[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 173 (Tuesday, December 1, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H8846-H8849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 644, TRADE FACILITATION AND TRADE 
                        ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2015

  Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia). The Clerk 
will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Kuster moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill, 
     H.R. 644 be instructed to agree to the provisions contained 
     in subtitle A of title VII of the Senate amendment relating 
     to currency manipulation.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXII, the 
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Hampshire.
  Ms. KUSTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my motion that will instruct 
conferees to include in the conference report language to combat 
currency manipulation from the Senate-passed version of H.R. 644.
  Currency manipulation by foreign governments is one of the greatest 
challenges we face to creating the type of free and fair trade that 
will benefit all Americans from top to bottom and help us create more 
jobs right here at home.
  I, like so many others, am highly focused on helping our domestic 
manufacturers grow and create good, strong, middle class jobs. Since 
taking office, I have made supporting job creation and economic 
opportunity my number one priority, and our State's manufacturers play 
an integral role in that conversation.
  Unfortunately, U.S. manufacturers already face so many challenges 
that make it more difficult to compete with foreign companies. From the 
lower cost of labor to limited environmental protections, our 
manufacturers must compete with foreign policies that lead to an uneven 
playing field.
  Unfair currency manipulation makes that competition even more 
difficult. Currency manipulation is when governments use monetary 
policy to devalue their currency, which makes their exports cheaper and 
foreign imports more expensive.
  The good news is that we have the most talented workers and the most 
innovative companies in the world, and we can compete and win despite 
these challenges.
  For example, right in my district in New Hampshire, I visited dozens 
of new manufacturing companies that are harnessing cutting-edge 
technologies, like precision manufacturing and healthcare technology, 
to revitalize the industry and create modern, 21st century jobs for our 
workers. We must support these American manufacturers by cracking down 
on unfair advantages overseas that hinder their success.
  This motion will help to level the playing field for manufacturers in 
New Hampshire and across the country by directing the Department of 
Commerce to slap duties on goods that have unfairly benefited from 
undervalued currency. This is the only provision in either customs bill 
that will effectively deter currency manipulation by our trading 
partners.
  Working to address currency devaluation has long enjoyed bipartisan 
support. In 2010, the House overwhelmingly passed legislation 
restricting currency manipulation by a vote of 348-79. Earlier this 
year, the Senate version of this legislation passed 78-20, in large 
part because of the critical language restricting currency 
manipulation.
  However, the version of this legislation passed by the House does not 
include the bipartisan provision that so many agree is crucial for 
limiting the ability of U.S. workers and businesses to compete more 
fairly with foreign companies and workers.
  I strongly support fair and open trade that will spur job creation 
back here in the United States. When 95 percent of global consumers 
exist outside the United States, we have to find new markets for our 
manufacturers and other producers to grow and create more jobs here at 
home.
  But when U.S. manufacturers are already disadvantaged by foreign 
products that are subsidized by their home currency, it is difficult 
for them to compete both at home and abroad.
  And the impacts of this unfair manipulation are real. The Peterson 
Institute estimates that, over the past decade, at least 1 million and 
as many as 5 million jobs have been lost due to currency manipulation.
  Additionally, an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute estimates 
that by eliminating currency manipulation we can reduce our trade 
deficit by as much as $500 billion, leading to a substantial increase 
in GDP growth and helping our American economy thrive.
  Specifically, New Hampshire could expect to see roughly 13,000 new 
jobs as a result of an effective policy against currency manipulation.
  The status quo is simply not good enough for U.S. workers, and that 
is why I am offering this motion today.
  Our workers are already competing with foreign companies that pay 
their employees a fraction of what U.S. workers make. We should do 
whatever we can to help make it less difficult for U.S. companies to 
compete globally. Adding this currency manipulation language to the 
bill before us today will give us the best chance to do that.
  Please join me in supporting my motion in support of American 
manufacturers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the Motion to Instruct 
Conferees on H.R. 644.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees.
  There is no question currency manipulation is a real problem, and I 
and many other Republicans are committed to fighting it. The bill that 
we are going to conference on includes strong currency provisions, 
thanks to the hard work of Representative Miller and members of the 
Michigan delegation.
  In addition, earlier this year, we passed a trade promotion authority 
legislation that, for the very first time, raised fighting manipulation 
to a primary negotiating objective and provides the administration more 
tools to tackle the practice.
  However, if the United States begins unilaterally levying tariffs, 
our trading partners will no doubt do the same, leading to a very 
dangerous cycle. This would undermine the very purpose of trade 
agreements: to break down barriers and to open economic freedom. More 
importantly, this would hurt American competitiveness and hurt our 
jobs.
  I am also concerned that pursuing a unilateral approach could cause 
the United States to be a target for retaliation by countries like 
China, harming our businesses and their employees, and risk putting the 
United States in violation of international obligations and out of WTO 
compliance.
  And the administration agrees.

                              {time}  1845

  Earlier this year, Secretary Lew sent a letter to Congress stating 
that the administration would oppose legislation that would use the 
countervailing duty process to address currency undervaluation because 
it would raise questions about consistency with our international 
obligations and that it would be counterproductive to our ongoing 
bilateral and multilateral engagement as well as to our efforts to

[[Page H8847]]

promote greater accountability on currency policies in the context of 
the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States has a unique responsibility as a world 
reserve currency. This type of measure puts our standing at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this motion is the next step in fast-track 
consideration of Asian trade agreements and perhaps other trade 
agreements.
  The fast-trackers know that the only way they can sell this agreement 
to the American people is to rely on stealth as much as possible to 
hide the agreement, as they have, for as long as possible; and then, 
even at the present time, not to give full information about all 
aspects of this agreement, such as the alleged $18,000 tax cuts being 
provided foreigners, without indicating what tax cuts are available for 
Americans or what the effect of these tax cuts might be. And now, 
today, under this new, more inclusive House that we have heard so much 
about with the new Speaker, we are provided less than an hour's notice 
for the fast-trackers to strike again.
  In moving to go to conference on a bill to attempt to fix a defective 
fast-track proposal, they have done so under a procedure that cut off 
all debate. We were not permitted to say a word about the customs bill 
as a whole, and the only way that we are able to comment about what is 
happening here at all is thanks to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire 
who has offered a nonbinding motion about one of the many questionable 
provisions in this customs bill. It is a very important provision 
concerning currency manipulation that allows some foreign trading 
partners to use their currencies and adjust them to get what they 
cannot do through normal trade procedures and greatly disadvantage 
American manufacturers and hurt American jobs.
  I applaud the gentlewoman's consideration and offering of that 
amendment. Even though it will not bind the conference committee, it is 
a way for the House to speak out about that issue.
  But this is not the only flaw that exists in the customs bill. 
Indeed, the first provision included in this customs bill as passed by 
the House--ironically, brought up today, as countries with good will 
are struggling with the issue of how we address climate change in 
Paris--instructs that no trade agreements can obligate the United 
States with respect to global warming or climate change.
  So the bill that is being sent to conference, as approved in the 
House, is designed to prevent our acting concerning climate change, 
which is the great threat--perhaps one of the major national security 
threats, and certainly the greatest environmental threat of our time. 
We can see the effects all around us when we are not surrounded by 
climate change deniers, of which there are many in this House who 
refuse to accept science and prefer mythology and ideology to science. 
Hence, this provision in a bill in a trade negotiation that began 
considering ways to address climate change now has a prohibition 
against doing it.
  A second problem--I am all for trade. I voted for trade or supported 
trade with most of the countries that are in the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership. One of those countries, however, believes in turning a 
blind eye to trading women, trading children, trading indentured 
workers, and that country is Malaysia.
  Until the last couple of months, Malaysia was in a category with 
North Korea and a handful of other countries as a country that was 
doing the least and had the worst record when it comes to human 
trafficking. So the United States Senate approved a provision to 
address that concern with Malaysia. And when that provision was in the 
Ways and Means Committee in markup, I specifically asked then-Chairman 
Ryan to ensure that we had any human trafficking amendment language 
from the Senate committee in this customs bill or in his TPP bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. DOGGETT. He told me in the course of that hearing that he would 
oppose truly conforming the House bill with the Senate bill because 
``it would make it more difficult to negotiate TPP,'' this Asian trade 
agreement.
  So we put the desire for trade over our principles. I think it is 
possible to have more trade and support a 21st century trade policy 
without sacrificing our values as Americans.
  What has happened in the meantime is a reclassification of Malaysia, 
all designed to get the trade there without getting Malaysia to do what 
it should about human trafficking, which I think is really tragic.
  Then there is the third issue addressed in this customs bill, and 
that is the question of enforcement. Of course, when it comes to 
protection of the environment, when it comes to standards so that we 
are not in a race to the bottom with our American workers versus 
foreign workers, say in Vietnam working for 60 cents an hour, this 
United States Trade Representative's office has been asleep at the 
wheel. That is the name of a great Texas swing band, but it is not a 
very good policy when it comes to enforcing the law. Unfortunately, 
these enforcement provisions which are part of this customs bill leave 
it to USTR to proceed as it has in the past.
  I think, instead of going to conference, what we should be doing is 
going back to the drawing board in the committee, looking at the 
enforcement provisions, and asking why it is that, though it has had 
responsibility to enforce environmental and labor guarantees, it has 
not brought successful actions to accomplish either.
  And specifically with regard to the environment, in addition to the 
climate change provisions, one of the most troubling developments as 
far as both climate and the environment is the question of logging in 
the Amazon region and other sensitive areas. USTR was charged with 
seeking audits of that logging and seeing that we acted under 
agreements that were approved during the Bush administration. It has 
failed to do so.
  So, for one reason after another, going to conference is a mistake. I 
applaud the motion. I hope it is adopted, but it is tragic that we are 
moving in this direction.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  People often ask: How do you end the gridlock in Washington? The 
answer is found in the Constitution. The House of Representatives 
passes its best idea on how to solve a problem, the Senate does the 
same, and then you go to a conference committee to try to find common 
ground and to try to find solutions that advance the principles of both 
parties to try to solve big problems.
  The motion we passed earlier tonight was to start that open and 
transparent process of going to a conference committee and having 
representatives of the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats, 
come together to try to work out these issues. The underlying bill 
passed the House and the Senate earlier this summer. There have been a 
lot of, I think, very healthy discussions between both Chambers and 
both parties in how we find common ground.
  So this motion is to instruct those conferees; but in truth, what we 
are seeking is that open, transparent, I think, constitutional process 
where we listen to the ideas of, for example, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Ways and Means Committee whom I 
respect, where we listen to the ideas of Senate Republicans and 
Democrats and we, again, try to find common ground on a couple of 
things: one, how do we streamline the time and the cost and efficiency 
of America trading its goods as we work to sell America throughout the 
world, working through issues that were raised in trade promotion 
authority by both parties.
  These are legitimate, sincere issues. We have got an opportunity at 
conference to discuss them. Then, hopefully, we will find common ground 
and bring that solution back to the House and to the Senate for final 
approval. This is simply what we are trying to do.
  Again, this motion to instruct goes after an issue we all agree on: 
currency manipulation. The key is to do it the right way so that it 
doesn't boomerang on America but actually gets to this

[[Page H8848]]

issue. We are going to have this discussion in the conference 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and congratulations 
on your motion to instruct.
  First, let me just say, in terms of process, I do think it is 
important that, before there is a motion to go to conference, there be 
some notification to the minority; because there have been discussions 
underway about the customs bill for a long time, and no one on our 
side, including our leadership, was given any notice of the motion to 
go to conference today. I think that is a mistake, and I hope it won't 
be repeated. I say that in good faith and with some good cheer. It is a 
bad precedent, and I hope it won't be followed.
  Let me just say a word about currency. We have been working on this 
for years. We passed several bills through this House directly relating 
to currency, and it never became law. Instead, there has been 
interminable talk about doing something. So, finally, there was placed 
in the Senate bill the proposal of Chuck Schumer. We have an almost 
similar bill in the House. What is happening here is, I think, that the 
House bill is going to eliminate the Schumer amendment.
  So for all the talk on currency, we are essentially going to be back 
to where we were and have been for years. There are no teeth in the 
amendment that was proposed by my colleague from Michigan (Mrs. 
Miller). There are no teeth in it. It is kind of all gums. The same is 
true of the other language in the Senate bill on currency, with all due 
respect. It just doesn't face up to the issue.
  We have proposed some ideas to try to add strength to what has been a 
weak structure, and essentially what happens now is, instead of further 
discussions, we are going to conference. I think it is now preordained 
that the Schumer amendment will be eliminated. It will be left with 
essentially empty language in terms of real strength to it.
  So I congratulate my very distinguished colleague from New Hampshire 
for not only bringing this up, but for your eloquence. We lost millions 
of jobs because of currency manipulation by Japan in the nineties and 
by China thereafter. The estimate is 2, 3, 4 million jobs. What more 
does this institution want?
  Let me just say a couple of words about two other provisions.
  The House bill essentially added language to TPA that said that there 
must be assurance that trade agreements do not require changes to U.S. 
law or obligate the United States with respect to global warming or 
climate change.

                              {time}  1900

  So here we are going to conference one of the days of the Paris 
conference, and we face the language in the House that eliminates any 
meaningful opportunity in trade agreements to address climate change.
  It may take me a little longer. I may have to ask for a minute, but I 
want to say something about our previous action.
  We put in May 10 provisions relating to Peru and the Amazon. Why? In 
part, because it was displacing people who were living there, but also 
because the Amazon conditions affect the climate throughout the 
Americas.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. KUSTER. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. And if this language were in place when we did May 10, we 
would not have been able to have that provision that is part of 
American law proudly. So we are headed in the wrong direction.
  Let me just say a last word about human trafficking. The State 
Department reports on human trafficking in Malaysia are very clear. The 
ink could not be darker. That is that there has been massive human 
trafficking and, essentially, what the House language did was to weaken 
the proposal of Senator Menendez.
  Then the State Department, I think, essentially did not face up to 
the realities within their own reports and moved Malaysia from tier 3 
to tier 2 so that they could continue to be part of the negotiations.
  I don't see how people can look in the mirror and not say to 
themselves that we have to take into account human trafficking.
  So I finish with this. There are some positive provisions within the 
Customs bill, but there are also these very difficult and I think, in 
some respects, dangerous, in the case of currency, worse-than-innocuous 
provisions because, in currency, it retreats from the little step of 
meaning that we were going to take.
  So I congratulate the gentlewoman who is such a noble warrior on so 
many issues for bringing up this motion to instruct, and I urge strong 
support.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Customs bills in the past have been 
positive. They have been useful in trade enforcement packages.
  However, the majority in this body has baked into this legislation 
harmful provisions that make the fast-track law even worse.
  It fails to protect Dodd-Frank and financial regulations, consumer 
safeguards. It stops our trade agreements from doing anything to 
address immigration. It strips out provisions tackling currency 
manipulation, an abuse that is costing millions of Americans their 
jobs.
  Don't take my word for it. Listen to the Peterson Institute. Listen 
to what they have to say, no left-leaning organization. It says that, 
as a result of currency manipulation, the United States has lost up to 
5 million jobs.
  Why would we go down this road again? Why wouldn't we make currency 
manipulation prohibitive, instead of using language that is not even in 
the bill, but in a forum that they have put together around the TPP 
that says that countries should refrain from currency manipulation, 
they should avoid currency manipulation?
  Avoid? Refrain? What kind of tough enforcement language is that? It 
is not.
  What do countries do when they manipulate their currency? They drop 
the cost of their currency. Their goods become cheaper. Our goods are 
more expensive. We don't sell them abroad.
  You know what happened in Mexico with NAFTA. They talked about all 
the beautiful provisions, all the tariffs dropping, et cetera. When 
they devalued the peso, it was all gone.
  This is without strong, tough--and it won't be strong and tough 
because of the Senate language. But this is a good faith effort to deal 
with currency.
  But, in fact, the lack of currency enforcement here is going to cause 
ruination in terms of American jobs and it is going to lower their 
wages. And already Malaysia has devalued its currency, as has Vietnam.
  This agreement bans the United States from making commitments on 
climate change in trade agreements. My colleagues have spoken about 
this, provisions that are necessary to ensure that our trade policy 
does not negate our climate goals.
  You have got--what is it?--I don't know--200 countries assembled in 
Paris to look at how we bring some sanity to climate control and what 
we do. We have the President there. These efforts are more important 
now than ever, and we will be able to do nothing about dealing with the 
issue of climate.
  This is a massive step backward for the already weak environmental 
obligation in our trade agreements. This bill contains no funding 
support for the enforcement and monitoring of our trade agreements. 
Lack of enforcement has plagued our trade deals for decades.
  Despite environmental rules in the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement, 
the overwhelming majority of timber from Peru is illegally logged. 
Despite the labor rules in the Colombia free trade agreement, over 118 
Colombian trade unionists have been murdered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Babin). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Within the last week, Vietnam, one of the partners in 
this agreement, arrested labor activists. 118 Colombian trade unionists 
were murdered. Vietnam will not allow organized labor, and in the 
agreement they

[[Page H8849]]

get a free pass for 5 years while our jobs are just being drained away.
  Now the Congress is reviewing the TPP, the largest free trade 
agreement of its kind in history. It does include countries like 
Vietnam and Malaysia, where labor and human rights abuses are rampant.
  My colleagues have talked about Malaysia and trafficking and forced 
labor. Where are the values of this Nation when we can take Malaysia 
that traffics in young girls and say that they have gotten better and 
they go from a tier 3 country to a tier 2 country just so that they can 
be part of this agreement?
  Where are the values of the United States of America? They are not 
present here. We can't afford more free trade agreements without 
adequate enforcement.
  Worst of all, this bill weakens protection in so many areas. We are 
dealing, as I said, in trafficking. It is modern slavery. That is what 
that is all about.
  Democrats have been clamoring for years and years for our government 
to include enforceable labor standards and enforceable environmental 
provisions, and it has fallen on deaf ears.
  This motion to instruct--and I say to my colleague thank you for 
doing this--should pass. It will pass tonight or tomorrow, but it 
really should not go to conference. There are so many flaws in the 
underlying bill and in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement as well, 
and this should not go to conference.
  In fact, put a gloss on a piece of legislation that is one of the 
worst pieces of legislation that has hit this floor of the United 
States House of Representatives.

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I am prepared to close if the gentlewoman from New 
Hampshire is prepared to do so as well.
  The value of a country's currency is a complex issue. It is 
determined by a number of factors: how much a country saves, how much 
it invests, the strength of its economy, its trade flows in and out. It 
is a complex issue.
  Where Republicans and Democrats and the White House find common 
ground is the desire that countries don't manipulate their currency in 
order to give themselves an unfair trade advantage.
  The difference is how best to go about it. And because it is a 
complex issue, there are some very good ideas on all parties' sides on 
how best to do that.
  This motion essentially says to forget those discussions and don't 
have Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate work together 
through this complex issue and find a common solution. This motion 
simply says to forget all that. There is only one solution, and we 
insist upon it. End the discussion.
  I don't think that is the right way to go about it. I think, frankly, 
there are real serious concerns not just from Republicans, but from the 
White House on insisting on this one solution.
  I think our country is better served and those who want to stop 
currency manipulation are better served by bringing our best ideas 
together in this conference committee.
  That is what I am determined to do. That is what the American public 
wants us to do, an open, transparent, regular process that brings about 
the very best solution for America.
  That is why I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to say to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, I think that 
we do agree to part of this about the danger of currency manipulation 
and the millions of jobs that are lost here in our country.
  That is why I rise this evening to offer this motion to instruct the 
conferees to include in the conference report language to combat 
currency manipulation from the Senate-passed version of this bill.
  I also want to associate myself with the comments of my colleagues 
because these are bipartisan issues. I have worked with my colleagues 
across the aisle on human trafficking, and I know that my colleagues 
share my values and are appalled at the egregious efforts that have 
gone down in Malaysia to traffic in young girls.
  These are not American values that are being expressed at this 
historic moment, as countries across the world gather in Paris to 
protect our society, our whole humankind, from the ravages of climate 
change.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to support my motion. I will be 
asking for a recorded vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. KUSTER. 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.

                          ____________________