[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E78-E79]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




ADMINISTRATION IS SEEN AS RETREATING ON ENVIRONMENT IN TALKS ON PACIFIC 
                                 TRADE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. PETER A. DeFAZIO

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 15, 2014

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration is retreating from 
previous demands of strong international environmental protections in 
order to reach agreement on a sweeping Pacific trade deal that is a 
pillar of President Obama's strategic shift to Asia, according to 
documents obtained by WikiLeaks, environmentalists and people close to 
the contentious trade talks.
  The negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would be 
one of the world's biggest trade agreements, have exposed deep rifts 
over environmental policy between the United States and 11 other 
Pacific Rim nations. As it stands now, the documents, viewed by The New 
York Times, show that the disputes could undo key global environmental 
protections.
  The environmental chapter of the trade deal has been among the most 
highly disputed elements of negotiations in the pact. Participants in 
the talks, which have dragged on for three years, had hoped to complete 
the deal by the end of 2013.
  Environmentalists said that the draft appears to signal that the 
United States will retreat on a variety of environmental protections--
including legally binding pollution control requirements and logging 
regulations and a ban on harvesting sharks' fins--to advance a trade 
deal that is a top priority for Mr. Obama.
  Ilana Solomon, the director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade 
Program, said the draft omits crucial language ensuring that increased 
trade will not lead to further environmental destruction.
  ``It rolls back key standards set by Congress to ensure that the 
environment chapters are legally enforceable, in the same way the 
commercial parts of free-trade agreements are,'' Ms. Solomon said. The 
Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the World 
Wildlife Fund have been following the negotiations closely and are 
expected to release a report on Wednesday criticizing the draft.
  American officials countered that they had put forward strong 
environmental proposals in the pact.
  ``It is an uphill battle, but we're pushing hard,'' said Michael 
Froman, the United States trade representative. ``We have worked 
closely with the environmental community from the start and have made 
our commitment clear.'' Mr. Froman said he continued to pursue a 
robust, enforceable environmental standard that he said would be 
stronger than those in previous free-trade agreements.
  The draft documents are dated Nov. 24 and there has been one meeting 
since then.
  The documents consist of the environmental chapter as well as a 
``Report from the Chairs,'' which offers an unusual behind-the-scenes 
look into the divisive trade negotiations, until now shrouded in 
secrecy. The report indicates that the United States has been pushing 
for tough environmental provisions, particularly legally binding 
language that would provide for sanctions against participating 
countries for environmental violations. The United States is also 
insisting that the nations follow existing global environmental 
treaties.
  But many of those proposals are opposed by most or all of the other 
Pacific Rim nations working on the deal, including Australia, New 
Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, 
Vietnam and Peru. Developing Asian countries, in particular, have long 
resisted outside efforts to enforce strong environmental controls, 
arguing that they could hurt their growing economies.
  The report appears to indicate that the United States is losing many 
of those fights, and bluntly notes the rifts: ``While the chair sought 
to accommodate all the concerns and red lines that were identified by 
parties regarding the issues in the text, many of the red lines for 
some parties were in direct opposition to the red lines expressed by 
other parties.''
  As of now, the draft environmental chapter does not require the 
nations to follow legally binding environmental provisions or other 
global environmental treaties. The text notes only, for example, that 
pollution controls could vary depending on a country's ``domestic 
circumstances and capabilities.''
  In addition, the draft does not contain clear requirements for a ban 
on shark finning, which is the practice of capturing sharks and cutting 
off their fins--commonly used in shark-fin soup--and throwing back the 
sharks to die. The dish is a delicacy in many of the Asian negotiating 
countries. At this point the draft says that the countries ``may 
include'' bans ``as appropriate'' on such practices.
  Earlier pacts like the North American Free Trade Agreement included 
only appendices, which called for cooperation on environmental issues 
but not legally binding terms or requirements. Environmentalists 
derided them as ``green window dressing.''
  But in May 2007, President George W. Bush struck an environmental 
deal with Democrats in the Senate and the House as he sought to move a 
free-trade agreement with Peru through Congress. In what became known 
as the May 10 Agreement, Democrats got Mr. Bush to agree that all 
American free-trade deals would include a chapter with environmental 
provisions, phrased in the same legally binding language as chapters on 
labor, agriculture and intellectual property. The Democrats also 
insisted that the chapter require nations to recognize existing global 
environmental treaties.
  Since then, every American free-trade deal has included that strong 
language, although all have been between the United States and only one 
other country. It appears to be much tougher to negotiate environmental 
provisions in a 12-nation agreement.
  ``Bilateral negotiations are a very different thing,'' said Jennifer 
Haverkamp, the former head of the United States trade representative's 
environmental office. ``Here, if the U.S. is the only one pushing for 
this, it's a real uphill battle to get others to agree if they don't 
like it.''
  But business groups say the deal may need to ease up. ``There are 
some governments with developing economies that will need more time and 
leeway,'' said Cal Cohen, president of the Emergency Committee for 
American Trade, a group of about 100 executives and trade associations 
that lobbies the United States trade negotiator on the deal. ``When you 
think about the evolution of labor provisions, you realize how many 
centuries the development of high standards took.''
  Since the trade talks began, lawmakers and advocacy groups have 
assailed the negotiators for keeping the process secret, and WikiLeaks 
has been among the most critical voices. The environment chapter is the 
third in a series of Trans-Pacific Partnership documents released by 
WikiLeaks. In November, the group posted the draft chapter on 
intellectual property. In December, the site posted documents detailing 
disagreements between the negotiating parties on other issues. The site 
is expected to release more documents as the negotiations unfold.

[[Page E79]]



                          ____________________