[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9867-9877]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2146, 
           DEFENDING PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 321 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 321

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     2146) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
     Federal law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air 
     traffic controllers to make penalty-free withdrawals from 
     governmental plans after age 50, and for other purposes, with 
     the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, 
     without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered 
     by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or his 
     designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment with 
     the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendment and the 
     motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question.


                             Point of Order

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a 
point of order against consideration of the rule, House Resolution 321.
  Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules 
Committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 425 of 
that same Act.
  House Resolution 321 states that it ``shall be in order . . . to 
consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a 
motion . . . that the House concur in the Senate amendment with the 
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
the resolution.''
  Therefore, I make a point of order pursuant to section 426 that this 
resolution may not be considered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentlewoman from New 
York makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) 
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the 
gentlewoman from New York and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means 
of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to take a 
moment, if I may, to mourn the horrific loss of life in Charleston, 
South Carolina.
  Places of worship used to be places of sanctuary, but there are no 
more sanctuaries in the United States from gun violence. Whether it is 
an elementary school, a college, a hospital--anywhere in the world--gun 
violence is there among us. We want to all give our condolences to our 
colleague Jim Clyburn, who represents that area in Charleston.
  I have a personal interest in it as a very good friend of mine, who 
had been pastor of Baber AME Church for decades in Rochester, left us 
to go to pastor that church and is still an elder there. So our hearts 
go out to all of them for all of the grief. We hope that we will see 
brighter days when people can go to a sanctuary place of worship in 
peace.
  Now to the matter before Congress today, Mr. Speaker, our Chamber and 
our Nation are off balance. There is something drastically wrong when 
Members of the people's House are asked to vote on greasing the skids 
for a trade deal they are discouraged from reading and, even if they do 
read, cannot discuss with their constituents, the people who sent them 
here.
  That is what we are being asked to do today regarding a massive trade 
deal: abdicate our authority by approving fast track and to give the 
simple vote of ``yea'' or ``nay'' on an issue that is not simple at 
all. In fact, it could not be more complex or more far-reaching. Unlike 
the Senate action on this measure, Members of the House were totally 
unable to have any amendment or very much discussion of what is going 
on here.
  Mr. Speaker, fast track is an anachronism that needs to die. There is 
no longer any need for it at all. It came as a matter of convenience in 
the seventies when the United States was the biggest manufacturer on 
the face of the Earth and when we were pretty sure we always would be. 
So it was decided by the powers that were in place then that the 
Congress would just hand it over to the administration to go ahead and 
negotiate whole trade agreements despite the fact that the Constitution 
of the United States gives us that power. We allowed the administration 
to do it. One committee, Ways and Means, got to see it. There was no 
amendment, and the only vote we can take on a trade bill is ``yea'' or 
``nay.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is not just we who are forbidden, basically, to see 
what is in this bill and to talk about it. It is also the countries of 
Australia and New Zealand. Let me read from a report on that.
  They are very much concerned there with the fact that this TPP--what 
they had found leaked out, that what PhRMA is doing here is to extend 
all of their patents for 12 years so that they can not only raise those 
prices here in this country but for all of those countries involved in 
the trade agreement.
  Jane Kelsey, who is on the faculty of law of the University of 
Auckland, described what was happening here as one of the most 
controversial parts--that is, the pharmaceutical part--because the U.S. 
pharmaceutical industry used a trade agreement to target New Zealand's 
Pharmaceutical Management Agency, PHARMAC, which is their health 
system.
  This transparency act will erode the process and decisions of 
agencies that decide which medicines and medical devices to subsidize 
with public money and by how much. The leaked test shows that TPP will 
severely erode PHARMAC's ability to continue to deliver affordable 
medicines and medical devices as it has for two decades.
  The parliamentarians in Australia and New Zealand are under the same 
restriction as we are, only theirs is

[[Page 9868]]

even worse. A member of that Parliament who goes to read the trade 
agreement has to sign a paper that he will not discuss it for 4 years.
  I make this point because two of the great democracies on this 
planet--the United States of America and Australia--have given over the 
right of the people's elected Representatives to know what is in these 
trade deals that will have such devastating effects on all of the 
people they represent. How in the world can this continue, and how can 
we let it go on?
  If we don't do anything in this Congress--and we may not--I would 
really like to see us do away with the whole idea of fast track. We 
can't afford it any longer. At least I am sure, when it began, there 
was no problem with certain corporations deciding that they were going 
to make the main decisions as we have had made known by leaks here. I 
have not gone to read the bill. I do not want to be hamstrung by 
anything that I can discuss and concerns that I have with the people 
whom I serve. This is one of many reasons, I think, this trade bill is 
bad.
  Let me say I have a few more here that I would like to go over, and I 
need to make sure that everybody understands this. When you vote for 
TPA today, you are voting for things that were in that Customs bill. 
Again, hardly any of us knew anything about it.
  Let me just tell you what they are:
  Preventing action on climate change. This is going to be written in 
this bill. Nobody anywhere can even bring up climate change. It is a 
great step backward, and they managed to get this in, and the Pope is 
in sync, too. That is very interesting.
  Secondly and most grievous to many of us who have worked so hard on 
human trafficking, including Members on both sides of this House with 
whom I have worked, it weakens the language on human trafficking. They 
had to do that because the nation with the worst standards on human 
rights and human trafficking is Malaysia, which is one of the countries 
with whom we want to be allied.
  Third, they ignore currency manipulation, which we have been told for 
a decade or more is one of the most serious acts against the United 
States from countries that trade with us, which is changing their 
currency. As one of my colleagues has pointed out, Mrs. Dingell, one 
automobile company made more money from its trade manipulation than it 
did by selling its cars. We don't want to expand that. We don't want 
that to go on.
  There is also a strong anti-immigration provision that we are being 
asked to vote on today, and we won't do that--giving up our rights as 
the elected Representatives of the people of the United States. It says 
that trade agreements do nothing to address the immigration. They may 
not.
  Then Democratic priorities, such as ensuring that Dodd-Frank would 
not be affected by the trade agreement, because we have heard that 
financial services is very heavily involved here, were rejected in the 
Senate and were not included in this bill. We are very much concerned 
about that.
  We are very much concerned about where we are going, but the fast-
track deal will be an absolute rubber stamp to disaster.
  As I mentioned before, it has been negotiated in a cloud of secrecy 
by multinational conglomerates and the financial services industry and 
pharmaceutical companies that have one priority, and that is the bottom 
line. What we know, again, is all we have heard from leaks. Not a lot 
has made its way to the light of day, but what has has been appalling, 
and it does certainly give anyone who wants to vote pause to think 
about what that vote means before he gives it, because we don't know 
what is in that bill.
  One of the things that some of us are very much concerned about is 
food safety and prescription drugs, the erosion of environmental 
protections, and the degradation of the financial sector. This deal is 
headed down the wrong path. Not only would the TPP certainly ship good-
paying American jobs overseas, but it would endanger the food on our 
tables by weakening the safety standards. Ninety percent of the seafood 
consumed in America is imported, but only 1 to 2 percent is inspected, 
much of it from countries with little controls on sanitation and water 
quality that American consumers expect.
  One of the biggest threats comes from shrimp imported from Vietnam, a 
TPP partner. The dangerous bacteria in Vietnamese shrimp is really 
ubiquitous and has included shrimp contaminated with MRSA, which is 
fatal, and drug-resistant salmonella. What is more, the TPP report 
includes due deferential preference to rules negotiated by drug 
companies extending their patents, as I have said, in an unfair way for 
12 years. They are rigging the system in a way that would make it 
harder for people in TPP countries to have access to life-saving drugs.
  Now, we have got a history to warn us about this. This thing has been 
modeled after NAFTA, which cost us over 5 million jobs. My part of the 
country is just now recovering from NAFTA a little bit, and we don't 
want to see this happen again. All over this country, there are 
factories that are closed and cities that are gone--places where there, 
literally, is no work.
  Even doing TAA, which is very important to us, would be training 
people for jobs, in most cases, that don't even exist; but this has 
been hidden away from the American people and certainly has been hidden 
away from the Congress, the people who represent them. It is causing a 
stir all the way around the world. As I pointed out, other countries 
are looking at this with great interest.
  Let's follow what our minority leader said last week. Let's put this 
thing to rest and negotiate openly a trade agreement that we can be 
proud of. We all believe in trade. Everybody talks about free trade. I 
want to change that now to fair trade that will be enforceable and that 
will benefit everybody involved.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the point of 
order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise with a sad heart regarding 
the occurrences and the things which happened in South Carolina last 
night. I know, I join the gentlewoman as well as all the Members of 
this body to express our condolences and our sorrow with the things 
that have happened. I know that later in the day we will take time to 
offer those formally by the members of the South Carolina delegation.
  Mr. Speaker, the question before us is, should the House now consider 
House Resolution 321. That is what we are here for. While the 
resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the 
motion to concur with the amendment, the committee is not aware of any 
violations of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This is simply a 
dilatory tactic that the gentlewoman wants to use to talk further about 
the issue at hand. I get that.
  We have spent weeks talking about this. The United States Senate 
spent weeks talking about this issue. The gentlewoman wanted to use her 
time to talk about all the things that she believes are wrong with the 
bill, and that is okay. That really doesn't bother me.
  But the bottom line to the entire matter is that we are using our 
responsibility under the Constitution for the Congress of the United 
States to establish the laws and to direct the President of the United 
States that we believe is very constitutional to say to the President 
of the United States, we want you to go engage the world in a trade 
deal, and we are going to tell you the parameters, some 160 different 
parameters about how we believe you should engage the foreign countries 
in these trade deals.
  The gentlewoman is right, there are some difficult piece parts in 
there, as the gentlewoman mentions about immigration. Yes, I made sure 
that was in there because I don't believe this should be about 
immigration or visas. I believe this should be about trade. And,

[[Page 9869]]

yes, there is language that is in there about climate change because I 
don't believe this should be about the United States in a political 
circumstance trying to push our ideas on a trade deal about global 
warming or these considerations that might be related to that issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is right, there are piece parts of this 
agreement, the trade promotion authority, that not everybody likes, but 
let's not act like you didn't have an opportunity to read the bill or 
understand the bill. But much like any contract--and that is what we 
are engaging here in. We are engaging in saying to the President, we 
want you to go sign a contract, an agreement with these foreign 
countries that are in the Far East who have not only large populations, 
but growing economic circumstances to buy our products, and us to make 
sure that we lower tariffs or taxes on those products to where they are 
available to us.
  Yes, we understand currency manipulation is a problem, and primarily 
that is a problem with perhaps two countries. Neither of those 
countries do we have a free trade agreement with, and one of them we 
want to have a free trade agreement with. Another country simply, I 
don't believe, understands rule of law or intellectual property, and I 
think they are thugs and don't care. They are a country that steals 
openly hundreds of billions of dollars from the United States, and they 
do not respect any rule of law or international agreements. So we 
probably won't sign an agreement with them.
  But this is a good deal. It is a good deal. The last 10, 20 countries 
that America has had a trade agreement with, we have a $10 billion 
surplus with those countries because those countries want American 
products, because the American worker does a great job, and we have the 
best engineering and manufacturing and pricing, but the product is 
worthy in the world market and will sell.
  The State of Texas, which I am from, sells $289 billion of Texas-made 
products overseas every year. That is an example of how important trade 
is.
  This trade deal contract that we are wanting to empower the 
President--whoever that may be for the next 7 years--is to say let's go 
cut a deal that is good to that country and to America. In the process, 
Mr. Speaker, we added some language for those of our friends that are 
watching along with you, Mr. Speaker, as I address my comments to you.
  Section 8, subsection A on page 101 says:

       United States law to prevail in event of conflict.

  Mr. Speaker, it lays it out right here:

       No provision of any trade agreement entered into under 
     section 3(b) nor the application of any such provision to any 
     person or circumstance that is inconsistent with any law of 
     the United States, any State of the United States, or any 
     locality in the United States shall have effect.

  Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to suggest to you is, there are a lot 
of things about this bill; some that some people like, some things that 
others don't like. But we had a chance to read it; we had a chance to 
understand it. This is a contract that we have not even agreed to yet. 
Why would someone go and publicly talk about a deal that they haven't 
made?
  So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that what is happening right now is that 
we should say that this point of order should not prevail. I think that 
what we should do is move to the direct discussion that we are going to 
have to allow the House to continue its business, and I urge Members to 
vote ``yes'' on the question under consideration.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DOGGETT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas will state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, my inquiry: In the underlying bill, is 
there anything to prevent taxpayers from having to pay out hundreds of 
millions of dollars for the privilege of enforcing the very laws that 
the gentleman from Texas says this agreement would preserve, any local 
ordinance, any State agreement like happened in Canada recently, that 
the taxpayers end up having to pay the bill for simply enforcing 
existing law?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I reserve the balance of my 
time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York will state her 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I need to inquire from you, if my colleague was 
reading from the trade bill, what he had read and is forbidden to speak 
about. It is classified, you know. Did he reveal classified 
information?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend. The 
gentlewoman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry. Now, if the 
gentlewoman has a parliamentary inquiry, please state it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. My concern is that he is reading from a classified 
document. I need to know if that is the case.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Section 8 of the TPA. I did not say TPP.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe we have pretty well beaten this dead donkey to 
its point. Its logical conclusion is we now move forward. I urge a 
``yes'' vote on the question of consideration of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, I believe that our comments this morning 
should be tempered with a reminder about the events of South Carolina 
and how much this body and its Members offer their prayers and 
consideration not only of our colleagues but all the people of South 
Carolina, the men and women, law enforcement, and people of faith all 
across this country. I want to, once again, express my consideration of 
those ideas.
  Mr. Speaker, before I go through my opening statement, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Irvine, California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).
  Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we have spent considerable time debating the merits of 
TPA in this body. I want to bring us back to the fundamentals of this 
debate. I want to talk about why trade is so important to our economy, 
why trade is a conservative cause, and why trade is so vital to our 
Nation. Simply put, free trade empowers the individual to make 
decisions in his or her best interest without undue government 
influence.
  Look around at your house or at your car. Without question, there are 
imported products. Free trade allows you, as an individual, to make the 
best economic choice for your family. When economic enterprise is free 
from unnecessary government interference and all enterprise is treated 
equally, the most competitive actors will rise to the top. That means 
higher quality products and lower prices, which translates to improved 
standards of living and economic growth.
  Opponents of free trade will say we need protectionist measures to 
maintain certain industries, but that is a flawed argument. 
Protectionist measures may benefit a few in select industries, but 
ultimately protectionism is more harmful to the Nation's economic 
health. Protected industries become inefficient. Consumers are denied 
choice,

[[Page 9870]]

and American businesses face retaliatory trade measures overseas. 
Bottom line, protectionism is an abandonment of the free market in 
favor of government intervention.
  I believe that when American businesses and entrepreneurs are placed 
on an equal playing field, when we eliminate tariffs and protectionist 
barriers at home and abroad, American businesses can compete and win 
against any of their foreign competitors. The famed economist Milton 
Friedman said: Free trade ultimately forces competitors to put up or 
shut up.
  Mr. Speaker, let us set the table for free trade. Let us pass TPA. I 
know American businesses will put up.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who has been so effective on this bill.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this fast-
track bill, which is only made worse by a gimmick of it being attached 
to unrelated legislation designed to help Federal public safety 
professionals. I might add, as has already been mentioned, the general 
president of the International Association of Firefighters, which this 
rule addresses as well, has said: We urge you to oppose this rule.
  For 20 years, our Nation's trade policy has been failing American 
workers and the businesses that want to invest in this country. It has 
driven away jobs, pushed down wages, and exacerbated inequality. A vote 
for fast track is a vote to continue that bad trade policy for another 
generation because if we approve fast track today, we rubberstamp the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
  The Trans-Pacific Partnership asks American workers to compete with 
labor in developing countries like Vietnam, where the minimum wage is 
56 cents an hour. It does nothing to combat the biggest source of lost 
jobs--currency manipulation--which The Economist's Fred Burcksen has 
said has cost us in the United States up to 5 million jobs. People lost 
their jobs and lost their livelihoods. It allows thousands of foreign 
corporations to challenge U.S. laws on food safety, drug safety, 
environmental protection, health care, labor rights, the minimum wage, 
and, indeed, any domestic law on any subject.

                              {time}  0945

  The gentleman on the other side of the aisle said that that is not 
the case. Just witness what happened last week when the majority in 
this body voted to repeal country of origin labeling so that we know 
where our meat, our poultry, and our pork comes from because the World 
Trade Organization and Canada and Mexico ruled against us. So we are 
going to give up our domestic law.
  This is a trade agreement that has been crafted by lobbyists for the 
special interests and industries that stand to gain the most by 
weakening U.S. regulation and shipping jobs overseas, yet the 
administration has shown absolutely no interest in improving this deal 
or even listening to our concerns. That means that when the Trans-
Pacific Partnership comes to this House, we need the ability to amend 
it. At the very least, it must include sanctions against currency 
manipulation, enforceable labor, environmental standards, and include a 
transparent process.
  If we vote for fast track today, we throw away our ability to make 
any of those amendments, and we turn our backs on our commitment to 
American workers: to their jobs, to their families, and to their 
economic security.
  We must make this a vote, and this vote must be a turning point so 
that at long last the American public can say that those of us in this 
House opposing fast track demand policies.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. DeLAURO. The vote last Friday and today's vote are critical in 
letting the American public know where we stand and that, in fact, we 
prioritize their economic security, their jobs, their increased wages 
and that we are opposed to special interests. And that is what this 
Trans-Pacific Partnership is all about.
  We must reject this bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of confusion down here. Everybody thinks 
we are now talking about ObamaCare, and we are not.
  The gentlewoman talked about diminishing wages, diminishing job 
opportunities for the future, diminishing opportunities for American 
workers to have higher wages. There is no bill that I have ever seen 
that diminished wages or people's opportunity to work the hours that 
they would like to work more than ObamaCare. But we are not debating 
that today.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here--and I want to be clear--about trade 
promotion authority, TPA--not TPP, not any of the other bills. We are 
here for TPA today, exactly the same bill that this House passed last 
week. That is what we are here for.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Sunnyside, Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the underlying trade 
promotion authority bill.
  Look at my State of Washington. We have jobs, economic growth, and 
increased exports because of trade. Those benefits and the example of 
that can be applied to our entire Nation.
  By passing TPA, Congress will set priorities to ensure that any 
agreement levels the playing field with our trading partners and 
creates jobs here at home. Without it, the administration will be 
setting those priorities, and we, Congress, will have no say and little 
oversight.
  In my State, we export coffee, many agricultural products, aircraft, 
footwear, and software. We export, fully, 30 percent of our apples, 60 
percent of our hops, and over 85 percent of our wheat.
  TPA is about instructing our trade negotiators to reduce the trade 
barriers that American farmers and manufacturers face so that we can 
create and sell openly around the world.
  Right now, our American wines face very stiff tariffs in Japan, but 
Chilean and Argentinean wines face none. Our beef faces a 38 percent 
tariff; oranges, 16 percent. TPA will instruct our trade negotiators to 
work on lowering these tariffs.
  The reason to vote on TPA and why it is so important is that it will 
make the deal public and give the American people several months to 
review any negotiated deal. Without passing this, there is no review 
period. The deal can stay secret.
  Some have objected that their voices have not been heard on this 
matter, but for months, the House Ways and Means Committee and the 
Rules Committee have considered dozens of amendments to three different 
trade-related bills. There has been ample time for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule and the underlying bill are critical to our 
economy. Without it, our country will continue to face enormous 
barriers; but with it, we can grow our businesses, create more jobs, 
and ensure the American economy remains the most competitive and 
strongest in the world for decades to come.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The administration seems to think the Democrats and 
the coalition that is opposing the TPP would reject any trade deal. We 
are called protectionists. We are called unreasonable. But that is not 
true. Rather than these fancy parliamentary manipulations, we should 
take the time now to fix it.
  Some of the most odious positions that we know that are in the TPP

[[Page 9871]]

which this fast track will speed us to are U.S. negotiating positions. 
Our trading partners are not clamoring for the extrajudicial investor 
dispute resolution authority, allowing huge corporations to challenge 
their hard-fought consumer protections, worker and environmental laws, 
et cetera. These are our negotiating positions. We could drop them and 
that would be welcomed abroad among our trading partners.
  Countries want the opportunity and the right to protect their food 
supplies--and that includes us. Decrease smoking; promote Buy America; 
increase the minimum wage; control the cost of drugs; protect our 
environment. We could reset the balance of the intellectual property 
rights and access to lifesaving, affordable medicines by rewriting the 
pharmaceutical chapter, which I did look at.
  More than a trade bill, this establishes a new regulatory regime that 
favors the wealthiest and the most powerful corporations. We could 
change that.
  These votes we are taking today are not the end of the track. It is 
beginning the track to a new negotiation. It is the beginning of an 
opportunity for us to sit down and make sure that we get the best for 
workers, consumers, and our trading partners, and that we benefit our 
economy not just for the very few at the top that can go to some 
extrajudicial court and challenge our regulations, but for everyone. 
This is a bill that we can make better.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman knows that in the TPA agreement there is 
an agreement that she can go and attend every single round of the 
discussions and negotiation, by law. She can be right there. She can 
watch it as it happens. We can be engaged in this, as Members of 
Congress, the entire way. That is what this agreement is about. This is 
about TPA, not TPP.
  The fear factor, Mr. Speaker, is incredible. Let's go and do the 
right thing for the American worker and our future. That is what we are 
doing now.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Raleigh, North 
Carolina (Mr. Holding), from the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, my good 
friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding.
  Here we go again, Mr. Speaker, debating what should be the United 
States' future role in the global economy.
  We have heard a lot over the past few months about the economic 
benefits associated with free and fair trade, but trade is just as 
important to our Nation's foreign policy as it is to our bottom line. 
There is no question that trade is an important, strategic soft-power 
tool.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't think for one second China isn't watching this 
very debate right now, waiting to see how serious we, the Congress, are 
about America's economic future and commitment to retaining our 
position of global leadership. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would venture to 
guess they have been focused on what a deal like the TPP would mean for 
their sitting and future ambitions in the Asia Pacific region for a 
long time now.
  The United States can either be in a position where we can write the 
rules for the future trade agreements and develop closer bilateral ties 
with our negotiating partners, or we can sit on the sidelines.
  Passing TPA is about expanding our influence in a critical region of 
the world with the TPP and solidifying our alliances with our partners 
in Europe with the TTIP. Failing to pass TPA, I fear, will confirm many 
of our allies' own fears that America is in retreat from the global 
stage.
  But we can send a strong signal today, Mr. Speaker, that while our 
Nation's foreign policy has recently been adrift, the House of 
Representatives--and the United States--supports closer economic ties 
with our partners and wants to see an America that is engaged on the 
world stage.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this rule and support for the TPA 
legislation later today.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. It is such a danger, 
Mr. Speaker, that the majority is trying to move through the back door 
what it could not get through the front door on the floor of this House 
last week. And they are doing it in the most shameful way, Mr. Speaker: 
hiding behind our first responders. That is right; hiding behind 
firefighters and emergency personnel.
  The International Association of Firefighters, representing more than 
300,000 firefighters and emergency room personnel, oppose what is being 
done here today on this floor, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  There is one thing that I agree with the gentleman from Texas about. 
This is a donkey that died last week when we stood up for American 
workers, small businesses, and American jobs. And right now that donkey 
is like roadkill, and we are going to kill it right here on the floor 
of this House of Representatives.
  We know that this body can pass legislation that in fact is not just 
about free trade, but is about free trade--and they are not doing it 
today--protecting our workers, protecting our climate, protecting our 
Buy America provisions for our procurement.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, even as we are just getting word of the Pope's 
encyclical on climate change and overwhelmingly recognizing the human 
cost to us all, we have a letter from our U.S. Trade Representative, 
Michael Froman, saying that this deal doesn't do anything to deal with 
the authority of the administration to negotiate climate change. That, 
in fact, is shameful. And what we are doing here today is against 
American workers, against American businesses, and against American 
jobs.
  It is time to kill this donkey once and for all by putting it to rest 
and coming back to the table to reset for the American workers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Butler, Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), one of the most exciting new Members 
of Congress from the Ways and Means Committee. I have visited and 
watched this young man as he not only ably represents a proud group of 
people, but is a strong American.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in this House, we have a duty to legislate based on 
truth, not fiction. We cannot afford to be uneducated, uninformed, or 
untruthful when it comes to TPA. Maybe the problem is we labeled it 
wrong. Maybe we should have called it ``Congressional Trade Authority 
Oversight.'' Maybe that is what we should have called it.
  There is a great misunderstanding--and I hope it is a 
misunderstanding--about what this does for us. There is no way America 
can compete in the global economy without strong trade agreements. When 
Congress sets the parameters and very carefully constructs what the 
agreement has to contain, there is no mystery, there is no bogeyman, 
there is nobody hiding under the bed, there is nobody hiding in the 
closet. You don't have to have a secret decoder ring. You don't have to 
have some magical knock at the door to read all these different items. 
It is there for you to look at.
  For crying out loud, will you stop pushing a false narrative if it is 
about growing our economy? The only way we can grow is protecting what 
we have and then going into the global economy and increasing our 
market penetration. It is that simple.
  If you want America to grow, then you must allow America to grow. And 
you must allow America to lead, because when America leads, America 
wins. And when America wins, the rest of the world wins. It is just 
that simple.
  Why in the world fast track? It is not fast track. If you want to 
call it slow track, that is fine, because you are going to have 60 days 
to read it. That is pretty slow, at least around here. You want to call 
it smart track? That is what it is. It is smart track. It is safe 
track, and it is sure track. The other thing, it puts America back on 
the track to economic prosperity.

[[Page 9872]]

  Pass TPA today and put America back on the track to protect American 
jobs. Allow the economy to grow, and allow our workers not just to 
produce and distribute products at home, but around the world. That is 
how we win, and that is how the people who depend on us win. When 
America is strong, America leads.

                              {time}  1000

  When we are not strong, we create a vacuum at the top of the world 
that is going to be filled with bad actors.
  Please stop using a false narrative. If you are not informed, get 
informed; if you are not educated, get educated, but for God's sake, 
don't be untruthful.
  I urge passage of the TPA.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for 
the time.
  Members, what I really dislike about this whole debate is that there 
is so much invective thrown around, claims of untruth.
  Now, here is the truth. The reality is that, if we pass trade 
promotion authority, we will have nothing more than an up-or-down vote 
at the end of the process. They don't have to take our amendments. They 
don't have to listen to what we say. Very likely, what will happen is 
that whatever has been negotiated already will be what the deal is.
  For some Members to try to claim that others don't get it or they are 
not being honest is, quite frankly, insulting and does not add one 
thing to the quality of the debate.
  The American people deserve to know that if trade promotion authority 
passes, there is a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote that will happen at the end 
of the process, and nobody here will be able to impact it through the 
normal course of events. We can go to some meetings; we can write some 
letters; but can we actually legislate? No.
  Now, the reason that this is a very bad outcome is because the United 
States Constitution delegates Congress, this body, with the power to 
regulate commerce with foreign nations. It says: ``Congress shall have 
power . . . to regulate commerce with foreign nations.''
  What we are doing here is taking that constitutional authority and we 
are handing it to the Executive and hoping for the best.
  Now, the people who have been negotiating the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership all along are a body of about 600 multinational lawyers and 
businesspeople. The voice of the workers haven't been there. The voice 
of the environment has not been there. The voice of ordinary citizens 
who have every reason to want a better world and impact this process 
have been muted in favor of big multinational corporate types. We must 
vote ``no'' on TPA today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee and an awesome free trader.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules 
Committee for giving me time.
  Let's set the facts straight here. Liberal union leaders, radical 
environmentalists, some of our friends on the other side have been 
relentless in pushing misinformation to confuse and distract the 
American people. It undermines the confidence that the American people 
have in this body, the people's House.
  Let's look at the facts. TPA, trade promotion authority, it is not a 
trade agreement. It is the process by which we get the best possible 
trade agreement, the best possible agreement on behalf of the American 
worker and the American farmer.
  This is Congress asserting its constitutional authority by setting 
the priorities for our negotiators. We are robustly involved in the 
negotiation process, and this TPA version is even better than previous 
ones because it empowers all Members of Congress, not just the Ways and 
Means Committee or the Senate Finance Committee.
  TPA has been public. It has been public for months for anybody and 
everybody who wants to read it. Just go to congress.gov. It is not 
secret.
  They are trying to deliberately confuse TPA, trade promotion 
authority, with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a trade 
negotiation underway and not completed yet. We want a strong TPP--
Trans-Pacific Partnership--agreement for the American workers and for 
farmers. We won't get that without TPA.
  TPA puts a strong check on the President, placing the Congress in the 
driver's seat with 150 negotiating objectives that must be addressed or 
else the final agreement won't be brought up for a vote. We will kill 
it. We have the power, not the President.
  It contains strong protections against the President from putting in 
any new immigration authority in violation of American law. It prevents 
the President from subverting U.S. sovereignty and all these urban 
myths that are out there.
  Frankly, the misinformation is disturbing, and it undermines the 
trust of this body. We have to put the facts on the table for the 
American people. This has been supported by a wide number of groups--
business groups, conservatives, many other groups.
  If you support transparency, if you support placing a check on the 
President, if you support robust oversight, and if you support getting 
the best deal for the American worker, knocking down barriers--whether 
they are tariff or nontariff barriers in these other countries--to give 
the American worker a break, open markets, then you support TPA.
  TPA is a catalyst for economic growth. It opens the door for a robust 
trade agenda for the United States.
  We created the global trading system after 1945. Are we going to walk 
away from it? We only have 20 agreements--with 20 countries, that is, 
free trade agreements. These are important agreements. Other countries 
have 40, 50, hundreds of them.
  Why are we sitting on the sidelines? We have been sitting on the 
sidelines for decades. It is time for American leadership. We can't 
walk away from the trading system we created. Our partners around the 
world want us engaged.
  This is the catalyst for American leadership. This is an important 
part of our national strategy and an important part of our foreign 
policy.
  You want a strategy? You want economic growth? You want fairness for 
the American worker? Support TPA as a catalyst for growth and 
leadership.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
  I am not going to go into the exact same debate we had 1 week ago 
because the facts are still the same. If we pass fast track authority, 
the facts are identical around the fact we will lose jobs here in this 
country and we will depress our wages here in this country. We will 
lose our sovereignty and control over our laws, and we will have 
problems with everything from food safety to intellectual property 
rights and so many other laws.
  What is different about this week from last week is this is not the 
same trade promotion authority. This trade promotion authority will 
take away American jobs, but it lacks the trade authority that gives us 
the assistance and the dollars to help those people find other jobs.
  This includes all of the amendments that affect us from taking away 
the provisions the Senate put in around currency manipulation, take 
away the amendments around human trafficking, and specifically say that 
we cannot address climate change in these trade negotiations.
  Now, that alone is an issue that I want clarity from the White House 
on. I have been in and looked at the language, and I will not talk 
about classified language on the floor, but the amendment 
specifically--we need clarity about where we are on climate change in 
this agreement.
  This is not the same TPA. It will cost jobs. It will lower our wages. 
It will not

[[Page 9873]]

provide any protections for those workers who lose their jobs because 
of this. Now, because of last week's actions, the bill before us is a 
far, far worse bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues, let's let the American 
people have a say. The only way they will is if Congress retains our 
authority to amend and debate this bill. If we give that away, it is 
our own fault today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Once again, I have to remind my colleagues we have got to follow some 
understanding about what we are trying to do here. This is TPA.
  TAA was up last week, and my colleagues that are Democrats turned 
down the same things they are now talking about were provisions to 
protect the American worker. The Democrat Party voted against the 
American worker last week.
  They are the ones that turned down exactly what the gentleman is 
talking about needs to be a part of this deal. The Democrat Party 
turned their back on the American worker. That was last week.
  This week, now, they are trying to talk about things that are in TPP. 
Mr. Speaker, we are not here today for TPP. We are here today for trade 
promotion authority. That is it, TPA.
  The gentleman, Mr. Kelly, was very right to say let's talk about the 
real facts of the case and the truth. This is about TPA. It is exactly 
the same bill that was here last week.
  There were other considerations last week. The Democrat Party turned 
their back last week on the worker. We are not trying to do that 
today--trade promotion authority.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Small Business 
Committee.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support the 
rule, and I think every Member of this body, on both sides of the 
aisle, have something in common. We all have small businesses in our 
district and probably a lot of them.
  One of the privileges we have, as Members of Congress, is to talk to 
those people and find out what is important to them. What is important 
to them is important to the country because about 70 percent of the new 
jobs that are created in the American economy nowadays are created by 
small businesses.
  In thinking about what I would say about TPA here this morning, I 
thought, rather than just tell people what I thought about it, I 
thought I would bring some examples of some of those folks that we have 
talked to.
  As Chair of the Small Business Committee, I get to talk to small 
businesses all across the country. Here are some examples of what they 
are telling us.
  Here is Michael Stanek of Hunt Imaging in Berea, Ohio. He said:

       Free trade agreements are extremely important as they lower 
     foreign barriers to our exports and produce a more level 
     playing field.
       Without TPA, the U.S. is relegated to the sidelines as 
     other nations negotiate trade agreements without us, putting 
     American workers and companies, especially small ones, at a 
     competitive disadvantage.

  Here is Dyke Messinger of Power Curbers in Salisbury, North Carolina:

       Passage of TPA, which lapsed back in 2007, is critical to 
     restore U.S. leadership on trade.
       Manufacturers in the U.S. face steeper trade barriers 
     abroad than virtually any other major country, including 
     Mexico and China and European countries, largely because 
     those countries have entered into more market access 
     agreements than the United States. Trade and foreign markets 
     are critical for small businesses like Power Curbers.

  Here is Kevin Severns of Severns Farm in Sanger, California.

       Without TPA, critical negotiations with some of our key 
     export markets may well stall. My understanding is that, on 
     average, U.S. citrus exports to countries included in the 
     Trans-Pacific Partnership can currently face tariffs as high 
     as 40 percent.

  That is tariffs at 40 percent.

       Given that 35 percent of California's citrus crop is 
     exported around the world, access to these markets is vital 
     to us.

  Here is Brian Bieron of eBay, which helps many small businesses sell 
their products abroad. He said:

       Through our experience, we have found that technology is 
     transforming trade by allowing Main Street businesses to 
     directly take part in globalization, reaping the benefits of 
     markets previously only open to the largest global companies. 
     This is good economics because it means more growth and 
     wealth, and it is good for society because it means a more 
     inclusive form of globalization.

  That is what people from around this country--small-business men, 
small-business women--are saying about TPA and TPP and trade. In 
effect, they are saying, if we want to grow the American economy and 
create jobs, which I think we all want to do, we must be proactive on 
trade, and that means passing TPA and then TPP.
  Better trade agreements mean small businesses will be able to access 
new international customers and offer their products more easily and at 
a lower cost than ever before.
  It means that more products will be built and sold. When that 
happens, jobs are created, wages go up, and more opportunity is 
available to all.
  You put an American worker against anyone in the world, and I will 
take that bet every day of the week and twice on Sunday; but we can't 
get there without TPA.
  Without TPA, other nations, especially China, will dictate the rules 
of the new economy, nations that do not respect the rule of law or the 
rights of individuals in many cases, especially in the case of China.
  Ninety-six percent of the people that are on this globe that we all 
share live outside the borders of the United States. Many of the 
world's consumers are not here. We want to sell our products overseas, 
and TPA gets us on the right track.

                              {time}  1015

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the ranking member, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding.
  I wish to say that if the underlying Trans-Pacific Partnership were 
such a good deal, then why is the Rules Committee limiting our ability 
to read it and vet it fully and amend it?
  By voting for the trade promotion authority, what we basically do is 
handcuff Members of Congress. So we should vote ``no.''
  Why should we believe anything the executive branch sends up here? We 
have a right to read it fully and vet it fully.
  Let's look at the history of these trade agreements. Over the last 25 
years, every time we have signed a so-called free trade agreement that 
benefits the 1 percent--not the 99 percent--America has lost more jobs. 
Post-NAFTA, look what happened. We used to have trade balances with 
these countries. They have all gone into trade deficit, which means 
they send us more goods than we are able to get into their markets. 
Here is what happened after the WTO. Then we got into the China PNTR 
deal. Then the Colombia deal. Then with Korea.
  There hasn't been a balanced trade account in this country for 30 
years; 40 million lost jobs; $9.5 trillion of trade deficit, trading 
away one-fifth of our economic might to other places.
  And what did the American people get? Lost jobs, outsourced jobs, 
stagnant wages. The average income in regions like mine--$7,000 less a 
year than 25 years ago. Not a good deal.
  You can't create jobs in America and have free trade when you have 
closed markets abroad. Japan is closed. Korea is closed. China is 
closed. Europe limits 10 percent imports. We don't. We have an open 
market.
  You can't create jobs and have free trade when you try to trade with 
countries where their people have no rights, no legal rights.
  This Congress should vote ``no'' on this Trans-Pacific Partnership, 
the underlying bill, and the trade promotion authority because we have 
a right to read the agreement and openly debate it.
  Right now we have to go down to a secret room. We have people who 
monitor us. And we can't even talk to the American people about what is 
in it. What is free about that?
  The executive branch has totally overreached its power. Only four 
titles

[[Page 9874]]

of the dozen in this TPP are actually about tariffs.
  This bill is a treaty. It should be considered as a treaty, openly 
read by the Senate, and it should be able to be amended and fully 
vetted. This is so important. When you have gone through a quarter 
century of job loss and income loss by the American people, why can't 
we produce a bill that benefits the 100 percent--not just the 1 
percent, the ones that were able to pay the plane tickets to go over to 
Asia
and help to represent very important transnational interests? But there 
are not just the interests of those companies. We have to represent the 
interests of the American people.
  Let's balance these trade accounts and develop a new trade model--not 
a NAFTA-based trade model, but a model that produces jobs in America, 
good wages, and balanced trade accounts for the first time in a quarter 
century.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. We forgot to make sure 
everybody knew: we are only doing TPA today. We are not doing TPP. We 
are not doing these other agreements. I am sorry. I forgot to say that 
for the 57th time.
  Where we cut deals, we win. With the 20 trade agreements America has, 
we had a $10 billion surplus last year alone.
  I don't know where all these people are getting off and scaring and 
making fear statements about the American worker. I don't get it, when 
they talk about us not passing TAA when they are the ones--the Democrat 
Party--that turned it down. I don't understand why they are beating us 
up for putting in provisions about immigration. I guess they want to 
flood our workforce with foreign workers. I don't get where the 
Democrat Party and its great stalwarts are coming from today. This is 
about TPA, and that is what we are going to vote on.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be clear, the Members on this side of the aisle--
the Democratic Party Members on this side of the aisle--completely 
understand what we are debating today. We know we are debating the rule 
on TPA, the same TPA which has been modified. As the gentleman has 
said, we are not debating TPP.
  The problem we have is, the trade promotion authority is intended to 
be the method by which this body, this Congress creates the parameters 
for negotiation of trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership. And the reason that this has been difficult, this House 
and the Republican leadership, in particular, is trying to create a TPA 
that accommodates the already negotiated TPP.
  So while it is a good rhetorical argument to say we are not debating 
TPP, the fact of the matter is, the reason that there has been such a 
lack of willingness to consider any modification, any amendments to the 
TPA bill is because any change would not align with the already 
negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  The reason, for example, that a bipartisan amendment that I and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Clawson) offered--with equal numbers of 
Democrats and Republicans, 22 of us--to deal with currency manipulation 
was not made in order is because it would not align with the already 
negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  Most everybody agrees that it would be good policy, but this deal is 
already written. And now we are trying to back in a TPA bill that it 
will accommodate the TPP.
  So it is rather difficult for me to accept the argument that this TPA 
question has nothing to do with the Trans-Pacific Partnership when 
everybody in this House of Representatives knows that it has everything 
to do with it.
  The other thing that is important for us to keep in mind is that this 
is a worse piece of legislation than the bad one that came before the 
House last week. Because of the modifications to TPA that came through 
in the customs bill, as my colleagues have said, despite the fact that 
many on the other side have argued that our attempts to deal with 
climate change here in the U.S. alone will not be affected because it 
is not a global approach, when we have an opportunity to take a broader 
approach, representing 40 percent of the global economy and deal with 
climate change, we now have an absolute prohibition, a gag order where 
we can't talk about climate in the greatest opportunity we would have 
to deal with climate change; nor can we have even a weak provision 
regarding currency, which has been excised from the TPA. And, 
unbelievably, we will actually weaken our ability to deal with bad 
actors when it comes to human trafficking.
  This is shameful, it ought to be rejected.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). The gentlewoman from Ohio will 
state her parliamentary inquiry.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to know, if Members vote in favor of the 
trade promotion authority currently before us, will Members be allowed 
to amend the underlying bill, the TPP?
  Could the chairman of the Rules Committee address that, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is engaging in debate and is 
not making a parliamentary inquiry.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Well, in what form could I ask the question that I could 
get a straight answer as to whether Members will be able to amend the 
underlying 1,000-page trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman may look to the managers for 
a specific item of debate.
  Ms. KAPTUR. So, in other words, the chairman of the Rules Committee 
cannot answer my question? He is my friend. I think it would be 
important for Members to know that because it is my understanding that 
we are not allowed to amend the agreement if, in fact, TPA passes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is no longer recognized.
  The gentlewoman from New York is recognized.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  TPA shouldn't stand for ``trade promotion authority''; it should 
stand for ``taking prosperity away,'' because that is exactly what it 
is going to do for millions of hard-working Americans.
  The House failed to advance its proposal less than a week ago, and 
today the TPA we are voting on is even worse.
  And hiding the vote behind our brave first responders? This is 
shameful.
  Republican leaders are doing everything they can to jam through a 
special interest agenda that will depress wages, exacerbate inequality, 
and cost jobs. TPA will take away the constitutional responsibility 
that Congress has to strengthen and improve the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership. If we approve this measure, we are surrendering our 
ability to improve a trade agreement for working families.
  We are not voting on TPP, as the chairman said, but we are voting on 
TPA, on the rules to govern these negotiations and the process to be 
filed. And if we vote for this TPA, we are saying that we are fine 
moving forward on a trade agreement that has no enforceable provisions 
against currency manipulation; meaning, there are no protections to 
stop countries from devaluing their currency, artificially reducing the 
price of their goods, and putting American manufacturers and American 
jobs at a competitive disadvantage. We are saying, we are fine with a 
trade agreement that fails to address the critical issue of climate 
change. We are saying that we are fine with entering into a trade 
agreement with countries like Brunei, where

[[Page 9875]]

LGBT individuals can be stoned to death and women can be flogged in 
public. We are saying, we are fine with having a trade agreement that 
weakens protections against human trafficking; and we are fine with 
entering into a trade agreement with countries like Vietnam, which 
denies workers even the most basic collective bargaining rights, while 
throwing workers' advocates into prison.
  So we are not voting on TPP. We are voting on TPA. But we are setting 
the rules for governing the negotiations, and we are removing ourselves 
from the process of improving and strengthening this trade agreement.
  The House should reject this proposal and stand with hard-working 
Americans. We should oppose TPA. We should oppose the rule.
  For 30 years, we have had trade policies in this country that have 
failed American workers, driving down wages, increasing income 
inequality, and, as a result of it, costing jobs. A vote for fast track 
is a vote to abandon our responsibility to ensure that trade works for 
our country and for American workers.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, to reject the underlying 
bill, and to vote ``no'' on TPA.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) will control the time for the minority 
side.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record a letter to 
Members of Congress from the general president of the International 
Association of Firefighters opposing House Resolution 321 when it 
attaches trade promotion authority to H.R. 2146, the Defending Public 
Safety Employees' Retirement Act.

                                         International Association


                                             of Fire Fighters,

                                                    June 18, 2015.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of more than 300,000 
     professional fire fighters and emergency medical personnel, I 
     strongly urge you to oppose H. Res. 321 which attaches Trade 
     Promotion Authority to HR 2146, the Defending Public Safety 
     Employee's Retirement Act.
       The underlying legislation provides an important measure of 
     retirement security to the federal fighters who protect our 
     nation's defense installations, VA hospitals and other vital 
     facilities. It should not be politically exploited and used 
     in a last ditch, desperate effort to pass TPA.
       HR 2146, which simply enables federal fire fighters to 
     access their own retirement savings once they reach 
     retirement age, was passed by the House by a vote of 407-5 
     and adopted unanimously in the Senate with a technical 
     amendment. This amended legislation deserves to be considered 
     free of political gamesmanship and procedural tricks.
       The IAFF urges you to oppose this rule, and consider HR 
     2146 without controversial amendments.
           Sincerely,
                                           Harold A. Schaitberger,
                                                General President.

  Mr. McGOVERN. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, if we vote for trade promotion authority, fast track, 
without Trade Adjustment Assistance, if that is how we vote today, that 
is what we will get.
  The Republican chair of the Rules Committee has made it clear. He has 
already used his precious time to start blaming Democratic leadership 
for the fact that Trade Adjustment Assistance will not become law.
  The fact is that if Trade Adjustment Assistance ever comes before 
this House, it will, no doubt, be loaded up by the Republican 
leadership with a host of poison pills, making sure that Democrats 
cannot vote for it. I can't vote for Trade Adjustment Assistance if you 
terminate the Affordable Care Act as part of the bill, for example.
  Now the proponents of trade promotion authority have had to misstate 
the actual economic facts, the figures on our trade surpluses and 
deficits, in order to make their case. They have come again and again 
and said, we have a trade surplus with our free trade agreement 
partners.
  Completely false. I will put into the Record the chart listing each 
of our free trade agreement partners, and we are running a $177 billion 
deficit in goods. Including services, you are now down to a little over 
a $100 billion deficit.

                              {time}  1030

  Now, how is it that Member after Member has come here and said 
something demonstrably false? They have been fooled by slippery 
charlatans who feed them the following line: Since NAFTA, we have a 
surplus with those countries that have a free trade agreement.
  ``Since NAFTA'' implies since the early 1990s. No, they mean those 
agreements we entered into after NAFTA. So they look at our free trade 
agreements while ignoring NAFTA. That is like looking at the Cavs and 
ignoring LeBron. You can't do that.
  Mr. Speaker, if you look at the success and failure of our free trade 
agreements, number one is NAFTA. If you include all of our free trade 
agreements, including NAFTA, we have a $177 billion goods deficit. And 
then if you look at MFN for China, most favored nation status for 
China, well, then you are talking $400 billion of deficit. That was not 
a free trade agreement. That was an even worse agreement.
  This TPP is a gift to China. First, it enshrines the idea that 
currency manipulation will be allowed, even encouraged. It sets Chinese 
rules for trade in Asia, preserving for them their number one tactic in 
running such a huge trade surplus with the United States. It hollows 
out American manufacturing, thus endangering our national security. And 
the rules of origin provision available for review in the basement will 
show you that goods that are 50 and 60 percent made in China, admitted 
to be made in China, which means actually 70 or 80 percent really made 
in China, come fast-tracked into the United States. China gets the 
benefit and doesn't have to make a single concession.
  Vote ``no.''
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. First, we were all on the fast track, then the slow 
track with postponement into July, and now we are back on rush-hour 
scheduling, being told that fast track, which has been mangled in the 
meantime with new changes, has to be approved by high noon today.
  Railroading this bill through now will deny any opportunity to ensure 
that our trade policy gets on the right track. The fast-trackers have 
rejected every constructive improvement for a better trade measure that 
we have advanced. And even these fast-trackers, if they are really 
candid with the American people, would concede there is not a Member of 
this Congress who knows what is in this agreement to the extent that 
the Vietnamese Politburo does. Because so much of it has been secreted, 
we do not have one word that has been made public or accessible to us 
about how it is that Vietnam will enforce provisions to ensure greater 
worker freedom and opportunity instead of being part of a race to the 
bottom.
  What we do know about this fast-track agreement from a recent 
Canadian ruling, Bilcon v. Canada, is that corporate panels will be 
empowered to charge taxpayers millions of dollars for the privilege of 
maintaining public health and safety laws. The language to which my 
colleague from Texas has referred about preserving American laws is 
really meaningless because, yes, they are preserved, but when your city 
or your State acts to protect you, foreign corporations are accorded 
more rights than American businesses, and they can demand millions for 
keeping our laws in place.
  What we do know is that, since last week, this railroad has picked up 
some mighty unsavory characters. The irony is that on the very day Pope 
Francis is formally releasing his encyclical on global warming, this 
railroad has picked up a troubling new provision that would deny any 
opportunity to address the greatest environmental challenge that our 
world faces.
  Even Trans-Pacific Partnership supporters concede that it looks like 
a

[[Page 9876]]

charter for corporate America rather than a high-level trade agreement. 
The Financial Times said, ``In too many aspects, it looks like a 
charter for corporate America.''
  We learn, I think, more from USTR's past failures than from its 
current promises. USTR has never in its history successfully challenged 
worker or environmental abuses by any of our foreign trading partners. 
Usually the reason that USTR fails is that it doesn't really try. It 
doesn't seem to have a belief in law enforcement when it comes to 
worker and environmental abuse. In Guatemala, it took it eight years to 
even bring a dispute. In Honduras, it took nearly four years to issue 
another bureaucratic report. In Peru, we cannot get the audit that USTR 
was responsible for obtaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, ``Asleep at the Wheel'' is a great Texas 
swing band, but it is a horrible philosophy for trade law enforcement. 
Reject this rule; help us get a better trade policy; protect American 
families; and advance our economy. We can do better than this by 
rejecting this rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, let me say to my colleagues that they should be 
appalled by this process. This is again being brought up under a 
process where nobody--not just Democrats, but Republicans as well--can 
offer amendments.
  In the United States Senate when TPA was considered, they were able 
to offer amendments, but when it came before the House last week, we 
were told we could offer no amendments. The excuse we were given is 
because, if we passed it, it would go right to the White House. But 
what we are doing today is actually not going to the White House. It is 
going back to the Senate, yet we are again being presented with a 
closed process.
  Why can't Members of both sides of the aisle have an opportunity to 
make their views known on this important issue? Why are we being shut 
out when it comes to the issue of trade and TPA?
  I heard a number of speakers say that this debate is not about TPP. 
Well, this is indeed about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Whether or 
not TPP is implemented will depend almost entirely on whether the 
President has fast track in place.
  The vote on fast track, or TPA, will determine the fate of the TPP 
trade deal. So a ``yes'' vote on TPA is a ``yes'' vote on TPP. It is 
that simple. History shows that is how it has worked time and time and 
time again.
  Fast track is not just about TPP. If we vote for TPA for fast track, 
we are fast-tracking any trade deal that any President negotiates 
anytime in the next 6 years. We have no idea who the next President 
will be, but you are giving the next President--or next Presidents--the 
authority to have fast-track authority on whatever they want. Why are 
we just giving away all of our ability to play a role in these 
negotiations? The problem with these trade deals is that only the well-
off and well-connected have a seat at the table.
  I urge my colleagues to put American workers first. Vote ``no'' on 
the rule and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, the TPP is modeled after a failed trade 
agreement. It will further erode our national economy and change the 
rules in ways that hurt American workers. We are supposed to be here to 
protect the American workers and to create more opportunity, and we are 
yet going down the road of another trade deal that is going to rob 
America of important middle class jobs. It is appalling, and this 
process is appalling.
  Vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate today has been most interesting about the 
differences between the speakers who showed up today. One group of 
speakers is for America, for growth, for America leading, for America 
engaging the world, and for cutting deals with our friends against one 
other huge country that will overrun in every single economic 
circumstance the rest of the world because they do not respect 
intellectual property or rule of law.
  Mr. Speaker, this is about gathering together the United States House 
of Representatives and the United States Senate to where we gather 
together the best rules and regulations that we can, parameters by 
which the President would go negotiate. This isn't about abdicating our 
role and responsibility. It is trade promotion authority.
  Mr. Speaker, please, we understand that some people haven't read the 
bill. We understand some people think this is about TPP or other 
agreements, but it is not. This is about a simple process: Are we going 
to exert our constitutional authority? Are we going to engage the 
President where the President can go engage the world on behalf of the 
American worker? Are we going to lead, or are we going to stick our 
head in the sand?
  Mr. Speaker, America needs to lead, and the world wants us to lead. 
Mr. Speaker, the world wants American products, and American business 
wants to sell to others without high prices and without tariffs. What 
we want to do is to compete. That is why we are here today.
  I urge adoption of this rule. I look forward to the debate that will 
follow, and I look forward to our young chairman, Paul Ryan, leading 
that effort, proving not only to the Members here today and to you, Mr. 
Speaker, but to the American people that we want more jobs. We have not 
created all the jobs that we need in this country. We need more, and 
this is a part of that effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, 
nays 181, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 373]

                               YEAS--244

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer

[[Page 9877]]


     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Byrne
     Clyburn
     Davis, Rodney
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Hurt (VA)
     Jolly
     Kelly (MS)

                              {time}  1108

  Mrs. ROBY and Mr. BRADY of Texas changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall 
vote No. 373 on H. Res. 321. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''

                          ____________________