world's g.d.p. these 12t.p.p. countries -- these 12 t.p.p. countries the next round also under t.p.a. is another 20% of the world's g.d.p. so that would be 60% of the world's g.d.p. and you don't do cloture within 24 hours and begin to shut down debate. that was the reason for my u.c. request. again i thank senator hatch for his patience in working together on level the playing field, one of the major enforcement issues but i've got 15 members of my caucus at least, as many as 20 that want to offer amendments, 149 amendments on both sides have been filed and to cut off this debate with only -- fewer than 10% of them in order or even a few more than that is simply not the way the senate should operate. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president i appreciate my colleague and i've tried to accommodate him and intend to always try to

accommodate my colleagues. on the other hand, his side has slow walked this thing since last wednesday. thursday was a full day we lost we're going to be here friday we didn't do very much yesterday, today nothing, and i think -- i think i'm very concerned that we're not moving ahead, we're not doing what we should do. this is an important -- this is an important matter. it's an important bill. i chatted with the president earlier today and he indicated how important it is to him personally. and what this bill means to our country and how important it is to get it passed and to pass it in a form that the house will accept. which is what i'm trying to do. so i don't think it's been this side that's slowed this down.

although i don't want to pick on either side. the senators are certainly within their rights to slow walk this all they want to. on the other hand, it's very difficult for me to sit here and having sat here all day and yesterday and would have been thursday and friday as well, and saturday if necessary it strikes me as interesting that now they want all these amendments when they've had all this time to bring up their amendments and nobody was going to stop them. so all i can say is that i hope we come here tomorrow prepared to do amendments and -- or do them tonight which would be fine with me. i'm prepared to stay, if we have to. but the fact of the matter is we're not going anywhere on this

right now and this is an extremely important bill. not only for the congress but for the president of the united states. and for the world at large really when you stop and think about it. certainly the world over in -- in asia. we're talking about having an agreement with japan. first time we've been able to do that. we've got a new prime minister who is willing to work with us. and we're willing to work with him. that's a major major achievement by this administration. not only that, but ten other countries, a high percentage of trade in this area. what are we going to do? leave it all to china to take over? or are we going to take this more seriously and get this job done? we've got a number of poison

pills that people have wanted to bring up that naturally would mean the end of this particular bill. and i'd like to prevent that, if we can because we're talking about a bipartisan bill that has plenty of bipartisan support that really is crucial to this country at this time and crucial to that region that could be very very -- a very, very difficult region for us if we don't do this. and if we don't do this and don't do it right like we're trying to do, and like the president is trying to do, then we're just turning over that whole area to china because they're going to step right in and make the difference. right now these people want to deal with us and there's good reason they want to deal with

us. but if we can't even get our act in order to deal with them, then i can understand why they might go another route themselves. they might be forced to go another route. we all saw the new bank that's been established over there. at first there were very few countries that went with it. the last time i heard i may be wrong on this, but up to 60 countries including some of the european countries, some of the greatest countries in the world now. what are we going to do? just cede the whole area to china? or are we going to compete? this bill is for competitive purposes. now, i've worked extensively -- mr. wyden: will the chairman yield for a question? mr. hatch: sure. mr. wyden: i appreciate that and i appreciate the chairman's work here and i just want to ask a question about where in effect we are. the two of us work together on the list that you sought to offer.

mr. hatch: i didn't mean to indicate i was the only one doing this. mr. wyden: not at all. the question is, mr. chairman, we worked together to put together this list, and it was based on the proposition that we are going -- we were going to be fair to both sides. and on my side of the aisle my colleagues on the democratic side felt particularly strongly about the currency, you know, issue and senator stabenow, for example, and many felt very strongly about the amendment that senator warren sought to offer. and we were able working together to in effect get an equal number for each side. my understanding is that we continue to be interested, and you just i think made another gracious offer we're going to stay here tonight you're still interested in putting together a list that gives all sides a fair

chance at their major amendments. is that a fair recitation of where we are mr. chairman? mr. hatch: i think both of us have literally tried to be fair to both sides. there are some amendments i wish we didn't have to put up with, to be frank with you but that's always the case. so why should we not be fair to both sides? but there comes to limit to what you can do in these matters and like i say this is probably the most important bill in many respects outside of obamacare in this president's eight years. and it's an extremely important bill for our country an extremely important bill for our economy. it's an extremely important bill for our allies over in those areas. it's an extremely important bill that helps to set the stage for ttip the 28 countries in basically europe and all this

bill does basically is provide a procedural mechanism whereby congress has some control if not total control over what agreements are negotiated. this is not the t.p.p., it's not ttip, it's not the final decisions on that. that will be made pursuant to this bill. which will be a very, very good, important bill for the purpose of seeing that the white house and the administration follow certain protocols and recognizes that the congress of the united states is important in these trade matters too. i want to thank my colleague from oregon for the hard work that he's done on this bill and he's been a wonderful partner to work with today and i just really appreciate him and i hope we can resolve these problems but as of right now i had to object to that -- to that

assertion, that motion by the distinguished senator from ohio. who i have a lot of respect for. i don't agree with him but i know he's sincere and i know that he's working very hard for what he believes is proper. and so with that, i don't know what else to do other than to just say i object to that. a senator: mr. president? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president i too, like the chairman of the finance committee have been here all day and i empathize with the dilemma that he faces along with the ranking member on how we move forward on this legislation. and this is a discussion that's been going on for months and months if not years which is what are we going to do as we deal with trade issues about the reauthorization of the export-import bank which expires at the end of june. so while i appreciate my colleagues on the finance committee and the movement of

trade legislation i've had many discussions with them over the last several months about this very issue and the fact that this issue has to get resolved. now, i know that no member gets to have their way about what legislation gets an amendment. the list that was just given does nothing to guarantee we would ever see a vote on the authorization of the ex-im bank. while the other side wants to protect what they think are the opportunities to pass this legislation in the house which i respect, i don't think that the house has to dictate to the u.s. senate how we're going to proceed where the majority of people in both the house and senate support the reauthorization of the export-import bank. it right now has deals of $18 billion and more pending before it. if the bank expires june 30 all of those trade deals which

are jobs for u.s. companies disappear and go away. so yes in my opinion there is no more important amendment than one that saves $18 billion of u.s. companies' sales to overseas markets. so my colleagues and i who support the ex-im bank reauthorization which is the majority in both the house and senate have lost their patience with the ability to get this bank before the senate and before the house before that june 30 deadline. so i have no compulsion at this moment to say that i don't support moving forward on the cloture motion until we get an understanding how this bank is going to be reauthorized. i know people are proud of the work that's been done on t.p.a., but it's silly to say to the american people we're moving forward in opening up trade opportunities but we are going to let expire the tool that small businesses and individuals use to export their

products as a credit agency. it makes no sense to open up cambodia if then you can't get a bank in cambodia to have the sales of a product from my colleague from south carolina to that country. and if somebody wants to tell me one of these new york wall street banks that will give us that type of financing maybe we'll come up with a different solution but one doesn't exist. so until our colleagues give us an answer about something we've been clear about for more than a year, we are going to continue to object and to a process because we're not going to let this bank expire, the credit agency, without a fight. i know my colleague from south carolina is here on the floor and i appreciate his support of the ex-im bank. mr. graham: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i just want to echo what my colleague from washington said. to those who negotiated this trade package well done. i'm going to vote for the portman amendment because i

think currency manipulation should be addressed more forcefully. if trade deals in the future are going like trade deals in the past with we need to look at what we're doing because some of the trade deals in the past haven't worked out so well. so on this currency issue i just want a vote. on the bank i'm telling my leadership the following. i've talked with you and talked with you and talked with you. i've forgone taking votes on the ex-im because i didn't want to rock the boat on the budget and other things. i'm tired of talking. you're not going to get my vote for cloture or anything else this year until i get a vote, we get a vote on the ex-im bank because there's over 60 votes in this body. to the chairman who i admire greatly, you mentioned china. let me mention china. china makes wide body jets that are getting into the wide-body jet business big-time. china makes about everything we're make. boeing makes 787's in south

carolina and washington. g.e. makes gas turbines in greenville, south carolina, mostly sold through ex-im financing to the developing world. if you're worried about china stepping in, if we don't have this great trade deal, here's what i'm worried about -- that if our bank expires then the market share that we have today because we have competitive financing goes away and the biggest beneficiary of closing down the bank is china. i'm not going to subject american manufacturers to trying to sell their products overseas without ex-im financing when all their competitors have an ex-im bank. as a matter of fact, china's bank is bigger than the united states france, england and germany combined. airbus great airplane. france and germany have an ex-im bank. so an american manufacturer when it comes to wide-bodied aircraft or in i other product sold

overseas in developing world in bank that makes money for the taxpayer makes them competitive. so all those who really do believe in trade, the fact that you would let the bank expire because some ideological jihad on our side that makes absolutely no sense to me i'm not going to be part of that anymore. to the people who are trying to make this the scalp for conservatism, i think you've lost your way. this bank makes money for the taxpayer. this bank doesn't lose money. this bank allows american manufacturers who are doing business in the developing world to have a competitive foothold against their competitors in china and throughout europe who have access to ex-im financing. all we're talking about is an american-made product sold in the developing world where you can't get traditional financing. the ex-im bank has been around for decades. ronald reagan was for the ex-im bank. the ex-im bank is directly responsible for helping sell

boeing aircraft made in south carolina. 70% of the production in south carolina is eligible for ex-im financing. and there are thousands of small businesses who benefit from manufactured products sold in the developing world through ex-im financing. would i like to live in a world where there were no ex-im banks? sure. but the world i'm not going to live in is where we shut ours down and china keeps theirs open. i'm not doing that. that's not trade. that's just idiotic. that's just unilateral surrender. come to south carolina, tell the people at boeing and all their suppliers and go to greenville to the g.e. plant that hires thousands of south carolinians and all of their small business suppliers, why it's a good idea for america to shut down a bank that makes money for the taxpayer that allows us to be competitive. how you think that's a good way to grow our economy. tell those people who have got good jobs in south carolina who will surely lose market share

because we closed our bank down how proud they should be of your ideological purity. i welcome this debate in south carolina down the road, but i promise my leadership, friends on the other side i'm a reasonable guy. i vote for things give and take, but the one thing i will not do is allow the bank expire without a vote. if you can beat me on the floor fine. i'm not asking you to vote for the bank. i'm asking you to allow me to vote for the bank because it's critical to the economy of my state and i think the nation as a whole. and the only reason we're having this debate is because some outside groups have made this the conservative cause celebre in my view without any rational reason. so to the chairman and to the ranking member, i have no problem helping you move this bill because you talk about it will make it harder on china to take market share in asia.

the only thing i ask of this body is to allow me and my colleagues who care about the ex-im bank, which is a small small piece of the puzzle that has a junior high dpan particular impact, it makes over $3 billion, $3 billion for the american taxpayer, this bank is essential for american manufacturers to be competitive in the developing world. i will not let this bank expire without a vote. i will not give market share to china or the europeans. i will not do that. so i am willing to work with you but you've got to be willing to work with me. if you're not willing to honor your word that you have been giving to me for the last six months then you have got nobody to blame but yourself. so to the senator from washington, all we're asking for is a vote on the ex-im bank that's been around for decades that ronald reagan said was a good idea, that has overwhelming

bipartisan support before june 30 on a vehicle that must become law if we can pass that amendment, is that correct to the senator from washington? ms. cantwell: mr. president the senator from south carolina is correct. that's all we have been asking for. and we have talked to our colleagues about various vehicles and various opportunities for those votes and that is exactly what had been promised. so we are here today because as you have described the failure of us to reauthorize the ex-im bank will mean huge opportunities for foreign competitors, at a very time when we are trying to open up markets for our u.s. companies. and so all we're asking is the opportunity to have this vote, as the majority leader said, let the will of the senate be done. but you're right people who have extreme views on this have decided that this is something that they can hold up. well i don't think that we're here today to try to ultimately say how individual people should vote. they should vote their

conscience. but the fact that this bank is about to expire and the fact that these jobs would be lost because we don't do our job in reauthorizing the bank is a failure. it is an imminent threat of $18 billion not -- these are proposed deals for export that won't get approved and won't get done because we won't have a bank. i think the united states senate can do better than that, and i thank my colleague for being here tonight and going into detail about the ex-im bank. mr. graham: to my colleagues who have been raising money off this, you can raise all the money you want to, but you're going to have to debate your ideas against my ideas. you're not going to be able to shut this bank down without a vote. if you feel that good about your position let's have a vote on the floor of the senate, the floor of the house. one thing we're not going to do is let the bank die without a debate and a vote, and that debate and vote must come before

june 30 because the damage will have been done. i'm not going to sit on the sidelines and watch jobs in my state be lost because of some ideological crusade the biggest beneficiary of which in my view would be china and our european competitors. if you really do care about china's effect in the world marketplace, shutting the ex-im bank down in america and allowing china to keep theirs open is a death load to the american manufacturers who sell in the developing world. with that, i yield and i look forward to a positive outcome so you can get your bill passed, you can have votes on amendments that you care about and you get your bill up and passed if the votes are there as long as i get a chance, along with the senator from washington, to vote on what i care about what i think is essential to the economy not of just south carolina but of the manufacturing community and the developing -- who sell to the developing world. with that, i yield back. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. mcconnell: i think we're all aware that chairman hatch and senator wyden have been working in good faith over the last several days to set out both debate and votes on amendments from both sides of the aisle. we've had some success. the bill managers have been working together on the votes that we've had and so far we have worked to get an additional seven amendments pending. but sadly there's an objection from the other side of the aisle on getting additional amendments pending, regardless of which party offers the amendment. senator hatch and his colleague have been down here for days trying to get amendments offered, and obviously it's possible in the senate to be prevent others from getting amendments and now we've got the whole process stymied because we can't seem to get

agreements for any additional amendments. i think we all know this is a body that requires at least some level of cooperation and that just hasn't been here on this bipartisan bill. so i want to point out while i'm going to be filing cloture on the bill this evening that's not the end of the story. i want to repeat, that's not the end of the story. the bill managers will continue to work together to get more amendments available for votes before the cloture vote, and with a little cooperation from our friends on the other side of the aisle i still think we can get that done. it is my hope that we would be able to process a number of amendments particularly those that are critical to members on both sides and then move forward, and we'll have a couple of days to accomplish that. i send to the desk a cloture motion to the hatch amendment number 1221 to h.r. 1314.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the hatch amendment numbered 1221 to h.r. 1314, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, and so forth signed by 17 senators -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the senators' names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i send to the desk a cloture motion to h.r. 1314. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on h.r. 1314, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, and so forth signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. hatch: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah.

mr. hatch: mr. president i call for the regular order with respect to the portman amendment 1299. the presiding officer: the amendment is now pending. mr. hatch: the amendment is pending. the presiding officer: it is now pending. mr. hatch: okay. i send an amendment to the desk to the text proposed to be stricken. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from utah mr. hatch proposes an amendment numbered 1411 -- mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. peters: thank you mr. president. i just wanted to say first off that i agree with senator brown and senator hatch on how important this debate is before us. in fact, because it is so important, i certainly hope that we have an opportunity to fully debate its ramifications especially with issues like the ex-im bank which i heard two of my colleagues discuss with some vigor just a few moments ago. but today or right now i'd like to talk about an amendment that i am offering with senator brown to require approval of congress before any additional countries may join the trans-pacific partnership. the 12 countries currently participating in t.p.p. negotiations encompass about 40% of the global gross domestic product. this would be the largest free

trade agreement since nafta and members should know that this agreement has the potential to expand to a number of additional countries without congressional approval. the administration has said that they would -- it would welcome interest from other nations including china in joining t.p.p. given the impact that trade deals like nafta have had on american businesses and workers i would argue that it is important that congress not only be notified of new negotiations but also have the opportunity to vote on whether or not to move forward with bringing on additional countries into multinational trade negotiations. if congress were to approve the trans-pacific partnership it should not and must not be a blank check to bring in additional names -- additional nations without congressional approval. i am public concerned about

countries that manipulate the value of their currency to gain an unfair advantage over our u.s. workers. steal intellectual property from american innovators. engage in unfair labor practices. damage the environment and do not abide by existing trade deals. just yesterday a federal grand jury indicted six chinese citizens for stealing trade secrets. last year, five chinese military officers were caught stealing intellectual property from u.s. companies. the u.s. has brought 16 claims against china at the world trade organization and the chinese government has consistently, consistently manipulated their currency against our dollar. despite these serious problems, the administration has said that they would welcome interest from china in joining t.p.p. if providing fast-track authority makes it easier for countries like china to join the t.p.p. robust congressional

oversight is critical. senator brown and i have offered an amendment to explicitly ensure that this oversight is available and that congress has the opportunity to vote on the addition of any new countries to t.p.p. negotiations. our amendment will require the president to notify congress before entering negotiations with another country seeking to join t.p.p. it provides 90 days for congress to conduct hearings and investigations and ultimately hold any potential new entrant accountable for unfair trade practices. the house and senate will need to affirmatively pass the resolution of approval for any new country to join t.p.p. negotiations. nations like china will not be able to join through unilateral action by a future white house. i urge my colleagues to support the brown-peters amendment. i would also like to urge my colleagues to support the portman-stabenow amendment on currency manipulation. a study by the center for

automotive research found that the t.p.p., as currently negotiated will allow japan to manipulate its currency, and this practice will likely lead to the elimination of over 25,000 american auto industry jobs. our workers and manufacturers can compete with anyone in the world, but they deserve a level playing field. currency manipulation is the most significant trade barrier of our time, and it must be stopped. that is why i'm supporting the portman-stabenow currency amendment, and i hope my colleagues will join me in standing up for american workers and fighting back against unfair currency manipulation. mr. president, i yield. ms. baldwin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: thank you mr. president. trade is a major issue for a manufacturing state like wisconsin.

i'm very proud of the fact that the state i represent has had a rich history of making thing. and, in fact, i don't think that you can have an economy that's built to last that doesn't make things as a key part, a key sector of the overall economy. and so this debate on trade promotion authority and the trade bills that may follow to the floor of the senate and the house takes on a particular disproportionate impact in a state like wisconsin that makes things. and we've lost a lot of those manufacturing jobs in recent years. and you can't lay the entire blame on trade policies, but certainly some of our past trade deals have had a significant

impact. and it's hard to find folks in the state of wisconsin who don't recall that in a negative way who haven't suffered the results of mistakes that we've made in the past. and that brings me to this debate that we're having this evening, and i hope tomorrow and beyond on trade promotion authority, because what trade promotion authority asks us to do as senators in the united states and over in the house is to cede some of our usual powers our usual powers to amend bills to make them stronger to make them more informed to improve them to perfect them. fast-track trade promotion authority asks us to relinquish those powers and to take a simple up-or-down yes-or-no

vote on a future trade deal that comes before us under this fast-track authority. now, that may bring up the question would one ever support ceding those powers and relinquishing those powers, and i think that ultimately one hypothetically can do that, because what you can do is take the time in the fast-track debate to set the conditions, to set the negotiating principles that have to be met in order to be able to relinquish that power later. and that's where we're get into this -- where we get in a this issue of process right now. it is so critical that we take the time to debate the conditions that we need to see present, as representatives of people from states across this country that we take the time to debate thoroughly these

amendments so that we know that the trade deals that will come before us later will be fair, not just free but fair. and so i hope that we take the time to debate all of these provisions because they matter in people's lives. they matter to middle-class working wisconsinites some who have lost jobs in recent years and decades because of mistakes we've made in prior trade deals. i come to the floor this evening to share with my colleagues that i've introduced nine separate amendments to this trade promotion authority and i know that we won't have the chance to fully debate and vote on all of them but i think it's important that we try to have a thorough and comprehensive consideration.

so far we've only voted on two amendments and there are only a handful that are pending for consideration. and so on that point mr. president, i'd like to take a few moments to address just four of the amendments that i think are crucial to my state of wisconsin and the middle-class workers who i have the honor of representing. now, my first amendment is number 1317. it's cosponsored by my colleagues senator franken and blumenthal. it strengthens the principal negotiating objective with respect to trade remedy laws. this is talking about enforcement and having teeth in that enforcement. these trade remedies assure that american manufacturers and their workers would compete on a level playing field globally.

american manufacturers fight an uphill battle to keep their prices low while foreign companies sell goods in the united states often at subsidized prices. u.s. manufacturing has already suffered financial losses and thousands of jobs, i might add as a result of unfair trade practices. and my amendment would strengthen our ability to fight on behalf of our american manufacturing workers. a second amendment that i've offered is number 1365, and i'm proud to have joined forces with senator blumenthal. and it would restrict trade promotion authority for any trade agreement that includes a country that criminalizes individuals based on sexual

orientation or otherwise persecutes or punishes individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. these countries are identified for us in the state department's annual country reports on human rights practices. at least 75 countries across the globe continue to criminalize homosexuality, subjecting lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender people to imprisonment, various forms of punishment and in 10 countries the death penalty. for example in brunei a newly adopted law provides for execution by stoning for homosexuality. as we all know, bro nigh brunei is part of the trans-pacific partnership free trade agreement that's now under negotiation. senators voting here on this

legislation should know and understand this, that if we do not adopt my amendment, we will be granting our highest trading status to a country that executes people based on who they love. and this is not hyperbole. this is a fact. the u.s. should not reward countries that deny the fundamental humanity of lgbt people by subjecting them to harsh penalties and even death simply because of who they are or who they love. mr. president, my third amendment, number 1320, would add a principle pall negotiating objective to ensure that any trade agreement actually increases manufacturing jobs and wages in the united states. many wisconsin communities as i mentioned earlier bear the scars of nafta and other flawed

so-called free trade agreements agreements, fromfrom close the factories to closed homes to devastated communities, wisconsinites know all too well what happens when politicians in washington tell them they know what's best for them in wisconsin. let me give you just a few numbers on trade from wisconsin's perspective. on jobs, according to the economic policy institute nafta has led to the loss of more than 680,000 jobs most -- 60% of them -- manufacturing jobs in the united states as a whole. since china joined the w.t.o. in the year 2000, there's been a net loss of over 2.7 million u.s. jobs. of that amount, wisconsin has

lost around 68,000 jobs between the years 2001 and 2013 because of our trade deficit with china and their currency manipulation. now, in 2011, we passed the south korea free trade agreement. in the years since the growth of the u.s. trade deficit with south korea has cost us more than 75,000 u.s. jobs. on wages competing with workers in china and other low-wage countries it has reduced wages of 100 million u.s. workers without a college degree, a total loss of about $180 billion each year. since china joined the w.t.o., u.s. workers who lost their job

because of trade with china have lost more than $37 billion in wages as a result of accepting lower-wage jobs. the final amendment i'd like to describe is amendment number 1319 cosponsored by my colleague senator merkley, who was speaking with all of us earlier this evening. this amendment would require the administration to notify the public when it waives "buy america" rirms. -- requirements. wisconsin workers make things, understand we have been one of the top manufacturing states in the nation for generations. now, if we hope to continue making things, we think that we should continue to have our own government as a customer. or put another way u.s. taxpayer dollars should support

u.s. jobs. that's why i'm a strong supporter of "buy america" provisions that require federal agencies to purchase american-made products. free trade agreements have historically allowed foreign nations way too much leeway when bidding for our government projects and contracts while not affording american companies the same access. now, i believe that the issues that i've brought up this evening -- these four amendments -- are really important issues. important to our country important to our standing in the world, important to my state of wisconsin. these are issues that the senate should debate, and i would urge the majority leader to allow an open and robust amendment process so that we can vote on these critical provisions.

and with that, mr. president i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

>> >> joining us now is our guest let's start with the waco texas shootings and killings.

>> is this sense of anarchy in real life. except he never had to answer for his crimes the day's gain members will. >> million-dollar bail? each one arrested and face a the possibility. >> because the judge wants to keep them there they have 170 people they don't know how a did what so they have to keep them there long enough. if this was a regular case the prosecutor would have your country jesus moment this is the time to talk to me there you can snitch on everybody else. to california who instigated it but but there will be loyal to their club. >> the other thing it has taught us is revenge is that

us center of culture it is never ending as a result the judge could consider the fact it was a main table bond. >> maybe they are to come to texas to act out of revenge. lou: what is the liability for 26 restaurant? they refuse to cooperate in and it is outrageous. >> they could not have known it would be like this but things could turn violent. >> i think the police were already there is a maybe somebody tipped them off the this would essentially blow up the way that it did there

also some meetings concerned >> and with amtrak and that derailment but the airline is 75,000 or something like that. >> is said to hundred million-dollar cap for everything all that money could only be to madrid million dollar but those losses are by injured people not a then those that actually died those elements will be higher. >> does actual damages but the actual damages. >> they acted so recklessly

that they did nothing about it. lou: then judge says he will rollout to the state department e-mail for what it asked for. >> is the practical approach to weigh the public's approach but the state department said we will get them out as soon. >> now we will see if the state department gives us a about the federal judge does it interfere with the public's right to know? time to look at the online poll results precocious republicans brag about their free trade deal? that cost more lost wages and to further burden small business?

that is it for us. house judiciary committee member joins us. my amendment number 1411 at the desk. the presiding officer: the amendment is so modified. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: