[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9461-9468]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       ENSURING TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the 
bill (H.R. 1314) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for a right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse 
determinations of tax-exempt status of certain organizations will now 
resume.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed earlier 
today, 39 minutes of debate remained on the bill.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) has 18 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 21 minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), one of our leaders here in 
the Congress on free trade.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much for 
yielding and for his good work.
  Mr. Speaker, trade means prosperity. In any trade, both sides go away 
with something of greater value to themselves, or the trade wouldn't 
take place. More markets for American products means more jobs and 
higher wages for American workers. More products entering our economy 
means more consumer choices and lower prices.
  Trade agreements make trade possible, but the authority to 
effectively negotiate trade agreements lapsed years ago, handicapping 
America ever since. This is not some new power; it just restores the 
same negotiating process that has served us well since the 1930s.
  A lot of people confuse the TPA with the TPP. That is a trade 
agreement that hasn't even been finalized. If it is finalized, this 
bill assures that it has to meet 150 congressionally mandated 
conditions and be available for every American to read for at least 60 
days before Congress votes to approve or reject it.
  TPA tells world markets America is back.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a member of our committee, 
the most distinguished Member from Georgia--or I should say the very 
distinguished Member.
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and my ranking 
member for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the fast track amendment.
  Over 20 years ago, I stood on this very House floor in opposition to 
NAFTA. I felt strongly then, as I do now, that these agreements are 
about more than trade. They are reflections of our values. Let me be 
clear, I am for trade. Since NAFTA, I have opposed some agreements and 
supported others, but I am not for trade at any price or at any cost.
  Those of us on the Ways and Means Committee tried time and time again 
to make this legislation better, but mine and every single other 
Democratic amendment was rejected.
  Mr. Speaker, I visited Vietnam, and I know that there is much work to 
be

[[Page 9462]]

done. There is no freedom to organize, and freedom of speech is 
limited.
  The people of Georgia are calling and writing my office in waves. For 
over 20 years, they have felt the hardship of unfair trade. Textile and 
automobile factories disappeared from metro Atlanta. Good jobs were 
shipped to Bangladesh, to China, to Mexico. Americans should not have 
to compete with starvation wages and environmental destruction.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know about you, but as Joshua of old said, as 
for me and my house, I am going to cast my lot with the working people 
of America.
  Today, we have an opportunity to do what is right and what is just.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. LEWIS. We can develop smart trade policies which reflect our 
values. Labor, human rights, and trade have always been connected. This 
is not new. This little planet is not ours to waste, but to use what we 
need and leave this little planet a little greener and a little more 
peaceful for generations yet unborn.
  This Congress must be a headlight and not a taillight, or history 
will not be kind to us.
  I urge each and every Member of this Congress to do what is right. 
Stand up for the working people of our country.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a leader on trade, a member of the Ways and 
Means Subcommittee on Trade.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  It is difficult to overstate the importance of trade with other 
countries. The benefits of trade are huge and enormous for our economy.
  If you take all the trade agreements that we have with other 
countries around the world and you add them together, we have a trade 
surplus. If you take the nontrade agreements with the countries we 
don't have trade agreements with, we have a deficit. These agreements 
help us; they benefit us.
  There is no doubt that the U.S. has been on the sidelines in recent 
years. This gets us back in the game, making us create a healthier 
economy here at home, changing and making sure that our status as a 
global leader will be right back on top, higher-paying jobs, better-
paying jobs. This is an opportunity also to make sure the United States 
is setting the rules for our economy, for the world economy, instead of 
China.
  Mr. Speaker, if you are for these things, you should be for this 
legislation. Trade promotion authority allows these agreements to move 
forward with congressional oversight.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a member of our committee.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I rise in strong opposition to the trade bill before us, and I am 
also in opposition to using 1 cent of Medicare money for anything other 
than paying for health care for senior citizens.
  I am not antitrade; I believe in trade, and I want a trade bill, but 
I want a trade bill that creates jobs and economic opportunity for the 
communities that I represent. I want a trade bill that creates fair 
wages and opportunities for employment.
  I don't want a bill that continues to help the rich get richer and 
the poor get poorer and the middle class get squeezed into oblivion, 
and I don't want a fast track. As a matter of fact, the jobs in 
economic development have left the communities I represent fast enough. 
They don't need our help, and they don't need to be gone. We need jobs 
in America.
  I am going to vote against this. If I do and if it is the wrong vote, 
I am going to be voting with the people that I represent, the people 
who sent me here, the people who have said ``represent us.'' They want 
a ``no'' vote. I vote ``no'' because I represent them.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Smith), a leader on trade, a member of the Ways and Means 
Subcommittee on Trade.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Trade Act of 2015.
  We have the opportunity to remove major trade barriers which make it 
harder to sell U.S. products to consumers in other countries.
  To grow our economy, we must expand our access to the 96 percent of 
consumers outside the United States. Nebraska's producers--farmers, 
ranchers, and others--want to serve new markets, and this bill is an 
important step forward.
  A number of concerns have been raised, and I want to clarify a couple 
of points. Many Nebraskans are concerned about the President's actions 
on a number of issues. To address these concerns, we need to actually 
pass this bill and establish more than 150 congressional parameters 
that the President will be required to follow as trade negotiations 
take place.
  Some might be concerned that no one is allowed to read proposed trade 
agreements. We must pass this bill, actually, to ensure that every 
Member of this body has full access to negotiating text and any final 
agreement is publicly posted online for 60 days before the President 
can sign it.
  This bill also ensures we have an up-or-down vote on any trade 
agreement and contains new provisions allowing us to block agreements 
if the executive branch does not follow our rules.
  This bill is important; it is an important step for opportunity and 
growth, and I ask for a ``yea'' vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another valued member of our committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Democrats just left a very powerful 
presentation from the President of the United States to our Members, 
who simply ask that our Members play it straight: vote for things they 
believe in.
  For instance, 125 Democrats voted for Trade Adjustment Assistance to 
help workers displaced because of things in the global economy. We have 
a provision before us today that is actually stronger than what 125 of 
us voted for before; yet there are some that are thinking, well, they 
may not vote for it.
  I have had ads run against me for cutting Medicare; yet I am going to 
ask to enter into the Record a letter from the American Hospital 
Association, the American Medical Association, American Health Care 
Association, and the National Association for Home Care & Hospice that 
point out there were no cuts to Medicare because of the changes that we 
are involved with making.
  Now, this is part of the problem we are having dealing with how to 
consider trade promotion authority. This is something that all of us 
should embrace. It sets the rules for the administration to negotiate 
and how we will evaluate it.
  It will guarantee, as my friend from Nebraska just pointed out, 
everybody in America will have almost 5 full months to look at it 
before it is ever voted on. It contains the strongest environmental and 
labor provisions of any trade provisions in history.
  That is what people talked to me about when they wanted NAFTA fixed. 
Trade promotion authority that we have here will do it. It is very 
important. I have not stopped working to improve this package. I have 
got things I want to change, work with the Senate, work in conference 
committee.
  If we ever get an agreement, then I will evaluate the TPP based on 
what is in it, not speculation, innuendo, and reckless charges.

                                                    June 11, 2015.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi: On behalf of our 
     members, who include a broad spectrum of Medicare providers, 
     we are writing to share with you our appreciation for 
     addressing the cuts to Medicare that had been included in 
     trade legislation but will now be removed. We support the 
     provisions in H.R. 1295, the ``Trade Preferences Extension 
     Act of 2015,'' that remove this Medicare cut.

[[Page 9463]]

       This week, the House is considering several trade bills. 
     Section 603 of H.R. 1295, which was passed by the House 
     earlier today, would eliminate the Medicare sequester 
     extension for the last six months in 2024, which would have 
     cut $700 million from Medicare according to Congressional 
     Budget Office estimates. This provision also would have 
     resulted in a net effect of increasing the sequester in 2024 
     beyond the 2 percent in the Budget Control Act. With the 
     protection of Section 603, coupled with expeditious passage 
     by the Senate of H.R. 1295 as amended, we would no longer 
     view a vote in favor of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
     legislation as a vote to cut Medicare.
       Hospitals, physicians, nursing homes and home health and 
     hospice providers have already absorbed hundreds of billions 
     of dollars in cuts to the Medicare program in recent years. 
     We believe that it is an unwise precedent to use Medicare 
     cuts to pay for non-Medicare related legislation. We are 
     grateful this is addressed favorably in Section 603.
           Sincerely,
     American Hospital Association;
     American Medical Association;
     American Health Care Association;
     National Association for Home Care & Hospice.

  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Dold), a new member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that we are moving forward and 
providing American leadership when it comes to trade.
  My friend from Oregon here just articulately noted some of the 
reasons why this needs to move forward. Literally one in three 
manufacturing jobs relies upon exports; 95 percent of the world's 
consumers are outside of the United States.
  I want to make sure that we have got good, high-paying jobs right 
here at home. The way to do that is to be able to make sure that we are 
deciding what are the rules of the road when it comes to trade.
  The rules of the 21st century in the global economy are being written 
today, and the question is: Will the United States of America be there 
to be able to write these rules, to be part of the process? If we 
don't, certainly China and others will, putting the United States and 
our businesses, our workers, at an enormous disadvantage.
  We want trade deals that are enforceable, accountable, and have high 
standards. This is about creating good, high-paying American jobs. This 
is what we all want. Frankly, we have got an opportunity to move 
forward.
  The 10th Congressional District is the 4th largest manufacturing 
district in the nation, with over 107,000 manufacturing employees.
  1 in 3 manufacturing jobs rely on exports.
  New opportunities for America's small businesses.
  97% of U.S. companies that export are small and medium-sized 
businesses.
  The actual vote on any final trade agreement is months away. I want 
to clear up confusion, because there are efforts by critics of trade to 
distort what TPA is.
  This is merely a vote on the process associated with moving forward 
on trade agreements--this is not the vote on any actual trade deal. 
That vote would not occur for months.
  TPA explicitly prevents the enactment of any trade deal without 
separate, subsequent approval by Congress. Nothing will be enacted 
without an additional up-or-down vote in Congress.
  TPA ensures that the American people will have an opportunity to read 
the actual text of any preliminary agreement that the President intends 
to enter into.
  Specifically, the President must publish the text online at least 60 
days prior to signing off on anything. And even after that, Congress 
still gets an up-or-down vote on approval or rejection. So, there is 
unprecedented transparency here.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell), another member of our committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what an innuendo is. It is 
saying that the jobs that we lose are going to be replaced by just as 
good or better jobs.
  Well, here is the record. Remember, you are giving assistance to 
workers who already lost their jobs. Wouldn't it make sense logically 
to try to save the jobs in the first place? Or do we believe, as 
President Bush said in February of 2004 in his economic report: Hey, if 
they make it cheaper overseas, we have got to do something else? That 
is a way out. That is innuendo.
  If you want to talk about inequality, the jobs we are losing in 
manufacturing are paying over $600 a week, and the jobs that are being 
replaced pay $330. Who are we kidding here? Get to the facts. Get to 
the facts.
  Past trade deals have hurt the American worker. By the way, you 
placed this thing--those who are proponents of this legislation--that 
we are against trade. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want 
fair deals that help our workers. That is what this is all about.
  In my town, a textile business lost everything 40-50 years ago; 
25,000-30,000 people were employed with that textile industry. We sat 
here in the Congress of the United States and watched these people lose 
their jobs. You are sure as heck they want the retail jobs. Do you know 
what they paid?
  Fast track and the underlying Trans-Pacific Partnership will continue 
the trend of corporations offshoring American jobs, driving down wages; 
and now, we are going to be competing with the Vietnamese who pay maybe 
60 cents an hour. That is the level.
  Everybody can't be like us. We understand that. We are not against 
trade. We want it to be fair, and we want the American worker to be 
protected. That is what this is all about.
  We had our fears confirmed when the President told us that China 
wanted to join the TPP. That is the icing on the cake, making a bad 
deal even worse.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to remind my friend that globalization occurred long 
before any trade agreement. My dad lost his job, his steelworker job, 
years before NAFTA. In fact, we have a trade surplus, Mr. Speaker.
  We have a trade surplus with the 20 countries that we have a trade 
agreement with, a deficit with the countries that we don't.
  It is now my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Trade Act of 2015.
  Ninety-five percent of the world's market is outside the United 
States, and selling our goods to these markets is critical to America's 
future prosperity. One in five of American jobs are directly tied to 
trade. If we can't knock down the tariffs that are placed on American 
goods around the world, the world is going to buy these goods 
elsewhere. Simply put, a strong trade agenda is essential to America's 
national security and the economic opportunity of hard-working 
taxpayers.
  If you want a strong trade agreement with better protections for U.S. 
workers, you want trade promotion authority. TPA allows Congress to 
hold the administration accountable and gives Congress the chance to 
vote down a bad deal. Without it, we are negotiating from a 
disadvantage. If we are not setting the rules on global trade, China 
will.
  Mr. Speaker, trade promotion authority means stronger, better trade 
agreements. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
it because what is happening right now is, if we don't have an 
increasingly aggressive China in there setting the rules, the trade 
agreements give us the chances on things like labor, things like the 
environment, things like a fair and open Internet. Those are the kinds 
of things that are going to create future jobs and keep the world safer 
and better.
  I urge my colleagues to support this.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), another valued member of our 
committee.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak 
against this misguided TPA bill. Many of my colleagues have highlighted 
the reasons to oppose the bill, but I want to focus on two specific 
fundamental issues, labor and civil rights.
  There is nothing in this that requires countries to bring their labor 
laws and

[[Page 9464]]

regulations into compliance before this deal takes effect. How can we 
have an agreement that doesn't require everybody to play by the same 
rules? That is just ridiculous.
  We need trade agreements that prohibit signatory countries from 
murdering, jailing, torturing, or firing citizens for doing such 
outlandish things as trying to unionize and bargain for safer working 
conditions.
  Enforceable labor provisions tell trading partners that we mean 
business on labor rights before letting their goods into the U.S. Trade 
agreements should not continue a race to the bottom for workers. We 
should be setting the standards.
  I am frustrated that TPP negotiations are nearly complete and we are 
just now giving the administration their marching orders, but here we 
are, and those marching orders should be clear, especially on labor 
rights.
  Additionally, in the Ways and Means markup for this legislation, I 
offered a commonsense amendment to address the issue of countries whose 
laws call for imprisonment, torture, and even death for the supposed 
crime of one's sexual orientation.

                              {time}  1115

  I was baffled to watch every single Republican member on the 
committee vote to say that it is perfectly acceptable to do business 
with countries that have these laws. Perhaps it was naive of me to 
think that we could at least have one bright-line rule for the most 
basic of human rights--not to be put to death based on a person's 
actual or perceived sexual orientation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. U.S. market access shouldn't be a 
free pass. If you want to do business with the U.S., we shouldn't 
tolerate such barbaric behavior.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I now have the privilege to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a member of the 
Ways and Means Committee and an important voice on trade.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank Chairman Tiberi.
  Mr. Speaker, one of two things is going to happen: we are either 
going to lean forward and claim the best days of America, which are 
ahead of us, or we are going to recede from those. The choice is here 
and the choice is today, and I urge us to move forward because I truly 
believe, if we pursue an aggressive trade agenda and if the United 
States leads on that trade agenda, I think good things are going to 
happen.
  There is another part of this story, Mr. Speaker, as we have an 
opportunity to make history today as well. Included in the TPA is 
bipartisan legislation that I authored to shield Israel from being the 
victim of the insidious boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement 
that is brewing within Europe. This would be the first time in nearly 
four decades that Congress has taken action to combat boycotts against 
Israel.
  Just last week, we saw a telecom giant, Orange, which is a company 
partially owned by the French Government, recede back from doing 
business in Israel and so forth based on BDS pressure. The language I 
offered that was unanimously adopted is simple: If you want to trade 
with the United States, you can't boycott Israel.
  I want to thank Chairman Ryan and Chairman Tiberi for their 
leadership and Representative Vargas and Senators Portman and Cardin 
for working with me on these important issues.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to stand as tall and as boldly as I 
can for the American worker. Almost 10 million Americans are 
unemployed; middle class income wages have been stagnant for decades; 
almost every low-wage job that could have moved overseas has moved 
overseas. We have to do something different--something smart, honest, 
brave, bold, and based on the almost unanimous consensus of American 
economists.
  We need to tear down the trade barriers of other countries so that 
they will buy our goods and services. We need to establish much 
stronger labor and environmental laws overseas. We need to bring the 
rule of law to those countries so that investors will build new plants 
and equipment, and we need much stronger intellectual property 
protections around the world. We have to take globalization head on. We 
cannot isolate ourselves. No economy can grow from within. We tried 
protectionism, and we got the Great Recession.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand for the American worker, and I support the Obama 
administration's commitment to free trade and to lifting the American 
middle class.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady), a leader on trade, a leader on the Trade 
Subcommittee, a past chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, and a leader 
on the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I thank Chairman Tiberi for his leadership on 
trade and American success.
  Mr. Speaker, who has the power? This is the question. When your 
family or your business wants to buy a product, who decides what you 
can buy and at what price? Is it you, or is it special interests or 
union bosses or the government? If you build a better product or come 
up with a new idea, who has the power to decide where you can sell it 
around the world? Is it you, or is it special interests and government 
and, again, the union?
  American trade is about giving you the power and you the freedom to 
buy and sell and compete around the world with as little government 
interference as possible. It is not enough to just buy American. We 
want to sell our American products around the world. When we do, we 
win. When we say to countries, ``You are selling into the U.S., and we 
insist we sell into your country,'' we win and we create jobs. When we 
don't, America grows weaker, and our foreign competitors grow stronger. 
Our manufacturers and our farmers and our local businesses get priced 
out and shut down.
  American trade is about our jobs and our prosperity. This bill sets 
the rules for trade so that, with these agreements, everyone benefits; 
everyone plays by the rules; everyone has the same opportunity. I am 
voting ``yes'' for more American jobs and more American economic 
opportunity and for less government control of our trade.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur), a longtime veteran of this Congress.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank our distinguished ranking member, Mr. Levin of 
Michigan.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this limited fast-track 
trade debate.
  Proponents of TPA are trying to lure votes for this Pacific deal by 
cynically adding $700 million to trade adjustment assistance to take 
care of millions more people who are going to lose their jobs as 
billions and billions more of our productive wealth is outsourced to 
other countries. What a fig leaf. It is too little for the damage about 
to be done.
  The eyes of working families in communities across our country are 
focused on Congress today, hoping we will finally stand up and do what 
is right for America. This latest job outsourcing trade deal serves 
only the 1 percent, rewarding the few at the expense of the many. It is 
a great deal for Wall Street, and it is a great deal for transnational 
corporations. But for Main Street, a shrinking middle class, and 
millions more of our workers, it is another punch to the gut.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, this week's scenario reminds me of the NAFTA fight. To 
pick up wavering Members back then, a deal was cut even to protect the 
corn broom industry, but in this deal, we don't protect people. In this 
deal, there is no

[[Page 9465]]

protection against human trafficking. That has been stripped out. So we 
have protections for corn brooms but not for people.
  In return for securing votes for narrow interests to gain a majority 
for passage, a few thousand people may benefit handsomely from these 
little provisions, but America won't. We will continue to rack up 
massive trade and job deficits as world markets remain closed to us, as 
they have for four decades. State-run enterprises will continue to eat 
more of our lunch. And for America's working class, millions more of 
whom will be left out in the cold, the TPP will be a truly pathetic 
package. I urge ``no,'' ``no,'' ``no'' votes this afternoon. Stand up 
for America's workers for a change.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have great respect for my colleague from Ohio, but let me just give 
you a few facts.
  Of the 20 countries with which we have trade agreements, we have a 
trade surplus. With the countries with which we don't, we have a trade 
deficit. It speaks for itself. In Ohio, 89 percent of our exporters are 
small- and medium-sized companies with fewer than 500 people. With 
respect to TAA, I must say that most of these trading dollars are spent 
at community colleges, at technical colleges, and they use that money 
to train workers and to upgrade skills for a 21st century economy.
  I wish my dad, who had lost his manufacturing job way before NAFTA 
and who had lost his steelworker job way before any bilateral trade 
agreement for globalization, had had TAA to help him get a new job.
  As the President said, in reality, a vote against this TAA bill will 
be a vote to actually cut funding for community college. As the 
President said yesterday, a ``no'' vote could potentially kill TAA 
forever.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington 
State (Mr. Reichert), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means 
Committee and Trade Subcommittee and a leader on trade issues.
  Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today, Americans find themselves asking this question 
over and over again: Are things ever going to get better for America? 
The only answer has to be ``yes.'' Today, we begin that process. Today, 
it is time for action. Today, we vote on trade legislation that is 
absolutely critical for America's future. Today, we send a message to 
the world--across this globe--a strong message that we are America, 
that we are strong, that we are free, and that we are united.
  A ``yes'' vote today on TPA and TAA is a vote for a healthy economy. 
It is a vote for creating jobs. It is a vote for higher wages. It is a 
vote for selling America. That is the message we are going to send 
across this globe today. America is back, and we are going to be strong 
in this world economy.
  Hard-working taxpayers deserve a government that gives the citizens 
of this country freedom, choice, and control to pursue their futures. 
Every American deserves this--to build one's own business, to hire 
employees, to seek promotions, and to provide for one's family. Mr. 
Speaker, it is what real leaders will deliver today.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Ashford).
  Mr. ASHFORD. I thank the ranking member.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is a vote for the ages. My 
constituents in Nebraska are asking me: ``Brad, can we govern? Can we 
come together? Can we move this country forward?'' What we do here 
today will determine how we do move forward as a nation. What kind of 
country do we leave our children?
  In my view, Mr. Speaker, we are at our best when we reach for the 
Moon. This, in my view, is one of those moments. This is a vote for 
better jobs, a stronger economy for American workers and for American 
exceptionalism. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is a vote for the 
ages. Please support TAA and TPP and TPA to make life better for all 
Americans.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a leader on trade, a leader on the Ways and 
Means Committee, and a leader for Louisiana.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, after 1945, the U.S. set up a global trading system, and 
countries around the world are taking advantage of it. The world is not 
sitting still. Hundreds of trade agreements exist, but we only have 20 
with which we have a trade surplus, and we are sitting on the 
sidelines, standing still. It is just unacceptable.
  American leadership is needed. If we are going to grow this economy, 
if we are going to create good-paying jobs for workers and farmers, we 
need to open markets, as 95 percent of the markets are outside the U.S. 
Let's open those markets. Let's be fair to our American workers and 
farmers. Let's give them market access. TPA is the catalyst to opening 
those markets and for growth.
  The world is crying for American leadership. I am afraid American 
prestige is on the line right now. It is waning. Countries around the 
world are watching us to see how we vote on this today. We have the 
opportunity to show that America will lead the global trading system we 
created. I think, if we don't do this, we have dealt a serious blow to 
American leadership. It is a catalyst for American leadership. Let's 
pass TPA.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, would you tell us how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 8 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of yielding 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, time and again, we are promised trade deals create 
opportunity. Time and again, instead, they send jobs abroad. In the 
first 7 years of NAFTA, New York City's textile and apparel industry 
shed 7,900 jobs. In total, fast-track trade policies have cost the U.S. 
more than 1 million jobs. New York lost more than 374,000 manufacturing 
jobs since NAFTA and the World Trade Organization agreements.
  Why would the Trans-Pacific Partnership be different? If that deal is 
approved, the U.S. will lose more than 130,000 jobs to just 2 of the 12 
TPP members--Japan and Vietnam. New York already ran a $47 billion 
trade deficit last year. This agreement will make the situation worse.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. When I go home to New York, I don't hear people 
telling me we need to rush into another trade deal. The only people 
pushing fast track are lobbyists and big corporations. They are not 
whom I represent. I would rather stand with New York's working families 
who oppose fast track. Vote ``no.''

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), a leader on the Committee on Ways and Means, 
a leader on trade.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, South Dakota tells the true story of what the 
benefits of trade can bring. When we have a trade agreement with 
another country, we sell 11\1/2\ times more goods to that country than 
if there were no agreement in place.
  Trade has been and continues to be an important part of the American 
economy, but we cannot afford to fall behind. We have to continue to 
expand opportunities to export American-made products to these 
countries, but first we have to set the rules of the road.
  The Constitution allows the President to negotiate trade agreements, 
but only Congress can approve or disapprove them. What we are voting on 
today ensures that Congress sets the priorities and the rules that the 
President has to follow. It allows an open and transparent process 
where the public can view any potential trade deal

[[Page 9466]]

for 60 days before it is sent to Congress. If the President doesn't 
follow our rules, we can take TPA away; or if we don't like future 
trade deals, we can simply vote them down. But we need to assert the 
power of Congress in the process and ensure that the public gets to 
weigh in down the road. That is what we are doing here today.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. America is counting on it.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for 
yielding.
  Over the past 2 years, I have been a part of efforts, good-faith 
efforts, to write the strongest possible fast-track bill. But the 
process the legislation has gone through recently, with Ways and Means 
Democrats denied every opportunity to improve the legislation in 
committee, while Republicans were accommodated in the Customs bill with 
anti-immigrant, anti-environmental provisions, has moved the bill in 
precisely the wrong direction from what might have gained my support. 
Therefore, I plan to vote against TPA today.
  But I strongly oppose the devious and reckless efforts to bring down 
TPA by trying to defeat the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. TAA is a 
good bill which reflects longstanding Democratic priorities, and the 
objectionable Medicare offset that it contained has been removed. TAA 
has been critically important in North Carolina. I refuse to put 
displaced workers at risk for the sake of a political tactic.
  I urge my colleagues, play it straight. Support TAA whether or not 
you support TPA.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Smith), a new member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of TPA 
because trade is too important to southeast and southern Missouri to 
leave in the hands of this President or any President. TPA would bring 
more transparency and involvement to the negotiation process and gives 
Congress more authority over the President.
  Without TPA, the President can keep Congress and the public in the 
dark on trade negotiations. Without TPA, the President alone sets the 
negotiating objectives; without TPA, Members of Congress are not 
entitled to read the text of negotiating documents during the process; 
and without TPA, the President does not have to publish updated 
summaries of trade bills during the negotiations.
  However, with TPA, Members of Congress can be involved in the 
negotiation process to get the best deal for our folks back home. With 
TPA, for the first time ever, all bills negotiated would have to be 
public for 60 days before Congress votes on them; with TPA, Congress 
directs the negotiating objectives for trade bills; and with TPA, 
Members of Congress will have open access to the text anytime they 
want.
  Mr. Speaker, we need TPA so that American trade deals can be 
transparent, effective, and enforceable.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this bill have not played 
it straight as far as legislative procedure. They took a Senate bill 
that should be a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on this floor and split it up 
into two or three pieces. It is one package. If you are against fast 
track, vote ``no'' on TAA.
  It is not the opponents who came up with this crazy procedure. If 
they had played it straight, we could play it straight. But now we are 
in a position to use the legislative tactics afforded by this House, 
pursuant to a rule that is complicated beyond belief, to sink this 
whole package by voting ``no'' on TAA. Vote ``no'' on Trade Adjustment 
Assistance because, if that happens, Republican leadership has said we 
go home.
  What is the good of having a little bit of trade adjustment 
assistance if we lose millions of jobs because we put them on a fast 
track to Asia? Take Nancy Reagan seriously; when it comes to all three 
votes today, just vote ``no.''
  Mr. TIBERI. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, President John F. Kennedy once said: ``The U.S. did not 
rise to greatness waiting for others to lead. Economic isolation and 
political leadership are wholly incompatible.''
  This is the moment for the United States to lead. I am voting ``yes'' 
on the trade bills that we have today. Trade is good for the United 
States: 95 percent of all consumers are outside the United States. 
Trade is good for Texas: last year we had over $289 billion of goods 
exported from Texas; 1.1 million jobs were created in Texas; millions 
of other jobs were created in the United States.
  Now, who are those small companies? Who are those companies 
exporting? Ninety-three percent of those companies in Texas are small- 
and medium-sized, so therefore this is how we create good jobs here in 
the United States.
  Ladies and gentlemen, let's support fair trade. Again, I ask you to 
support the trade bill today.
  Mr. TIBERI. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time do I have remaining, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 3\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the debate today is about one issue; it 
comes down to one question: Do we support hard-working Americans or do 
we abandon them? A vote for these bills is a vote against jobs, and it 
is a vote against wages.
  The Trade Adjustment Assistance bill is underfunded. It excludes 
teachers, police officers, firefighters, and farmers who are hurt when 
production jobs are shipped abroad, go overseas. If we want to protect 
working families, we must stop fast-tracking bad trade deals.
  Fast track denies public scrutiny, it denies debate in this House, 
and it relinquishes our congressional authority and does not allow us 
to amend a piece of legislation that will have such an effect on 
people's lives in this country.
  Why is this trade agreement in so much difficulty? Why? Because this 
is the first time that a majority of the Congress is starting to say: 
We need to prioritize what is happening to the hard-working men and 
women in our country. What is happening to their lives? What is their 
struggle?
  This trade agreement is only going to hurt their ability to have a 
job and to increase their wages. If we want to change that, then our 
job today is to vote down this bill.
  Say ``no'' to Trade Adjustment Assistance and say ``no'' to fast 
track.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from 
Kentucky, I just want to point out the record here. No public service 
worker has ever been certified for TAA under the 2009 stimulus TAA that 
was passed. I will also reiterate a statement from the White House with 
respect to TAA, Mr. Speaker:

       If you're a Member of Congress and you vote against TAA 
     this week, you are signing the death certificate for this 
     assistance.

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the opportunity to 
speak in favor of this important legislation for jobs, our economy, 
transparency, and accountability.
  Free trade is critical for my constituents in central and eastern 
Kentucky. More than half a million Kentucky jobs are related to 
international trade, and expanding trade agreements will provide even 
more opportunities for job growth. Our State has a diverse economy that 
is synonymous with certain products, including coal, bourbon, and 
thoroughbred racehorses. We are a powerhouse of manufacturing, 
producing vehicles such as the Toyota Camry and even aerospace 
technology, which is the State's leading export category.
  To continue the growth in these signature industries, we need to 
establish

[[Page 9467]]

fair and strong rules that hold other nations accountable for their 
unfair trade practices. We need to tear down barriers that block 
Kentucky goods from foreign markets.
  What does free trade mean for Kentucky? In 2013, 2 years after our 
last free trade agreement was completed, the car of the year in South 
Korea was the Toyota Camry, manufactured in my district in Kentucky.
  Let's be clear: The President already has the authority under the 
Constitution to negotiate trade agreements, but by passing TPA, we will 
ensure that Congress has the input into the final product and that 
America will shape the rules of global trade, not China.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
  Mr. POCAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I grew up in an auto town, where almost everyone had a 
family member who worked in the industry, but today there are no cars 
made there anymore. To me, trade deals should be about whether or not 
we will fight for American jobs and American workers' wages. Bad trade 
deals cost us both. Unless we have a say, unless the American people 
have a say, this trade deal will do exactly the same and cost us more 
jobs.
  I have read the text, and I know where we are at with it as of now. I 
would like to see a deal that has better real protective teeth for 
labor and environmental law, strong protections for American 
sovereignty, and better protections for food safety and more. Bottom 
line: I want a trade deal that protects American jobs and lifts our 
wages right here at home.
  If we vote for TPA, we will have no ability to make it better. For 
this trade deal or any other trade deal in the next 6 years under any 
President, if we want the American people to have a voice, a real 
voice, we must retain our authority to impact trade deals and vote 
against TPA in all votes that affect it today.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, let me set the record straight. All three 
bills that we are voting on today can be read. This is TPA. This is the 
bill that will hold the President accountable--this President, the next 
President. This is the bill that tells the administration what we 
expect. This is the bill that Congress inserts itself into to the 
President's negotiating.
  Listen, ladies and gentlemen, the world is trading. The world is 
globalized. The world was globalized long before America decided to 
pass NAFTA--long before. And, in fact, NAFTA, in 1993, the year before 
NAFTA took effect, the U.S. had a steel trade deficit of 3 million net 
tons with Canada and Mexico. In 2014, the most recent year for which 
data is available, the U.S. had a steel trade surplus of 1.2 million 
net tons with Canada and Mexico. NAFTA has benefited the entire North 
American steel industry. Total U.S.-Canada steel trade has increased 99 
percent from 1993 to 2014. Total U.S.-Mexico steel trade has increased 
352 percent between 1993 and 2014. That is why the steel industry in 
America supports this bill along with the enforcement that we are going 
to debate in a little bit.
  In Ohio, Honda of America is a net exporter--is a net exporter. This 
is about jobs. This is about allowing those people, those workers, some 
of my constituents at East Liberty or in Marysville, to build more cars 
in Ohio, to send them overseas. The only way we do that is to break 
down barriers--more jobs.
  Listen, I get job loss. My dad lost his job of 25 years. Ladies and 
gentlemen, we need to pass TPA to increase the number of jobs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today's vote on the trade package that 
includes trade adjustment assistance and trade promotion authority, 
also known as fast track, represents a flawed and hurried process to 
expedite the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement that is 
almost at the finish line. We should not vote for a TPA that fails to 
include strong and enforceable negotiating objectives on currency 
manipulation, labor rights and does not address the investor state 
dispute settlement system, which could see corporations challenge 
government regulations in secret tribunals that leave taxpayers on the 
hook for the bill.
  I also strongly oppose using trade adjustment assistance as a 
bargaining chip to help pass a flawed TPA. I support providing 
assistance to workers displaced by trade but this bill should stand on 
its own merits and be improved on behalf of all workers before it is 
rushed through for a final vote. We must go back to strengthen TAA and 
TPA before moving forward on any future trade agreement that will have 
wide-ranging consequences for America's working class.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1314, 
which allows for fast track Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) for trade 
agreements entered into prior to July 1, 2021, including the 
prospective Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade 
and Investment Partnership (T-TIP). Past trade agreements have 
outsourced American jobs and caused irreparable harm to our domestic 
manufacturing base. I believe that TPP, T-TIP, and other potential 
future agreements will be no different.
  Throughout my career, I have voted against unfair trade agreements. I 
voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which 
was sold on the promise of creating 200,000 American jobs. After 
enactment, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimates that America 
lost 682,900 jobs, primarily in the manufacturing sector. I voted 
against the Korea Free Trade Agreement, which was sold on the promise 
of creating 70,000 American jobs. After enactment, again the EPI 
estimates that America lost 60,000 jobs. The future trade agreements we 
are discussing today are being sold on the promise of creating more 
American jobs. That argument may continue to work for some. But I am 
not buying it.
  There has been a bipartisan failure, administration after 
administration, to address the effects of unfair trade on domestic 
manufacturers. Democrat and Republican administrations have been wrong 
to support irresponsible trade agreements in the past that have 
exacerbated the problems faced by American workers. President Obama is 
wrong in this instance. Congress should instead support trade 
agreements that substantially improve our existing trade laws and 
enhance our ability to enforce them in a timely fashion. We should only 
support trade agreements that include strong enforcement procedures, 
address currency manipulation, provide environmental protections, and 
protect American manufacturers from competing unfairly with exploited 
foreign workers. It is wrong to expect American workers to compete 
against state-owned enterprises that have unlimited government 
resources and violate our free market trade laws.
  American manufacturing and the steel industry are struggling every 
day to keep their footing in the fight against unfair trade. Earlier 
this year, I co-chaired a Congressional Steel Caucus hearing where 
industry and labor representatives unanimously agreed that America's 
steel sector is being systematically targeted by trading partners that 
use the U.S. market as their dumping ground.
  Just this month, six American steel producers, including two 
producers with facilities in my district, filed anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty petitions against foreign countries engaged in 
illegal trade practices. While I am pleased that American steel 
producers are taking action to hold these countries accountable, I am 
concerned that this case will not stop the ongoing trend of countries 
dumping their products into U.S. markets. I have frequently testified 
in front of the International Trade Commission (ITC), and was pleased 
that in 2009 the ITC ruled against China in an Oil Country Tubular 
Goods case. However, last year I testified again in a similar case 
involving these same products. After duties were imposed on China in 
2009, other countries, such as Vietnam, Thailand, Turkey, and South 
Korea, started dumping the same product on our shores. This is a 
dangerous trend and Congress and the Administration must stop such 
practices from continuing.
  I am encouraged that the House has taken some action to address 
unfair trade practices by including provisions in the Trade 
Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 that would strengthen 
our antidumping and countervailing duty laws. But while these 
provisions are a step in the right direction, they are not enough.
  TPA does not include strong, enforceable currency reforms, and 
instead allows the Administration, without any clear guidelines, to 
determine how best to address currency manipulators. TPA does nothing 
to ensure that strong environmental protections will be included in 
future trade agreements. TPA does

[[Page 9468]]

not crack down on worker exploitation or lay out a roadmap to ensure 
countries included in future trade agreements are in compliance with 
international labor and human rights standards. Such economic 
inhibitors should be rejected. Instead, we should focus on investing in 
and encouraging vigorous domestic manufacturing.
  Mr. Speaker, steel is the economic backbone of the First 
Congressional District of Indiana, the foundation of our manufacturing 
base, and an essential element of our national defense. I am proud to 
represent the workers who make this steel every single day. Today, I 
ask that my colleagues stand up for American workers and oppose H.R. 
1314.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Trade Act of 
2015 (H.R. 1314), which would ``fast-track'' trade agreements, such as 
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), by allowing them to pass Congress 
by a straight up or down vote without any possibility of amendment.
  Ever since NAFTA in 1993, these so-called free trade agreements have 
all been sold to the American people on the same propaganda; that they 
will boost exports and increase jobs. Yet the results have always been 
the same. Although we might increase exports somewhat, one of our 
biggest exports has been American jobs. Any claims to the contrary are 
not worth the paper they are written on.
  For starters, these are not really free trade agreements. A true free 
trade agreement would consist of no more than a few pages simply 
listing the dates on which tariffs for various commodities would be 
eliminated. In fact, these agreements consist of thousands of pages of 
negotiated provisions, which history demonstrates have benefited multi-
national companies while destroying millions of American jobs and 
depressing American wage levels. Without adequate labor, environmental 
and human rights standards, our trading partners can and do pay their 
workers 30 cents per hour, make their goods cheaper by dumping waste 
products in the river, and murder workers who try to join a union. No 
wonder factories in the United States close and move abroad. No wonder 
our balance of trade becomes calamitous.
  We are always told that the next trade agreement will have better 
protections, but that has never been the case. None of the so-called 
protections have been enforceable or enforced. So it is particularly 
troubling that the text of the TPP is still classified. Members of 
Congress can look at it, but cannot take notes, cannot make copies, and 
cannot talk about what they have seen. What are they afraid people 
might discover? If it is true that the TPP includes enforceable 
provisions related to labor and environmental standards, why not make 
it public? Why not share what is supposedly so critical in this trade 
agreement with the American people?
  The fact that the TPP is secret is obnoxious. Most of what we know 
about it has come from leaks that indicate that the TPP, just like its 
predecessors, will simply help multi-national corporations and further 
impoverish the lower and middle classes here at home.
  For example, the TPP includes a chapter on Investment-State Dispute 
Settlement (ISDS) that would allow multi-national corporations to sue 
state and local governments, or the Federal government, in private 
tribunals by alleging that American laws or regulations limit their 
profits. Companies like Phillip Morris could sue for compensation for 
loss of sales because of cigarette labeling laws. Companies could sue 
to void enforcement of minimum wage, or factory, safety or consumer 
laws.
  According to the USTR, the TPP will also include new rules to 
``ensure fair competition between state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and 
private companies.'' This could lead to privatization of a variety of 
public services. And just this week, the House voted to repeal our 
Country of Origin Labeling law after the WTO ruled that it 
discriminated against Canada and Mexico, raising even more questions 
about the consequences of these trade agreements on the sovereignty of 
our nation.
  These questions are only the tip of the iceberg, and highlight the 
need for an open and honest review of the TPP rather than blindly 
facilitating its passage. The Constitution grants Congress the power to 
regulate foreign commerce. We must not cede that authority to the 
Executive Branch and abdicate our responsibility to protect the public 
interest. If the TPP is as beneficial as its supporters have claimed, 
it should be able to withstand scrutiny in the light of day and a full 
debate in Congress.
  But we don't have to rely on leaks about the TPP to justify voting 
against the bills on the floor today. A host of provisions that have 
been added to the Trade Enforcement bill (H.R. 644) in order to gain 
support for this bill are egregious, such as prohibiting negotiations 
to address climate change, weakening language to combat human 
trafficking, and removing language to address currency manipulation.
  This bill is dangerous and destructive. I urge my colleagues to vote 
No.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of the 
motion to concur is postponed.

                          ____________________