[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[House]
[Page 9132]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, House action is expected on trade 
provisions this week. A vote on a package that establishes the rules 
for how the next major trade agreement will be handled, the trade 
promotion authority, may be voted on, this Friday.
  It has been fascinating for me to hear the arguments at home and in 
Washington, D.C., of those who are opposed to trade promotion authority 
and have already decided against the Trans-Pacific Partnership before 
the agreement is even finished.
  The critics often cite concerns about the environment, but what I 
hear from some of my friends on the other side of this question at home 
stands in stark contrast to what I think reality is. The dreaded 
``secret negotiations'' are somehow raised as a negative.
  To the best of my knowledge, all major serious agreements are 
negotiated in private like all labor union contracts. It is after they 
are negotiated that the Members have them and look at whether or not it 
is worthy of their support.
  There are concerns about various corporate advisers whispering in the 
Trade Representative's ear and having access to confidential 
information tilting the playing field. Last week, I met with two of 
those sinister advisers who happen to be respected environmental 
leaders. Yes, the advisory panels include environmental leaders and, in 
fact, union leaders as well.
  There was an interesting point that came forward in my conversation 
with environmentalists that the only way to stop, slow, and reverse the 
rape of the oceans is by an international trade agreement, and this one 
is actually shaping up to be pretty strong.
  Oceans are threatened by overfishing, having fishery stocks collapse; 
yet the countries in the 12 countries that are negotiating this 
agreement have, on average, a 20 percent subsidy to encourage more 
fishing, overfishing, paying their fishermen to catch the very last 
fish. The only way to deal with this is by having a multinational 
agreement that is enforceable to reduce this destructive policy.
  Along with the oceans, there is deep concern about what is going on 
with deforestation, the exploitation of endangered species in the 
forested areas. Since 2000, we have lost an area ten times the size of 
Great Britain to deforestation just in the Amazon basin alone. That is 
why, in the last round of trade negotiations, I fought hard to have 
provisions against illegal logging in Peru and for them to raise their 
standards.
  We are struggling to make sure that they are fully enforced, but 
nobody that I have talked to seriously thinks that we wouldn't be 
better off without an agreement. It gives us leverage, and things are 
improving.
  Well, likewise, we are seeing thugs illegally harvesting endangered 
species like elephants and rhinos. They are taking illegally harvested 
exotic timber and disrupting indigenous people.
  No nation can prevent the exploitation by themselves, but many 
nations, armed with an enforceable agreement that we can use trade 
sanctions to be able to put teeth in it, can make a difference now and 
raise the bar for future agreements.
  The package moving forward has faced some changes that I find 
troubling. All major legislation that I have seen in my career in 
Congress is a mixed bag. They had some good things; they had some bad 
things; and some things that are hard to figure out.
  That is going to be our job this week and beyond, to make that 
evaluation; but on balance, while we are trying to figure out whether 
we are better off with or without it, it is important that that 
decision be made on a factual basis, not hypothetical scare tactics.

                          ____________________