Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, nearly 12 million Americans, including 500,000 Iowans--more than that, actually--now have access to affordable health coverage because of the Affordable Care Act, and many for the first time in their lives. We know what the health care law has meant in Ohio and across the country. Patients can't be dropped from coverage or charged higher rates just because they got sick. Also, 97,000 young Ohioans have been able to stay on their parents' health insurance until their 26th birthday, giving them the chance to focus on careers, education, and future plans. Lifetime insurance caps are no longer bankrupting people with chronic conditions. Those with preexisting conditions, such as children with diabetes and asthma, will no longer be denied coverage or charged higher premiums. But despite all of these successes, the Supreme Court of the United States is currently considering a case that can take affordable health care away from hundreds of thousands of Ohioans, tens of thousands in the State of Oklahoma, and millions of Americans. In Ohio alone, 161,000 people are at risk of losing access to affordable health coverage in the King v. Burwell decision that the Court will soon hand down. These Ohioans receive an annual subsidy of about $240 a month to help them purchase private insurance plans. That is an average of nearly $3,000 per person per year. Hard-working families stand to lose even more. Taking away those subsidies--as many of my Republican colleagues have pushed the Court to do--would amount to a massive tax increase on Ohioans already struggling to get by. These same Republican colleagues have not come up with a workable solution if the Court rules their way. They have pushed this case all the way to the Supreme Court only to leave 161,000 Ohioans and nearly 12 million Americans without access to affordable coverage. We know what this new access to health insurance has meant for families in my State. Let me read from a couple of letters. This spring I met with Jumaane Cook from Parma Heights and his 5- year-old son James. Jumaane is 34 years old and has lived in Ohio for most of his life. He became insured for the first time in his adult life just last year when he purchased insurance for himself and his son on the Federal exchange. Jumaane was a college athlete but he tore his ACL in 2007. His injury left him unable to play sports, and his lack of insurance left him unable to afford treatment. Jumaane came to Washington to tell us how important the Affordable Care Act and his subsidy are to him and to his son. Because his employer doesn't offer health insurance, without the Federal subsidy Jumaane would be forced to go without insurance again and his son would have to go on public assistance. Jumaane is not alone. Rachael in Cincinnati wrote to me when the Supreme Court decided to hear the Burwell case. She and her husband ``have insured ourselves through individual insurance since 2008. It has been difficult and, at times, we have had to go without insurance simply due to the incredibly high cost of insurance in our area. We have paid our premiums every month. I will be fit-to-be-tied if I have to look for health insurance again. I was disappointed with what I could afford on the Federal exchange. And, I fear I will not be able to afford any insurance if I lose my subsidy.'' Lisa in Athens wrote: I have been reviewing plans on Healthcare.gov. At my age-- over 60, but not Medicare-eligible--the premiums are high, even for the Bronze plans. It concerns me that a court may rule that the subsidies are not available to those who access the Federal exchange. That is why these subsidies exist--to help people such as Lisa afford coverage, regardless of where they live. Jim from Streetsboro, near Akron, wrote, saying that he is ``62, drawing a pension, on Social Security, and paying COBRA health care to the tune of $1,200 a month.'' Jim is looking forward to buying cheaper insurance coverage through the Federal exchange, which he should be able to afford. He wrote: ``At least that was the plan until someone decided to try and derail the ACA for the umpteenth time. If things go bad with this decision, please do all you can to remember those who have worked their entire lives''--to remember those who have worked their entire lives. What the Supreme Court could do, and what clearly most Republican Members of this body and the House of Representatives want the Supreme Court to do, is to strike this part of this law down so that 161,000 Ohioans will either lose their insurance by losing their subsidy or pay increased fees--taxes in the years ahead. Connie in Cincinnati wrote to me after the lower court decision came down. She said the ACA has been ``a Godsend'' for her. Connie wrote: I believe strongly in the importance of having health care and have recently qualified for a catastrophic health plan with tax credits on healthcare.gov. As you know, Ohio is one of those States that opted out of establishing its own State plans. That was not a problem until yesterday. Now, facing a plan that may be ineligible for the federal tax credit, I face a dire financial situation. Connie says: I have willingly paid my fair share of taxes throughout my life. My tax dollars helped bail out banks and automobile corporations. I need my government to look out for me. The Supreme Court needs to hear from people such as Connie and Jim and Jumaane and Lisa and Rachael. These are hard-working Ohioans, most of whom have worked their entire life, but, unfortunately for them, have not worked for a company that has provided affordable health care. They have spent large chunks of their paychecks on health care, even with Federal subsidies. The Supreme Court should remember that before it takes away affordable coverage. That is a lifeline to these Ohioans and to so many millions of Americans. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, for most children around the country the school year has ended and the summer has begun. Some 700,000 children in Ohio, my home State, during the school year receive free or reduced- price school lunches on an average day--some 700,000 children. Those children might not have access to a nutritious meal when school cafeterias close for the summer. Summer break should not mean a break from good nutrition. That is where the Summer Food Service Program steps in. The U.S. Department of Agriculture works with State departments of education to ensure that every child has sufficient, adequate, nutritious food to keep growing and learning after the final school bell rings. This year in Ohio there will be 1,500 Summer Food Service Program sites across the State. Last year these sites served almost 4 million meals. Last week, I spoke with Winnie Brewer, who runs these sites in Marion County, OH, in a city about the size of Mansfield, near where I grew up. According to Winnie, more than one in four kids in her county is food insecure. She talked about one of their newest volunteers, who came to her in tears after watching a 6-year-old boy clean the shelves in an SFSP site--a feeding site--and then start digging through the trash. He was just that hungry. That is why the work Winnie does and her volunteers do is so important. Right now, too many families don't know about this critical program. Too many families miss out on receiving its assistance once school lets out. Winnie reports that just 1 in 10 children who receive breakfast or lunch during the school year comes to summer feeding sites. That means that in my State almost 700,000 children on any given school day will be getting a free or reduced-price breakfast or lunch--700,000. But during the summer months, only about 70,000 of those children get these meals or snacks. We need to do all we can to raise public awareness of these programs so that families know that the end of the school year does not mean an end to food services for their children. In Marion, the city I mentioned where Winnie runs her program, she anticipates she will triple the number of meals she serves this year compared to 5 years ago. That is because she and other community partners have committed to making this program a success. At approved schools, in churches, in summer camps, in synagogues, and in community centers, pools, and recreation centers, volunteers and organizers are ensuring that children have the healthy food they need to succeed. Those sites often offer more than just healthy meals. They provide summer enrichment activities for kids. We know that low-income children whose parents typically have less education, in the months from school closing in late May or early June until school returns in late August or early September, tend to fall back on their education. In districts such as that where the parents have less education, less ability or know-how to read to the children, to take them on field trips that might make their minds more active, we know those children start every fall having to catch up just to get back to where they were in the spring. That is one of the beauties of the summer feeding program. So you are not just giving these children nutritious meals, but you are also giving these children library activities and sports activities and other kinds of organized activities at churches, at community centers, at schools, and at libraries that can matter. The sites in Marion County partner with the YMCA to offer exercise. They run a literacy program that provides free books to kids at feeding sites. Getting a new book can turn a child on and get that child more excited about reading. Earlier this month, I was in Youngstown--a city in northeast Ohio--to get the word out about the summer food and feeding program. I met with Mark Samuel, who operates a site at the West Side Community Center and a couple dozen other sites in Mahoning Valley. I also met with Retha Austin, who has children and grandchildren in the program, and now she is working a few hours a week as a paid worker to help get this program up and running. Families need to know about these sites and the dedicated folks like Mark, Winnie, and Retha who run them. Summer break shouldn't mean a break from good nutrition. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the career of Laura Pechaitis, a dedicated public servant who has made a profound difference in the lives of thousands of Ohioans. For 13 years, I have been honored to have Laura on my staff, where she has helped veterans dealing with problems large and small. Laura retires on May 8, 2015, after more than 30 years of service to her community. From the moment Laura contacted my then-congressional office about a job, I should have recognized that I was encountering a woman of uncharacteristic zeal and dedication. Laura wrote to me after she-- along with her husband, Theodore, and two sons, Marc and Scott--had moved back home to Ohio from New York. She had worked for 18 years in the New York Assembly for State Representative Michael Bragman as his director of constituent services. During her time in the New York Assembly she helped develop a program used by all assembly offices to track and manage casework. Hiring her should have been an obvious decision, but it was only after she had written to me three times that I finally recognized the dedication and passion of the person I was dealing with. Hiring Laura has made a difference in the lives of thousands of Ohioans. On my staff, Laura primarily focused her efforts on assisting Ohio's veterans. Our veterans and servicemembers dedicate their lives to our Nation, and Laura worked to make sure that they received the respect, gratitude, and assistance befitting their service. Inspired by her father--a World War II naval veteran--Laura has been committed all of her adult life to serving those who served us. As a student at Miami University, she helped form an auxiliary for the Navy ROTC program, serving as its commander. She helped all generations of veterans. She helped men who stormed the beach on D-day secure long-overdue medals they had earned, and she helped recent Iraq war veterans access VA benefits to attend college and transition to civilian life. Her ability to resolve seemingly intractable cases was legendary. For veterans who had been waiting months, she was able to expedite their cases and get them the attention they deserved, many within 24 hours. One constituent had been told by the VA that his claim would take 20 days to process. Frustrated and distraught, he called Laura while driving to the VA clinic. By the time he pulled into the VA clinic, Laura had resolved the issue. Another veteran in Columbus had lived in her house for 27 months, but she was too afraid to unpack out of fear of being evicted. Laura helped ensure that this veteran had the VA benefits that would enable her to stay in her home. Going above and beyond the call of duty was the norm for Laura. One veteran even had a term for her dedication, dubbing such exemplary service the ``typical Pechaitis fashion.'' Another constituent from Warren was having his TRICARE bills denied by the VA. Not only did Laura have the issue resolved within 24 hours, but she worked to help him reenroll in college and went so far as to put him in touch with a mentor at a local university to make sure he went back to school. Her drive for public service, however, went beyond veterans. In fact, long before he became the star of the Cleveland Cavaliers, a young LeBron James used to come into my Akron office to spend time with a friend whose mother worked for me. During one those visits, Laura helped LeBron James register for the draft--the Selective Service draft that is, not the NBA draft. Since 2006, Laura helped coordinate more than 10,000 cases for veterans and Active-Duty members of the armed services. She brought the same energy and empathy to each one. Laura has been a champion of veterans in Ohio, and the breadth of her impact is remarkable. She has been a model public servant, and I am proud to have worked with her. Our actions in Congress are closely watched, but what too often goes unnoticed is the work of dedicated staff members whose only goal is to serve those we are elected to represent. I ask that my colleagues join me in thanking Laura Pechaitis for her service to our Nation.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Blumenthal be recognized.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, first, I want to offer my deepest sympathy and condolences to Vice President Biden and the entire Biden family. The Vice President has been met with more personal tragedy than any person should have to endure in any lifetime. He has faced it all with remarkable grace. He has persevered to accomplish so much good for his family, for his State, and now for his country. We are all indebted to him for that. I know he and Jill and the whole family are in our thoughts and prayers today. Export-Import Bank Madam President, turning to the business before the Senate this month--business that should be in front of the Senate this month--the Senate banking committee will hold two hearings beginning tomorrow on the Export-Import Bank. It is urgent that the Senate move to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank before the charter expires on June 30. Frankly, I find it both curious and alarming and also troubling that we seem to be doing this over and over. We do a transportation bill only for a few weeks or a few months. We do the Ex-Im Bank for only a few weeks or a few months. When we act that way, it is wasteful, it is alarming to many, and it makes it almost impossible for companies and State departments of transportation and State development agencies to plan. It means that far too many companies simply cannot attract the investment they need because of the uncertainty. When I hear people complain in this body about the uncertainty of government and of government acting, and then it is those same people who so often block the Export-Import Bank, who want to stumble along for a few weeks of reauthorization or block a transportation bill--that clearly undermines the ability for our economy to grow and clearly undermines and erodes any kind of investment and planning we should be doing. In today's global economy, we should provide American businesses with predictability and support to sell their products around the globe. This should not be controversial. Like the Transportation bill, the Export-Import Bank--at least it used to be this way--there was almost unanimity. There was consensus. For instance, in 2006 the Export-Import Bank was passed by unanimous consent. For those obviously not necessarily conversant with Senate-speak, unanimous consent means nobody comes to the floor and objects. That means unanimous. It means that we move together as one to try to do something which obviously adds to our GDP, helps our workers, and helps our community. In places such as Columbia and in Mahoning County in Ohio, in places such as Dayton and Toledo, I know what globalization has done for our economy. I know that when we can do some things like the Export-Import Bank and a long-term transportation bill and actual planning, it helps the economy grow. I know what the plant closings in those communities have meant to places such as Mansfield and Gallopolis and Lima and Hamilton. When a plant closes, it not just hurts that family or the employee, it hurts the business, it hurts the community, and it hurts the local hardware store and everybody else. We know the Ex-Im Bank supports thousands of businesses, large and small, and hundreds of thousands of American jobs. According to the Ex- Im Bank's estimates, it supported $27 billion in exports and 160,000 American jobs. It is supporting $250 million in deals in just Ohio alone, my State, 60 percent of which went to small business. Opponents who like to talk about corporate welfare--the same people who by and large vote for trade agreements and tax cuts for the wealthy and trickle-down economics--those same people say this is corporate welfare. No, really, it isn't. Our government actually makes money on this, and it is aimed primarily at small businesses. The Ex-Im Bank fills gaps in private export plans. It charges fees, and it charges interest on loan rate-related transactions. The Ex-Im Bank covers its operating costs and its loan costs. Last year, Ex-Im returned $600-plus million to our Treasury. So it doesn't cost taxpayers; it actually brings money to our country--money that otherwise might go to foreign imports. If we don't have a big enough trade deficit, this would make it worse. We know that our competitors have their own export-import banks. There are some 60 of these around the world. Why should we unilaterally disarm and put our manufacturers and exporters at a competitive disadvantage? That is what we will do if the Bank's authorization expires at the end of this month. We need to give our companies, our businesses, and our workers the same leg up as they compete around the world. This should be about as obvious as it gets. Leader McConnell is committed to giving us a vote on Ex-Im reauthorization before it expires. I hope that he can manage it better than he managed the PATRIOT Act, FISA, the most recent issue, the NSA, which has been in front of the Senate, and better than he managed the trade bill that pushed all of this into this week and, as Senator Coats said rightly, caused this law to expire, which was a mistake. We should be planning here better. We should be coming together on issues where we can come together. We could have come together earlier on NSA. We could have come together earlier on trade a little bit better. We can certainly come together on a transportation bill and an Ex-Im Bank bill. I urge my colleagues in the House to act to reauthorize the Bank. Supporting U.S. exports should be a cause we all get behind. We have seen too many issues come out of this Senate with bipartisan support, only to watch them die a partisan death in the House. We can't let that happen with the Export-Import Bank. Once again, I hope my colleagues will join in pressing our counterparts in the House to get this done. We need to do it. The House needs to do it. We need to provide American workers the support they need to sell our products around the globe. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. I thank Senator Cornyn and Senator Leahy for their work on this important legislation and for working with me to clarify the scope of this bill. I hope Senator Cornyn and Senator Leahy continue to work on these issues with the financial regulatory agencies, including if the bill is considered in any conference with the House of Representatives, to ensure that this new standard will not undermine the broad protections currently afforded to confidential supervisory information and in turn undermine the cooperative relationship between regulators and their supervised institutions.

Mr. BROWN. I recognize the principles of this legislation, which seeks to increase government transparency, but as the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, I also recognize the need for regulatory agencies to thoroughly fulfill their oversight and supervisory responsibilities over our Nation's financial institutions and the health and welfare of our financial system. The financial regulatory agencies are responsible for ensuring the safety and soundness of the financial system, compliance with Federal consumer financial law, and promoting fair, orderly, and efficient financial markets. Effective regulation requires that financial regulators have full access to information from regulated entities, and regulated entities should be confident that regulators will be able to protect an entity's confidential information from disclosure. Congress provided for this important exchange of information in the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, by protecting supervisory information specifically in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(b)(8), commonly referred to as exemption 8, and more generally in other exemptions. Accordingly, I appreciate that S. 337 does not intend to limit the scope of the protections under exemption 8, or other exemptions relevant to financial regulators; nor does the bill intend to require release of confidential information about individuals, or information that a financial institution may have, the release of which could compromise the stability of the financial institution or the financial system, or undermine regulators' consumer protection efforts. Because the release of confidential or sensitive information relating to the supervision of regulated entities could cause harm to such entities, their customers, or the financial system, a financial regulatory agency could reasonably foresee that disclosure of such information requested under FOIA may harm an interest protected by exemption 8. This is precisely why Congress continues to provide these statutory exemptions.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, before President Obama or President Hillary Clinton or President Lindsey Graham decides that China should be admitted to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, this amendment ensures that Congress play a role in that decision. A vote for this amendment is not a poison pill. It does not kill TPP or TPA. This amendment simply spells out a process for future countries to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It would require the President to notify Congress of intent to enter into negotiations, and it would require certification from Senate Finance and House Ways and Means and final approval by a vote of both Houses of Congress. It is pretty simple. Before the world's second largest economy--the People's Republic of China--becomes part of TPP, there should be vigorous public debate and there should be congressional approval.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with Senator Cornyn and Senator Leahy, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, regarding important aspects of S. 337, the FOIA Improvement Act of 2015, that could affect the essential work of our financial regulators.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I echo the words of Senator Sessions, my colleague from Alabama. These free-trade deals are not free trade. If they were free trade, they would be a couple of pages long that simply listed the tariffs that we are eliminating as incentives. Instead, these are a collection of special interest deals that take us somewhere else from where the proponents said they would. Senator Sessions said something interesting: This is really about jobs. They would be making claims about jobs. Instead, they make claims about geopolitics in China and all of that. That is fine, but there are certainly other ways to deal with that better than we have. We have seen big promises. We saw them from the first President Bush as he negotiated NAFTA. We saw them from President Clinton when he pushed NAFTA through Congress. We saw them from President Clinton on PNTR with China, which was not a trade deal but certainly acted like one in many ways in terms of what happened with China then. We saw them with the second President Bush with the Central America Free Trade Agreement. And we are seeing them now with President Obama and South Korea. On South Korea, President Obama's administration promised an increase of 70,000 jobs and promised wages would go up. They always say more jobs, higher wages, but then we ended up losing 75,000 jobs under the South Korea Free Trade Agreement. Today we are voting on whether to end debate on the fast-track bill. If people are a little confused, it is very understandable. We are going to end debate, but we have barely begun it. Historically, when we do trade agreements in this town--as bad as they have turned out to be for the American public and working families in places such as Reno and Cleveland, and smaller towns such as Mansfield and Lima, and really small towns such as Jackson, OH--when we passed these trade agreements, at least we have had open debate where we could offer amendments. The last time we did fast-track legislation on the Senate floor, there were 3 weeks of debate. This is about 3 days. We considered 50 amendments. We have considered two so far. The majority leader came to the floor at the end of the first full day of debate and said we are filing cloture to shut down debate. At the end of the first full day of debate, they began the process of shutting down debate. The majority leader promised an open process. I don't get it when my Democratic colleagues--I guess I get it with the free-trade fundamentalists here and people who are not as independent as Senator Sessions and the total party loyalists who will always vote with their leadership. But I don't get it when Democrats in this body, who really do genuinely care about workers, as do many Republicans--why they are willing to shut down debate because the majority leader says let's shut down debate. We had two votes on Monday night and none since. Six amendments are pending, but votes for them haven't been scheduled. Two hundred amendments have been filed. At least 30 Senators have filed amendments and a number of Senators have filed multiple amendments. We have 200 amendments filed and 2 votes and 6 amendments pending, even though the 6 amendments that are pending don't have any schedule on how they are going to be dealt with. At least one of them has been second-degreed, basically obviating or taking away any ability to vote strictly on that amendment. We had two votes on Monday night, no votes on this issue since, and as for the six amendments themselves, who knows how they are going to be disposed of. That is an open process? People on my side of the aisle are willing to vote to shut down debate when 25 of their Democratic colleagues and another--I don't know, a half dozen; I don't know how many Republicans--are also offering amendments. So 200 amendments have been filed by--I just found this. Forty-six Senators have actually filed 200 amendments on an issue we haven't considered in 13 years, and we are going to shut down debate at the end of the first full day of consideration. We had a truly open legislative process the last time we did it. I think it was a Republican Senate at the time. It was a very closely divided Senate. We have been promised repeatedly that is what this underlying bill deserves. It is what the American people deserve. Keep in mind this fast-track legislation means that we will be considering--it opens the process, opens the door to two trade agreements that encompass 60 percent of the world's economy. Forty percent of the world's economy is in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and an additional 20 percent with the United States and the European Union, the so-called TTIP agreement. Again, after two votes, the majority leader filed for cloture at the end of the first full day of debate. We are not being unreasonable. We have played this straight. We are simply asking for the Senate to debate this important legislation. I really don't understand how any Senator in either party, when half of the Senate has offered amendments--200 of them and counting and every day there are more amendments offered--how we can shut down debate when 200 amendments have been filed by 46 Senators. We are simply asking for votes on our amendments. I don't care when we complete it. I don't care if we right now defeat cloture and then come up with some kind of a UC to give us votes on 25 or 50 of these amendments with time scheduled so we can finish. I don't care if we finish today or Friday or Saturday or Sunday or stay to Memorial Day or come back a week after Memorial Day and finish. It really doesn't matter about the time. I know a lot of my colleagues don't want to go home this week and have people who are angry because they know these trade agreements don't serve the public interest, and we know there are millions of Americans who have lost jobs because of decisions we make here. We make decisions here that throw people out of work. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the greatest cheerleader--the most vigorous, vociferous cheerleader for free trade of any newspaper in the country, I believe--even they acknowledge that people are thrown out of work from trade agreements because of the dislocation. We are going to leave here and vote on this without even having amendments on how to take care of those workers and how to do trade enforcement. It simply doesn't make sense. Amendments such as the Brown-Portman Leveling the Playing Field Act amendment include much-needed trade enforcement provisions in this trade promotion bill. It was for all intents and purposes unanimously accepted in the Finance Committee. It has all kinds of Republican cosponsorships and all kinds of Democrat cosponsorships. My colleagues in the leadership in both parties, even though the leadership in both parties doesn't reflect the majority of the Members of both parties-- that is the way it is sometimes--but we are asking for a vote on that. We haven't been given that yet--an actual vote. There have been promises, but there has been nothing really substantive in the end. These provisions on a level playing field are supported by the White House and by House Republicans who have asked them to be included in fast-track. They are supported by numbers of U.S. industries that face an onslaught of unfairly traded imports and need our trade remedy laws to be as strong as possible. We are not debating the Brown-Portman amendment. We are not debating any amendments. We are simply rushing to conclude consideration of this fast-track bill. We are fast-tracking this whole idea of a fast-track process. Why is that good for our country or our workers or our small manufacturers and the supply chains of all of these big industries? Why is that good for our communities? We have waited 8 years, and this has to be done today. Eight years we have waited for this. We had one full day of debate. Then the majority leader shut down the debate, after one full day of debate. What we do in this fast-track bill will have implications for years to come. It will affect the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, both permanent trade agreements that represent more than half the world's economy. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. BROWN. This will affect both TPP, 40 percent of the world's economy, and then a year or so later, TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the United States-European Union agreement-- both permanent trade agreements. There is 40 percent in TPP of the world's economy, and 20 percent in TTIP of the world's economy. These are permanent trade agreements that represent a huge part of the world's economy. This bill will affect global labor standards, it will affect global environmental standards, it will affect international intellectual property standards, and more and more and more. That is why Senator Sessions has spoken out so effectively against it. That is why people in both parties are insisting they get these amendments, that they are voting against cloture until they get these amendments--Members of this body who have supported cloture in the past for a whole host of things. Why we are rushing to end debate before it has truly begun is mystifying. Regardless of whether they support or oppose the underlying bill, I hope my colleagues recognize the importance of getting fast- track legislation right--not getting it done by Memorial Day, some artificial deadline that somebody somewhere set but getting this trade legislation right. The Senate has not given the underlying bill the attention and deliberation it deserves. It has not given the amendment process the ability to--let alone to work its way through but even to get off the ground. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture and ensure that a reasonable number of amendments get considered. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, again, I appreciate the generosity of Senators Hatch and I think Wyden on this. Some 200 amendments have been filed by 46 Senators. We have had two votes. We have six pending, but the six pending--they have had some interesting adjustments in terms of second-degree amendments, in terms of not being actually called for votes. Now we have an offer of nine more. That is a good step, but the majority leader came to the floor at the end of the first full day of debate to file cloture to shut down debate. We had only two votes all week. I would like to have more votes. I think all of us on all sides of the discussion on this debate--the pro-free-trade Republicans and the anti-free-trade Republicans, the pro-free trade Democrats and the overwhelming majority of Democrats who don't like the way the rules are under TPA--would be willing to come together and pick out 20 or so amendments of the 200 that have been offered by 46 different Senators and have that debate with time limits. We should do all of that. Instead, we have nine amendments here. As I said--in case I didn't say it three times--we have had only two votes so far. There are nine amendments here. Most of these amendments--including level the playing field, which seems to have unanimous support--level the playing field is nongermane. So if Senators vote for cloture now, then all of those nongermane amendments are dropped and most of these nine will not see the light of day. Madam President, I object to the UC.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I would again reiterate our offer. I don't know that I can do it exactly in a UC request. But I reiterate our offer that we sit down--that the leaders sit down--and discuss 15 amendments a side--15 Republican amendments, 15 Democrat amendments-- and that we have a serious negotiation without cloture hanging over our head that will drop all of these nongermane, very serious enforcement amendments. We had a vote last Tuesday where for the first time in 25 years a trade motion was actually defeated. The whole point of that vote was that we wanted enforcement as part of TPA, TAA. That is what this has been all about. But in this UC request, most of the enforcement--for instance, level the playing field, but also some other things--will drop because they are nongermane. I offer to Senator Hatch if there is a way of having this discussion and really moving forward----

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we are going to be voting, we hope, on an amendment that is called the antidocking amendment. It observes, by reading the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that there apparently is a path for the executive branch to allow another country to become part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership without a vote of Congress. In other words, as to the world 's second largest economy, China, the administration, this President or the next President, could decide that, well, China should join the 12 countries already part of TPP if we affirm this vote down the road with TPP. If China could join--the second largest economy in the world--they would backdoor, if you will, because of the administration's willingness to do it, with no input from the public, with no input from the Congress. Our amendment is really simple. It sets up a process over a 90-day period. If a President wants to bring a country into the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that country would have to meet certain criteria, the same kinds of criteria that we have seen with these 12 countries, including sex trafficking and some labor law and other things. Then Congress would actually vote. Congress would get 90 days to decide, up or down, whether a country can join TPP after it is up and running. The country that most concerns us, of course, is China. So when you hear this amendment discussed, you will hear China used as an example, because its economy, obviously, is so large. It passed Japan as the world's second largest economy, I believe, a year or so ago. We just want to make sure that our integrity and the integrity of these 12 countries--12 other countries--is preserved. The way to do that and for the public to be heard is that Congress has to make the decision on whether another country can join. That is what our so-called docking amendment does. I know Senator Franken is about to take the floor. I want to say a couple of other things. This amendment is in no way meant to kill TPP. It simply spells out the process for future countries to join. Here is exactly how the process would work. The President would notify Congress about an intent to enter negotiations. It would require certification from the two committees--Ways and Means in the House, Finance in the Senate. Then it would ultimately come to a Senate vote. That is how this would work to protect, I think, the public interest and to give the public input into what countries actually join the TPP. It makes sense, I think, for all countries involved. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the Presiding Officer being my colleague from my State of Ohio. Amendment No. 1251 Mr. President, with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we are considering the largest trade deal in our Nation's history. Forty percent of GDP is affected by the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We have a responsibility to ensure this deal does not get any bigger without congressional approval. That is why I am offering this amendment, the so-called docking amendment, along with many of my colleagues, to prevent the Trans-Pacific Partnership from being a backdoor trade agreement with China. What does that mean? Right now, there is nothing in this trade legislation--nothing--that we are considering to prevent the People's Republic of China from joining the TPP at a later date. Without a formal process requiring congressional input and approval for countries like China to join the TPP, we might as well be talking about the China free-trade agreement. This amendment spells out in law a detailed, important process, step by step, for future TPP partners to join the agreement. It does not say they cannot join; it just says here is how they join--because TPP and TPA seem to be silent on that. Here is how it works. The President would be required to notify Congress of his or her intent to enter into negotiations with a country that wants to join the TPP. The notice period would be 90 days. During that time, the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee would have to vote to certify that the country considering joining the TPP is capable of meeting the standards of the agreement. It would stop sort of backdoor Presidential authority, whether it is President Obama or the next President making that decision. After that, both the Senate and the House would have to pass a resolution within the 90-day window approving that country joining the negotiations. So if the President decides that he or she wants China to join these 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership countries, the President cannot do that unilaterally. The President needs to go through this process and ultimately bring it to a vote by Congress. Then the American people can have their say. If it is just done unilaterally and quickly and maybe even kind of quietly by the President, the public would have no input. But if it goes through the congressional process, the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee--I do not think we speak to the order of that--the notice period would be 90 days, so the country would then have 90 days to speak its mind about what we all think, we 300-some million people in this country think about this new country--not just China. That is obviously the most important, the most salient, the one we pay the most attention to--the second largest economy in the world. The implementing bill for that country to join the TPP would be subject to fast-track authority only if TPA were still in effect at that time. This process is vital to ensuring a public debate on what would be one of the most consequential economic decisions in a decade. TPP, as we all know, already affects 40 percent of the world's GDP. If China piggybacks on this agreement, we will be looking at a sweeping agreement that will encompass the two largest economies on Earth. In fact, it would then perhaps be three; it would be the United States, then China, then Japan. A deal of that scale demands public scrutiny. A deal of that scale demands congressional input. A deal of that scale demands that the American public weigh in. We know China already expressed interest in joining the agreement at the end of last year. News reports indicate they are monitoring these talks closely. Of course they are. We also know China manipulates its currency, even though Presidents Obama and Bush would not say that. We know they manipulate their currency. We know China floods our market with subsidized and dumped steel imports. We know China pursues an industrial policy designed to undercut American manufacturing. Sitting in front of me is the junior Senator from the State of Washington, who has worked so hard and is on this floor to make sure it happens, that we reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. We know what China has done there to sort of end run the United States and what the failure of our doing that here would mean to even give greater advantages to China. Mr. President, 2016 will mark China's 15-year anniversary in the World Trade Organization. We saw what happened after Congress, in 1999, 2000--that period--normalized trade relations with China. China became a member of the World Trade Organization. Fifteen years ago, our trade deficit with China was not much more than $15 billion a year. Today, our trade deficit with China is $25 billion a month. So it went from $15 billion to a factor of $300 billion--all in the space of 15 years. Think about that. We know what Presidents over time have said about trade deficits-- that when we have a trade deficit of $1 billion, what that means for lost jobs. It means we are buying $1 billion worth of goods more than we are selling to that country. Every day with China, we buy $1 billion more of goods--every day almost $1 billion--$900 million, roughly, more than we sell to China every day. We know what that means on job loss. We are not making it in the United States. They will make it in China. The workers in China are making it, not the workers in the United States. So that trade gap with China represents a huge percentage of our total U.S. trade deficit. Meanwhile, China continues to thwart the rules with impunity. We have focused on integrating China into the international system-- something we want to do--but we only hope it will comply with the rules we should follow. We give China chance after chance, pushing for increased engagement. China continues to play by its own rules. Currency manipulation is a good example. I appreciate the Presiding Officer's work on that issue, on currency manipulation. That should be voted on in this body in the next, I assume, 48 years. Year after year, the U.S. Treasury says China's currency is significantly undervalued. Year after year, we give China a chance-- another chance, another chance--to change its monetary policy, but we will not call China a currency manipulator. President Bush would not do it. President Obama would not do it. Up to 5 million American workers have lost their jobs. Our trade deficit has grown by hundreds of billions of dollars due to currency manipulation. We have clear evidence that China disregards international trade laws. Why would we think it would be any different if they get a backdoor entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership? That is why we cannot allow TPP to become a backdoor way to pass a free-trade agreement with China without a vote in Congress. I know Senator Menendez has raised these concerns for a while. I appreciate that support and the support of our other cosponsors on this issue. This amendment is not a poison pill. All this amendment does is clarify the process for new countries to join the TPP, should it pass. It does not say we cannot bring in new countries. It does say that Congress has to vote on it. Congressional approval is not required for additional non-Communist countries to join WTO agreements after the United States enters into them. We need this amendment to prevent that same so-called docking process from being used with the TPP. China and those countries like China that are not market economies are differently structured economies, different kinds of countries. We are not saying: No, never. You cannot enter into the TPP. We are simply saying Congress should have a say in it and, most importantly, the public should be able to speak out on this and have a period of time to talk to their Members of Congress. I urge my colleagues to join me in adopting this critical amendment.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I second the words of the senior Senator from Michigan. She is exactly right about the importance of currency. As she said, it is a negotiating objective. Frankly, I wish we could write even stronger language because we know that the U.S. Trade Representative--whether it is a Trade Representative serving a Democrat or a Republican--doesn't pay quite as much attention to the negotiating objectives as we want. But there is no reason we shouldn't write strong negotiating objectives. Senator Stabenow's amendment with my colleague from Ohio is exactly the right major step forward. I wish to make one other comment. I believe Senator Franken, Senator Boxer, and Senator Whitehouse are coming to the floor, along with Senator Murphy, Senator Casey, Senator Warren, and Senator Stabenow, to speak about amendments that really matter to TPA. There are literally almost two dozen Democratic Senators and I believe at least 8 or 10 Republican Senators--I am not sure of that number--who have good, solid, substantive amendments. That is why I want to see us do what Senator McConnell has talked about, and that is have a full hearing and airing of amendments that are substantive. There are dozens of substantive amendments offered by at least a couple dozen Senators. I wish to refer to one thing my colleague from Ohio said earlier, before Senator Stabenow's speech, and that is about the amendment that refers to leveling the playing field, which we have been working on and which is all about trade enforcement. I jotted down one thing he said, which I want to emphasize. He said that by the time our government is able to prove injury and prove an unfair trade practice, the injury is already so great to our workers and our companies. He expanded on that, and I wish to expand on that for a moment. I have spent hours and hours over the years visiting plants in Ohio and seeing what happened to a number of our companies and the workers who work at those companies when countries such as South Korea engage in unfair trade practices, whether it is steel, coated paper, tires, or dumping oil country tubular steel--dumping means they may subsidize capital. In addition to lower wages, it may be water, energy, or land. Having lower wages is not an unfair trade practice, but the other examples are. We know what that means. It means that our workers can't compete when they don't play fair. Whether it is Colorado, Ohio, or Michigan, we follow the rule of law, so it takes a period of time to prove these companies are engaging in unfair trade practices. We see a number of these countries and companies--it may be Korea, China, or somewhere else--not just gaming the currency system, but we see them so often not being forthcoming even though international laws require that they be forthcoming with information so we can process whether they, in fact, are subsidizing their production and dumping their product. They may give us inadequate or faulty information or they may give us purposely erroneous information. By the time we put together the trade case, small businesses, particularly in the supply chain, have gone out of business or have been damaged beyond their ability to survive long term, and so often, workers have been laid off. I saw what happened in Lorain, OH, and I saw what has happened in Cleveland and Gallipolis and Chillicothe. I saw what happened in Trumbull County, OH, and Youngstown, OH, when China and Korea cheated on the oil country tubular steel issue. Leveling the playing field will help us fight back. That is why so many corporations and labor unions support this legislation. It matters to our communities because when a plant closes and workers are laid off, it is not just those workers and those families who are affected, it devastates the community. Firefighters, teachers, and police end up getting laid off, and the community is less safe. All of those things happen because we don't stand up and enforce trade law, we don't stand up for our international interests, and we don't stand up for our economic security and our community interests. That is why the Stabenow amendment on currency is so important, and that is why the Brown-Portman amendment is important--so we can level the playing field. We have at least half a dozen Republican sponsors, and we have a number of Democratic sponsors as well. That language was so uncontroversial that it was adopted in the Finance Committee in the managers' package in the underlying bill that Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden negotiated at the beginning, about a month or so ago. I applaud Senator Stabenow for her work on currency. I urge my colleagues, first of all, to make the amendment on leveling the playing field pending, and second, to move on this legislation. I also appreciate the leadership Senator Whitehouse, who just joined us on the floor, has shown on these trade agreements. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I would like to speak first on the request. I thank Chairman Hatch for his work on this, especially on the level the playing field. He knows this amendment is a top priority for me. It is also a top priority for steelworkers and steel facilities throughout the country. I would like to ask Chairman Hatch if he would take the same collaborative spirit he has shown toward me and ask him to modify his request, if I could. This is my request, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the following first-degree amendments be in order to be offered during today's session: Brown-Portman No. 1252; Hatch-Wyden No. 1385; Cruz-Grassley No. 1384; Menendez-Wyden No. 1410; Cantwell No. 1248; Casey No. 1334; Baldwin No. 1317; Murphy No. 1333; Cardin No. 1230; Blumenthal No. 1297; Sanders No. 1343; Markey No. 1308; Peters No. 1353; Whitehouse No. 1387; Boxer No. 1361; Franken No. 1390; Durbin No. 1244; Merkley No. 1401; that the time until 8 p.m. today be equally divided in the usual form and that at 8 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed: Inhofe-Coons No. 1312, as modified with the changes that are at the desk; Shaheen No. 1227; Warren No. 1327; McCain-Shaheen No. 1226; Brown No. 1251; Hatch-Wyden No. 1385; Portman-Stabenow No. 1299; Brown-Portman No. 1252; and Cantwell No. 1248. Further, I ask that no second-degree amendments be in order to these amendments prior to the votes and that the following amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold for adoption: Inhofe-Coons No. 1312; Brown-Portman No. 1252; McCain-Shaheen No. 1226; and Cantwell No. 1248; finally, I ask unanimous consent that it not be in order for cloture to be filed on the Hatch substitute or the underlying bill during today's session.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN. Before Senator Peters speaks, I again would like to thank Senator Hatch for the work he has done on this. I appreciate how he wants to move forward. There are many things here we agree with to move forward on. The reason for the unanimous consent request I made was that we saw today a whole host of Senators come to the floor. We saw Senator Baldwin come down, Senator Merkley has come down, Senator Peters is here, Senator Blumenthal came earlier, Senator Warren, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Casey--and I am leaving some out--Senators Boxer and Franken all came to the floor with amendments because they want, as Senator McConnell promised, a full and open process. So my unanimous consent request was to take the generous offer of Senator Hatch and make it broader and wider so those Senators who have shown the interest to come to the floor today would be able to offer those amendments. The reason I asked that cloture not be filed today is that it just simply doesn't seem right to me--and I know to a number of Members of my caucus--that literally 24 hours after we start this process we already are talking about cloture. Thirteen years ago, the last time we did fast-track here, this debate went for 3 weeks. I am not asking for 3 weeks. I think that would be a bridge too far for most of us. But I am saying that 13 years ago there were 50 amendments that were considered. Today, we have considered 6 and there have been 149 filed. That is 4 percent of the amendments that were filed. Again, Senator Hatch's generous offer gets us not even to 10 percent of those offered amendments. So invoking cloture this quickly really does stifle the process, and I think this is too big a deal for that. This fast-track debate encompasses the largest trade debate, the largest trade agreement in the history of the country--I guess in the history of the world, for that matter. It involves 40 percent of the world's GDP, these 12 TPP countries. Adding in the European countries in the next round, also under TPA, is another 20 percent of the world's GDP. So that would be 60 percent of the world's GDP. You don't file cloture within 24 hours and begin to shut down debate. That was the reason for my unanimous consent request. Again, I thank Senator Hatch for his patience in working together on the level the playing field amendment, one of the major enforcement issues, but I have at least 15 Members of my caucus, as many as 20, who want to offer amendments. There have been 149 amendments filed on both sides, and to cut off debate with fewer than 10 percent of them in order or even a few more than that is simply not the way this Senate should operate.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I appreciate the majority leader's comments. I know Senator Sessions will be speaking in a moment. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sessions succeed me after I speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I would remind the majority leader that the last time he used the term, ``We shouldn't waste our time on trade,'' meaning not that we shouldn't pass this trade agreement--of course he supports that--but that we should not spend so much time on trade--the last time, 13 years ago, when Congress debated a trade issue, it led to much smaller trade agreements; most immediately, the Central America Free Trade Agreement. That was the one President Bush most wanted to negotiate at that time, if I recall. That debate lasted for 3 weeks. I am not suggesting this debate last 3 weeks, but I am suggesting that to say we are wasting our time on trade, on a long debate, on a thorough debate with a number of amendments, is a bit of a reach. I would add that this trade agreement, this fast-track, speaks to, ultimately, at least 60 percent of the world's GDP; first, the Trans- Pacific Partnership, which is pretty much already negotiated, even though the USTR will not let much of this trade agreement actually see the light of day prior to voting on fast-track; and, second, once TTIP--the United States-European Union agreement--is brought to the Senate and House for approval, that will mean 60 percent of the world's GDP will be included. So to say we can only debate this for 3 days and squeeze the number of amendments, when I know that at least a dozen Senators, at least a dozen more, probably like a dozen and a half on the Democratic side alone--I know a number of Republicans have amendments too--want to offer amendments, want them debated on, and want them voted on. Amendment No. 1242 So the first amendment that I believe we will vote on tonight is my amendment on trade adjustment assistance. Everyone acknowledges--from those who oppose TPA and oppose TPP to its most vehement cheerleaders, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, a number of conservative think tanks, and a number of free-trade advocates--that trade agreements result in winners and losers because they bring dislocation in the economy. We can debate whether the winners outweigh the losers--I don't think they do. I think the losers outweigh the winners in what happens in trade. I know that the wealthiest 5 percent in this country, by and large, gain from these trade agreements, but the broad middle and below typically lose from these trade agreements. I know what they have done to my State. I know what they have done to the Presiding Officer's State, and I know what they have done especially to manufacturing. What is not debatable is some industries are going to get hurt, some communities will be hollowed out, some worker jobs will be lost. We know that. We owe it to workers who are going to have their lives upended, through no fault of their own, to do everything we can to ease the transition. Think about that. We make a decision--President Obama asks us to pass this, the Republican leadership asks us to pass this, and the Senate Republican leadership in the House, joining President Obama--to pass this. So the decisions we make here--the President of the United States and Members of Congress--will cost people their jobs. We know that whether you are for TPA or not. We know some people will lose their jobs because of these trade agreements. We owe it to them, to those workers who have lost jobs, to those communities that experience devastation, small towns that have seen plants close. That creates devastation in those towns. We owe it to provide training and assistance to help those communities, to help those workers get back on their feet. That is why I am calling on all my colleagues--regardless of how you feel about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, regardless of how you are going to vote on fast-track--to support this amendment, which restores trade adjustment assistance funding levels to $575 million a year. This is the same level that was included in the bipartisan TAA bill in 2011. One-quarter of current Senate Republicans--sitting Senate Republicans, one-quarter of them--voted for that higher number. This amendment is fully paid for. I know some of you think that $450 million, the amount included in the underlying bill, is sufficient, but it is not. The truth is that $450 million likely will not be enough. In 2009 and 2010, TAA cost $685 million each year. If you take the average of funding levels for the 3 years when program eligibility was nearly the same as the one we are considering today, TAA expenditures averaged $571 million a year. Put on top of that what has happened with the South Korea trade agreement-- predictions of job growth, almost identical numbers, except it was job loss--that means more people eligible for TAA. Put on top of that the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We know there will be winners and losers. The losers need help. Add that to the dollar figures we need for Trade adjustment assistance. TAA helps workers retrain for new jobs so they can compete. We have clear evidence that TAA works. It helps workers develop the skills they need to find work and stay employed. If we are going to compete, we need to invest in these workers to make sure they are ready to meet that global competition. Right now, this body considers fast-track authority for trade agreements that encompass 60 percent of the world's economy. Now is exactly the wrong time to underinvest in training workers. If we don't support my amendment, that is what we are doing. Make no mistake, if you go home after voting no on this dollar figure, of putting it back to where this Congress voted on it only 4 years ago, you are leaving workers behind. You are underinvesting in workers. You are showing that these workers who lose their jobs because of South Korea, these workers who lose their jobs because of NAFTA, CAFTA or what has happened with PNTR or the South Korea trade agreement, you are saying to those workers: Sorry. We don't have enough money to take care of you--even though it was our actions in the House, the Senate, and this President who caused those workers to lose their jobs. This is the same level that, in 2011, 70 Senators supported, including 14 current Republican Senators who sit in this body today. In 2011, 307 Members of the House of Representatives also supported the dollar figure that this amendment calls for. I ask my colleagues, including the nearly one-quarter--the fully one-quarter of Senate Republicans who supported it at this level--to support it again today. If we are going to pursue aggressive trade promotion, an aggressive trade promotion agenda, we owe it to our workers, we owe it to our businesses, we owe it to our communities to make sure they are ready for the competition that is about to come their way. We have a moral obligation to help the families whose livelihoods will be yanked out from under them, not from something they did wrong, not from a decision they made but from a decision we in this body made to change the rules. We know that will happen. We saw it with NAFTA. We saw it with CAFTA. We are seeing it with Korea. We know we will see it again with TPP. There is no question that potential new trade agreements we are considering will create economic loss. There is no question that Americans will lose jobs. There is no question. Nobody disputes that. Are we not to take care of those workers who lose their jobs? Again, it wasn't their decision. It was our decision, in this body, to vote for these trade agreements and then not to fund those workers' comebacks, not to help those workers get back on their feet, not to retrain those workers who lost their jobs because of what we did in this body. Talk about a moral issue. It is our duty to look out for those workers who end up on the losing end of our defined trade policy. That is why I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting trade adjustment assistance today at levels that this Congress overwhelmingly agreed to in a bipartisan manner 4 years ago.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.