[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 93 (Thursday, June 11, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4227-H4236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1314,
ENSURING TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ACT, AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 644,
FIGHTING HUNGER INCENTIVE ACT OF 2015
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 305 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 305
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall
be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
1314) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for a right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse
determinations of tax-exempt status of certain organizations,
with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the
House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion
offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or
his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment.
The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as
read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its
adoption without intervening motion. The
[[Page H4228]]
question of adoption of the motion shall be divided as
follows: first, concurring in section 212 of the Senate
amendment; second, concurring in the matter comprising the
remainder of title II of the Senate amendment; and third,
concurring in the matter preceding title II of the Senate
amendment. The portion of the divided question on concurring
in section 212 of the Senate amendment shall be considered as
adopted. The Chair shall first put the question on the
portion of the divided question on concurring in the matter
comprising the remainder of title II of the Senate amendment.
If any portion of the divided question fails of adoption,
then the House shall be considered to have made no
disposition of the Senate amendment.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 644) to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend
and expand the charitable deduction for contributions of food
inventory, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to
consider in the House, without intervention of any point of
order, a single motion offered by the chair of the Committee
on Ways and Means or his designee that the House: (1) concur
in the Senate amendment to the title; and (2) concur in the
Senate amendment to the text with the amendment printed in
part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution modified by the amendment printed in part B
of that report. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand
for division of the question. If the motion is adopted, then
it shall be in order for the chair of the Committee on Ways
and Means or his designee to move that the House insist on
its amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 644 and request
a conference with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my very dear friend, the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee,
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of Ronald Reagan
Republican free trade principles and in support of trade promotion
authority, which is known as TPA.
Since the days of President Ronald Reagan, Republicans have supported
free trade because we know that when America competes, America wins.
TPA is a vital piece of our free trade agenda because it creates the
process that we need to secure trade agreements that grow our economy,
create good-paying jobs, and lower prices for American consumers.
For America to continue to determine the rules of the global economy,
we need to lead by crafting free trade agreements, and thus, the House
is here today to provide to the President the parameters under which he
or she should negotiate a trade promotion authority.
Free trade means more good-paying American jobs. Free trade means
that American workers make American products at American businesses to
be sold all across the globe. More than 38 million American jobs are
tied to trade, and these jobs pay well. In fact, trade-related jobs, on
average, pay 18 percent more than jobs that are not trade related.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party is here today with Ronald Reagan
watching from Heaven down on us, to say that we are continuing what he
really began, and that is a process of American exceptionalism around
the world.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
and thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary time.
Mr. Speaker, shortly after midnight Tuesday night, the Rules
Committee learned we would consider the Senate's package of three
sweeping trade bills. We convened mere hours later and considered
hundreds of pages of new text rewriting our trade laws and the rules of
the House.
Part of that package includes what is called fast track, a procedure
that has outlived its purpose and circumvents congressional authority
because it does not allow for committee debate or for the Members to be
able to amend it or change it, just to vote up or down--at least that
is what happened over here in the House.
It silences the debates of the Members of the Chamber, and by doing
that, the Americans who send us here don't have a voice. We are being
asked to push this Trans-Pacific Partnership through by using fast
track, and what is more, we are being asked to push fast track through
with a closed rule.
Now, we have been very concerned about what is in this fast track. As
you know, we really aren't allowed to know. We are only allowed to vote
up or down on the trade bill itself, once fast track is passed.
I realized how awful it was for us here; if we wanted to go see it,
we had to take someone with us with a security clearance, but we would
not be allowed to talk about it.
I learned of something this morning that is even worse, an article of
The New York Times about the Australian Government and the members of
Parliament there who say that, if they go down and read the trade bill,
they have to sign an oath that they will not speak of it for 4 years.
Now, that asks the question: Who runs these democracies, the
Representatives of the people of the United States or the corporate
giants who write the trade bills that we are not able to see?
It is pretty clear who runs it here because, from what we have heard,
that was leaked out through WikiLeaks, is that major parts of this bill
have been negotiated by Big Pharma, the pharmaceutical industries of
America, and the financial system. Neither one of those have shown any
aptitude to try to put the members of the public first.
Australia is so concerned about the fact that pharma is asking for 12
more years' extension on their patents that they are very much afraid
it will destroy their healthcare system.
More and more people are finding out simply by the leaks of what is
in this bill, and so far, according to the polls, nobody much likes it.
Instead of the weeks that we could have had a transparent debate
about a bill we had seen and a bill that we know, all we do is roll
what happened in the Rules Committee yesterday. Yesterday, no Member of
the Rules Committee or any Member of the House who came before it was
allowed to have amendments approved.
Now, the Senate did; the Senate allowed amendments to change the
bills considerably, but not us. Amendments were offered in the Rules
Committee to provide for transparency so that we will know what these
things are all about.
To change the investor's state, what we need to really bear down on--
and the Australians are also aware of--is that disputes from any of the
12 countries in this trade agreement, if they do not approve of or
believe they are losing money because of our Clean Air Act or our Clean
Water Act, they can go to the three-person tribunal of corporate
lawyers and act against us.
We know that that is a concern in this Congress because just
yesterday, they voted away the country of origin labeling because they
were concerned about the WTO.
As I pointed out, we had those amendments. We also had one amendment
on currency manipulation, which is a major concern. We lose lots of
jobs and lots of money because of currency manipulation, and we simply
allow it to happen.
We will not do anything--everybody says, if that should be in this
bill at all, that the President would veto it--so the American public,
once again, those of us standing here trying to take care of them, are
not going to be able to do it because we only know by word of mouth or
what we have been able to read in the newspapers what is in there.
Let me tell you what is in the rule. That is a very important piece.
Most of the discussion in the House has been around what we call the
pay-for part of the trade bill, which is called trade adjustment
allowance. That is supposed to take care of all the people who are laid
off, who lose their jobs. The fact
[[Page H4229]]
that we have asked for such a large number indicates to me that they
expect an awful lot of jobs lost in this country.
So how the TAA was paid for, as it came from the Senate, was with a
$700 million cut in Medicare. Nancy Pelosi has driven mightily, along
with John Boehner, to change those cuts that will be paid for with the
TAA.
I need to make it very clear, and I want everybody to understand that
the bill we voted on this morning, the African growth bill, which
contains the new pay-fors other than Medicare, are not valid until
after the Senate acts on that bill. If tomorrow on the floor, the trade
adjustment allowance and the fast track authority pass, they will go to
the Senate, with the pay-fors coming from Medicare.
I think it is very important that we make that point because many of
the people that serve with us here are confused about exactly where
that is coming from.
Let me repeat that. The pay-fors that substitute from the use of
Medicare to pay for trade adjustment allowance will not be valid until
after there is Senate action, if or when that takes place.
We were told that the Speaker said over in the Senate that he would
do this under unanimous consent, but we have also been told that
unanimous consent will not be given.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the advocates of the fast track and TPP are
telling us that this is going to be a wonderful trade deal.
We know that it is not going to create jobs because none of them
have. Those of us in upstate New York, after NAFTA, we were told we
were going to get at least 250,000 new jobs; instead, as the Speaker
probably knows, we lost a great deal.
If we, as Members of Congress, wanted to view the deal, we could not
talk about it; and that, by itself, should be enough to have us not do
it.
{time} 1515
In a seminal sociological and political discussion of our early
American democracy, ``Democracy in America,'' Alexis de Tocqueville
said of our Nation in 1835: ``The surface of American society is
covered with a layer of democratic paint. But from time to time, one
can see the old aristocratic colors breaking through.''
This is one of those times, Mr. Speaker, because this bill, this
trade bill that affects every person in the United States--and will for
maybe a generation to come--is not being written by the Members of the
House of Representatives or of the Senate, but in a closed, backroom
deal and, as we are told, by major corporations in the United States to
benefit themselves. That certainly appears to be what we are going to
get.
By giving away the role of Congress in setting the trade policies, we
give away our ability to safeguard America's jobs and, most importantly
again, as I pointed out, the American laws meant to protect the
citizens we represent, such as the Clean Water Act. I have never seen
in my years of Congress a trade bill come out of this Congress that
benefited either the American manufacturer or the American worker. This
one is the same.
Any lawmaker thinking about voting for another job-killing trade
agreement should take a serious look at NAFTA and at our growing trade
deficit with South Korea and think about whether they want to be
responsible for shipping their constituents' jobs overseas.
Now, we know this bill has been modeled after the failed policies
that have shuttered store windows and closed factories all across the
Nation. That is the legacy, ladies and gentlemen, of free trade. What
we ought to demand in our trading bills is fair trade. America should
not be the supplier of jobs to bolster the rest of world and improve
their economies at the cost of ours.
From food safety, clean air, and labor standards to environmental
protections, this trade deal would impact every facet of our daily
lives. Ninety percent of the seafood now that is consumed by Americans
is imported. Less than 3 percent of it is inspected. Tons of it have
been sent back just from that small amount being inspected.
We will not be able to interfere with them coming in here under the
investor-state dispute settlement or under this free trade act.
I urge my colleague to vote ``no'' on the rule and carefully,
carefully consider the trade package before us.
I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman originally, I believe, is
from Kentucky, and she will recognize when I tell this awesome story
about how important a free trade agreement is.
A couple of years ago, we did a free trade agreement with the country
of Korea. Within a year, Mr. Speaker, as a result of that trade
agreement, the number one selling car in Korea came from Georgetown,
Kentucky. It is a Toyota Camry made in the United States. The Koreans
love it, a Kentucky-made product.
Mr. Speaker, if we didn't have a free trade agreement with Korea, the
people in Georgetown, Kentucky, couldn't claim to be the number one car
in Korea.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the young gentleman
from Auburn, Washington (Mr. Reichert), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I am rising today in support of today's
rule, which will allow us to proceed in consideration of trade
promotion authority, trade adjustment assistance, and customs
legislation.
Passage of trade promotion authority is absolutely critical to our
economic growth and global leadership. Without TPA, we will not be able
to bring home the benefits of a high-standard trade agreement.
Now, what are the benefits of high-standard trade agreements? Job
creation, selling American products across this globe to 96 percent of
the market, which exists outside of this country. Selling American,
that is what we want to do.
And, by the way, we not only create jobs, but we create jobs that are
higher paid wages, which we are all trying to struggle with across this
country in raising the minimum wage. We can do that in this trade
adjustment and trade promotion authority.
This is counter to exactly what communities across the Nation need
right now: more opportunities, more good paying jobs; and that leads to
a promising future for our families, for our children, to better-
paying, high-tech jobs and manufacturing jobs across this country.
I am proud to be the House sponsor of legislation to renew trade
adjustment assistance because I understand the necessity of TAA.
Now, not only is this a great trade initiative here, but we are also
taking into consideration, as we move ahead in this global economy,
that there may be people who do have opportunities to look at other
jobs; and this TAA bill provides training and education for people to
have and gain better jobs, higher paying jobs. So I would encourage my
colleagues to vote for this rule in support of TPA, TAA, and the
customs legislation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute because I do so
appreciate my friend, Mr. Sessions, giving us a good Kentucky story. I
need to change that story just a little bit. That factory has been in
Georgetown for at least three decades. It is Toyota, which is Japanese.
All of South Korea has only 26 car dealers in the country that will
sell an American car. Of course, we buy Japanese cars that are made
here, but they don't buy ours in Japan. I think about 2 years ago we
had only sold 8,000 American cars in Japan for that entire year, and I
would imagine we sell that many Japanese cars in the United States on a
daily basis.
So I appreciate the story. Georgetown, I know, would love to be
mentioned, but we have got to get it right.
Now I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because
America's middle class and our workers have been under economic attack.
I rise to voice my opposition to the very restrictive process being
used to shove these job outsourcing trade deals through Congress.
The Republican leadership has denied our House any amendment, even on
currency manipulation, on legislation that is sure to impact every
single American, turning our oversight role into little more than a
rubberstamp. This makes a mockery of the House's
[[Page H4230]]
clear, constitutional authority on trade and commerce.
Worse still, this limitation is being pursued because Republican
leaders simply do not want to go to conference with the Senate. This
belies every American, every Member their right to be represented and
have a voice in this process.
Hundreds, however, of multinational corporations and lobbyists, the 1
percent, helped to write, amend, and draft the TPP, the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, line by line.
But today, years into the process and with negotiation in the final
stages, Members of Congress were only recently given our first access.
To read it, you have to go to a secure room, deep in the Visitor
Center. We are supervised. Any notes we take are confiscated, and we
can't discuss what we find with anyone unless they have top secret
clearance.
The trade deal is a secret deal because they want to fast-track it
through Congress, hoping Congress really won't understand what is in
it. And I find it hard to imagine a more dangerous or irresponsible
approach than fast-tracking another trade deal through Congress.
TPA, the authority to fast track, is a gateway to the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. Both will further harm workers and communities to a faster
global race to the bottom, with more outsourcing of jobs, more lower
wages, more dropping benefits, more lower standards for worker safety,
compensation, and environment. We have seen that since NAFTA passed 30
years ago.
For decades, I have fought against destructive trade deals that were
brought down on our Nation's workers and communities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. KAPTUR. Over this period of time, every time one of these so-
called free trade deals is signed, America moves into deeper and deeper
trade deficit, deeper and deeper red ink, as more of our jobs get
shipped abroad.
I remember standing at the corner of Ohio and Michigan Avenues in
Matamoros, Mexico, and looking at the TRICO windshield factory that was
moved from the State of New York down there, and Parker Seals. It
almost seemed like a movie set but for one thing, it was real.
Last year alone, our trade deficit cost us 20 percent of our GDP. Is
anybody here paying attention or are we all a part of the 1 percent and
forget about the 99 percent who have had to bear the brunt of this
terrible, terrible outsourcing of jobs?
Average American wages across my region have dropped by $7,000. This
trade deficit didn't happen by accident. Some people got filthy rich
off of it.
This is a time for America to say, ``No more. No more. We are going
to do it right. We are going to create trade deals that create jobs in
our country, create a stronger middle class, raise wages, improve the
environment, here and abroad. No more taking it out of the hide of
America's workers.''
We are here because we stand on their shoulders. Vote ``no'' on this
rule and ``no'' on TAA and ``no'' on TPP.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, you know, I love the fervency of our
colleagues who come down here and argue Japan is the problem. You can't
talk about the trade agreement that we have with Korea where it works--
Japan, Japan, Japan.
Well, good gosh, this is about getting a trade deal with what is
called TPP, of which Japan would be included. This is a deal where my
colleagues come down and don't like our trade deficits, but the bottom
line is that the United States has a trade surplus with its 20 free
trade partners.
So we are trying to take people from nontrade agreement, where we run
a deficit and they close their market, to a trade deal where we run a
surplus where people want to buy American-made products. If they will
listen, we have got a good deal for them today. And one of those good
deals, Mr. Speaker, is agriculture, so that our men and women engaged
in agriculture can sell their products around the world.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Midland, Texas (Mr. Conaway),
the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, and I
especially want to commend Chairman Ryan and his colleagues on Ways and
Means for their hard work in bringing us the underlying legislation.
Everyone in the room knows that America's farmers and ranchers are
the most productive in the world. They have continuously proven their
ability to meet rapidly growing and ever-changing demands here at home,
and their reach stretches well beyond the shores of America. In fact,
exports now account for almost one-third of total U.S. farm income. In
the case of commodities like cotton, tree nuts, rice, and wheat, over
one-half the total production is exported.
In 2014 alone, U.S. agricultural exports set a record $152.5 billion,
highlighting the growing demand for quality food and fiber around the
world. As was noted in a recent hearing before the House Agriculture
Committee, the United States exported almost as much beef, pork, and
poultry to the 20 nations with which we have trade agreements as they
did the other 170-plus nations in the world.
Beyond the obvious benefits to producers, trade also helps support
almost 1 million American jobs in production agriculture and in related
sectors like food processing and transportation. As a result, it is
crucial not only to American agriculture, but to the U.S. economy as a
whole, to maintain and increase access to the world's 7 billion
consumers, 95 percent of whom live outside the shores of the United
States. To obtain that access, it is imperative that we work to reduce
and eliminate international barriers to trade so that our farmers and
ranchers can compete on a level playing field in the global market.
With negotiations in the World Trade Organization languishing for the
last 14 years, regional free trade agreements represent our best
opportunity for expanding trade opportunities for U.S. agricultural.
History has shown that trade promotion authority in one form or another
has been vital in completing and implementing past agreements. In fact,
Congress has granted TPA to every President since 1974, and the 114th
Congress should be no exception.
TPA will provide our negotiators with the credibility necessary to
conclude the most effective trade agreements possible by making it
clear to the rest of the world that Congress and this administration
are serious about this endeavor.
The legislation before us today empowers Congress to move the
aggressive trade agenda. It includes the strongest measures, to date,
for ensuring that this President sticks to the negotiating objectives
laid down by Congress, including the unicameral ability to turn TPA off
on an individual agreement. At the end of the day, it is Congress that
will decide the fate of each agreement.
In conclusion, I am a strong proponent of free trade and the benefits
it provides our Nation's producers and consumers. However, if we are
not going to continue to expand American markets, other countries,
often with lower standards, will step up to the plate and fill that
demand. Markets are not won or regained easily after they have been
lost, and billions around the globe still want America's quality food
and fiber.
{time} 1530
We can win over new markets, boost our economy, and meet these global
demands first and foremost by showing that we are, in fact, a strong
and reliable trading partner. We can make that happen by passing this
rule and the underlying TPA agreement.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding
and for her tremendous leadership on so many issues.
I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. Our country has
already lost too many good-paying American jobs because of past trade
deals. We should be clear about what this rule would do. This rule is
really a vote to extended Medicare sequestration and provides for no
amendments in the fast track bill, Trade Adjustment Assistance, and the
customs bill.
We have seen what happens when bad trade deals are passed without
congressional oversight: American jobs shift
[[Page H4231]]
overseas--many come from communities of color; dangerous food makes its
way to our meals; human rights are violated; labor standards are
ignored; and the effects of climate change get worse.
The American people do deserve better. The American people deserve a
trade policy that creates American jobs and an open process for passing
trade deals that gives them a strong voice.
Passing this rule and passing fast track does neither. This is a bad
deal for American workers. It is bad for American jobs. It needs to go
back to the drawing board, a drawing board that is public and that
gives the American people a voice in trade policy, not just big
corporations and hedge fund managers.
Between 2001 and 2011, the growing trade deficit with China cost more
than 2.7 million jobs. Nearly 1 million of these jobs, mind you, came
from communities of color. After these workers lost their jobs, their
situation went from bad to worse.
These workers saw their wages fall nearly 30 percent--or more than
$10,000 a year. The total economic cost of this job loss to these
communities is more than $10 billion. Now, that is $10 billion each and
every year.
We cannot allow another bad trade deal to shift millions more of
American jobs overseas. We cannot allow another bad trade deal to strip
billions from struggling communities. We cannot allow this rule or a
flawed TAA or fast track to pass.
Make no mistake, I support trade. I have the honor of representing
the Port of Oakland, and I understand the critical role that trade
plays in the economy in my district in California and also in our
country.
However, let me just say, trade only grows our economy. This bill is
not fair; it is not open, and it is not transparent.
I have the honor of representing the Port of Oakland and I understand
the critical role that trade plays in the economy of my district,
California and our country.
However, trade only grows our economy when it's fair, open,
transparent and creates jobs.
This bill--Fast Track--is not fair.
It's not open--
And it's not transparent.
So once again, I urge a ``NO'' vote on this Rule, a ``NO'' on the
flawed TAA, and a ``NO'' on Fast Track.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Good gosh, Mr. Speaker, I was afraid she was in reference to
ObamaCare, which is why we are losing American jobs all across this
country.
The bottom line is that, where there is trade with other countries
and we have a trade deal, America wins, and we get more jobs. As an
example, 3 million jobs in the Lone Star State of Texas are related to
trade, and jobs are growing nearly twice as fast as nontrade jobs. This
is what is happening. It is the vibrancy of America.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Harrison Township, Michigan (Mrs. Miller), chairman of the House
Administration Committee.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of this rule.
I come from southeast Michigan, which, of course, is the heart of
American manufacturing. Michigan manufacturers, especially the Big
Three domestic auto companies, have all had concerns for years about
the unfair competitive disadvantage that they face by nations that
manipulate their currency such as Japan, South Korea, and China.
It was very important to me that, as Congress moves forward with
legislation to give trade promotion authority to this President and
others, that the package must also include strong, new tools allowing
America to fight back against those nations that unfairly manipulate
their currency and those that harm American manufacturers.
Mr. Speaker, I am very, very thankful that Chairman Ryan and House
leadership agreed to work with us to craft an approach which I believe
is a strong step forward. For decades, administrations of both parties
have refused to identify foreign currency manipulators or to take any
action to stop it.
The manager's amendment, put forward by Chairman Ryan, that we worked
with him to develop, gets very, very tough on currency manipulators.
For the first time ever, Mr. Speaker, it puts in place a three-part
test to define currency manipulation with specific guidance requiring
nations that manipulate their currency to be named publicly.
Also, for the first time, the focus will be shifted from reporting
and monitoring to actionable items and to steps that will show the
impact of currency manipulation on the American economy, as well, Mr.
Speaker, as requiring remedial action to be taken.
These tough steps will impact every Nation that we trade with, not
just those that might be included in the TPP, but every Nation that we
trade with, including South Korea and China, as I mentioned, Japan.
Certainly, while these are steps in the right direction, more needs
to be done; absolutely, more needs to be done. Here in Congress, every
Member of Congress continues to reserve the right to oppose any TPP
agreement that does not meet the needs of the American economy and the
American manufacturing industry.
With these changes that I have outlined here that are going to be in
the manager's amendment, I support--and I am proud to support--this
trade package that will provide an opportunity to drive our economy
forward.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to Congress, I worked for a while as an
ironworker at the Quincy shipyard in Quincy, Massachusetts. I was a
welder.
Unfortunately, because of bad trade policy, that shipyard closed
down, and thousands of workers were laid off. Later on, I also worked
at the General Motors facility in Framingham, Massachusetts, and the
company decided to close that plant down, while they opened three new
ones in Mexico. I have seen what lousy trade policy can do.
The fundamental problem with our trade policy is that it is
negotiated in secret by multinational corporations who are basically
hiring foreign labor at very low wages, move the jobs overseas, and
then export the products back into the United States.
If you look at some of the minimum wages for the countries that we
are dealing with in this trade agreement for Malaysia and Vietnam, it
is less than $1 an hour for the minimum wage in those countries, and
they maintain those low wages so that they can attract business. It is
a race to the bottom.
I do want to say that, as part of my job with the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, I have had a chance to go to South Korea
and Japan to see how our trade agreements have been working out there.
I was in South Korea for several days, and just on my own, with my
staff, I looked for an American car for several days. We were in
traffic a lot. South Korea is a booming industrial country, major
highways. I saw hundreds of thousands of cars.
I saw two--two--United States cars. One was the one I was driving in
from the Embassy, and the second car was my security detail behind me.
Those were the only two U.S. cars, only two U.S. cars.
Our trade with Japan--I was in Japan as well. You need a detective to
find a U.S. car in Japan. That is the plain and simple fact. They
import $1 billion worth of U.S.-manufactured products in auto and the
air industry; we import $25 billion.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts just to ask one simple question: What was that trade deal
that you were talking about?
Mr. LYNCH. The Korea-U.S. trade agreement.
Mr. SESSIONS. Two years ago?
Mr. LYNCH. Two years ago.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thought you said you lost your job?
Mr. LYNCH. What is that? No, no, no. The job I lost--you were talking
to people--the job I lost, 2,700 workers lost at the GM plant, those
plants were reopened in Mexico.
Mr. SESSIONS. When was that? What trade deal?
[[Page H4232]]
Mr. LYNCH. That was right after NAFTA. That was another bad trade
agreement.
Mr. SESSIONS. Well, we gave you a good job, and you came to Congress.
I think the gentleman makes a point that I would like to make, and
that is we need a trade deal with Japan to level the playing field, and
that is exactly what we are going to do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), who sits on the Ways and
Means Committee.
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairmen Ryan,
Sessions, and Tiberi for their tireless effort to move us closer to
realizing trade deals that will unlock new markets and bolster our
national security.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both the rule in front of us today
and the trade promotion authority legislation we will consider
tomorrow.
The benefits of increased free and fair trade are well established
and undeniable. For companies in my State, the pending trade deals
would remove tariff barriers and unlock doors for businesses such as
Morris & Associates, who export the world's best poultry chilling
equipment; or a company like Cummins Engine in my State to export U.S.-
made engines; and to allow countless farms in my district and State to
export hogs, chickens, tobacco, and sweet potatoes all across the
globe. This means increased productivity, which means better wages and
more jobs.
More importantly, Mr. Speaker, TPA is about empowering Congress,
making sure that this body and the people's elected representatives
keep tight reins on this President.
Now, I am certainly no supporter of the President's laundry list of
unconstitutional actions from immigration, to his administration's
unilateral attempts to salvage the sinking ship that is ObamaCare,
which is why TPA is needed.
The President is going to negotiate trade deals whether or not we
pass TPA. Why wouldn't we want to make this President's negotiators
more accountable, the deals themselves more transparent, and make our
oversight more effective?
Now, here is how it works. If the President disregards the parameters
Congress sets out or fails to consult Members at every step, Congress
can turn off TPA. If the President comes back with a bad trade deal,
Congress can vote it down.
Mr. Speaker, we need TPA to not only get the best deals possible, but
also need this authority to check the President.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support TPA.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from the land of cars, Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the rule we are considering today
represents everything for me that is wrong with politics. We are
currently debating the most important package of trade legislation in a
generation; yet, despite how critical this issue is to American jobs,
this rule does not allow any amendments.
Currency manipulation, the mother of all trade barriers, has cost
this country as many as 5 million jobs. A bipartisan group of 20
Members--10 Republicans, 10 Democrats--proposed an amendment to address
this, and it is vital that Congress debate and vote on how to address
currency manipulation as we set U.S. trade policy for the next decade.
With nothing but the deepest of respect for the chair of the Rules
Committee, I want to give you the facts about the Korean free trade
agreement. The reality is that after it passed, we increased exports to
Korea from 14,000 to 34,000.
By comparison, Korea exported 800,000 to the U.S. before the trade
agreement and now exports 1.3 million. We increased our exports to
Korea by 20,000, and they have increased their exports to this country
by 461,000.
Toyota made more money last year in currency manipulation in this
country than Ford Motor Company did in its worldwide operations.
The American people deserve a full and open debate on trade policy,
not procedural gimmicks and political games that shut out amendments
and avoid the tough questions.
Let's defeat this rule and have a real debate on the issues that the
working men and women of this country have sent us here to consider and
that are so critical to the livelihood and the backbone of this
American economy. American jobs are at stake.
{time} 1545
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Sunnyside, Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a farmer and a rancher and a
freshman Member on the Rules Committee.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. I thank the chairman for yielding his time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the rule and the underlying
trade promotion authority granted by H.R. 1314.
As a member of the Rules Committee, I can affirm that the committee
heard and seriously considered many amendments and concerns from both
Democratic and Republican Members late into the night. This rule has
been very fair, deliberative, and interested parties have been given
ample opportunity to weigh in on it and on the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, as you just heard, I come from the State of Washington,
which is the most trade-benefited State in the country. If my
colleagues want to see the benefit trade brings and the jobs it
creates, they only have to look at my State. We export coffee,
aircraft, footwear, software--you name it. We also have an enormous
agriculture industry. In Washington, we export fully 30 percent of the
apples we grow, more than 85 percent of the wheat, 75 percent of the
hops. Right now, consumers around the world are enjoying a brand new
crop of fresh Washington State cherries, but the trade success story I
want to share with you today is about potatoes.
Prior to the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement that the Congress passed
and the President signed in 2011, we shipped $53 million worth of
french fries to South Korea. After that agreement was passed, that
value rose to $83 million--a 57 percent increase in just 2 years--
largely attributed to the trade barriers that were lowered. For the
record, that potato industry supports fully 24,000 jobs in my State.
Those are good-paying jobs which are all supported by trade.
Trade promotion authority is about creating a fair playing field for
American producers so we can create more jobs here at home. Most people
may not know this, but, right now, American wines face 50 percent
tariffs in Japan. Chilean and Argentinean wines face no tariffs at all.
Our beef faces a 38 percent tariff--our oranges, a 16 percent tariff.
TPA will instruct our negotiators to work on lowering these barriers to
U.S. products.
Mr. Speaker, Americans produce some of the finest products in the
world, and if given the chance to compete fairly, I believe they can. I
have no doubt that we can outperform almost any competitor in the
world, but we can't continue to allow other countries to stack the deck
against us, which is happening right now. By granting the President the
power to negotiate a treaty and by Congress telling him what priorities
must be negotiated, we can create a fair playing field and create those
jobs we need here at home.
I understand there are concerns about the privacy surrounding the TPP
deal. I share those concerns, which is why I have personally gone and
reviewed the text of this deal three times now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. The reason this vote on TPA is so important is that it
will make the deal public. It will give the American people at least 2
months and as much as 5 months to review any negotiated deal. That is
months to tell their Members of Congress whether they should support
the deal or not. Without voting on TPA, there is no review period. The
deal can stay a secret.
Mr. Speaker, this rule and the underlying bill are critical to our
economy. Without TPA, our country will be left disadvantaged against
other countries, and we will be left to trade with one arm tied behind
our back. With it, we
[[Page H4233]]
can open new opportunities for our businesses. They can grow and create
more jobs, and we can ensure that the American economy remains the most
competitive, strongest economy in the world for decades to come.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is filled with
plenty of procedural gimmicks but with no opportunities to actually
improve the underlying bills.
These bills fail to have enforceable environmental negotiating
objectives; they fail to address currency manipulation adequately; and
they fail to recognize climate change and its connection to trade. I
had proposed amendments to address these issues, which were,
unfortunately, not made in order.
Since NAFTA and other subsequent deals, millions of United States
manufacturing jobs--one in four, in fact--have been lost, and when
manufacturing workers lose their jobs due to trade, the story doesn't
get much better: three in five of them take cuts if they find a new
job. This is a bad deal for those who lose their jobs due to trade, of
course, but it is also bad for all Americans, and it is one reason
wages have stagnated for the last two decades. We cannot afford to
fast-track another NAFTA on steroids.
On top of that, according to the Department of Labor, four TPP
negotiating partners are using forced labor or child labor in violation
of international standards. Are these the types of countries to which
we want to give fast-tracked trade privileges? Plenty of multinational
corporations will benefit from TPP, from increased drug prices to
access to cheaper labor, when American jobs are offshored. That much is
clear. Yet it is not clear how the average American worker--the people
of New York's Capital Region that I represent and the people who sent
all of us to be their voices in Washington--would benefit.
Let's end this foolishness and take up bills that actually help our
working families by passing a minimum wage, by requiring paid family
leave, by investing in STEM education and research, and by rebuilding
our infrastructure.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, to defeat this inadequate
trade adjustment assistance and to defeat fast track. My message: Hands
off the American worker. Hands off the American worker's children.
Hands off the American Dream.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a very savvy member of our trade team and a
gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the chairman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of trade agreements being carried out
all over the world today, and the United States--our country--is
sitting on the sidelines. Ninety-five percent of the market is closed
off in many respects because we don't have trade agreements; we don't
have the market opening. We are an open economy. They are sending stuff
here, but we don't have the opportunity to sell there. That is a
problem.
Let's talk about what trade promotion authority really is. At a very
basic level, it is the catalyst for American economic engagement around
the world. It is the catalyst for American leadership. I, for one--and,
I think, for most of my friends here on this side of the aisle--am not
ready to just step back and relinquish American leadership to others.
That is just unacceptable. Trade promotion authority gets us started.
We are on the verge of negotiating two very important trade
agreements with growing areas around the world--the Asia-Pacific region
and the European Union. This represents the lion's share of gross
domestic product growth around the world. Why would we want to lock
ourselves out of these markets? It is absolutely ridiculous. It is
absurd. We want the American worker to have access to those markets. I
want mothers around the world to buy goods off the shelves that read,
``Made in America.'' Those markets are closed. Let's open them. Let's
get trade promotion authority in place.
What is it?
It is not the trade agreement, itself. It is the process by which we
get the strongest and highest quality trade agreement for American
workers that would be most beneficial to our country. It is the whole
way we are going to achieve growth in this economy. We can't do it to
the extent we need to without this. It puts Congress in the driver's
seat, providing over 150 negotiating priorities that we set, not the
administration. We set these as we negotiate with foreign countries. If
we fail to pass this, the President negotiates on his own priorities,
not on the priorities of the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Trade promotion authority gives more transparency to
the whole process. Right now, we don't have the kind of transparency
that is necessary. TPA, trade promotion authority, is public. That is
public. That is the process. It is very public. Go to congress.gov.
Anybody can read the legislation. It is public. Plus, passing TPA will
require that the final trade agreement--those negotiations aren't done
yet, but once they are concluded, the President has to make it public
for 60 days in order for anybody and everybody to read it. That is
transparency.
If we fail to pass this, we are giving up American leadership. We are
basically throwing the American worker under the bus. We need growth.
We need American leadership, and trade promotion authority is the
catalyst for providing that leadership. Trade promotion authority is
necessary for Congress to provide the proper checks and balances on the
administration. I don't want the administration negotiating without our
having a robust consultative role in this, and that is what TPA does.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support this
underlying legislation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the only way to get better trade agreements
is to reject this fast-track bill and develop a better alternative that
reflects our values and the realities of the 21st century.
As one who has supported legislation for more trade with most of the
countries that are TPP agreement countries, I would like to support
more trade today, but, as happened in the Ways and Means Committee,
this rule shuts out every single attempt of Democrats to strengthen and
improve this bill.
These Fast Trackers--they say they want free trade. Well how about
trade that is free of secrecy and connivance? How about trade that is
free of deals that jeopardize our the health and safety such as the
food that we eat as American families? How about trade that is free of
corporate panels that will be able to award taxpayer dollars to foreign
corporations with more rights than American businesses, instead of
relying on our system of justice?
I think we have to look at the trade agreements we have had in the
past--the free trade agreements--and realize that, for too many
American workers, they haven't been free. They have come at a
tremendous cost. This trade agreement has been shrouded in secrecy in
order to assure there is not a full and fair debate or a discussion of
the failures of the USTR.
The USTR, as of right now, has not shared with this Congress a single
document to show how Vietnam, instead of being the great human rights
abuser it is today, will begin to show even the slightest measure of
decency to its workers. The USTR has ignored the record of sex
trafficking and human trafficking in Malaysia. One of the worst and in
a category by itself with North Korea--and a handful of others--in
human trafficking. And they are being rewarded in this deal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DOGGETT. Too often, the USTR simply does not believe in law
enforcement. It wouldn't enforce the law in Guatemala and Honduras
under prior labor agreements. In Peru, it ignored the audit
responsibility that it had.
We can do better than this. We can do better than some kind of
Christmas
[[Page H4234]]
wish list of multiple objectives that this President doesn't have to
follow. And indeed, this Christmas wish list is being proposed for the
next President, who has not even been elected--an open-ended ability to
have more trade agreements that come at the cost of too many families.
We can do better.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I just love our friends who come up to the
podium and talk about jobs; yet it is this administration and the
Democrat policies that have taken American jobs, including ObamaCare,
climate change, and all of the other rules and regulations--175,000
pages of rules and regulations--and have inhibited growth and job
development in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Butler,
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), one of the most exciting new, young Members
of Congress.
{time} 1600
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
this. We have a duty here to legislate based on truth and not on
fiction. Let's establish the facts. First of all, if you want really
strong trade agreements, then you have to be in a position to negotiate
those because, I will tell you, my friends, if we are not at the table,
we are on the menu.
As we talk about growing the economy and growing jobs and making sure
that America is secure going into the future, and if you are worried
about having an agreement that doesn't meet the demands that the
American people are asking for, trade promotion authority is the only
thing that gives us the ability to drive strong trade agreements to
make sure that every single American is taken care of.
Now, this TPA does not give President Obama any new power, none
whatsoever. For those of us who don't trust the President's judgment,
then TPA is absolutely necessary. It is not an option. We look at
things and we talk about the people's House and what the responsibility
of the people's House is and how would the people's House move forward.
This puts us in the driver's seat. This allows this Congress, the
people's House, to set the parameters of any future trade agreements.
It does not negate them; it enforces them. So if you are worried about
a strong trade agreement, then make sure that we give ourselves the
power to actually set the parameters of the way a trade agreement
should look.
It is time to get rid of all this bogeyman talk about what is going
on. I have got to tell you, if you want the United States of America to
dominate a global economy and not just participate in a global economy,
then you have to have trade promotion authority. My lifetime has been
spent negotiating. When you sit down at the table to actually negotiate
something, the question that always came up to me: Was there anybody
else other than yourself that would be responsible for making the
decision? Without that decision, without that clarity, we can't draw on
strong trade agreements. TPA is the only thing that gives us that. If
you want to strengthen our country, if you want to grow our economy, if
you want to create new jobs for America, then we need strong trade
agreements.
Now, fast track, anything but fast track. Smart track, safe track,
sure track, and something that gets America's economy back on track--
absolutely. Vote for TPA. Vote for American jobs. Vote for the United
States of America to drive the global economy and continue to write the
rules and not China.
If you really are concerned about American jobs, and if you are
really concerned about America's role in the world, then don't put us
behind; put us in front. Let America, with the strongest economy, drive
the trade agreements. TPA gives us that, gives us the ability to grow
an American economy, grow American jobs, and make America more safe and
secure. And it gives our partners around the world the certainty that
America has not walked away from the table; America will continue to be
your strongest partner and your strongest ally to build a stronger and
more safe world.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee
on Ways and Means.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this rule covers three bills. It covers TAA
and TPA. I asked Rules to place in order a substitute bill on TPA that
would have helped a full discussion of this vital issue affecting 40
percent of global GDP. Under the rule before us, if a majority does not
vote for TAA, there will not be a vote on TPA tomorrow. This will give
the House another opportunity to improve TPA and TAA, of which I am an
author. TAA should not be a bargaining chip for a flawed TPA bill.
The third bill, Customs, weakens the TPA bill on human trafficking,
prohibits any provision in TPP relating to climate, likewise as to
immigration, and strikes out the Schumer provision on currency
manipulation. The manager's amendment on currency is more rhetorical
language without any teeth.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Genoa Township, Ohio (Mr. Tiberi). He is one of our three captains that
has driven this entire thing in addition to Chairman Paul Ryan and
myself. He has done an outstanding job.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership.
Texas is lucky to have him.
Ladies and gentlemen, today and tomorrow, we are not voting on a
trade agreement. We are not voting on a trade agreement. In fact, we
are voting on a bill called TPA, which is this. It is public. We can
all read it. Our constituents can read it. We are not voting on
anything today or tomorrow that we can't read, that is secret.
A lot of confusion out there. Here is what TPA is, and you have heard
it before. It is a process. It is a process where Congress inserts
itself to what the executive branch already can do, which is negotiate
a trade agreement. But it is a process that, quite frankly, empowers
the Congress. It tells the President, as the lead negotiator, this is
what we would like him to do, and we are going to hold our authority,
and we are going to say whatever the President negotiates, we are going
to either approve it or not.
But you know what? By passing TPA, we are going to require that,
whatever is negotiated, the public is given 60 days to review, which
doesn't have to be done unless TPA is passed.
Mr. Chairman, I didn't have 6 hours to review ObamaCare--not 6 hours.
My constituents will have 60 days before the President can sign any
deal he negotiates. That is what TPA does. It inserts Congress. It
inserts the American people into any trade agreement the President--
this one or the next--negotiates. It empowers the people to review that
process, to review that agreement--no secrecy.
This is what we are voting on tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen, TPA.
Please go to congress.gov to look at it. Another day, maybe tomorrow,
we will talk a little bit about what trade has done, not done, what it
has done for American consumers and American employees and American
businesses.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hill). The gentlewoman from New York has
5 minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me take 30 seconds and say, that is really great,
go ahead and read the TPA, but it is the bill we are worried about, the
TPP. We have to have an armed guard, practically, to go look at that.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, there really is quite a lot on the line here, despite
what some speakers would submit, which is, oh, you know, this is just
the TPA; it is not a big thing. No, this is a huge thing.
As a matter of fact, this particular rule we are voting on right now
does three important things. One is that it has the pay-for for the
trade adjustment assistance that includes cuts to Medicare. No matter
how you slice it, if you vote for this rule, you are voting to cut
Medicare. Then what it does, it sets up a vote for the trade adjustment
assistance and trade promotion authority.
The fact is, if you go home and you try to explain to Americans,
``Oh, I
[[Page H4235]]
didn't vote to cut Medicare,'' the fact is you will not be able to
honestly say that. You might be able to say, ``Well, I did, but then
they fixed it.'' You might be able to say, ``Well, yeah, I cut
Medicare, but then later on we passed a thing and maybe Mitch McConnell
won't try to change it later.'' You can say anything you want, but the
maneuverings on this floor and in this body to get us to where we are
have not changed one solid fact, which is that we are voting to cut
Medicare.
Now, there are all kinds of cute procedural maneuverings and
different kinds of rules we are invoking, but you cannot escape the
essential fact: the cut to Medicare is not going to be cut and excised
out of this. If you vote for the rule, you voted to cut Medicare. Our
seniors have taken enough on the chin. Do not put their livelihood at
risk.
Now, let me also say that this TAA is not supported by the AFL-CIO.
Trade adjustment assistance is to help workers who are displaced by bad
trade deals. Wouldn't you think that the president of the AFL-CIO would
say, ``Yeah, well, we definitely would want TAA''? And he usually
almost always does, but not this time because he knows what all of us
should know, which is this trade adjustment authority is cutting
Medicare.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. ELLISON. This trade adjustment authority is paid for by Medicare.
It continues to be underfunded. Trade adjustment authority is
underfunded. It is like if you kick somebody off their job because of a
bad trade deal and then you tell them, ``We are going to help you
adjust to it.'' Well, you know what? At least we should fund it
properly. Given the billions of dollars that will be made by this trade
deal by multinational corporations, doesn't it make sense that we
should at least try to fully fund trade adjustment authority, trade
adjustment assistance? But we don't.
Then the fact is that it excludes public sector workers. Public
sector workers are negatively impacted by bad trade deals, just like
all other workers. Why wouldn't we include them in it? They are not
included in it.
So this TAA, this trade adjustment assistance, package is
insufficient. We must vote it down. I urge a ``no'' vote. I just want
to let Members know, when you walk into that senior center and Mrs.
McGillicuddy asks you, ``Did you vote to cut Medicare?'' I hope you can
answer truthfully you did not vote to cut Medicare. Vote ``no'' on this
rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.
I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the Nation's bad trade bills have gutted
our manufacturing economy, transformed our stature on the global stage,
and taken millions of jobs from American workers. Heavens to Betsy,
let's not do it again. We need to demand a trade deal that will let us
sell American-made goods to every customer in the world, and we need a
trade bill that is negotiated through a transparent and open process
that doesn't mortgage our patents, our innovation, and our future.
Let me echo what Congressman Ellison just said. This rule, this vote
right now that we are about to take, codifies, it ensures, that this
money for the trade adjustment assistance will come from Medicare. That
is what will go to the President. If you vote for this, you are voting
for Medicare to be used in that way.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying
bills.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I support TPA because it provides an unprecedented level of
transparency. Let me be clear. A vote for TPA is a vote for jobs. It is
a vote so that we can grow our economy. It is not a vote for a secret
document. It is a vote to set up a process that ensures the American
people understand exactly what any trade deal is before Congress votes
on it. We will have 60 days to do that. TPA requires that the President
make public the text of a complicated trade agreement for at least 60
days, and we are going to do just that.
Over the last few months, I have worked with Chairman Paul Ryan and
Chairman Pat Tiberi and other Members of Congress to strengthen TPA so
that the President cannot hijack free trade agreements. I think it is
obvious here: no one in this body really trusts the President of the
United States to go and negotiate something that we would be in favor
of. That is why we are making this trade TPA, so that we are following
our agenda, one that we know that we have heard of. We have heard the
concerns of the American people regarding immigration, climate change,
currency, American sovereignty, and I think we have addressed all of
these.
My constituents are just like me. They want to know that we are going
to support jobs. But we do not trust the President, and that is why we
are doing this deal today. This grants no new authority to the
President of the United States.
Just the other day, I began working further after the Senate passed
their TPA bill, and I worked with Congressman Steve King of Iowa to
ensure that the trade agreements do not require changes to U.S.
immigration laws or to obligate the United States to gain access or to
extend access to visas.
We had an excellent idea, also, that we took from Senator Ted Cruz
from Texas. We just strengthened it and made it more straightforward,
and it is in this deal that we do.
This trade package also includes language that would prohibit the
administration from attaching any climate change commitments to a
trading agreement.
{time} 1615
We have also worked to guarantee that American sovereignty is upheld.
TPA reflects what the Constitution requires, and that is that Congress
maintain authority over any changes to U.S. law and our constitutional
rights to approve any trade agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this rule. I look forward to the
debate that will follow. I urge my colleagues to listen to every single
bit of this, and they will understand why a vote for TPA and this rule
is the right thing to do.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
rule to consider the Senate amendment to H.R. 644, Trade Facilitation
and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.
I strongly support legislation to update the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to authorize U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as it exists
today. That said, I must voice my great dismay with the inclusion of
H.R. 878, the ``United States Customs and Border Protection
Authorization Act,'' in a vehicle that circumvents regular order and is
under threat of veto.
Enactment of CBP authorization legislation could help clarify and
enhance Congressional intent for this critical agency as well as the
oversight of its activities. In the previous Congress, the Committee on
Homeland Security marked up and reported such legislation, which was
subsequently considered and passed by the House. Because authorizing
such a large and important agency requires a thoughtful and thorough
approach, H.R. 878 should have gone through regular order this
Congress.
There are 10 new Members of Congress serving on the Committee on
Homeland Security this Congress. Upending regular order, as the House
Leadership is doing, effectively prevents my Committee and its newest
members from applying the knowledge we acquired through oversight about
CBP programs and activities to improving the legislation before us
today.
Moreover, the text of the legislation in which these important
provisions are included was just made available at midnight on
Wednesday, and we are now considering it under a rule that does not
allow for amendments. By limiting the ability of my Members to weigh in
on the CBP Authorization provisions, even if only on the House floor,
we are denied the opportunity to address changes that the Ways and
Means Committee made to the text.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I support authorizing U.S. Customs and Border
Protection but am deeply disappointed that the fate of this non-
controversial legislation, which was overwhelmingly approved by the
113th Congress on suspension, is now tied to controversial measures
that the President may well veto. This, Mr. Speaker, is no way to
legislate.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
[[Page H4236]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on the question on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of
the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217,
nays 212, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 359]
YEAS--217
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boehner
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gibbs
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Larsen (WA)
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--212
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blum
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buck
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fleming
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibson
Gohmert
Gosar
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Harris
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Labrador
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Palmer
Pascrell
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Yoho
NOT VOTING--5
Amodei
Clawson (FL)
Gowdy
Himes
Thompson (CA)
{time} 1650
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi and Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. WALORSKI, Messrs. WITTMAN, BLUMENAUER, DELANEY, and ROHRABACHER
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________