[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 98 (Thursday, June 18, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4497-H4507]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2146,
DEFENDING PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ACT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 321 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 321
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
2146) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
Federal law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air
traffic controllers to make penalty-free withdrawals from
governmental plans after age 50, and for other purposes, 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 with
the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. 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 or demand for division of the question.
Point of Order
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a
point of order against consideration of the rule, House Resolution 321.
Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules
Committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 425 of
that same Act.
House Resolution 321 states that it ``shall be in order . . . to
consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a
motion . . . that the House concur in the Senate amendment with the
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
the resolution.''
Therefore, I make a point of order pursuant to section 426 that this
resolution may not be considered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentlewoman from New
York makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the
gentlewoman from New York and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate,
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means
of disposing of the point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to take a
moment, if I may, to mourn the horrific loss of life in Charleston,
South Carolina.
Places of worship used to be places of sanctuary, but there are no
more sanctuaries in the United States from gun violence. Whether it is
an elementary school, a college, a hospital--anywhere in the world--gun
violence is there among us. We want to all give our condolences to our
colleague Jim Clyburn, who represents that area in Charleston.
I have a personal interest in it as a very good friend of mine, who
had been pastor of Baber AME Church for decades in Rochester, left us
to go to pastor that church and is still an elder there. So our hearts
go out to all of them for all of the grief. We hope that we will see
brighter days when people can go to a sanctuary place of worship in
peace.
Now to the matter before Congress today, Mr. Speaker, our Chamber and
our Nation are off balance. There is something drastically wrong when
Members of the people's House are asked to vote on greasing the skids
for a trade deal they are discouraged from reading and, even if they do
read, cannot discuss with their constituents, the people who sent them
here.
That is what we are being asked to do today regarding a massive trade
deal: abdicate our authority by approving fast track and to give the
simple vote of ``yea'' or ``nay'' on an issue that is not simple at
all. In fact, it could not be more complex or more far-reaching. Unlike
the Senate action on this measure, Members of the House were totally
unable to have any amendment or very much discussion of what is going
on here.
Mr. Speaker, fast track is an anachronism that needs to die. There is
no longer any need for it at all. It came as a matter of convenience in
the seventies when the United States was the biggest manufacturer on
the face of the Earth and when we were pretty sure we always would be.
So it was decided by the powers that were in place then that the
Congress would just hand it over to the administration to go ahead and
negotiate whole trade agreements despite the fact that the Constitution
of the United States gives us that power. We allowed the administration
to do it. One committee, Ways and Means, got to see it. There was no
amendment, and the only vote we can take on a trade bill is ``yea'' or
``nay.''
Mr. Speaker, it is not just we who are forbidden, basically, to see
what is in this bill and to talk about it. It is also the countries of
Australia and New Zealand. Let me read from a report on that.
[[Page H4498]]
They are very much concerned there with the fact that this TPP--what
they had found leaked out, that what PhRMA is doing here is to extend
all of their patents for 12 years so that they can not only raise those
prices here in this country but for all of those countries involved in
the trade agreement.
Jane Kelsey, who is on the faculty of law of the University of
Auckland, described what was happening here as one of the most
controversial parts--that is, the pharmaceutical part--because the U.S.
pharmaceutical industry used a trade agreement to target New Zealand's
Pharmaceutical Management Agency, PHARMAC, which is their health
system.
This transparency act will erode the process and decisions of
agencies that decide which medicines and medical devices to subsidize
with public money and by how much. The leaked test shows that TPP will
severely erode PHARMAC's ability to continue to deliver affordable
medicines and medical devices as it has for two decades.
The parliamentarians in Australia and New Zealand are under the same
restriction as we are, only theirs is even worse. A member of that
Parliament who goes to read the trade agreement has to sign a paper
that he will not discuss it for 4 years.
I make this point because two of the great democracies on this
planet--the United States of America and Australia--have given over the
right of the people's elected Representatives to know what is in these
trade deals that will have such devastating effects on all of the
people they represent. How in the world can this continue, and how can
we let it go on?
If we don't do anything in this Congress--and we may not--I would
really like to see us do away with the whole idea of fast track. We
can't afford it any longer. At least I am sure, when it began, there
was no problem with certain corporations deciding that they were going
to make the main decisions as we have had made known by leaks here. I
have not gone to read the bill. I do not want to be hamstrung by
anything that I can discuss and concerns that I have with the people
whom I serve. This is one of many reasons, I think, this trade bill is
bad.
Let me say I have a few more here that I would like to go over, and I
need to make sure that everybody understands this. When you vote for
TPA today, you are voting for things that were in that Customs bill.
Again, hardly any of us knew anything about it.
Let me just tell you what they are:
Preventing action on climate change. This is going to be written in
this bill. Nobody anywhere can even bring up climate change. It is a
great step backward, and they managed to get this in, and the Pope is
in sync, too. That is very interesting.
Secondly and most grievous to many of us who have worked so hard on
human trafficking, including Members on both sides of this House with
whom I have worked, it weakens the language on human trafficking. They
had to do that because the nation with the worst standards on human
rights and human trafficking is Malaysia, which is one of the countries
with whom we want to be allied.
Third, they ignore currency manipulation, which we have been told for
a decade or more is one of the most serious acts against the United
States from countries that trade with us, which is changing their
currency. As one of my colleagues has pointed out, Mrs. Dingell, one
automobile company made more money from its trade manipulation than it
did by selling its cars. We don't want to expand that. We don't want
that to go on.
There is also a strong anti-immigration provision that we are being
asked to vote on today, and we won't do that--giving up our rights as
the elected Representatives of the people of the United States. It says
that trade agreements do nothing to address the immigration. They may
not.
Then Democratic priorities, such as ensuring that Dodd-Frank would
not be affected by the trade agreement, because we have heard that
financial services is very heavily involved here, were rejected in the
Senate and were not included in this bill. We are very much concerned
about that.
We are very much concerned about where we are going, but the fast-
track deal will be an absolute rubber stamp to disaster.
As I mentioned before, it has been negotiated in a cloud of secrecy
by multinational conglomerates and the financial services industry and
pharmaceutical companies that have one priority, and that is the bottom
line. What we know, again, is all we have heard from leaks. Not a lot
has made its way to the light of day, but what has has been appalling,
and it does certainly give anyone who wants to vote pause to think
about what that vote means before he gives it, because we don't know
what is in that bill.
One of the things that some of us are very much concerned about is
food safety and prescription drugs, the erosion of environmental
protections, and the degradation of the financial sector. This deal is
headed down the wrong path. Not only would the TPP certainly ship good-
paying American jobs overseas, but it would endanger the food on our
tables by weakening the safety standards. Ninety percent of the seafood
consumed in America is imported, but only 1 to 2 percent is inspected,
much of it from countries with little controls on sanitation and water
quality that American consumers expect.
One of the biggest threats comes from shrimp imported from Vietnam, a
TPP partner. The dangerous bacteria in Vietnamese shrimp is really
ubiquitous and has included shrimp contaminated with MRSA, which is
fatal, and drug-resistant salmonella. What is more, the TPP report
includes due deferential preference to rules negotiated by drug
companies extending their patents, as I have said, in an unfair way for
12 years. They are rigging the system in a way that would make it
harder for people in TPP countries to have access to life-saving drugs.
Now, we have got a history to warn us about this. This thing has been
modeled after NAFTA, which cost us over 5 million jobs. My part of the
country is just now recovering from NAFTA a little bit, and we don't
want to see this happen again. All over this country, there are
factories that are closed and cities that are gone--places where there,
literally, is no work.
Even doing TAA, which is very important to us, would be training
people for jobs, in most cases, that don't even exist; but this has
been hidden away from the American people and certainly has been hidden
away from the Congress, the people who represent them. It is causing a
stir all the way around the world. As I pointed out, other countries
are looking at this with great interest.
Let's follow what our minority leader said last week. Let's put this
thing to rest and negotiate openly a trade agreement that we can be
proud of. We all believe in trade. Everybody talks about free trade. I
want to change that now to fair trade that will be enforceable and that
will benefit everybody involved.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 0930
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the point of
order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise with a sad heart regarding
the occurrences and the things which happened in South Carolina last
night. I know, I join the gentlewoman as well as all the Members of
this body to express our condolences and our sorrow with the things
that have happened. I know that later in the day we will take time to
offer those formally by the members of the South Carolina delegation.
Mr. Speaker, the question before us is, should the House now consider
House Resolution 321. That is what we are here for. While the
resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the
motion to concur with the amendment, the committee is not aware of any
violations of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This is simply a
dilatory tactic that the gentlewoman wants to use to talk further about
the issue at hand. I get that.
We have spent weeks talking about this. The United States Senate
spent weeks talking about this issue. The gentlewoman wanted to use her
time to talk about all the things that she believes are wrong with the
bill, and that is okay. That really doesn't bother me.
[[Page H4499]]
But the bottom line to the entire matter is that we are using our
responsibility under the Constitution for the Congress of the United
States to establish the laws and to direct the President of the United
States that we believe is very constitutional to say to the President
of the United States, we want you to go engage the world in a trade
deal, and we are going to tell you the parameters, some 160 different
parameters about how we believe you should engage the foreign countries
in these trade deals.
The gentlewoman is right, there are some difficult piece parts in
there, as the gentlewoman mentions about immigration. Yes, I made sure
that was in there because I don't believe this should be about
immigration or visas. I believe this should be about trade. And, yes,
there is language that is in there about climate change because I don't
believe this should be about the United States in a political
circumstance trying to push our ideas on a trade deal about global
warming or these considerations that might be related to that issue.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is right, there are piece parts of this
agreement, the trade promotion authority, that not everybody likes, but
let's not act like you didn't have an opportunity to read the bill or
understand the bill. But much like any contract--and that is what we
are engaging here in. We are engaging in saying to the President, we
want you to go sign a contract, an agreement with these foreign
countries that are in the Far East who have not only large populations,
but growing economic circumstances to buy our products, and us to make
sure that we lower tariffs or taxes on those products to where they are
available to us.
Yes, we understand currency manipulation is a problem, and primarily
that is a problem with perhaps two countries. Neither of those
countries do we have a free trade agreement with, and one of them we
want to have a free trade agreement with. Another country simply, I
don't believe, understands rule of law or intellectual property, and I
think they are thugs and don't care. They are a country that steals
openly hundreds of billions of dollars from the United States, and they
do not respect any rule of law or international agreements. So we
probably won't sign an agreement with them.
But this is a good deal. It is a good deal. The last 10, 20 countries
that America has had a trade agreement with, we have a $10 billion
surplus with those countries because those countries want American
products, because the American worker does a great job, and we have the
best engineering and manufacturing and pricing, but the product is
worthy in the world market and will sell.
The State of Texas, which I am from, sells $289 billion of Texas-made
products overseas every year. That is an example of how important trade
is.
This trade deal contract that we are wanting to empower the
President--whoever that may be for the next 7 years--is to say let's go
cut a deal that is good to that country and to America. In the process,
Mr. Speaker, we added some language for those of our friends that are
watching along with you, Mr. Speaker, as I address my comments to you.
Section 8, subsection A on page 101 says:
United States law to prevail in event of conflict.
Mr. Speaker, it lays it out right here:
No provision of any trade agreement entered into under
section 3(b) nor the application of any such provision to any
person or circumstance that is inconsistent with any law of
the United States, any State of the United States, or any
locality in the United States shall have effect.
Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to suggest to you is, there are a lot
of things about this bill; some that some people like, some things that
others don't like. But we had a chance to read it; we had a chance to
understand it. This is a contract that we have not even agreed to yet.
Why would someone go and publicly talk about a deal that they haven't
made?
So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that what is happening right now is that
we should say that this point of order should not prevail. I think that
what we should do is move to the direct discussion that we are going to
have to allow the House to continue its business, and I urge Members to
vote ``yes'' on the question under consideration.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. DOGGETT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas will state his
inquiry.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, my inquiry: In the underlying bill, is
there anything to prevent taxpayers from having to pay out hundreds of
millions of dollars for the privilege of enforcing the very laws that
the gentleman from Texas says this agreement would preserve, any local
ordinance, any State agreement like happened in Canada recently, that
the taxpayers end up having to pay the bill for simply enforcing
existing law?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I reserve the balance of my
time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York will state her
parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I need to inquire from you, if my colleague was
reading from the trade bill, what he had read and is forbidden to speak
about. It is classified, you know. Did he reveal classified
information?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend. The
gentlewoman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry. Now, if the
gentlewoman has a parliamentary inquiry, please state it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. My concern is that he is reading from a classified
document. I need to know if that is the case.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Section 8 of the TPA. I did not say TPP.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we have pretty well beaten this dead donkey to
its point. Its logical conclusion is we now move forward. I urge a
``yes'' vote on the question of consideration of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), my friend, 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.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I believe that our comments this morning
should be tempered with a reminder about the events of South Carolina
and how much this body and its Members offer their prayers and
consideration not only of our colleagues but all the people of South
Carolina, the men and women, law enforcement, and people of faith all
across this country. I want to, once again, express my consideration of
those ideas.
Mr. Speaker, before I go through my opening statement, I yield 2
minutes to the gentlewoman from Irvine, California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).
Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we have spent considerable time debating the merits of
TPA in this body. I want to bring us back to the fundamentals of this
debate. I want to talk about why trade is so important to our economy,
why trade is a conservative cause, and why trade is so vital to our
Nation. Simply put, free trade empowers the individual to make
decisions in his or her best interest without undue government
influence.
Look around at your house or at your car. Without question, there are
imported products. Free trade allows you, as an individual, to make the
best economic choice for your family. When economic enterprise is free
from unnecessary government interference and all enterprise is treated
equally, the most competitive actors will rise to the top.
[[Page H4500]]
That means higher quality products and lower prices, which translates
to improved standards of living and economic growth.
Opponents of free trade will say we need protectionist measures to
maintain certain industries, but that is a flawed argument.
Protectionist measures may benefit a few in select industries, but
ultimately protectionism is more harmful to the Nation's economic
health. Protected industries become inefficient. Consumers are denied
choice, and American businesses face retaliatory trade measures
overseas. Bottom line, protectionism is an abandonment of the free
market in favor of government intervention.
I believe that when American businesses and entrepreneurs are placed
on an equal playing field, when we eliminate tariffs and protectionist
barriers at home and abroad, American businesses can compete and win
against any of their foreign competitors. The famed economist Milton
Friedman said: Free trade ultimately forces competitors to put up or
shut up.
Mr. Speaker, let us set the table for free trade. Let us pass TPA. I
know American businesses will put up.
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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who has been so effective on this bill.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this fast-
track bill, which is only made worse by a gimmick of it being attached
to unrelated legislation designed to help Federal public safety
professionals. I might add, as has already been mentioned, the general
president of the International Association of Firefighters, which this
rule addresses as well, has said: We urge you to oppose this rule.
For 20 years, our Nation's trade policy has been failing American
workers and the businesses that want to invest in this country. It has
driven away jobs, pushed down wages, and exacerbated inequality. A vote
for fast track is a vote to continue that bad trade policy for another
generation because if we approve fast track today, we rubberstamp the
Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership asks American workers to compete with
labor in developing countries like Vietnam, where the minimum wage is
56 cents an hour. It does nothing to combat the biggest source of lost
jobs--currency manipulation--which The Economist's Fred Burcksen has
said has cost us in the United States up to 5 million jobs. People lost
their jobs and lost their livelihoods. It allows thousands of foreign
corporations to challenge U.S. laws on food safety, drug safety,
environmental protection, health care, labor rights, the minimum wage,
and, indeed, any domestic law on any subject.
{time} 0945
The gentleman on the other side of the aisle said that that is not
the case. Just witness what happened last week when the majority in
this body voted to repeal country of origin labeling so that we know
where our meat, our poultry, and our pork comes from because the World
Trade Organization and Canada and Mexico ruled against us. So we are
going to give up our domestic law.
This is a trade agreement that has been crafted by lobbyists for the
special interests and industries that stand to gain the most by
weakening U.S. regulation and shipping jobs overseas, yet the
administration has shown absolutely no interest in improving this deal
or even listening to our concerns. That means that when the Trans-
Pacific Partnership comes to this House, we need the ability to amend
it. At the very least, it must include sanctions against currency
manipulation, enforceable labor, environmental standards, and include a
transparent process.
If we vote for fast track today, we throw away our ability to make
any of those amendments, and we turn our backs on our commitment to
American workers: to their jobs, to their families, and to their
economic security.
We must make this a vote, and this vote must be a turning point so
that at long last the American public can say that those of us in this
House opposing fast track demand policies.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. DeLAURO. The vote last Friday and today's vote are critical in
letting the American public know where we stand and that, in fact, we
prioritize their economic security, their jobs, their increased wages
and that we are opposed to special interests. And that is what this
Trans-Pacific Partnership is all about.
We must reject this bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of confusion down here. Everybody thinks
we are now talking about ObamaCare, and we are not.
The gentlewoman talked about diminishing wages, diminishing job
opportunities for the future, diminishing opportunities for American
workers to have higher wages. There is no bill that I have ever seen
that diminished wages or people's opportunity to work the hours that
they would like to work more than ObamaCare. But we are not debating
that today.
Mr. Speaker, we are here--and I want to be clear--about trade
promotion authority, TPA--not TPP, not any of the other bills. We are
here for TPA today, exactly the same bill that this House passed last
week. That is what we are here for.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Sunnyside, Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the underlying trade
promotion authority bill.
Look at my State of Washington. We have jobs, economic growth, and
increased exports because of trade. Those benefits and the example of
that can be applied to our entire Nation.
By passing TPA, Congress will set priorities to ensure that any
agreement levels the playing field with our trading partners and
creates jobs here at home. Without it, the administration will be
setting those priorities, and we, Congress, will have no say and little
oversight.
In my State, we export coffee, many agricultural products, aircraft,
footwear, and software. We export, fully, 30 percent of our apples, 60
percent of our hops, and over 85 percent of our wheat.
TPA is about instructing our trade negotiators to reduce the trade
barriers that American farmers and manufacturers face so that we can
create and sell openly around the world.
Right now, our American wines face very stiff tariffs in Japan, but
Chilean and Argentinean wines face none. Our beef faces a 38 percent
tariff; oranges, 16 percent. TPA will instruct our trade negotiators to
work on lowering these tariffs.
The reason to vote on TPA and why it is so important is that it will
make the deal public and give the American people several months to
review any negotiated deal. Without passing this, there is no review
period. The deal can stay secret.
Some have objected that their voices have not been heard on this
matter, but for months, the House Ways and Means Committee and the
Rules Committee have considered dozens of amendments to three different
trade-related bills. There has been ample time for debate.
Mr. Speaker, this rule and the underlying bill are critical to our
economy. Without it, our country will continue to face enormous
barriers; but with it, we can grow our businesses, create more jobs,
and ensure the American economy remains the most competitive and
strongest in the world for decades to come.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The administration seems to think the Democrats and
the coalition that is opposing the TPP would reject any trade deal. We
are called protectionists. We are called unreasonable. But that is not
true. Rather than these fancy parliamentary manipulations, we should
take the time now to fix it.
[[Page H4501]]
Some of the most odious positions that we know that are in the TPP
which this fast track will speed us to are U.S. negotiating positions.
Our trading partners are not clamoring for the extrajudicial investor
dispute resolution authority, allowing huge corporations to challenge
their hard-fought consumer protections, worker and environmental laws,
et cetera. These are our negotiating positions. We could drop them and
that would be welcomed abroad among our trading partners.
Countries want the opportunity and the right to protect their food
supplies--and that includes us. Decrease smoking; promote Buy America;
increase the minimum wage; control the cost of drugs; protect our
environment. We could reset the balance of the intellectual property
rights and access to lifesaving, affordable medicines by rewriting the
pharmaceutical chapter, which I did look at.
More than a trade bill, this establishes a new regulatory regime that
favors the wealthiest and the most powerful corporations. We could
change that.
These votes we are taking today are not the end of the track. It is
beginning the track to a new negotiation. It is the beginning of an
opportunity for us to sit down and make sure that we get the best for
workers, consumers, and our trading partners, and that we benefit our
economy not just for the very few at the top that can go to some
extrajudicial court and challenge our regulations, but for everyone.
This is a bill that we can make better.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman knows that in the TPA agreement there is
an agreement that she can go and attend every single round of the
discussions and negotiation, by law. She can be right there. She can
watch it as it happens. We can be engaged in this, as Members of
Congress, the entire way. That is what this agreement is about. This is
about TPA, not TPP.
The fear factor, Mr. Speaker, is incredible. Let's go and do the
right thing for the American worker and our future. That is what we are
doing now.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Raleigh, North
Carolina (Mr. Holding), from the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, my good
friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding.
Here we go again, Mr. Speaker, debating what should be the United
States' future role in the global economy.
We have heard a lot over the past few months about the economic
benefits associated with free and fair trade, but trade is just as
important to our Nation's foreign policy as it is to our bottom line.
There is no question that trade is an important, strategic soft-power
tool.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think for one second China isn't watching this
very debate right now, waiting to see how serious we, the Congress, are
about America's economic future and commitment to retaining our
position of global leadership. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would venture to
guess they have been focused on what a deal like the TPP would mean for
their sitting and future ambitions in the Asia Pacific region for a
long time now.
The United States can either be in a position where we can write the
rules for the future trade agreements and develop closer bilateral ties
with our negotiating partners, or we can sit on the sidelines.
Passing TPA is about expanding our influence in a critical region of
the world with the TPP and solidifying our alliances with our partners
in Europe with the TTIP. Failing to pass TPA, I fear, will confirm many
of our allies' own fears that America is in retreat from the global
stage.
But we can send a strong signal today, Mr. Speaker, that while our
Nation's foreign policy has recently been adrift, the House of
Representatives--and the United States--supports closer economic ties
with our partners and wants to see an America that is engaged on the
world stage.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this rule and support for the TPA
legislation later today.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. It is such a danger,
Mr. Speaker, that the majority is trying to move through the back door
what it could not get through the front door on the floor of this House
last week. And they are doing it in the most shameful way, Mr. Speaker:
hiding behind our first responders. That is right; hiding behind
firefighters and emergency personnel.
The International Association of Firefighters, representing more than
300,000 firefighters and emergency room personnel, oppose what is being
done here today on this floor, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
There is one thing that I agree with the gentleman from Texas about.
This is a donkey that died last week when we stood up for American
workers, small businesses, and American jobs. And right now that donkey
is like roadkill, and we are going to kill it right here on the floor
of this House of Representatives.
We know that this body can pass legislation that in fact is not just
about free trade, but is about free trade--and they are not doing it
today--protecting our workers, protecting our climate, protecting our
Buy America provisions for our procurement.
And so, Mr. Speaker, even as we are just getting word of the Pope's
encyclical on climate change and overwhelmingly recognizing the human
cost to us all, we have a letter from our U.S. Trade Representative,
Michael Froman, saying that this deal doesn't do anything to deal with
the authority of the administration to negotiate climate change. That,
in fact, is shameful. And what we are doing here today is against
American workers, against American businesses, and against American
jobs.
It is time to kill this donkey once and for all by putting it to rest
and coming back to the table to reset for the American workers.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Butler, Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), one of the most exciting new Members
of Congress from the Ways and Means Committee. I have visited and
watched this young man as he not only ably represents a proud group of
people, but is a strong American.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in this House, we have a duty to legislate based on
truth, not fiction. We cannot afford to be uneducated, uninformed, or
untruthful when it comes to PTA. Maybe the problem is we labeled it
wrong. Maybe we should have called it ``Congressional Trade Authority
Oversight.'' Maybe that is what we should have called it.
There is a great misunderstanding--and I hope it is a
misunderstanding--about what this does for us. There is no way America
can compete in the global economy without strong trade agreements. When
Congress sets the parameters and very carefully constructs what the
agreement has to contain, there is no mystery, there is no bogeyman,
there is nobody hiding under the bed, there is nobody hiding in the
closet. You don't have to have a secret decoder ring. You don't have to
have some magical knock at the door to read all these different items.
It is there for you to look at.
For crying out loud, will you stop pushing a false narrative if it is
about growing our economy? The only way we can grow is protecting what
we have and then going into the global economy and increasing our
market penetration. It is that simple.
If you want America to grow, then you must allow America to grow. And
you must allow America to lead, because when America leads, America
wins. And when America wins, the rest of the world wins. It is just
that simple.
Why in the world fast track? It is not fast track. If you want to
call it slow track, that is fine, because you are going to have 60 days
to read it. That is pretty slow, at least around here. You want to call
it smart track? That is what it is. It is smart track. It is safe
track, and it is sure track. The other thing, it puts America back on
the track to economic prosperity.
Pass TPA today and put America back on the track to protect American
jobs. Allow the economy to grow, and allow our workers not just to
produce
[[Page H4502]]
and distribute products at home, but around the world. That is how we
win, and that is how the people who depend on us win. When America is
strong, America leads.
{time} 1000
When we are not strong, we create a vacuum at the top of the world
that is going to be filled with bad actors.
Please stop using a false narrative. If you are not informed, get
informed; if you are not educated, get educated, but for God's sake,
don't be untruthful.
I urge passage of the TPA.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for
the time.
Members, what I really dislike about this whole debate is that there
is so much invective thrown around, claims of untruth.
Now, here is the truth. The reality is that, if we pass trade
promotion authority, we will have nothing more than an up-or-down vote
at the end of the process. They don't have to take our amendments. They
don't have to listen to what we say. Very likely, what will happen is
that whatever has been negotiated already will be what the deal is.
For some Members to try to claim that others don't get it or they are
not being honest is, quite frankly, insulting and does not add one
thing to the quality of the debate.
The American people deserve to know that if trade promotion authority
passes, there is a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote that will happen at the end
of the process, and nobody here will be able to impact it through the
normal course of events. We can go to some meetings; we can write some
letters; but can we actually legislate? No.
Now, the reason that this is a very bad outcome is because the United
States Constitution delegates Congress, this body, with the power to
regulate commerce with foreign nations. It says: ``Congress shall have
power . . . to regulate commerce with foreign nations.''
What we are doing here is taking that constitutional authority and we
are handing it to the Executive and hoping for the best.
Now, the people who have been negotiating the Trans-Pacific
Partnership all along are a body of about 600 multinational lawyers and
businesspeople. The voice of the workers haven't been there. The voice
of the environment has not been there. The voice of ordinary citizens
who have every reason to want a better world and impact this process
have been muted in favor of big multinational corporate types. We must
vote ``no'' on TPA today.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee and an awesome free trader.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules
Committee for giving me time.
Let's set the facts straight here. Liberal union leaders, radical
environmentalists, some of our friends on the other side have been
relentless in pushing misinformation to confuse and distract the
American people. It undermines the confidence that the American people
have in this body, the people's House.
Let's look at the facts. TPA, trade promotion authority, it is not a
trade agreement. It is the process by which we get the best possible
trade agreement, the best possible agreement on behalf of the American
worker and the American farmer.
This is Congress asserting its constitutional authority by setting
the priorities for our negotiators. We are robustly involved in the
negotiation process, and this TPA version is even better than previous
ones because it empowers all Members of Congress, not just the Ways and
Means Committee or the Senate Finance Committee.
TPA has been public. It has been public for months for anybody and
everybody who wants to read it. Just go to congress.gov. It is not
secret.
They are trying to deliberately confuse TPA, trade promotion
authority, with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a trade
negotiation underway and not completed yet. We want a strong TPP--
Trans-Pacific Partnership--agreement for the American workers and for
farmers. We won't get that without TPA.
TPA puts a strong check on the President, placing the Congress in the
driver's seat with 150 negotiating objectives that must be addressed or
else the final agreement won't be brought up for a vote. We will kill
it. We have the power, not the President.
It contains strong protections against the President from putting in
any new immigration authority in violation of American law. It prevents
the President from subverting U.S. sovereignty and all these urban
myths that are out there.
Frankly, the misinformation is disturbing, and it undermines the
trust of this body. We have to put the facts on the table for the
American people. This has been supported by a wide number of groups--
business groups, conservatives, many other groups.
If you support transparency, if you support placing a check on the
President, if you support robust oversight, and if you support getting
the best deal for the American worker, knocking down barriers--whether
they are tariff or nontariff barriers in these other countries--to give
the American worker a break, open markets, then you support TPA.
TPA is a catalyst for economic growth. It opens the door for a robust
trade agenda for the United States.
We created the global trading system after 1945. Are we going to walk
away from it? We only have 20 agreements--with 20 countries, that is,
free trade agreements. These are important agreements. Other countries
have 40, 50, hundreds of them.
Why are we sitting on the sidelines? We have been sitting on the
sidelines for decades. It is time for American leadership. We can't
walk away from the trading system we created. Our partners around the
world want us engaged.
This is the catalyst for American leadership. This is an important
part of our national strategy and an important part of our foreign
policy.
You want a strategy? You want economic growth? You want fairness for
the American worker? Support TPA as a catalyst for growth and
leadership.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
I am not going to go into the exact same debate we had 1 week ago
because the facts are still the same. If we pass fast track authority,
the facts are identical around the fact we will lose jobs here in this
country and we will depress our wages here in this country. We will
lose our sovereignty and control over our laws, and we will have
problems with everything from food safety to intellectual property
rights and so many other laws.
What is different about this week from last week is this is not the
same trade promotion authority. This trade promotion authority will
take away American jobs, but it lacks the trade authority that gives us
the assistance and the dollars to help those people find other jobs.
This includes all of the amendments that affect us from taking away
the provisions the Senate put in around currency manipulation, take
away the amendments around human trafficking, and specifically say that
we cannot address climate change in these trade negotiations.
Now, that alone is an issue that I want clarity from the White House
on. I have been in and looked at the language, and I will not talk
about classified language on the floor, but the amendment
specifically--we need clarity about where we are on climate change in
this agreement.
This is not the same TPA. It will cost jobs. It will lower our wages.
It will not provide any protections for those workers who lose their
jobs because of this. Now, because of last week's actions, the bill
before us is a far, far worse bill.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues, let's let the American
people have a say. The only way they will is if Congress retains our
authority to amend and debate this bill. If we give that away, it is
our own fault today.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H4503]]
Once again, I have to remind my colleagues we have got to follow some
understanding about what we are trying to do here. This is TPA.
TAA was up last week, and my colleagues that are Democrats turned
down the same things they are now talking about were provisions to
protect the American worker. The Democrat Party voted against the
American worker last week.
They are the ones that turned down exactly what the gentleman is
talking about needs to be a part of this deal. The Democrat Party
turned their back on the American worker. That was last week.
This week, now, they are trying to talk about things that are in TPP.
Mr. Speaker, we are not here today for TPP. We are here today for trade
promotion authority. That is it, TPA.
The gentleman, Mr. Kelly, was very right to say let's talk about the
real facts of the case and the truth. This is about TPA. It is exactly
the same bill that was here last week.
There were other considerations last week. The Democrat Party turned
their back last week on the worker. We are not trying to do that
today--trade promotion authority.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Small Business
Committee.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support the
rule, and I think every Member of this body, on both sides of the
aisle, have something in common. We all have small businesses in our
district and probably a lot of them.
One of the privileges we have, as Members of Congress, is to talk to
those people and find out what is important to them. What is important
to them is important to the country because about 70 percent of the new
jobs that are created in the American economy nowadays are created by
small businesses.
In thinking about what I would say about TPA here this morning, I
thought, rather than just tell people what I thought about it, I
thought I would bring some examples of some of those folks that we have
talked to.
As Chair of the Small Business Committee, I get to talk to small
businesses all across the country. Here are some examples of what they
are telling us.
Here is Michael Stanek of Hunt Imaging in Berea, Ohio. He said:
Free trade agreements are extremely important as they lower
foreign barriers to our exports and produce a more level
playing field.
Without TPA, the U.S. is relegated to the sidelines as
other nations negotiate trade agreements without us, putting
American workers and companies, especially small ones, at a
competitive disadvantage.
Here is Dyke Messinger of Power Curbers in Salisbury, North Carolina:
Passage of TPA, which lapsed back in 2007, is critical to
restore U.S. leadership on trade.
Manufacturers in the U.S. face steeper trade barriers
abroad than virtually any other major country, including
Mexico and China and European countries, largely because
those countries have entered into more market access
agreements than the United States. Trade and foreign markets
are critical for small businesses like Power Curbers.
Here is Kevin Severns of Severns Farm in Sanger, California.
Without TPA, critical negotiations with some of our key
export markets may well stall. My understanding is that, on
average, U.S. citrus exports to countries included in the
Trans-Pacific Partnership can currently face tariffs as high
as 40 percent.
That is tariffs at 40 percent.
Given that 35 percent of California's citrus crop is
exported around the world, access to these markets is vital
to us.
Here is Brian Bieron of eBay, which helps many small businesses sell
their products abroad. He said:
Through our experience, we have found that technology is
transforming trade by allowing Main Street businesses to
directly take part in globalization, reaping the benefits of
markets previously only open to the largest global companies.
This is good economics because it means more growth and
wealth, and it is good for society because it means a more
inclusive form of globalization.
That is what people from around this country--small-business men,
small-business women--are saying about TPA and TPP and trade. In
effect, they are saying, if we want to grow the American economy and
create jobs, which I think we all want to do, we must be proactive on
trade, and that means passing TPA and then TPP.
Better trade agreements mean small businesses will be able to access
new international customers and offer their products more easily and at
a lower cost than ever before.
It means that more products will be built and sold. When that
happens, jobs are created, wages go up, and more opportunity is
available to all.
You put an American worker against anyone in the world, and I will
take that bet every day of the week and twice on Sunday; but we can't
get there without TPA.
Without TPA, other nations, especially China, will dictate the rules
of the new economy, nations that do not respect the rule of law or the
rights of individuals in many cases, especially in the case of China.
Ninety-six percent of the people that are on this globe that we all
share live outside the borders of the United States. Many of the
world's consumers are not here. We want to sell our products overseas,
and TPA gets us on the right track.
{time} 1015
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the ranking member, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding.
I wish to say that if the underlying Trans-Pacific Partnership were
such a good deal, then why is the Rules Committee limiting our ability
to read it and vet it fully and amend it?
By voting for the trade promotion authority, what we basically do is
handcuff Members of Congress. So we should vote ``no.''
Why should we believe anything the executive branch sends up here? We
have a right to read it fully and vet it fully.
Let's look at the history of these trade agreements. Over the last 25
years, every time we have signed a so-called free trade agreement that
benefits the 1 percent--not the 99 percent--America has lost more jobs.
Post-NAFTA, look what happened. We used to have trade balances with
these countries. They have all gone into trade deficit, which means
they send us more goods than we are able to get into their markets.
Here is what happened after the WTO. Then we got into the China PNTR
deal. Then the Colombia deal. Then with Korea.
There hasn't been a balanced trade account in this country for 30
years; 40 million lost jobs; $9.5 trillion of trade deficit, trading
away one-fifth of our economic might to other places.
And what did the American people get? Lost jobs, outsourced jobs,
stagnant wages. The average income in regions like mine--$7,000 less a
year than 25 years ago. Not a good deal.
You can't create jobs in America and have free trade when you have
closed markets abroad. Japan is closed. Korea is closed. China is
closed. Europe limits 10 percent imports. We don't. We have an open
market.
You can't create jobs and have free trade when you try to trade with
countries where their people have no rights, no legal rights.
This Congress should vote ``no'' on this Trans-Pacific Partnership,
the underlying bill, and the trade promotion authority because we have
a right to read the agreement and openly debate it.
Right now we have to go down to a secret room. We have people who
monitor us. And we can't even talk to the American people about what is
in it. What is free about that?
The executive branch has totally overreached its power. Only four
titles of the dozen in this TPP are actually about tariffs.
This bill is a treaty. It should be considered as a treaty, openly
read by the Senate, and it should be able to be amended and fully
vetted. This is so important. When you have gone through a quarter
century of job loss and income loss by the American people, why can't
we produce a bill that benefits the 100 percent--not just the 1
percent, the ones that were able to pay the plane tickets to go over to
Asia and help to represent very important transnational interests? But
there are not just the interests of those companies. We have to
represent the interests of the American people.
Let's balance these trade accounts and develop a new trade model--not
a NAFTA-based trade model, but a model that produces jobs in America,
good
[[Page H4504]]
wages, and balanced trade accounts for the first time in a quarter
century.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. We forgot to make sure
everybody knew: we are only doing TPA today. We are not doing TPP. We
are not doing these other agreements. I am sorry. I forgot to say that
for the 57th time.
Where we cut deals, we win. With the 20 trade agreements America has,
we had a $10 billion surplus last year alone.
I don't know where all these people are getting off and scaring and
making fear statements about the American worker. I don't get it, when
they talk about us not passing TAA when they are the ones--the Democrat
Party--that turned it down. I don't understand why they are beating us
up for putting in provisions about immigration. I guess they want to
flood our workforce with foreign workers. I don't get where the
Democrat Party and its great stalwarts are coming from today. This is
about TPA, and that is what we are going to vote on.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear, the Members on this side of the aisle--
the Democratic Party Members on this side of the aisle--completely
understand what we are debating today. We know we are debating the rule
on TPA, the same TPA which has been modified. As the gentleman has
said, we are not debating TPP.
The problem we have is, the trade promotion authority is intended to
be the method by which this body, this Congress creates the parameters
for negotiation of trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. And the reason that this has been difficult, this House
and the Republican leadership, in particular, is trying to create a TPA
that accommodates the already negotiated TPP.
So while it is a good rhetorical argument to say we are not debating
TPP, the fact of the matter is, the reason that there has been such a
lack of willingness to consider any modification, any amendments to the
TPA bill is because any change would not align with the already
negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The reason, for example, that a bipartisan amendment that I and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Clawson) offered--with equal numbers of
Democrats and Republicans, 22 of us--to deal with currency manipulation
was not made in order is because it would not align with the already
negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Most everybody agrees that it would be good policy, but this deal is
already written. And now we are trying to back in a TPA bill that it
will accommodate the TPP.
So it is rather difficult for me to accept the argument that this TPA
question has nothing to do with the Trans-Pacific Partnership when
everybody in this House of Representatives knows that it has everything
to do with it.
The other thing that is important for us to keep in mind is that this
is a worse piece of legislation than the bad one that came before the
House last week. Because of the modifications to TPA that came through
in the customs bill, as my colleagues have said, despite the fact that
many on the other side have argued that our attempts to deal with
climate change here in the U.S. alone will not be affected because it
is not a global approach, when we have an opportunity to take a broader
approach, representing 40 percent of the global economy and deal with
climate change, we now have an absolute prohibition, a gag order where
we can't talk about climate in the greatest opportunity we would have
to deal with climate change; nor can we have even a weak provision
regarding currency, which has been excised from the TPA. And,
unbelievably, we will actually weaken our ability to deal with bad
actors when it comes to human trafficking.
This is shameful, it ought to be rejected.
Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). The gentlewoman from Ohio will
state her parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to know, if Members vote in favor of the
trade promotion authority currently before us, will Members be allowed
to amend the underlying bill, the TPP?
Could the chairman of the Rules Committee address that, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is engaging in debate and is
not making a parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. KAPTUR. Well, in what form could I ask the question that I could
get a straight answer as to whether Members will be able to amend the
underlying 1,000-page trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific
Partnership?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman may look to the managers for
a specific item of debate.
Ms. KAPTUR. So, in other words, the chairman of the Rules Committee
cannot answer my question? He is my friend. I think it would be
important for Members to know that because it is my understanding that
we are not allowed to amend the agreement if, in fact, TPA passes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is no longer recognized.
The gentlewoman from New York is recognized.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the
underlying bill.
TPA shouldn't stand for ``trade promotion authority''; it should
stand for ``taking prosperity away,'' because that is exactly what it
is going to do for millions of hard-working Americans.
The House failed to advance its proposal less than a week ago, and
today the TPA we are voting on is even worse.
And hiding the vote behind our brave first responders? This is
shameful.
Republican leaders are doing everything they can to jam through a
special interest agenda that will depress wages, exacerbate inequality,
and cost jobs. TPA will take away the constitutional responsibility
that Congress has to strengthen and improve the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. If we approve this measure, we are surrendering our
ability to improve a trade agreement for working families.
We are not voting on TPP, as the chairman said, but we are voting on
TPA, on the rules to govern these negotiations and the process to be
filed. And if we vote for this TPA, we are saying that we are fine
moving forward on a trade agreement that has no enforceable provisions
against currency manipulation; meaning, there are no protections to
stop countries from devaluing their currency, artificially reducing the
price of their goods, and putting American manufacturers and American
jobs at a competitive disadvantage. We are saying, we are fine with a
trade agreement that fails to address the critical issue of climate
change. We are saying that we are fine with entering into a trade
agreement with countries like Brunei, where LGBT individuals can be
stoned to death and women can be flogged in public. We are saying, we
are fine with having a trade agreement that weakens protections against
human trafficking; and we are fine with entering into a trade agreement
with countries like Vietnam, which denies workers even the most basic
collective bargaining rights, while throwing workers' advocates into
prison.
So we are not voting on TPP. We are voting on TPA. But we are setting
the rules for governing the negotiations, and we are removing ourselves
from the process of improving and strengthening this trade agreement.
The House should reject this proposal and stand with hard-working
Americans. We should oppose TPA. We should oppose the rule.
For 30 years, we have had trade policies in this country that have
failed American workers, driving down wages, increasing income
inequality, and, as a result of it, costing jobs. A vote for fast track
is a vote to abandon our responsibility to ensure that trade works for
our country and for American workers.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, to reject the underlying
bill, and to vote ``no'' on TPA.
[[Page H4505]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) will control the time for the minority
side.
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record a letter to
Members of Congress from the general president of the International
Association of Firefighters opposing House Resolution 321 when it
attaches trade promotion authority to H.R. 2146, the Defending Public
Safety Employees' Retirement Act.
International Association
of Fire Fighters,
June 18, 2015.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of more than 300,000
professional fire fighters and emergency medical personnel, I
strongly urge you to oppose H.Res.321 which attaches Trade
Promotion Authority to HR 2146, the Defending Public Safety
Employee's Retirement Act.
The underlying legislation provides an important measure of
retirement security to the federal fighters who protect our
nation's defense installations, VA hospitals and other vital
facilities. It should not be politically exploited and used
in a last ditch, desperate effort to pass TPA.
HR 2146, which simply enables federal fire fighters to
access their own retirement savings once they reach
retirement age, was passed by the House by a vote of 407-5
and adopted unanimously in the Senate with a technical
amendment. This amended legislation deserves to be considered
free of political gamesmanship and procedural tricks.
The IAFF urges you to oppose this rule, and consider HR
2146 without controversial amendments.
Sincerely,
Harold A. Schaitberger,
General President.
Mr. McGOVERN. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, if we vote for trade promotion authority, fast track,
without Trade Adjustment Assistance, if that is how we vote today, that
is what we will get.
The Republican chair of the Rules Committee has made it clear. He has
already used his precious time to start blaming Democratic leadership
for the fact that Trade Adjustment Assistance will not become law.
The fact is that if Trade Adjustment Assistance ever comes before
this House, it will, no doubt, be loaded up by the Republican
leadership with a host of poison pills, making sure that Democrats
cannot vote for it. I can't vote for Trade Adjustment Assistance if you
terminate the Affordable Care Act as part of the bill, for example.
Now the proponents of trade promotion authority have had to misstate
the actual economic facts, the figures on our trade surpluses and
deficits, in order to make their case. They have come again and again
and said, we have a trade surplus with our free trade agreement
partners.
Completely false. I will put into the Record the chart listing each
of our free trade agreement partners, and we are running a $177 billion
deficit in goods. Including services, you are now down to a little over
a $100 billion deficit.
{time} 1030
Now, how is it that Member after Member has come here and said
something demonstrably false? They have been fooled by slippery
charlatans who feed them the following line: Since NAFTA, we have a
surplus with those countries that have a free trade agreement.
``Since NAFTA'' implies since the early 1990s. No, they mean those
agreements we entered into after NAFTA. So they look at our free trade
agreements while ignoring NAFTA. That is like looking at the Cavs and
ignoring LeBron. You can't do that.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at the success and failure of our free trade
agreements, number one is NAFTA. If you include all of our free trade
agreements, including NAFTA, we have a $177 billion goods deficit. And
then if you look at MFN for China, most favored nation status for
China, well, then you are talking $400 billion of deficit. That was not
a free trade agreement. That was an even worse agreement.
This TPP is a gift to China. First, it enshrines the idea that
currency manipulation will be allowed, even encouraged. It sets Chinese
rules for trade in Asia, preserving for them their number one tactic in
running such a huge trade surplus with the United States. It hollows
out American manufacturing, thus endangering our national security. And
the rules of origin provision available for review in the basement will
show you that goods that are 50 and 60 percent made in China, admitted
to be made in China, which means actually 70 or 80 percent really made
in China, come fast-tracked into the United States. China gets the
benefit and doesn't have to make a single concession.
Vote ``no.''
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. First, we were all on the fast track, then the slow
track with postponement into July, and now we are back on rush-hour
scheduling, being told that fast track, which has been mangled in the
meantime with new changes, has to be approved by high noon today.
Railroading this bill through now will deny any opportunity to ensure
that our trade policy gets on the right track. The fast-trackers have
rejected every constructive improvement for a better trade measure that
we have advanced. And even these fast-trackers, if they are really
candid with the American people, would concede there is not a Member of
this Congress who knows what is in this agreement to the extent that
the Vietnamese Politburo does. Because so much of it has been secreted,
we do not have one word that has been made public or accessible to us
about how it is that Vietnam will enforce provisions to ensure greater
worker freedom and opportunity instead of being part of a race to the
bottom.
What we do know about this fast-track agreement from a recent
Canadian ruling, Bilcon v. Canada, is that corporate panels will be
empowered to charge taxpayers millions of dollars for the privilege of
maintaining public health and safety laws. The language to which my
colleague from Texas has referred about preserving American laws is
really meaningless because, yes, they are preserved, but when your city
or your State acts to protect you, foreign corporations are accorded
more rights than American businesses, and they can demand millions for
keeping our laws in place.
What we do know is that, since last week, this railroad has picked up
some mighty unsavory characters. The irony is that on the very day Pope
Francis is formally releasing his encyclical on global warming, this
railroad has picked up a troubling new provision that would deny any
opportunity to address the greatest environmental challenge that our
world faces.
Even Trans-Pacific Partnership supporters concede that it looks like
a charter for corporate America rather than a high-level trade
agreement. The Financial Times said, ``In too many aspects, it looks
like a charter for corporate America.''
We learn, I think, more from USTR's past failures than from its
current promises. USTR has never in its history successfully challenged
worker or environmental abuses by any of our foreign trading partners.
Usually the reason that USTR fails is that it doesn't really try. It
doesn't seem to have a belief in law enforcement when it comes to
worker and environmental abuse. In Guatemala, it took it eight years to
even bring a dispute. In Honduras, it took nearly four years to issue
another bureaucratic report. In Peru, we cannot get the audit that USTR
was responsible for obtaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, ``Asleep at the Wheel'' is a great Texas
swing band, but it is a horrible philosophy for trade law enforcement.
Reject this rule; help us get a better trade policy; protect American
families; and advance our economy. We can do better than this by
rejecting this rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, let me say to my colleagues that they should be
appalled by
[[Page H4506]]
this process. This is again being brought up under a process where
nobody--not just Democrats, but Republicans as well--can offer
amendments.
In the United States Senate when TPA was considered, they were able
to offer amendments, but when it came before the House last week, we
were told we could offer no amendments. The excuse we were given is
because, if we passed it, it would go right to the White House. But
what we are doing today is actually not going to the White House. It is
going back to the Senate, yet we are again being presented with a
closed process.
Why can't Members of both sides of the aisle have an opportunity to
make their views known on this important issue? Why are we being shut
out when it comes to the issue of trade and TPA?
I heard a number of speakers say that this debate is not about TPP.
Well, this is indeed about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Whether or
not TPP is implemented will depend almost entirely on whether the
President has fast track in place.
The vote on fast track, or TPA, will determine the fate of the TPP
trade deal. So a ``yes'' vote on TPA is a ``yes'' vote on TPP. It is
that simple. History shows that is how it has worked time and time and
time again.
Fast track is not just about TPP. If we vote for TPA for fast track,
we are fast-tracking any trade deal that any President negotiates
anytime in the next 6 years. We have no idea who the next President
will be, but you are giving the next President--or next Presidents--the
authority to have fast-track authority on whatever they want. Why are
we just giving away all of our ability to play a role in these
negotiations? The problem with these trade deals is that only the well-
off and well-connected have a seat at the table.
I urge my colleagues to put American workers first. Vote ``no'' on
the rule and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the TPP is modeled after a failed trade
agreement. It will further erode our national economy and change the
rules in ways that hurt American workers. We are supposed to be here to
protect the American workers and to create more opportunity, and we are
yet going down the road of another trade deal that is going to rob
America of important middle class jobs. It is appalling, and this
process is appalling.
Vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this debate today has been most interesting about the
differences between the speakers who showed up today. One group of
speakers is for America, for growth, for America leading, for America
engaging the world, and for cutting deals with our friends against one
other huge country that will overrun in every single economic
circumstance the rest of the world because they do not respect
intellectual property or rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, this is about gathering together the United States House
of Representatives and the United States Senate to where we gather
together the best rules and regulations that we can, parameters by
which the President would go negotiate. This isn't about abdicating our
role and responsibility. It is trade promotion authority.
Mr. Speaker, please, we understand that some people haven't read the
bill. We understand some people think this is about TPP or other
agreements, but it is not. This is about a simple process: Are we going
to exert our constitutional authority? Are we going to engage the
President where the President can go engage the world on behalf of the
American worker? Are we going to lead, or are we going to stick our
head in the sand?
Mr. Speaker, America needs to lead, and the world wants us to lead.
Mr. Speaker, the world wants American products, and American business
wants to sell to others without high prices and without tariffs. What
we want to do is to compete. That is why we are here today.
I urge adoption of this rule. I look forward to the debate that will
follow, and I look forward to our young chairman, Paul Ryan, leading
that effort, proving not only to the Members here today and to you, Mr.
Speaker, but to the American people that we want more jobs. We have not
created all the jobs that we need in this country. We need more, and
this is a part of that effort.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill.
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.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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 agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244,
nays 181, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 373]
YEAS--244
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Blumenauer
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
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
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--181
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
[[Page H4507]]
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Byrne
Clyburn
Davis, Rodney
Gohmert
Gosar
Hurt (VA)
Jolly
Kelly (MS)
{time} 1108
Mrs. ROBY and Mr. BRADY of Texas 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.
Stated for:
Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall
vote No. 373 on H. Res. 321. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
____________________