[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 144 (Thursday, September 22, 2016)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ``VAN JONES: HOW TPP THREATENS OUR PROGRESS ON CLIMATE CHANGE'' ON 14 
                             SEPTEMBER 2016

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. BARBARA LEE

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 22, 2016

  Ms. LEE . Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following op-ed.

       In the past month, wildfires forced tens of thousands of 
     people across California to evacuate their homes. Over the 
     same period, historic floods in Louisiana destroyed or 
     damaged more than 60,000 homes, uprooting families and 
     ruining lives.
       Whether fire or water, we know that human-induced climate 
     change is making natural disasters more frequent and more 
     intense.
       So why are some in Washington pushing hard for a policy 
     that would make climate change considerably worse?
       This fall, Congress is likely to vote on the Trans-Pacific 
     Partnership--an agreement among 12 nations along the Pacific 
     Rim. While billed as a ``free trade'' deal, most of the TPP 
     is actually about creating new rights for multinational 
     corporations, including the big polluters most responsible 
     for the climate emergency.
       Under the TPP, the biggest global firms--including many 
     responsible for offshore drilling and fracking--would be able 
     to sue American taxpayers over laws and regulations that are 
     meant to protect public health and the environment. Rather 
     than suing in regular courts, these corporations would, 
     through the TPP, be able to sue before unaccountable 
     arbitration panels--each panel made up of three corporate 
     lawyers--who could award unlimited cash compensation. Similar 
     rules in other trade deals have already made possible nearly 
     700 such lawsuits--including efforts to challenge the U.S. 
     rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline and a moratorium on 
     fracking in Quebec.
       What does this mean for California?
       TPP would allow multinational corporations that own gas-
     fired power plants from Alameda County to San Diego County to 
     threaten state restrictions on carbon emissions--including 
     some of the new world-leading standards recently passed in 
     Sacramento. The deal would also vastly increase the number of 
     fracking firms and offshore drilling companies that could 
     challenge our protections.
       But it's not about just dirtier air and water or more 
     susceptibility to climate risks. It's also about jobs.
       Because TPP would threaten a successful California rebate 
     program for green technologies that are made in-state, the 
     deal could result in the elimination of good-paying green 
     jobs in fields like solar and wind manufacturing and energy 
     efficiency. Green jobs employ all kinds of people--truck 
     drivers, welders, secretaries, scientists--all across the 
     state. These jobs can pull people out of poverty while 
     protecting the planet.
       Given that California has lost an estimated 413,000 
     manufacturing jobs since America entered NAFTA and the World 
     Trade Organization, we can't afford to pass a new trade deal 
     and again undermine people's livelihoods.
       But there's good news. Labor, environmental and social 
     justice leaders now oppose the TPP, as do both major 
     presidential nominees, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, 
     and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.
       Still, some in Washington are scheming to pass the TPP 
     during Congress's ``lame duck'' session after the election. 
     While most members of California's Congressional delegation 
     firmly oppose the deal, some remain on the fence.
       As the consequences of climate change get clearer, the case 
     against the TPP gets stronger.

                          ____________________