[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.
____________________