Bob Menendez: “I would have more extensive remarks, but I know my colleague from Maryland has a different unanimous consent request.…”

“I would have more extensive remarks, but I know my colleague from Maryland has a different unanimous consent request. Let me make just three quick points. Chile's and other tax treaties the Foreign Relations Committee has reported favorably do not represent the first time the Senate has considered treaties providing for information exchange based on a ``foreseeably relevant'' or ``may be relevant'' standard. In fact, since 1999--so that is about 15 years now--the Senate has adopted resolutions of advice and consent for at least eight other tax treaties using the relevant standard. This standard has been part of the model of U.S. tax treaties since 2006. So it is not correct that the ``may be relevant'' or ``foreseeably relevant'' standard is vague or ambiguous. In fact, it has been extensively defined in agreed guidance to which no country has expressed a dissenting opinion to date.…”