[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 103 (Thursday, June 25, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4657-H4662]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSE 
   AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1295, TRADE PREFERENCES 
                         EXTENSION ACT OF 2015

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 338 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 338

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     1295) to extend the African Growth and Opportunity Act, the 
     Generalized System of Preferences, the preferential duty 
     treatment program for Haiti, and for other purposes, with the 
     Senate amendment to the House amendment to 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 to the House 
     amendment to 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 adoption without intervening motion.

  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 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.


                             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 yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise this morning in support of a rule which would allow for an up-
or-down vote in the House on the Senate amendment to H.R. 1295, the 
Trade Preferences Extension Act, so that it can be considered by the 
full House; and, if the bill passes, it will head to the President's 
desk along with the trade promotion authority for the President's 
signature.
  This bill that would be considered after passage of this rule renews 
the Generalized System of Preferences program, extending the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act, and reauthorizes Trade Adjustment 
Assistance, known as TAA.
  The activity on the floor of the House today represents a promise to 
Congress made by Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader McConnell. 
After House Democrats voted down TAA last week, the House considered 
and passed TPA, with a bipartisan majority, and sent it to the Senate. 
In the meantime, the Speaker and the Senate majority leader promised 
that they would ensure that both TPA and TAA receive votes in the House 
and the Senate.
  As promised, here we are today. The Senate yesterday delivered it, 
when it passed TPA 60-38, which is now headed to the President's desk 
for his signature. The Senate also passed the Senate amendment to H.R. 
1295, which will be considered today under the rule which we are 
speaking about. The final legislative step is for the House to consider 
the Trade Preferences Extension Act, and that is exactly what the rule 
will do.
  This rule and the underlying bill represents the end of a long 
process to deliver trade promotion authority on behalf of the American 
people. Mr. Speaker, it is a Republican agenda about jobs. By passing 
TPA, the House and the Senate proved to the world that America is 
willing to lead and to stand for jobs and interaction between great 
countries to help lead in the 21st century. We believe in the rule of 
law, we believe in intellectual property, and we believe in an 
opportunity for consumers to have the best products, wherever they are 
around the world, at a great price.
  The world has responded, and our partner nations have indicated that 
they are now ready to begin the negotiation to bring their best deals 
to the table. As these negotiations heat up, it is vital that the 
administration follow the requirements of TPA, some 160 separate, 
specific items which this House and the legislation very clearly talks 
about. It will lead negotiation to a deal that is good for the American 
people. If the administration violates that promise, the House can turn 
off TPA and stop the process.
  Once a trade agreement is completed, the President is required to 
make public the text of an agreement for 60 days before the President 
seeks approval to it. The President must then submit the final text of 
any trade agreement to Congress 30 days before it gets a vote. Because 
of this important transparency feature of TPA, the American people have 
seen a better process than

[[Page H4658]]

what existed today. We will have months to read the text of any deal 
before Congress votes on it.
  Most importantly, though, Congress retains its right to vote up or 
down on any agreement. So if the President brings us a bad trade deal, 
we can and we would vote that down. This ensures that Congress, and 
only the U.S. Congress, can change and agree to any law or agreement 
that is made that becomes U.S. law.
  We have also proved that Washington has learned from some States, 
like my home State of Texas, which benefit greatly from trade. Trade 
supports over 3 million jobs in Texas, and last year Texas exported 
$289 billion worth of goods and services to trading partners around the 
globe. Because of the process Congress has gone through the past few 
weeks, we can ensure that the growth, the availability of better jobs, 
and high-paying opportunities lie ahead for the American people.
  At a time when it has become very difficult to create jobs in this 
country, we will, through trade promotion authority and these trade 
deals, offer new and great opportunities for more jobs and to build 
more American products and to sell more products around the globe.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me the time, 
but the procedural jockeying that has unfolded before us does a 
disservice to our Chamber, to our economy, and to our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, without opportunity for Members to offer amendments, 
without clear consideration, and without, certainly, robust debate, the 
bills have bounced from one Chamber to another, jumped back and forth 
between in every iteration that can be cooked up.
  The procedural machinations do deep disservice not only to the bills, 
but to the people it will impact, and I think even to the House of 
Representatives. Thomas Jefferson, who authored the legislative manual 
that guides our procedure, would be pained to see the path by which 
these trade packages have come to the floor.
  From beginning to end, Members of this body have been shut out, shut 
out from reading the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership that has now 
been fast-tracked, and we are not being able to discuss it with our 
constituents.
  It is not just the American Representatives that have been silenced, 
either. The trade deal is upending legislative bodies across the world, 
and particularly in another great democracy involved in this 
agreement--Australia. The people's representatives in Australia could 
not look at this bill, even though they had great concern that PhRMA 
was going to do great harm to their own health system in Australia as 
well as in New Zealand. They couldn't even go to see about that unless 
they signed a paper that they would not discuss it for 4 years. So, two 
of the great democracies on the planet working on this trade bill, the 
United States and Australia, basically shut out the people's 
representatives from knowing what it is that we are even talking about 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record the text of an article about the 
Australians, an article from The Guardian from June 11, titled, 
``Leaked Trade Deal Terms Prompt Fears for Pharmaceutical Benefits 
Scheme.''

                   [From the Guardian, June 11, 2015]

                            (Gabrielle Chan)

       The leak of new information on the Trans-Pacific 
     Partnership agreement (TPP) shows the mega-trade deal could 
     provide more ways for multinational corporations to influence 
     Australia's control of its pharmaceutical regulations.
       Revealed via Wikileaks, the annexe on ``transparency and 
     procedural fairness for pharmaceutical products and medical 
     devices'' uncovered the draft agreements regarding medicines 
     between the 12 TPPA member countries.
       The leak comes as US Republican leaders announced a vote on 
     Friday that may provide Barack Obama a fast-track authority 
     to complete the agreement with Australia, Brunei, Canada, 
     Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore 
     and Vietnam. The countries represent 40% of the world's 
     economy.
       The leaked text, dated December 2014, laid out the draft 
     rules for member countries regarding medicines under national 
     health care programs, in Australia's case, the Pharmaceutical 
     Benefits Scheme (PBS). The TPP has yet to be signed off.
       The Abbott government has argued the trade deal will 
     provide access for Australian products to other markets. But 
     it requires Australia to trade off regulations that stop 
     access by other countries and particularly multinational 
     companies to the Australian market.
       Critics have suggested the deal, which is likely to include 
     Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses, will allow 
     big corporations to sue Australian governments. Philip Morris 
     International is currently challenging the former Labor 
     government's tobacco plain packaging laws under a Hong Kong 
     trade treaty ISDS.
       Trade experts leaped on the rare information release 
     regarding the secret but wide-ranging trade deal. Deborah 
     Gleeson, a lecturer at the school of psychology and public 
     health at La Trobe University, said the inclusion of an 
     annexe on health ``serves no useful public interest 
     purpose''.
       ``It sets a terrible precedent for using regional trade 
     deals to tamper with other countries' health systems and 
     could circumscribe the options available to developing 
     countries seeking to introduce pharmaceutical coverage 
     programs in future,'' Gleeson said.
       Jane Kelsey of the faculty of law of the University of 
     Auckland described the annexe as one of the most 
     controversial parts of the TPP in her analysis. She said the 
     US pharmaceutical industry was using the trade agreement to 
     target New Zealand's Pharmaceutical Management Agency 
     (Pharmac), equivalent to the PBS.
       ``This `transparency' annexe seeks to erode the processes 
     and decisions of agencies that decide which medicines and 
     medical devices to subsidise the public money and by how 
     much,'' Kelsey said.
       ``This leaked text shows the TPP will severely erode 
     Pharmac's ability to continue to deliver affordable medicines 
     and medical devices as it has for the past two decades.
       ``That will mean fewer medicines are subsidised, or people 
     will pay more as co-payments or more of the health budget 
     will go to pay for medicines instead of other activities or 
     the health budget will have to expand beyond the cap.
       ``Whatever the outcome, the big global pharmaceutical 
     companies will win and the poorest and most vulnerable New 
     Zealanders will lose.''
       AMA president Brian Owler said while doctors were very 
     concerned at the possible effects on Australia's healthcare 
     systems, they were constantly dismissed by the trade minister 
     Andrew Robb.
       ``When we have raised concerns about the effects on health, 
     the only response is `we are not going to undermine the 
     Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme','' said Owler.
       ``We are worried about the Investor State Dispute 
     Settlement (ISDS) mechanism and there are issues in terms of 
     patents that would affect pharmaceutical prices.
       ``The problem is our concerns have been dismissed by the 
     trade minister but we do not know what is in the text.''
       However, Robb said on Thursday that the government would 
     not accept anything that would adversely affect the PBS, the 
     health system more generally, or increase the price of 
     medicines for Australians.
       ``It's perhaps time to look at the enormous benefits that 
     will flow from a more seamless trade and investment 
     environment across 12 countries representing 40 percent of 
     global GDP,'' Robb said.
       ``New levels of market access and common sets of trading 
     rules will help support growth, create new jobs and result in 
     higher living standards.''
       Parliamentarians were offered the chance to see the TPP 
     draft by Robb if they agreed to a four year non-disclosure 
     agreement.
       A cross-party parliamentary working group has formed, 
     including Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson, Labor MP Melissa 
     Parke and independent senator Nick Xenophon.
       Whish-Wilson, who has not seen the draft as he refused to 
     agree to the terms of the agreement, said the latest leak 
     suggested the Australian PBS could be undermined.
       ``These negotiations are happening behind closed doors, 
     without the scrutiny of the parliament,'' he said.
       ``At the very least, the Australian people deserve to be 
     reassured that the government won't allow any deal which 
     drives up the public health costs for Australian taxpayers 
     such as further subsidising important new medicines including 
     biologics.''
       During the most recent senate estimates in the past 
     fortnight, Whish-Wilson questioned officials from the 
     department of foreign affairs and trade about the strategic 
     importance of the TPP to the United States.
       The secretary of Dfat, Peter Varghese, said the whole 
     purpose was to indicate a ``ramped up US presence in Asia''.
       ``The conclusion of the TPP is important to the United 
     States in terms of its rebalance, because it is an important 
     step in relation to the economic engagement of the United 
     States with the region, and the whole purpose of the re-
     balance was to indicate a ramped up US presence in Asia, and 
     a recognition of the importance of Asia in broader US 
     geostrategic thinking,'' Varghese said.
       ``We in Australia have never seen the TPP as an instrument 
     for locking anybody out--in fact, quite the contrary.''
       The trade minister's office was contacted for comment.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. So the two great democracies are now being cut out, 
and

[[Page H4659]]

the 750,000 people that I represent in western New York have been 
silenced because I don't go see a trade bill if I can't discuss it with 
them.
  There has been no regular order and absolutely no Member input, with 
the exception of the Committee on Ways and Means. Now, the Senate had 
plenty of opportunity for amendments, and they were plentiful. Many of 
them were accepted. They also had robust debate, but not the House of 
Representatives. The opportunity in the Committee on Ways and Means to 
offer amendments did not result in acceptance of any Democratic 
amendments.
  Over the last 3 weeks, the Democrats and Republicans, alike, came to 
the Committee on Rules with ideas to try to make the trade package 
better. They ranged from currency manipulation to labor standards to 
environmental fixes to the investor-state dispute settlement, but one 
by one they were shut out.
  Perhaps one of the most critical is the investor-state dispute 
settlement, where three lawyers will be allowed to adjudicate all cases 
brought against any of the participating countries, in many cases 
resulting against change in their laws. I should note that the House of 
Representatives, in fear of all this, has already voted to do away with 
country of origin labeling.
  What is more, on the third rule that we have had in so many weeks on 
trade, we are being asked to vote on two separate bills packaged into 
one vote. On one hand, we have Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA; on 
the other hand, we have the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or 
AGOA, which most of us have supported. The other part of this is a bill 
that was trounced in the House of Representatives. We find ourselves in 
the position of supporting the African Growth and Opportunity Act at 
the same time of a vote that most of us have voted against, the TAA.
  Linking these two bills together is untenable and goes again the 
mores of the Chamber. And as we see, when the process is strained, the 
bills suffer, but most of all, the people we represent suffer.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman brings up a lot of good issues. We have 
been on the floor talking about this bill for a long, long time: hours 
of debate up in the Committee on Rules; hours of debate not only in the 
Committee on Ways and Means, but also watching the United States Senate 
for weeks work through this issue.
  I think the gentlewoman knows and understands that any final trade 
deal will result in our ability to see in writing--and the public--this 
document; and the gentlewoman knows and understands it is simply not 
true if we try and say that we can't see what is in the bill, we don't 
know what is in the bill. Plenty of time, plenty of time to do that. It 
is just not available yet.
  So why would you put out something that has not yet been negotiated? 
I wouldn't do that. And whether the administration has handled this 
entire process well or not may be up for speculation, but I find it 
hard to criticize. Any Member of Congress was given an opportunity to 
come and read what exists today. This is not the final deal. Members of 
Congress have not seen the final deal because it has not been 
negotiated. When it is negotiated, when whoever the President is brings 
a trade deal back to the United States, to the United States Congress, 
we will be able to see it.
  Secondly, very specifically, Chairman Paul Ryan of the Committee on 
Ways and Means put in the law that any Member of Congress may take part 
in any of the trade talks as they evolve around the country. Members of 
Congress are allowed to do this, and I think that it is a real 
advantage to have more authority for Members of Congress of rules and 
regulations, putting us into the process to where we are a part of 
understanding not only what we would be voting on, but the importance 
of us being involved throughout the process.
  Lastly, the gentlewoman is right. I do understand that the rules and 
regulations that have been added, not every Member of this House would 
like them, but I felt like they were important. I would like to just go 
through some of those very quickly.
  One of them is that we are not going to allow any part of a trade 
deal to end up as an immigration deal. That is the wrong thing. This 
should be about trade, not about immigration.
  Secondly, it shouldn't be about climate change, and we specifically 
said it cannot be about climate change.
  Lastly, we said that for our own authority--and I think the 
constitutional bounds are there for us to say that--if there are any 
changes in this document, those changes have to come through Congress 
for us to approve them.

                              {time}  0930

  Of course, not every colleague that we have in the House would be for 
those rules, but I believe that they are in the best interest of this 
body.
  I believe they are in the best interest of making sure that the way 
the world sees us is that we work together from a democracy, a republic 
perspective; that we work back through the things that we agree to in 
law, in bilateral deals, would have to involve the United States 
Congress. It would have to involved the United States Senate and the 
President and us working together.
  By the authority granted within this TPA, that is exactly what we 
will do. I think it is well balanced. I think it is really a work of 
art that Chairman Ryan has crafted, along with our colleagues in the 
Senate, and I am proud of that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  What the gentleman said sounds wonderful, and so we are all going to 
have an opportunity to do it, but we have not been in on the 
negotiation. All we know about it is what has come through WikiLeaks, 
that it is being negotiated mainly by financial services and 
pharmaceutical companies.
  Once we pass fast trade and it has passed both Houses, once that is 
done, the administration can do the trade bill itself in perfect 
secrecy, and we will not know it until it comes to the House. At that 
point, all we can do is vote up or down. It is my sincere hope that we 
vote it down.
  I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I want to begin this discussion by saying I have the utmost respect 
for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). I have worked with him on 
other issues where we have agreed. That is not the case today.
  I also know that there will be Members of the majority and Members of 
the minority that have a different opinion than I do on this matter, 
and it does not mean I have less respect for them; it just means we 
have a difference of agreement on this one bill.
  Now, when I first met my wife, I was an ironworker. I worked as an 
ironworker for 20 years. Then I went to law school and became an 
attorney. Then I ran for office and became a politician. My wife says 
it has been one disappointment after another.
  When I was an ironworker, I had an opportunity to work at the General 
Motors facility, the auto plant in Framingham, Massachusetts. That was 
just before they made a decision to close that plant, close a couple in 
Michigan, and move them over the border to Mexico. I have seen the 
effect that that has had on local communities where that has happened.
  I oppose this bill because I want a stronger America. That is why I 
oppose this bill. Our trade agreements negotiated under fast track have 
had a continual pattern of exporting American jobs overseas. That is 
just the fact of the matter.
  Now, you might be surprised that a former union president, a 
Democrat, an ironworker would oppose a bill. The object of this bill is 
to provide public assistance to workers after we send their jobs 
overseas. That is the object of this bill. When their jobs are 
exported, we will give them public assistance and some training for a 
new job.
  I oppose this bill; some people find that surprising, but I can only 
draw on my own experience. I always felt that I would rather have my 
Representative fighting for my job than coming up with a public 
assistance program to support me after I lost my job.
  That is why I am here on the floor today. I think American workers 
want

[[Page H4660]]

their Representative in the fight. They want them in the fight to 
protect their jobs, not to give them public assistance after they ship 
their jobs overseas. That is as simple as I can describe.
  I think I understand the American people. I think I understand the 
American worker. I have been there, and this does not do the job.
  If you want to read this bill, you have to go to a secret location 
here on the Capitol Grounds. I had to give up my cell phone and my 
iPad. I had to give them my pen. I was not allowed to bring any paper. 
I can't take notes. They bring in a big box with the bill, and they sat 
it down in front of me, and they let me read it. They do not allow me 
to talk to the people who sent me here about what is in that bill.
  That is not right. That is undemocratic. There is a reason they don't 
let me talk about that bill to the people I represent and everybody 
else in this Chamber--because they would not like it. They would tell 
you: Do not pass this bill; it is going to cost our jobs and our kids' 
jobs.
  The people who are drafting this bill, though, as the gentlewoman 
from New York spoke, are industries like the chemical industry, the 
pharmaceutical industry. They are all drafting sections of this bill; 
yet the people who represent American workers are kept out of the 
process.
  Later on, we will be able to vote up or down, but we cannot fix this 
bill. Unlike every other bill that comes to this floor that we are 
allowed to amend, we cannot fix this bill. We have to vote it up or 
down, and that is not right. That is not right. If we see a problem, we 
should be able to fix it.
  I was listening to a guy the other day talk about the fact that we 
shouldn't really worry about not having manufacturing jobs in America 
anymore, that we have a service economy. He described it as a Starbucks 
economy.
  Now, I love Starbucks as much as the next guy; I like my grande 
latte, but the Starbucks economy does not work unless you have someone 
who can walk into that store and pay $4 for a cup of coffee. This is 
not good for America.
  I was watching that Roosevelt show last night on PBS, and they talked 
about, after the Second World War, the world called America ``the 
arsenal of democracy'' because our industrial might, our manufacturing 
capacity, allowed us to marshal resources and save the world.
  We have continually exported millions and millions and millions of 
American manufacturing jobs in the industrial capacity.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. LYNCH. I am just getting wound up.
  They referred to America after the Second World War as the arsenal of 
democracy because we did save the world. Today, when the world looks at 
us after we have exported millions of manufacturing jobs and industrial 
capacity overseas, I think they look at America and say: You know, in 
America, they can make us a good cup of coffee if you can pay $4 a cup.
  This is not the direction we should be sending America. I have the 
utmost respect for my friends on the other side of aisle. Democrats on 
my side of the aisle are going to support this. We have to get 
America's Representatives, Members of Congress, back in this fight. We 
have abnegated our responsibility.
  We negotiate a lot of complicated bills on this floor and over in the 
Senate, nuclear regulatory issues, bankruptcy--very complicated 
issues--war and peace; yet we can't negotiate this trade deal. We have 
got to leave it up to multinational corporations. That is flat wrong. 
America wants their Representatives back in the fight on this issue.

  Let's vote this bill down; let's get rid of TPA and let the American 
workers have a voice on the floor of this House of Representatives on 
this bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman, my friend from Massachusetts, is a great man and a 
very dear friend, but I would respond and say to the gentleman that you 
are going to have an opportunity, and I can't wait to get you invited 
to every single round of these and have you find time to go do exactly 
what you think Members of Congress ought to be doing because, in fact, 
that is the way the TPA is written.
  Now, we haven't agreed to it yet because it has not been signed by--
well, that has--but this whole process. As soon as that takes place, 
the gentleman will have all the opportunity he wants to go and take 
part in every round of the discussions.
  I don't believe that is what we were elected for. I don't believe we 
were elected to go and have to do all the work that is described that 
the gentleman said to get back into the fight, to go offer the trade 
deals, to go do the negotiating.
  He will be given that chance. He will be given that chance every 
single day. As soon as it is signed by the President, he can go at it. 
He can maybe even just tell the President he wants to do this for a 
full-time job; I don't know, but he will have that opportunity.
  Every Member of this body will have that same chance. He and every 
Member will have a chance to go and negotiate, be in the room, be a 
part of the discussion, and make sure all these big, multilateral 
corporations that he talks about that will be in the room--which they 
won't be because that would not be the right thing. There would be 
ethics violations. I am sure the White House, the executive branch, can 
notify him of that, but he will be allowed as a Member of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the things that are being talked about most as negative 
points about this bill, there is already an answer to it. That is what 
Republicans did.
  This is a Republican bill. This is about the authority of the House 
of Representatives, the United States Congress, to make sure we are 
involved. That has never been allowed before.
  Fast track is what we used to have. That is what we did have. We now 
have a bill before us today which will help us complete the entire 
process, to make sure Members of Congress are involved, not just the 
United States negotiator; but all the world will know the piece parts 
about how we are going to negotiate the trade deal. If it doesn't come 
back that way, we will vote it down.
  Do we need to second-guess them now today? I don't think so, but if 
any Member wants to be involved in this, they can just get on their 
plane and go wherever they want and get it done. By law, they will be 
allowed that opportunity.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I have great admiration for Mr. Sessions. We truly are good friends, 
and I know that he is absolutely sincere when he says that every Member 
of Congress is going to have input now into this bill that has not even 
begun.
  If there is no bill, then why is everybody talking about going to 
read something? For goodness sake, when you passed the TPA, we have 
passed fast track. You can't say we are not operating under fast track.
  I hear that all the time, and it really grates on me because fast 
track is what was passed here and in the Senate that gives to the 
administration the ability to negotiate that.
  It will come in here, and we may be reading all of it--if we have the 
ability to do that--before we vote; I am not even clear about that. But 
I do know that they negotiate it; it is brought over here, and we get 
to vote ``yes'' or ``no.'' We don't amend it. There will be nothing 
that we can say about it, and we are stuck with it.
  Not only do we have fast track, but it is not just until the 
expiration of President Obama's term; it is for years beyond, so a 
future President can do whatever they please because the Congress gave 
that authority to the executive department. Why? I don't know.
  It doesn't just apply to this one trade bill. I hope everybody 
understands that. When they passed TPA here the other day, they were 
doing it for years to come.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I will try not to repeat the arguments that the gentlewoman has put 
forward, but I do have to say that there is about 8 pounds of bill over 
there at a secure location, as I spoke of before,

[[Page H4661]]

that I can't talk about it in public because I am precluded from doing 
that. I would violate the rules of the House and the classified status 
that has been accorded that material, so I can't really talk about it.
  I can say that it is very complicated. Like I say, there is probably, 
I am guessing, about 8 pounds of document there that you have to read. 
It is largely aspirational. In other words, I will paraphrase without 
disclosing any classified information. It largely says the parties will 
aspire or engage to do blah, blah, blah. It is largely unenforceable.
  Here is another part of the problem. We are negotiating the biggest 
multinational trade agreement in the history of the United States. You 
have got some countries that I think are reliable partners and that we 
have a history with.
  Canada, even before free trade agreements, we had trade agreements 
with Canada. They have the rule of law there. It is not a race to the 
bottom with Canada or with Australia or with New Zealand.

                              {time}  0945

  I think we have rule of law established in those countries. But we 
also, in the same agreement, are negotiating with Vietnam.
  I went to Vietnam not long ago, and when we talked issues, I sat down 
across the table from a bunch of Communist generals. They run the 
country. They have problems with prison labor. They have problems with 
child labor. They have serious problems with environmental standards in 
that country.
  Malaysia, do you know what the minimum wage in Malaysia is? Zero. 
They do that to try to attract companies.
  The situation in Chile and Peru, we have organizers that have tried 
to work on behalf of workers who have been killed in those countries. 
There is no rule of law established in those countries where we have 
had success in enforcing our agreements. That has been a major problem.
  So we are going to ask the American worker to compete with workers in 
Vietnam, who get, I think it is 90 cents an hour, 97 cents an hour--I 
don't want to sell them short--97 cents an hour in a country that has 
had a history of major problems, as I have spoken about. Malaysia, the 
same thing.
  We can't enforce our agreements. And on the issue of who has drafted 
this bill, it is my understanding that the chemical industry provisions 
in that TPP were drafted by the chemical industry. They like it. They 
got exactly what they wanted. The same thing with these other 
industries.
  And again, why is it a national secret that I can't talk about a bill 
that is going to affect every American citizen today? And not only 
that, it is going to affect their sons and daughters.
  There is a reason that our kids coming out of college can't get jobs. 
We have got to wake up.
  I told this story before. I went to Korea recently, with JPAC. It was 
about the Korean war and recovering our sons and daughters who fought 
in that country and are still there. But while I was there, I looked 
for American cars because we had passed a free trade agreement with 
Korea. We were there for days. I had two young Navy lieutenants with 
me. I said, Let's all look for American cars.
  We saw two American cars in the time we were there in Korea. It is a 
big industrial country. They have got plenty of traffic. We saw 
hundreds of thousands of cars. I saw two American cars: the one I was 
driving in from the Embassy, and the one that the Navy lieutenants were 
driving in behind me. They have shut us out.
  You go to Japan, it is pretty much the same story. I said before, you 
need to hire a detective to find an American car in Japan.
  So we have had very little success in enforcing our trade agreements 
overseas. We have got a lousy deal.
  So all I am asking is, look, I believe in--and you know what? I have 
to say, the EU did it right. The EU, when they negotiated with South 
Korea, they said: If you are going to sell cars into the EU from Korea, 
we want 30 percent of the components in that car to be made in the EU. 
And they created a lot of work for their auto parts industry.
  Think about it. We could do that. Congress could do that. We could 
maintain that, if they are going to sell a foreign car here, we want 40 
percent or 50 percent of the components to be manufactured here in the 
United States. We would create millions of jobs in the United States. 
There is nothing wrong with that. It is a good thing. We would restore 
industrial and manufacturing capacity in the United States if Congress 
got back in the game.
  I am not against free trade. I think free trade works when it is 
balanced. I want somebody in there fighting for the American worker. We 
don't have that now. We don't have that now. Congress has abdicated its 
responsibility by agreeing to buy a pig in a poke because, when they 
bring that bill back on the floor here, we are going to have to vote up 
or down.
  You won't have the ability to change the bill like you do on every 
other bill that is brought on the floor of Congress. You will not have 
that ability. Congress will have abdicated its responsibility to 
represent the people that sent them here.
  Free trade can work. Let's have a fair deal for the American worker. 
That is all I am asking for.
  If there were a fair deal for the American worker that I could read 
and talk to my constituents about--you know, I have got 727,514 bosses 
back in Massachusetts, and they sent me here to do my job, and I am 
trying to do that on their behalf. I think that every other Member of 
Congress is trying to do their job as well. We can't do that if TPA 
goes through. We need to give the American worker a voice, and we can 
do that today.
  Let's vote this stuff down. Let's talk to the President. He is a good 
man, wants to create American jobs. Let's have an open debate. It 
should not be a secret. It should not be a national secret about these 
agreements we are having with multinational corporations. We should not 
be afraid that the American people might find out what is going on 
here.
  We should be proud of what we are doing here. We should want it 
plastered all over the front pages of the newspapers in this country. 
We should be proud of our work here.
  I can't be proud of what is going on right now, and so I urge my 
colleagues to vote against it. Vote this down. Let's change this system 
to a transparent system that the American people can be assured that 
their Representatives in Congress are doing the right thing.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I really, once again, appreciate the 
gentleman for coming to the floor and speaking directly with you and 
all of his colleagues about the importance of this bill and, really, 
the problems he has with it.
  But I would also like to let you know, Mr. Speaker, that the number 
one selling car in Korea is an American-made car. We signed a trade 
agreement in 2011 with Korea. The Toyota Camry from Georgetown, 
Kentucky, the Toyota made in Georgetown, Kentucky, is the number one 
selling vehicle in Korea starting last year.

  Now, there may not be a lot of them necessarily where the gentleman 
visited in Korea, but that is a fact; and the gentleman from 
Georgetown, Kentucky, Andy Barr, who is a Member of this Congress, has 
talked about this for a long, long time.
  The trade agreements, when the United States engages with them, we 
end up with surpluses, and it is better for the American worker. The 
trade agreement jobs pay 30 percent more than the nontrade-associated 
jobs in this country; and by virtue of what we are doing we are trying 
to get a trade deal now where Japan would be involved because we do 
want Japan to open up their marketplaces. But where we have these 
agreements, that is what happens. The American worker wins.
  So TPA is already the law of the land. The question we have today is 
whether we are going to include in that package the last parts of this, 
which would be TAA, which do give, if there is a difference as a result 
of the trade deals where an industry, where a town, where a group of 
people were ``harmed,'' then the law would be there for retraining.
  I think that is the right vote. That is why Speaker Boehner is 
bringing this back, even though, by and large, this concept was turned 
down by the Democratic Party, from the very top of their organization 
to the bottom. That is why Speaker Boehner understood the right and 
fair thing to do.

[[Page H4662]]

  Senate Majority Leader McConnell said the right thing to do is to 
bring it back; let's see if we can repackage it. Let's see if we can 
take a little bit of time, measure three times, saw again, see if we 
can get it right. That is what we are trying to do.
  Trade Promotion Authority that the gentleman has been speaking of is 
already the law of the land. The question is will this last piece be a 
part of it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have heard this morning must certainly cause 
great confusion in the minds of America. Let me restate what has 
happened here.
  The Congress has passed fast-track authority, TPA, for 6 years. It 
goes beyond this President's term and covers 4 years of another. Why 
that happened, I am not really clear, but it certainly is something we 
have given away our right to negotiate trade agreements, which, by the 
way, the Constitution gives us the ability to do.
  Second, there will be no input. The Congress of the United States 
will not be writing that trade bill. That is purely in the hands of the 
Trade Representative and the Executive Department of the United States.
  Our next role, and the only one we have, is to vote up or down on 
whatever they present us. What a sad day it is.
  And I want to agree with Mr. Lynch. The very fact of passing this 
bill is an admission and knowing that we are going to lose jobs.
  My part of the district in western New York is just now starting to 
regain its footing after NAFTA. You have heard me say it a million 
times. Eastman Kodak, one of the iconic companies in the country--in 
the world, actually--went from 62,000 employees down to foreign 
bankruptcy. What we have got, also NAFTA has put us, the losses there, 
as the fifth city that is under the poverty line in the United States.
  For heaven's sake, it breaks my heart to think that my constituents 
are going to have to be facing this again, because people who have 
voted for all this don't seem to understand what it is that they have 
done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I 
appreciate my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts, the 
gentlewoman from New York, for their engagement today.
  Mr. Speaker, confirmed again, the number one car, the car of the year 
in Korea in 2013: Toyota Camry, made in Georgetown, Kentucky. I have 
had 10 people text me trying to give me more information about what a 
great opportunity this is for American workers.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what this bill is about. It is about the jobs 
opportunity and a fair proposal, not just by the administration, not 
just by the House and the Senate but, really, a Republican bill for 
jobs. This is a jobs bill, a jobs bill that will allow the American 
worker to have new boundaries, new opportunities to go out in.
  And let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I don't travel very much. But I 
will tell you that I know from the stories that come back, people want 
American-made products. They want American-made, everything from jeans 
all the way to high-tech products. They want American products because 
of the reliability of the American workers, because of the stability of 
America, and we have got a great opportunity with this final piece, 
part of this trade agreement to move it forward.
  I think 5 years from now we are going to look back and say, Wow, what 
did we do great? And you can mark it just like they do this year, 2 
years ago, looking back to the Toyota Camry, number one in the Korean 
market.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for, I think, just an up-or-down 
vote--it is really simple--to Senate amendment H.R. 1295, the Trade 
Preferences Extension Act. By passing this rule today, we can move on. 
The House will have an opportunity to consider the bill, and it will 
head to the President's desk, this package of bills to the President.
  I urge adoption of the rule and look forward to the debate that will 
follow on the real substance of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, 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. SESSIONS. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________