[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9604-9605]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            PIVOT TO AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Russell) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a chance this week to turn the 
President's pivot to Asia into a pivot to America. The question is: 
Will we listen to the American people, or will we double down on a 
watered-down policy that has divided both the Democratic and Republican 
sides of the aisle? To stop the TPA, we must hold firm.
  Republicans and Democrats all want trade barriers to be removed, but 
we are at a crossroads because both parties have voiced a lack of trust 
in the President's ability to be able to negotiate what is best for 
America. That is why we are still fighting to stop the trade 
promotional authority, better known as fast track.
  Fast track will not be the panacea of all ills. In fact, if granted, 
we could see President Obama move swiftly on the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership that will likely not deliver the goods and have harmful 
secondary effects in multiple areas.
  Dr. Aurolyn Luykx, from the University of Texas at El Paso, makes 
this analysis: ``I think the consequences could be very dire. We 
already saw under NAFTA how so many jobs left the United States and, 
also, went from Mexico. Then we saw, as well, tens of thousands of low-
income Mexican families being put out of work and losing their land, 
and we saw how that drove migration to the United States.''
  The architects of the TPA in both Congress and the White House claim 
that with fast track they can lower barriers on U.S. exports among the 
11 other TPP nations in the negotiation, thus, increasing jobs and 
wages.
  Now to the facts. We already have high-standard, free-trade 
agreements

[[Page 9605]]

with 7 of those 11 other nations in the proposed Trans-Pacific 
Partnership. We are writing the rules in the Pacific. Let's write them 
some more with good bilateral agreements.
  If you don't believe me, how about Simon Johnson, a former chief 
economist of the International Monetary Fund and a professor at MIT 
Sloan. Here is what he says about the myth of needing the TPA to lower 
tariffs among the proposed members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

       Almost all tariffs on trade among Canada, Mexico, and the 
     United States are long gone. Under the Australian and 
     Singapore free trade agreements, almost all tariffs on U.S. 
     goods have been eliminated. Goods from the United States have 
     entered Chile without tariffs since January 1 of this year, 
     and most tariffs imposed by Peru have already been phased 
     out.
       The TPP will amount to a free trade agreement with Brunei, 
     with a population less than Omaha, Nebraska, and New Zealand, 
     with a population less than Louisiana. Encouraging exports to 
     these countries is surely desirable, but the economic impact 
     on the United States is unlikely to be more than a rounding 
     error.
       That leaves three larger countries where the issues are 
     more complex: Japan, Malaysia, and Vietnam.
       And TPP will also confer special status on foreign 
     investors, allowing them to sue for financial judgments 
     against host-country regulations. Creating a quasi-legal 
     process outside the regular court system just for foreigners 
     can go wrong in many ways.

  I would add, from my own reading of the TPP, without divulging the 
details, concerns about private rights in disputes; the transnational 
panel empowered with a living agreement even after the accord is 
signed; and possible exceptions granted to Brunei, whose legal system 
is not to the same standard as other nations.
  So, one says, What solutions do you have? Well, here are a couple:
  First, listen to the American people. If the majority of Americans 
completely across the political spectrum have voiced concerns against 
TPA, then our actions this week will truly reflect if we are being 
representative of that voice.
  Second, the President must demonstrate he can lead on foreign policy. 
He has yet to do it. Granting fast track to negotiate with 40 percent 
of the world's economy should be based on how well he has handled 
foreign policy. Have we forgotten the handling of Syria, ISIS, Iraq, 
Crimea, Ukraine, and Iran? I can go on, but the question is, Why are 
we? The President must show us some deeds, not words. He should start 
by negotiating a bilateral agreement with our ally Japan. Intently 
focus there. Bring that to us, and we will likely approve it.
  Third, negotiate an interim agreement with China. We still have much 
to do with raising the standards bar on Chinese trade, but China lacks 
lawyers to fight these problems. Well, do we know how to make plenty of 
those. Negotiate a law school program all across our land's rich 
institutions to create Chinese attorneys to help fight these issues.
  As to goods, China is seeking oil, natural gas, coal, timber, 
aggregate, beef, and pork. We have an abundance of these. How about a 
trade agreement on these narrow products that will immediately benefit 
us all?
  It is not impossible. We have the resource. We have the technology. 
What we need are the guts to do it, a rekindling of the American 
spirit, and the leadership to get it done. It starts by putting the 
brakes on fast track. We need the right track instead.

                          ____________________