Elizabeth Warren

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from West Virginia, Senator Manchin. I thank him for his leadership. I thank him for his independence. I thank him for his partnership as we push for greater transparency on this very important trade bill. In the past few weeks, the public has heard a lot about the Trans- Pacific Partnership, a massive trade deal the United States is negotiating with 11 other trade companies. The public has heard from supporters that it is the most progressive trade deal in history--a deal that will benefit working families and small businesses--and they have heard from opponents that it will only tilt the playing field further in favor of multinational corporations and leave workers and everyone else behind. The public has heard a lot, but in all that time they have never actually seen the deal itself. In fact, the press hasn't seen the deal, economists haven't seen the deal, legal experts haven't seen the deal. Most everyone in America hasn't seen the deal. Why? Because the administration has classified the deal, making it illegal for any of those people to read it. Members of Congress, as Senator Manchin said, can read it so long as they go into a secret room and don't leave with any notes. But even Members of Congress are prohibited from talking about the details in public or discussing the details with the people they were sent to Washington to represent. And yet, in the next day or two, the Senate is scheduled to vote on whether to grease the skids to make that secret trade deal--the TPP--the law of the land. This isn't how democracy is supposed to work. One of our fundamental principles of representative government is transparency. Our government is supposed to keep things secret from the people only if it has a very good reason to do so. So why is this trade deal a secret? I just want to go over the answers I have heard so far, the reasons. Some say the administration can't release the deal because the deal isn't finished yet. OK, so maybe there are some unresolved issues, but everyone agrees the deal is nearly complete. It is close enough to being done that its supporters can confidently claim it is the most progressive trade deal in history. If you are sure that is right, then show it to us. If some parts aren't finished, then show us the parts that are finished. Don't keep every single word of the deal classified. Others say releasing the text now would be tipping our hand in continuing negotiations, but that doesn't make any sense either. Our government has already shared the details of our positions with the other TPP countries, and those countries have shared details with us. That is how negotiations work. Publicly releasing what our negotiating partners have already seen couldn't possibly undermine our negotiations because, by definition, our negotiating partners have already seen it. Here is another argument I have heard. Releasing the text of an unfinished international agreement simply isn't done; it is a breach of protocol. Well, that is not true either. As Senator Manchin pointed out, in 2001, President George W. Bush publicly released the scrubbed bracketed text of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas several months before seeking fast-track authority for that agreement. At the time, his U.S. Trade Representative said that releasing the text ``would increase public awareness and support for the trade deal.'' Guess what. Congress still approved that fast-track deal. Of course it can be done. It has been done, and it should be done. Still others say that publicly releasing the text would endanger state secrets. Wow. But this agreement is not about nuclear weapons programs or military operations. There isn't any national security information in this deal. This deal is about things such as copyright rules and labor standards. And I know the President doesn't think there is any sensitive national security information in the deal. That is why he has already committed to publicly releasing the entire text. He just won't do it until after Congress has already voted to grease the skids to make it law. That brings us to the last justification--that we should all be satisfied that the administration will release the text of the deal a few months before Congress has to vote on whether to approve it. But by then, Congress will have lost the ability to amend the deal, to stop the deal, or to slow it down. In other words, by the time you--the American public--can read the deal, your elected representatives will have lost the ability to use your input to help shape that deal. That sounds like a lousy arrangement to me. So if there are no good reasons for secrecy here, that leaves only a bad reason, and believe it or not, it is a reason I have heard people give multiple times: We should keep the deal secret because if the details were made public now, the public would oppose it. Well, that is how our democracy is supposed to work. If the TPP is mostly done and the public wouldn't support it if they could see it, then it shouldn't become the law. That is why I have introduced a simple bill with my friend from West Virginia, Senator Manchin. This bill would require the President to publicly release the scrubbed bracketed text of a trade deal at least 60 days before Congress votes on any fast-track for that deal. That would give the public, the experts, and the press an opportunity to review the deal. It would allow for some honest public debate. It would give Congress a chance to actually step in and block any special deals and giveaways that are being proposed as part of this trade deal before Congress decides whether to grease the skids to make that deal the law. If this trade deal is so great, if it will work so well for America's workers and small businesses, then make it public. We should pass this bill today and give the American people some time to read the deal before we tie ourselves to fast-track. Whether you support fast-track or oppose it, whether you support TPP or oppose it, we should all agree that we should have a robust, informed debate on something that is this important. Anything less is a disservice to the people who sent us here to work for them. So I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 1381, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I just want to say to the Senator from Utah how much I respect his leadership in this Senate and his leadership on so many important issues. All I want to say about this is that we are just asking for the trade deal to be made public before we have this crucial vote about whether there will be any opportunity in the future to amend the trade deal, to slow down the trade deal or--as the Senator from West Virginia says--if we really find objectionable parts, to be able to block it. We are just asking for some transparency before we have this crucial vote on the TPA. We don't want to see fast-track until the American public can evaluate the deal. That is all we are asking for at this point.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to support an amendment I filed with Senators Merkley, Baldwin, and Blumenthal. The amendment is simple. It says Congress shouldn't make it easy to pass any trade deal that weakens our financial rules. In 2008, we suffered through the worst financial crisis in generations. Millions of families lost their homes. Millions of people lost their jobs. Millions lost their retirement savings. And they watched as the government spent hundreds of billions of their tax dollars to bail out the giant banks. In response, Congress passed some commonsense financial reforms--the Dodd-Frank act. These new rules cracked down on the cheating and lying in the financial marketplace. They required the big banks to raise more capital so they wouldn't need a bailout if they started to stumble. They gave our regulators new tools to oversee the biggest banks to make sure the rules were followed. It is no surprise the giant banks don't like the new rules, so for 5 years now they have been on the attack. They have sent their armies of lobbyists and lawyers and their Republican friends in Congress to try to roll back the rules and let the giants of Wall Street run free again. Democrats stood strong to fight off these attacks because we knew that thoughtful rules can help stop the next financial crisis and protect our working families from another great recession. But now, if this fast-track bill passes, Democrats will be handing Republicans a powerful tool they can use to weaken our financial rules. Here is how it works: This fast-track bill applies to any trade deal presented to Congress in the next 6 years, which is through the end of the Obama Presidency, through the entirety of the next Presidency, and into the Presidency after that. Fast-track prevents anyone in Congress from offering any amendments to a trade bill. And in the Senate, with fast-track, a trade bill can pass with just 51 votes, not the 60 typically required for major bills. What if we have a Republican President in 2016 or 2020? Look, I hope that will not be the case, but this is a democracy and it is not up to me. Most Republicans--including ones currently running for President-- are committed to rolling back financial reforms. With fast-track, they could weaken our financial rules in a trade deal and then ram it through Congress with just 51 votes in the Senate. That is a lot easier than the 60 votes needed for a head-on attack on the financial rules through the normal legislative process. This is a real risk. We are already deep into negotiations with the European Union over a massive trade agreement. The European negotiators are pressing hard to include financial reforms as part of that trade deal. And lobbyists from the United States have recognized that the European trade deal is a great opportunity to weaken America's financial reforms. Here is what a member of the European Parliament said just a few months ago: ``I have been approached by lobbyists that have clearly argued they want to have a weak European regulation, much weaker than Dodd-Frank, in order to use that afterwards as a level to undercut or undermine Dodd-Frank in the transatlantic negotiations.'' The big banks on both sides of the Atlantic are pushing for changes, too. A letter from some of the largest financial industry groups in Europe and the United States called for an ``ambitious chapter'' on financial regulations in the European trade deal. I don't think they are looking to make our regulations stronger. Michael Barr, a former senior Obama official at the Treasury Department and one of the architects of Dodd-Frank, said that the risk to Dodd-Frank in a European trade deal is ``real and meaningful and worth worrying about.'' Barr has noted that European officials are ``barnstorming the U.S., looking for support to include financial services as part of the talks on the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,'' while the financial industry looks to use talks to ``overturn the pesky--and highly effective--rules being implemented in the U.S. under the Dodd-Frank act.'' The Obama administration, to their credit, has stood strong against such attempts. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew noted in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee that there is ``pressure to lower standards'' on things such as financial regulations in trade deals but that the administration believes that is ``not acceptable.'' Our lead negotiator, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, has said that the United States is ``not open to creating any process designed to reopen, weaken, or undermine implementation'' of Dodd-Frank. And President Obama's administration says our trade deals should not include regulation of financial services. I agree. But this President won't be President in 18 months, and there is nothing this President can do to stop the next President from reversing direction in the European negotiations. Senator McConnell certainly knows this. That is why he is telling Republicans that ``if we want the next Republican President to have a chance to do trade agreements with the rest of the world, this bill is about that President as well as this one.'' That is why I am proposing this amendment--to make sure no future President can fast-track a trade agreement that weakens our financial regulations. All of my colleagues who believe in holding the big banks accountable and keeping our financial system safe should support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President----

Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to start by saying thank you to Senator Brown for his extraordinary leadership on this issue and his determination that voices be heard around this country on this trade debate, that the people who are actually affected be heard from. I say thank you very much to Senator Brown for all he has done here. Amendment No. 1327 Mr. President, I join with Senator Heitkamp, Senator Manchin, and a number of other Senators to propose a simple change to the fast-track bill, a change that would prevent Congress from using this expedited process on any trade deal that includes so-called investor-state dispute settlement provisions. I come to the floor to urge my colleagues to support this amendment. ISDS is an obscure process that allows big companies to go to corporate-friendly arbitration panels that sit outside any court system in order to challenge laws they don't like. These panels can force taxpayers to write huge checks to those big corporations, with no need to file a suit in court, no appeals, and no judicial review. Most Americans don't think the minimum wage or antismoking regulations are trade barriers, but a foreign corporation used ISDS to sue Egypt after Egypt raised its minimum wage. Tobacco giant Philip Morris went after Australia and Uruguay to stop their rules to cut smoking rates. Under the TPP, corporations can use these corporate- friendly panels to challenge rules right here in America. It wasn't always this way. ISDS has been around for a while, and from 1959 to 2002 there were fewer than 100 claims in the whole world. But, boy, has that changed. In 2012 alone, there were 58 cases. Corporate lawyers have started figuring out just how powerful a tool these panels can be for corporate clients. The huge financial penalties that these cases can impose on taxpayers have already caused New Zealand to give up on some tough antismoking rules. It has already caused Germany to pull back from clean water protections, and it has caused Canada to stand down on environmental protections. If that worries you, you are not alone. Experts from all over the political spectrum--conservatives and liberals, economists and legal scholars on the left and the right, opponents of trade deals and supporters of trade deals--have all argued that these corporate- friendly panels should be dropped from our future trade deals. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that we should not give ``investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules.'' Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, and other top American legal experts noted that ``the threat and expense of ISDS proceedings have forced nations to abandon important public policies'' and that ``laws and regulations enacted by democratically elected officials are put at risk in a process insulated from democratic input.'' The head of the trade policy program at the conservative CATO Institute has said that ISDS ``raises serious questions about democratic accountability, sovereignty, checks and balances, and the separation of powers''--concerns that ``libertarians and other free market advocates should share.'' ISDS is a major part of the reason why, no matter what promises are made, huge trade deals often just tilt the playing field further in favor of big multinational corporations. If a country wants to adopt strong new protections for workers, such as an increase in the minimum wage, a corporation can use these corporate-friendly panels to seek millions--or billions--in taxpayer compensation because the new rules might eat into the company's profits. But, boy, it doesn't work in the other direction. If a country wants to undermine worker rights by allowing child labor or slave labor or paying workers pennies an hour, there is no special worker-friendly process for challenging that. Instead, advocates for workers are stuck begging their governments to bring enforcement actions and protect their rights. That process can take years, if the government responds at all. In fact, just yesterday my office released a 15-page report detailing how for decades both Republican and Democratic Presidents made the same promises over and over and over again about how good these deals would be for workers, and both Republican and Democratic Presidents failed to enforce the labor standards promises in those trade agreements. Giving corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside our legal system is a terrible idea. Experts from every place on the political spectrum have concluded that it is unfair, it undermines the rule of law, it threatens American sovereignty, and it creates an end- run around the democratic process. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can keep these corporate-friendly panels out of future trade agreements. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, a budget is about building for the future. A budget is about what it takes for our families, our businesses, and our economy to grow and prosper. The basics are pretty simple: Our kids need access to a good, affordable education. Our workers need good wages and good benefits. Our businesses and our workers need transit--roads and bridges that are safe enough, strong enough, and fast enough to get us to work and keep goods and services moving. Our workers need good jobs here in America, jobs built on 21st-century innovation and technology. And everyone needs to know that we are in this together, that we won't kick people to the ground, that we will help those who need it most, including seniors, children, and families struggling to make ends meet. That is how we build a strong future. The Republicans have a different vision of how to build a future. The Republican budget plan will make the rich richer and the powerful more powerful while leaving our kids, our college students, our seniors, our workers, and our families to fall further and further behind. The people of Massachusetts didn't send me here to do what I can to help the richest of the rich; they sent me here to work for them. So I want to talk about what this Republican budget will mean to the people of our State. Assuming it is applied proportionately, the Republican budget can cut mandatory transportation funding by 40 percent over the next decade. That will be significantly fewer dollars to repair and improve our highways and to help keep our buses and trains moving in Massachusetts. So if you already think we have a crumbling infrastructure, if you are already worried about old buses and whether the T can struggle through another winter, remember that the Republicans want to slash the support for transportation by 40 percent. With these cuts, our crumbling infrastructure will crumble even faster. These cuts will also cost jobs. Economists estimate that this Republican budget could mean 56,000 fewer jobs in Massachusetts alone. This budget also takes aim at our kids. Over the next decade, it could eliminate Head Start services for 400,000 children across this country, cutting the program by more than $4 billion. Little kids are under attack, and so are big kids. The Republican budget could also make college more expensive for the 131,000 Massachusetts students who receive Pell grants. And cutting the student loan interest rate? Forget it. The Republican budget keeps sucking billions of dollars in profits off student loans. The Republican budget puts Massachusetts residents' health at risk, especially the health of our seniors. Today, the Affordable Care Act saves seniors billions of dollars in prescription drugs. The days when seniors had to choose between filling a prescription and paying the rent were over, but under the Republican budget, almost 80,000 seniors in Massachusetts could each pay an average of $920 more per year for prescription drugs. It gets worse. About 900,000 seniors in Massachusetts could lose free preventive Medicare health services and about 26,000 Massachusetts nursing home residents who rely on Medicaid could face cuts to their care and an uncertain future. What about medical research and the technologies of the future, the kind of work we are proud to do in Massachusetts? For over 10 years, Congress has decimated medical research funding, reducing the buying power of the National Institutes of Health by nearly 25 percent and choking off support for projects that could lead to the next major breakthrough against cancer, heart disease, ALS, diabetes, or autism. With people living longer and longer and more and more families desperate for a breakthrough on Alzheimer's, what is the Republican budget solution? Cut the NIH budget. Cut medical research. In fact, compared with the President's budget, the Republican budget could mean 1,400 fewer NIH grants a year. The Republican budget also cuts $600 billion from income security programs, such as nutrition assistance, potentially jeopardizing food stamps for thousands of Massachusetts families who depend on this program to put food on the table. And just to turn the knife a little deeper for families in Massachusetts, the Republican budget could cut funding for heating assistance--funding that helps 183,000 Massachusetts families stay warm in the winter. We know whom this budget would hurt--millions of middle-class families in Massachusetts and all over this country who are busting their tails to try to make ends meet. It will hurt people who work hard and play by the rules but who are seeing opportunity slip away. Why? Why inflict so much damage on hard-working American people, on students and seniors, on kids and construction workers? Why cut back the support for researchers trying to cure Alzheimer's or college kids trying to get an education? Why? One answer. Once again, the Republicans want to give billions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans--and they expect everyone else to pay for it. The Republicans have planned $269 billion in tax cuts that could go to just a few thousand of the richest families. That is not just irresponsible, it is just plain wrong. A budget is about values. The Republicans' values are on display here. This budget is about making sure that a tilted playing field tilts even further, and everyone else gets left further and further behind. Those aren't American values. We believe and we have always believed in opportunity. We believe that everyone should have a fighting chance to build a better life for themselves and their children. Mr. President, we weren't sent here just to help the rich get richer. It is time for the Senate to stand up for the values that build a strong middle class, and we can start by voting down this terrible Republican budget. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Truth in Settlements Act. This bipartisan legislation, which I introduced earlier today with my colleague from Oklahoma Senator Lankford, the Presiding Officer, will help the public hold Federal agencies accountable for settlements they make with corporate wrongdoers. When companies break the law, Federal enforcement agencies are responsible for holding them accountable. In nearly every instance, agencies choose to resolve cases through settlements rather than a public trial. They defend this practice by arguing that settlements are in the best interest of the American people. That sounds good, but their actions paint a very different picture. If agencies were truly confident that these settlements were good deals for the public, they would be willing to publicly disclose all of the key details of those agreements. Instead, time after time, agencies do the opposite, hiding critical details about their settlements in the fine print--or worse, hiding them entirely from public view. Consider that copies of these agreements or even basic facts about them are not easily accessible online. Many agencies regularly deem agreements confidential without any public explanation of why the public cannot see what has been done in their name. When agencies do make public statements about these agreements, they often trumpet large dollar amounts of money recovered for taxpayers while failing to disclose that this sticker price isn't what the companies will actually pay, since the number that is listed includes credits for engaging in routine activities and doesn't reflect massive tax deductions that many of these companies get. Add all of these tricks, and you will end with a predictable result. Too often the American people learn only what the agencies want them to learn about these agreements. That is not good enough. These hidden details can make a huge difference. Below the surface, settlements that seem tough and fair don't always look so impressive. For example, 2 years ago, Federal regulators entered into a settlement with 10 mortgage servicers accused of illegal foreclosure practices. The sticker price on the settlement was $8.5 billion. Now, that is a big number. But $5.2 billion was in the form of credits, or what the agencies described in their press release as ``loan modifications and forgiveness of deficiency judgments.'' That vague public statement left out a key detail: Servicers could rack up those credits by forgiving mere fractions of large, unpaid loans. For example, a servicer that wrote down $15,000 of a $500,000 unpaid loan balance would get a credit for $500,000--not the $15,000 that was actually written down. That undisclosed method of calculating credits could end up cutting the overall value of the $8.5 billion settlement by billions and billions of dollars. Failure to disclose possible tax deductions is another way agencies can hide the ball. Two years ago, a Federal court found that a company that allegedly defrauded Medicare and other Federal health programs-- for years--was entitled to a $50 million tax deduction for government settlements that it had made. That deduction came on top of earlier tax deductions the company had already taken in their settlement payment. The end result? A $385 million settlement that was touted at the time as the largest civil recovery to date in a health care fraud case was, in fact, $100 million smaller once taxpayers had picked up part of the settlement. At least in these two cases, the text of the settlements was public, allowing the American people the chance to dig into the fine print and uncover these unflattering details. But for settlements that are kept confidential, the public is kept entirely in this the dark. Recently, Wells Fargo agreed to pay the Federal Housing Finance Agency $335 million for allegedly fraudulent sales of mortgage-backed securities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That is about 6 percent of what JPMorgan Chase paid in a public settlement with FHFA to address very similar claims. Now, in what ways did the actions of Wells Fargo differ from those of JPMorgan? We will never know, because while the JPMorgan settlement is public, the much smaller Wells Fargo settlement is held confidential. The American people deserve better. These enforcement agencies don't work for the companies they investigate; they work for us. Agencies should not be able to cut bad deals and then hide the embarrassing details. The public deserves transparency. The Truth in Settlements Act requires that transparency. It requires agencies making public statements about their settlements to include explanations of how those settlements are categorized for tax purposes and what specific conduct will generate credits that apply toward the sticker price. The bill also requires agencies to post text and basic information about their settlements online. And while the legislation does not prohibit agencies from deeming settlements confidential, it requires agencies to disclose additional information about how frequently they are invoking confidentiality and their reasons for doing so. If we expect agencies to hold companies accountable for breaking the law, then we should be able to hold agencies accountable for enforcing the law. We cannot do that if we are being held in the dark. The Truth in Settlements Act shines a light on these agency decisions and gives the American people a chance to hold agencies accountable for enforcing our laws. I introduced this bill in the last Congress with Senator Lankford's predecessor, Senator Coburn. The bill advanced through the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee by voice vote but was blocked on the Senate floor. I hope that in this Congress we can finally make this commonsense legislation law.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Truth in Settlements Act. This bipartisan legislation, which I introduced earlier today with my colleague from Oklahoma Senator Lankford, the Presiding Officer, will help the public hold Federal agencies accountable for settlements they make with corporate wrongdoers. When companies break the law, Federal enforcement agencies are responsible for holding them accountable. In nearly every instance, agencies choose to resolve cases through settlements rather than a public trial. They defend this practice by arguing that settlements are in the best interest of the American people. That sounds good, but their actions paint a very different picture. If agencies were truly confident that these settlements were good deals for the public, they would be willing to publicly disclose all of the key details of those agreements. Instead, time after time, agencies do the opposite, hiding critical details about their settlements in the fine print--or worse, hiding them entirely from public view. Consider that copies of these agreements or even basic facts about them are not easily accessible online. Many agencies regularly deem agreements confidential without any public explanation of why the public cannot see what has been done in their name. When agencies do make public statements about these agreements, they often trumpet large dollar amounts of money recovered for taxpayers while failing to disclose that this sticker price isn't what the companies will actually pay, since the number that is listed includes credits for engaging in routine activities and doesn't reflect massive tax deductions that many of these companies get. Add all of these tricks, and you will end with a predictable result. Too often the American people learn only what the agencies want them to learn about these agreements. That is not good enough. These hidden details can make a huge difference. Below the surface, settlements that seem tough and fair don't always look so impressive. For example, 2 years ago, Federal regulators entered into a settlement with 10 mortgage servicers accused of illegal foreclosure practices. The sticker price on the settlement was $8.5 billion. Now, that is a big number. But $5.2 billion was in the form of credits, or what the agencies described in their press release as ``loan modifications and forgiveness of deficiency judgments.'' That vague public statement left out a key detail: Servicers could rack up those credits by forgiving mere fractions of large, unpaid loans. For example, a servicer that wrote down $15,000 of a $500,000 unpaid loan balance would get a credit for $500,000--not the $15,000 that was actually written down. That undisclosed method of calculating credits could end up cutting the overall value of the $8.5 billion settlement by billions and billions of dollars. Failure to disclose possible tax deductions is another way agencies can hide the ball. Two years ago, a Federal court found that a company that allegedly defrauded Medicare and other Federal health programs-- for years--was entitled to a $50 million tax deduction for government settlements that it had made. That deduction came on top of earlier tax deductions the company had already taken in their settlement payment. The end result? A $385 million settlement that was touted at the time as the largest civil recovery to date in a health care fraud case was, in fact, $100 million smaller once taxpayers had picked up part of the settlement. At least in these two cases, the text of the settlements was public, allowing the American people the chance to dig into the fine print and uncover these unflattering details. But for settlements that are kept confidential, the public is kept entirely in this the dark. Recently, Wells Fargo agreed to pay the Federal Housing Finance Agency $335 million for allegedly fraudulent sales of mortgage-backed securities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That is about 6 percent of what JPMorgan Chase paid in a public settlement with FHFA to address very similar claims. Now, in what ways did the actions of Wells Fargo differ from those of JPMorgan? We will never know, because while the JPMorgan settlement is public, the much smaller Wells Fargo settlement is held confidential. The American people deserve better. These enforcement agencies don't work for the companies they investigate; they work for us. Agencies should not be able to cut bad deals and then hide the embarrassing details. The public deserves transparency. The Truth in Settlements Act requires that transparency. It requires agencies making public statements about their settlements to include explanations of how those settlements are categorized for tax purposes and what specific conduct will generate credits that apply toward the sticker price. The bill also requires agencies to post text and basic information about their settlements online. And while the legislation does not prohibit agencies from deeming settlements confidential, it requires agencies to disclose additional information about how frequently they are invoking confidentiality and their reasons for doing so. If we expect agencies to hold companies accountable for breaking the law, then we should be able to hold agencies accountable for enforcing the law. We cannot do that if we are being held in the dark. The Truth in Settlements Act shines a light on these agency decisions and gives the American people a chance to hold agencies accountable for enforcing our laws. I introduced this bill in the last Congress with Senator Lankford's predecessor, Senator Coburn. The bill advanced through the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee by voice vote but was blocked on the Senate floor. I hope that in this Congress we can finally make this commonsense legislation law.

Ms. WARREN

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

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont. Motion to Instruct I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion be set aside and that my motion be sent to the desk.

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

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, 2 years ago today, the people of Boston came face-to-face with terror at the finish line for the Boston Marathon. The cowardly attack and its aftermath took four lives, injured many more, and forever changed the lives of the survivors and their families. In the face of this horrific terrorist attack, Boston responded with courage and community. Our heroic first responders acted swiftly and their bravery saved many lives. In the days, weeks, and months after the marathon, families and friends came together to lift each other up, to raise the spirit of our city, and to help us heal. Now, 2 years later, Boston continues to move forward together. A jury just reached a verdict that is another step toward justice for victims and for their families. The strength and perseverance of survivors continues to inspire us, and our community works to keep alive the memories of Krystle Campbell, Lu Lingzi, Martin Richard, and Sean Collier. Recently, Mayor Marty Walsh announced the city of Boston will now recognize April 15 as One Boston Day. One Boston Day is a chance to honor the victims and survivors of the marathon bombing and an opportunity for people to give back to the community through acts of service. This day helps us remember that in the face of tragedy and violence, our community responds with an open heart. Next Monday, tens of thousands of people from across the Nation and around the world, once again, will come to Massachusetts for the 2015 Boston Marathon. Our Commonwealth, once again, will commemorate Patriots' Day with reenactments, baseball, parades, and celebrations. Today, as we mark One Boston Day and the second anniversary of the attack at the Boston Marathon, we recall the spirit of strength and resilience that brought our city and our Commonwealth together, the same spirit of strength and resilience that helps us heal. As a tribute to honor the victims and survivors of the attack at the 2013 Boston Marathon, I ask my colleagues to join Bostonians in a moment of silence at 2:49 p.m. today. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I support simplifying student loans--the motion that just passed 97 to 0--and I commend Senators King and Burr, but it is not enough. We need to cut the interest rate on student loans. The Federal Government should not be making a profit off the backs of our kids who are trying to get an education. This bill is paid for by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay taxes at the same rate as middle-class families. This is a bill which really puts it to the Senate. Are we here to work just for the millionaires and billionaires or are we here to work for young people who are trying to get an education? This Senate works all the time for billionaires. Today, I hope we can make it work for our students. I urge adoption of this motion.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Two minutes? Oh, 1 minute. I thank the Chair.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 1094, as modified, with the changes at the desk.

Ms. WARREN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, more than ever, our seniors depend on safety and reliability of Social Security. For 15 million seniors, Social Security is the only thing that stands between them and poverty. For too long in Washington, Social Security has been under assault. Republicans have long argued that we have to gut the program to save it. Well, they are wrong. We shouldn't be talking about gutting Social Security. We should be talking about strengthening Social Security. We should be talking about protecting Social Security. We should be talking about expanding Social Security. This amendment supports those goals. We acknowledge the need to make certain the program is solvent--something that people can depend on. We reject the false choice that too many Republicans have put forward to scare our seniors into believing they must absorb drastic cuts in the benefits they depend on. And we believe when two-thirds of the seniors----

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 652, to refinance existing student loans and bring down the high interest rates that are dragging down millions of Americans. When rates are low, people refinance their mortgages. When rates are low, businesses refinance their debt. Well, rates are low, and we want to give the 40 million Americans who are dealing with student loans the same chance to refinance their loans. Last year, Republicans blocked our efforts to lower student loan interest rates. They said there were other, better ways to deal with student loan debt, but they did nothing. So tens of millions of borrowers got nothing, and millions of borrowers are still stuck paying interest rates at 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent, and even higher. While Republicans were busy blocking student loan refinancing, our country's student debt problem got worse--much worse. In the last year, outstanding student debt has increased by $100 billion dollars. Nearly 1 million more borrowers have fallen behind on their student loans. The interest rate on new student loans only got higher. This amendment offers us a chance to actually do something for the millions of Americans who are dealing with student loan debt. The idea is simple: Refinance outstanding student loans down to 3.9 percent for undergraduates, a little higher for graduate students. The amendment would save borrowers hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars a year, all without adding a dime to our deficit. It is fully paid for by closing a tax loophole that allows millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than middle-class families. We have a choice--protect a tax loophole for billionaires or give tens of millions of people a chance to refinance their student loans. A choice--protect a tax loophole for billionaires or give millions of middle-class people a chance to build some real economic security. Congress has worked far too long for the billionaires. Now it is time for Congress to work for hard-working people.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act of 2015. This bill will allow student loan borrowers to take advantage of today's lower interest rates, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Last Congress, Democrats pressed for a similar bill which has strong support from the Senate and from the public. Every Democrat, every Independent, and three Republicans voted to move this bill forward. More than 700,000 people signed petitions in support of student loan refinancing, but Republicans filibustered the bill, so it didn't pass. It is time to try again, because a problem that was bad last year has gotten worse--much worse. Since last year, nearly 1 million more borrowers have fallen behind in their payments. Nearly 1 million more are watching their balances get bigger, not smaller. Nearly 1 million more people are sweating out how they are ever going to repay their student loan debt. Last year, student loan debt was an economic emergency. Now, 1 year later, the emergency is getting worse. Just look at the numbers. Students are now struggling with $100 billion more debt than 1 year ago. Since last year, total student loan debt has jumped to $1.3 trillion, and the debt is crushing young people. Last year, experts at the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau all sounded the alarm on student debt. This year, the alarm bells are sounding even louder. One year ago, the Federal Government was projected to take in tens of billions in profits on the backs of our kids as a result of artificially high interest rates. One year later, interest rates on new loans are even higher, and even with millions of people struggling to pay, even after accounting for administrative and other costs, the Federal Government is still raking in huge profits on its student loan program. Despite overwhelming public support for cutting the interest rates on student loans, Republicans last year refused to even debate this bill. Republicans said there were other, better ways to tackle student debt, but Republicans did nothing, nothing except filibuster the only student loan bill on the table. So tens of millions of borrowers got nothing, no help at all. Today, millions of borrowers are left with interest rates of 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent, and even higher. Nearly 1 million more borrowers are falling behind, and the Republicans have done nothing. Nearly 1 million more borrowers are falling behind, and they are watching their debt load get bigger. Nearly 1 million more borrowers are falling behind, paying interest rates that produce obscene profits for the U.S. Government, and the Republicans will not even debate refinancing student loans. Why can't people refinance their student loans? When interest rates are low, homeowners can refinance their mortgages to reduce their payments. Businesses can refinance their debts. Even governments can refinance their debts. But student loan borrowers are stuck with their loans, sometimes at 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent, and even higher. Our proposal is simple: refinance outstanding loans down to 3.9 percent for undergraduates, and a little higher for graduates and PLUS loans. This single change would give borrowers across this country a chance to save hundreds--and for some, thousands--of dollars a year. That's real money--money they can put toward paying down the balance on their debt, saving for a home, buying a car--money they can put toward building a solid future. This bill doesn't add one dime to the deficit. It is fully paid for by closing up a tax loophole that allows millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than middle class families. If Republicans don't like that way to pay for the student loan bill, here's another idea. Senators Reed and Blumenthal have advanced a bill that would close a different tax loophole. They want to end the tax breaks for executive bonuses that are bigger than a million dollars. I say to my Republican colleagues, if you don't like that way to pay for the student loan bill, there are other options as well. Let's sit down and talk about it, but don't close your eyes and pretend this isn't happening. Don't turn your backs on the 40 million Americans with student loan debt. Don't do nothing. Refinancing student loans will not fix everything that is wrong in our higher education system. We need to cut the price of college. We need to reinvest in public universities. We need to shore up financial aid, crack down on for-profit colleges, and provide better protections on student loans, but let's start by allowing people to refinance their student loans. Let's start by cutting back on the interest payments that are sinking young people and holding back this economy. We could have refinanced student loan debt 1 year ago, but Republicans said no. Now Americans owe $100 billion more than they did. Now nearly 1 million more borrowers are falling behind. Now more people than ever are choking on student loan debt. By refusing to act, Republicans are sinking the hopes of an entire generation. It is time for Congress to step up and fix this problem, before it drags down another million Americans and another and another. It is time to refinance student loan debt.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act of 2015. This bill will allow student loan borrowers to take advantage of today's lower interest rates, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Last Congress, Democrats pressed for a similar bill which has strong support from the Senate and from the public. Every Democrat, every Independent, and three Republicans voted to move this bill forward. More than 700,000 people signed petitions in support of student loan refinancing, but Republicans filibustered the bill, so it didn't pass. It is time to try again, because a problem that was bad last year has gotten worse--much worse. Since last year, nearly 1 million more borrowers have fallen behind in their payments. Nearly 1 million more are watching their balances get bigger, not smaller. Nearly 1 million more people are sweating out how they are ever going to repay their student loan debt. Last year, student loan debt was an economic emergency. Now, 1 year later, the emergency is getting worse. Just look at the numbers. Students are now struggling with $100 billion more debt than 1 year ago. Since last year, total student loan debt has jumped to $1.3 trillion, and the debt is crushing young people. Last year, experts at the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau all sounded the alarm on student debt. This year, the alarm bells are sounding even louder. One year ago, the Federal Government was projected to take in tens of billions in profits on the backs of our kids as a result of artificially high interest rates. One year later, interest rates on new loans are even higher, and even with millions of people struggling to pay, even after accounting for administrative and other costs, the Federal Government is still raking in huge profits on its student loan program. Despite overwhelming public support for cutting the interest rates on student loans, Republicans last year refused to even debate this bill. Republicans said there were other, better ways to tackle student debt, but Republicans did nothing, nothing except filibuster the only student loan bill on the table. So tens of millions of borrowers got nothing, no help at all. Today, millions of borrowers are left with interest rates of 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent, and even higher. Nearly 1 million more borrowers are falling behind, and the Republicans have done nothing. Nearly 1 million more borrowers are falling behind, and they are watching their debt load get bigger. Nearly 1 million more borrowers are falling behind, paying interest rates that produce obscene profits for the U.S. Government, and the Republicans will not even debate refinancing student loans. Why can't people refinance their student loans? When interest rates are low, homeowners can refinance their mortgages to reduce their payments. Businesses can refinance their debts. Even governments can refinance their debts. But student loan borrowers are stuck with their loans, sometimes at 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent, and even higher. Our proposal is simple: refinance outstanding loans down to 3.9 percent for undergraduates, and a little higher for graduates and PLUS loans. This single change would give borrowers across this country a chance to save hundreds--and for some, thousands--of dollars a year. That's real money--money they can put toward paying down the balance on their debt, saving for a home, buying a car--money they can put toward building a solid future. This bill doesn't add one dime to the deficit. It is fully paid for by closing up a tax loophole that allows millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than middle class families. If Republicans don't like that way to pay for the student loan bill, here's another idea. Senators Reed and Blumenthal have advanced a bill that would close a different tax loophole. They want to end the tax breaks for executive bonuses that are bigger than a million dollars. I say to my Republican colleagues, if you don't like that way to pay for the student loan bill, there are other options as well. Let's sit down and talk about it, but don't close your eyes and pretend this isn't happening. Don't turn your backs on the 40 million Americans with student loan debt. Don't do nothing. Refinancing student loans will not fix everything that is wrong in our higher education system. We need to cut the price of college. We need to reinvest in public universities. We need to shore up financial aid, crack down on for-profit colleges, and provide better protections on student loans, but let's start by allowing people to refinance their student loans. Let's start by cutting back on the interest payments that are sinking young people and holding back this economy. We could have refinanced student loan debt 1 year ago, but Republicans said no. Now Americans owe $100 billion more than they did. Now nearly 1 million more borrowers are falling behind. Now more people than ever are choking on student loan debt. By refusing to act, Republicans are sinking the hopes of an entire generation. It is time for Congress to step up and fix this problem, before it drags down another million Americans and another and another. It is time to refinance student loan debt.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with strong support of the National Labor Relations Board's new effort to make workplace union elections more efficient and more effective. I come to the floor today in opposition to Republican efforts to preserve a broken system. Today, instead of raising minimum wages for millions of struggling families, or letting people refinance their student loans, or making sure women get equal pay for equal work, instead of implementing policies that strengthen the middle class, Republicans are pressing a bill to stop a government agency from modernizing its procedures because it might help--yes, help--American workers. Coming out of the Great Depression, America's labor unions helped build America's strong middle class. For half a century, as union membership went up, America's median family income went up. You know, that was true for families whether they were part of a union or not. As our country got richer, our families got richer. As our families got richer, our country got richer. Since 1935, Congress has required the National Labor Relations Board to oversee the workplace elections in which workers decide whether to be represented by a union. According to NLRB data, more than 90 percent of time this works out just fine. For most of the cases that make it to an election, employees and employers agree about the process and an election is held without a dispute. Done. But in the remaining handful of cases, the rules on how to resolve these concerns have turned into a mess. Over time, a hodgepodge of different rules for resolving these dispute has emerged in each of the country's 26 NLRB regions. To fix this, the NLRB recently finalized one national set of rules that sets out clear procedures for resolving these issues. In other words, the NLRB is trying to make dispute resolution clearer, more efficient, and more consistent from region to region. Trying to make government work better should not be controversial. But it is controversial. Why? Because some employers simply oppose union votes altogether. They do not want the NLRB to work. They do not want union elections to happen at all. So they are lobbying against those new rules, and congressional Republicans are standing up for them, advancing a proposal to stop the NLRB from implementing its final rules and doing the job Congress gave it 80 years ago. Republicans claim they were concerned about workers being able to ambush their employers with workplace elections. That is just plain nonsense. Employers are always notified at the beginning of the election process, and according to Caren Sencer, a top labor attorney who testified a few weeks ago in the HELP Committee hearing, there is nothing--nothing--in the new rule that would stop an employer from having its relevant concerns heard and addressed prior to an election. Let's be honest. The only ambush here is the Republican ambush on workers' basic rights. According to a 2001 study from the Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, long election delays correspond with higher rates of labor law violations. A delay gives any union employer more time to retaliate against a union organizer, and to intimidate workers and delay work. According to NLRB data, nearly one-third of the time when employees file a petition to request an election, they never actually get one. Employers who want to keep their workers out of a union prefer a broken, inefficient system that gives them room to manipulate the process and to block workers from organizing. But that is not the law. The NLRB doesn't answer to them. Federal law directs the NLRB to make sure election disputes can be resolved fairly between employers and employees, and that is exactly what the NLRB is doing. Throughout our history, powerful interests have tried to capture Washington and rig the system in their favor, but we didn't roll over. At every turn, in every time of challenge, organized labor has been there fighting on behalf of the American people. Labor was on the frontlines to take children out of factories and to put them in schools. Labor was there to give meaning to the words ``consumer protection'' by making our food and our medicine safe. Labor was there to fight for minimum wages in States across this country. In every fight to build opportunity in this country, in every fight to level the playing field, in every fight for working families, labor has been on the frontlines. Powerful interests have attacked many of the basic foundations of this country--the foundations that once built a strong middle class-- and too many times those powerful interests have prevailed. So it comes down to a question I have asked before: Whom does this Congress work for? Republicans say government should keep on working for powerful CEOs who don't like unions and who have figured out how to exploit a tangled system. Republicans complain about government inefficiencies, but then they introduce a bill that is specifically designed so a broken, inefficient system will stay broken and inefficient, even when we know how to fix it. Well, we weren't sent here just to represent CEOs who don't like unions. We were sent here to support working people who just want a fighting chance to level the playing field. I urge my colleagues to vote against this Republican resolution and let the NLRB do its job. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, the United States is in the final stages of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive free-trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore, and seven other countries. I come to the floor today to ask a fundamental question: Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers, consumers, small businesses, taxpayers, or the biggest national corporations in the world? One strong hint is buried down in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of international trade agreements, is called investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but this provision fundamentally tilts the playing field further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse yet, it undermines U.S. sovereignty. ISDS allows foreign companies to challenge American laws and potentially pick up huge payouts from taxpayers without ever stepping foot in an American court. Here is how it works. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline. We ban it because we believe it is dangerous for people's health or harmful to the environment. If a foreign company that makes this toxic chemical wants to sell it in the United States, it would normally have to challenge that in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. court and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company wins, the ruling cannot be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require the American taxpayers to cough up millions, even billions, of dollars in damages. ISDS has the power to impose gigantic fines, but it doesn't have independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment of corporations the next day. Now I don't know, maybe that makes sense in an arbitration between two corporations, but not in cases between corporations and governments. We should have real doubts about how likely it is that a lawyer looking to attract high-paying corporate clients will rule against those corporations when it is his or her turn to sit in the judge's seat. It is also a real problem that only international investors--only international investors--get to use these courts, investors that are, by and large, large corporations. If a Vietnamese company with American operations wants to challenge an increase in the U.S. minimum wage, it can use ISDS, but if an American labor union believes the Vietnamese companies are paying slave labor wages in violation of trade commitments, the union has to try to wind itself through the Vietnamese courts. Good luck with that. These rigged pseudocourts were created after World War II because investors worried about putting money into developing countries where the legal systems were not as dependable. They were concerned that a corporation might build a plant today only to watch a dictator confiscate it tomorrow. ISDS was born to encourage foreign investment in countries with weak legal systems. Now, look, I don't know if these justifications made sense back then, but they sure don't make sense now. Countries in the TPP are hardly emerging economies with weak legal systems. Australia and Japan have well-developed and well-respected legal systems, and multinational corporations navigate those legal systems every single day, but ISDS would preempt their courts too. And to the extent there are countries that are riskier politically, market competition can solve that problem. Countries that respect property rights and the rule of law, such as the United States, should be more competitive. If a company wants to invest in a country with a weak legal system, then it should buy political risk insurance, which is available. The use of ISDS is on the rise. From 1959 to 2002, there were fewer than 100 ISDS claims worldwide, but by 2012 alone, there were 58 cases. That was in 1 year. Here are some examples of recent cases under various treaties with ISDS provisions: A French company sued Egypt because Egypt raised its minimum wage. A Swedish company sued Germany because Germany decided to phase out nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster. A Dutch company sued the Czech Republic because the Czech Republic didn't bail out a bank the Dutch company partially owned. American corporations are getting in on the action too. Philip Morris is trying to use ISDS to stop Uruguay from implementing new tobacco regulations aimed at cutting domestic smoking rates. ISDS advocates point out that so far this process has not hurt the United States. Our negotiators, who refuse to make the text of this trade agreement public, claim it will include a bigger, better version of ISDS that will protect our ability to regulate in the public interest. But with ISDS cases exploding in the last several years and more and more multinational corporations headquartered abroad, it is only a matter of time before such a challenge does serious damage here. Letting a panel of arbitrators replace the U.S. legal system with a complex and unnecessary alternative on the assumption that nothing could possibly go wrong seems like a really bad idea. This is not a partisan issue. I don't often agree with the conservative Cato Institute, and I suspect they don't often agree with me, but this morning the head of Cato's trade policy program said that ISDS ``raises serious questions about democratic accountability, sovereignty, checks and balances, and the separation of power.'' He went on to say that these concerns about ISDS are ``one[s] that libertarians and other free market advocates should share.'' I think that is right. Conservatives who believe in American sovereignty are outraged that ISDS shifts power from American courts as envisioned by our Constitution to unaccountable international tribunals. Libertarians are offended that ISDS effectively offers a free taxpayer subsidy to countries with weaker legal systems, and progressives should oppose ISDS because it allows big multinationals to weaken labor and environmental rules. Giving foreign corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside of our legal system is a bad deal. So long as TPP includes investor-state dispute settlement, the only winners will be international corporations. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.