[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9638-9639]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            PIVOT TO AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Russell) until 10 p.m.
  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 as Members listen to the people, or will we double down on 
a watered-down policy that has divided both the Democratic and 
Republican sides of the aisle?
  We often complain about lack of bipartisanship, but in this case, we 
are seeing it stop the trade promotion authority, or TPA, fast track. 
We must hold firm.
  Republicans and Democrats have a long history of being for free 
trade. We all want our goods to go to international markets and for 
trade barriers to be removed. We find ourselves at a crossroads today 
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 promotion authority, better 
known as fast track.
  Fast track will not be the panacea of all ills. In fact, if granted, 
we could see the President move swiftly on the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership that will likely not deliver the goods, potentially binding 
our Nation to an agreement that could circumvent U.S. interests and law 
and have secondary harmful effects in multiple areas.
  Dr. Aurolyn Luykx, an anthropology professor at 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 take 
offense at any opposition, leveling the charge that we are being 
protectionists. The White House claims that with fast track they can 
move the TPP to lower barriers on U.S. exports among the 11 other 
nations, thus increasing jobs and wages.
  Now to the facts.
  Contrary to what we hear, we already have high-standard free trade 
agreements with 7 of those other 11 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 that will allow 
the American people to have a voice, not some council or transnational 
commission that sets our fate.
  If you don't believe me, then how about Simon Johnson, a former chief 
economist of the International Monetary Fund, a professor at MIT Sloan, 
a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics? 
Maybe he knows something about it. 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--that was the effect of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement. Under the Australia and 
     Singapore free trade agreements as well, almost all tariffs 
     on U.S. goods sold in those countries have been eliminated. 
     Goods from the United States have entered Chile without 
     tariffs since January 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, I might add, and 
     New Zealand, with a population less than Louisiana. 
     Encouraging exports to these countries is surely desirable, 
     but the economic impact on the U.S. 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.
       Why we would want to provide such differential protection 
     to nondomestic companies is a mystery. Creating a quasi-legal

[[Page 9639]]

     process outside the regular court system, just for 
     foreigners, can go wrong in many ways.

  From my own reading of the TPP, without divulging the details, I 
would add the concern about private rights in disputes, the 
transnational panel empowered with a living agreement--and yes, it is 
there; I have seen it with my own eyes--even after the accord is signed 
by member nations.
  There are also the possible exceptions granted to Brunei, whose legal 
system is not to the same standard as the other nations.
  Of great concern is a stated intention to economically integrate like 
the EU--Not cooperate, but integrate.
  So, one says: What solutions do you have? Here are a few.
  First, we must start by listening to the American people. If the 
majority of Americans--from socialists to progressives, to liberals, to 
moderates, to conservatives, to constitutionalists, to the Tea 
Parties--have voiced concerns and do not want TPA granted, then our 
actions this week will truly reflect if we are being representative of 
that voice.

                              {time}  2145

  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 
negotiations with other nations in his tenure. It is here, in the 
foreign policy arena, he is found wanting.
  The President's talent for negotiation among nations should be 
measured by his foreign policy record. 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 morph into ISIS, 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 they could stand on their own if we 
left early, and now, no strategy to fix it?
  Then, there is the Arab Spring, which has morphed into a potential 
for nuclear winter with Iran. Let's not forget Crimea and Ukraine. I 
can go on. The question is: Why are we?
  As I have said before, 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 fine.
  We cannot take such chances with our Nation; instead, the President 
must show us some deeds, not words. He should start by negotiating a 
bilateral free trade agreement with Japan, an ally, the biggest nation 
of those that remain and the one that has the greatest economic impact. 
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 bar on Chinese trade due to corruption, piracy 
of intellectual property, standards of goods, and other concerns. We 
made those same claims with Japan in the 1960s and with South Korea in 
the 1980s. Today, we no longer have those concerns.
  China lacks lawyers to fight against these problems. Well, we 
certainly know how to make plenty of those. Negotiate a law school 
program all across our land's rich institutions to create Chinese 
attorneys to enforce the economic benefits of the rule of law.
  As to goods, China is seeking oil, natural gas, coal, timber, 
aggregate, beef, and pork to expand their infrastructure and to feed 
their people. We have an abundance of these and hard-working Americans 
that will gladly produce and send these goods.
  Instead of making China turn to terrorist states like Sudan and 
troublemakers like Venezuela to pursue these resources, how about a 
trade agreement on these narrow products that will immediately benefit 
the American people, reduce our debt with China, and strengthen our 
friendly ties?
  It is not impossible. We have the resources. 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.
  I urge my colleagues, left and right, to stand your ground. It is 
time for Congress to lead and be the clarion voice of the American 
people that we represent. That leadership starts this week in the 
United States House of Representatives.
  Let's hold our ground. Let's pivot back to the American people, 
invest in ourselves, and benefit not just the Pacific, but the entire 
world, as we have clearly demonstrated we can do in the last 100 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________