[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9357-9358]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              WE NEED THE RIGHT TRACK, NOT THE FAST TRACK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Russell) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, TPA, TPP, TTIP, WTO, GATT, fast track, to 
the American people, we have made the ability to understand trade 
relations with other nations nigh on impossible.
  Politicians, pundits, and prophetic economists are issuing clarion 
calls to free trade. We all like free trade, but these same advocates 
insist that we do it fast, you know, put it on a fast track with 
``trade promotional authority.'' Listening to these experts, they 
insist that we cannot do trade without it. Never mind that for 160 
years we negotiated without it under the guide of the Constitution and 
the watchful eye of the Representatives of the people.
  Now, they want the negotiations to be secret: Don't worry. The trade 
agreements are complex. They will give us the final agreement, and we 
will have a little bit of time to look it over. Can't change it. Just 
look it over, and then you can have a simple up-or-down vote that could 
bind America to the terms of other nations.
  ``But it will create jobs?'' they say, just like NAFTA, just like the 
world

[[Page 9358]]

trade agreement, just like CAFTA. We were reassured then that those 
would fix everything. We passed them. We are still waiting for those 
jobs.
  Americans need to ask a few questions of us in this body before we 
commit to something that could have decades of impact.
  The Pacific Partnership includes a transnational commission with a 
living agreement clause to change it. Why would we surrender 
congressional authority of a two-thirds vote to stand guard against 
something that could clearly damage our laws and Nation?
  Why would we want to isolate China, possibly driving them toward 
Russia, and create cold war II. The Army Chief of Staff saw a need this 
week to ease tensions with China. Why would we want to increase them 
with anti-Chinese trade rhetoric? You think military spending is high 
now; try it in a cold war or worse. Let's trade with China instead, not 
make them our adversary.
  Even a partial pruning of commercial links or even a gradual upsurge 
in Western protectionism toward China would have a profound impact on 
the world's well-being. Why would we pursue a path that most likely 
creates tension that could spill over in other areas with devastating 
consequences, sending ripples throughout the world?
  The current President's talent for negotiation among nations should 
be measured by his foreign policy. Have we forgotten the line in the 
sand, the arming of al Qaeda and other nefarious Syrian rebels to fight 
Assad, only to watch them become ISIS, and then dismiss them as a JV 
team, only to see them tear through Iraq, which fell apart after we 
abandoned it, after we were assured that they could stand on their own 
if we left early? Now, there is no strategy to fix it. Then there is 
the Arab Spring, which has morphed into the potential for a nuclear 
winter with Iran. Let's not forget Crimea and Ukraine. I can go on.
  The question is: Why are we? Like Lucy holding the football, we are 
told that the President needs the power to negotiate. If we just come 
and take a kick at it, all will be well.
  Much is at stake. National security, American jobs, capital, 
manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, agricultural, and, contrary to economic 
theorists, even American law. One only has to look at the case of 
Australia's law that made generic packaging required on cigarettes. The 
law was challenged by a cigarette company who went treaty shopping by 
using its Hong Kong subsidiary and was able to interfere with 
Australia's law because of her treaty with Hong Kong.
  Perhaps most concerning is all the anti-Chinese rhetoric. China is an 
enormous trading partner, a holder of large amounts of U.S. Treasury 
bonds that have kept interest rates low and our purchasing power at the 
store high. They are not our enemy. Yet the rhetoric coming from the 
White House and the architects of the TPA bill seem set on anti-Chinese 
dictums to make their case.
  We need China. China needs us. Let's establish some rules of the road 
as competitors rather than laying the track for the smashup derby. It 
will take time, it will be hard, but dialogue and diplomacy are better 
than tanks and Tomahawks. We can do this without turning it into a 
foreign policy disaster that gives the President and Congress a chance 
to make China our enemy.
  We can engage without granting TPA, but we have to lead. TPA without 
leadership is less valuable than leadership without TPA. Among the 
proposed Pacific Partnership's 11 other nations, we already have high-
standard, free trade agreements with seven of them. We do not have to 
subject ourselves to this multilateral trade treaty to work with them, 
and we certainly should not do it fast by granting TPA to a President 
that has exhibited poor leadership in foreign affairs.
  We need the right track, not the fast track.

                          ____________________