[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[House]
[Page 8258]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY SHIFTS TO HOUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in our fast-changing world, the global 
economy looms large. America has long been the leader in promoting 
freer and fairer trade, promoting the economy at home while 
strengthening ties overseas. The current issue that is before us now 
deals with a trade promotion authority and the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership, an agreement with 12 countries, representing almost 40 
percent of the global economy.
  After the recent bipartisan vote in the Senate on the trade promotion 
authority and related package, attention now shifts to the House where 
we are likely to be voting on this in the next couple of weeks. Many 
confuse support for the trade promotion authority with the TPP, the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership. They are two distinct items.
  The Trans-Pacific Partnership is an ongoing series of negotiations 
which has yet to be concluded. Indeed, one of the reasons we are 
looking at trade promotion authority now, establishing the rules of the 
game and how Congress will evaluate and process it, is to make sure 
that we get into the final stages.
  Trade promotion authority historically, something we have done 
repeatedly in the past, provides for Congress to vote on an up-or-down 
basis on a trade agreement once it is finalized. This is what happens 
in negotiations routinely in the United States, an up-or-down vote. I 
find it somewhat ironic that some of my friends in organized labor 
think that it somehow should be negotiated in Congress, that it ought 
to be subject to amendment in Congress. Yet there is no labor union 
that I am aware of that has its contracts voted piecemeal. Members 
aren't allowed to amend. It is up or down, and that is what is 
necessary to be able to reach a conclusion with these negotiations.
  Some are demanding that Members of Congress oppose an agreement that 
is not yet completed. Well, I, for one, am not going to support or 
oppose an agreement until I can see what is in it and until the 
agreement is finalized. Until it is finished, I am going to continue to 
work to make it as strong as possible.
  I have been working on provisions to strengthen enforcement, 
establishing a trust fund to make sure that provisions in trade 
agreements have the resources to make sure that they are, in fact, 
enforced, such as having provisions known as the Green 301 that has 
greater strength to be able to enforce environmental provisions. This 
makes a difference for my community.
  Oregon's small- and medium-sized businesses, family farmers, 
winemakers, bike manufacturers say that enhanced trade authority is 
critical to creating more jobs at home and increased value for 
customers. That is something that gets lost in this debate because, as 
a result of our policies promoting freer trade between countries, 
Americans have seen their standard of living increase. Americans today 
are paying less for clothing, less for food, less for electronics as a 
result of the benefits of these agreements. Some estimates say it is 
about $8,000 per family.
  Well, we will see what the current trade agreement looks like when it 
is completed. As I mentioned, the trade promotion authority is 
necessary to reach the final stages.
  Thanks to the efforts of my friend and my constituent Senator Ron 
Wyden, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, this trade 
promotion authority that we will be dealing with makes it mandatory 
that everybody in the country will be able to look at the final 
agreement for 60 days before the President even signs it, and then it 
will be public for another 90 days--5 months, essentially--before 
Congress will vote up or down on whether or not it is worthy of our 
support.
  Well, I will do what I have done in trade agreements in the past. I 
will consider each element with the same principles: Is this package 
good for the people I represent in Oregon? Does it align with our 
values? Will it be a net positive for areas that I care about, like 
labor and the environment? More fundamentally, are we going to be 
better off with an agreement or with none?

                          ____________________