[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5474-5478]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    FAST TRACK AND MARRIAGE EQUALITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, in just a few months in Washington, 
I have learned that there is always something going on, and this week 
is no exception to that rule. In the coming days, two very important 
actions may change life for many of my constituents and Americans 
across the country.
  Last week, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Ryan, 
introduced the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and 
Accountability Act of 2015, legislation that would allow the President 
to negotiate and to sign trade agreements with limited congressional 
oversight. The Committee on Ways and Means has reported that 
legislation out, and I imagine we will be considering it on the floor 
in short order.
  Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Obergefell 
v. Hodges, which is a case that has the potential to decide once and 
for all whether every American, regardless of sexual orientation, 
should have the right to marry and should have access to all of the 
legal rights and benefits we afford married couples.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I plan to address both of these 
important issues on the floor of the people's House this afternoon. I 
want to start by talking about the legislation that was reported out by 
the Ways and Means Committee this week.
  If Congress authorizes TPA's fast-track authority, this President and 
every President elected after him will have the unprecedented authority 
to negotiate and sign sweeping trade agreements with little opportunity 
for Congress to intercede on behalf of the many Americans those deals 
inevitably impact.
  In the past, those agreements haven't turned out great for American 
workers here at home, which is all the more important reason that 
Congress should be able to retain the ability to fight for what is in 
the best interests of our constituents. After 6 years of secretive 
negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, we haven't 
been given much motivation to release any of this oversight.
  Offering fast-track authority for the TPP means that we press fast-
forward on policies that put American families' health at risk on 
policies that are challenging our chemical safeguards, on policies 
allowing unregulated and potentially contaminated food products into 
the United States.
  We lose our chance to question policies that would allow foreign 
corporations to skirt our courts and demand taxpayer compensation when 
they feel they have been violated by U.S. laws.
  Our constituents are relying on us to stand up for their interests on 
TPP and on every future trade agreement to come down the line. We 
cannot pass the buck on this, and I know that our first speaker today 
agrees with me.
  I want to talk a little bit about the State of New Jersey because the 
State of New Jersey has seen what can happen when trade deals go bad: 
factories close, employees are laid off, and cities that have 
previously made things that have been bought by consumers around the 
world are suddenly faced with stunted economies and surges in 
unemployment.
  My capital district--``Trenton makes, the World Takes''--is an 
illustration of what was a great economy in that locale. That is why it 
is so important that this body ensures we only sign these agreements 
when we are sure they will help, not hurt, working families.
  I yield now to another Member who is deeply familiar with the issues 
in New Jersey, my friend and my fellow freshman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Norcross).
  Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of what is 
being called fast-track authority.
  The legislation would allow a deal, a deal that, regardless of its 
impact on American jobs, would go into effect with just a simple up-or-
down vote. We have no other avenue for input, and I think we are 
seriously misguided. The best indication of that is history, where we 
have been.
  I started my career as an electrician, working up and down the 
Delaware River, in different plants that manufactured products for not 
only the United States, but around the world. Now, I go through what is 
now my congressional district, and I can see the

[[Page 5475]]

empty boxes which used to be manufacturing, which used to put men and 
women to work.
  Since NAFTA, I have been involved in trying to educate the people of 
not only my area, but, certainly, of the rest of the country, that this 
is seriously misguided and that the rhetoric that we heard at the time 
ended up being the exact opposite.
  In my district alone, there have been 19,500 jobs lost and 59 
employers who are no longer there. Those empty buildings that we used 
to call home, that used to pay for college educations, those are dreams 
erased. I was sent to Congress to create a climate for jobs here in 
America, and that is my focus. That is why I am so passionate about 
this issue.
  When we look around the country, we are just now coming out of the 
worst economic times since I have been alive--the worst times. Now, 
what we are seeing and what we are being asked to do is to grant 
authority to take those jobs--the ones that will take care of our 
families--and ship them overseas.
  They did it before, and it is going to happen again. Our job is to 
help create jobs here in America for all of the people, not just for 
the few who make and own the companies.
  I urge my colleagues in the strongest way I can to say ``no'' to fast 
track and to say ``yes'' to American jobs.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his 
remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, our constituents are really relying 
upon us here to stand up for their interests on TPP because every 
future trade agreement that comes down the line has an impact on our 
quality of life and on our opportunities.
  I know that the speaker that we are getting ready to hear from knows 
very well how this trade agreement and how these negotiations are going 
to impact the communities and the economy of our United States of 
America. It is my honor to yield to someone who has been fighting 
furiously for her constituents, who has been adamant about giving a 
voice to the voiceless, and who has been educating our Caucus on a 
routine basis.
  I yield now to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Let me say thank you to my colleague from New Jersey. I 
appreciate her kind words, but it is also true that she has been a 
strong, strong supporter of what this trade agreement might do to 
working families in the United States because where her heart and soul 
and where her values are, are going to strengthen the middle class in 
this country, not take the jobs away, not lower their wages, but make 
sure they can take care of themselves and their families.
  I was so pleased to see another colleague from New Jersey here as 
well, and I am proud to join this effort.

                              {time}  1245

  On Monday, the beginning of this week, I went to Ansonia, 
Connecticut, which is in my district. I went to a place called the 
Ansonia Copper and Brass Company. There I was with the gentleman, John 
Barto, who was formerly the vice president of Ansonia Copper and Brass. 
John used to work there alongside of hundreds of others. He made 
specialty metal products, products that were used by U.S. industry and 
our military. Not so long ago the company employed thousands. Today 
this site lies vacant. All of those jobs have gone. What closed this 
plant? Unfair competition from overseas, exacerbated by bad trade 
deals.
  Just don't listen to me on this. These are the words of a gentleman 
that I stood with in a hollowed-out building where the rain was coming 
through the roof on Monday because it is vacant and it is becoming just 
derelict. They are now taking the steel out of there to see what they 
can do to sell it in order to see what kind of revenue can be raised.
  This is what he says: ``These trade agreements are always promised to 
bring money and jobs and prosperity to our country, but they've done 
the exact opposite. We were a supplier to the United States Navy for 
over 70 years for a very critical part. Now that part is no longer made 
in this country, and that's terrible.''
  Further: ``I think we already know that this is going to be like 
NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement). There's something 
undeniably suspicious about an agreement when you're not able to see 
it''--to read it, to understand what is in it.
  Finally, I will just say that his words and he did strike a chord 
when he talked about:

       We've long understood that currency manipulation is the 
     driving force behind jobs existing in this country. It hasn't 
     changed. That's an issue. We talk about NAFTA, we talk about 
     CAFTA, most recently the Korea free trade agreement, and they 
     are going to change things, bring jobs, help manufacturing. 
     It has done nothing short of the exact opposite. I am living, 
     breathing proof . . . This was a vibrant company. There were 
     300 people-plus working here . . . Now there are zero jobs, 
     zero revenues . . . Hundreds upon hundreds of employees, 
     thousands worked here over time . . . generations of families 
     were supported by this company, and it's with great sadness 
     that we find ourselves here today. The fact is the enemy is 
     ourselves . . . We have got to get our Senators and all of 
     our elected representatives to understand what we're up 
     against is currency manipulation. I don't for a second 
     believe that we need to take this deal, negotiate it in the 
     back room. Our elected officials cannot see it. That squashes 
     democracy. It reeks of impropriety. What is going on here 
     where we cannot see this agreement?

  These are not my words. I didn't work at Ansonia Copper and Brass. 
But today, John Barto, a former vice president, is trying to find 
another job for himself and for his family. That is the story that this 
free trade agreement is all about.
  What has gone on here and what is happening in our manufacturing 
sector is that problems are leaving people struggling to find middle 
class jobs. American manufacturing jobs are being lost; foreign 
products are being subsidized, and those are coming in, and it is about 
these bad trade agreements.
  The United States is poised to sign the biggest trade agreement of 
them all, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and it is a very dangerous 
prospect for our economy, for our working families. It forces Americans 
to compete with low-paid workers in developing countries like Vietnam, 
where the minimum wage is 56 cents an hour. It hazards the health of 
our families by opening up our borders still wider to dangerous, 
unregulated food, toxic seafood from Malaysia and from Vietnam. It 
empowers foreign companies to challenge all kinds of U.S. laws, without 
ever stepping foot inside an American courtroom. It promotes corporate 
special interests. It relegates labor rights and environmental 
protections to the sidelines. It does nothing to confront the currency 
cheats whose abuses have already cost Connecticut over 32,000 jobs.
  Now the administration wants us to give it a rubberstamp to say: You 
go ahead and complete the negotiations that they have been engaged in 
for the last 5 years without any congressional input so that they can 
complete the deal without us knowing what is in this Trans-Pacific 
Partnership agreement.
  What is fast track? What does it mean? No public scrutiny; limited 
debate in the House of Representatives; and no ability by Members of 
Congress, who have the constitutional authority to review free trade 
agreements, it gives us no opportunity to amend the process. If we 
wanted to change it, we can't change it once you have given fast track.
  We have been here before. The administration sought fast-track 
authority last year. It failed. They produced another bill that came 
out of a committee in the United States Senate; and in the House it is 
exactly the same, almost exactly the same as it was last year. Our view 
is it is dead on arrival this time as well.
  On that issue of currency which Mr. Barto spoke so poignantly about, 
which, currency manipulation, when a country devalues its currency, it 
makes their goods cheaper than our goods. The administration has 
refused to put a currency chapter in the free trade agreement, and they 
have said that. They wrote a letter to the United States Senators. That 
is the biggest link in losing jobs and depressing wages.
  I will finish up on this. What is the economic challenge that we face 
today? People in our country are in

[[Page 5476]]

jobs that just don't pay them enough money to pay their bills. Middle 
class families are struggling. Wages are stagnant today. Why would we 
want to support a free trade agreement that will only exacerbate this 
problem? It will not create jobs and, further, it will depress wages.
  We counter, say ``no'' to fast track and that we are not going to 
stand by. We are going to exercise our constitutional authority as 
Members of the House of Representatives. Read this piece of 
legislation, and it has to reflect not our ideas, but what our 
constituents believe is the right thing to do on their behalf.
  I can't thank you enough for organizing this effort today. You can be 
sure that every single day we are going to be up on our feet and 
finding the votes to say ``no'' to fast track and ``yes'' to the 
American people and to working families in this country. I thank the 
gentlelady.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the gentlelady for having taken this 
issue and just gone forward with it and having been such an educator of 
us, of the ones that are new and the ones that have been here and that 
have taken the time to really speak to the constituents about the 
impact of this trade agreement and the potential that it has a negative 
impact on our economy, our safety, our security, our worker 
protections. I thank you very much.
  I think it is quite illuminating for people to understand that no one 
is opposed to trade. We are just opposed to unequal trade. No one is 
opposed to exporting or importing. We are opposed to not knowing what 
is in this trade agreement. We are opposed to not having a say in this 
trade agreement, and we are opposed to anything that creates greater 
unequal opportunities for the workers of this country to have decent 
jobs and good wages that are being paid. So I thank you very much.
  The notion of giving this President, whom we love, and any President 
that we are going to love in the future the authority to do that 
without our involvement is not what was expected by creating these 
three coequal branches of government.
  As I said to you in the beginning, there are two very important 
issues that our constituents are concerned about, Mr. Speaker, that we 
are going to speak out today because they are occupying the minds of 
many of our colleagues over the next few weeks. It is not only this 
major issue that will be on the minds of American people, but next 
week, just next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a case that 
has the potential to fulfill the principles of equality and justice 
that this country stands for. When the court hears arguments in this 
case, they will have the opportunity to ensure that every American, 
regardless of whom they love, has access to the legal rights and 
benefits we give on the Federal and State level to married couples.
  More than 60 percent of Americans already agree that same-sex couples 
deserve the same recognition that we give heterosexual couples; and 
just as public opposition has crumbled, so have many of the arguments 
we have made against giving these couples the same protections we give 
their heterosexual peers. I am proud to be a member of the LGBT Caucus 
and to join my colleagues today on the floor this evening as we urge 
the court to rule in support of equal rights and in favor of marriage 
equality.
  It is my pleasure now to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Takano), a leader in the fight for marriage equality and equality in 
general for all people. I now ask Mr. Takano from the great State of 
California to share his remarks with us.
  Mr. TAKANO. Well, I thank the gentlelady from New Jersey for yielding 
to me during this Special Order, and I want to give time for us to get 
set up with our graphics.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation is on the cusp of correcting a longstanding 
injustice, an injustice that has been embedded into our national psyche 
and, frankly, our laws for more than 200 years. It is an injustice that 
says LGBT Americans shouldn't receive the same rights as everyone else. 
It is an injustice that the law in many States still says it doesn't 
matter how committed LGBT relationships are or how much in love they 
are. It is an injustice in the law that says LGBT Americans cannot and 
should not be able to get married.
  The law could not be more wrong, Mr. Speaker. Our Constitution says 
that no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws, and that 
should include LGBT Americans. To say that it doesn't matter how 
committed same-sex relationships are is an insult to the thousands of 
same-sex relationships that have been going strong for 30, 40, even 50 
years. Gender and sexual orientation should not matter when it comes to 
the right to marry. What should matter is what is in one's heart.
  Now the Supreme Court can correct this injustice next week, as it is 
set to hear oral arguments in a case that could make marriage equality 
the law of the land. Now, I have never been one to count my chickens 
before they hatch, but I believe that the Supreme Court will rule on 
the right side of history.
  Our Nation has been moving toward marriage equality at a breakneck 
speed. Ten years ago, only one State had marriage equality; and as you 
can see here, things have changed, as 36 States and the District of 
Columbia now have marriage equality.
  As we prepare for the Court's ruling, let us not forget that there 
are more battles to be fought. As it stands in 28 States, someone can 
be fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This 
puts individuals who live in certain States in a difficult position. I 
just want to take a moment to point out, this here is a map of where 
those 28 States are in our country with employment discrimination in 
the United States.
  I want to tell you the story of Lonnie Billard of South Carolina, a 
high school teacher for more than a decade. Lonnie couldn't wait to 
marry his long-time partner when marriage equality came to South 
Carolina in late 2014. Like so many Americans do, he posted the news of 
his marriage on Facebook.

                              {time}  1300

  Several days later, he received a call from his assistant principal, 
and he was fired from his job.
  Marriage equality is coming, Mr. Speaker, but what does it say about 
our Nation when people cannot share the happiest day of their life for 
fear of losing their job?
  For Americans who live in States with marriage equality and legalized 
discrimination, we are telling them that they can have the same rights 
as everyone else, but it is best that they don't tell anyone about it.
  What we have is an incomplete patchwork map of rights for LGBT 
Americans. If you look at the marriage equality map, there are 36 
States with marriage equality. But if you look at the employment 
discrimination map, LGBT Americans can be fired in 28 States simply for 
being who they are.
  That means that in 14 States--like Indiana, Alabama, and 
Pennsylvania--an LGBT American can get married to their partner, but 
then get fired because of it.
  That is not what our Nation is about. Every American is granted a 
certain set of rights, and they should be able to exercise them as 
freely and openly as they wish.
  Our Nation is becoming a more perfect Union. But until we recognize 
that LGBT Americans are entitled to all of the same rights and 
protections as anyone else, full legal equality for LGBT Americans will 
be incomplete.
  There will be a day when both of these maps are combined and show 
that LGBT Americans are receiving full and equal protection under the 
law. Until then, we fail to live up to our own Constitution. But even 
when we reach full legal equality, it may take years until we receive 
equality in the hearts of all Americans.
  I know I will continue the fight for equality in the hearts of all 
Americans, and I know the gentlewoman from New Jersey will fight as 
well.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you very much to the gentleman from 
California.
  I have to tell you that I am very happy to be able to work with you 
on

[[Page 5477]]

this issue. As a State legislator, this was important to us in the 
State of New Jersey. And as we grappled with all kinds of 
configurations of equality in relationships, we recognized that 
everything but absolute marriage equality was giving individuals 
stumbling blocks over very important things like simply being able to 
visit your loved one in the hospital and making medical decisions for 
them, or being able to enjoy the financial rights that a heterosexual 
couple can enjoy.
  Any area in which there is inequality is a threatened area to every 
one of us who at one point has been discriminated against or has been 
identified as part of a protected class.
  So I thank you for the work that you are doing here, and I am your 
partner in this effort.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), our leader in our Caucus on this and so many other issues, a 
person who stands up each and every day for the rights of the citizens 
of this great country.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank Congresswoman Coleman for yielding time, and I 
thank her for organizing this Special Order and for her leadership on 
this issue. She is a new Member, but not a new person to public 
service, not a new person to leadership, not a new person to fighting 
for the rights of every American, and I thank her very much for her 
leadership, her commitment, and her courage.
  I also want to thank, Mr. Speaker, the LGBT Equality Caucus for its 
powerful advocacy on this issue.
  The Supreme Court next week is hearing more than just an argument 
about same sex marriage. It is considering a question fundamental to 
what it means to be an American.
  Our Nation, as we say so proudly, was founded on the premise that all 
people are created equal--not the same, but equal--irrespective of the 
differences. Our Declaration of Independence, as all of us quote so 
often, says:
  ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men''--of course, 
if Jefferson were writing today, it would be either all people or all 
humankind--``are created equal, that they are endowed by''--not a 
Congress, not by a Constitution, not by a will of the majority--``their 
Creator''--by God--``with certain unalienable rights, that among these 
are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.''
  That, of course, has not always been America's performance, 
notwithstanding it has been its promise.
  Next week, the highest Court in our land will be asked to consider 
whether these words apply to same-sex couples who love one another. 
Many courts have already said that it does.
  Marriage equality provides same-sex households vital legal 
protections and economic security that we would ask for ourselves. 
Marriage equality would mean that approximately 250,000 children in 
America who are being raised in same-sex households will see their 
parents receive equal treatment.
  One of those families is led by--or perhaps his partner would say he 
leads it--Sean Patrick Maloney, with three beautiful, loving and loved 
children. I have seen them all together. They are a happy, healthy 
family.
  Study after study has shown that children of same-sex households are 
doing as well as their peers from opposite sex households academically, 
psychologically, and socially.
  Marriage equality also means spousal benefits for those who share 
their lives with and care for their same-sex partners. Marriage 
equality will mean that same-sex couples, Mr. Speaker, can make medical 
and end-of-life decisions for their loved one.
  These are tangible benefits. These, I would suggest to you, Mr. 
Speaker, are the pursuit of happiness. They are tangible benefits and 
ought to be treated equally under the law in every State of our Union--
not in 28, not in 48, but in all 50 and the District of Columbia.
  Thanks to the extraordinary courage of millions who have come out to 
their friends and families, which took a lot of courage, and spoken 
with their neighbors and coworkers, a majority of Americans now agree 
that every loving couple ought to be treated equally and have their 
right to marry recognized.
  I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have three daughters. I have three 
grandchildren. One of my grandchildren is an adult. All four of those 
women would say to me: Dad, why is it any of our business who somebody 
else loves, who somebody else wants to commit to? Why is that our 
business? Why does it make a difference to us?
  What makes a difference to us is how they treat us, whether they obey 
the law, whether, as Dr. Martin Luther King would say, the content of 
their character is such that we ought to respect them, not because of 
the difference of the color of their skin, their gender, their 
nationality, their religion, or their choice of whom they want to love.
  Born equal, endowed by God with certain unalienable rights, and among 
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is there a 
happier time in one's life than when one pledges themselves to another? 
We all gather, we all celebrate, we all wish them well.
  LGBT Americans now have the right to marry and have their families 
treated equally in 37 States and the District of Columbia. In the 
remaining States, however, LGBT residents are watching the Supreme 
Court with great anticipation.
  Hopefully, the Court will do as Earl Warren's Court did in Brown v. 
Board of Education, saying that separate is not equal. Treating people 
here differently than people here--who love one another--is not equal.
  Tens of millions of Americans stand with our friends in the LGBT 
community in support of marriage equality and believe, as I do, in a 
ruling in support of the lower courts that have again and again sided 
with same-sex couples and have said that the law requires, the 
Constitution requires, that we do in fact live out our promise of 
treatment on an equal basis.
  We need to bring those words of the Declaration of Independence 
closer to their full realization, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, the Court 
will do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I am from the State of Maryland. I was proud to join in 
sending an amicus brief to the Court in March, arguing that the State 
bans are unconstitutional.
  In my State of Maryland, our legislature carried out what Mrs. 
Coleman and I have said: equality means equality. We passed marriage 
equality.
  Mr. Speaker, some folks didn't agree with that and petitioned it to a 
referendum. I am very proud of the citizens of Maryland. They were the 
first State to say in a referendum at the polls, We believe equality 
means equality, and passed this resolution and confirmed that law.
  I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey, a leader in that State, a 
leader in our Nation, for leading this Special Order hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we will be able to return to this floor over the 
summer to praise a ruling by the Court that I anticipate will be 
historic and accurate and one that our Nation can be proud of for 
generations, indeed, centuries to come.
  Our Nation made a promise in our Declaration of Independence. Our 
Nation has not always met that promise. Indeed, we have struggled to 
realize the reality of that promise.
  In my lifetime, Martin Luther King, Jr., brought that compellingly to 
America's attention. In his lifetime, the President whom the majority 
leader in this House just last week heralded as one of the great 
figures, great giants in American history, Abraham Lincoln, called the 
attention of his generation to the gulf between the promise and the 
practice in America.
  It resulted in a war in which we lost more lives in America than any 
other war in which we have been involved: the Civil War. It is sad that 
we had to fight. It is sad that we lost lives. But we have redeemed, to 
some degree, the promise of treating people based upon the content of 
their character.

                              {time}  1315

  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, and I 
appreciate the passions with which you have taken on this issue of 
right and wrong and equality, as you have taken on other issues. Thank 
you for you leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that these may seem to have been very diverse 
issues

[[Page 5478]]

to bring before the floor at the same time, but they are connected in 
so many different ways, particularly because our constituents care 
deeply about both of these issues.
  If we allow the fast-track authority to move forward, we risk signing 
up for a trade deal that risks our environment, the health of American 
families, while excusing the reprehensible conduct of many of the 
governments who would become our new partners, all while putting in the 
same compromise for future agreements.
  Meanwhile, if the Supreme Court upholds the tenets of justice and 
equality that our Nation has always valued, LGBT couples across the 
country will gain the access to the same rights and protections that 
heterosexual couples expect and enjoy, and the children of those 
couples will have the confidence and the security of their family's 
relationship. I look forward to continuing my work with that.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 19 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.

                          ____________________