t has not yielded the results that we want. .. whenever an american traveler goes to cuba every dollar in a particular government. that simply is not the case. that may be said that those who have traveled to cuba recently, but many americans travel to

cuba and it is true that you can't travel to cuba without some revenue going to government. that is certain. the notion that every dollar spent ends up in the hands of the cuban military simply is not the case. you have burgeoned a notch premiership in cuba that is a testimony to the fact that some money does flow to ordinary cuban people. and that has been particularly the case with the travel of cuban-americans over the past couple of years. i should mention what the policy was announced a couple years ago they cuban-americans should travel not once every few years but often as they like and remittance levels were increased. there is talk in congress about reversing. we can't have that. it's not good for the cuban people. it's not good for america there is no serious talk today about reversing a because when

americans get more freedom, we enjoy that and we tend to want more. i would suggest that a year from now the notion that we would reverse this policy that is a lot more americans to travel to cuba and to help cuban people have access similar technology more capital more values come the more contact with americans will seem as absurd as releasing the changes made with cuban-american travel a couple years ago. i applaud you for what you are doing and look forward to working with the administration as the policy and holes. >> thank you, senator menendez. >> when they cuban-american visits to relatives in cuba and give them a little money the only place to buy something as the dollar store. isn't that true?

if you want to get something. >> i believe there's more in those stores to buy. >> by the way who owns the dollar stores? >> they are state run. >> the government. >> if i want to send revisions to my relative in cuba come in the cuban takes lights? >> they do but your relatives on their part of that anyway. >> the cuban government gets a slice. let's not deny the cuban government is greatly enriched by this resources, which is why it's been its number one foreign policy object disappeared but talk about what full diplomatic relations are appearing you'll be having this discussion tomorrow as i understand. what senator markets normalize relations are. the "washington post" ran a story suggesting that talks to restore diplomatic relations were hung up because the castro regime or unwilling to grant

unrestricted travel, unwilling to send secure shipments to a future embassy unwilling to let us have a number of staff necessary to operate a future embassy in unwilling to remove the military presence around a future embassy. so let me ask you. with the state department actually agreed to establish an embassy in havana if all of our diplomats aren't able to travel freely throughout cuba? >> senator, what i can tell you is we have to have an embassy where diplomats can get out and travel and see the country and talk to people. we have restrictions on the way our embassy personnel travel in terms of notification to governments in many countries around the world to range from 24 hours to 10 days. so we are going to do everything possible to make sure we have the least restrictions possible.

>> we will accept restrictions that all of our diplomats at an embassy with reality travel throughout the country. >> we will make sure that the embassy is on our with the way we operate in other places that are restrict their environments. >> would you agree to conditions under which we can send secure subscriptions without the machine rifling through them? >> senator i will not necessarily lay out all of the negotiations. >> why not? wait a minute. is there a secret or do we not have the united states congress have the right to understand how you try to establish diplomatic relations. under what conditions are we going to have or not have relationships. are you going to allow the cubans to rifle through with impunity or are you going to send anything to the embassy as

we do in other places of the world. >> we absolutely believe in the diplomatic pouch. we also believe it's critical to resupply a future embassy as we believe it is important to supply the building now that has maintenance and upkeep issues. that is a critical part. >> will you accept conditions less than that? >> we won't accept conditions in which we can't securely supplier facility. >> would you agree to open an embassy if you are granted the number of staff to operate efficiently? >> not if we can cut the number of staff we need. >> are you willing to open an embassy if the castro regime doesn't remove around the building which basically is a way to intimidate from approaching facility? >> we will not open an embassy unless we believe security outside the embassy is appropriate to protect our

installation. but we will also make sure that it is welcoming the cubans into the installation as an embassy the way we do around the world. >> me ask you. you agreed with me ultimately at the castro regime statement as it relates that they have never supported any act of international terrorism is not true. so if you agree the statements by the castro regime are categorically false how can you explain to the committee why you think you can believe any assurances about the regime's current or future conduct if a bold faced lied in the first place. >> what i would say senator, what we were looking at is not necessarily whether or not their assertions on behalf of all recorded history for the cuban government we agree with every statement of the past.

but we have to look at is what the requirements are under the law which talk about rejection of international terrorism which they have made and the lack of any supporter any evidence for support. >> they can partially lie to you, but not fully live. >> they do not believe they have ever supported -- >> a single letter in the state department quoted dissection which is incredible to believe that section of the letter you buy into. let me ask you this. the red cross on the president's december 17th announcement was to have access to cuban jails. >> we did not say the red cross would have access. >> i understand it was access to cuban jails. what do they have access to? >> i don't believe we said the cubans agree to that.

we were hoping international organizations would renew their discussions with the cuban government about those issues including the red cross and the u.n. >> has the red cross been able to get in freely? >> not that i know of. >> last question. a lot has been discussed here about the period in late february the first vice president who senator boxer referred to as looking like the next air in an election. first of all, there is no election in 2018. it is a selection. there is no election. can we agree i'm not? >> we can agree with the cuban government calls an election is not what we believe meet standards. >> is the cuban communist party. i don't want anyone think they were working on an election in 2018. he gave a lot of rambling speech second-highest official about the internet in cuba.

one of the most revealing statements was the affirmation the regime internet strategy would be led by the communist party. given the communist party's half-century long effort to the pride of the cuban people of the most minimal standards of freedom of the press and information which you have the committee believed the communist party won't make every possible effort to block access to all content it deems undesirable similar to what we've seen another close societies around the world? >> senator when more people have access to the internet even if governments try to prevent them seen things they don't want them to comment they are remarkably inventive in finding ways to do that. >> so let me ask you this. can we have your assurances that the state department in the united states government will take all possible steps to ensure that the cuban people

have access to circumnavigation technologies that would be able to get around regime censorship? if we say we want u.s. companies to go and develop the infrastructure in cuba, surely we can of circumvention technologies of the cuban people are truly free to go see any site they want. not only that what the regime wants them to say. >> certainly i hope the majority in the vast majority or all of the cuban people will have complete access to the internet. >> hope is not a policy achievement. i am asking you if we are going to license companies to go ahead and put infrastructure in cuba, can we make a condition of the license that they have circumnavigation technologies so senator flake and senator udall and everyone who wants access for the cuban people actually can get access to the internet? what is so difficult about

circumvention technology? >> i? >> i don't know that we can do that. >> any condition if they want as a condition of sale. i wrote that section of the law when i was in the house of representatives. i know what he says and you can put conditions on it. i hope to hear back from you whether you will insist on not as an ability to have u.s. companies. everyone access for the cuban people to have access to the internet, which i do. >> i do as well senator, but i want the deals to go through and make it the most effective way that more on the island -- >> a deal without full access to the internet is an end without access to the critical information we think and hope to grade the cuban people. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. any other questions? i want to thank the committee again. there's a lot of diversity is that the proposed new policy.

a policy has been implemented and i want to thank the witnesses for being here. the record will be opened without objection until the close of business thursday. if you has to promptly be depreciated. thank you for your service to our country. with that, we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> yesterday in the senate, senator ray and paul spoke for over 10 hours about his opposition to the patriot act and the nsa collection of phone records. the senate is expected to vote on the renewal of the patriot act later this week. here is the first 45 minutes of senator paul's remarks. >> there comes a time -- there comes a time in the history of nations when fear and complacency allow power to accumulate in liberty and privacy to suffer. that time is now. and i will not let the patriot act, the most unpatriotic of

acts go unchallenged. at the very least, we should debate. should debate whether or not we can relinquish our rights or whether or not we are going to have a fall enable debate over whether or not we can live within the constitution or whether or not we have to go around the constitution. the full collection of all americans own records all of the time is a direct violation of the fourth amendment. the second appeals court has ruled it illegal. the president began this program by executive order. he should have immediately ended the executive order. for over a year now he has said the program is illegal and yet he does nothing. he says congress can get rid of the pastry back. congress can get rid of the collection and yet he has the

power to do it at his fingertips. he began this illegal program. the court has informed him the program is illegal. he has every power to stop it and yet the president does nothing. justice brandeis wrote that the right to be left alone is the most cherished of rights. most prized among civilized men. the amendment incorporates this right to privacy. the fourth amendment incorporates the right to be left alone. when we think about the full collection of records, you might ask well maybe i'm willing to give up my freedom for security. maybe if i give up a little freedom of the more safe. most of the information that comes on whether you're safer to comes to people who have secret information that you are not allowed to look at. you have to trust the people.

you have to trust the intelligence community that they are being honest with you, that when they tell you how important the programs are and you must give up freedoms. you must get at the amendment when they tell you guys. you have to trust them. the problem is we are having a great deal of difficulty trusting these people. when james clapper the head of the intelligence agency director of national intelligence was asked point-blank, are you collecting the phone records of americans involved, he said no. it turns out that was dishonest and yet president obama set in-place. so when they say how important these programs are how they keep them safe from terrorists we have to trust someone who lied to a congressional committee. it is a felony to lie to a

congressional committee and nothing has been done about this. a year ago we began having the debate. here is a warrant for all of the phone records from verizon. can you say well, maybe they have evidence for doing something wrong. there is no evidence. they want everyone's phone records. i don't have a problem with going after terrorists and getting their records. you should call a judge. you should say the name of the terrorist and get their records, as much as you want. if i'm a judge and they asked me for the boston bomber, the russians have investigated them. they went back to chechnya and no one asked to look at this stuff. and then we had the disaster of the boston marathon. i would make the argument that we spend so much time getting

the haystack bigger and bigger and bigger that we can't find the needle. we keep making it bigger and bigger in taking resources away from the human analysts who should be looking at dean wins tomorrow travels outside our country. we recently had another terrorist travel from phoenix to texas. we had arrested him previously. my guess is there was sufficient cause, probable cause for a real warrant to look at his activities and we should. but i don't think we're any safer safer looking at americans records. when this came up the government said we've captured 52 terrorists because of this. but when the president on privacy commission looked at all 52 there was a debate about whether one had been aided by not found by these records. it would have been found by other records. we have to decide if the country

whether we value our bill of rights, whether we value our privacy or whether we are willing to give that up to feel safer. i'm not sure you can argue we are safer, but people will argue they feel safer. but think about it. is the standard if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, but that everything should be exposed to the government, that all of your records can be collected. some will say these are boring old business records. why would you care if they could find out who called and how long he spoke on the phone. two stanford students did a study of this. they got an up and they put the app on the phone voluntarily for 500 people. these people made phone calls and all they looked at was how long they spoke, metadata in who they spoke to the phone number

they were connected to you. but they found was about any other information can be a defect of some of the time they could tell of their religion was. 70% of the time they get out of their doctor was what medications they took, what diseases they had. the government shouldn't have the ability to get that information unless they have a suspicion, unless they have probable cause that you committed a crime. the appeals court when they looked at this was flabbergasted that the government would make the argument that this was somehow relevant to an investigation. that is what the standard is. the standard is probable cause, which means there is some evidence for a suspicion that you've done something illegal. the standard now is relevant which means that the relevant to an investigation but of course i'd even the looser standard of

relevance they said that completely destroyed any meaning of any word if we say every american's phone records and the whole country somehow relevant to investigation. but it gets worse. they don't have to prove it. they say the court. there is no debate. but lisa was until this court ruling was appealed. we had the second appeals court that said the collection is illegal. there are many different programs going on. this is the only one we know about that our government is collect records and the only reason we know about it is not because the government was honest with you. the government was dishonest. the director of national intelligence try to basically lied to the american people and

say it didn't exist. so we know about this one. what other programs are out there? there's something called executive order 12333. some believe this is just the tip of the iceberg. there's an enormous amount of data being collected on people through the other program. one question is there's no fourth amendment protection to your records. are they collecting your credit card bills? i don't know the truth of that. i would sure like to know. i don't know whether to trust their answer if i asked them, if they'll be honest about collecting credit card records. people might say credit card records are boring old business records. why would you care? think about it. if the government has to be said though that can tell whether you drink whether you smoke what restaurants to go to, what magazines or books you read,

what doctors to see, medicines you back do you gamble. all of these things determined. not only can they determine directly from your phone bill in visa bill, they now have the ability to merge all of this information. apparently they have the ability to collect your contact list in a way that is somewhat nefarious. we are supposed to be spying on foreigners. foreigners that might attack us i am all for that. what happens is a lot of data that goes in and out of the country. sometimes an e-mail from the two colorado might go through a server in brazil. once he gets to a server in brazil, they cannot only look at your map the data how long in who you talk to the content is now available. it has all been analyzed. they are doing a social network of who you friends are.

some have said this could potentially have a chilling effect on the first amendment. there was a time in our country not too long ago in the lifetime of most of us win if you had called the naacp as you might not want your neighbors to know if you remember come you might not want your neighbors to know. if you are calling the aclu or a member of the aclu you might not want your neighbors to know. you can have a chilling effect on expression of your speech. who you associate with and whether or not you are fearful to have association with people because you are fearful of the knowledge might be known by the government. people say only that would never happen. during the civil rights era many civil rights leaders were spied upon a legally to illegal

wiretaps. many vietnam war protesters were also spied upon illegally by the government. the reason we have the fourth amendment is to have checks and balances. everything great about our country are checks and balances. so let's say you have a murder in washington d.c. a is 3:00 in the morning and they think they are inside. if there is no promotion or noise they stand outside and get on their cell phone and called the judge. almost always the judge grants awarded in the police go in. why do you want that to happen. some people come up to me and then the police vans or i work for the fbi. don't you trust us? it isn't about the individual. laws are in our whether we trust one person or your brothers the policeman wouldn't do anything wrong. it's not about your brother.

it's not about your friend. if the potential for brought an apple someone who would take the power and abuse of power. we have laws not for most of us. it is for something out of the ordinary, but also to prevent systemic bias from entering into the situation. for example, there was a time in the south when it might have been the person from the government might have decided they were going into the home of a black person because of racial bias. you have checks and balances. you have me for permission. when we were leading up to the war are independent and 1761 i believe james otis was arguing against something called writs of assistance.

with his assistants was a type of warrant, but a generalized warning. no one's name is on there. they said you're welcome to search anybody's has to make sure they are paying for the stamp tax. you wonder why the columnist hate the stamp tax. it was the fact the government could break the door down, common and rifle through papers. with that assistance was something called a general warrants. the ballot had gone on in not in england and develop as one of the precious rights we kept from the english tradition. john adams wrote about james otis fighting against the general warrants and he said it was the spark that led to the american revolution. this is how important this is. the fourth amendment was a big big deal to our founders. the right to privacy as justice

brandeis said, the most cherished of rights is a big big deal. we shouldn't be so fearful that we are willing to relinquish the right should without a spirited debate. the debate over the patriot act which insurance holiday goes on about every three years or so. it has a sunset provision. it is expected to expire in the next few days. we admired the debate over trade. another debate over the highway bill and the word is we will get time to debate whether or not we are going to abridge the fourth amendment, whether or not we are going to accept something that one of the highest courts in our land has that is illegal. are we going to accept that without any debate? i for one say there needs to be a thorough debate a thorough and complete debate about

whether or not we should allow our government to collect all of our phone records all of the time. in england, about the time of james otis. another man by the name of john wilkes. i learned about this story in reading senator lee spoke recently. john wilkes of a rabble-rouser coming to center. some called him a libertine. i know he wasn't afraid of the king. the king was becoming more and more powerful at that time. sir john was began his own newspaper and is called the north britain. he labeled the numbers. they became the north britain number 45. it was so famous throughout england but it was also part of our abm, part of our language in the united states. everyone knew a 45 was if you

mentioned it. he wrote something about the king. it would be an octet in our day and he made the mistake that it was the equivalent of prostitution. this did not make the king very happy. so the king without a warrant for the rest of anybody that has to do with the writing of this number 45. but the war it didn't have anybody's name on it. he said arrest anybody. so they broke down john wilkes story. it ruins the content is then took him to the tower of london. they did the same to 49 other people. john wilkes wasn't about to take it down said john wilkes then decided that he would sue the king. i tried doing the same thing.

it hasn't gone so well. the thing is everybody got to think that they have the ability and the equality to suit even our leaders. something remarkable happened. this is in the early 1780s. when king he actually won. the award was like a thousand pounds which the a significant amount of money of her. but it was part of the discussion going on. it was a big big deal. selloff in my party would do such a great job talking about the second amendment and the right to bear arms and i am all for that. i don't think you can adequately aside the second amendment must to protect the fourth amendment. the right to privacy, the right to me house, your house is your

castle to not have your castle and they did is so important. i'll give you an example. a few years ago a lot of people think we will be safer if we collect on records. they have them in westchester county near newark city. newspapers decided they would publish them. they really didn't think this through but you can see the danger of what happens when the government has records and releases them to everybody. imagine if you are a woman who's abused or beaten by her husband has left him. she lives in fear of him finding her another registration comes out and says where she lives -- she has a god overseer where she lives in she doesn't have a gun. think of our prosecutors and judges. i know many of them who put bad people away and many of them have concealed carry.

the security meets in the parking lot and they go to work. but they worry. we've had shared some prosecutors killed in kentucky because the criminals were locked up. we don't want all of our records by the government to be put out there in public for everybody to know where we live in whether we have a gun or not. so you can see why the issue of privacy is not a small issue. it is a big issue that is incredibly important to our founding fathers. sometimes that it is too late. it's too late to even get this back. there have been articles written in the last few weeks that say whether the patriot act expires or not, the government will keep on doing what they are doing. there is a provision in the patriot act that says an investigation begun before the deadline can go on in perpetuity. the other thing is there are people now writing because john

napier time the internet watchdog rose t. believe it is really allowing the president to the article to authorities. article to give the executive branch different powers. that these aren't unlimited power. some say he has absolute power when it comes to war. article ii comes after article i and article i section eight president was told he doesn't get to initiate war. the most basic of powers with regard to war were not actually given to the president. they were given to congress. what is going on now is congress hasn't shown the insufficient

interest in what the executive branch does on a host of things. whether it be regulation or the enormous bureaucracy, and is so much power has shifted and gone from congress and wound up from the executive. the same way with intelligence. we have intelligence committees. the question is are they asking sufficient questions? senator wyden has been a leader in this and he and i worked together but he's really the leader because he's been on the intelligence committee that he has more information. but he has at times been hamstrung because it is told to you and your not allowed to talk about it. sometimes it makes sense if you want to speak out not to actually learn through the official channels but to read the internet because if you read about it you can't do anything even if the government is lying about it.

we are talking about an enormous amount of information. we talk about all of your phone records all of the time. recently there was some complaint by people in the newspaper and they said the government is only getting a third of their record. some want them to get more of your records. the object is evidence is that we've never gotten anyone independently of this. some people are so fearful of like how can we get terrorists? we'll be overrun with terrorists and isis will be in every drugstore in every house in america if we don't get rid of the constitution if we don't let everyone pass the word. that is what we do under the patriot act. the patriot act allows the police to write their own war in. this is one of the fundamental

separations. this is one of the most important things we did two separate police power of the judiciary, to have a check and balance so you would never get systemic bias promise he would never get racial bias in the judicial system. we separated these powers. we now let the police )-right-paren warrior. it is the fbi, that they are domestic police. the fbi )-right-paren warrants. these are national security letters and they don't have to be signed by a judge. there is no probable cause. if they come to your house there's no ability to complain. sometimes they now come into our house without us knowing about it. this has caught a sneak and peek warrant. like everything out the

government says we will be overrun with terrorists if they don't want the government quietly sneak into your house when you are gone and the listening devices, search their papers and read stuff while you're gone. you don't have to have probable cause necessarily. it is a lower standard. we are letting the fbi right is about a judge reviewing it. i have a good friend. i played golf with him. do you trust me? i do trust him. but i don't trust everybody. madison said his government were comprised of angels we would need instructions. patrick henry said the constitution about restriction in retaining the power of government isn't about the vast majority of good people who work in government. it is about preventing the bad apples that one bad person who might get into government in

abuse the rights of individuals. some say the nsa has never abused anyone's rights. that may or may not be true. we don't get to independently look at the information. it's the same group said they weren't doing any collection of data at all. it isn't really the end of the story because the story should be we don't want to allow the abuse of power have been. as the debate unfolded the first time for the ping backs something that happens frequently around here, there's not enough time. hurry up, hurry up. there's not enough time. kind of like the debate right now. the patriot act and not sure must reassert ourselves at this moment that we will have any debate over a period we've known it was coming in the question is

do we not have enough time because we are going to relinquish our right to constrict our rights to the bill of rights even though we know it's coming out. we have to do something else that occupies all of our time. senator why did and i have a series of amendments. our amendments they try to reform some of this. our amendments would say nfl national security letters can be signed by the police and they would have to go to a judge. people argue how we catch terrorism. the same way other people who are dangerous. when you look at the work process for criminal warrants warrants are out were turned down. or just a simple check and balance of having the police called a judge is a fundamental aspect of our jurisprudence.

we gave it up so quickly. we gave it up so quickly in 9/11. the thing is when the patriot act came forward most people didn't read it. there was a lack of substitution. seminars and simply passed in a state of fear. as we look at what happened at that time we now have the ability to look backwards and say is there another way? we start with the doctrine. barry o. date dating back to the times of magna carta. our castle now in papers are different now. the supreme court hasn't caught up. they are getting a but this

needs to be discussed at the supreme court level. we don't keep our papers in our house anymore. in fact come with gone with such a paperless society than 90% of the paper if you are under 30 years old 100% of your papers held somewhere else. the question we have to ask is do you retain a privacy interest in your records? when the phone company holds your records, do they have an obligation to keep them private? do you obtain a privacy interest? if the government wants records from the phone company, should they be allowed to write the name verizon and let the records for verizon. i think if john smith had his phone service with verizon is a terrorist, the more it should say john smith and go to verizon but it's an individualized warrants. i don't think we should have generalized warrants. there are some who want to

replace the full collection of records with a different system for the phone company holds the records. i'm also concerned about this. for one big reason the recent court case has said now the patriot act does not justify the collection of records. it is actually illegal under that. i am concerned since the court is saying section 215 dozen allow collection that in trying to reform the what is called the u.s.a. freedom we will be creating new power to section 215 at the court says it's not fair. it stands logic on its head to say rather than means nothing. the whole country could be relevant. whether or not there's a full

investigation who gets to decide where to decide or define what an investigation is. the bottom line is we get to that when we move forward we decide whether our fear is going to get the better of us. once upon a time we had a standard in our country that was innocent until proven guilty. we have given up on so much. now people talk about a standard but if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. think about it. is that the standard we are willing to live under? think about whether think about what the records is held by credit card companies your bank or the phone company whether you believe you have a privacy interest in nice. in the patriot act they did something to make it easier to collect records and overwrite the policy agreement.

if you read the nitty-gritty when you you see search engine merger on the internet, and he voluntarily say the information will be shared in an anonymous way the promise they are giving your name to somebody. phone companies the same privacy arrangement, privacy agreement. what has happened through the pager he backed was and liability protection. at first blush you might say we have too many lawsuits. way too many lawsuits. i am for cutting back on monsters. at the same time if you give the phone company or the internet company or credit card company immunity to ignore your privacy agreement, they well. so the new system said the government storing billions and billions of record in utah we will still start billions and billions of records in the phone company but the question is will

the access them in a general way. if you look for a person is defined, the person could be a corporation. i don't think you should have a warrant this is verizon gets all the records for all the customers. the other thing than going on but they haven't been completely honest with and we may have some data is the government going inside the software. people like facebook give access to the source code so the government can get in. he facebook's credit, they are fighting them and more companies are standing up and trying to fight against this. the government is going in a nefarious way and inserting my way or into other people's facebook and spreading it throughout the internet. the government was looking at communication between two nodes. so you communicate with google

in its encrypted but when google has a datacenter that talks to a non-encrypted and the government is simply looking after the cable and siphoning records. there is a danger that you have no privacy left in the end of it. the fourth amendment is very specific. you have to individualize a warrant. you have to put a name on the warrant. you have to say specifically what records you want. you have to stay where they are located and you have to ask a judge for permission. the sneak and peek warrants i was talking about before section to third team is now permanent law. we can repeal it and i'll have an amendment to repeal it. this is where the government doesn't secretly and say we need the lower standard because terrorists will get us if we don't. we've now had it on the books for decades.

we are getting drug people buying selling using drugs. it also leads me to something else about the patriot act that really bothers me is when i started talking about the standards going from probable cause to articulable suspicion down to relevance, we said we are going to lower standards because were going after foreigners. are not americans and really there can be some debate in favor. when we first did it we said you couldn't use the information for a domestic crime. i'll give you the example. i asked one of the intelligence folks at one time to answer this. let's say the government comes in through a sneak and peek warrants. don't tell me they're in your house.

you are not a terrorist but you have painting your house that you got three losses business expense and you are painting your house and home, which is a tax violation. if a domestic crime. they said you were a terrorist. they just are wrong, but they found out you are not perfectly honest with taxes. they've gotten to lower the standard. ultimately if we let them collect the record and let domestic crime be prosecuted we could have the government 53 or credit card records because they see the fourth amendment doesn't protect records. not the content just all of the data putting it together mashing it in deciding maybe you're someone who runs traffic light by your footprint, your digital footprint. the thing is we are now taking something intended to capture foreigners and we capture people

domestically and prosecute them. specifically they promised us never to do. things worse than they get jagr and bigger. we can have a valid debate about whether we've gone too far but we got to at least have a debate. should we get together and say let's devote our week two days. i've been asking for a while to have a full day and have five or six amendments that senator wyden and i could put florida and have a full-fledged debate whether or not the bull collection of records is something we should continue to do. if you look at this say where are the american people on this? there has been poll after poll well over half the people maybe 60% of the people think the government has gone too far. if you want an example of why

the senate and congress doesn't represent the people very well or why we are a decade behind i bet 20% of the people here would vote to stop this at the most are as a 60% 70% of the public would stop these things. you are not well represented. but congress is maybe a decade behind the people. this is an argument for why we should live in terms. it's an argument for why we should have more turnover in office because we didn't appear and we stay too long and we get separated from the people. but people don't want the bull collection of their records and if we were listening we would hear that. the vote in the house while i don't think the bill is perfect and it may continue collection was over 300 those two and the program to say we will no longer

have a collection and yet it looks like the majority of the body still says we need both collection. the biggest complaint is we are not collecting enough records. we need to collect more records. can you have security and liberty at the same time? i had breakfast at the high ranking official from our intelligence community six months ago and i asked him how much information you get from metadata and how much do you end up getting from a warrant. he says without question you get more from a warrant. people talk about whether we go one hop or two hops.

-- they say the words are slow and put more judges on the court. if they say that the judges on 24 hour alert that you call them at 3:00 in the morning. we do it every night all across america call judges in the middle of the night. i see no reason why you can't have security and constitution at the same time. the president instituted a privacy and civil rights board and they went through a lot of days. some of the things they came up with were truly astounding. the amount of information is mind-boggling of what is being up in this. there is something called section 70205 that and this has allowed them to collect

information on americans communicating with a foreigner. it goes down in the polls and just becomes this enormous amount of information. when they looked at some of this recently the "washington post" looked at this and found nine of 10 intercepted conversations were not the intended target. i think there was one estimate and lassie read 89 dozen target but if you multiply that and say that is only one 10th of what we actually take, you are now looking at 900000 records of people who had nothing to do with terrorism. they intimately tied to a person you talked to the person. it could be the terrorists called papa john's and you are now the same phone true network. it can ripple out in waves. the information should be collected. it shouldn't be put in a database and it shouldn't be stored. ultimately we collect so much

information as all of your information. one thing that should concern us about the system when the government collects these in stores them in utah is actually some people in the msa are acquiescing dave notes about. that concerns me is the msa says not to bad. it concerns me we still have no collection. the debate we really need to have is whether or not your record if someone else is holding them if you still have any privacy interest in your records. i personally think your phone records are still partially yours in a way where you have a privacy interest in them. this will become very important because records -- they won't be any records in your house. they will be on your phone and your phone records are connected to the company who owns them. do you have a right to privacy

in those records. i think you can have security and freedom at the same time. if we are not careful this'll get away from us. when they found out nine out of 10 intercepts were not the intended target just ancillary connection they picked. they also found 50% contained in all addresses that were u.s. citizens. let's say you collect a million pieces of information and you are gathering this up in your intended to go after foreign targets. but over half of the information, much of it incidentally gained are actually u.s. citizens. it is sort of an end run that caught back your search is but a sort of in and run that has gone around the constitution, gone around the fourth amendment to collect information we have

actually said should be illegal to be collected that way but we do it because we've done an end run around. also realize you can send an e-mail from virginia to south carolina to a new server and brazil. if your e-mail goes or a foreign server everything is done. the constitution out the door and they can collect that. even the content. it is never revealed to you. nothing never presented to you. it is all done with no advocate on your side. >> we go live now to the u.s. senate for members to turn to work on the trade promotion authority bill after work was delayed yesterday due to rand paul ten-hour speech and collection of american phone records. the chamber plans to hold a vote to advance the measure at 10:00 a.m. eastern with the 60

votes needed to move forward. also exiting the highway trust fund which expires at the end of the month. life here on c-span2. on' the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, from generation to generation we will speak of your greatness.

your voice is full of majesty, and we sense your glory in the thunder. you sit enthroned as king forever. thank you for the strength you give to all who love you and for the blessings you bestow upon america. lord bless our senators. today, guide their thoughts and speech. lead them on paths that will keep our nation strong. may they conduct the work of freedom with justice and humility. we pray in your holy name. amen.

the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to h.r. 2048. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 87, h.r. 2048, an act to reform the authorities of the federal government to require the production of certain business records and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk for

the motion to proceed. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the 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 debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 2048, an act to reform the authorities of the federal government to require the production of certain business records and so forth and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators as follow. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i withdraw the month eggs to proceed to h.r. 20 48. the presiding officer: the senate has that right. the motion is withdrawn. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to s. 1357. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 86, s. 1357, a bill to extend authority relating to roving surveillance and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to s. 1357.

i already did that, right? the presiding officer: the question has been made. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk on the motion to proceed. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the 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 debate on the motion to proceed to s. 1357 a bill to extend authority relating to roving surveillance and so forth and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the snaims be dispensed -- names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture motion on the hatch amendment number 1221 be waived. mr. reid: mr. president reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: no objection. the presiding officer: without objection, so moved. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i understand there is a bill at the desk that is due a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 2353, an act to

provide an extension of federal aid highway and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceeding. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

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, the senate will shortly vote on cloture -- the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 1314,

which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 58, h.r. 1314, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth. the presiding officer: under the previous order the time until 10:00 a.m. will be equally divided in the usual form. the senator from utah. mr. hatch: thank you mr. president. mr. president, the senate will shortly vote on cloture on the hatch substitute amendment legislation to renew trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance. i know that some of my colleagues have concerns about the process. let me say that i also share those concerns. from the very beginning of our discussions over three years ago on the renewal of t.p.a., i have done all that i could to listen to all my colleagues and address their concerns. i first worked with chairman baucus to find a way to update t.p.a. in a way that addresses many of the issues that had ariz risen -- had arisen since 2002, including concerns over labor

and the environment. when senator wyden became chairman of the finance committee, i again went to the negotiating table to again try to address many of the transparency and procedural issues. that he raised. and we again came to a bipartisan compromise. and when many of my senate colleagues said renewal of t.a.a. was a necessary component to passing t.p.a. i again did my best to meet those concerns even though i myself have significant reservations about the program. and throughout the finance committee consideration i tried to conduct an open and fair process which allowed many members of the committee even those who oppose t.p.a., the opportunity to be heard and have their amendments adopted. as a result, the committee reported out four pieces of trade legislation all with strong bipartisan support. i'll acknowledge that the process on the floor has not gone the way that any of us would have liked.

at the outset of this endeavor, i stated my commitment to a full fair and open debate over our t.p.a. legislation. the majority leader made a similar commitment and i know that was our intention. indeed, from the very beginning we had planned to hear everyone's arguments and consider a number of amendments. this is how the senate is supposed to function, mr. president, and once again we intended to let it function that way. unfortunately, there were some who didn't want to let that happen. they were from the very beginning committed to slowwalking this process and preventing regular order. that's just a fact, mr. president. i know that there are some who want to blame the majority leader for filing cloture and trying to move this process forward and i'm sure that some are thinking of voting against cloture this motion in protest. that would be a grave mistake mr. president. let me remind my colleagues that we tried to move to the bill at the beginning of last week.

reconciliation after many recent long days on the floor that seems like a long time ago but i think everyone here can recall what happened. we attempted to get on the bill and were prevented from doing so after we found a way to address our colleagues' concerns, we were finally able to begin debate on the t.p.a. bill. but even then the process was slow going. as debate began the majority leader attempted to keep the senate open on friday and into the weekend to allow senators to debate and offer amendments. however, the senate minority leader objected, which prevented the process from moving forward and set us back even further. then we came to this week and debate finally began in ernest. shortly thereafter a new strategy emerged wholly supported by opponents of t.p.a. the strategy has been simple -- prevent any amendments from being called up and the object to any and all unanimous consent

requests. i've been here on the floor all week mr. president. i've witnessed firsthand the deployment of this plan to frustrate the process and to prevent a full and fair debate on trade policy. and now here we are facing a cloture vote and the prospect of cutting off debate. it's unfortunate that it's come to this, but given the total lack of cooperation we faced and continue to face on this bill this is really the only option left. invoking cloture is not the end. if we can get agreement with our colleagues, i expect there will still be opportunities to call up and vote on amendments. but we can't just sit around and wait for solutions to come together on their own. if any senator has a proposal to -- for a path forward that will reasonably satisfy the various demands and objections that have been raised and allows us to break the logjam on amendments i'm all ears. until then, our only choice is

to press forward. we could extend this debate forever mr. president and still not satisfy every demand. there's no question about that. but this bill is far too important. i've done all i can to address legitimate concerns. as a result, the bill is supported by myself chairman ryan of the house ways and means committee ranking member wyden of the finance committee and most importantly the president of the united states. let's be real here. we need to get this bill passed. just this morning i read that a ministerial that was to begin this month has been canceled in large part due to the fact that congress has not approved this bill. our nation's economic health and prestige are on the line here today. the t.p.a. bill is the only way congress can effectively assert its priorities in our own going trade fltionz.

-- trade negotiations. it's the only way that we can ensure that our trade negotiators can reach good deals with our trading partners. and it's the only way we can ensure that our pending trade agreements even have a shot at reaching the finish line. and i've stated many times here on the floor this week, i'm well aware that some of our colleagues here in the senate oppose this bill outright and will do everything in their power to keep it from passing. and, as much as i've tried to change hearts and minds on these issues, there's very little that i can do about that. but i also know that there is a bipartisan majority of senators who support t.p.a. and who despite concerns about process want to get this done. we're still in a position to reach a positive outcome on this bill. i said at the beginning of this debate that this was quite possibly the most important debate that we'll have this year in congress.

it is president obama's top legislative priority. it is a very high priority for many of us in congress. and on the substance, this is a good t.p.a. bill one that senators from both parties can support. it needs to pass, mr. president. we need to pass it for the american workers who want good, high-paying jobs. with he need to pass it for our farmers, ranchers, manufacturers and entrepreneurs who need access to foreign markets in order to compete. we need to pass it to maintain our standing in the world and continue to advance american values and interests in the -- on the world stage. and we need to pass it to demonstrate to the american people that despite our many disagreements, their elected representatives are capable of addressing important issues and solving real problems. there is a path forward here one that will still allow us to be successful. but in order to get there we

need senators to support cloture this motion. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting "yes" on cloture. it's crucial. it's of paramount concern. it's something very highly wished for by the president of the united states and by a bipartisan majority in this body. so i hope that we will vote "yes" on cloture here today. and with that, i yield the floor mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president i thank the president for an opportunity to share some remarks and do believe that senator hatch allowed a good debate and senator wyden and the committee. unfortunately, we've not been able to have the kind of amendment that they were -- that they allowed on the floor of the senate so we're moving to this massive bill with very little

debate even on the fast-track policy. and if that's adopted and the bill -- t.p.p. appears there will be no amendments on it. in a few moments we'll be voting on whether or not to shut off debate on the fast-track authority legislation. i see no reason that we have to rush this. i would just note that we've got the highway bill that's expiring. we've got the patriot act expiring. those are crisis that need to be dealt with this week. this bill does not have to be done in that fashion. and this will be a crucial vote. fast-track is an affirmative decision by congress to suspend several of its most basic powers for the next six years and to delegate those powers to the chief executive. under fast-track procedure the president, not congress writes implementing legislation for any yet unseen global pact. what the legislation -- that legislation no matter its

contents cannot be amended in any fashion. no individual member of congress can alter any line of text or remove a single provision that violates the will of congress. that legislation once called up is guaranteed a speedy path forward, only 20 hours of debate, and the vote threshold is lowered to a simple majority. no matter how far-reaching the global trade agreement. congress cannot subject it to 60 votes, as applied to important legislation before the senate or 67 votes if it were a treaty, as it really should be. congress will have preapproved swift consideration of this sweeping global pact before the text has been made available and seen by a single member of this body or the american people. so, as usual through these

processes and too often amendments are being constricted and blocked through one maneuver or another. the net result is we're coming down to a cloture vote without any amendments having been voted on. so two weeks ago mr. president i send a letter to the president of the united states asking how fast-track and the vast trans-pacific partnership would impact the jobs and wages of american workers. a simple question. would it increase or reduce manufacturing jobs and wages in the united states? shouldn't we know that? is that a question improper to be asked? he's refused to answer. i think the reason he's refused to answer is because the answer is not good. it will not be well received. and so they want us to shut off debate move forward without having knees fundamental questions -- having these

fundamental questions answered. for too long, the united states has entered into trade deals on the promise of economic bounty only to see workers impoverished and businesses disappear. ben dimica, the chairman emeritus of newport steel explains that this is because -- these trade -- these free trade deals haven't been free trade deals at all. instead, they've been -- quote -- -- "unilateral trade disarmament," where we lower our barriers to foreign imports but they retain their barriers to our exports to these countries. this is what is fundamentally at stake here. a lot of people in their religious view of free trade don't care whether other countries have barriers. their view is we should welcome more inputs -- or more imports.

so mr. dimico has called this the enablement of foreign america -- mercantileism too often a philosophy that is present around the world and certainly in the asian sector. so consider this in context of automobiles. the "wall street journal" published a story two days ago about the how the american auto sector could be jeopardized by t.p.p. the journal wrote -- quote -- "the transportation sector led by cars, the t.p.p. could boost imports of foreign cars by an extra $30.8 billion by 2028 -- 2025 compared with our export gain of $ 7.8 billion." so the import of automobiles would increase by $30.8 billion and on you are exports would be increased only $7.8 billion.

that was written -- a study written by peter pitri a professor of internal finance at brandeis university. well that's not going to add jobs. to add dramatically more imports than exports. so that's why we can't get an answer, perhaps. in other words job-killing imports would vastly exceed any growth in foreign exports putting more americans out of work. we've seen this story before. the south korean trade deal -- and i supported that. i have great respect for the south koreans and the japanese, too, and their business acumen, but the south korean trade deal, which was supposed to boost our exports by more than $10 billion

actually ended up increasing our exports less than $1 billion, $.8 billion, truth be known. instead, the bill boost the south korean imports to our country by more than $12 billion, nearly doubling the trade gap between our two nations, which was already large now they say well, this time it's different; trust us. give us six more years of executive authority to pass any global deal we like under fast-track. no deal has ever been blocked. well respectfully respectfully, the american people don't trust you. here is what the pew foundation or pew foundation or poll reported recently. 20% of americans think these trade agreements create jobs. 50% say it destroys jobs.

have we been adding jobs in manufacturing or losing jobs in manufacturing? we've been losing jobs in manufacturing. are the american people so wrong in that conclusion? 45% of americans think trade reduces wages. only 17% say it increases them. by contrast, 72% of vietnamese believe this trade agreement would increase their salaries. and because t.p.p. is a living agreement it can be changed after adoption. it says in the language of the agreement where it has this living agreement language that this is unprecedented the first time this has been put in a trade agreement. the congressional research service tells us that too. and so we're now creating a foreign international entity one more international entity with a commission that meets and votes and makes decisions that are binding on the united states

of america. frankly, i think this great nation is a -- exposing itself to too many of these agreements. and tying down the ability of the world's greatest power and economic engine, the united states is weakening our ability to function in the way that sovereignty should allow us to function. so dangerously this agreement creates a new governing global authority that would add new members at their choice change the terms of the agreement and even subject u.s. citizens to its ruling adjudicated in an international tribunal. it is this time -- it is time for congress to defend its shareholders, our shareholders shareholders -- the american people. it's time to return to the regular order, to the principles of sound governance and to

assert, not surrender the power of congress to the overreaching chief executive. so i'm therefore going to oppose shutting off debate. it actually has not even begun i am frustrated that two of my reasonable amendments i think would have a very good chance of passing have not -- have been blocked and aa-- apparently will not get a vote. and i don't think we have any need to shut off debate today to advance to a i bill where we've had too few amendments and where we've had a steadfast refusal by the president of the united states, who's pushing every way he can to get this agreement adopted, not guilty he answers the -- until he answers the question -- will it improve manufacturing or further reduce performing? as our previous agreement with korea did reduced manufacturing. will it increase jobs or reduce jobs?

all they promise is -- and they promise this repeatedly -- that it will increase jobs in the export sector. they don't say what it will do on net when you have three four times as much imports as you do exports. on net as in the past, it appears this agreement will clearly reduce jobs and reduce wages, too. and reduce manufacturing. we can't be a strong nation without a manufacturing sector. we just cannot. we can't be a strong nation without a steel industry. we just cannot. and we need to ensure in these trade agreements when we open our markets what these countries want so desperately -- access to the united states market -- that's something of great value. we should not give it away until they agree to open their markets.

that's what a good deal is. that is not what's in this deal, and it will not be in the agreement, and it will be like previous agreements. mr. president, how much time is left on this side? what's the time left on this side? the presiding officer: 13 minutes. mr. sessions: i don't see any others here, but -- so i'd just discuss that a little bit more. when mr. did a demico, who's been involved in trade for years says we're involved in mercantilism, what he's sailing is our trading partners have a goal that we don't seem to have, and that is to maximize their exports and

minimize their imports. they have a mercantilist philosophy. that philosophy allows them to put up non-trade barriers, nontariff barriers, to use currency manipulation and other tactics to make it difficult for the united states to penetrate their market. they say they've signed a trade agreement, and they'll agree on tariffs, for example but they still on net don't open their market effectively luke like we open our markets. that's the reality. and, as a result, we've had a continual decline in manufacturing. we've seen a surge in the -- we've seen a surge in our trade deficits. march was the highest trade deficit in almost a decade. the whole first quarter was

horrible. our trade deficits are increasing and if this agreement is passed, will it increase or decrease our trade deficits? isn't that a fair question to ask? will it increase or decrease our trade deficits? they will not answer. the answer is, unfortunately it's going to increase our trade deficits. we know that. if it were not true, they'd be hollering how great it's going to reduce our trade deficits. they would be saying, on net we're going to have more jobs. they would say wages would go up. but the truth is, we're not negotiating these agreements effectively, and the net result is it's going to weaken manufacturing, allow a reduction in jobs, and really put downward pressure on wages. so colleagues, i hate to choose

to oppose this legislation at this time, but i've come to that conclusion. i've supported most of our trade agreements in the past. i understand that we are in a global economy we've got trading partners around the world. there's no way we're going it reverse that. globalism is here to stay. we need to be a part of it, but it's time for our nation to protect our manufacturing and our workers from unfair competition. and we cannot take the view, as some do and say openly, that about opposing our carpetters -- our competitors manipulate their currency to make their products cheaper and they penetrate our market and close american businesses as a result. we cannot say that's all right. we got cheaper products.

don't worry about it. in the long run somewhere along the way, it will all work out. that is a guiding principle for the people pushing this legislation. they won't admit it -- at least the politicians won't publicly -- but weigh know that's we know that's the guiding principle. i say that's a mistake. i say that's an extreme position. i say that we do have an interest in protecting our jobs, our manufacturing and the ability of american people to have a good job to have a retirement plan, to have an insurance policy. i think that's important. so i would urge that we back off this agreement now and let's real estate evaluate it and -- reevaluate it and have the president of the united states answer the question: would we create higher wages or lower wages? will we increase manufacturing or reduce manufacturing? will we increase wages or not? i thank the chair and reserve the balance of the time on this

side. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you mr. president. i echo the words of senator sessions my colleague from alabama. these free trade deals are not free trade. i mep mean, if they were free trade they'd be a couple of pages long that simply listed the tariffs that we're eliminating and said this is a collection of special interest deals that take us somewhere else from what the proponents say. senator sessions said something else interesting. he said this was really about jobs they'd be making claims about jobs. instead they make claims about geopolitics in china and all of that. that's fine, but there are certainly other ways to deal with that better than we have. and i just remember every -- you know we've seen big promises. we sue saw them from president bush as he negotiated nafta. we saw it from president clinton he's pushed nafta through congress. we saw it from president clinton

when he pushed pntr. we saw it with president bush the second with the central american free trade agreement and we're seeing it with president obama on south korea. on south korea, president obama and the administration increased a 70,000-increase in jobs. they always say more jobs and higher wages but then we ended up losing 75,000 jobs under the south korean free trade agreement. today we're voting on whether or not to end debate on the fast-track bill. if people are a little confused it's very understandable. wreer goingwe're going to end debate, but we've barely begun it. historically when we've done trade agreements in this town -- as bad as they've turned out to be for working families and places like reno and cleveland and smaller towns like mansfield and lima and jackson ohio --

when we have passed these trade agreements at least we've had open debate where we could open amendments. the last time we had senate debate was three weeks of debate. this is about three days. it was 50 amendments we considered. we've considered two so far. so the majority leader came to the floor at the end of the first full day of debate and said we're filing cloture to shut down debate. at the end of the first full day of debate, they began the process of shutting down debate. the majority leader promised an open process. i don't -- i don't get it when my democratic colleagues -- i guess i get it when the free trade fundamentalists here and people that are you know, not as independent as senator sessions but you know, the total party loyalists that will always vote with their leadership but i don't get it when democrats in this body who really do genuinely care about workers, why they're willing to shut down debate because the majority leader says, let's shut down debate. two votes we've had.

two votes on monday night. we haven't had votes since on this. six amendments pending -- six -- but votes for them haven't been scheduled. 200 amendments have been filed. 30 senators have filed eavmentz, a-- 30 senators have filed amendments some have filed multiple amendments. six amendments are pending even though the six amendments don't have any schedule on how they're going to be scheduled. even on the six -- two votes among day night. no votes on this issue since. and the six amendments themselves who knows what's -- how they're going to be disposed of much that's an open process. people on my side of the cy aisle are willing to shut down debate when 25 of their democratic colleagues and a half dozen republicans are also offing

amendments. 200 amendments filed by all my -- i just found this -- 46 senators have actually filed amendments. i erred conservatively. 46 amendments filed -- 200 amendments filed by 46 senators on an issue we haven't considered in 13 years and we're going to shut down debate at the end of the first day first full day of consideration. we had a truly open legislative process last time. i think it was a republican senate at that time. it was a very closely divided senate. we've been promised repeatedly that's what this underlying bill deserves it's what the american people deserve. keep in mind, this fast-track legislation is -- means that we will be considering -- opens the process, opens the door to two trade agreements that encompass 60% of the world's economy 40% of the world's economy in the trans-pacific partnership an

additional 20% with the so-called ttip agreement. after two votes the majority leader filed for cloture the end of the first day of debate. we've played this straight. we're simply asking for the senate to debate this legislation. and i really don't understand how any senator in either party when half the senate has offered amendments 200 of them and counting every day there are more amendments offered how we can shut down debate when 200 amendments have been filed by 46 senators. we're sumly asking for votes on our amendments. i don't care when we complete t i don't care if we right now defeat cloture and come up with some kind of u.c. to give us votes on 25 or 50 of these amendments with time scheduled so we can finish. i don't care if we finish today or friday or sat date or sunday or stay until memorial day or come back a week after and

finish this. it really doesn't matter about the time. i know a lot of my colleagues don't want to go home and have people who are angry because they know these trade agreements don't serve the public interest. we know there are millions of americans who have lost jobs because of decisions we make here. we make decisions here that throw people out of work and even "the wall street journal" editorial page, the greatest cheerleader, the most vyingous, vociferous cheerleader for free trade of any paper in the country, i believe even they acknowledge that people are thrown out of work because of trade agreements because of the dislocation. but we're going to leave here and we're going to vote on this without even having amendments on how to take care of those wroarks andworkers and how to do trade agreements. so amendments like the brown-portman leveling the playing field amendment, it was for all intents and purposes unanimously accepted. the finance committee has all kind of republican cosponsorship, all kinds of democratic cosponsorship. my colleagues in the leadership

in both parties here, even though the leadership in both parties doesn't reflect a majority of the members of both parties -- that's the way it is sometimes -- but we're asking for a vote on that. we haven't been given that yet an actual vote. there is a been promises, there's been nothing really substantive in the end. these provisions on level playing field are supported by the white house by house republicans who have asked them to be included in fast-track, they're supported by numbers of u.s. industries who face an onslaught of unfairly traded imports and need our trade remedy laws to be as strong as possible. we're not debating the brown-portman amendment of we're simply rushing to conclude consideration of the fast-track bill. we're fast-tracking this whole idea of a fast-track process. why stay good for our country? why is that good for our workers, for our small manufacturers and the supply chains of all these big industries why is that good for our communities? we've waited eight years and this has to be done today mr. president? eight years we've waited for

this and we had one full day of debate and then the majority leader shut down the debate. after one full day of debate to shut down debate. what we do in this fast-track bill will have implications for years to come. it will affect the trans-pacific partnership, the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, both represent more than half the world's economy. i ask for two additional minutes, ask unanimous consent for two additional minutes. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. mr. brown: thank you. this will affect both t.p.p., 40% of the world's economy and then a year or so later ttip, the trans-at language particular trade and ivestment partnership the u.s.-european union agreement. both permanent trade agreements, 40% t.p.p. of the economy 20% t-it up of the world's economy. this will -- ttip of the world's economy. this vote today will affect -- these are permanent trade agreements that represent a huge part of the world's economy. this bill will affect global labor standards it'll affect

global environmental standards it'll affect international property standards and more and more and more. that's why senator sessions has spoken out so effectively against it. that's why people in both parties are insisting that they get these amendments. that they are voteing voting against cloture until they get these amendments. why we're rushing to end debate before it's truly begun just is mystifying. regardless of with whether they support or oppose the underlying bill i hope my colleagues recognize the importance of getting fast-track legislation right, not getting it done by memorial day. some artificial deadline that somebody somewhere said but getting this trade legislation right. the senate has not given the bill the attention and deliberation it deserves. it has not given the amendment process the ability to get off the ground. i urge my colleagues to vote against cloture and ensure that a

reasonable number of amendments get considered. thank you mr. president.

mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president i can report that there's been an all-night effort to try to work this issue out to bring parties together particularly around our colleagues being able to offer more amendments and on the issue of the export-import bank, something that i favor very strongly and senator cantwell makes a very important point that you have trade agreements but it's also important to have financing tools, which is what the export-import bank is all about. so we have been working throughout the night to try to address both of those issues, export-import bank and the question of our colleagues being able to offer more amendments. mr. president, when you hear the words "t.p.a." and "t.p.p.," it sounds like a company that's been through too many mergers. but the fact is these terms are

enormously important to america's economic future. our markets are basically open. many countries hit us with double and triple-digit tariffs on our exports. export jobs often pay better than do the nonexport jobs because there's lots of value added in the process. the vote today will begin the effort to replace the outdated trade rules of the 1990's with a modern set of trade rules that can help america get more of those good-paying jobs. mr. president, when you talk about international trade the first thing you have to focus on

is the estimate is, in the developing world they're going to be -- there are going to be about a million middle-class consumers. those are middle-class consumers with money -- money in their pockets and they can buy american goods and american services. they can buy our wonderful ag products like oregon wine. they can buy helicopters and bicycles and planes and computers. there's enormous affection around the world for buying the american brand for buying the the brand. with modern trade rules we can make sure that our exporters are able to get the kinds of goods and services that those billion middle-class consumers are going to want to buy.

and that's always what drives a modern economy middle-class consumers buying goods and services a billion people in the developing world are going to on be in the middle class in 2025. chairman hatch is with me on the floor. what we have sought to do for now about seven months is replace the old 1990's playbook on trade with a modern one. and that was important because in the 1990's, nobody had iphones, nobody was texting. we're talking about a very different time. and here's an example. opponents have talked about and often with substantial legitimacy, talked about how there's so much secrecy in trade. if you believe deeplily in trade, as i -- deeply in trade as i do, and you want to have more of it, why would you have this secrecy that leaves the

american people with the view that something is being hidden back in washington d.c.? so chairman hatch and i came together and have put in place "the" most transparent policies on trade in our country's history. for example by law mr. president by law before the president of the united states the trans-pacific partnership that document has to be public for 60 days before the president signed it. on top of that, there are probably another two moves that take -- another two months that take place before anybody in the senate or anybody in the house on the floor of those bodies, actually votes. so what that means mr. president -- and i want to give the opportunity to my colleague to make closing remarks -- what it means is as part of the new day on trade policy, in the past a lot of

americans were in the dark about trade policy. now they will be able to come to a town hall meeting of their elected officials like the ones i plan to hold here in a few days at home, the american people will be able to come to a town hall meeting and starting with the trans-pacific partnership agreement have that document in their hands for close to four months before their elected representatives cast a vote. that's what chairman hatch and i have sought to do in terms of coming up with a modern trade policy. and i think it's appropriate that my colleague -- and i appreciate his partnership -- have a chance to wrap this up. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: well, i appreciate my partner and his -- his kind comments and his intelligent comments here this morning. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: