t.a.a., which we know we're going to need, is going to make it more acceptable on the house side when they made them take t.a.a. out and couldn't pass t.a.a. in the t.p.a. bill? it doesn't make any sense to me. so i think it's a sad day today i really do, and i'm concerned. i'm concerned about our country. i'm concerned about my hardworking people in west virginia. i know you are and all the other states that we have. these are good people and deserve a fair trade. they deserve a fair trading country. people that will trade honestly with us, that have integrity to stand up to, and we shouldn't sacrifice them to build them up. we'll have to assist them but they'll have to find their own markets to the point we don't sacrifice. i'm to the point this could be a troubling thing i'm hoping it's not but it could be. i have concerns, and i've said this -- if i can't explain it back home, i can't vote for it.

this is one mr. president i could not explain back home. i could not make the people feel comfortable this was going to improve the quality of life and opportunities for them and their families. i couldn't do it because i don't see it. i don't believe in it and i said i wouldn't vote for it and i didn't. with that, mr. president i see the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: mr. president i just want to say a few things about the vote we just took to

invoke cloture to move ahead and proceed with t.p.a. the gentleman -- the senator who just spoke talked about some of the problems with the deal and the dislocations that happen when we have trade. we all recognize there are dislocations. there are dislocations whenever an economy adjusts moves ahead, with or without trade. but trade overall is necessary. it's good. free trade is good. 95% of the world's consumers live outside of our boundaries. 70% of the world's economic output happens outside of our boundaries. we need to trade. we can't just say well, we're just going to live within ourselves here, have an economy that doesn't reach out or pull in. we benefit we benefit from better services, cheaper

goods, when we trade. our manufacturers benefit when we're able to export our products. it was said before that we haven't seen any good outcome after nafta. we have. it's rewriting history to say that we haven't seen a good outcomes as a result of nafta. it was mentioned the last speaker who spoke said that mexico has not improved since nafta. it has. i can tell you as a -- representing a state that borders on mexico, the economy is considerably bigger and better. arizona, one of our biggest trading partners. it has improved since nafta. these trade agreements work. we haven't had a trade agreement negotiated without the t.p.a. process with the exception of one i think in over 30 years. that was a deal with jordan that had far more to do with defense than commerce so we need to

have t.p.a. with this process in order to negotiate these trade agreements. and the vast majority of our trade, i believe it's close to 90% of our trade is with countries with whom we have treatments. so i -- trade agreements. i would applaud those who worked so hard to bring it to pass, senator hatch senator wyden and others and for the compromises that took place. i'm not a particular fan of trade adjustment assistance. when economies move forward you have dislocations. we can't account for all of them. in fact, we've seen some of the problems with previous t.a.a. assistance, i believe some of it went to those who were laid off at solyndra and with some of these -- these things that had very little to do with trade because the way you seek such assistance we don't do the best that we could to keep track of where those jobs were lost to. having said that, we all

recognize as the senator from texas said earlier that it's the price we pay -- t.a.a. is the price we pay to get t.p.a. and we recognize that in this body there are compromises that need to be made. that's how we move legislation. and that's how we get important legislation like t.p.a. passed so that we can have more free trade and our economy will benefit because of it. with that i yield back and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. flake: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to do away with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in >> a look at some of those who voted in favor on the democratic side, 13 democrats voted just. michael bennet maria cantwell, tom carper, chris coons, diane feinstein, heidi heitkamp --

>> here's more on the gop presidential candidate ted cruz who changed from its previous vote on a similar measure back in may when the trade legislation was bundle. political report subjected to a series of deals between senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and house speaker john boehner and senate democrats over an unrelated issue do with the export-import bank. he says a separate trade deal being worked out by president obama could change immigration laws and congress would not have the power to amend the. you can read more at politico.com. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to

the 114th congress with color photos of every senator and house member plus bio and contact information, and what rentals. also district maps a foldout map of capitol hill and you look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. it's $13.95 plus shipping and handling through the c-span online store at c-span.org. >> yesterday the supreme court announced its decisions on a number of cases. justices have heard of mr. burke they rolled 5-4 is unconstitutional for police in l.a. to search hotel guest registries without having sufficient. the rule invalidated an ordinance that requires hotel and motel owners to keep a list of the gas and let the police inspect them on demand. the court ruled that violated the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. here's the oral argument from march.

>> we will argument first this might in case 13-1175 the city of los angeles v. patel. mr. rosenkranz. >> thank you, thank you, and it please the court. this case is about whether to deprive scores of cities that one of the most effective tool that they have developed to deter human trafficking prostitution, and drug crimes that have seized the ground in america's hotels and motels. the ordinance in question is the least intrusive, inspection scheme that this court has ever encountered. it is limited to showing the police a single book containing all the information that the hotels transcribed specifically for the city and that they've been turning over to the police by operation of law for 150 years. >> first, two questions.

is the information that they been keeping for one in 50 years the same? because looking at the requirements the early information was basically somebody's name, and i'm not even sure there address. but today's information has or today's registry and requirements have information that federal law doesn't permit to be disclosed, like a driver's license, credit card information. i mean federal law says you can't disclose that information. isn't there a difference? it's not the same tradition over 150 years. >> you are right that the amount of information has increased. that privacy interests have been pretty much the same. it was name and address and the rate that they were charged and so forth, and that is the information that the hotels have argued is the most private.

>> right. all of the things that you see the most effective tool for trafficking, prostitution, child molestation, none of it sounds like it's the purpose of the search is administrative. >> it is administrative. i do understand why yet to focus first on the target. the target is not people who are accused of crimes. the target is the motels and hotels who are required to keep records, to record information. and why are they required to record information? for the deterrent purpose and to deter purpose more specifically is that criminals do not like to register. they do not like to record their information. >> mr. rosenkranz, are you saying then that the police can do this can request these records on demand and they don't have to have any reason at all no reasonable suspicion, no probable cause, nothing because

the purpose is deter people from staying in hotels who might do bad things? so nothing like a reasonable suspicion requirement. >> that's correct, your honor. it's the same rationale that this court adopted in berger that frequent unannounced spot inspections are necessary in order to achieve that deterrent purpose, that is the hotels do not record all the names, and more specifically a record most names but not the names of the test that they know are criminals, there is no way to know endless sea of this frequent unannounced inspection that someone is missing. so there's a real necessity or as there was in berger and in biswell. >> tom hoenig prosecutions there have been? i use the word both criminally or civil, for the failure to register people.

>> there have been numerous prosecutions. i can't tell you how many. the complaints in this case which are the beginning of the joint appendix, refer to the plaintiffs having been prosecuted multiple times or find for failure for failing to keep the record. i do want to underscore this point about necessity. the problem is not that the registers are empty. the problem is that the hotels declined to record the names of those who they know are criminals, or the motels do -- >> that has nothing to do with the free right to search. those people who are refusing to do are going to refuse to do it. a record-keeping requirement has no constitutional challenge. what does is the unfettered access to the record. >> agreed, your honor, and so let me just break it down. >> those people who don't want to do are not going to do

anyway. >> exactly. those people go somewhere else or to commit their crimes. if they are forced to do it, which is to say the motel will not let them stay there unless they register, then they will not commit those crimes in the motels. and the only way to make sure that the motels are enforcing that obligation is to descend on them without notice, as justice ginsburg was saying, and frequently, so that they never know when the police are going to come. why? to make sure that they are indeed recording the information. is the real-time observation key? it's because say the police show up and never registered as a notice about rule number two is unoccupied according to the register, dcc someone in room number two. they know only from real-time observation that there is a violation. if they could to register a month later, they have nothing to compare it. >> you mean they can walk up and down the halls and see that

nobody is in a certain room? i don't know quite how you do that. >> the way it works in particular -- >> you have room number two is that the chart there. but room number 1204 -- >> motels, for example, out in the open. >> what about my question about room 1204. you seem to say the police can wander all over the hotel. >> welcome the police may be able to wander round hotel. they probably will not see much if what they're doing is wandering back and forth looking at particular members. >> i suppose the motels they can see what rooms have cars in front of them. and i suppose this room 12 therefore they can see, usually behind the desk what keys are missing. what rooms appear not to be occupied. >> that's correct, your honor, and that's why real-time observation is so key because you can't do that a month later. that's why we have the same

necessity -- >> sure. why? coming, what you're seeing is it easier to prosecute but it doesn't mean that you can't devote some resources and find this out. you do a surveillance which is what police do for a lot of crimes. you watch people going in for two hours and leaving, and to keep a record of it. you can even stop those people who were leaving to ask them. so there's a whole lot of law-enforcement techniques that could be used to combat the situations you're talking about. >> not nearly as effectively your honor because -- >> since when has the fourth amendment completely been abandoned to have effective for proof that the police can get at the moment should be? >> is not the test but do we reverse to the fact that it's not as effective and it simply doesn't work, your your honor. let me give you an example --

dewey. if all the police are doing is looking for who is in what room and what keys are missing they don't actually know what to look for and to long after the fact. they may be looking for the wrong thing. there are many motels were they can't do it for example, look at the keys because they're not available and easy to see. so it's having the information right in front of them and then comparing it to things that they might be able to observe. >> , mr. rosenkranz, but isn't this just like our love really? that is not mr. on the following rationale, number one of people consent so that you go -- you know police going to hotels and would like to see registry, most people are going to consent. if somebody says no, and there's a real basis for believing that the evidence is going to be altered or destroyed you can seize it painting judicial review or you get an administrative board ex parte and you got a surprise examination if you want to.

as we talked about all of those things in barlow's asked why these work with -- warrantless searches were not necessary. what makes this different? >> what makes this different is the tension -- distinction between barlow's on the one hand and berger, dewey, biswell on the other hand. and that is the mobility of information that used to verify. in barlow's if there is an unsafe condition, there is an unsafe condition and it's hard to see that this court said also in distinguished, biswell distinguished on the akron. if it's the sort of condition that doesn't change over time you can get a warrant and it doesn't affect -- >> what's going to change? the registry is the registry and as i just said if in an unusual feature of the feeling

that the hotel is complicit, you can make sure to freeze the registry. that's going to be an unusual case and mostly the registry is going to be there. as i said mostly people going to consent, to the extent not you can go get a warrant. >> what would change is is that the information on the basis of which you draw that comparison. if you only compare the register come if you get the register a month later you can convert to facts on the ground to the cause -- >> a month later doesn't, you know, it's an hour later. >> well, you mean get a warrant within an hour? warrants within an hour are not easy to get, particularly -- >> what's the probable cause for the war at? >> there is -- >> if you haven't seen the register can once the probable cause? >> right. there is the probable cause. >> what, you have to have a please visit outside the hotel for days? you don't have probable cause less you know that there are

people who are in the room for a short time who haven't registered. >> right. that's exactly right. and warrants offer probable cause. that's why berger and his well said no, you don't need to get to work when you're doing an administrative inspection. >> that would prevail in this case and a member of the court sits down to write an opinion. you have to use of the phrase reasonable expectation of privacy as a there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in our society, in our culture come in a day, or do we just get that phrase? in a way as we all know it's circular, that if we say there's a reasonable expectation, then there is. >> the engine depends on which fourth amendment rubric one uses. under the berger life cases, the court looks at the statute ask is this a close of regular business? wasn't necessary? is it illegitimate non-law-enforcement purpose and

so forth. >> is closely regulated another we can talk about reasonable expectation of privacy speak with indeed it is. >> i'm not sure it's still a phrase that's necessary and required for us to address in an opinion like this? >> if the court adopts the berger rubric, what the court was doing was saying because this is a heavily regulated in the context of this case because everyone knows that these registers have been greeted by the police for 15 years, no one goes into the hotel business unaware that their registers will be inspected. >> whose expectation of privacy are we talking about? not the hotel guest, right? >> no, your honor. >> you can't see my register. it's a duty. >> even though i entered a business after one and 15 years

has revealed these registers come and for 100 of those years am actually revealed the registers to the guests. >> suppose there's a statute that says the taxing authority, the irs or the equivalent on the state level the taxing authority can go into businesses at any time and check payroll records. the reason is that they need to conduct these surprise one searches because there's a serious problem with businesses ginning out false pedro records. is that constitutional? >> i would think not at least not without more information. the difference is there is a this long history of the government reviewing payroll records. and secondly, or lease its a closer question. and secondly payroll records are not the sorts of things for which you need spot inspections. >> if the government says they do, the government says they went into this and everything at the end of year they will falsify a lot of records and we really need to see what's

happening right now on the ground in real-time. >> either a table record is false or it's not. you don't need real-time verification to pick out if it's false or not. >> ud because you don't want to give them the time to falsify things until the end of the year. we could have a thousand examples like this. >> and the answer is to the scene. it doesn't have the same real-time need to verify against the facts that are speaking i don't know why not. checking to see people actually registered, you don't know that until you see a person working. so it got a construction site. you count the number of people interested, let me see a record-keeping for your employees today. >> that was -- >> that the real-time need. >> but either the record, the ultimate record deficit that is false or it's not. you don't have the real-time ability to verify whether those records -- >> you choose to the register, he falsify the register the way you are saying these people would. my problem with the closely

held closely regulated is i don't see one regulation that's not applicable to virtually every public accommodation entity, whether it's a telephone company or a day school or a hospital. i mean virtually all of these requirements that you list are part of the normal state regulation of entities that serve people. is it your position now that once we say this is closely regulated, that everything is -- >> no, your honor. >> that serves the public and so i speak with no. icpd into my rebuttal times with an answer quickly. no. first of all, the closely regulated exception is way more than just closely regulated. there are three other elements to it, and they need to demonstrate a necessity, you need to demonstrate that it's not a criminal justice purpose, need to demonstrate there's an

adequate substitute for a warrant. so if they are no further questions, i'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal. >> thank you counsel. mr. dreeben. >> thank you, thank you and may it please the court. the court can resolve this case on a much narrower basis that it is used in looking at other administrative inspection schemes, such as the one in barlow's. the ninth circuit itself recognize that this case did not involve an entry into the nonpublic working places of a business. it did not involve an entry into a residential property. it involved an entry all into the public lobby area of the motel and a brief inspection of the registry of the motel. >> well, that doesn't seem very significant. it could well involve entry into a drawer. we would normally say well because you can i will does not simply because you get into a house that you are free to

rummage through desks. >> that's sort of right but what this statute requires is that the registry be produced for inspection. the way in which the officer gets to the registry is to walk into the lobby. and so the ninth circuit -- >> i'm sorry. you think of a police officer stands outside house and says, bring me whatever it is on want from inside, and he brings an outcome that's not a violation of the fourth amendment because he, under compulsion, tells the person you have to bring it what's inside because i can't enter under the fourth amendment. >> it would be a search. the reasonableness of it would depend on the facts but what my point here is we are dealing here with businesses which have reduced expectation of privacy and we're not dealing with entry into the nonpublic areas of the businesses which is what marshals was concerned with biswell, berger come all of those cases the ninth circuit itself did not apply the rules that govern those kinds of

situations where the court has sometimes sent and administered war is report and other times is that it is not. >> this is a facial challenge. are there any or a substantial number of instances in which the application of the statute would be constitutional? >> i think there would've would, justice alito, if they were exigent circumstances justified access to the registry. most importantly -- >> but then you don't need a statute speak with a statute of because it informs -- >> no. to our exigent circumstances. you can get a word. so that doesn't work. >> i think it works in the sense that the statute provides encouragement for potentially recalcitrant hotel owner to produce it because it's an offense for him not to. but more important i think for the courts if i wish of a facial challenge issue is that that of the record industries but what kind of privacy expectations actually wish -- exist with respect to the registry.

it's largely a matter of conjecture, speculation and everybody's intuition of -- >> i don't see why we've ever required more. all we've required is a person to say this is my business record. why do they have to prove more? what are they supposed to prove that they don't show it to anyone else? we've never required that. >> i think they should show there's a certain degree of confidentiality associate with it that they -- >> well, it is today when the federal law required that you not disclose critical information and driver's license information and these registers contain that information. so you can't have it both ways. the registries by law are required to have a driver's license information taken for people who are paying cash and requires a credit card information of people who are otherwise registering spent the registry does not have the credit card information unless they check in at a kiosk. this brings up a very important

point. what the ninth circuit did was facial and collect the statute and said regardless of any facts it can't be enforced against anyone. >> i assume that if the problem is license plates and critical information and all of that, it's not up to the hotel to complain about the invasion of privacy. it's up to the guests, right to speak was i would agree. >> this case does not involve just the it's just the hotel for subjecting. >> there's a range of situations in which a different information is maintained in different ways so i think treating a facial challenge is problematic but he reaches the merits, what the ninth circuit itself it is conclude that this case doesn't trigger the very strong safeguards that are triggered when there is an invasion of a nonpublic space of a business. and treated as if it's an administrative subpoena case which does have fourth amendment requirements of us with it but those requirements are that the subpoena be relevant, that it be reasonable in scope and that it be specific. the ninth circuit conceded at

all three of those requirements are satisfied. section 41-49 by self-deception the relevance of the information for the administrative purpose of the statute serves. it is specific and is narrow in scope. anybody who goes into the hotel industry knows that is an inspection that they are subjected to. how do you distinguish marshall and barlow? >> the distinction which the night circuit itself to is that about entry into the nonpublic areas of the business which exposes a much wider range of information to the inspection of the authorities. marshall covered every industry in interstate commerce, and it allowed osha inspections without any limitation the and in that circumstance -- >> i guess i don't understand. you would think it makes a difference constitution would be keep the registry at the front desk or in the back-office? >> the ninth circuit analyze precisely that way.

you can walk into the lobby of the hotel. united in expectation of privacy. all you do is you ask the hotel keeper, the front desk clerk, to show the register which can be done simply by just moving the computer screen so that the officer can see. that is the most minimal intrusion on privacy interest, if they exist. >> if i run out to i think i might prefer to to uniform detectives in the background so the guests don't see. i think it's quite interesting. >> the ninth circuit treated it as a lesser degree of intrusion that an inspection of all other private areas of the business. that's what you divide the subpoena line of cases. once you apply the subpoena line of cases and realize the statute itself serves the purposes that line of cases is designed to serve. the only main claim that's really, well they judicial review would be very difficult to publish in this case because the whole purpose of this administered scheme is we

regular prostitutes, we regulate narcotics activity to come -- criminal law. the place where they are quickly conducting it are low-budget motels that have a strong incentive to cash. so the rates are purpose of 41-49 is to target not the criminals but the place with a conduct or activity. and doing it in a classic administrative way. this is lawful activity. you can rent a room. you just have to not make it to people for cash for short terms for no reservations when they don't have an identification to show they are come at you need to keep a record of what you're doing spent on trying to get what you think is relevant. let me give you a hypo which is that's it's not a hotel but it is a hunting lodge. to our recordkeeping requirements about how much people shoot and when they shoot them and what they should and so forth and so on. the fish and wildlife service were some state equivalent of that says, we do not want to rely on people reporting this to

us at periodic points we just want to make spot inspections to surprise inspections all the time to would that be all right? >> it seems like a much more difficult case to make him justice kagan, in part because -- >> is this a public hunting lodge? >> it's a private hunting lunch private hotel. >> i would have to defer to them in of the court on hunting lodges. [laughter] but i think the interest that is being served there is far weaker than interest editing served here which is a genuine problem reflected in fact there are one hundreds touches like this across the country in different sounds -- >> after you going to distinction, just because it's more important? the fish and wildlife people think it's important to make sure that all of these rules are complete with. >> i agree with that justice kagan, but if you think this court in its classic fourth fourth amendment announces bounces to go but it is deserved against the nature of intrusion. i don't know enough about hunting lodges you have in mind

to engage the nature of the intrusion. i will say this, that any requirement that you expose books and records that you required to keep as a regulatory matter at that no dispute you required to keep, to law enforcement officer in a public area of your facility that's this case. >> there is no dispute that you can require the hotel to keep the records. >> that is correct. the hotels are not challenging that. >> i think it would be a big dispute with regard to private hunting lodges, whether you could require them to keep records spirit there may be second and in answer to the court would wait in the balance. i think the court can resolve this case in an extremely narrow fashion. >> i think it's even more dangerous. look at almost how many businesses, retail businesses transact their recordkeeping in public areas. ..

because criminals do not want to identify themselves when they check in to have regular unannounced inspections to give hotels incentives to comply with the register should not. >> mr. chief justice. >> me or please the court appeared react to the city does not need to go to the judge and get a warrant but instead is to issue a one-page subpoena.

we can object but it's going to be enforced unless the city isn't implementing a legitimate ministry to scheme to harass us or investigate the crime. >> isn't your position there is no wind tints in which this statute and implementation of a would be constitutional. >> a hypothesis you would use it for accident circumstances and with the right to privacy don't actually involve enforcement of the statute. what is necessary here to value the fourth amendment is the requirement that there be a regular ice cream. it appears in the bullet valve. that doesn't exist here. how often they can search the reason they can surge. then we put according to the process. we make judicial review available and the reason is the

fourth amendment protects our sense of tranquility. hotel owners individuals businesses need to know that beat officers aren't going to conduct these searches. >> suppose a city or state wanted to establish an administrative inspection regime along the lines what would it have to include in your judgment? could the warrant be issued by an administrative law judge is supposed to superior court judge? would it require probable cause? >> no. >> could it be done without prior notice? >> yes. >> could you have standards for different hotels but much more for hotels that rent by the hour, hotels that have a large number of gas who pay in cash and so forth.

all of these things could be done. it's really not clear to me what that would add to the ordinance. >> justice canady asked in this context. he is half right in this answer that the court has said if you're not physically inspect the premises, you don't have to ahead of time get a warrant. it's not a probable cause. although court has required the government show the administrative scheme. the second part is what is missing. the key case hasn't gotten enough attention in the case called donovan versus loans here and it was decided by an opinion by justice rehnquist has unanimous opinion in considers a circumstance similar to the end that is under the fair labor standards act government can do what it says and that is demand employment records. the reason the court said that

comports with the fourth amendment is there's a balance and that is the government has to issue a subpoena to which the employer can chart. without burdening the government it interjects the possibility of judicial review and you know the enforcement officers -- >> when he answered my question, he said there is no notion of probable cause, reasonable cause. the hotel owner will take these records. and police don't have to have any reason. what would be shown? >> your honor, the consistent line of precedents, six cases have dealt with the subpoena rule. that is the concern when you have a scheme like this one that doesn't tell the officer how often are when to search if the

officer will do two things forbidden by the fourth amendment. one is in a harassing win is in a harassing win the second is for crime control. the city is validly saying it wants look at the record to find involved in renting the room. that is why you let the police issued the subpoena. the prospect that there can be an objection and go to a judge is what protects the sense of tranquility of the business owner. >> what is the purpose? you agree it is constitutional to require the register. why is the state interested if it can go look at it with little notice? what's the point. >> the fact is only interested in law enforcement is in our favor. just recognize what he is describing is the scenario that gave rise to your question about room question about room 1202 is entirely inaccurate.

his point is as follows. an officer shows up at a motel and sees the light on in room two. what he wants to do is go one block and right then determine there is a registration card for room two. i don't know what that proves that it doesn't matter. the opposite makes a record. on june 1st at 12:00 a.m. and he serves the subpoena. there is no reason in the world with an advance notice to the hotel owner. if he has a concern he can sequester the records to have been separately if there's an objection which is extremely rare. there is no reason it is about contemporaneous observation. that is not the issue. he can look outside the room. the issue is do you have to go in and have no opportunity for a judge involved before you search the record.

>> seen the light on doesn't prove anything unless you know the hotel has not register the person in the room. >> remember, our objection is not being able to require able to require the register or inspect the register. the question is can they do that without any opportunity to say to a judge what is going on his law enforcement or harassment. they've come in five times during the day and the system like they don't go to the judge ahead of time. they give me a subpoena and say we want the record and if there is an objection the officer has made the observation about room to and they can -- telephonic warns there easy but there's a reason the objection can be heard later on. he's observed and made a note about what goes on in the hotel. >> they could fill in while his runoff to get a subpoena.

>> justice scalia, he's not running off anywhere. this is an administrative one-page paper. >> i don't understand. >> all you're asking for this litigation is the one who wants to inspect pulse at a piece of paper and handed to them and makes it all okay. >> or reason the court is required, the bare minimum except in the limited worker context when you hand the subpoena the person who receives the subpoena says is this an unusual case another to the troubled project. i can prove to a judge this is law enforcement in disguise. >> he could say the same thing without subpoena. >> are critical point is this guarantee send the right to say that to a judge. >> it allows him the opportunity

for the policeman is getting a subpoena to fill in the name of the person and what is otherwise a blank space. >> mr. chief justice subpoenas don't work that way. >> it deserves a subpoena of the other can help reinforce the judicial review. the police officer has to go somewhere to get the review with whoever the hotel understands. >> it doesn't work that way. the hotel owner may have to file the motion. mr. chief justice here's the problem with the argument. >> it is important because we're trying to figure out how this works. the hotel owner says i object. now what happens. >> it doesn't take any amount of time which is why the court has required it. he says i will not give you the records. i will file a motion. the police want to enforce right away and can go to an administrative judge. >> during that time does in the

hotel clerk take a stand and say i didn't register this guy in room two. p. phil said whatever is left to be filled in. >> it is you can sequester the records. the question is searching the records. if this is a real concern. i will say it is a concern made up by city lawyers in the score when that trial they did not introduce evidence and would be equally applicable in every kind of record. sinister at a construction site. >> if you have objections they will take the records and keep them in the trunk until we resolve this. >> yes, you can do that. it is very similar to what the court has said on the fourth amendment context. in the police show up at someone's house and they are concerned about the destruction of evidence inside, what they do -- >> it can be much more

intrusive. >> i don't think the government can have it both ways. these are private records and they want to do something incredibly unusual the fourth amendment pervades. they won a scheme that doesn't say when they will search how often are the purpose. >> they are required by law to be kept and you are not objecting to that at all. >> the other side makes a good point. these are business records they received reduced fourth amendment protections. we understand that. what is sad is that the reason we don't have a probable cause requirement. that's my required minimum amount which is the prospect that the owner has a good objection they can go to a judge. that's why we don't have the full protections. >> if i can take the question why would the police officer -- [inaudible]

you have to have some outside approval. now you are saying you can't have these records. police can say give me the book and take them away. >> just told them aside. if this is a real problem if they hold them aside, they can be sequestered. >> that is the future. why is that justified in looking at the information not. >> the court has held in the identical circumstance in the fourth amendment context when the government is concerned about destruction of evidence before it can acquire a warrant it can sequester the property. they can seize control without searching it. >> your honor and has the relevant bubble of cause required in the particular context. >> i thought you said in response that the city could

have a regime under which an administrative law judge issues a warrant, not a subpoena for a periodic inspection. the officer had the warrant go to the hotel. this is your periodic inspection. there would be no pre-judicial review. >> no, your honor, what this court has said in the distinction drawn in our lows when you get the pre-enforcement judicial review, that is the judicial involvement required. so we'd be perfectly happy with that. the difference in your hypothetical and this one is the judges involved and ensures the system for law enforcement. the orderly operation of administrative scheme. the city wants each have to go in at any time is often for any purpose. >> the complexity of the answers and frankly the surprise i hear in your answers may indicate this is not a basis -- casework

facial attack. [inaudible] -- on a case-by-case basis. >> my response to that is the court in all of the cases has dealt with things on a categorical basis. it's never done it on a case-by-case basis because it looks at the structure of the scheme where they are not going to have any justification to come in. it is limited. it's a particular record in a time and in that scheme with the court has consistently insisted on and i hope the court will take a look that they will be amendment of a subpoena process. >> i'm sorry i thought the stronger as it would be was always selected a lack of procedural protection on challenge. so when it's time the challenges to the lack of process looked at

it but it doesn't need to be supplied. >> let me add one other point underappreciated in the case and that is not only does our case insert a trite challenge, there is a trial and the record is the record in this case. we pursued our challenge only before the second trial they stipulated they had only facial defenses of the statute. that is the reason we have the oddity. the evident authority been collected. there's nothing to be gained with the second trial. >> you constantly said one of the objections hotel owner can make is you want these records for enforcement of the criminal law. you say that's bad. but the whole purpose is to enable the criminal law to be enforced. >> there's two different points being made here.

you are quite right. they have an administrative scheme. the point is to deter criminal violation. imagine on tuesday a police officer comes and says i think there's a in room three. i will invoke 4149 and see if the name matches a period that is criminal law enforcement. it requires probable cause. the fact they have an underlying scheme doesn't mean they can investigate crimes. the court has said time and time again that it's really important we involve the court because there is this concern. at present it more starkly than any other. you will misuse the process. >> i think there may be a good detection of criminal activity. and then the objection would be the whole scheme is bad. you cannot require them to keep

books because its whole purpose is to detect criminal activity. but that's not what you're arguing. they can keep the books to detect criminal activities if they request the book it is bad. that doesn't make any sense at all. >> because that's not the argument. their defense of the statute is not the records used to detect crime. they are used to deter crime. they don't look at the records to define criminals. my point is one day a police officer and it can happen regularly. a beat officer will say i'm not concerned whether you fill out the form. i think there might be a trend for in room three. >> i thought an equally important purpose is as you said earlier, prevent harassment. i don't like this hotel owner. i want to drive this hotel out of business. i'm going to be showing up in a

sloppy everyday. that is part of what's going on here. >> the principal thing the court's precedents have pointed to a look at what is missing in the ordinance. every time they say we identify specifically records. the question as to what the records are. it's a loss of the tranquility by the fourth amendment that we don't know how frequently and for what purpose and what reason a police officer will come in over and over again. >> i will use that phrase before? >> you talk about privacy and all that. i'm not sure the fourth amendment should be expanded. >> i'm having a problem imagining tranquil hotel owners. not what i associate with owning a hotel. >> it is a sense of certainty the fourth amendment provides what you know with limits on when the police come in and say show us your papers.

>> in hotels they have this notice is posted all over about where the first emergency exit is in all of that. can police come in to make sure the hotel has those posted? >> because they are in public spaces. >> is the back of a host room a private place? >> say for example in the back of the restaurant -- >> i'm talking about every hotel room. they say this is a very important thing to make sure people don't die in a big fire. i may look at room 12. >> it's a great example. that is a fire inspection regime. what has to happen is a subpoena ahead of time. at the very least, the lowest the court has applied is do we. at the very least if you're not going to involve the core you have to have a set of rules about when searches will apply to be it and how often.

>> maybe this is in the record or maybe it's because this was sent as applied. as the ordinance were invalidated. and ask for the owner is voluntarily to disclose the register. they could be in the lobby as much as they want. how does the hate and harassment of hotels? >> they produce private records. the police couldn't show up and expect the premises. they could show up and harass. if you are going to invade privacy, everyone agrees this is fourth amendment. >> of the public space. it is of some relevance. one with the ordinance, one without. they walk in and said in the

kindness of your heart let us look at the register in the owner says no, i don't want to. that is the first scenario. second they come in and say let us see the register. it's a harassment because they sit there for a while and again see the police in the lobby. >> it is the fact that day after day we have to give them private information. it will involve the problem it can be intended to put us out of business. what's imagine this scenario. we are put in this position because of the hypotheticals about when it could be valid. the officers see someone come in and each time they say we are the police, let us see the record. it really can interfere. >> if you have a case specific example, that might be one thing. maybe it would help if you could tell me what goes on in this

judicial review. the hotel owner says sorry, you can't let that free compliance judicial review. what is the nature of that review? >> this court has considered that question in the fair standards labor act in the banking context. california bankers donovan and blown stare. the administrative agent with the police officer, whoever enforces the law gives a one-page subpoena. then there was an objection in banking. these are governments the record requires you to produce. what generally will be the rule if the city will put it on us to go to a judge. the fact they are honest to god to judge and the fact objections are limited which is to say we get to object this is harassing

law-enforcement. we almost always give up the records because it's completely futile rejection. the prospect we can go to a judge that tells the e. copy needs to behave. >> those are the only objections that would be successful using this for law enforcement. >> it is detailed including carlos. >> what it gave precedence to involve the business treated like a public utility. there are requirements for hotels held that the room has to be, how many people you can put in the room and how much you can charge for the rooms. the hotel owner is not like a private business. he is a regulated provider of public services that has traditionally been regulated closely over the years. >> the first question is how many time he then asked the question. the answer is none. the second is in the relevant

sense to say how much of the property is protected and private is overwhelmingly hotels have constitutional protections. 95% will be the guest rooms. remember they go out and search the open junkyard. unlike word inspect the open stores or go behind the scenes the police can't do it. the fourth amendment protects privacy at the hotel. there's a much greater expectation on our part. >> the question justice goyette question justice goyette is asking is there reason to think hotels are more heavily regulated industry been known in other industries we can think of? >> now. cases involving banking is incredibly heavily regulated. the government requires you to keep records. justice scalia those are the

paying customer transactions. what they said in the cases us with rare exceptions title i is constitutional because it requires a subpoena. the prospect of getting the judge involved in the investigation is too onerous. >> innkeepers have been regulated not for decades but for centuries. they have duties to the public. i'm just puzzled. you can see the records have to be cat. there are very few reasons for keeping records other than law enforcement. >> that i disagree with, justice strand three. we use these records for different purposes. we use the information to keep in touch with our customers. it's quite proprietary information.

>> i've never received anything from them. >> it may not be in their frequent guest programs. but nobody doubts. this is ordinance that applies to the four seasons in which carlton and everything else. has carved out a specific subset. while we are attentive to the point that we are not asserting first amendment rights, let's not lose sight of the fact these records can show their personal information whether you stay during a religious or political convention. >> the privacy interests of the gas. >> here's the point. they agree this is a fourth amendment search. what you are doing this you have to make an honest assessment of whether the information does further the fourth amendment value of privacy. this has private stuff in it.

there is no real dispute about that. i am sympathetic to the fact innkeepers have been regulated a long time. in 99.4% of jurisdictions this is not the rule. this 18,000 jurisdictions of which this is not the rule and has never been the rule. the nature is that one that impinges on our sense of privacy. what does that tell us about whether records are private and we can identify a huge or buy up businesses that are regulated. in 2002 the department of justice did a study by 335 different provisions of five different provisions of federal law to use the system i described and that is the subpoena first. there is a handful of them, none of them involving records with the possible exception of the occ because you never have to get a judge involved.

>> 99.4% jurisdiction, does that include -- los angeles or new york. does new york city have something like this? >> i do know the answer for that city. they include big and small. my point is this. >> you are saying the hotel has a private interest. they can do that by keeping their own record consensually. you have conceded they can require the information is a matter of law. >> my point is this. >> my point is true. >> because they can do it here, they can do it everywhere. the government can require in a business to keep transactions and customers than if the government can say now give us the information they reduce to a melody. the final point is don't be confused with the idea there's

something special about hotels. the honest government regulation is massive. there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of regulatory schemes the federal government at ministers for it is not required to use a subpoena. what self-respecting regulator -- >> a subpoena is worthless with what is worthless with what he thought of something is wholly destroyed, hidden or falsified. it is useful if you get complicated records that can't be easily altered between this time of this time in the subpoena is issued and enforced. nobody issues a subpoena for the murder weapon that you suspect is in somebody's house. these records are more like the murder weapon and do something useful or falsified. when you say the police can seize them. >> it's the opposite with all

respect. the records or how many hours did someone work. if you can't falsify that, then i don't understand the nature of record-keeping. a bare constitutional minimum to keep the enforcement officer in line and let us know the enforcement officer is in line. it has been attentive to the fact that we don't want to put undue burdens on the government and that we have -- >> do you think payroll records in general are no more complicated than the ledger at a motel that rents by the hour? ..

at the hotel has a cop coming up to them five times times that day, they come in and say this is really harassment and it's inappropriate. if it's the purpose of the officer he's doing criminal investigation rather than actually caring about whether my records are complete, that is an as applied challenge. the plaintiffs have not even tried to demonstrate that this ordinance is unconstitutional in every circumstance. on pages 19 to 20 of our brief we develop numerous scenarios, and mr. goldstein mentioned only one of them. so, for example, where the hotel is required to upload the

records to the police department every day it may not even did a search, but it's certainly less intrusive. >> that's not the statute. i don't understand those examples because some of those examples, the police put out what out of this. >> not that one your honor. justice kennedy, not that one. in some of them the ordinance as the purpose of requiring someone to do something that they would not otherwise have to submit to. but the one that i just gave as an example the scenario of uploading the document rather than the police conducting a search on the spot is less intrusive. the problem here is that the plaintiffs have tried to invalidate every possible application of this ordinance but i haven't done the intrusiveness, privacy government interest of balance that one needs to do for each of

them. up at me then circled to the meritsmarriage because -- >> i'm still very confused about this. there is always a potential exception to abort, even a fourth amendment warrant of going into the home exigent circumstances, they're somewhat sick on the other side, if there is a fleeing felon into the place, but that doesn't eliminate the need for a warrant. it's not a talus later issue. -- help us later. police can't just keep going anything fish around for an excuse. but the process issue. you are entitled to report, entitled to a subpoena. you are entitled, that's what they're challenging, which is they are not challenging all of the other reasons why the police could do in legitimately with an exception to the fourth amendment. they are asking whether this kind of search, generally, with

all of those other exigent circumstances or other fourth amendment exceptions is constitutional. >> right, your honor. >> is the process he right? >> understood. so let's not talk about exceptions. let's talk about another example where the motel continues to keep the register an open like they did for 100 years, and then snatches it away when the police come. >> but that's a different issue. it's in the public. >> and they would -- >> how often do you think that's going to happen? >> for that reason they would have no expectation of privacy and the fourth amendment calculus would be totally different. >> but it is not a search at all and once again it's not the statute doing the work? >> if they snatch it away it's what is this ordinance that is doing the work. >> you were saying they wouldn't have -- you are saying that no expectation of privacy. >> we would win the fourth amendment case but that has

been invalidated by deciding this on a facial basis. >> council, our questions intruded on your rebuttal time. why don't you take an extra minute or so. >> thank you, your honor. let me emphasize this is a very no role we're talking about. we are talking about a role that is unlikely to be repeated in so many of the other circumstances that have been discussed today. it's about an exception -- inspection on a single book of information that the government requires hotels to maintain and that mr. goldstein has admitted the government can require hotels to maintain. it in a context that is especially prone to criminality. people are using these hotels precisely to commit crimes where the gaps are quite detectable in real-time but not detectable otherwise. in an industry where there's been hundreds of years of regulation including a history of warrantless searches or even

broader at the time of the founding, hotels were being searched without warrants at the time of the founding and the history of a hundred years of police inspections in los angeles itself and even a hundred years of these things being opened to the public. if the court has no further questions, we respectfully request that the court reversed. >> thank you counsel. the case is submitted. >> here on c-span2 the senate out now holding weekly party lunch meetings expected back at 2:15 p.m. eastern. senators voted to advance fast-track trade promotion measure a majority of their mitch mcconnell says said earlier he hopes to hold a final passage vote as soon as tomorrow tomorrow. on that vote 13 democrats voting yes to proceed with fast-track trade authority.

>> also in fort worth senator reid talked about the confederate flag at the statehouse in south carolina and the recent calls for its removal after the shooting death of nine african-american church members in charleston. here's a look at what he said. >> this senseless tragedy last week in charleston, south carolina. a young man full of hate took the lives of nine worshipers as for they welcomed him into their bible study. once again some motivated by ignorance and hatred at his hands on a gun and inflicted pain on innocent americans.

once again we must witness people of the command as they struggle to reconnect, put the pieces of life back together. once again we are looking at our newspapers, watching our tv screens and talking about at our dinner tables about why, why did this happen. as a pain field details emerge, we can't turn away from the hard truth is tragedy lays bares. racism still exist in our society. we have to accept that reality. if we ever hope to change it mr. president we have to change that really. i watched this weekend as pundits and the nations leaders attempted to address this issue by sidestepping the truth. this violent attack was racially motivated. could we have order in the senate?

>> the senate will be in order. >> this violent attack was racially motivated, plain and simple, was intended to to rise the african-american community both in charleston and around the nation. 50 years after dr. martin luther king led a march in washington, 50 years after congress passed the civil rights act 50 years after the march for women rights in the selma just after congress passed the virus act we must still face the hard truth about race in america. mr. president, can we have order in the senate? >> the senate will be in order. >> mr. president, the truth is we still have much to do. we must overcome. we have no choice. one cannot ignore the underlying issue. it deeply troubles our nation.

hatred and bigotry persist. the harsh reality is hatred and bigotry in this country in addition to consistent lack -- have led far too few men of women of color feel their lives we don't matter. and it's easy to feel that your life doesn't matter when the odds are stacked against you every place you look on every hand. here are some of the facts that african-americans face on a daily basis, nearly half of all african-american families live in poor neighborhoods for at least two generations. 50% compared to 7% of white families. african-american man is far more likely to be stopped and searched by police and charged with crimes and sentenced to longer prison terms than are white men. 10% longer. for the same crimes in the federal system. in the state system the numbers

are even more skewed than that. these facts alone boosted the countless men and women countless men and women, how to face these unprecedented challenges and still judged by the color of their skin not the content of their character. we have a moral obligation to change these realities. we must do everything within our power to ensure that all americans know that their lives matter. it's been standing for what is right, calling a bigotry and hatred what is seen and felt in taking action to address bigotry. it's hard to fathom that even as a commute of charleston grapples with the devastation of this hateful i come african-american men and women have to walk under a confederate flag when you step on the grass of the south carolina statehouse in charleston. i'm sorry, in colombia. the confederate flag is a symbol of a dark path which our country has come. it doesn't and shouldn't represent our values or the way we treat our fellow americans.

the symbol of slavery is a symbol of white supremacy. there's no other way to explain it. but often through violent organizations such as the ku klux klan torched african-american churches. is some of the past is no place about building a governing americans. it's not just who we are and it certainly shouldn't be just to we are or we want to be. the flag should be moved and now. yesterday, governor nikki haley of south carolina said that in the capital in south carolina the flag should not be flown. she said we would do this in spite of what the state legislature feels in which they tried to pass in state legislatures said no, we're going to keep the flag flying. so i applaud her. i appreciate her courageous act

of the confederate flag has no place in the future of south carolina. at a loss in the past it every place in america. not just south carolina. anyone who desires to fly the flag on private property can do so of course but no state in our great nation should allow this flag to soar above its capital. shouldn't soar in public places. we must always stand for what is right and we must stand for equality and justice to defend. we must preserve and protect the rights of every american. not because it's a the safe thing to do. not because it's popular. of because it is political benefit. we must stand and defend equality and justice because it is the right thing to do. mr. president we must take meaningful action to ensure the safety of our citizens. once again our hearts are broken as another community struggles to recover from a mass shooting. i'm going to mention out just a few of them. just a few of them.

fort hood 13 americans kill. this was on a military base. tucson arizona, six americans killed. carson city, nevada, four americans killed. newtown, connecticut, 27 americans dead 22 of them were innocent little children. aurora, colorado in a movie theater 12 killed. the navy yard here just a few, maybe a mile from here at the most, here in addition of columbia 12 killed in charleston, south carolina, of course we know nine killed in a bible study class. these are not all the violent acts. these are but a handful. all these violent events occurred in the past few years. our country a united states come is the only advanced country with this type of mass violence occurs.

the only country. per capita in america we kill each other with guns at a rate 297 times higher than japan, 49 times higher than france 43 times higher than israel. ended at the country we outdistance them by far far too much. we can do something about this sad, violent reality. let's do something. stanton for example, background checks for people wanting to buy guns to prevent the mentally ill and criminal from buying guns. is that asking too much? the mentally ill and criminals. more than 80% of american people support this. why can't we in congress support it? the american people support it. it has bipartisan support. i say over and over again, the american community is overwhelmingly in support of not giving guns to people who are

mentally ill and felons. they shouldn't be able to buy guns. we should act to save lives by expanding background checks but isn't that the least we could do kind of people who come and save well, he wasn't a felon. may be so but couldn't we do something? can we at least do this minimal thing to stop people who are sick and head, people are criminals from purchasing guns but couldn't we at least do that? einstein's definition of instead is intended the same thing over and over expecting different results. that's what we are doing. for the future of our country we have to change. in the face of racism and bigotry we must act. we can't do nothing to we must

prevent felons and the middle of a gun and even more americans in broad daylight. if we do not we will be here again. our hearts will be broken again. would have to ask us of how we allow another senseless tragedy to take place. while we stand by doing nothing to prevent other deaths. >> nevada senator harry reid from earlier on the senate floor senators are expected back in about 30 minutes. after the wrap up their weekly party lunch meetings to they voted for to advance the fast-track trade promotion measure 60-37. we could see final passage vote tomorrow. here's a look at some of the debate on tpa from the floor earlier. >> i also want to just say to our gullikson this is a very important day for our country -- college. we've demonstrated we can work together on a bipartisan basis to achieve something that is extremely important for america.

not only when we confirmed this trade promotion authority will we have a mechanism in place or the president to finalize extraordinarily important deal with a number of different asian countries, it will indicate that america is back in the trade business. it will also send a message to our allies that we understand they are somewhat wary about china's commercial potential military domination, and we intend to still be deeply involved in the pacific are somewhat to congratulate senator hatch, senator wyden. this has been a long and rather twisted path to where we are today, but it's a different important accomplishment for the country. >> mr. president speak with the senator from ohio? >> i'd like to mention the other two absences, senator menendez had voted no in closure before.

senator lee voted no to the vote would've been 61-39. mode poorly this is a day of celebration for the corporate suites and discouraged issue because they've got another corporate sponsored trade agreement and will mean more money and some investors pockets. it will mean more plant closings in ohio and arizona and delaware and rhode island and west virginia and me and all over this country. and most importantly, mr. president, what i didn't understand about the debate is about week on even though, even though "the wall street journal," the cato institute and others acknowledge that decisions we make here on trade agreements, while they sit at a net increase in jobs but also acknowledged that people lose their jobs because of the decisions we make. so we make decisions here today to throw people out of work. we know that across the political spectrum that is acknowledged but we don't do anything to help those workers that lose their jobs.

so we make a decision, to people in mansfield, ohio in cleveland, ohio, out of work but then we don't take care of those workers who lost their jobs because of our decisions. it's shameful mr. president. >> mr. president speak with the senator from vermont. >> let me just concur with the senator from ohio. this trade agreement was supported by virtually every major corporation in this country, the vast majority of whom have outsourced millions of jobs to low-wage countries all over the world. this trade agreement is supported by wall street, is a traitor to support by the pharmaceutical industry to want to charge people in poor countries higher prices for the medicine they desperately need. this agreement was supposed that every union in this country working for the best interests of working families by almost every environmental group and many religious groups. in my view, this trade agreement will continue the policies of

nafta, cafta agree with that of cost us millions of decent paying jobs. we need a new trade policy in america, policy that represents working families and not just the big money interests are i strongly disagreed with the majority leader who called is a great day for america. it is not a great day. it is a great day for the big money interests, not a great day for working families. >> mr. president speak with the majority whip. >> i have six unanimous consent request for committees to meet during today's session of the senator gave been approved by both the majority and minority leaders but i'll ask them in this consent these be agreed to an be printed in the record. >> without objection. >> mr. president, i would also ask unanimous consent that the senate recess from 12:30-2:15 eastern and also from four to 50 and for all senators briefing and all the time and recess

post-culture. >> without objection. >> mr. president there's no secret that republicans on the side of the aisle don't agree with president obama about everything. in fact, i would say on balance most republicans disagree with the policy choices made by this president. but occasionally occasionally even the leader of the democratic party, the president of the united states gets things right. >> order in the senate. >> the majority whip. >> occasionally the president of the trade gets his policy choices right, and he did when it comes to trade promotion authority, which i would point out to our friends and anybody

listening that this actually is the sixth year trade promotion authority. this extends well beyond the current occupants of the white house tenure, and will be available for the next president of the united states to negotiate trade deals that are in the best interest of the united states. so i agree with the majority leader, this latest vote is just another example of the senate getting back to work and restore directed working order. this is a dramatic departure from the old senate because of the accident a lot of time or consideration of important piece of legislation from the iran nuclear agreement review act to justice for victims of human trafficking act to the budget. and now by moving this trade promotion authority bill ford we can ensure that american workers and businesses get the best deal and tempting trade agreement

with countries from asia, south america, europe. so i believe we've actually kept the campaign promises we made last year that if the american people entrusted the republicans with a new majority, we would work together with our allies where we could on the other side of the aisle, where we have common cause, to deliver results for the american people. to legislate -- to legislate in the best interest of not just to obstruct for obstruction sake but to actually promote a functioning, deliver to the united states senate. and i see one of the leaders of this effort, the senator from delaware here, who has done great work trying to find a common cause in producing a result as exemplified by the tpa. and i'm going to yield to him in just a moment but let me just talk briefly about my response

to the senator from vermont and the senator from ohio said there's nothing good to be had out of this trade promotion authority of any potential trade deals that we might negotiate. my home state of texas relies heavily on international trade, and we are the number one trading state in the nation, which is just one reason why our economy grew at a rate of 5.2% in 2014. our economy and taxes grew at a rate of 5.2% in 2014. the new with the united states economy grew how fast it grew? 2.2%. so why would we want to do anything and everything we can to stimulate the growth of the economy to benefit people looking for work and people looking for higher wages? this important trade promotion authority is the first step to

doing that. mr. president i will just conclude because the distinguished senator from delaware is your and others who want to speak. trade is an engine of growth that keep our economy going and the upcoming trade agreements can what is the trans-pacific partnership on the transatlantic trade and investment treaty, serves as a great opportunity to turbocharge that growth. our economy actually contracted last quarter by .7%. as long as our economy is shrinking and growing come we're not going to be able to create the jobs to put america back to work. we're not going to be able to create the source of wages that we want for all working americans. and so this legislation represents an important step in

that direction. and i am glad that that in the exercise of a little mutual trust and comedy that we've reached this important point. we are not through yet because there other part of this trade package that we're going to need to process this week but the promise and commitment we made on this side of the aisle that if our colleagues across the aisle trust us to move through the trade promotion authority bill we will continue to work with them and keep our commitments to them and hopefully more than just the trust that produces these pieces of legislation will result from this increased confidence and trust with one another. we know we'll find things we disagree on an we will fight like katz and dogs when we need you. but when we agree on the policy and can find within ourselves to work together, the american people are the beneficiaries. i will yield the floor.

>> mr. president? >> a senator -- >> let me just say he mentioned the word trust a number of times. it's important were. when my favorite savings -- sings, integrity they don't have it, nothing else matters. same is true as close to go to get things done that a lot we need to get done. everybody realizes that. may take away, no one can people want us to work together. number two they want us to get stuff done. they want us to get stuff done that will strengthen the economic recovery. one of the ways, frankly comes making sure those markets overseas will actually allow us to sell into them. whether it's products or goods or services of the axis to those markets. the other thing is my colleagues from texas as a big live as a mic and the golden rule. that is to treat other people the way we want to be treated. for most people think for our country most people in this

country support what we're we did for most of the democrats support of the present bishop of conduct president as well. but what we need to do while we move forward with trade promotion authority, not as we would be helped by this. there will be will be some people did his best to have an obligation. we want to be treated like were in their shoes. there's legislation to go out with trade promotion authority. i would just ask the republican whip from texas, just to give us some assurance reassurance to rebuild trust around this issue when we are contacted by folks in the country today or tomorrow, next day what are we going to do to provide assistance to those people who may be disadvantaged because of trade more than authority and to take it would be negotiated? can you give us some assurance better? >> isn't this the end of the road or other similar pieces to

follow the into this with? >> granted i would respond to the question by our colleague from delaware that assurances have been given that we understand that trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance traveled together. i think we've seen examples of where the benefits of trade are not uniformly felt across the country. are some people who will be displaced but the importance of trade adjustment authority, i wish we could negotiate something a little more frugal that would actually get the job done. but negotiation took place between chairman ryan and the house and the ranking member, senator wyden come in the senate on this important piece of the package. we all recognize that these traveling -- travel into her and trade adjustment third is part of the price you pay for getting

trade promotion authority done. the most important to my colleagues point from delaware, for those people who are displaced, this guarantees that the access to the fort -- the sort of chopping and skills enhancement that they need in order to get even better jobs in this economy that on that will benefit the entire country. so that's the intent on this side of the aisle and i think the intent of trade adjustment authority in making sure that we finishedfinish our work. not here today but to the rest of the week on this important package of pieces of legislation legislation. >> mr. president, reclaiming my time. i want to thank our republican whip for those words, for his work on this. i've which is close with this. whenever i talk to people who have been married a long time like 50 60 60 to 70 stem class and what's the secret. secret. i get financial catechism of appointed ones as well. the best answer i've ever heard to that question but to seize

the qcs not corn and carper but communicate and compromised. i would have made a third to that and that is collaborate. collaborate. we need to demonstrate the ability to communicate, compromise and collaborate. this is an important step working with the democrats and republicans in working with a democratic president. next up is when we talk about trade adjustment assistance and we need to do that. if we can work through these issues this week and produce a bipartisan product, the president is going to center we will build some trust. when we return to the transportation having a robust, vibrant transportation system, how to pay for the, this will be helpful.

good work not done but a very good start today so thank you very today, so thank you very much and i yield back. thank you. >> mr. president? >> the senator from west virginia. >> try to either of those respect my college. i had a really hard time with this. i've not had one west virginia and average working west virginia good job at one time have lost a job that thinks that this type of approach to trade is good. not one. i'm hearing them talk of how much could we do from our state. i would like to have known what type of trade and manufacture products? i don't see many manufacture products in this country. i see an awful lot of resources such as oil that has been refined into diesel fuel or gasoline, probably comes from texas i would say but that's not a big part of the trade and those types of things but how many people actually benefit from that they would have a good manufacturing job?

that's all i've asked. we talked about taa. you know why we are hung up? because we all understand we're going to lose more jobs. reported loss of 6 million jobs since nafta. we've all lost signaling jobs across this country. i lost 31,000 manufacturing jobs. i understand nafta hasn't been enforced and they had some rules in there and then you take this piece of legislation tpa, there was more security around this piece of legislation that was the iran-contra nuclear give them the iran nuclear we're talking about. my staff could go there take notes can we get briefed on able to ask questions. we couldn't take a note or taking note out. they are tell me we all depend on trade in the market changing the we are at 18 trillion gdp. think about this. we in the kind of america the greatest economy the world has ever seen, 18 trillion. of all these in conjunctiva, the

closest one to his, japan, 4.5. falls off the richter scale scale but yet we've got to be secretive because somebody might lead us. i've been in business all my life. if i want to get into a market i will assure you i will be able to evaluate my competition of the people i want to do business with. i had to make more adjustments and they had to make. but yet we are so concerned about the secrecy of this deal. that none of us could able to see it work defined dissected and improve upon. now we're just going basically carte blanche and sang sure you will get a review can't do anything about if you like it. can't do a thing about if you don't like it. when you start looking at everything that this stance going to look at basically come and my father, we were raised and a little in the grocery

store, my dad had a little furniture store. i was raised in the. when they might always encouraged his competition to he enjoyed having. he said listen, competition brings out more buyers. more buyers it is more of a chance to sell our goods. what he never did like and what he felt was unfair was when you had unfair competition didn't pay their taxes didn't you by the roles were played by the rules. and if we didn't enforce those they gave them an unfair competitive advantage. if you believe our past performance and our trade deals, make as an expert at enforcing and making sure people play by the rules so the americans treated right then you probably would've voted for this. i don't. i can only judge all for past performance where we are today. wins the last time you've seen goods that you use everyday when you go shop for whatever type of good, household goods, clothing good, things of this sort, furniture. think about that. the greatest furniture markets in the world were in the united

states. we make very little furniture in this country today. they still what i would products. we ship logs out of west virginia around the world so people can make the furniture that you want to send back to america. i guess yes that's good capabilities thereby our blogs if they could pay to have appointed of logs we have. they don't have the quality hardwood floors. we send this goal in the world the best metallurgical coal that makes cooking that makes this deal the best work comes out of west virginia. sure they're going to die because they don't have it. they're going to make the product and send them back to us. and come into these markets subsidize. sooner or later we've got to do something for america. you've got to rebuild this country. you don't build the wealth of a country based on basically moving paper back and forth. moving paper back and forth and/or some people have the wealth that they accrue from this i'm sure they are very satisfied and happy with that.

we see income inequality over the last 20 years. we've never seen this big of a spread. never. you see the plot line of workers all over america just as flatlined as can be. i don't we can look in any i say we've done the best because with opened up 11 new countries. vietnam, 58 cents an hour is what they're going to pay their workers. we said nafta is going to be basically bringing the whole north american trade up to par. 22 years later i understand that mexico's minimum-wage is still under 1 dollar an hour. around 80 cents. if you think a person that makes 58 cents an hour or 80 cents an hour or $1.50 an hour that those people have disposable income to buy the products that we would like to we can expand our economy and our jobs i'm sort i don't think that's going to happen. i really don't.

doesn't make any sense to me at of how we expect a person that can barely survive if they're going to disposable income to buy products that we in the united states of america wish to sell really to lift up our manufacturing base. but i guess that's why we have tea a day that would argue that because we know we have given that the. we just about broke off 22 years ago seconds we will write the rest of it off the. technology is great. i'm also for -- i'm all for innovation, creation to the. i'm all for that this would only got to make something to give got to build something. you've got to reinvest in there has to be people with their hands making these products, being able to support their family added benefit package given a decent life. growing up when i was growing up in farmington west virginia with manufacturing, mining, people

who could go to work hard make a good living, ma take it on vacation, pay their bills. we've let all of it slip away from us. i blacklisted to be chopped up has put africa jobs of the future, still manufacturing. i'm not willing to give up on this, mr. president, do know? i don't come you don't find a. chastising my colleagues on the republican side or my colleagues on the democrats i. i think we're all here for the right reason. sometimes we get a little bit off-track come and i think this is one type we've gotten off track, something that would really help veterans of america working families all over this country. we've kind of forgotten about and i'm concerned about that. i'm concerned about going back home to my beautiful state of west virginia and then the people i'm sort of we will have a hard time competing with some this country because there's just no way. we have opened up our borders initiative international manufacturing basically whatever

they can get the best deal and i guarantee you in a developing country they will not be as tough as we are human rights on environmental law they should as far into. they will not be tuckered their time to build an economy, trying to build basically a nation. they are pashtun they will be lax on these things and that's unfair competition which might have always wanted against. we talk about european trade. i'm not worried about european trade because they're basically the same level playing field of your. when you're trying to build a country up should you sacrifice entire country douglas should you give whatever they would work hard to build because i want to help these countries. i do have a bit of problem helping the country for another isolationist. i basically put something into but a protected our manufacturing base. i would put a finger when fell below certain jobs in manufacturing it stopped. you don't give it all away. it's hard to regain back and recapture it back.

i'm sure wall street is very happy today. i have a lot of friends who work on wall street and there's a lot of good people to work on wall street but there's a lot of people basically that are driven by the almighty dollar. not driven by main street, not worried about my little town of farmington 40 part of my state. and they will be very happy. not worried about 99% of the people who are still on main street trying to survive. you know, we talked about ex-im back and visit trust us. maybe we will vote sometime. i hope that comes to fruition but that would help a lot of small business. we haven't gotten that vote yet. so you would've thought that would've been a priority to get a vote on that. so we can compete on a more level playing field. that hasn't happened. here we go again. we've had some votes tomorrow, and these votes tomorrow are going to be based on the taa

because the house couldn't pass tpa fasttrack with taa in it. that's basically what we are dealing with. they think we can do doctor. what make you think today will be acceptable in any way shape or of in house? it is going to make it more acceptable on the house side when they made them take taf and couldn't pass it in the tpa bill? doesn't make any sense to me. so i think it's a sad day today i would do at a concert concerned about a country, concerned about my hard-working people in west virginia and i know you are in all the other states that we had to these are good people and they deserve an opportunity. they deserve a fair trade. they deserved a fair trade. people that will trade on the same with us that have quality understand that they have to live up to in order to get into our markets. and i don't think we should

sacrifice our markets basically just to build a. i think we should assist them because they will have to find our markets to the point where we don't sacrifice. i think this could be a troubling think thing but i'm hoping it's not but it could be. i have concerns and i've said this. if i can't explain tobacco i can't vote for and this is one triedmr. president, i could not explain back on. i could that make the people feel comfortable is really going to be the point of life and opportunities for them and their families. i couldn't do it. because i don't see. i don't believe in it and i said i wouldn't vote for it and i didn't. so that mr. president, i see the absence of a quorum -- >> picture of the house ways and means committee released a statement shortly after the senate vote on tpa saying i want to congratulate my colleagues in the senate for voting to advanced tpa. only with tpa can the u.s. win a fair deal for the american worker in trade negotiations.

and only with tpa can use rebuild its credibility on the world stage. i'm proud of my colleagues in both houses on both sides of the aisle for working together to promote american trade. some work remains to complete our agenda but this has been a good day. ascended about the gavel back and. more work likely on trade promotion authority which could a procedural hurdle this morning. ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. ms. ayotte: thank you mr. president. i want to come to the floor

today to talk about internet tax freedom and to talk about ensuring that our online businesses remain competitive. first of all, i want to commend the house of representatives for recently passing the perlt -- the permanent internet tax freedom act which would extend the current ban on internet taxes. the current tax moratorium will expire. in addition, as importantly it would make internet access less affordable to hardworking families and ham per businesses growing jobs because it would allow all the jurisdictions

taxing the internet. if we do not do it what the house of representatives did and extend the internet tax freedom act, in fact i think we should make it permanent and i am a co-pour of a senate companion bill that i hope the senate will follow the house's lead to pass and send a permanent extension to the president's desk. unfortunately, one of the things we've heard is that some see this extension of the moratorium on internet taxation as an opportunity to attach another piece of legislation that in fact would burden our online businesses and would tremendously disadvantage a state like my home state of new hampshire that has made theologicallive decision not to -- the legislative decision not to have a sales tax. and so we've seen this playbook

before. it was called before the marketplace fairness act. of course, there's nothing fair about this act. when it comes to our online businesses having to collect taxes from nearly 9,000 taxing jurisdictions, you can imagine the bureaucratic nightmare that that would occur. and so this so-called marketplace fairness act i always used to like to call it the online sales tax act or the online sales tax collection act. that would be a more accurate description of that particular act. so here we are. we have a rerun of this particular bill that would have required businesses in the state of new hampshire even though we don't have a sales tax our online businesses to go and collect for all these other tax jurisdictions. and again it is not even just say thes that have sales taxes.

in sam states it goes down to the municipal level when it comes to municipalities and local jurisdictions actually collecting a separate tax so it would have ended up being over 9,000 taxing jurisdictions. so here you have a nice online business out there having to be the tax collector for all these different jurisdictions, and you can imagine that this would really be a huge burden on these online businesses. so the individuals that have been supporting this new sales tax collection scheme and this new burden on the internet -- and, by the way, we have seen one of the rinls a such a strong proponent of permanently extending the tax freedom and the lack of taxes on the internet on internet being access, is because we have seen not only consumers access to the internet

but the ability of businesses and the ability of us to create jobs and to see real growth on the i want net. and this has allowed people to start businesses from their home. it has allowed so much creativity. it's been very positive for our economy. and so lowe and behold on all of that there's some -- and so lo and behold on all of that there's some talk of attaching to this internet tax freedom act, this incredibly burdensome collection scheme to require businesses to be out there collecting all these sales taxes throughout the nation. and so the latest proposal that the proponents of this type of tax collection scheme have come up with is one that again creates even more issues, certainly as many if not more issues than the prior proposal that was called the so-called marketplace fairness act.

of course we know there's nothing fair about it if you're a business having to collect all these taxes. so what this rerun would do is actually create this reporting system and would require businesses to purchase this software and then would require states to actually have what are called certified software providers. and here's what would happen. urpdz this latest scheme, the certified software providers for these states would actually collect all the sales information for every sale, every online sale in a state and then they would manage the collection of these taxes. well, can you imagine? so now we're going to ask businesses yes, you have to purchase this certain software and, guess what? every sale you make is going to

be held by the central government in each state? and can you imagine all the things we've seen happen in terms of breach of privacy of individuals. we have seen cyber attacks. all these issues we're facing -- we cooen it in our government with o.p.m., we've seen it with i.r.s. with private companies appeared data breach. so now the latest scheme is let's send all the sales in fact to one place and we'll have some company, i guess some private companies will stand to benefit from this, that they'll now collect all these taxes and they'll hold all this information and imagine how much information they'd hold in each state? and so that's how we're going to create this new taxing scheme the and you can imagine how a state like new hampshire would feel about that as a state that has decided not to have a sales tax, that suddenly our state has

to keep all this information has to hire some private company to do this to collect all these taxes and then each of our online businesses has to purchase this software that's supposed to interface with this state government. what a massive bureaucracy and how unfair is it in terms of state sovereignty that the federal government would impose this on a state like new hampshire that's made a decision not to have a sales tax? this to me, would be the opposite of what we're trying to accomplish by -- under the permanent internet tax freedom act, which i fully support which is about internet tax freedom, and to attach this proposal to that internet tax freedom act which some people i think are scheming around here to do, which was in the right hand we're going to give you

internet freely freedom and in the left hand is going to take that freedom away from states like mining who have closen not have a sales tax and our online businesses who now have to be part of this huge bureaucratic scheme to collect taxes for other states and other localities. so i would hope that my colleagues would not go down this road because i think the internet should be free. i think that online businesses should be able to continue to thrive and grow. i think that online businesses should not be able to -- not be required to collect for over 9,000 taxing jurisdictions and certainly i think all of us should have concerns about all of the sales data being collected by some kind of third party and being held in one place just so that we can collect more taxes onion line businesses. and, in fact, what i heard -- have heard from our businesses in new hampshire previously when

the so-called marketplace fairness act was on the floor of the senate, many of the businesses in new hampshire that have online sales told me then how unfair they thought this taxing scheme was and those concerns remain. great businesses like garnett hill in fron franconia, new hampshire, the president had told me that this is going to be a nightmare. in h. i had heard in the past from e & r land dry founded in manchester in 1921. about 70% are now internet based and the company's president said that he would not have the resources to collect and calculate sales taxes. a great bakery in mash nashua

frederick's, and susan lozer roberts of frederick's said that anybody who has been there, i can tell you frederick's is a great bakery. she expressed concern that this taxing scheme would create mass confusion, keeping up with all the individual tax codes. and now the fact that we're going to have to have soft weared and have some -- software and have some third party hold all of the sales in fact for all of these online businesses. that creates so many additional burdensome issues, as well as privacy issues. travis adams wati said one tax audit would completely crush us because what happens under this so-called taxing scheme is now all of our online businesses can be audited in all of these taxing jurisdictions.

and so you can be an online business in new hampshire and what the proponents of this new tax scheme would like to have is this opportunity that businesses in new hampshire can now be audit the in all of -- audited in all these other jurisdictions and you can imagine what kind of burdens that would create on businesses that are trying to focus every day on the bottom line and creating jobs. so mr. president i would say that as we look at this new proposal that people are -- some people are behind the scenes talking about trying a ttach to the internet -- trying to attach to the internet tax freedom act i hoped we would not go down it this road. it would be bad pour impis bad for people's privacy it would be a big power grab i think from washington to require states

like new hampshire to collect these taxes from throughout the country, and it certainly wouldn't be positive to create more jobs through online businesses. in fact, the competitive enterprise institute said of this latest proposal, which is a cousin to the so-called marketplace fairness act this new tax grab erodes healthy tax competition among states, puts consumers' information at higher risk and ushers in a regime of taxation without representation. it is state-paid mercenaries with sales tax charts. under the marketplace fairness act, businesses are threatened by the prospect of being audited and prosecuted in every state into which they sell. this issue is one i think we all should care about and i know in my home state of new hampshire where we've chosen not have a sales tax it would be

completely unfair for us to consider passing this proposal, which is a brand-new tax grab that erodes new hampshire's competitive status of choosing not to have a sales tax and also the concerns we all should have about a central taxing authority holding all of this private sales information in episcopal of the states and what could be done with that information and how will consumers' information be protected. new hampshire's reserve did notes and internet retailers can't afford this radical federal invasion of our state and i hope that my colleagues will see the importance of extending the internet tax freedom act to encourage job creation. but under no circumstances should the internet tax moratorium be held hostage by a new and invasive sales tax that

would not only undo the benefits of the tax moratorium but also burden our small businesses by becoming tax collectors for other states. that's wrong and i hope that this body will not go down that road smed i certainly will be doing everything i canning within my power in the united states senate to make sure that this new sales tax collection regime does not get attached to a very positive proposal which is the internet tax freedom act. i thank you mr. president and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. donnelly: thank you mr. president. it's an honor to follow my colleague from new hampshire who has done such an eloquent job. mr. president, i wanted to talk about the export-import bank. i said this during the unnecessary 2013 government

shown and -- shutdown and i'll say it again. most americans think congress can do something to help create jobs and strengthen our economy. even if it's simply not doing any harm. yet here we are again willfully allowing an important tool for economic growth to expire by not taking commonsense action. on june 30 the charter for the export-import bank will expire. during its 80 plus years of existence, the bank has garnered support from every president during that span and repeatedly been renewed by congress often without any objection. the export-import bank is not a democrat program or a republican program. it's a program to help american business. president reagan's words from 30 years ago still ring true. exports create and sustain jobs for millions of american

workers. and contribute to the growth and strength of the united states economy. the export-import bank contributes in a significant way to our nation's export sales. the gipper was right then and he's right today. those who oppose the ex-im for ideological reasons may make their case in the abstract but i have to operate in the reality where i've heard over and over again from indiana small business owners and workers about the importance of the ex-im bank. john the vice president of specialty hardwoods of indiana told me about their small company which has around 40 employees. they got through the financial downturn of 2008 and 2009 but suffered during that time as all small manufacturers did not only here in this country but worldwide. as they returned to profitability they made a decision to try to diversify

markets. up until 2008, they mostly sold their products to the recreational vehicle industry. since then they started to sell to cabinet companies that market to the kitchen and bath industry nationally and made a direct attempt to go after export sales. lumber product experts now account for specialty hardwood's more than 45% of their current sales. john told me we could not have done this without the support of the ex-im bank. i personally have helped other small companies in our industry contact ex-im and establish relationships with them. it levels the playing field for smaller companies to enter this market segment. we have grown our business employed people, and survived because of export-import ex-im bank and because of the efforts of their

45 partners who work there every single day. the stories continue. mark the vice president and coowner of agrarian marketing corporation told us about his company that makes feed additives and nutritional supplements for the livestock industry. they have a very large distributor in cairo egypt that represents nearly 30% of their business. this hoosier business, nearly 30% of their business comes from cairo, egypt. the insurance they purchase through ex-im allows them to extend beneficial credit terms to their egyptian customer. it would not be possible if they required their customer to prepay for those orders. mark said although we're small this segment of our business is very important to us. it provides excellent profitability, provides great

jobs in indiana, as well as jobs for contract manufacturers in iowa, illinois, and in the president's home state of ohio. all would suffer if we lost this business. bruce, the c.e.o. and chairman of sullivan powatech in michigan city noted not only the 140 jobs would be impacted but several hundred more at local suppliers. bruce said in the event that ex-im was to shut down, the impact is immediate. we would very much have difficulty in getting any new orders. and the orders that are in house, many would not be able to be shipped. we have to shut them down right in the middle of the order process. john mark, and bruce are three of many in indiana, many around the country. in my home state the hoosier state, since 2010 the export-import bank has helped

directly more than 100 companies who have exported more than $3 billion in goods and services. the ex-im bank costs zero in taxpayer dollars. in fact, it turns a profit. since 1992, the bank has returned more than $7 billion in profits to the treasury. just last year, $675 million were returned to the treasury. and the default rate, 0.175%. that's less than one fifth of one percent. that is an effort to manage in a fiscally prudent fiscally responsible manner. in fiscal 2014, ex-im authorized about $20.5 billion

for 346 transactions which contributed to $27.5 billion of u.s. exports and more than 164,000 jobs right here in the united states. these aren't in most part huge corporations. they're small companies that wouldn't be able to find financing elsewhere. in 2014, 90% of the transactions approved by the bank were in support of small businesses. so what happens if ex-im's charter is to expire? it will be forced to shut down. unwind current obligations and the loss of future financing could result in a significant amount of business being lost overseas. that directly affects the bottom line for many businesses, leaving them with less revenue to reinvest, less revenue to pay wages or create new jobs.

it becomes difficult if not nearly impossible for the private sector to replace the loans, the guarantees, and the insurance provided by ex-im bank. at a time when american companies are competing in a game that is often rigged by foreign currency manipulation, intellectual property theft and unsurmountable regulatory barriers unilaterally eliminateing our export credit agency just further handcuffs u.s. job creators and allows foreign competitors to pick up the business. if ex-im no longer provides financing, foreign companies and countries that are -- they're still going to buy their goods and products. they need the products. but instead of buying that product from muncie, indiana they'll purchase it in russia or china. this is, to me, the direct

opposite of what congress should be doing. it seems like up is down and down is up in this discussion. nearly every other major country has a credit export agency. many are larger and much more aggressive than the export-import bank. unilaterally eliminating our export credit agency hurts not only the united states and handcuffs our job creators but also helps competitors in foreign countries to capitalize and seize that business. our global competitors including china brazil, and india, are investing more in export financing every single day. they are investing in their companies and in their economy and if we take this measure, we are stepping back. they are rooting for america's export-import bank to close because it means more business

for them. even our neighbor, canada, is providing far more export financing than the united states. canada's economy is one-tenth the size of the united states' economy and their export-import agency already provides far more export financing than we do at the present time. the export-import bank is a tool that allows american companies to compete in the global economy. in indiana we pride ourselves on what we call hoosier common sense. it doesn't get more common sense than creating more american jobs in a fiscally responsible way. that's what the export-import bank does. congress needs a dose of that hoosier common sense which is the same as the common sense in the president's home state of ohio and we should act quickly

to reauthorize the export-import bank to help our companies to help our employees to help workers around our country and to help our nation. i yield back, mr. president and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. gardner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: mr. president our country stands on the brink of after great opportunity in the asia-pacific. since 2008, the united states and 11 other pacific nations including japan and new zealand have worked to conclude negotiations on the trans-pacific partnership or t.p.p. this agreement represents nearly 40% of the global gross domestic product, or g.d.p., and is the most ambitious free trade agreement in history. by up-ending antiquated

international barrier systems we can unleash american ingenuity and send our nation's product from main street to malaysia. much has been said about the benefits of concluding t.p.p., but i want to focus on a particular benefit for my home state of colorado. colorado like most states, benefits immediately from international trade particularly with asia. according to the business round table, more than 265,000 colorado jobs are supported by the countries that would be affected by t.p.p. these trade-related jobs include the farm worker harvesting -- the farm worker harvesting world-famous melons, the meatpacker shipping beef, the electrical engineer designing computer systems in boulder and the natural gas worker maintaining a rig. collectively these everyday working americans help drive the economic and trade engine of colorado. last year my state expended more

than $8 billion worth of goods in exports all across the world. approximately half of them were or $4 billion went directly to t.p.p. countries. while nations like vietnam and japan have imposed hefty tariffs on our colorado goods in the past t.p.p. presents an opportunity to level the playing field. american goods would flow more freely to the region and american workers stand to benefit. that's why i strongly support granting the president trade promotion authority and finalizing a high-stand t.p.p. a vote for t.p.a. is a vote for the american worker, a vote for more active engagement in the world and a higher standard of living and a vote to recognize that through increased trade we can deliver upon the promise is of a better tomorrow. some in congress have opted for isolationism and retreat. they have sounded the alarm over supposed failure of past trade

agreements and argued in favor of taking cover rather than taking charge. and they have doubled down on the false notion that trade is always bad for the american economy and the american worker. but a quick review of the facts will dispel these myths quickly. according to the u.s. department of agriculture national beef exports to colombia and panama have more than tripled since 2011 when we enacted free trade agreements with these countries. national wheat exports to chile more than doubled from 2003 trade agreement through 2014 while dairy exports increased more than 20 times to that country. and our beef exports have increased more than 8 times to the participant countries of the central america and dough dominican republic free trade agreements. colorado businesses have played a large role in expanding overseas. my state witness add 37% increase in goods exported to countries between 2003 and 02013. exports to korea have increased

61% since the conclusion of our free trade agreement with that nation in 2011. and nafta which anti-trade forces frequently dismiss as a poster child for trade deals gone awry, has resulted in a 293% -- that's right a 293% increase in colorado exports to canada and mexico. since 1994. beyond the numbers though, it's important to meet with the workers and business owners who understand that freer trade helps their bottom line. just a few days ago i traveled to eastern colorado, my annual wheat tour. it's a tradition that senatorial wayne allard started back in the 1990's then u.s. representative, and one that i was excited to continue the tradition here in the senate. i invited my colleague from colorado senator bennet, so we could hear the needs directly from coloradoans and see the impact that agreements like t.p.p. could have not only on

eastern colorado but farmers across this country. on the tour we had the chance to marvel at the production level of colorado wheat growers. we are about two weeks away from the height of winter wheat farming in colorado. a reminder that colorado helps us feed the world. the vast majority of colorado's wheat product is exported. in 2013 we shipped more than $235 million worth of wheat across the globe. 80% of the wheat we produce in colorado is exported. most of the wheat growers we met on the eastern plains aren't interested in retreating from the international marketplace. in fact, they want to expand the international marketplace. they understand that freer trade means improved opportunities to place their product. under the high standard t.p.p. colorado wheat growers could penetrate notoriously difficult markets in country like japan and shift from thurmond to tokyo

and beyond. colorado farmers and ranchers already export millions of dollars in western slope beef, southern colorado onions and san luis valley potatoes. according to the dopt agriculture -- the department of agriculture, colorado potatoes represent about 70% of u.s. exports of potatoes to mexico. it is expected to increase. there is no question that trade benefits rural america. we should be promoting pal said peaches and -- palisades peaches. i saw the potential that p hardworking farmers and ranchers created for colorado for colorado products abroad. their determined spirit and hardworking attitude are what keep america at the top of the global economy and t.p.p. will expand that promise in the asia pacific. urban and suburban america succeed with increased trade. like their rural counterparts

they benefit from a wider selection of cheaper goods. the mechanics of cheap trade stretch dollars further for the teenager with a part-time summer job as well as the family struggling to make ends meet. beside from the benefit of cheaper products, increased trade creates jobs at home. a couple of months ago i visited a company in boulder colorado, that manufactures zip line equipment. this company has successfully expanded their business to europe and asia helping people across the globe enjoy rain forest canopy tours free falling and more. as this expanded overseas they had the ability to hire overseas. they doubled their colorado office and are still looking to grow. an agreement like t.p.p. will open further opportunities for this company in asia pacific and beyond perhaps facilitating world-class bungee jumping in new zealand or advanced rock climbing in peru and with those opportunities come more colorado jobs.

that's the essence of free trade. it encourages innovation and entrepreneurship. it connects the world while growing our workforce at home and it presents an opportunity for colorado and our country to spread our goods and ideas across the globe. madam president, that's why i've supported free trade agreements in the past, agreements that have yielded significant economic and strategic bfs for our -- strategic benefits for our nation. that's why i promoted trans-pacific partnership and will continue to support it again and will continue to support it this week. that's why i urge my colleagues to continue their support for free trade agreements and so that the united states can help grasp the great opportunity that awaits us in the asia pacific. madam president, we've held several hearings over the past couple of months in the foreign relations committee and beyond talking about the benefits of free trade. last week we were joined by -- a couple of weeks ago joined by experts in asia and economic

leaders around this country all of whom believe that of we have an important role to play until expanding trade and expanding the opportunities that the trans-pacific partnership will lead it to when that agreement comes to this floor thanks to trade promotion authority. it is an important measure that we must enact. it is an important statement of good faith that the united states truly is interested in the asia region, the asia pacific region and making good on our efforts to truly pivot to asia to rebalance the policy we support that we are making good on our word that we are in the region to stay. madam president, i yield the floor, and i thank you for your time. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: last fall republicans promised that if we were elected in the majority that we would get washington working again. that wasn't a campaign slogan. that was a commitment. after six months of republican control, i'm proud to report that we're delivering on that promise. the past six months in the senate have been a most

productive months in a long time. we passed bipartisan legislation to approve the keystone pipeline. we papped a bill to -- passed a bill to help prevent suicide among veterans. we passed medicare reform which will ensure seniors have access to physicians and those physicians are judged by the quality rather than the quantity of the care they provide. we passed bipartisan legislation to give law enforcement tools to fight human trafficking. we passed a bipartisan bill to authorize funding for our national defense and provide for the needs of our men and women in uniform. those are just some of the highlights. madam president, every piece of legislation that i mentioned passed with bipartisan support and one reason that happened is because the republican majority has been committed to ensuring that all senators, whatever their party have an opportunity to make their voices heard.

under democrat leadership not only are members of the republican party regularly shut of out of the legislative process, but many rank-and-file democrats were as well. during all of 2014 the democrat leadership in the senate allowed just 15 amendment roll call votes. 15 votes in an entire year. that's barely more than a vote a month. by contrast, the republican-led senate has taken more than 130 roll call votes so far this year or more than 21 votes a month. that's not only more amendment roll call votes than last year, it's more amendment roll call votes than the senate has taken in the past two years combined. that's through the first six months of 2015. we've got another six months to go madam president. well this week the senate is considering what i hope is going to be our next bipartisan achievement, and that's legislation to help expand u.s. trade with other countries and increase the opportunities that are available for american

businesses and american workers. over the past few years exports have been a bright spot in our economy, supporting an increasing number of american jobs each and every year. in 2014, exports supported 11.7 million u.s. jobs and made up 13% of our nation's economy. we need to continue to open markets around the globe to american goods and services, and the best way to do that is through new trade agreements. countries with which we have free and fair trade agreements purchased subsubstantial more from you us than other countries. in fact -- subsubstantial more from us than other countries. in 2013 countries are purchased 12 times more goods per capita from the united states and canada than no free trade countries. 12 times more goods. for american workers increased trade means more opportunities and high-paying jobs.

manufacturing jobs, madam president, tied to exports pay on average 13% to 18% more than other jobs in our economy. unfortunately, while trade agreements have proliferated around the globe over the past several years the united states hasn't signed a new trade agreement in eight years. a big reason for that is the fact that trade promotion authority expired in 2007. since 1934, almost all of the united states free trade agreements have been negotiated using trade promotion authority or a similar streamlined expedited process. trade promotion authority is designed to put the united states in the strongest possible position when it comes to negotiating trade agreements. under t.p.a., congress sets guidelines for trade negotiations and outlines the priorities the administration must follow. in return, congress promises a simple up-or-down vote on the resulting trade agreement instead of a long amendment

process that could leave the final deal looking nothing like what was initially negotiated. that simple up-or-down vote is the key. it lets our negotiating partners know that congress and trade negotiators are on the same page which gives other countries the confidence they need to put their best offers on the table. and that in turn allows for a successful and timely conclusion of negotiations. currently the administration is negotiating two major trade agreements that have the potential to vastly expand the market for american goods and services in the european union and in the pacific. the trans-pacific partnership is being negotiated with a number of of asia pacific nation including australia japan, new zealand, singapore and vietnam. if this agreement is done right it could have huge benefits for american agriculture among other industries. agricultural producers in my state of south dakota and the presiding officer's state of

iowa understand that trade promotion authority is the most effective way to secure trade agreements that will benefit our farmers and our ranchers. one pork producer in my state of south dakota contacted me to tell me that a successful t.p.p. deal could increase u.s. pork exports to just one of the trans-pacific partnership countries by literally hundreds of millions of dollars in a year. madam president, discussions of the benefits of trade tend to focus on the economic benefits, and with good reason. it is something that helps our economy. it creates good-paying jobs, raises the standard of living for people in this country and gives access for consumers to lower-cost goods and services. but new trade agreements also have the potential not just to result in economic gains for american farmers ranchers and manufacturers but in national security gains for the country. when we make trade deals with other countries we're not just opening new markets for our goods. we're also developing and cementing alliances.

trade agreements build bonds of friendship with other nations that extend not only to cooperation on economic issues, but to cooperation on security issues as well. it's also important to remember that just because the united states isn't negotiating trade agreements doesn't mean that other countries won't be. in fact, the united states has not signed a single new trade agreement over the past eight years, but that hasn't prevented other countries from signing numerous trade agreements over the same period. if america fails to lead on trade, other nations like china will step in to fill the void. and these nations will not have the best interest of american workers and american families in mind. the bill before us today will help pave the way for the united states to cement alliances with friendly nations through trade and will help ensure that any trade deals the united states enters into will be favorable to our economic and to our national

security interests. the senate passed a version of this bill last month with a bipartisan majority, and i'm hopeful that we'll have a similarly strong bipartisan vote yet this week. madam president, republicans believe that our nation's problems are best solved when members of both parties come together to find solutions for the american people. republicans plans for our second six months in the majority are the same as those for the first six months of our majority. and that is to make sure that we continue to move forward in a way that addresses the challenges that are facing our country. unfortunately, last week we saw an unfortunate return to partisanship on the part of the democrats when they blocked an appropriations bill to fund our troops. it's not that democrats have a problem with this bill. in fact, many of them voted to support the funding this bill provides when they voted in

favor of the national defense authorization act last week. the authorization act is the first step in a two-step process which has to be followed by the appropriations bill that actually provides the funding. but democratic leaders and the president, even though many of them supported the defense authorization bill, are upset that government agencies like the e.p.a. and the i.r.s. aren't receiving the democratic' preferred level of funding. so they've decided to hold appropriations bills hostage in an effort to get what they want. well it's unfortunate that democrats are holding funding for our troops hostage in order to get more funding for the e.p.a. and the i.r.s. if democrats believe funding levels on appropriations bills are not acceptable, they'll have the opportunity to offer amendments to increase the funding. but in order to do that, they have to allow us to actually proceed to consideration of these bills on the senate floor.

and what they are in effect doing now is filibustering any attempt to bring any spending bill up to the floor. most recently the one as i mentioned, the funding bill p for our troops, the bill that funds our national security interests in this country is currently being held hostage -- can't even get it on the floor can't even get it on the floor to debate it. we're not talking about ultimately passing it. we're talking about even having a discussion on the floor of the united states senate about something as important as funding our troops and the important military objectives that we have as a nation. yet right now we've got a filibuster that's being conducted by the democrats again, because they want to get more funding for their favorite agencies. well that's a bad way to go about this and i'm hopeful this obstruction which is largely driven by the democrat leadership and that most rank-and-file democrats will rethink a strategy that involves opposing every opportunity to fund our nation's priorities and get things done for the american people.

after years of stagnation in the senate under democrat leadership, i think even most democrats have enjoyed governing in a functioning senate again. we have dozens of bipartisan bills to show for the first six months of this year and our record of accomplishment continues if democrats abandon their strategy of obstruction and continue to work with us to face the challenges facing our country. and it could start it can start by not objecting to proceeding to even getting a bill that funds our national security interest here on the floor of the united states senate so that we can debate it. like i said, if they don't like the funding levels in there, we will have an open amendment process in which they can offer amendments to change those funding levels. but what they're doing right now is fundamentally wrong by not even allowing consideration of an appropriation bill that funds our military and pays our troops on the floor of the united states senate. i hope that will change. i hope the democrats will join us to make the next six months

of 2015 as the first six months have been and that we can point to bipartisan achievements that are good for the american people that focus on their basic daily needs, that will promote policies that will grow our economy and create jobs and lead to a higher standard of living and higher increased take-home pay for people and for middle -income families in this country. madam president, i yield the floor. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: madam president i would like to take a few minutes to underscore the importance of trade and trade promotion authority to the american manufacturing industry. now, despite some claims to the contrary u.s. manufacturers have been among the principal beneficiaries of our existing free trade agreements. one in four u.s. manufacturing jobs depend on exports and on average the wages of those in exports support manufacturing jobs are 18% higher than those of other factory workers. furthermore, since the last t.p.a. bill passed through congress in 2002, u.s. goods exports have more than doubled

reaching $1.6 trillion in 2013 alone. while we hear a constant drumbeat decrying our trade deficits the u.s. enjoys a nearly $60 billion nearly manufacturing trade surplus with our 20 existing partners to free trade agreements. consumers and businesses in those 20 countries purchased $658 billion of u.s. manufactured goods in 2013 alone which represents nearly 48% of all exports produced by the 12 million americans employed in manufacturing. clearly, madam president in places where we have free trade agreements where our manufacturers can compete on a level playing field, they are winning. we need to build on that track record of success and enact more high standard 21st century free trade agreements. that is yet another reason we need t.p.a. it's no wonder, then, that our

t.p.a. bill is supported by manufacturers throughout the country. we've received letters or statements of support from groups like the national association of manufacturers the national electrical manufacturers association the grocery manufacturers association, the american forest and paper association the association of equipment manufacturers, and the semiconductor association the society for chemical manufacturing and affiliates, the national council of textile organizations and many others. on top of that, a number of iconic individual manufacturing companies have weighed in publicly in support of our bill including boeing, cummins honeywell, texas industries, xerox and, of course, many others. caterpillar paced in peoria, illinois is the world's leading manufacturer of construction and mining equipment diesel

engines and gas turbines. caterpillar knows the value of a -- the value of trade to a healthy economy exporting nearly $88 billion in goods and services over the past five years. they know that if we pass t.p.a. they can do even better. upon introduction of our bill the company issued a statement saying -- quote -- "passage of t.p.a. will provide the united states with the strongest possible hand when negotiating future trade agreements and will help eliminate the current high tariffs and trade barriers that companies like caterpillar currently face" -- unquote. it's not just big companies that benefit. 98% of nearly 300,000 american exporters are small and medium-sized businesses. let me say that again. 98% of all u.s. exporters are small and medium-sized businesses and that's 300,000

of them. that fact escapes many people. let me give you an example of one of these small businesses from my home state of utah. kimber cable is owned and operated by ray kimber. ray's story is emblematic of the american dream. in the late 1970's ray figured out a way to weave audio cables to reduce unwanted noise and improve fidelity. the company he started in a garage over 35 years ago is now a driver of economic growth and a source of jobs. today he employs 30 people in ogden, utah and he sells his cables to the world. two-thirds of ray's cables are shipped to customers overseas. ray is not only a friend of mine he's also an outstanding example of a larger truth. the u.s. manufacturing sector is the most innovative in the world and american workers are unsurpassed in manufacturing

productivity. because of u.s. innovation and productivity when a u.s. manufacturer competes on a local footing, it always succeeds. we can help people like ray reach more markets and maintain healthy small businesses across mesh. businesses that will grow our economy and create more jobs. but we can only do that if our trade negotiators have the tools to set fair trade rules for our exporters. that is what our t.p.a. bill provides. for example, a big part of the ability of small companies like kimber cable to sell around the world is digital trade. that is why the t.p.a. bill that is once again before us directs our trade negotiators to ensure that electronically delivered goods and services are classified with the most liberal trade treatment possible and that our trading partners allow

the free flow of data across borders. but using the internet to market sell, and transmit digital products is only part of the story. companies like ray's are also innovators and their innovations must be protected. too many small businesses have experienced firsthand the destructive impact of intellectual property rights theft. companies like kimber cable have to contend with counterfeiters stealing his company's name to sell inferior products. this t.p.a. bill therefore will also ensure that u.s. trade agreements reflect a standard of intellectual property rights protection similar to that found in our own united states law. the bill calls or an end to the theft of u.s. intellectual property by governments including piracy and -- excuse

me -- including piracy and the theft of trade secrets and the elimination of measures that require them to locate abroad in term or market access. are strong terms that will happy institute. businesses compete and sell their products around the world. companies from caterpillar to kimber cable recognize the importance of trait and trade agreements to american matching. they recognize that 95% of the world's consumers live outside of the united states and that if we want to sell american-made products to these customers, we need strong trade agreements that break down barriers and level the playing field. we simply cannot do that without t.p.a. madam president, we can do better, and we must do better for american manufacturers if we really want to support the american manufacturing industry then we should vote

today to pass this t.p.a. legislation once and for all. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: madam president i'd like to take just a few minutes to talk about the importance of international

trade to my home state of utah and how utahans will benefit from the passage of our t.p.a. bill. despite having a relatively small population, the state of utah is a very significant player in international trade. in 2014 alone utah exported more than $12 billion in goods. that number has more than doubled over the past decade, despite the economic downturn that took place during that time. good exports account nor more than 11% of utah's g.d.p., more than 50,000 of utah's jobs are directly tied to goods exports of more than 3,400 utah-based companies export goods to countries around the world. by the way nearly 86% of those exporting companies are small or medium-size businesses. these utah exports include a number of key manufacturing exports, including primary metal

products computer products, chemicals, processed foods and transportation equipment just to mention a few. there are a number of utah companies that i could single out here today. like i said, there are more than 3,400 utah-based exporters but let me talk about one in particular. albein laboratories, which is based in clear field utah. albein is a leading global manufacturer of key latent minerals. the company is incredibly innovative owning more than 100 patents from manufacturing processes to food applications. over the years albein has enjoyed strong growth in large part because of its expanded exports. today albein exports to more than 100 different companies which has allowed the company to

regularly add new jobs to accommodate its increased output. as of right now the company employs approximately 150 people. this is just one example madam president, of the many unique and innovative utah companies that have benefited from international trade and will benefit from even -- benefit even more from expanded access to foreign markets in the future. there has been a lot of talk lately about the potential benefits of our pending trade agreements with countries in the asia pacific region and the european union. as of right now more than half of utah's exports already go to these two markets. therefore, i think it's safe to say that utah-based exporters will benefit greatly from the expanded market access if we can get the pacific partnership and atlantic trade over the h finish

line. these which are among the largest and most ambitious agreements in our nation's history don't stand the chance. t.p.a. gives our manufacturers the tools they need to get the best deals they need. it gives them a strong voice in the negotiating process. t.p.a. assures once an agreement is reached our country will be able to deliver on the deal. utahans depend on international trade, madam president. utah's job creators like those throughout the country need greater access to foreign markets in order to compete. put simply, they are not going to get that access without t.p.a. so for the sake of the thousands of utah companies that export goods around the world and tens of thousands of utahans whose jobs depend on those exports and for really hundreds of thousands of companies all over this country, and more, i urge my colleagues to join me one more

time in supporting our t.p.a. legislation. madam 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 iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: before i speak i would ask unanimous consent that laurel newell of my staff be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. grassley: madam president i want to tell my colleagues here in the united states senate about a bill i'm introducing called the rural emergency acute care hospital act. and for purposes of shortening the name of that legislation it has the acronym reach r-e-a-c r-e-a-ch, so i'm going to refer to it as the reach act. since january 2010, 55 rural hospitals closed their doors. so you can see in the years that we have listed here, it adds up to 55 hospitals.

now, even more troubling is that the pace of rural hospital closures appear to be accelerating. again, as you can see in the chart, the number of hospital closures has increased very definitely over the last five years. these closures are creating a health care crisis for hundreds of thousands of americans across the country. the reach act will create a new rural hospital model under medicare that will enable struggling rural hospitals to keep their doors open and maintain the most critical hospital service emergency medicine. when a rural hospital closes, the community loses the lifesaving capability of the

emergency room. according to the national conference on state legislatures 60% of trauma deaths in the united states occur in rural areas. after a traumatic event access to an emergency room within one hour can make a big difference between life and death. i have a couple of examples. obviously anecdotal but still i will tell you examples of what i'm talking about. one would be porsche gibbs from north carolina. at 48 she suffered a heart attack 45 miles from the nearest emergency room. she later died waiting for a helicopter to arrive that would have taken her over the state line to virginia where the closest hospital was located. if portia's heart attack had

occurred just one week earlier portia would have been transported to a hospital in bell haven north carolina, just 30 miles away. unfortunately, the facility in bell haven had closed just six days before portia's heart attack citing insurmountable financial struggles something we hear from hospitals across the country. even a few hospitals? the state of iowa have some financial troubles. then there is a tragic story of 18-month-old edith gonzalez, who choked on a grape in her hometown center texas. edith's frantic parents rushed her to their local hospital, shelby regional medical center only to discover it had closed just weeks earlier. by the time little edith arrived at the next closest hospital, she had passed away.

while we can't say with certainty that both edith and portia would have survived if their local hospitals had not closed, we know for sure that earlier people access care, the better their chances are of surviving. the term used for emergency medical practitioners about this period of time of roughly one hour as they say it, that's the golden hour. the golden hour is the hour following a traumatic event when lifesaving intervention like that which can be provided in an emergency room has the best chance of impacting survival. in other words the longer a patient has to wait to receive emergency medical care, the lower their chances are of survival.

rural hospital closures mean patients have to travel longer distances to access emergency medical care. ensuring that rural communities keep their emergency care resources could make the difference, then between life and death. rural hospital closures also extend beyond the loss of emergency services to include economic consequences for rural communities. hospital closures can mean the death of a rural community. approximately 62 million americans live in rural america. rural communities play an integral role in the economic stability of this country through their invaluable contributions of food production manufacturing and a lot of vital industries.

in addition to supporting the medical needs of those who participate in local industry, rural hospitals also serve as the single largest employer in most rural communities. the economic impact of closing a hospital when no other hospital is closed by -- those outcomes are very devastating. if we care about the physical and economic health of rural communities, we must make a change that will reverse the trend of accumulating rural hospital closures. i-advantage analytics compiled a report for the rural health association which identified 283 additional hospitals at risk of closure based upon performance indicators that matched those of

these 53 hospitals already closed. so madam president allow me to direct your attention to the map of the united states. this map depicts the approximate location of 53 of the 55 hospitals that have closed in the last five years. i would like to point out that between printing of this chart and this very day two additional rural hospitals have closed. that alone is a clear indication of the problem that i'm trying to convey to my colleagues. now imagine this same map here depicting 50 -- no, five times the number of hospital closures that you see right here, five times the number of red dots. that's what's possible out there in the next few years.

and then that's a fact of what will happen if we do not act to protect america's rural hospitals. furthermore, the loss of those additional hospitals would not only impact local economies but it would also result in a 10-point $6 billion loss in g.d.p. it must change, not only for the health of rural americans but also for the health and stability of our economy. payment cuts to hospitals are one contributing factor to rural hospital closures. more significant however is the current medicare payment structure that supports rural hospitals. today the medicare payment structure for hospitals is focused on inpatient volume.

emergency rooms act as a loss leader and income is primarily generated through income -- inpatient stays. a rand study published in 2013 found that the average cost of an inpatient stay is ten times the cost of an emergency room visit. researchers at the university of north carolina found that many of the at-risk rural hospitals around the country have an average of two or fewer patients admitted to a hospital on any given day. these hospitals can have up to a a -- up to 25 inpatient beds but if only two or fewer are filled every day that's a utilization rate of 8% or less. so instead of letting these facilities close because they don't have the needed inpatient

volume to generate enough revenue, why not then, let go of the underutilized inpatient services in favor of sustaining lifesaving emergency care? so i get to what the reach act actually does. it provides a voluntary -- emphasize voluntary -- pathway for rural hospitals to eliminate their underutilized patient services and ensure residents have access to emergency medical care that saves lives. a key component of the bill that allows the rural emergency hospital model to function is the requirement that these facilities have protocols in place for the timely transfer of patients who require a higher level of care or inpatient

admission. the value of the rural emergency hospitals in the case of a life life-threatening emergency will be their ability to administer lifesaving measures in order to stabilize a patient before they're transferred to a higher level of care. in addition to provideing lifesaving emergency care, rural emergency hospitals will have the flexibility to provide a wide array of outpatient services including observation care skilled nursing facility care, infusion services, hemo dialysis nursing home care, hospice, population health as well as telemedicine services. this list is not meant to be all-inclusive but it's just a example of the outpatient services that rural emergency

hospitals could provide to their respective communities. so the door is left open for rural emergency hospitals to design their outpatient services to match the needs of their communities. there are roughly 1,300 critical access hospitals in america including two in my state of iowa the second most just behind the state of kansas. i'm not suggesting that 1,300 critical access hospitals will become rural emergency hospitals. some hospitals may never consider giving up their inpatient beds. others may consider it in the future. but some critical access hospitals need this or something like it, right now. the rural emergency hospital model with its out patient and

emergency care services will be good for the health of rural communities and our nation because of the critical care it will provide when and where rural americans need it. when there is a farm accident in the afternoon or a heart attack in the middle of the night that emergency room can be the difference between life and death. medicare needs a payment policy that recognizes that simple fact. i look forward to continuing to work with my cosponsor, senator gardner, other colleagues, and stakeholders in building a sustainable future for rural health care. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask unanimous consent that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 5:00 p.m.nate.

had he been here he would have voted aye on the cloture motion. i want to say to our colleagues this this is a very important day for our country. we've demonstrated we can work together on a bipartisan basis to achieve something that is extremely important for america. not only when we confirm this trade promotion authority will we have the mechanism in place for the president to finalize an extraordinarily important deal with a number of different asian countries, it will indicate that america is back in the trade business, it will also

send a message to our allies that we understand there's somewhat wary about chinese commercial and potentially military domination and that we intend to still be deeply involved in the pacific. so i want to congratulate senator hatch, senator wyden. this has been a long and rather twisted path to where we are today, but it's are a very, very important accomplishment for the country. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i would like to mention that the other two absences senator menendez had voted no on cloture before, senator lee had voted no on cloture before so the vote would have been 61-39. more importantly is this is a day of celebration in the corporate suites to be sure because they have another corporate-sponsored trade agreement that will mean more money in some investors' pockets, that will mean more

plant closings in ohio and arizona and delaware and rhode island and west virginia and maine and all over this country. and most importantly mr. president, what i didn't understand about the vote today is that we even though -- even though "the wall street journal," the cato institute and others acknowledge that decisions we make here on trade agreements while they say it's a net increase in jobs, they also acknowledge that people lose their jobs because of decisions we make. so we make decisions here today that throw people out of work we know that, across the political spectrum that's acknowledged but we today don't do anything to help those workers that lose their jobs so we make a decision to throw people in mansfield ohio and cleveland, ohio out of work but then we don't take care of those workers that lost their jobs because of our decisions. it's shameful, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: let me just concur with the senator from ohio.

this trade agreement was supposed by -- supported by virtually every major corporation in the country the vast majority of whom have outsourced millions of jobs to low-wage countries all over the world. this trade agreement is supported by wall street, by the pharmaceutical industry who want to charge people in poor countries higher prices for the medicine they desperately need. this agreement was opposed by every union in this country working for the best interests of working families by almost every environmental group and many religious groups. in my view this trade agreement will continue the policies of nafta cafta permanent normal trade relations with china, agreements that have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs. we need a new trade policy in america, a policy that represents working families and not just the big money interests i strongly disagree with the

majority leader who called this a great day for america. it is not a great day. it's a great day for the big money interests, it is not a great day for working families. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president i would also ask unanimous consent that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. today for the weekly conference meetings and also from 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. today for an all-senators briefing and that all the time in recess count postcloture. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president there's no secret that republicans on this side of the aisle don't agree with

president obama about everything. in fact, i would say on balance, most republicans disagree with the policy choices made by this president. but occasionally, occasionally even the leader of the democratic party, the president of the united states, gets things right. the presiding officer: could we have order in the senate. the majority whip. mr. cornyn: occasionally the president of the united states gets his policy choices right. and he did when it comes to trade promotion authority which i would point out to our friends and anybody listening that this actually is a six-year trade promotion authority. this extends well beyond the current occupants of the white house's tenure and will be available for the next president of the united states to negotiate trade deals that are in the best interests of the

united states. so i agree with the majority leader, this latest vote is just another example of the senate getting back to work and restored to regular working order. this is a dramatic departure from the old senate, bus there's actually been a lot of time for consideration of important pieces of legislation from the iran nuclear agreement review act to the justice for victims of trafficking act to the budget. and now by moving this trade promotion authority bill forward, we can ensure that american workers and businesses get the best deal in pending trade agreements with countries from asian to south america to europe. so i believe we've actually kept the campaign promises we made last year that if the american people entrusted the republicans with the new majority, we would work together with our allies

where we could on the other side of the aisle where we have common cause to deliver results for the american people. to legislate in their best interest not just obstruct for obstruction's sake or to gain some temporary tactical or political advantage but to promote a functioning deliberative united states senate. i see one of the leaders of this effort, the senator from delaware who has done great work trying to find that common cause and producing a result as exemplified by the t.p.a. and i'm going to yield to him in just a moment but let me just talk briefly about my response to the senator from vermont and the senator from ohio that said there's nothing good to be had out of this trade promotion authority or any potential trade deals that we might negotiate. my home state of texas relies

heavily on international trade and we are the number-one trading state in the nation, which is just one reason why our economy grew at the rate of 5.2% in 2014. our economy in texas grew at the rate of 5.2% in 2014. you know what the united states' economy grew, hows fast it grew? 2.2%. so why would we want to do anything and everything we can to stimulate the growth of the economy to benefit people looking for work and people looking for higher wages? this important trade promotion authority is the first step to doing that. mr. president, i will just conclude because the distinguished senator from delaware is here and others want to speak, trade is an engine of

growth it keeps our economy going and these upcoming trade agreements whether it's the trans-pacific partnership or the trans-atlantic trade and secret. treaty serve as an opportunity to turbo charge that growth. our economy actually contracted last quarter by .7%. as long as our economy is shrinking and not growing we're not going to be able to create the jobs to put america back to work. we're not going to be able to create the sorts of wages that we want for all working americans. and so this legislation represents an important step in that direction and i am glad that in the exercise of a little mutual trust and comity that we have reached this important point. we're not through yet because there are other parts of this trade package that we're going to need to process this week but

the promise and commitment we made on this side of the aisle said if our colleagues across the aisle trust us to move through the trade promotion authority bill, we will continue to work with them and keep our commitments to them and hopefully more than just the trust that produces these pieces of legislation will result from this increased confidence and trust in one another. we know we're going to find things we disagree on and we'll fight like cats and dogs when we need to, but when we actually agree on the policy and can find it within ourselves to work together, the american people are the beneficiaries. i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: while the senator from texas is still on the floor let me say if i could he mentioned the word trust a number of times. it's an important word around here. one of my favorite savings integrity if you matter,if if you don't have it,if nothing

else matters. s there a lot we need to get done everybody realizes that. my takeaway from the election was threefold. people want us to work together get stuff done and want us to get things done that strengthen the economic recovery. one of the ways you strengthen the economic recovery frankly is making sure those markets overseas will allow us to sell into them whether it's products or goods or services, that we have access to those markets. the other thing is my colleague from texas is a big believer, as am i, in the golden rule. that is to treat other people the way we want to be treated. for most people, i think for our country, most of the people in this country actually support what we're doing. most of the democrats in our country support what their president has proposed, and the republicans as well. but what -- what we need to do while we move forward with trade promotion authority we need to keep in mind not everybody will be helped by this, there will be

some people that will be disadvantaged. we have an obligation to them, how would we want to be treated if we were in their shoes. there is a sister piece of legislation to go along with trade promotion authority. i would just ask the republican whip from texas just to give us some assurance or reassurance to build trust around this issue when we're contacted by folks around the country today or tomorrow or the next day, what are we going to do to provide assistance to those people who may be disadvantaged because of trade promotion authority and the trade deal that's going to be negotiated? can you give us some assurance there? is this the end of the road or are there some more pieces to follow this week? mr. cornyn: mr. president? mr. president, i would respond to the question by our colleague from delaware that assurances have been given that we understand that trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance travel together. and i think we have seen examples of where the benefits

of trade are not uniformly felt across the country. there are some people who -- who will be displaced but the importance of trade adjustment assistance i wish we could negotiate something a little more frugal that would actually get the job done, but negotiation took place between chairman ryan in the house and -- and the ranking member, senator wyden in the senate on this important piece of the package. we all recognize that these travel in pairs and that trade adjustment assistance is part of the price you pay for getting trade promotion authority done. but most importantly to my colleague's point from delaware, for those people who are displaced, this guarantees that they will have access to the sort of job training and skills enhancement that they need in order to get even better jobs in this economy that on net will

benefit the entire country. so that's the intent on this side of the aisle and i think the tenth of -- intent of trade adjustment assistance and making sure that we finish our work, not here today but through the rest of the week on this important package of pieces of legislation. mr. carper: mr. president reclaiming my time, i want to thank our republican whip for those words for his work on this. i would just close with this thought. whenever i talk to people that have been married a long time, like 50, 60, 70 years i always ask them what's the secret to being married a long time. i get some really funny answers and some poignant ones as well. the best answer i have heard to that question was the two c's the two c's. not cornyn and carper, but the two c's -- communicate and compromise. and i would add maybe a third to that and that's collaborate collaborate. we need to demonstrate the ability to communicate and to compromise and to collaborate. those are not only the secrets

to a vibrant marriage but the secrets to a vibrant democracy. this is a confidence-building measure. we have taken i think an important step here. working with democrats and republicans, working with the democratic president. and the next step is one we have just talked about, trade adjustment assistance. we need to do that. if we can actually work through these issues this week and produce a -- a bipartisan product the president's going to sign, we will actually build some trust. and when we turn to the issue of transportation having a robust, vibrant transportation system, how to fund it, pay for that, what to do, this will be helpful. it applies to senator wyden senator murray on our side, senator hatch and the leader on the republican side and to senator cornyn for good work not done but a very good start today. thank you very much, and i yield back. thank you. mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. politburo manchin: i have the utmost respect for my colleagues. i think they make compelling

arguments. i just really have a hard time with this. i have not had one west virginian, average working west virginian who had a good job at one time and have lost a job that thinks that this type of approach to trade is good, not one. and i'm hearing talking about how much trade we do from our states. i would like to have known what type of trade, manufactured products. i don't see many manufactured products leaving this country. i see an awful lot of resources such as oil that had been refined into diesel fuel or gasoline. probably comes from texas i would say. that that's probably a big part of their trading and those types of things. but how many people actually benefit from that that really have a good manufacturing job? that's all i have asked. we talked about t.a.a. we're all hung up on t.a.a. do you know why we're hung up? because we all understand we're going to lose more jobs. we've already lost six million jobs since nafta. we've all lost six million jobs across this country. i lost 31,000 manufacturing jobs. i understand nafta hasn't been

enforced. they had some rules in there. you know, then you take this piece of legislation t.p.a., there was more security around this piece of legislation than there was the iran-contra nuclear deal, the iran nuclear deal that we were talking about. my staff could go there they could take notes we got briefed, we were able to ask questions. we couldn't even take a note or take a note out. and they're telling me, well, you know we all depend on trade and the market's shrinking. we're at $18 trillion g.d.p. think about this. we in the united states of america have the greatest economy the world's ever seen. $18 trillion. you know of all these 11 countries we're talking about the closest one to us? japan. four and a half. falls off the richter scale. but yet we have to be very secretive because somebody might leave us. i have been a businessperson all my life. if i wanted to get into a market i'll assure you i would be able to -- to evaluate my

competition, the people i want to do business with. if that was a big person on the block, i had to make more adjustments than they had to make. yet we're so concerned about the secrecy of this deal that none of us could be able to see it, work it, define it, dissect it and improve upon it. now we're just voting, basically carte blanche saying you'll get a 60-day review, can't do anything about it if you don't like it. can't do a thing about it if you don't like it. i didn't think we were elected to do that, i really didn't. when you start looking at everything that this stands for and you look at basically -- and my father, we were -- we had a grocery store my grandfather had a grocery store. my dad had fawrnt store. i was raised in retail. one thing my dad always encouraged is competition. he said joe listen, good competition brings out more buyers. more buyers gives us more of a chance to sell our goods. what he never did like and what he thought was unfair is when you had unfair competition

didn't pay their taxes didn't live by the rules or play by the rules, and if we didn't enforce those, it gave them an unfair competitive advantage. now, if you believe our past performance and our trade deals make us an expert at enforcing and making sure people play by the rules so that america's treated right then you probably would have voted for this. i don't. and i can only judge off our past performance where we are today. when's the last time you've seen goods that you use every day when you go shop, for whatever type of good, household goods clothing goods, things of this sort? furniture, think about that. the greatest furniture markets in the world were in the united states. we make very little furniture in this country today. they still want our wood products, so you know what? yeah we ship logs out of west virginia around the world so people can make the furniture that they want to send back to america. so i guess you say oh, yeah, that's a good trade. the only reason they are buying our logs is because they don't have the quality logs we have,

they don't have the quality hardwood forests. we sent our coal, the best coal in the world the best metallurgical coal that makes the steel comes out of west virginia. sure they're going to buy it because they don't have it. they're going to make their products and send them back to us and come into these markets subsidized. i just sooner or later we ought to do something for america. you've got to rebuild this country. and you don't build the wealth of a country based on basically moving paper back and forth. moving paper back and forth there are some people that the wealth that they accrue from this i'm sure that they are very satisfied and happy with that. and we see the income inequality over the last 20 years. we have never seen this big of a spread never. and you see the flatline of workers all over america just as flatline as can be. i don't know how we can look them in the eye and say we have done the best because now we have opened up 11 new countries.

vietnam, 58 cents an hour is what they're going to pay their workers. and we said whoa, whoa, nafta is going to be basically bringing the whole north american trade up to par. 22 years later i understand that mexico's minimum wage is still under a dollar an hour, around 80 cents. now, if you think a person that makes 58 cents an hour or 80 cents an hour or $1.50 an hour or seven of 11 countries make less than $2 that those people will have disposable income to buy the products that we would like to sell so we can expand our economy and our jobs, i'm sorry, i don't think that's going to happen. i really don't. i can't -- it doesn't make any sense to me at all how we expect a person that can barely survive, that they're going to have disposable income to buy products that we in the united states of america wish to sell to -- really to lift up our manufacturing base.

but i guess that's why we have t.a.a. that we're arguing about because we know we've given that up. we just about wrote that off 22 years ago so i guess we're going to write the rest of it off now. technology is great. i'm all your innovation, creation technology. i'm for every bit of that. but sooner or later you've got to make something. you've got to build something. you've got to reinvest. and there has to be people with their hands making these products being able to support their family, have a benefit package that gives them a decent life. growing up, when i was growing up in a little farm in west virginia we had manufacturing mining, we had people who cooking to work, work -- could go to work, work hard, take their family on vacation, pay their bills. we have let all that slip away from us. we could have the jobs of the future still manufacturing. so i'm not willing to give up on this mr. president.

you know, i don't -- you don't find me up here chastising my colleagues on the republican side or my colleagues on the democrat side. i think we're all here for the right reason. sometimes we get a little bit off track. and i think this is one time we have gotten off track something that would really help the united states of america working families all over this country we've kind of forgotten about. and i'm concerned about that. i'm concerned about going back home to my beautiful state of west virginia and telling the people i'm sorry we're going to have a harvarder time competing with some of these countries because there is just no way. what we have done, we have opened up our borders. we have let international trade international modifying base go wherever they get the best deal. i guarantee you in a developing country, they are not going to be as tough as we are in human rights on environmental quality that they should be aspiring to. they're not going to be tough on those things. they're trying to build an economy. they're trying to build basically a nation, bring it up. they're going to be a little bit

lax on these things. that's unfair competition which my dad always warned me against. now, when we talk about european trade, i'm not worried about european trade because they are basically on the same level playing field that we are. but when you're trying to build a country up, should you sacrifice and tear your country down? should you give away everything that we have worked hard for and built? because i want to help these countries. i have not a bit of problem helping the countries. i am not an isolationist. but i basically would have put something in there that would have protected our manufacturing base. i would have put a thing that when we fell below certain jobs in manufacturing it stopped. you don't give it all away because it's hard to regain that and recapture it back. i'm sure wall street is very happy today. i have a lot of friends that work on wall street. there is a lot of good people that work on wall street, but there is a lot of people basically that just are driven by the almighty dollar. they are not driven by main street. they are not worried about west virginia, not worried about my

town of farmington or any part of my state and they're going to be very happy. they are not worried about 99% of the people still on main street trying to survive. you know, we talked about export-import bank. they said trust us, we'll get a vote on export-import bank. maybe we will some time. i hope that comes to fruition. but that helped an awful lot of small businesses. we haven't gotten that vote yet. so you would have thought that would have been a priority to get a vote on that. it's done an awful lot and gets us in the markets that we can compete on a more level playing field. that hasn't happened. but here we go again. we're going to have some votes tomorrow. and these votes tomorrow are going to be based on the t.a.a. because the house couldn't -- couldn't pass t.p.a., task with t.a.a. in it. -- fast-track with t.a.a. in it. it's basically what we're dealing with. so they think we can do a back door -- what makes you think t.a.a. would be acceptable any way, shape or form in the house? what makes you think now since we have carved this out and we

have promised a vote over here on t.a.a., which we know we're going to need, is going to make it more acceptable on the house side when they made them take t.a.a. out and couldn't pass t.a.a. in the t.p.a. bill? it doesn't make any sense to me. so i think it's a sad day today i really do, and i'm concerned. i'm concerned about our country. i'm concerned about my hardworking people in west virginia. i know you are and all the other states that we have. these are good people and deserve a fair trade. they deserve a fair trading country. people that will trade honestly with us, that have integrity to stand up to, and we shouldn't sacrifice them to build them up. we'll have to assist them but they'll have to find their own markets to the point we don't sacrifice. i'm to the point this could be a troubling thing i'm hoping it's not but it could be. i have concerns, and i've said

this -- if i can't explain it back home, i can't vote for it. this is one mr. president i could not explain back home. i could not make the people feel comfortable this was going to improve the quality of life and opportunities for them and their families. i couldn't do it because i don't see it. i don't believe in it and i said i wouldn't vote for it and i : mr. reid: the nation's heart remains broken over the tragedy in charleston, south carolina. a man full of hate took the lives of nine worshipers. once again pain has been inflicted on americans. once again the people of a community as they struggle to reconnect to put the pieces of their lives back together. once again we're looking at our newspapers watching our tv

screens and talking at our dinner tables about why why did this happen. as the painful details emerge, we can't turn away from the hard truth this tragedy lays bare. racism still exists in our society. we have to accept that reality. if we ever hope to change, mr. president, we have to accept that reality. i watched this weekend as pundits and the nation's thought leaders attempted to address this issue by sidestepping the truth. this violent act was racially motivated. can we have order in the senate? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. reid: this violent attack was racially motivated plain and simple. it was intended to terrorize the african-american community in charleston and around this nation. 50 years ago dr. martin luther

king led a march here in washington. 50 years after congress passed the civil rights act 50 years after the march for voter rights in selma 50 years after congress passed the voter rights act we must still face the hard truth about race in america. mr. president, can we have order in the senate? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. : mr. reid: the truth is we still have much to do. we have much to overcome. we have no choice. one cannot ignore this underlying issue. it deeply troubles our nation that hatred and bigotry persists. the harsh realities of hate and bigotry in this country make far

too many in this country feel their lives don't matter. it's easy to feel your life doesn't matter when the odds are stacked against you every place you look on every hand. here are some of the facts: african-americans face on a daily basis: nearly half of all african-american families live in poor neighborhoods for at least two generations. 50% compared to 7% of white families. an african-american man is far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes and sentenced to longer prison terms than a white man. in the state system the numbers are more skewed than that. these facts demonstrate how countless men and women face unprecedented challenges to be still judged by the color of their skin than by the content

of their character. we have a moral obligation to change these realities. we must ensure all americans know their lives matter. standing for what is right calling out bigotry and hatred. it's hard to fathom that even as a community of charleston grapples with the devastation there is a confederate flag at the statehouse in colombia. it is a symbol of a dark past from which our country has come. it does not and should not represent our values and the way we treat our fellow americans. it is a symbol of slavery. it is a symbol of white supremacy. there is no other way to explain it.

it is a symbol of the ku klux klan. it's not just who we are. the flag should be removed and now. this day governor haley of south carolina said in the capital of south carolina the flag should not be flown. she said we will do this in spite of what the state legislature feels. soy applaud her. i appreciate her courageous act. the confederate flag has no place in the future of south carolina. it belongs in the past every place in america not just south carolina. everyone who desires to fly that flag on private property can do so but no state in this great

nation should allow this flag to soar above the capitol. we must always stand for what is right. we must stand for equality and justice, back and defend e. we must preserve the rights of every american not because it is the safe thing to do, not because it is popular. we must stand and defend equality and justice because it is the right thing to do. we must take meaningful action to ensure the safety of our citizens. once again our hearts are broken as another community stprug tkpwels to recover -- struggles to recover from a mass shooting. i want to mention a few of them, just a few of them. fort hood, 13 americans killed. this was on a military base. tucson arizona six americans killed. carson city, nevada; four americans killed.

connecticut, 27 americans dead. boulder, colorado -- a movie theater -- 12 killed. the navy yard, here, just a few maybe a mile from here at the most here in the district of columbia 12 killed. charleston, south carolina, of course we know, nine killed. these are not all the violent acts. these are but a handful. all these violent events occurred within the past few years. our country, the united states, is the only advanced country where this type of mass violence occurs. the only country. we're the capital of america we kill each other at a rate 297 times higher than japan 33 times higher than israel. in every other country -- this

is by far far too much. we can do something about this sad, violent reality. let's do something. we can expand, for example background checks for people wanting to buy guns, to prevent a criminal from buying guns. is that asking too much? the mentally ill? criminals? more than 80% of the american people support this. why can't we in congress support it? we should support not giving guns to people who are mentally ill and felons. i know people can say ep wasn't

felon. # maybe so. but couldn't we do something? couldn't we at least do this little thing to stop people who are sick in the head, people who are criminals from purchasing guns? couldn't we at least do that. i understand the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over while expecting a different result, and that's what we're doing. for the future of our country we have to change. in the face of racism and bigotry, we must act. we can't do nothing. we must prevent felons from gunning down innocent americans in broad daylight. if we do not, we will be here again. our hearts will be broken again. and we're going to have to ask ourselves how we allowed another senseless tragedy to take place

while we stand by >> there were five republicans voting no senator sessions, and others, to republican senators

and one democrat did not vote earlier today, senator menendez we expect them back at 5:00 o'clock eastern malawi expect them to return from the closed-door briefing, we are going to hear from colin goddard and we will continue to expect to hear about gun control. >> the gun control debate following the charleston shootings. we have colin goddard with us. for those that don't know your story, how did you come to work on this issue? >> i came to work on this issue in an event that happened when i was in college. international relations in 2007 one morning in my french class we heard a loud name that we thought was construction and a few minutes later it turned into somebody shooting through our door in the most intense situation that i have ever experienced.

and that morning there were 17 people in there there were 32 people killed in total, shot and killed, and there were over a dozen others that were shot and injured and several others as well. so that shooting situation open my eyes to something that i knew very little about. and i was frankly shocked to learn that we don't even require a background check on every gun in the country. so what really happened is that two years later i witnessed another mass shooting happened on television and i have not witnessed this and this time in between but april 3 2009 the news story broke and i sat and watched the whole thing unfold and i thought, this is how the whole world saw what happened to

me. and there are 13 other families on day number one. it's a similar situation as to how i felt with what happened in charleston. all of the progress that you made, now that you know people are might at the beginning of all of that and it's just incredibly disheartening to see that and it's incredibly frustrated for them not to do anything about it. >> do you think that the gun control debate has been lost in the last six days? or that it has not received as attention with all the papers today? >> they are both important issues. clearly it is a testament to people that want to have this conversation. fortunately we are trying to make sure that there is something they can do about this. we have an effort called rising for charleston, and we are going to have a prayer anybody that

wants to join led by family members and survivors of other mass shootings in america. this is leading to this weekend with the gun violence prevention where we are encouraging elected officials across the country to have service about gun violence in this issue and about what we can do about it as a community to get the changes that we so desperately need in the country. this is an ongoing conversation that the public needs to have. >> president obama wanting to have this conversation, he had a bit of it. >> i know that the politics make it less likely that we are part of gun safety legislation, but i will remark that it's unlikely that this congress will act. some reporters to visit his resignation. i want to be clear that i have not resigned.

i have faith that we will eventually do the right thing. [applause] and i was simply making the point that we have to move public opinion. we have to feel a sense of urgency. and ultimately congress is going to follow the pieces and we have to stop being confused about this. and at some point as a country we have to reckon with what happens, it's not good enough simply because of this. >> from the president's first comments talking about resignation, what was your reading of the president's original reaction. >> i thought the president's remarks were initially very on point. you can tell that this was a president who is deeply troubled by what happened and yet again he had to stand up and address

the country with a mass shooting that occurred a in this country. he acknowledged that we can do things and there are the majority of legislators in this city. too many people have the old way of thinking that if they vote for gun safety, they will lose the next election. and we haven't had that many since we started to see millions of americans want to have a conversation. the president said that we need to move public opinion. public opinion is largely there. americans will consistently support public polls and gun sales across the country. you have to get suspect specifics. you cannot have a vague and ambiguous term. but if you go to the solutions that are available background checks are consistently the vast majority. but the question is how can we get people who will answer that in a public pool to pick up a phone and call the legislator and write them a letter and show up and say that this is

something that i want you to vote for. that is the basic task that the american public has to face, to take the energy and support what we have. >> phones are open, if you want to talk to colin goddard, the phone lines are on the screen if you want to start calling in please do so from the wines listed below. >> good morning. good morning, everybody. what i want to make it clear is that many pass the background checks, have you noticed that? [inaudible] >> i appreciate the comments but we can look at the mass

shooting that happened outside of milwaukee wisconsin two years ago, where someone who was promoting guns because of a conviction, bypass this entirely . the vast majority of americans are not killed in mass shootings today but the average gun violence that happen every single day with the 88 americans that were killed in the 32 that are murdered every single day. and not just with whatever happened last time, when you do that come up and turn public opinion research this and law enforcement shows that background checks, it's the most common sense that we can take to make sure that this comes together. so we see the 18 states that do

have this the law enforcement officers killed, we have evidence and growing public support that this is something that we want to do and something that we have to do. >> do we know anything about his background or the gun that was used in this and what would've kept this from happening? >> things are still coming in. i don't think we know all the details yet. but so far this was a gun given by the father. i don't currently know any state or federal law that has anything to do with that. to say that we should base our policy on just the last incident that happened, those people have already been killed. there is nothing we can do for those people. how can we coherently do the best we can to keep this next shooting from happening. and that is what we should focus

on. >> 62 mass shootings in 1982 through 2012, one question that they look at is whether the killer obtain the weapons legally and 49 of those they could obtain the weapon legally and in 12 incidents they did not, one of them is still unknown and many of the different mass shootings let's go to helen in tennessee. that morning. >> good morning. i am from henderson. and i was born here and i was in virginia for many years until recently. my comments include lots of variables and things to consider. number one [inaudible]

the massacre of the 32 individuals at virginia tech, i want to point out that for all patients and people after this did occur that there is a date article in which one of the counselors, a woman who tried to help a young man that did all of the terrible killings she had helped to counsel this young man and had repeatedly warned virginia tech about the capabilities and the status. but nobody listened to her. after this came out she was fired. so when this does come up

people need to wake up. and the mental health profession is very costly. most people cannot afford to go to a psychiatrist or anything off. that's another point that needs to be really looked at. >> i will let you jump in on that point. obviously something we know well. >> i am familiar with the story and the time and the whole situation. and what happened there was a watershed moment for campus safety and taking this seriously. and this includes members of the faculty the mental health profession, all of them together talking about students who are raising flags and how we can help these students as well. that has been a great improvement amongst universities. at the same has not been focused

on when it comes to gun policy. i think it's a matter of funding. people need to put their money where their mouth is and fund the programs and support people. but we need to be bigger in wanting to improve what is unique amongst other countries and very low violent crime rates. so these are all valid points that we need to spend an equal amount of time talking about. >> we have democratic viewers and republican viewers independent gun owners as well if you want to join the conversation, call the number here. good morning. >> good morning, yes. i want to express my sincere sympathy to mr. goddard for what he went through at virginia tech.

and i would like to make a couple of comments. i think that we need to have background checks for every person that had owned a firearm, i think that this has to be mandatory for those that would misuse a firearm. but if you bear with me, i believe that what started out looking to promote gun safety and the like has misled and misappropriated the second amendment. if we look at the constitution and section number eight of the bill of rights and please bear with me very briefly, in this section we call to execute the laws of the union and suppress interactions to revise and discipline of the militia. i have not heard anything about regulating militias within

states. this section was put in to put down potential situations. jumping to the last conversation on the confederate flag where are the regulations for militias, if you will and once again i think the nra has misled individuals on the second amendment. >> let you talk about this but on the background check issue that the caller is bringing up, where are we at four backgrounds on this? >> about six months ago there were 16 states that require this. then we saw voter initiatives and background checks on all sales. 65% have been voted for this law. background checks on all sales.

we have seen 18 states, a growing number of states in this country realize that this is not just going to happen here in congress and they are taking initiative in elves. background checks have qualified in the state of nevada and that's what happened in 2016 until the more that we can bring to late state legislatures than people here in washington dc and we will have continued progress. and so it is good progress to keep that going. >> let's go over to douglas on the line for independence. >> hello. from what i heard that guy reloaded five times. if one person had a gun that could have shot back, it was a gun free zone. much like chicago and washington dc, they have the worst gun laws

with the highest gun crimes and basically did this. >> that is an argument that i have heard a lot you know someone in your class if you had a gun come you could have shot them, and thankfully that puts the blame on the person who's getting shot, why didn't you shoot the person that you invited first. well, i think that that is just inappropriate on a basic level. but i think fundamentally we are not going to shoot our way out of problems in our country. that we need to do more in advance to stop that person from coming together in the first place, things that we have not tried like background checks. and the solution to gun violence is not more shooting fundamentally and we can do better than that. >> josh earnest yesterday

reminded reporters that president obama one of common sense rules like an assault weapons ban how does that work when it defines what it is? >> there are various ways to do that. and i think on a basic level it makes sense limiting the firearms and equipment that we've been sell to the civilian population. i don't really know how to do it, but like i said i think that changing what is in the person's hand can reduce the shootings that do occur and have fewer people shot come you saw what happened where this person had a drum that was able to pause and reload. and i think that those that don't necessarily cause shootings happen but it makes it far more lethal. but what is important to focus on is how do we intervene at that point where they come

together in the first place. in that instance there are other steps you can take that we have not tried as a country. >> what you say to someone like this that they this is nothing but a means to express hate and violence that should be addressed. >> i think that what happened there shows when someone with a lot of racial bias gets their hands on weapons easily and how much carnage that can cause inshore. lack of time. things could happen with a knife or a bat. as someone who experienced a shooting directly i would have preferred someone [inaudible] and i think it really does matter that the person's point is accurate. >> good morning, you're on with

colin goddard. >> i just want to say that they require people to do this and they know how to use this, most of the population, i don't think that they have a lot of problem there but they know that they are going to get shot by somebody pretty quickly. there was a shooting in a church in south africa a terrorist came in and started wiping out some christians. but there was a christian in there that had a gun and he actually for gave this guy for killing the people. and so what i would also like to say is that in virginia and in the country, you need to have more good people because they will make the coward think twice when he goes to these places. because like what happened in texas, they shot the guy quickly and they didn't make too much of a deal because it went down pretty good.

and i'm not saying everybody but more people on the street and those people, the cowards will not want to do so much of that damage. >> can i ask you how you find those good people with guns? is there a way to try to ensure that those do go to those good people? would you support a background check or anything like that enact. >> that is hard to do. but you have to look at what happened. >> you know, there are several countries who bring gun ownership and comparatively much lower rates of violent crimes in gun crimes.

>> actually compared to other countries they have one of the highest suicide by firearm rates that the government is looking to see how can we perhaps allow people to have guns and keep the ammunition separately. so it's not without problems. >> we will break away as the u.s. senate dabbles backend. they have been on a break but now we have live coverage here on c-span2.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: thank you madam president. i rise today not to speak about an issue that divides this chamber but rather one that should unite us, one that does unite us, and that is the care of those who have served and sacrificed for our nation, america's veterans. today i take great pride in the fact that i've worked across the aisle to introduce bipartisan v.a. reform legislation.

the jason simkumski memorial act. i'm pleased to be joined by my friend and colleague senator capito of west virginia. this legislation is aimed at addressing the problem of overprescribing practices at the v.a. and providing safer and more effective pain management services to our nation's veterans. it's named in honor of a wisconsin veteran u.s. marine veteran jason simcakoski. on august 30 2014, jason tragically died at wisconsin's toma veterans' affairs medical center. he was a result of what was medically deemed mixed drug toxicity. i call this a failure to serve someone who has faithfully

served our country. at the time of his death at the v.a. jason was on 14 different prescription drugs yet this marine's heartbreaking story is just one example of the overprescribing problem at the v.a. after two decade-long wars, a large number of our service members are coming home with the damage of combat, and our veterans and their families are faceing the difficult challenge of physical injuries, ptsd, and other mental illnesses. unfortunately, i believe the v.a.'s overreliance on powerful and highly addicting opiod s and resulted in getting our veterans hooked rather than getting them help. jason's tragic story is a tragic example of the tragedy caused by

addiction, addiction whose roots are regrettably at the v.a. to me, overproduction of opioids is a is growing into a weed a weed whose impact is being felt beyond the calls of v.a. facilities. the ripples are indeed being felt across america in communities we work for every day when we're here on our -- in our nation's capitol. our families, the families that we have the responsibility to represent, those families of those who have bravely served our country are struggling with the loss of a son or a daughter, a father or a mother a sister or brother to addiction whose root is planted within the v.a. system. it's our job to make sure they

do not feel alone and i believe that we have a shared responsibility to do everything we can to pull this weed out by its roots. jason's family is in washington today, and i am so honored to have worked with them and others in putting these reforms together to provide the v.a. with the tools it needs to help prevent this type of tragedy from occurring to other veterans and to other veterans' families. i want to thank the simcakoski family and let them know i have a tremendous amount of respect for the courage that they have shown in telling their story and jason's story and working to make a difference in the lives of other veterans and their families. their story is one of a sacred trust that we must have with our veterans and their families.

it's a story of how that trust has been broken, and it's a tragic story of loss. my message to my colleagues comes from jason's widow heather. heather, who has said -- and i quote -- "when i look back at the past, i want to know that we made a difference. i want to believe that we have leaders in our country who care and i want to inspire others to never give give up -- to never give up because change is possible." her words have inspired me, and it is my hope they will inspire my colleagues to join us in taking action. i hope i speak for all of us when i say that there is no room for politics when it comes to ensuring that our nation's veterans receive the timely safe, and highest quality care that they have earned. ourour legislation takes steps to

give veterans and their families a stronger voice in their care by strengthening open yoad anxious, opioid, prescribing guidelines and other measures. it works to improve coordination and communication throughout the v.a. and puts in place stronger oversight and accountability for the quality of care that we're providing our veterans. our goal is simple -- put these bipartisan reforms in place to prevent tragedies like jason's from occurring to other veterans and their families. i'd like to thank and recognize senators blumenthal brown hirono johnson kaine manchin markey, moran murray sanders, and tester for joining senator capito and i in signing on as original cosponsors of this bipartisan

effort. and i'd also like to thank the many veterans service organizations and medical professionals for their invaluable support insight and input as we crafted this legislation. today i ask the rest of my colleagues to join us in working to confront the problems of overprescribing practices at the v.a. and to provide more safe and effective main. services to our nation's veterans. let us work together to fix what has been broken and to restore that sacred trust with our veterans and their families. let us work together to give our veterans and their families a voice, a voice that's heard respected, and recognized, and let us be inspired by that voice to take bipartisan action on

solutions to prevent these problems and tragedies from ever happening again and to provide our veterans and their families with the care that they have earned and the care that they deserve. madam president, i would like to yield time to my coauthor in this bill senator capito. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you mr. president. i come here before you today joined by my colleague senator baldwin from wisconsin but also colleagues from both sides of the aisle as she mentioned in support of the legislation that provides safer more effective painment to our nation's veterans. too many of our veterans have returned home from overseas duties only to fight another battle here at home. the jason simcaskoi act takes

the necessary step to address the problems faced by. i'd like to thank the family for their courage coming forward with their story as painful as it is for the family in the hopes it will help -- and it women help -- those next generation of veterans who are being treated at the v.a. this bill reforms the overreliance on painkillers by the v.a. while ensuring that veterans receive appropriate medication. this legislation not only updates and strengthens the guidelines for opioid guidelines but it expands the scope of research, delivery and integration of alternative pain management. chronic pain should not be something that our veterans are forced to live with and the v.a. must be on the cutting edge of developing effective pain management. this bill will elevate the role of patient advocates. like i'm sure jason's wife was a great patient advocate.

require community meetings hosted by the v.a. and establish a joint d.o.d.-v.a. working group to improve coordination and communication at all levels of government. in an era when medical research and technological advancements have led to at least a 90% survival rate of wounded soldiers we must continue to focus on the battles that our veterans face when they return home. including the treatments of those wounds that are not evidently viable -- or visible. one marine in my hometown, andrew white, returned home to west virginia after serving in iraq. andrew displayed signs of ptsd including insomnia, nightmares constant restlessness and pain related to an injury. in addition to an antidepressant and antianxiety pills doctors placed andrew on an antipsychotic drug and over time increased his dosage from

25 milligrams to 1,600 milligrams, more than twice the dosage recommended to treat schizophrenia. andrew white died in his sleep at the age of 23. andrew is a reminder of the physical and mental side effects of the war. we must work together to provide the resources and care necessary to assist our veterans from that transition into civilian life. expansion of the opioid safety initiative and further development of the opioid risk development tool will do just that. these measures will enable the v.a. to use the patient record database to detect those at higher risk of abuse and submit to the state prescription drug monitoring programs. we really need all hands on deck. this real-time tracking of information will enable medical professionals to better diagnose and treat patients. this legislation calls for more accountability within the v.a. through internal audits, reports to congress and increased information sharing.

bureaucracy to get in the way of delivering quality care to veterans and we must prioritize the efficient delivery of care. in my home state of west virginia the tragic effect of opioid abuse has left families devastated. i have met with other families who have lost their loved ones after suffering from ptsd traumatic brain injury and i believe more can be down to find solutions. it is incumbent upon us in a bipartisan way as my colleague has said to do right by our veterans. i really want to thank senator baldwin. i have been at committee meetings with her while she has pounded the drum on the importance of this issue and how devastating it is to families across this country. so thank you so much, senator baldwin. our best is just not the least we can do. it is our duty to those of whom have served, that we have asked to do so much, to do our best, and this bill does that. thank you and i yield the

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

quorum call:

mr. moran: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: thank you. i would ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to address the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: thank you. earlier today the financial services and government appropriations committee of which i'm a member conducted a

hearing on the data security breach at the office of personnel management. i'm a member of that subcommittee and we had several witnesses, including the o.p.m. director archuleta and our goal was to learn about the latest data breach revealed earlier this month. i think in many ways the hearing was useful, in other ways it was inadequate. the hearing once again demonstrated much more needs to be done to address the ongoing i.t. management issues that plague so many agencies but in particular o.p.m. as our witnesses testified the recent breach -- really it's breaches -- at o.m.p. were not a resource issue but a management issue. too often -- and i certainly would understand that how we appropriate money is important but too often the excuse is we don't have enough resources. today it in my view was made

clear that this is much more a management issue than a resource issue. as director archuleta said in her confirmation hearing as well as examine in today's hearing i.t. security was her top priority when she entered the agency in november of 2013 but what's transpired since then has been troubling. so in her confirmation hearing she reminded me today that i.t. data security was her top priority as she arrived at the agency in late 2013. ms. archuleta highlighted the fact that in march of 2014, o.p.m. detected a sophisticated attack. the hackers then didn't get information in that particular instance, this should have been the first alarm to go off that somebody was trying to get access to very sensitive documents. and let me reiterate what i'm talking about in this case. this is march 2014.

we're talking about a hack attempt that occurred last year not the ones that are making the news today. and, unfortunately, then again in june of 2014. again, a year ago. a company that was involved in background checks for the government u.s. investigation services usis, suffered a breach impacting as many as 26,000 federal employee records. and then again in august of 2014 a third time, so we have march, june, august, 2014, another company involved in background checks, key point was breached and this time over 48,000 records were stolen. both of these contractors both of these breaches, o.p.m. was required to send out notification to federal employees affected. so clearly o.p.m. knew about these breaches. now we've learned that the credentials stolen in those original breaches were used to

enter the o.p.m.'s system and this time steal highly sensitive information. information stolen was social security numbers military records, veteran status, addresses birth dates job insurance, gender, race and union status. so three separate examples should have been the stark warning to secure this highly sensitive data. when i asked the director today about this topic she merely pointed to an i.t. modernization plan that was drafted when she entered the agency about 20 months ago. so my question was having seen these three attempts at information at o.p.m. these three breaches, what then occurred at o.p.m. different following that to further protect, to better protect information at the office of personnel management? and the answer was really

pointing to a plan that was developed when the director initially arrived some 20 months ago at o.p.m. in addition to those three breaches if that's not warning enough there were two other important reports that also could have, should have suggested that better management was needed. in november, 2014, the inspector general for o.p.m. released its annual report on federal information security. that report found that 11 of the 47 major information systems 23% at o.p.m. lacked proper security authorization. in fact, five of the 11 systems were in the office of the chief information officer the person responsible for agency's data security. ms. archuleta this morning was proud to claim that the agency had been upgraded to just significant deficiency with

regard to its material weakness and the inspector general testified this morning that they had offered 29 recommendations in their november report and to date only three of the 29 recommendationses had been adopted. in addition to the inspect or general, the i.g. report in november of 2014, in december, the following month of 2014, the general accounting office, the g.a.o., issued a report highly critical of i.t. management at o.p.m. the of report of the report identified best practices that o.p.m. should implement to improve i.t. management. the report found that quoth o.m.m.'s efforts to modernization processing has been plagued by management weaknesses another indication that o.p.m. needed to address i.t. weakness which is critical to ensuring agencywide security. so my takeaway from this morning's hearing is all the warning signs were there.

o.p.m. was aware of the persistent issues, they knew about breaches to their contractors, the agency knew they were a target, yet the only evidence that o.p.m. did anything was a plan that was written in the first 100 days of the new director's tenure at o. p.m. planning is important but execution matters a lot more. we still need lots of answers as to what o.p.m. did following those original breaches last year p. what security plan did they put in place have they identified which information to secure how did they secure these documents were they effective in preventing other attacks, how often did the o. o.p.m. director and c.i.o., the information officer meet, and what were their discussions. i'm encouraged to know that our financial services subcommittee subcommittee appropriations subcommittee intends to have another hearing, this time with the opportunity to present in a secured setting so that no one

can indicate they're incapable of answering the question because of security issues. i look forward to that hearing. but i would tell you that it's discouraging to know what i now know and it is a discouraging time for i.t. security and the federal government. i hope that we can use this as a lesson to other agencies that they need to be vigilant. we face real and serious threats, and inaction by agencies put federal workers the american people and most importantly, our national security at risk. in my view, this is important. these hearings matter, and the information that we are gardening and attempting to garner is important for those who are employees of the federal government. they need to know what has transpired so they can better protect themselves where they are at risk because of these hacks, and secondly, and perhaps more importantly, we need to know what has transpired

here what processes need to be in place to prevent additional challenges to our information technology because it's a matter of our national security. so mr. president for the sake of our federal employees and their well-being, but also for the sake of american citizens and our national security, this is not an issue that we are -- have the opportunity to avoid. answers need to be forthcoming and decisions need to be made systemwide not just at o.p.m. but throughout the entire federal government as we work to protect those who work for the federal government and as we work to protect the american citizens from a national security perspective. with that, with that, i thank you for the opportunity to address the senate. iwith that, i yield the floor but before that, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings you had under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: calendar number 146 and 147, and that the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nominations that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the nominations. the clerk: nominations department of veterans affairs. laverne horton counsel of new jersey to be assistant secretary. david shellkin of pennsylvania to be under secretary of health. the presiding officer: the question appears on the

nominations. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed. the question occurs on the shulke nomination. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session for the en bloc consideration of executive calendar number 157 through 192 and all nominations on the secretary's desk in the air force, army, foreign services, marine corps and navy, the nominations be confirmed the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, that any statements related to nominations be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 209 submitted earlier today. the clerk: senate resolution 209 designating the ulysses s. grant association and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 210 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 210 celebrating the 125th anniversary of the state of wyoming. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous

consent that the language of my motion and the corresponding cloture motion with respect to proceeding to conference on h.r. 644 be amended to request a conference with the house. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow, wednesday, june 24. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, following leader remarks the senate then resume consideration of the house message to accompany h.r. 2146. finally, that all time during just remember the of the senate -- all time during adjournment of the senate count postcloture. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before

the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate

nonfiction books and authors. and a the behind-the-scenes look at the publishing industry. next oklahoma senator discusses the epa clean power plan and why he feels climate change is a hoax currently serves as the chair of the environment committee for 25 minutes. >> i want to thank all of you for coming and all the people watching online and on c-span.

happy today to have a leadoff speaker senator james and off. stuff that you already know. an army veteran and currently chairman of the us senate environment and public works committee and senior member of the u.s. senate armed services committee. 11,000 flight hours and the only member of congress to fly an airplane around the world. in addition he in addition he tells me when people ask him how old he is he says he is old enough to fly a plane upside down, and what he can't do that anymore he will think about how old he is to be in the senate. the conservative publication human events and editorializing rank him

number one saying he is an unabashed conservative and noted he is unafraid to speak his mind. we are glad he is unafraid. in 2013 he unafraid. in 2013 he was ranked among the top five most conservative members of the senate. married to his wife for 55 years, 20 children and grandchildren. do not tell him do not tell him he does not care about the future. [inaudible conversations] >> i have a little voice problem today.

i have a full 30 minutes. i was in the house 20 years ago. she was not married. look look it up. a cute little girl. anyway, the -- you believe what you want to. but back before. i always remember the time. the condition is they want to do something. you remember the one in italy, milan milan, italy.

posters up with my picture on it. we went where they were making those things. really flattered. use them for fundraisers. it worked out really well. we have been involved for a long time. this is what i want everyone to have. i put this together for people like you. when you go you have documentation. so that is the reason. let me just mention this. that was -- i was first in the senate and at that time girl was talking about global warming. i assume that it must be true until we found out that the cost of the thing. that was mit and all of them the range has always been

and still is between three and 400 million per year. of course then you start paying attention. it is the one speech on the senate floor. all of all of a sudden the real scientists are coming out of the woodwork. they did not buy it. i want to mention what is going on you know that. and they are all exactly the same i don't blame him for being a direct beneficiary. all of all of that because he was not even up for reelection at that time. nonetheless there is a reason that first speech.

and that he will put 100 million into the campaign, the 2014 campaign cycle. he did that. at that time the at that time the reason that he got involved is they are winning this thing. i will show you in a minute the documentation. it is all about money. the national review. al gore was there speculated by the new york times as being the first environmental billionaire. one of the things every time he tried something something would happen. the global warming crews

but the passage was frozen. the house hearing was canceled. 2009, the global warming rally. these things happened. even though the activists and entrepreneurs committed the money they did not do well. now, what is new a new tom stier arrived. he came and said i am a republican. you work on the democrats. he put up $175 million of his own money. that was together for the next quarter of a billion

dollars to go to the campaign. we found out that he had a lot of interest in solar energy. now i like this one. that was one of the pages that went out. the first time, i want you guys to know the first time in the history of the united states senate. i arranged. he was a page from oklahoma. beautiful. anyway the reason is because on this handout when you are challenged to five -- and i went back and looked at the things they were saying the arguments they were using they are still using today. you can pick any that you want.

there are four things being used, the documentation, number four, polar bears are disappearing. there is a problem overpopulation. between 5,010,000 polar bears. today between 15 and 25,000. anyway, i will not go into all of these. when you hear someone you will recognize what their arguments are going to be. forgive me for that. you have to go back also. we did the hague rule which said if you come back from rio de janeiro and have a treaty and that treaty does not -- is either harder or

not going to force the rest of the countries to do what we have to do we will not ratify. then along came john mccain. that was 2002. he had -- it was a cap and trade bill. $400 billion. then the same thing. it is interesting that we won those races but no one would join me on the floor. so since that time we have had others. the house got involved. so right now i belong to the most exclusive group in washington, united states

senators not running for president. with the exception of lindsey graham there all on our side. this whole thing should have been over. these parties are every december. the one in copenhagen obama went nancy pelosi, john cherry, barbara boxer, hillary clinton the hundred and 92 countries that we are going to pass legislation cap and trade legislation. i went over and it was good. right after getting back it was neat. you have heard about these people. it is not going to happen.

they like they like me and it did not happen. they all hated me. here is the interesting thing. the first appointment of the epa director by this president. i was the only republican. if. she could not tell a lie. and so i asked her the question. i said this is live on tv. once i leave town you will come up with an endangerment finding to allow you to do with regulations what you can't do, don't have the votes to get done. you have to use some kind of science behind it. well and so it could not

have been more appropriate a matter of hours after. on this handout we actually tell you the quotes that were made, the uk telegraph scientific scandal, the worst of our generation. that should have killed her right there. we there. we had the votes from the people who were trying to make this. so that should have actually ended it. but anyway lisa jackson has always been -- that is why she got fired. i remember i asked her i remember i asked her a question whether you do it through legislation or regulation, if you do this and do a a cap and trade

will that have the effect of reducing co2 emissions worldwide? and she said no. the problem is china india mexico. if you don't do that you have the reverse effect. where do they go? china, india the effect of increasing, increasing, not decreasing. that was a popular response to the question. but climate gate should have ended right there. along came mccarthy a little a little bit more compatible with the administration. if you look at the clean power plan it is actually worse than the legislation because the legislation affects the emissions of individuals or companies that emit 12,000 of co2.

if you do it by regulation under the clean air act would be 250,000. so it would be much more expensive. anyway, that is what is going on now. the next one gives you an idea. thirty-two states opposing the plan and 15 that have sued the epa. formally announced our intent to say no. we we are coming out ahead on this in terms of public perception. if you look also you see now , even the new york times came out and took a shot saying that they are using the epa illegally talking about cap and trade and the water plan which is another

big one. the discussion today. you might remember they're trying to put that together to take the work navigable out. they should have the jurisdiction over water. they have the inevitable element in their and try to do it legislatively. you might remember sen. feingold and the congressman for minnesota for the house and the senate that of the papers and others are coming out. the crisis came. the redline is what their

models were predicting would happen with the temperatures and of course it did not. that was another crisis. even the intergovernmental panel on climate change admitted that the 2,013th report, almost all historic simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warning, their way of saying it is not working. we now go through 15 years. i remember it is fascinating. i i don't know why i am the only one that talks about this. if you go to 1895 is the first time they used another ice age. 2018. yeah, 19. 1895 to 1918 and then in

1918 all of a sudden it started getting warm when they started using global warming. that continued until 1945. 1945 and started getting cooler again. the interesting thing 1945 is the date of the largest surge of co2 emissions in the history of america. that precipitated not a warming time but a cold time. ..

>> >> and the motives are pretty obvious. to stop the accountability to the united states.

and in the paper that i hope you will carry with you. the french president at that time said a long time ago to represent the first component of authentic government said he minister -- the e.u. minister said it is about the economy, to level the playing field for big business worldwide. the third day in -- thing is power. a and always my favorite one to grope --'' it is better to live from their own financial benefit. but carbon is a bureaucrat's dream then you control the life. that is what this is all

about. this isn't very popular to talk about but i have been doing it 15 years except the public has caught on so good things are happening. i want to share that with you to show very clearly all that is happening right now. that we still win this thing. i did not know this until i walked in half an hour ago that you have the social cost i still have not figured that out. >> they cannot refuse to the fact the cost is between $30,400,000,000,000 per year. in oklahoma i take these positions the want to make sure people understand they

may not be popular but every time we hear a big figure i take the number of families in my state who file a federal tax return and do the math. the amount of money it costs them is $3,000 per year. but even if you believe that but the people of oklahoma understand that but that is what the other side does not want to talk about. if i had time i would stage to hear you explain the social costs because the staff cannot do that to me. [laughter] [applause]

>> please give your name or any association any questions? >> i used to work on the senate staff on this issue. are you going to update your book? >> the only update is what happened since that time and people know that i have given a lot of thought to that in fact, though little girl that teaches with me wrote one of the chapters. remember the igloo? that was my daughter and her family of six. it would sleep for people

and she was declared by msnbc as the worst family in america. [laughter] questions? get your panel together then we will talk about it. [applause]

presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women inspiring stories of fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. available from public affairs as hard cover three your favorite bookstore or

online bookseller. nananananananananananate. had he been here he would have voted aye on the cloture motion. i want to say to our colleagues this this is a very important day for ourntry >> i'll also want to say to our colleague it is an important day for our country. we have demonstrated we can work together on a bipartisan basis this extremely important for america. nine o they do we confront the tpa to have a mechanism in place to finalize the extraordinarily important to deal with different

countries to indicate america is back in the trade business and send a message to our allies that we a understand they are wary about and china as a military domination and that we will be deeply involved in the pacific. this has then a long and rather twisted path to where we are today but it is a very important accomplishment for the country. >> the senator from ohio. >> want to make sure the other two absences senator mendez voted note senator the votes did know. more importantly a day of celebration in the corporate suites to be sure because they have another corporate

sponsors trade agreement to read more money in investors' pockets with delaware and rhode island and west virginia and all over the country. what i did the understand today even though the "wall street journal", a cato institute acknowledged the decisions that we make here they say it is a net increase they also acknowledge people lose jobs because of the decisions that we make. we throw people out of work with the political spectrum but we don't do anything to help those workers so we make a decision but then we don't take care of those workers who lost their jobs because of our decision. >> the senator from vermont.

>> i will concur with the senator from ohio. this trade agreement was supported by every major corporation in this country the majority of whom has outsourced millions of jobs to low-wage countries all over the world. it is supported by wall street the pharmaceutical industry to charge people in four countries higher prices for the medicine they desperately need. this is opposed by every union in this country working with the best interest by almost every environmental group and many religious groups. in my view this trade agreement will continue of permit normal trade relations agreements that have cost us millions of decent pay and jobs. we needed new trade policy

that represents working families not just the money interest price strongly disagree with the majority leader who calls this a great day for america. it is for the money interest not working families. >> mr. president i have six unanimous consent request for committees to meet during today's session and i would ask it in his consent they be agreed to a and printed in the record. >> without objection. >> also asked the senate recess 12:30 p.m. through to 15:00 p.m. for the weekly conference meeting also four clouthier 5:00 through the all senator briefing post cloture. >> without objection. >> mr. president there is no

secret republicans don't agree with president obama about everything but on balance most republicans disagree with the policy choices made by this president. but occasionally even the leader of the democratic party, the president gets things right. >> order in the senate. >> occasionally the president of united states gets policy choices right and he did with tpa that i will point out to our friends and anybody listening this is the sixth year of trade promotion authority it is well beyond the current occupants of the last whitehouse tenure in will be available for the next president to negotiate

trade deals better in the best interest of the united states. i agree with the majority leader the latest vote is another example of the senate getting back to work to restore to regular working order. it is a dramatic departure from the old senate. there has ben a lot of time or consideration of important pieces of legislation from the review act to the budget and now by moving this bill forward we can ensure american workers and businesses get the best deal with countries from asia to south america to europe. i believe we kept the campaign promises we made last year if the american people interested

republicans with the new majority, we can work together with our allies when we have a common cause to deliver results for american people. to legislate in their best interest not just for obstruction and sake but to promote a functioning deliberated united states senate. ic one of the leaders of this effort the senator from delaware who has done great work trying to find that common cause to produce a result as exemplified by the tpa. i will yield to him in just a moment but let me just talk briefly about my response to the senator from vermont and the senator from ohio that there is nothing good to be had out of there trade promotional authority or any trade deals we might

negotiate. my home state of texas relies heavily on international trade and we are the number one trading states in the nation which is just one not reason why our economy grew at the rate of 5.2% and 2014. our economy grew at 5.2% you know with united states economy grew? 2.2%. lie would want to do anything we can to stimulate the growth for people looking for work or higher wages? this important tpa is the first step to do that.

mr. president i will conclude trade is an engine of growth to keep the economy going whether the trans-pacific partnership or the transatlantic treaty serves as an opportunity to do turbocharge that growth our economy actually contracted last quarter by .7% as long as the economy is shrinking and not growing we will not be able to create the jobs to put america back to work to create those wages we want for all working americans so this legislation represents an important step in that direction and i am glad with the exercise of mutual trust we have reached this important point we're not

through yet because there are parts of this package we have to process this week but that commitment on this side of the i/o if our colleague was across the aisle trust us to move through a the tpa bill we will keep commitments caused to them and more just the trust that produces these pieces of legislation will result from this increased confidence. we will find things we disagree and fight like cats and dogs but when we agree on the policy and find it within ourselves to work together the american people are the beneficiaries. i yield the floor. >> to mention the word trust a number of times one of my favorite sayings integrity

if you have it nothing else matters in order to get things done there is a lot we need to get done my take away from the election that people want us to work together and get stuff done that would strengthen the economic recovery one way frankly is to make sure those markets overseas will allow us whether it is goods or services also my colleague from texas is to treat other people the way we want to be treated and most people support what the president's proposed. but what we need to do what we move forward not every

ready will be helped some of our disadvantaged and we want to be treated with some legislation to go along with the trade promotion authority to wrasse the republican and though with just to give the reassurance that when we are contacted by those around the country'' will you do to provide assistance for the trade deal that is negotiated? did you give us assurance? is this the end of the road? >> mr. president i would respond to the question of from a colleague from delaware assurances has been given that the tpa and trade adjustment assistance have

traveled together and we have seen examples where the benefits of trader not uniformly felt across the country there are some people who will be displaced but the importance of trade adjustment authority i wish we could negotiate something more frugal to get the job done but if it to a place between chairman brian in the house and the ranking member on this important piece but we recognize that they travel in pairs and the trade adjustment authority is the price we pay the most important me to my colleague's point for those who are displaced in guarantees they have access to the job training and skills enhancement that they need to get even better jobs

in this economy so that is the intent on this side of the i/o with the trade adjustment authority to make sure we finish our work through the rest of the week with this piece of legislation. >> we will thank our republicans for their work and i will close with whenever i talk to people i ask them what is the secret? it gets fed me -- funny with a dusty answer was communicate and compromise. and i would add collaborate. we need to do demonstrate

collaborate and communicate and compromise is a confidence-building measure to work with a democratic president and many to talk about the assistance and if we could work through the issues to produce a bipartisan bill the president will sign with the issue of transportation how to pay for that this will be helpful. senator wyden and senator murray and senator hatch the leader of the republican side for good work not done. thank you very much. i yield back. >> and have the utmost

respect for my colleagues but i have a hard time because i might have one less average working west virginia who had a good job at one time who thinks that this type of approach to trade is good in to hear about our state i would like to know what type of trade? i don't know what type of manufactured products leave the country i have seen oil into gasoline that that is the big part of the trade but how many actually benefit from that that have a good manufacturing job? talk about tsa a y? because we've understand we will lose more jobs. we already lost 6 million

pylos 31,000 manufacturing jobs. i am understand that has not been enforced with the rules but then you take this piece of legislation, it teeeighteen with more security around this piece of legislation mende iran contra nuclear deal. we got briefed and could ask questions we cannot even take a note out and they tell me the market is shrinking by $80 trillion you think? we have the greatest economy in the world. all these countries the closest one to us is japan. but yet we have to be secretive provide have been a business person all my life if i want to get into a market i will assure you, i

will evaluate my competition of who i want to do business with. but yet we're so concerned about the secrecy of this bill that none of us could see it working to dissected or improve upon it now we're just voting to say you will get a review but you cannot do anything about it if you don't like it. . .ad fawrnt store. i was raised in retail. one thing my dad always encouraged is competition. he said joe listen, good competition brings out more buyers. more buyers gives us more of a chance to sell our goods. what he never did like and what he thought was unfair is when you had unfair competition didn't pay their taxes didn't