trial and they are, in a sense, senator jurors. they're not completely jurors, but they're not completely senators. they are both and they have to keep that in mind and this is one way of trying to impress on them. >> the impeachment of president trump. watch unfiltered coverage of the senate trial on c-span2 live as it happens and same day reair. follow the process on demand ott c-span.org/impeachment and listen on the go using the free c-span radio app. >> in the u.s. senate gavelling in next, first to consider the u.s.-mexico-canada with a vote 11 a.m. eastern and final vote about passing it to the president as desk. at noon eastern the senate will receive the house impeachment managers and 2 p.m. eastern chief justice john roberts sworn in to preside over the

impeachment trial and senators sworn in as jurors. we'll take you live now to the senate floor on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. black, will open the senate with prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal king, ruler of all

nature, thank you for the opportunity to serve you and country. help us to give government what belongs to government, as we render to you our faithful stewardship. lord, guide our lawmakers to make right choices in challenging times. enable them to feel your presence and become lights to a dark world. open their eyes to see your daily gifts and blessings, infusing them with a spirit of

gratitude. protect our nation from sea to shining sea as you empower us to live for your glory. we pray in your wonderful name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. grassley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask permission to address the senate for one minute in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: today is a very important day that we recognize once a year, national religious freedom day. it's a day when we celebrate america's long-standing commitment to religious freedom. the first amendment to the constitution protects that right for americans. now, unfortunately, this fundamental right that we have great respect for in the united states is under attack internationally in many autocratic countries. around the world, people are being persecuted for their faith

by authoritarian dick are taterships and -- dictatorships and terrorist groups. countries like china, north korea, and russia restrict the citizens' rights of their own citizens to practice their religion. china, for example, plans to enforce additional restrictions on religious groups starting february 1. that's already on top of a very bad record they have for religious freedom. in regard to china, but it would apply to all countries, i have legislation to require the united states to work to block world bank projects in wealthy countries like china and russia that abuse religious freedoms. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: well, madam president, it took four weeks, four weeks that -- but te democratic majority in the house

of representatives is finally ready, finally ready to defend their impeachment of the president of the united states. after weeks of delay, the speaker of the house decided yesterday that a trial could finally go forward. she signed the impeachment papers. that took place, madam president, at a table with a political slogan stuck on to it, and they posed, they posed afterwards for smiling photos, and the speaker distributed s.u.v. ner pen -- souvenir pens to her own emblazoned with her own signature that literally came in on silver platters. the pens literally came in on silver platters.

golden pens on silver platters, a souvenir to celebrate the moment. now, i seem to remember democrats falling over themselves to say they did not see impeachment as a long-sought political win. house democrats said over and over that they recognized the gravity and the seriousness of this action. and of course they had only come to it reluctantly. well, nothing says seriousness and sobriety like handing out souvenirs, as though this were a happy bill signing instead of the gravest process in our constitution. this final display neatly distilled the house's entire process into one perfect visual.

it was transparently partisan performance from beginning to end. that's why they spined through a slashdash inquiry in 12 weeks when previous impeachments came after months, if not years, of investigations and hearings. that's why the house cut short their own inquiry, declined to pursue their own subpoenas and deny the president due process. but now, now they want the senate to redo their homework and rerun the investigation. that's why our colleague, the democratic leader, told the press that whatever happens next, as long as he can weaponize the trial to hurt republicans in the stwent -- in the 2020 election, quote, it's a win-win said the democratic leader of the senate. and that's why the speaker of the house apparently saw nothing

strange about celebrating the third presidential impeachment in american history with souvenirs and posed photographs. souvenirs and posed photographs. well, madam president, that pretty well sums it up. that's what the process has been thus far. but it's not what this process will be going forward. now the founding fathers who crafted and ratified our constitution knew that our nation might sometimes fall prey to the kind of dangerous factual ism and partisanship that has consumed, literally consumed the house of representatives. the framers set up the senate specifically to act as a check against the short-termism and run-away passions to which the

house of representatives might fall victim. alexander hamilton worried, quote, the demon of faction would extend his scepter over the house majority at certain seasons said alexander hamilton. and he feared for the viability of the government established by the constitution if blinded -- he feared for the viability of the government established by the constitution if blinded by factionalism, the house of representatives would abuse the power of impeachment to serve nakedly partisan goals rather than long-term interests of the american people and their republic. but fortunately they did something about it. they did not give both the power and the power to remove to the house.

they divided the power and placed the final decision on removal over here in the senate. this body, this chamber exists precisely, precisely, madam president, so that we can look past the daily dramas and understand how our actions will reverberate for generations. so that we can put aside animal reflexes and animosity and coolly consider how to best serve our country in the long run, so that we can break factional fevers before they jeopardize the core institutions of our government. as hamilton put it, only the senate with, quote, confidence enough in its own situation, end quote, can preserve unawed and uninfluenced the necessary impartiality between an

individual accused and the representatives of the people, his accusers. so, madam president, the house is -- the house's hour is over. the senate's time is at hand. it's time for this proud body to honor our founding purpose. now on an entirely different matter, before we turn to the trial in earnest, the senate has one more major accomplishment to deliver to the american people. yesterday we began floor consideration of the most significant update to the north american trade policy in nearly 30 years. and in just a couple of hours we're going to pass the usmca and send it to president trump for his signature. it was back in 2018 when the trump administration finalized its talks with the governments of mexico and canada.

this has been a major priority for the president and for many of us in both houses of congress. that's because american livelihoods in every corner of every state depend on these critical trading relationships. farmers, growers, cattlemen, manufacturers, small businesses, big businesses. this is a major step for our whole country. in the 26 years since the ratification of nafta, trade with mexico and canada has come to directly support 12 million american jobs. 12 million workers and their families who depend on robust trade with our north american neighbors. our neighbors to the north and south purchased half a trillion dollars in american goods and services every single year. that includes more than a quarter of all the food and agricultural products grown here

in the united states. take my home state of kentucky as an example, mexico, and canada buy $300 million of agricultural exports from kentucky growers and producers every year. they buy $9.9 billion of our state's manufacturing exports. and on and on. commerce with our neighbors is essential across the board. no wonder experts estimate that usmca would create 176,000 new american jobs. no wonder. they predict it will yield tens of billions of dollars in economic growth. no wonder farmers, ranchers, steelworkers, and manufacturers across our country have been so eager to see the usmca signed, sealed, and delivered. in one recent letter, kentucky farmers told me, quote, we need the agreement ratified and we need it to happen now. i know my colleagues have been hearing the same thing from their home states, republicans,

democrats, senators, representatives. our incoming has been the same. get this deal passed. failure is not an option. of course, for far too long, our counterparts in the house kept all these americans waiting. it took more than a year and a lot of pressure from senate republicans to get the speaker of the house to stop blocking the trade deal and finally let the house vote on it. late last year, she finally relented. it passed by a big bipartisan margin, of course, and i now expect that kind of vote will repeat itself here in the senate. i'm especially grateful to our colleagues and counterparts who got this across the finish line, to the u.s. trade representative bob lighthizer and his hardworking team led by chief of staff jamieson greer. to chairman grassley for leading the bipartisan efforts in the

senate finance committee and his trade team led by nasim fusum. to ranking counsel jamie white and all our finance committee colleagues and staff. to the chairmen of our our committees of jurisdiction who worked nimbly to get this done. i want to thank the exceptional cloakroom staff, in particular christopher tuft. and i would like to thank members of my own team whose efforts were invaluable, most especially my chief economic policy counselor jay costla whose role in securing this agreement has been absolutely essential. ali napola in my personal office, erica swarez in my leadership policy office. and of course leaders phyllis shardistrom, and my deputy chief of staff of policy scott raab. i'm most appreciative to president trump for prioritizing, negotiating and delivering on this major promise.

today the senate will send this landmark agreement to the president's desk. a big bipartisan win. and it comes the very same week as president trump also signed phase one of his administration's trade agreement with china. quite a week of substantive accomplishments for the nation, for the president, and for our international trade. and both of these measures will only add to all the other republican policies of the past three years that have helped generate this historically strong economic moment for working americans and for their families. so i would urge every one of our colleagues to join me in voting to pass the usmca. the presiding officer: the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 5430, which the clerk

will report. the clerk: calendar number 406, h.r. 5430, an act to implement the agreement between the united states of america, the united mexican states and canada, attached as an annex to the protocol replacing the north american free trade agreement. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president, are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, madam president, this is a serious, solemn, and historic day. the events that will take place this afternoon have happened only twice before in our grand nation's 250-year history. the chief justice will swear in every u.s. senator to participate as a court of

impeachment in the trial of the president of the united states. yesterday, the senate received notice that the house of representatives has two articles of impeachment to present. the house managers will exhibit those two articles today at noon. the first article charges the president with abuse of power. coercing a foreign leader into interfering in our elections, thereby using the powers of the presidency, the most powerful public office in the nation, to benefit himself rather than the public interest. the second charge, -- the second charges the president with obstruction of congress for an unprecedented blockade of the legislature's ability to investigate those very matters. let me just talk about each one. the first is so serious. some of our republican colleagues have said, some of the president's own men have said yeah, he did it, but it doesn't matter. it's not impeachable. some of them even failed to say

many of my republican colleagues amazingly fail to say it's wrong. let me ask the american people -- do we want foreign leaders helping determine who is our president, our senators, our congressmen, our governors, our legislators? that's what president trump's argument will be. that it's okay to do that. that there is nothing wrong with it. that it is perfect. hardly anything is more serious than powers outside the borders of the united states determining, influencing elections inside the united states. and it's bad enough to do it, but even worse to blackmail a country of aid that was legally allocated to get them to do it. it is low. it is not what america has been all about. the second charge as well. the president says he wants the

truth. but he blocks every attempt to get the facts. all the witnesses that we're asking for, he could have allowed them to testify in the house. they wanted them. the president is blocking them. and again, the american people, just about all of them, are asking the question what is the president hiding? what is he afraid of? if he did nothing wrong, why didn't he let the witnesses, the documents come forward in the house of representatives? put another way, the house of representatives has accused the president of trying to shake down a foreign leader for personal gain, deliberately soliciting foreign interference in our elections, something the founding fathers greatly feared, and then doing everything he could to cover it up. the gravity of these charges is

self-evident to anyone who is not self-interested. if proved, they are not petty crimes or politics as usual, but a deep, wounding injury to democracy itself, precisely, precisely the conduct most feared by the founders of our institution -- of our constitution. so we, as senators, democrats and republicans, must rise to the occasion, realizing the seriousness of the charges and the solemnity of an impeachment proceeding. the beginning of the impeachment trial today will be largely ceremonial, but soon our duty will be constitutional. the constitutional duty is to conduct a fair trial and then, as our oaths this afternoon command, senators must, quote, do impartial justice, unquote. senators must, quote, do

impartial justice. the weight of that oath will fall on our shoulders. our ability -- our ability to honor it will be preserved in history. now, yesterday evening, i was gratified to hear the republican leader, at least in part of his speech, ask the senate to rise to the occasion. i was glad to hear him say so. for somebody who has been partisan, deeply, strongly and almost unrelentingly partisan for two months, he said something that could bring us together -- the senate should rise to the occasion. but far more important than saying it is doing it. what does doing it mean? the best way for the senate to rise to the occasion would be to retire partisan considerations and to have everyone agree on the parameters of a fair trial.

the best way for the senate to rise to the occasion would be for democrats and republicans to agree on relevant witnesses and relevant documents, not one the trial with votes of a slim majority. not jam procedures through. not define rising to the occasion as doing things my way, which is what the majority leader has done thus far. but rather a real and honest and bipartisan agreement on be a point we all know must be confronted, that we must -- we must have witnesses, documents in order to have a fair trial. a trial without witnesses is not a trial. a trial without documents is not a trial. that is why every completed impeachment trial in our nation's history -- every single one that has gone to completion, 15, have all have included

witnesses. the majority leader claims to believe in precedent, that is the precedent, witnesses. there is no deviation. let us hope we don't have one this time. over the centuries, senators have stood where we stand today confronted with the -- with the responsibility of judging the removal of the president. they rightly concluded they were obligated to seek the truth. they were under a solemn obligation to hear the facts before rendering a final judgment. the leader, correctly in my judgment, but the leader complained that the house was doing short-termism and rush. the leader is trying to do the exact same thing in the senate. the very things he condemns the house democrats for, he seems bent on doing. condemning short-termism.

are we going to have a full trial? condemning the rush. are we going to allow the time for witnesses and documents? or is the leader going to try to rush it through at the very same time he condemns the house, and correctly, for doing it. another important part of the witnesses and documents, the leader has not given us a good reason to not have witnesses documents. he complains about processes, pens, and signing ceremonies, but still does not address the charges against the president and why we shouldn't have witnesses and documents. we're waiting. rise to the occasion. remember the history. that is what the leader said he would do last night and i was glad to hear it, but he must act, not talk about rising to

the occasion and then doing the very same things he condemns the house for. my colleagues -- if my colleagues had any doubt about the case for witnesses and documents in a senate trial, the stunning revelations this week should put those to rest. we have new information about a plot by the president's attorney and his associates to oust an american ambassador and potentially with the, quote, knowledge and consent, unquote, of the president, pressure ukrainian president zelensky of one of the president's political rivals. the attempt to remove ms.o von -- yovanivitch is central to the charges against the president. we have a responsibility to call witnesses and subpoena documents that will shed light on the

truth here. god forbid we rush through this trial and only afterward the truth comes out. how will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel if they rushed it through and then even more evidence comes out? we've seen lots come out. there's barely been a week where significant new evidence, further making the house case, hasn't come out as strong as the house case was to begin with. here's what alexander hamilton warned of in federalist 65. he said, the greatest danger is that is a decision in an impeachment trial will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the parties than by the real demonstration of innocence or guilt. alexander hamilton even before the day political parties were as strong as they are today wanted us to come together.

the leader wants to do things on his own without any democratic input, but, fortunately, we have the right to demand votes and to work hard as we can for a fair trial, a full trial, a trial with witnesses, a trial with documents. the founders anticipated that impeachment trials would always be buffeted by the wind of politics, but they gave the power to the senate anyway because they believed the chamber was the only place wher impartial justice of the president could truly be sought. in the coming days these eventful and important coming days, each of us -- each of us will face a choice about whether to begin this trial in a search of the truth or in the service of the president's desire to cover up and rush things through. the senate can either rise to the occasion or demonstrate that

the faith of our founders was misplaced in what they consider a grand institution. as each of us swear an oath this afternoon, let every senator -- every senator reflect on these questions. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, i come to the floor of the senate today at a moment that will be remembered in history. in just a few hours the chief justice of the supreme court will come to this chamber and will be sworn in as the presiding officer in the impeachment trial of president

donald john trump. he will then administer an oath to each member of the united states senate. it's an oath that's included in our senate manual. it's very brief, only 35 words, and it bears repeating for the record at this moment. each senator will be asked to make the following oath and affirmation. i quote, i solemnly swear that in all things appearer taining to the trial of the impeachment of donald john trump now pending, i will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws so help me god. in just 35 words, that oath binds all of us, republicans and democrats, who swear by that oath to do impartial justice. the founding fathers and others could have been much more ee

will be rate in describing the process that we face. in its -- simplicity this oath tells us what we will face in the coming days. i believe, more than ever starting on tuesday when the impeachment begins in earnest on the floor of the senate, america will be watching. many americans have busy lives, personal, private, family, and professional, and don't tune into the political events of the moment as many of us do. but i think more and more of them will be watching come tuesday. they are going to see an historic moment, only the third time in history when a president of the united states faces impeachment. what will they find? will they find an effort to do impartial justice? will they find partisanship? will they find a real trial? i think it's important for us to realize that a real trial

includes evidence. as a lawyer, i brought many cases to trial, a few of them to verdict, and i had to prepare my case, not just my theory of the law or a statement of facts, but proof, real proof, proof that came from documents and witnesses. that's what a real trial is about. unfortunately on the other side, the majority leader hassing suggested is that we don't -- has suggested that we don't need witnesses and that it's only evidence of the weakness of the impeachment charges. i think he's wrong. as the democratic leader said this morning, history will prove him wrong. because impeachment trial after impeachment trial, evidence and witnesses have been presented. that is the tradition and the precedent of the united states senate. if there is an effort to short circuit that, to eliminate the witnesses and the evidence, i think it will be evidence to the american people who are

following this what is under way. this morning's newspaper was reported that the president's defense team has been ready, anxious, if you will, for this impeachment trial to begin and equally anxious to end it as quickly as possible. i hope they don't prevail on that sentiment because a race to justice may not serve a cause of impartial judges. we believe the house managers should be allowed to make their presentation, and they will. and the president's defense team as well. we believe we should hear those arguments and proceed to any additional evidence. what kind of evidence may be relevant? as senator schumer of new york mentioned a few minutes ago, it seems every day there unfolds another chapter in this story. every day we learn of the efforts of the president's self-described personal attorney

general rudy giuliani to initiate an investigation of the biden family, to serve president trump's interest in the 2020 presidential campaign. we heard repeatedly on the floor here that there have been no allegations of anything that was illegal or criminal on the part of the president. the standard in the constitution for impeachment does not require the violation of a federal crime. our constitution was written before any statutes creating federal crimes had been created. rather the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors was used as a standard to be imposed on the president. we just received information in the last 24 hours from the general accounting office, which does raise very -- a very serious concern about illegality of the president's action in withholding the funds appropriated by congress to support the ukrainian defense

efforts against the invasion of russian troops by vladimir putin and their country. as a member of the senate appropriations committee, the ranking member of the defense subcommittee, i can recall when we, on a bipartisan basis, decided to provide additional assistance to ukraine in the form of hundreds of millions of u.s. tax dollars so that they could defend themselves against the invasion of vladimir putin. that money was appropriated, and we believed, would be sent in a timely way to the ukrainians to defend their own country. little did we know that that money would become part of the bargaining between president trump and the president of ukraine as to this political investigation. it turns out that money was withheld until the very last moment. the fact is, i was offering an amendment in the senate appropriations committee, and i was told that the night before -- late the night before

the president finally released the funds. questions will raised by senator van hollen to the general accounting office -- pardon me, the department of accountability office, as to whether that was legal or illegal for the administration to with hold those found. we now received the statement from the general accounting office. they have held the president's withholding of funds to ukraine violated federal law. the government accountability office has a sterling reputation as a nonpartisan watchdog of american's taxpayers. it was concluded that president trump and his administration violated the law by putting a hold on funds to ukraine while it was trying to avoid an invasion by the vladimir putin. this deserves a thorough hearing

in the trial. especially as it relates to the alleged charges of abuse of power. i also hope this ruling will convince the administration to speed the additional delivery of $250 million in military aid which the congress has also sent to ukraine. finally, madam president, i'm going to yield the floor because i know one of my colleagues is coming to speak. in just a few hours this chamber will be transformed. as we noted yesterday at about 5:38 p.m. when the clerk of the house arrived with the articles of impeachment, there was a change in the atmosphere and environment of this chamber, and i can sense it even today. we realize that we are only moments away from an historic meeting of this chamber on the issue of presidential impeachment. when we take that oath of office, each and every one of us swearing impartial justice, we need to remember that not only is america watching, but history

will hold us accountable. madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. wyden: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, soon the senate will vote on final passage of the new north american free trade agreement. i'm going to make just a few remarks. i know senator toomey is here to make remarks. later he is going to offer, i believe, some procedural requests. the new nafta is a good deal for american workers because democrats, democrats in this body, democrats in the other body stopped the trump administration from going ahead with business as usual on trade

enforcement. there's even been an effort by several members on the other side in the senate to actually block enforcement dollars with chairman grassley's help we were able to prevent that. if you write a trade agreement with weak enforcement, particularly on labor and environmental issues, my view is you sell out american workers in key industries, whether it's automobiles, whether it's technology, whether it's manufacturing, you basically set up a race to the bottom on cheap wages and the treatment of labor. i particularly want to thank senator brown, my colleague from ohio, who for decades has led the fight for tough trade enforcement. we spoke yesterday on the floor about our effort. we worked on this side of the

aisle, but we reached out to a lot of senators on the other side of the aisle as well. and i want to just give an example of what the brown-wyden trade enforcement package does. in the past, it would take almost to eastern to bring a -- almost to eternity to bring a trade enforcement action. i spelled out yesterday, madam president, how the brown-wyden enforcement package speeds up the timeline for tough trade enforcement by more than 300%. that, in my view, throws a real lifeline, an actual lifeline to communities that are worried about whether they're going to have an economic heartbeat in the days ahead. i also want to mention -- and

i'm then going to yield to my colleague and we're going to use this time so that everybody gets a chance to make some remarks -- is this is the first ever trade agreement in which the united states locks in strong rules on digital trade and technology. back when the first nafta came about, you didn't have united states senators with smartphones in their pocket. you didn't have the internet as the shipping lane of the 21st century. so what we did in this part of the bill was really bipartisan. we protected intellectual property, we prohibited shakedowns of data belonging to innovative companies. and i was especially involved in making sure that we drew on established u.s. law to defend the small technology entrepreneurs working to build successful companies in a field

dominated by a small number of goliaths. these rules on technology and trade ought to be the cornerstones of our trade policy in the years ahead, because those rules, the rules on technology protect every single american industry -- health care, manufacturing, agriculture, you name it, is how the united states also is going to fight back against augusta tehran governments that -- authoritarian governments that use the internet as a tool to repress their own people, bully american businesses with the free speech rights of american citizens. so the bottom line here is -- and my colleague who sits right behind me, senator brown, was so key to producing a bill that had the provisions, the prerequisite to getting a law, frankly, with tough trade law

enforcement that brought literally dozens of members of both the senate and the house over to support this. i want to thank him and wrap up by saying i'm not sure that he's with us today here in the senate gallery, but ambassador bob lighthizer deserves a special thanks today. he may be off around the world somewhere talking to additional trade ministers, looking for other opportunities to come up with tough, future-oriented trade agreements. ambassador lighthizer is the hardest-working man in the trade agreement business. i want to thank him for all his work. i have a difference of opinion with my colleague from pennsylvania on these issues. we may have some procedure. but i think you're going to see

senators handle these issues over the next 20 minutes in a way that reflects the seriousness of this issue. and i would yield back, and i know the senator from pennsylvania will speak next. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you, madam president. i want to thank the ranking member of our committee for all of the work that he's put into this effort, even though i disagree in some important respects. one, i want to talk about this morning is the process under which we are going to consider and probably pass this legislation. we are considering this legislation under trade promotion authority. that refers to another bill, a law actually that we passed some time ago that expedites the process, forbids senators from offering amendments, allows passage of the legislation to occur with a simple majority vote, 51 out of 100, instead

of the usual 60-vote threshold. that's what trade promotion authority makes possible. it seems to me it's very, very important that any legislation we consider under a trade promotion authority be compliant with trade promotion authority because if it's not, if we allow extraneous provisions, for instance, then we're circumventing the normal legislative process, we're circumventing the 60 thoat threshold and abusing trade promotion authority. this is a delegated authority. i remind my colleagues trade policy is clearly and unambiguously assigned to congress in the constitution. it's our responsibility to manage trade. and legislation is obviously and undoubtedly exclusively granted to congress in the constitution. so we, our branch of government, has exclusive

responsibility for trade and legislating. what do we have here? we have a piece of legislation that deals with trade. so when we choose to delegate our responsibility to the executive branch, it's very, very important to me that we insist that that delegated authority be exercised properly and the legislation that follows from it complies with the law. what i want to raise is a concern about one of several, but one in particular, one respect in which the legislation we're considering today does not in fact comply with the trade promotion authority under which this legislation is being considered. and specifically i'm going to zero in on a certain aspect of some of the spending that occurs in this bill. by way of background, i think it's important to note the senate has never passed a spending bill with a simple majority vote. i don't think that's ever

happened in modern times since we've established the 60-vote threshold, anyway, on any piece of legislation. we don't do discretionary appropriations at a simple majority vote because it's been the collective will of this body for decades that that responsibility should occur at a 60-vote threshold and should be subject to amendments. not only that, we've got discretionary spending in this bill, and this is the first time that any trade implementing legislation has ever spent money. of the 17 trade bills that we have considered in recent decades under fast-track authority, none of them have ever contained any kind of appropriation, any kind of government spending. it's not that there's no spending necessary for the implementation of these other agreements. there was. but that spending always ran separately in a different bill,

a different piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that was subject to amendment and a 60-vote threshold. now why is that? well, that is in order to comply with the trade promotion authority, in order to comply with the conditions of granting expedited process. so what trade promotion authority says, among other things, is that any provision in this implementing legislation must be strictly necessary or appropriate for the implementation of the trade agreement. well, spending is not strictly necessary for this purpose because it can occur in a separate bill, and that's the way it's always been done. if we allow this to proceed on this basis exactly as is contemplated, we're really going to dramatically undermine the 60-vote threshold for spending. and there is spending in this bill. there is $843 million. almost a billion dollars. and it gets worse.

it gets worse, madam president, because this spending has got an emergency spending designation. so it's not only that we're spending money in a way that's never been done before. it's not only that we're spending money in a trade-implementing bill, which we've never done before, but now we've decided to call it emergency spending. now, why is it that it gets an emergency spending designation? why did someone bother to give this spending an emergency designation? well, there's a simple reason. that's because under our budget rules, if you label spending emergency, then you don't have to offset that spending if you exceed our agreed upon statutory spending caps. well, we're at the caps. and i gather that the folks who wrote this don't want to have to offset this new spending with a reduction anywhere else in the enormous budget of our federal

government. so they've designated an emergency spending. this is clearly an abuse of the use of an emergency designation. i mean, we designate emergency spending when we have to respond to a tornado or a flood or an outbreak of ebola. these sorts of things, unpredictable, sudden, devastating. those are actual emergencies. that's what that provision is there for. but here we're using it for things like doubling the staffing salary budget for the u.s. trade office. that's not an emergency. it's not even close. so i'm going to offer a point of order. it's very, very simple. it's very, very narrow. it's a very, very small thing. what i'm going to do is raise a point of order against the emergency designation of one of the spending lines in this appropriation. i could do it for all of them.

i could raise an issue about the fact that there is spending in the first place. i'm not doing that. i'm taking a very, very modest and narrow approach, and i'm suggesting that we raise a point of order against the emergency designation, against a $50 million of the hundreds of millions of dollars altogether that clearly is not an emergency and clearly, in my view, is inconsistent with the trade promotion authority. what are the consequences if my budget point of order were to succeed? first of all, not a dime of spending is reduced. this does not -- this is not an attempt to cut spending, eliminating an emergency designation does not cut any spending in this bill. what it would mean is that congress would have until the end of the year to find an offset of this $50 million, which, by the way, is about 1/ 1000 of one penny for every dollar the federal government spends. it's a tiny, tiny amount of

money. it means the bill will still pass because there is more than 60 votes for this bill, easily. and then it will go to the house where it will pass because it already has passed. so the point isn't to save money, per se. it's too small to matter in that regard, really. the point is are we willing to enforce our own law that governs the proceedings of this body? now, i think one of my colleagues is likely to respond by offering a -- a point of order or a provision that will preclude the possibility of my offering this point of order. not only that, i think it's going to preclude the possibility of any senator offering any budgetary point of order, which is a way of saying it will be forbidden to enforce compliance with t.p.a.'s budgetary rules in this legislation. and, my colleagues, i think that's a very, very bad idea. to suggest that we're going to

have this bill that is not compliant with trade promotion authority and we're going to preclude the possibility of raising a point of order about that noncompliancy think would be a big mistake. so soon i'll have the exact language that we will be using for this purpose, and we will -- we will have this discussion, and then we'll have a vote on whether or not to preclude the possibility of enforcing our budget rules with respect to this implementing legislation. and i yield. mr. grassley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: this is a very serious claim being made by senator toomey. i don't take this lightly because the privilege afforded by the trade promotion authority is a very important matter. the appropriations language that senator toomey takes issue with is indeed trade promotion

authority compliant. the appropriations ensures that the united states-mexico-canada agreement commitments are fulfilled and enforceable by providing adequate resources to do so. the commitments cover bipartisan priorities, including monitoring and enforcement and recapitalization of the north american development bank. if funds were only authorized, as senator toomey has suggested, there would be no guarantee that we would be able to fulfill the commitments made in the usmca, and the creebility -- credibility of our good-faith negotiations with mexico and canada is a presumption that we will carry out this agreement and carry it out year after year after year. besides, historically, all trade bills result in changes to federal spending and revenue.

this bill has the benefit of reducing the deficit even with the funds discussed by senator toomey. striking the emergency designation could lead to a sequestration of discretionary funding as regular appropriations for fiscal years 2020 have already been enacted. the emergency designation is in this precise context, and a very precise context considered strictly necessary or appropriate under section 103 of the trade promotion authority 2015. here is the oddity of the senators' argument -- senator's argument. if senator toomey is suggesting funds be authorized, i think he inherently agrees that enforcement funding is either strictly necessary or appropriate to implement the usmca. this is a very important

clarification to make. trade promotion language is, quote, strictly necessary or appropriate, end of quote. it's for congress then to decide what is strictly necessary or appropriate. the finance committee would -- with jurisdiction over the entire bill. the budget and the appropriation committees with jurisdiction over the language at issue voted overwhelmingly to support the bill. it's important to note that the final appropriation was significantly reduced in consideration of concerns about spending, including my own concerns. finally, i'd also like to emphasize that this was a negotiated outcome which was necessary to achieve the broad bipartisan support that this bill is going to get, and particularly to get it initiated

through the house of representatives. i'm satisfied with the final nowk, so i will make a motion to waive -- final outcome, so i will make a motion to waive the point of order if it's made. i will urge my colleagues to vote yes for the usmca so we can deliver a victory for the american people. mr. wyden: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i would ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute, and then senator toomey would proceed with the procedural question and answer. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: madam president, first i want to make sure that we can enter into the record the thanks that is deserved to the bipartisan team here in the senate that has made this day possible. and second, one substantive point because i associate myself with the remarks of chairman grassley. i think we need to understand that what the toomey procedural issue is all about is it's

really a trojan horse for rolling back an aggressive effort to enforce rights that workers care about and we all care about with respect to our land, air, and water. i know the senator from pennsylvania disagrees with it. i just wanted to make that point. the chairman is right with respect to the procedure. i just wanted people to understand what the substantive issue is. and this is just a policy disagreement. that's what the senate's all about. i yield. mr. toomey: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: two quick points and i will get to the point of order. first of all, i disagree with the chairman. i do think that the spending in this bill is neither strictly necessary nor appropriate, but that's not what this point of order is about. if my point of order is sustained, and the motion that is going to be made by the chairman were to be rejected, not a penny is reduced in spending of this bill, which is why i couldn't disagree more with my colleague from oregon.

to suggest it's a trojan horse for something, it doesn't cut spending by a time from this bill. it simply means that by the end of the fiscal year, congress will have to find an offset for this very, very modest amount of money. it's an attempt to try to enforce some kind of compliance. so, madam president, pursuant to section 314-e of the congressional budget act of 1974, i raise a point of order against the emergency designation on page 233, lines 4 through 8 of h.r. 5430. mr. grassley: i object. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act of 1974, and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, i move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolution for purposes of h.r.

5430, and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. vote: a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i would ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of resolution 474, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 474, to authorize representation by the senate legal counsel in the case of martin f. mcmann versus senator ted cruz et al.

the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. moran: i then ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. moran: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: madam president, i now ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 3201 introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3201, a bill to extend the temporary scheduling order for fentanyl-related substances, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. moran: then i would ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made

and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i finally ask unanimous consent that the committee on veterans' affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 3084, an that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3084, a bill to amend title 38, united states code, to modify the limitation on pay for certain high-level employees and officers of the department of veterans' affairs. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. moran: then, madam presiden- the presiding officer: it is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. moran: i then would ask, unanimous consent, that the bill be granted a third time and passed, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the tail. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: and finally, madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that the committee on judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 886, and

that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 886, an act to direct the attorney general to establish and carry out a veteran treatment court program. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and will proceed to the measure. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent that the mcsally amendment at the desk be agreed to than the bill, as amended be considered read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: all time is expired. the question is on the measure to waive. the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber that wish to vote or wish to change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 78, the nays are 21. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to, and the point of order fails. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 406, h.r. 5430, an act to implement the agreement between the united states of america, the united mexican states, and canada, attached as an annex to the protocol replacing the north american free trade agreement. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds for me and one minute for senator wyden for closing

remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. grass the united states-mexico-canada is a major achievement for president trump and a bipartisan win for the american people. we should all take care, republican or democrat, that this is good. i look forward to signing when bill and send it to the president's desk. mr. grassley: i yield the floor. wide mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: when the trump administration unveiled their original version of this proposal, it was stunning to see how weak it was in terms of trade enforcement. when you write a proposal with weak trade enforcement, particularly on labor and environmental issues, you sell out american workers and you launch a corporate race to the bottom of cheap wages and the treatment of labor. senator brown and i decided that was unacceptable and we were going to create a trade

enforcement regime with real teeth. we worked with senators here. we worked with senators on the other side of the aisle and in the over body. to give you an example of what this means with respect to enforcing trade law, we sped up the time line by more than 300%. second point, just very quickly, what this proposal does is it brings technology and trade policy into the 21st century. when the last north american free trade agreement was considered, nobody had a smart phone. so what we did is we protected intellectual property, we prohibited shakedowns of data belonging to innovative companies and on something i care deeply about, we drew on established u.s. law to defend small tech entrepreneurs working to build successful companies in a field dominated by goliaths. i urge my colleagues to support

this proposal and once again, thank bob lighthizer, the hardest working man in the trade agreement business. i urge a yes vote. the presiding officer: the question is on passage of the bill. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer. the president pro tempore: the yeas are 89. the nays are 10. the bill is passed.

the senate will be in order. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, for the information of senators, under the previous order, at