debate talking about how important trade enforcement was to a policy that i call, mr. president trade done right. trade done right a modern trade policy. and i'm going to be brief here in opening this discussion, but i wanted to just spend a few minutes describing how we got to this place. a few weeks ago the finance committee met and passed a bipartisan package of four bills. these were more than a year in the making and the message that i sought to send right at the outset was a message that would respond to all the people in

this country who want to know if you're doing more than just going back to nafta. and those four bills suggest that this will be very different. the first the trade promotion bill the t.p.a., as it's called helps rid our trade policies of excessive secrecy. and the reason this is so important, mr. president, is the first thing people say whether it's in south carolina or oregon or anywhere else is what's all this excessive secrecy about? if you believe strongly in trade and want more of it, why would you want to have more needless secrecy that makes people more convinced that you're kind of, sort of hiding things? so we have made very dramatic changes in that area. a second strengthens and expands

the support system for our workers. it's known as trade adjustment assistance. and this is to make sure that when there are changes in the private economy changes that so often take place and cause workers to see positions that they have had be affected, this is a section of trade policy that gives them a chance almost to spring board into another set of job opportunities. and the third would finally put as i've said, trade enforcement into high gear so that we can crack down on trade cheats and protect american workers and exports. the reality is trade enforcement is a jobs bill. it's protecting jobs. and that's another reason why it's so important. and the fourth, which is touched

on, has been touched on by our distinguished colleagues, the senator from georgia, the senator from delaware, involves the trade preference programs that are so crucial to both our employers and developing countries. taken together, the bills form a package of trade policies that are going to help our country create more high-skill, high-wage jobs in my state and across the land. and as i have said so often if you wanted to explain what a modern trade policy is in a sentence what you'd say is this is the kind of approach that helps us grow things in america make things in america, add value to them in america and then ship them somewhere. and particularly, if you look to

that developing world where there are going to be in just a few years a billion middle-class consumers, that strikes me as a real economic shot in the arm that will be of long-term benefit to our people. now, with respect to enforcement, i want to take just a few minutes to talk about why i think this is an appropriate opening step in the legislative process. now, mr. president i already talked about the 13, 14 protrade democrats that got together yesterday and weighed in as a group. and why we did it is that trade enforcement in that particular bill, which is part of the initial debating here is a jobs bill. it is a cornerstone of a new trade approach that iste of the

union address past trade deals haven't always lived up to the hype. my own view is a lot of that can be attributed to subpar trade enforcement. that in my view, is because so many of the same old enforcement tools from the nafta era and sophisticated schemes to play cat and mouse with u.s. customs authorities. our competitors overseas in a number of instances intimidate american firms into relocating factories or surrendering our intellectual property. our competitors often spy on our companies and trade enforce rs to steal secrets and block our efforts at holding them accountable. to mask their activities, they hide their paper trails and engage in outright fraud. and for a number of years mr. president, i chaired the

trade subcommittee of the finance committee and i can tell you these examples i've given of modern challenges is just touching the surface of what we found in our investigations. at one point we set up a sting operation to try to catch people who were merchandise laundering. not only does our trade enforcement need, mr. president to catch up to these schemes we've got to have a trade enforcement policy that stayed ahead of the game. and that is why the bipartisan enforcement package the customs package, will take enforcement up to a higher level. this bill raises the bar for all of our trade enforcers whether it's the customs agent at the border checking inbound shipments, the commerce department investigator looking into an unfair trade petition,

or the lawyer from the office of trade representative following up on possible violations of trade agreements. so i want to just quickly tick through a few of the major parts of this trade enforcement package. a proposal that i pushed for a number of years mr. president to include will help customs crack down on foreign companies that try to get around the rules by hiding their identity and sending their products on hard-to-trace shipping routes. another will close a shameful loophole, a shameful loophole that senator brown and i just talked about that allows product made with forced and child labor to be sold in our country. a third will build what i call an unfair trade alert to help

identify when american jobs and exports are under threat before the damage is done. with this early warning system, mr. president, in effect you will have warning bells ringing earlier and more loudly than ever before when a country attempts to undercut an american industry like china recently tried with solar panels. and i think that's especially important because when you're home and you're link -- listening to companies and workers and their organizations talk about trade enforcement they say you know, it just gets to us too late. by the time somebody back there in washington, d.c. is talking about enforcing the trade laws, the lights have gone out at the plant. the workers have had their lives shattered, and the community is feeling pain from one end to

another. so the point of the early warning system is we now have the kind of technology and access to the kind of information that can set off these early warning signals. that's what the unfair trade alert provision is all about. and fourth, for the first time in decades the congress would set out clear enforcement priorities with a focus on jobs and growth that will build real accountability and follow through into our trade enforcement system. and finally it includes a proposal from senator brown that goes a long way to ensuring that our trade enforcers use the full strength of our anti-dumping and counterveiling duty laws to fight unfair tactics. mr. president, i said months ago repeatedly making it very clear

when senator hatch and i -- chairman hatch and i began working on this package that strengthening trade law sphawrmt was at the very -- trade law enforcement was at the very top of the list of my priorities. and i did in starting all those discussions and the debate, repeatedly come back to the fact that for those of us who are protrade, who think it is absolutely key for the kind of export-related jobs and growth that we need in this country we've got to shore up trade enforcement, because it's not credible to say that you're pushing for a new trade agreement if people don't find credible that you're going to enforce the laws that are already existing on the books and relate to the past trade agreements. so strengthening trade

enforcement has been at the top of my list of priorities for many many years. the finance committee passed this enforcement measure with a voice vote. so that ought to indicate alone mr. president, that this was not some topic of enormous controversy. we had votes on the trade promotion act. we had votes on the trade adjustment act. and there was some pretty vigorous debate on those. voice vote on the enforcement provision, on the customs package because it includes so much of what i think members actually on both sides of the trade debate feel strongly about. i've talked about why as a protrade democrat, i feel so strongly about enforcement. my colleague, senator brown

speaks eloquently about another point of view, that he feels strongly about trade enforcement. so i'm very pleased that the senate is on this bill, is beginning debate on this legislation. i am thoroughly committed to getting this legislation passed before we leave for the recess. no one can ever make guarantees, but i'm sure going to pull out all the stops to do it. and i just want, as we close the opening of this debate, to thank both the majority leader and the minority leader for working with myself and chairman hatch and others to get us to this point. we had a bipartisan effort in the finance committee and we're very pleased to see the distinguished president of the senate join us on the finance committee. we had a bipartisan package as

the distinguished president knows, in the finance committee which passed really overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. now, starting this debate and with what's ahead of us, we have a chance to build on the bipartisan work that took place in the finance committee. it's very appropriate that we begin this discussion focusing on trade enforcement as the 14 -- 13 -- 14 pro-trade democrats did yesterday in making an announcement with respect to the importance of this topic. it's going to be a good debate. the stakes are enormously high. mr. president, i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get this legislation passed, to get a bill that the president of the united states will sign, and with that, mr. president i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, i have a concern. it's not about trade. quite frankly trade is one of the things we've done as a nation all along. we were free traders before we were a nation. one of the grievances we had in the declaration of independence was the fact that king george was restricting our trade. we've always been individuals and a nation of trade. my issue is particularly with this customs bill that's coming. and gephardt, it's not about the protections in it. it's about the way -- and again it's not about the protections in it. it's about the way we pay for it. as odd as it sounds while we're doing trade and while we engage in things, we can't lose track of this simple thing called the deficit that's hanging out there as well. we have basic rules on how we

actually handle budget issues. anything that we set out that's going to take several years to pay for, we have basic rules. those rules involve it has to be deficit neutral in year six and it has to be deficit neutral in year 11. the reason that's set up is you can't game the system that way. you can't just back load the whole thing and say we're going to be deficit neutral in the very last year but every other year we're going to run up the bill and have some pretend pay-for at the very end. so the way this is set up is to have this basic debt. halfway through you are deficit neutral. at the other end of it, you're also deficit neutral. well here is what the customs bill does. the customs bill sets up this unique something called the corporate payment shift. corporate payment shift. so here's how it works. six years from now every corporation that has a billion dollars or more in assets has a 5 .25% tax increase in year six. in year seven every one of those companies that has a billion dollars or more in

assets gets a 5.25% tax refund. let me run that past you again. this is set up and the way the bill is written six years from now taxes go up on every company, that's 2,000 companies in america that has a billion or more in assets by 5.25%. and until thes in -- in the next year they get a refund of that same amount. can somebody help me understand exactly why every company in america has to gear up, change the way they do all their tax policies pay an extra tax that year and so the next year they can get a refund? that's additional costs that's additional expense only to help this body circumvent the basic rules that we have said we're going to abide by. now, in all likelihood, these companies won't actually do that six and be seven years from now because in all likelihood next year this body will come through and will waive the corporate tax

shift because it's now not year six and be seven. now it's year seven and eight and so it doesn't apply. this is ridiculous. this is a problem that this body is playing a game in how we're trying to actually accomplish a basic rule. now if anyone can stand up in this body and say that's a good idea that we're going to raise taxes six years from now on all these companies and refund the same amount the seventh year, if anyone can tell me that's actually a good idea, please do. all that that's set up to do is to be able to help us in our c.b.o. scoring. so here's what i think we should do. option number one, have a real pay-for. not pretend and say this is a deefs-neutral bill when it's not a deficit-neutral bill. we have a $3.7 trillion budget. i think we can find a real

pay-for to be able to put into this bill. if you're lacking for those my office can give you many options that are real pay-fors rather than something fake year six and year seven. here's option number two. at least admit that this is not a deficit-neutral bill and that these pay-fors are fake. there is something this body has called a budget point of order and it should apply in this sense because this is not a real pay-for. now, i have had these conversations with staff behind the scenes, with individuals in this body and i have been told the same thing over and over, this is how we always do it. in other words you're a new guy here. you don't know this is how the game is played on the budget-neutral deficit eliminating bills that really don't do that. okay yes that's true. i am the new guy here. and i've heard this is an old practice. and it needs to go away because no one can defend this.

how about this? how about next week i try to go get a car loan and i try to negotiate with the car dealer a five-year loan and i tell him i'll pay all of my loan off year four but i want a full refund in year five for all that i paid off. do you think i'm going to get that car loan? no. i'm not going to get that car loan because he's going to say that's fake. and i will say i paid it off completely -- i will pay it off completely in year five. yeah but we paid it all back the next year. we've got to be able to actually have real accounting at the end of the day. this is not invisible money. this is debt that's being added. and with a $3.7 trillion budget, we can find real pay-fors. mr. president, this is a practice that has happened in this congress and in previous congresses that has to stop. we have the ability to do that. i have to oppose this bill

because it's not genuine in how we're actually paying for it. saying that we pay for it in year six and refunding in year seven is not real, and we know it. in the days ahead i hope we can address this practice and not just eliminate for this bill but that we can eliminate it from ever being used again in any bill as a gimmick pay-for. with that, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

yoark quorum callquorum call:

mr. booker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: is there a quorum call right now? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. booker: i would ask permission to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. booker: thank you very much. mr. president, i rise today with with a very heavy heart about the horrific tragedy that occurred and is still unfolding last night. late last evening, an amtrak train, train number 188 a train

that i've traveled on myself, was carrying 243 passengers, passengers and crew that derailed in philadelphia. it's been confirmed now that seven people have died, including associated press employee husband father of two and plainsboro, new jersey, resident, jim gaines. more than 200 people have been injured. my deep thoughts and prayers are with those who are suffering today. i'm so grateful for the works of the hundreds of first responders amtrak crew doctors, nurses and many others who quickly and courageously and very professionally did their jobs and who no doubt saved lives. as we speak the search -- search through the wreckage for more people living or dead is still in process. all people have not been accounted for and i hope and pray that our brave first responders can soon account for

everyone that was expected to have been onboard. the 243 people, including passengers and crew many of whom who boarded amtrak regional train number 188 just a half a mile from where i stand right now were headed to new york. they were on their way home on their way to work to see their husbands and their wives or their children and their journey was horrifically interrupted when the train derailed around 9:30 p.m. since the incident my staff and the others from the senate have been in contact with amtrak the national transportaion safety board, the federal railroad administration and the department of transportation. the exact cause of the derailment is unknown though speed was definitely a factor. and we're in close contact with amtrak officials and federal investigators who are working quickly to identify exactly what happened to cause this disaster.

amtrak train number 188 was on a very familiar path. so many people take this route. the train that derailed was traveling on one of the busiest corridors. it is a 457-mile rail corridor that is the most traveled in north america. it is a transportation lifeline, one of our main arteries connecting the people of washington d.c., maryland, pennsylvania delaware, new jersey, new york, connecticut rhode island and massachusetts. the northeast corridor transports 750,000 passengers every day and moves a work force that produces $50 billion each year towards our gross domestic product. more people are traveling with amtrak on the northeast corridor than ever before. just last year, 11.6 million

passengers traveled this northeast corridor. in new jersey alone 110 trains run daily along this route. new jersey transit works in cooperation with amtrak to move trains along the northeast corridor. new jersey transit customers take 288,000 trips on the corridor each day and 63.6 million trips a year. and none of these numbers -- none of them -- are as important today as that number of 243 the number of people riding on -- riding and working on amtrak train number 188 last evening or the seven people who died. we are in a time of great sadness but i want to also say as the ranking member of the senate subcommittee that has jurisdiction over rail safety

that my colleagues and i have been working in the senate to develop policies and implement new safety technologies that will improve safety and save lives. and we've been working diligently to finalize a draft of the passenger rail authorization bill. congress has not passed a passenger rail bill since 2008 and authorization for that bill expired in 2013. it is unacceptable that congress has not acted to provide the needed improvements investment and long-term certainty for amtrak and i will work hard to make sure that we pass passenger rail that it is a priority for this body. in fact, today we had intended to introduce this bill authorizing funding and improvements to passenger rail in the united states. just today that was our

intention. however, in light of this tragic event, senator wicker and i have decided to monitor the incoming information and take this opportunity to evaluate what other actions might need to be taken as part of the legislation. i'm proud of my colleagues who have worked so diligently to ensure that we get this bill done and i want to thank the leadership of chairman thune and ranking member nelson for their support. if there is an action that needs to be taken to improve safety in the wake of this tragedy as we're finalizing this bill, i know that we can work together to make it a reality. that said, i must say i am disappointed in the direction of the house appropriations process which risks starving amtrak of vitally important funds at the very moment we need to be investing more in passenger rail in our -- and our country's

crumbling infrastructure. failing to make the proper investments in our nation's infrastructure is, indeed, crippling our competitiveness in a global economy. a 2012 federal reserve bank of san francisco report estimated that every dollar invested in our national infrastructure increases economic output by at least $2. and failing to invest properly in infrastructure improvement is threatening the public's -- it's threngening the public's -- threatening the public's safety. my thoughts and prayers are with the family, friends and loved ones of the individuals who were killed or injured in last night's train derailment. we still aren't certain of the exact cause but it is a searing reminder this incident, of the fragility of life. and it's important that we also remember that we should do everything necessary to safeguard life to make sure we have it and have it moribund

notly. -- have it more abundantly. nothing can fix the damage that has been done to these families and their communities. we all grieve as a nation for the loss of life and pray for those injured that they recover. i say now that we must work tirelessly to prevent another tragedy from -- like this from occurring and that we do everything necessary so that we as a nation can have a rail infrastructure -- highways, roads, bridges -- have an infrastructure as a whole that reflects the greatness of the people of our country. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

s is ms. stabenow: mr. president i'd ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you very much mr. president. i rise today to talk about an issue that, by some estimates has cost the united states as many as 5 million jobs. that's a lot of jobs. and that's the issue of currency manipulation. and we're going to have an opportunity now that there's an agreement to move forward on the -- all of the issues related to trade whether it's fast-track or helping workers or enforcement issues or the other pieces that will be in front of us -- we will have an important opportunity to seriously move forward in a positive way for our manufacturers and for our agriculture and all those that are impacted by currency manipulation. inin fact, currency manipulation

is the most significant 21st century trade barrier that american businesses and workers face today. and it is the least enforced against. we take the least amount of action against currency manipulation and yet it is the most significant 21st century trade barrier. and if we don't take meaningful action to address this issue we stand to lose even more jobs at a time when our economy -- economy is desperately trying to recover. you know, our workers are the best in the world and we can compete with anybody. our businesses can compete with anybody as long as there is a level playing field and the rules are enforced. but we can't win when our trading partners cheat and that's what's happening right now. when you manipulate your currency when japan does it, when china does it when other

countries do it, they are cheating. a strong u.s. dollar against a weak foreign currency particularly one that is artificially weak due to government manipulation means foreign products are cheaper here u.s. products are cheaper there -- or more expensive there let me say that again. foreign products are cheaper here and u.s. products are more expensive there. for example one u.s. automaker estimates that the weak yen gives japanese competitors anywhere from a $6,000 to $11,000 advantage on the price of a car. depending on the make and model. it's hard for our american carmakers to compete with they're effectively seeing $6,000 to $11,000 higher sticker

price more expensive than japanese vehicles. not because of any other difference at all just currency manipulation. that's a lot of a difference based on currency manipulation. and, in fact, we have seen some numbers that at some points in times, the entire profit on a vehicle will be from currency manipulation. now, we keep hearing about opening japan's markets to u.s. automakers and while that's fine that sounds nice it's really a red herring when you look at what's going on. because japan right now has zero percent tariffs on u.s. cars so it's not the tariffs that are keeping our cars out it's the complicated web of nontariff barriers that japan uses to keep automobiles out american automobiles out.

and beyond that, what is significant and what we have learned is there's little appetite for american cars in japan. last year ford's share of imports in japan was 1.5%. chevy was less than .3%. there were 13 times as many rolls royces imported into japan last year than buicks but that's not because there are all kinds of rolls royces going into japan. it's because there were only 11 buicks. not 1,100 not 11,000. 11. so one of the things that's interesting is that in japan that buy japanese vehicles. i wish in america we bought american made vehicles. we wouldn't be seeing as much as this challenge. so it's a different culture there. in terms of the pride of buying japanese vehicles and, in fact,

doing what they can to keep others out through nontariff trade barriers. so taking down the trade barriers good thing i support it, but it is not enough. that's not what this is about. when we're talking about the trans-pacific trade agreement and the worries of american auto makers and other manufacturers as we do that. that is not the big challenge. it's not about just trade barriers making life easier for the handful of japanese consumers who are looking to buy an automobile from outside their country. they tell us our -- our manufacturers tell us that is not their main concern. it's not about competing in the u.s. or japan it's about competing i everywhere else in the world. and that's the problem. japan has a population of

120 million people, but brazil has a population of 200 million people. in india -- and india has a population of 1.2 billion people. so in emerging markets american-made vehicles are at a severe competitive disadvantage compared to vehicles produced in japan or korea when those countries choose to manipulate their currency which has happened many, many times. so we're competing japan competing, u.s. competing for that 1.2 billion customers. and if they can artificially bring down their price $6,000, $7,000 $8,000, $10,000 or more to sell into those areas even though it's illegal in terms of the international community, they've signed up saying they won't do it, but if they're allowed to do it, if

our trade agreements allow them to do it, it's not fair. why would we do that to american companies? why would we do that to american workers? why would we allow that kind of cheating to occur? so that's what the amendment that senator portman and i have is all about that we will be offering and asking support for. and, you know, this isn't an issue that only impacts the auto industry or other manufacturers, as everyone knows i care deeply about agriculture, as the current ranking member, former chair of the agriculture committee. agriculture is impacted by currency manipulation as well. as a competitor sector in the global economy any practice that distorts the economy disrupts trade threatens employment has an impact on u.s. farmers and ranchers as well.

unfortunately, the language currently included in the t.p.a. bill does not adequately address these issues. because if we're going to be effective around currency provisions we have to make sure they are enforceable. so there is some language there, but unlike other parts of the t.p.a., there is not language requiring that any provisions in a trade agreement be enforceable and that's why senator portman and i have introduced an amendment to this bill to the t.p.a. bill that simply adds clear language to require that any future trade deals must include enforceable currency provisions. and very importantly the provisions will be consistent with existing international monetary fund commitments that

all of these countries have made by signing up they're not going to do currency manipulation, but we don't have enforcement to make sure it doesn't happen. and also importantly this does not affect domestic monetary policy. i understand the arguments. i have, frankly great respect for our secretary of the treasury who i work with all the time and 99% of the time we're singing the same song. not on this one. and the same thing with the president. someone who i admire deeply and i have to say this administration has done more than any other white house i think that i've worked with as senator or even in the house to make sure we are enforcing our trade laws, taking trade actions, winning trade cases in the w.t.o. and i'm very grateful for that. but when it comes to currency, there's been a debate saying

somehow our fed policy what we do inside our country is somehow impacted by the definitions of the i.m.f. which is just not accurate. and a country can say it is, anybody can say anything. but it wouldn't hold up because not -- it's not accurate. we are talking about foreign transactions that monetary policies of foreign competitors in the global economy. i'm very pleased that we have bipartisan support for our amendment and we are adding supporters all the time, but senator brown, senator burr, senator casey, senator shaheen, we have other senators that will be joining us as well. so we have growing support in understanding of how critical this is. the inclusion of strong and

enforceable currency provisions in our trade agreements makes clear to our trading partners that this is -- that this uncompetitive trade practice will no longer be accepted. we're not going to talk about it. we talk a lot about it, we talk about this issue and the loss of american jobs because of currency manipulation. but by putting it in the core instructions for our negotiators as they walk into a trade negotiation, to have listed alongside critical provisions regarding labor laws and environment and intellectual property rights and human rights and other areas to say currency manipulation, your policies around currency we believe are critically important in a global economy if we're going to compete on a level playing field. and not continue to lose

american jobs. someone to call this amendment a poison pill to the t.p.a. that could not be farther from the truth. and it's absolutely possible, in fact, we have members supporting our amendment who also support t.p.a. the underlying bill. they just want to make sure that it's a clear outline of the priorities and instructions for any negotiations. i haven't heard from a single one of my colleagues that he or she will oppose the bill because our amendment isn't adopted. this is not a poison pill, mr. president. what i do hear repeatedly, though is that one of the principal justifications for granting the administration trade promotion authority fast-track a process where we can't amendment it -- a amend

it a simple majority vote is that congress sets forth its priorities in trade promotion authority. so we're laying out what is important for the people of our country, for our businesses, for our workers in trait negotiations. if that's the case, then how can something deemed appropriate, deemed a priority by all of us, be a poison pill? it's not our job to match our priorities with negotiations. the negotiations are supposed to match our priorities that are laid out in t.p.a. otherwise, why do we give fast-track authority? it is our responsibility on behalf of american businesses and american workers and american communities to tell the administration what we expect them to fight for on behalf of the people of our country.

we already insist on enforceable standards in other negotiating objectives and i support these. and believe they should be as strong as possible. including issues around labor law environment intellectual property rights. why should currency manipulation be any different? this is about congress setting up the list of priorities for negotiating objectives and then in return for that, we then allow a fast-track process where any final bill cannot be amended. if we're going to give up that authority, that power mr. president, i think we have a right to lay out the conditions under which we will do that. and if we've lost five million jobs around the globe -- five million jobs because of currency manipulation coming

predominantly from asian countries we are negotiating with we have a right to say we want that to stop and we expect there to be a strong enforceable currency manipulation provision in any law we pass that then gives up our right to amend a trade agreement. there is no way that i believe that the entire trans-pacific agreement hinges on whether or not we include enforceable currency provisions. if that's true, it calls into question what else is in the agreement. why are there t.p.p. countries so concerned about enforceable standards, which, by the way they've all kind up through the i.m.f. as part of the global community, they've all signed they won't do it, the argument is now that they're not doing it then why are people so --

fighting so hard to keep this requirement out of t.p.a.? if they're so confident that this will never occur again. our ability to address currency issues in trade agreements is not complicated, again, by our own domestic monetary policies, including quantitative easing and, in fact, we specifically put in the amendment that it does not affect domestic monetary policies. so we have heard this over and over again there's been confusion, there has been spread the i.m.f. has rules about what is and what is not direct currency manipulation, they are clear rules they are rules that all of the i.m.f. countries have agreed to, they are rules that the united states has followed while they were

doing quantitative easing. they are rules that japan has flagrantly violated not once or twice but 376 times since 1991. now, we're hearing that we don't need enforceable language as a negotiating objective in the fast-track bill because japan's not manipulating their currency anymore. well 376 times they've chosen to do that. and once we pass this, there's nothing stopping them from making it 377. what stops them is if they know the congress is giving direction to the negotiators to make sure

there's enforceable provisions in the trade agreement. let's be clear. the united states is clearly following the rules with our domestic monetary policy. we are following the rules. and therefore would not be affected by this and our amendment specifically references that. so we are not talking about domestic policy. other countries could say that, they would be wrong they would have no legal standing to say it. you can say anything. but we do know this -- japan has flagrantly violated the rules of the i.m.f. that they signed on the dotted line to support. 376 times. since 1991.

adding enforceable trade provisions to a trail deal simply adds enforcement to the commitment that japan and 187 other countries have already made as a part of the international monetary fund. on that point i appreciate the efforts this administration has made to engage on this issue with our trading partners, both bilaterally and through multilateral funds like the g-20 and the i.m.f. but quite frankly we haven't seen enough meaningful progress despite i'm sure with our good efforts. and the progress we have seen can be wiped out at a moment's notice and without any meaningful recourse if we do not

require enforceable provisions in the fast-track law. and then, mr. president there's china. while they're not currently a party to the t.p.p., it's no secret they're interested in joining it down the road. so while china's exchange rate may be up nearly 30% since 2010, the treasury's own report to congress released just last month concludes that china's currency remains significantly undervalued which by the way is the reason we also need to make sure in the customs bill coming before us that we maintain what we did in the finance committee maintain important legislation that senator schumer senator graham have been leading for years. i've been proud to be a part of that as senator brown and many of us on a bipartisan basis to make sure that china who's not

involved right now in negotiations, is also held accountable for currency manipulation. these two things are not mutually exclusive -- mutually inclusive -- or exclusive is what i want to say. they are part of the whole effort. if you are in a negotiating agreement and it's t.p.p. or any other one, we want to make sure our negotiators put this in the deal. if you are outside, we want to make sure you also can't cheat mr. president. and that's why both of these are very important policies. and i strongly support both of them in order to move forward in a comprehensive way on currency manipulation enforcement. for too long we have relied on handshake agreements, good-faith assurances from our trading

partners from those around the world that they had adhere to the same standards that we set for ourselves. and for too long we have seen our trading partners ignore their commitments breaking the rules and leaving american workers and businesses at a competitive disadvantage. it's time for us to say enough is enough. we don't have to keep doing this to ourselves. so, i am very pleased that we've taken a step forward in a couple of directions. i mentioned the schumer bipartisan proposal that so many of us have worked on. that is a very, very important piece of this puzzle. and the other piece is the portman-stabenow amendment. as i said, these are not mutually exclusive. they're complementary.

i hope my colleagues will support both of them to demonstrate a serious commitment. it's not enough to support a policy in one bill and not support the similar policy in the other part of the picture here the other bill. if you support enforcing against currency manipulation, you either do or you don't. you do or you don't. we want to make sure we're doing against those not part of the t.p.p. negotiations and those who are. and we want to make sure that they get signed into law and that they in fact are the law of the land. it is long past due mr. president, that we take meaningful action on this issue. i don't know how many times i have come to the floor since coming here in 2001 to speak about this, to be a part of

efforts. it has always been bipartisan. i'm glad to see that. we need a strong bipartisan vote on the portman-stabenow amendment. we have understood, those of us who represent manufacturing states and agricultural states, that this is a critical piece of leveling the playing field so our businesses, our farmers our ranchers our workers have every opportunity to compete and win. i know they will. i don't have a doubt in my mind. our job is to make sure there is fairness that we have the best trade deals and that they are enforceable and then that we have the tools to enforce, which is also in front of us, with the customs bill. you've got to have all of it. we're in a global economy. everybody is competing. our job is to make sure we are

exporting our products and not our jobs. if we do not focus in a very serious, real way on addressing currency manipulation, we will in fact be leaving a giant loophole through which those companies will drive right through that will allow them to continue cheating and taking our jobs. we can fix that. and i'm hopeful that colleagues will join us on a bipartisan basis for a very strong vote to send a message to the administration, we are serious including this as one of the instructions to them for what we expect to be in trade agreements going forward. thank you, mr. president.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: this week, i introduced a bipartisan resolution to commemorate national police week, which this year began on monday, may 10, and ends saturday, may 16. senator leahy ranking member of the judiciary committee and 32 others have joined me as original cosponsors of this measure. the theme of this week's police week is honoring courage

saluting sacrifice. police week is dedicated to the brave men and women in blue who selflessly protect and serve our communities every day every week in every community all across the country. the week affords an opportunity to honor those who made the ultimate gnat sacrifice while striving to make our neighborhoods safer and more secure. events are scheduled in washington d.c., this week not only to remember those officers who tragically lost their lives in the line of duty but also to honor -- to honor outstanding acts of bravery and service by many others. tens of thousands of police officers as well as their friends and family members will gather in our nation's capital for these events, which include

a candlelight vigil and a police unity tour arrival ceremony, among other things. national peace officers memorial day this year falls friday, may 15. on this day the 34th annual national peace officers memorial service takes place here on the capitol grounds. this solemn service offers an opportunity for all of us to pay our respects to fallen officers and their families, communities and law enforcement agencies that have been permanently altered because of the -- because these officers paid the ultimate sacrifice. we owe these brave men and women our utmost respect and gratitude as we honor them on this important day. a report by the national law enforcement officers memorial fund showed a 9% increase in the

number of officers killed in the line of duty in 2014, compared to the previous year's fatalities. gunfire was the leading cause of death among law enforcement officers last year and ambushes were the leading circumstance of officers' fatalities in these deaths according to this report. the number of firearms related deaths in 2014 represents a 24% increase over the previous year. this is the fifth consecutive year that ambushes have been the number one cause of felonious deaths of law enforcement officers, according to the national sheriffs association. in my home state of iowa, there have been nearly 200 line of duty deaths over many years. the fallen include numerous law

enforcement personnel who were shot and killed or struck by vehicles while on duty. as the national law enforcement officers memorial -- at that memorial, the names of these iowans and approximately 20,000 other men and women who have been killed in the line of duty throughout u.s. history are carved in the memorial's wall. regrettably, 273 new names will be added to the rolls this week to depict the loss of a loved one who did not return home safely at the end of his or her duty. already in 2015, we have witnessed 44 tragic deaths and senseless murders of our law enforcement protectors and our guardians of the peace. just this past weekend y'all

heard on television from hattiesburg, mississippi that that department's officers, benjamin deen and liquori tate were quickly and violently murdered during a traffic stop that was anything but routine. our hearts go out to their families and the families of all who have loved their loved -- have lost their loved ones in the line of duty. the men and women of law enforcement go to work shift after shift frequently missing celebrations of birthdays anniversaries and holidays because they believe in serving something greater than themselves. the work of law enforcement is not a job. it is a calling to these people. the calling of those officers devoted to duty merit our utmost respect and gratitude.

so as i end i call on all americans this week to pause and contemplate the safety and security that we all enjoy. we all must recognize that such peace is the result of sacrifices made by brave men and women of law enforcement. i also want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues for their overwhelming support of this year's resolution designating national police week, which this week passed the full senate by unanimous consent. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah.

mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, we have all now heard the good news with regard to our ongoing efforts to advance u.s. trade policy. we're talking about trillions of dollars over the years. after a lot of discussion and back and forth we've come to an agreement on a path forward. i'm happy to say that finally at lopping last common sense -- at long last common sense has prevailed. the senate finance committee reported four separate trade bills. a bill to reknew trade promotion authority or t.p.a., another to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, or t.a.a., a trade preference bill, and a customs and enforcement bill. and throughout the recent discussion on trade policy, the t.p.a. bill has gotten most of the attention. that makes sense. after all, it is president obama's top legislative priority. and if we can get it passed, it's impact will be immediately felt -- and he's right on it.

president obama is right on this issue and i'm happy to help him get this through, if we can. the t.a.a. bill, the trade adjustment assistance bill, though i am a not he can statistic toik admit it, is part of the overall t.p.a. effort. we've known from the outset that in order to ensure passage of t.p.a., we need to make sure t.a.a. mod moved alopping with it. that's a concession we were always willing to paycheck it, though most of us on the republican side aren't all that crazy about t.a.a., and many will vote against it, including me. t.a.a. is the trade adjustment assistance, and it's what the union movement in this country hanes sissed on. democrats are unanimously in favor of it. republicans aren't very ecstatic about it at all. in fact, we think it's a waste in many ways. but i.t. the priceit's the price of doing business on t.p.a. the path for the other two bills has always been a bit more

uncertain. imu once again we knew that from the beginning. i'm pleased to say that we've reefed greanlt that will allow us to consider and hopefully pass all four of the finance committee trade bills in relatively short order. under the agreement the sna will the vote tomorrow on both our customs bill as well as our trade preferences bill. this will pave the wait for another cloture vote on the motion to proceed to a vehicle to move t.p.a. and t.a.a. and though i am, of course, wary of counting my proverbial chickens before they're hatched no pun intended, i expect that we'll get a strong bipartisan vote in favor of finally beginning the debate on these important bills -- and we should. this is, in my opinion, the best of all possible outcomes, mr. president. this is what republicans had been working toward all along. and while -- and i might add some courageous democrats as well. and while we could not and still cannot guarantee that all four bills will become law we

certainly want to see the custom and preference bills pass the senate. i'm a coauthor of both of those bills. they are high priorities for me. it was never my intention to let them wither on the legislative calendar. i was always going to do everything in my power to help move them forward. that's why at the finance committee markup i committed to work with my colleagues to try to get all four of these bills across the finish line. that's the agreement that was made and as of right now it appears we'll be able to make good 0 hadn't that commitment on a much shorter time line than i think any of us expected. yesterday was a difficult day mr. president. i think it was pretty obvious to any observer that i was more than a little frustrated. tamed atamed atoday i'm glad 10 see that our colleagues have agreed to move all of these important bills that they have agreed with us on a workable path forward. now is not the time to

celebrate, mr. president. while this agreement solves a temporary procedural issue now is when the real work begins. it is as mentioned yesterday it's been years decades even since we had a real debate over u.s. trade policy here on the senate floor. we have a spirited debate ahead of us. i am looking forward to fair and open discussion. it's high time that we let this debate move forward. indeed it's what the american people deserve. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that kevin rosenbaum detailee, andrew waro, sarah sioux fellow to the senate committee on finance and kenneth schmidt clerk to the senate committee on finance be granted floor privileges for the duration of the congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, i am glad that we now have a pathway

to go forward. this is something the president has put an awful lot of effort to -- into. he has an excellent trade representative in michael frumin frumin one of the -- one of the best trade representatives we could possibly have, very bright man, has worked very, very hard on these trade deals and they won't come to fruition until we pass the trade promotion authority. keep in mind, those the procedural mechanism that will enable them to get final approvals by these 11 countries and asia plus ours and the 28 countries in europe plus ours. this is really important. and i for one am very pleased we were able to get this through the senate finance committee. that couldn't have happened without the help of the

democrats on the other side and in particular senator wyden in getting it through the committee. we did part ways in this fiasco that occurred, but hopefully we're back together now. all i can say is that this was one of the most important bills in this president's tenure, and it is a bill that could benefit every state in this union. and especially my state of utah where we did $7 billion in foreign trade last year alone. for a state our size of 3 million people, that's pretty good. but i expect this to -- i expect us to do a lot better under -- under trade promotion authority. and hopefully the final agreements that are made in t.p.p. and t tip will be agreements everybody can agree will help our country to move forward, will help us have greater relations with other countries throughout the world

will help us to encourage our own industries to be better and to be the best in the world and we'll be one of those approaches that literally will mean so much to the world at large. this is an important bill. i hope that we can pass it. i believe we will. and i have to say the other two bills are very important too. i'm not a fan of the t.a.a. bill, never will be. but we understand why that has to pass as well, because there is a bipartisan coalition for it it and that coalition probably would not permit trade promotion authority without the t.a.a. or trade adjustment assistance. all i can say is that i'm pleased that we've arrived -- that we solved this impasse, and i hope for sure that in the coming days we'll be able to pass trade promotion authority

and really put this country back on the trade path that really deserves to be on and which the rest of the world will be pleased to have us be on and where we can have greater cooperation and greater friendships and greater feelings throughout the world than we have right now. so with that mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: