Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act--Motion to Reconsider Cloture Vote on Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me respectfully disagree with my friend from Utah. Let me urge all Members to vote against what I believe to be a disastrous trade agreement, a trade agreement based on other trade agreements, which, in fact, have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and have led to a race to the bottom.

Let me just briefly give four reasons--and there are many more. But let me just focus on four objective reasons why we should defeat this fast-track legislation and why we need to develop a whole new approach to trade that benefits American workers rather than just the CEOs of large multinational corporations.

Reason No. 1, this unfettered free-trade agreement with Vietnam, Malaysia, and 10 other countries follows in the footsteps of disastrous trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA, Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, and the South Korea Free Trade Agreement.

Any objective look at these trade agreements will tell us that they have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and have led us to a race to the bottom, where American workers are forced to compete against workers in low-wage countries who are making pennies an hour.

Over and over again, supporters of these types of trade agreements have told us about how many jobs they would create, how beneficial it would be for the middle class and working class of this country. But over and over again, virtually everything they told us turned out to be wrong, and they are wrong again in terms of the TPP.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton promised that NAFTA would create 1 million American jobs in 5 years. Instead, NAFTA has led to the loss of almost 700,000 jobs. In 1999, we were promised that Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China would open the Chinese economy to American-made goods and services. Instead, as everybody who goes shopping knows--when you buy product after product made in China--that trade agreement has cost us some 2.7 million American jobs. I remember hearing all the accolades about free trade with China. They all turned out to be wrong.

In 2011, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told us that the South Korea Free Trade Agreement would create some 280,000 jobs. Well, wrong again--instead, that agreement has led to the loss of some 75,000 jobs.

The reason for all of this is very simple. Why would an American corporation invest in this country, pay American workers 15, 18, 20 bucks an hour, provide health care, have to obey environmental regulations, and deal with trade unions, when they can go abroad, pay people pennies an hour, and not have to worry about the environment. That is, of course, what has happened.

These trade agreements have failed. TPP is based on these principles. It will be another failure. We should reject it for that reason.

Second point, in politics it is always interesting and important to know whose side different groups are on. You can learn a lot by who is supporting an agreement and by who is opposing the agreement.

Well, let's talk about who is supporting the TPP. It turns out that virtually every major multinational corporation, including many that have shut down plants in the United States and moved abroad--all of these multinationals think the TPP is a great idea. I am sure I can understand why it will be a great program for them. It will only accelerate their ability to shut down plants in America and move to low-wage countries abroad.

There is another group that is actively pushing for us to vote for the TPP. That is the pharmaceutical industry. As I think every American knows, the drug companies in this country charge our people here the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, but they love this legislation. They just love it because they think as a result of this legislation, they will be able to charge people all over the world, including in very poor countries, higher prices for their products.

Wall Street--surprise of all surprises--Wall Street loves this agreement. As we all remember, not so many years ago, the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior of Wall Street caused the most significant economic recession since the Great Depression. But Wall Street loves this legislation because it will make it easier for them to sell esoteric, complicated financial products all over the world.

So those are some of the groups that think this legislation is wonderful, that we should vote for it.

Which are the groups and the organizations that oppose this legislation? Well, it turns out that every trade union in this country, unions representing over 20 million American workers, unions that are fighting every single day to get workers higher wages, better pay, better health care, are in strong opposition to this legislation.

This is what the trade union movement has to say about TPP:

Fast Track trade deals mean fewer jobs, lower wages, and a declining middle class. Fast Track has been used since the Nixon Administration to advance deals, like NAFTA, that are sold to the American people as job creation measures. But these deals, written largely by and for the world's largest corporations, don't create jobs; their main purpose isn't even related to trade, it's to enshrine rules that make it easier for firms to invest offshore and increase corporate influence over the global economy.

That is what the trade union movement in this country believes about this agreement. But it is not only the trade union movement that has opposed the TPP. Virtually every major environmental and scientific group in this country, groups such as the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and 350.org oppose this legislation. This is what the environmental organizations have written about this bill:

As leading U.S. environmental and science organizations, we write to express our strong opposition to ``fast track'' trade promotion authority and to urge you to oppose any legislation that would limit the ability of Congress to ensure that trade pacts deliver benefits for communities, workers, public health, and the environment.

So we have trade union organizations representing some 20 million American workers that say we should not go forward with this agreement. We have organizations representing millions of people in the environmental community that say we should not go forward with this legislation.

Then we have religious groups, such as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the United Methodist Church, and the Sisters of Mercy, that also are opposing this legislation. This is what they have written:

As people of faith, we call on all nations and government to uphold the dignity of all people. Yet modern trade agreements have harmed people, especially the most vulnerable in the United States and globally. ..... Trade, like the rest of the economy, must be a means of lifting people out of poverty and ensure a country's ability to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of their citizens and the planet. In recognition of your sacred task of stewardship over people and policies, we ask you to oppose fast track trade promotion authority for any trade agreement currently being negotiated.

So, on the one hand, you have all of the big-money organizations. You have every major multinational corporation in America. You have Wall Street, and you have the pharmaceutical industry. They say: Vote for this legislation.

On the other side, you have unions representing millions of Americans. You have environmental organizations representing millions more Americans, and you have religious organizations who say: Wait a second. This fast-track trade agreement may not be a good idea. Vote no.

So on the one hand, you have groups whose motivation is greed and profit, and on the other hand, you have organizations trying to protect working people, trying to protect the environment, trying to uphold basic religious values about human dignity saying no. Well, which side should we be on? I say we stand with those who are concerned about workers' rights, the environment, and moral values.

Let me give you another reason why we should oppose this trade agreement--and this is a provision that has gotten far too little attention--and that is the investor-state dispute settlement. That sounds like a highly technical term. What in God's Name does that mean? But let me try to explain what it does mean. What it does mean in English is that it would allow large multinational corporations to sue national, State, and local governments--not only in the United States but all over the world--if those governments pass legislation that hurts their expected future profits.

This, to me, is exactly about what this whole agreement stands for. It is not for raising wages or creating jobs. It is to protect corporate profits. And, unbelievably, what this legislation is prepared to do is to undermine basic democracy in terms of what local communities around the world, States in the United States, and national governments do--whether it is the United States or any other government--if that undermines future profits of large multinational corporations. That is really extraordinary.

I thought that our job, as Members of the Senate, and the job of people in Australia who represent their government and people democratically elected all over the world--I had the idea that maybe their function was to represent, as best they could, the needs of the people who voted for them. I guess that is a radical and crazy idea.

What this bill says is that if legislation is passed by people who are democratically elected, those decisions--that legislation--can be brought to an independent tribunal, and those countries could have to pay huge fines if the legislation, which might protect health care or might protect the environment, undermines future profits of multinational corporations.

What an attack--not only on health and the environment--but it is an attack on the fundamental tenets of democracy. Our job is not to worry about future corporate profits. Our job is to worry about the needs of the American people. That is what elected governments all over the world are supposed to do.

Let me give you some examples--because we have not talked about this--of what is already going on around the world based on similar language to what will be in the TPP if we vote for it--similar language.

This is maybe the most outrageous example that I can give you, but there are many others. Philip Morris, one of the large tobacco companies in the world, is suing both Australia and Uruguay over labeling requirements for cigarettes.

Uruguay is this little country, and what they have done is they have been very aggressive in trying to protect their children and their people from the very harmful impacts of smoking.

Now, you know what. I happen to think that is a good thing. I think in America and all over the world we should do everything that we can to make sure that our kids are not hooked on nicotine and do not have to suffer heart disease, cancer, emphysema, and all of the other diseases related to smoking. I think our government should be very vigorous. We have done some things in our country. I think we should do more.

Uruguay, a little tiny country whose President turns out to be an oncologist, a guy who is worried about cancer, was trying to do everything it could to try to keep the kids in Uruguay from getting hooked on cigarettes. And what happened to Uruguay? Well, they were taken to this independent tribunal, composing, as I understand it, of three corporate lawyers, because Philip Morris said: Hey, Uruguay, you are impacting our future profits. We want to get kids hooked onto nicotine. We want to sell our products to kids and to the people of Uruguay. By fighting us, passing legislation, and doing things that will make it harder for kids to smoke, you are ruining our profits.

This case is now resting in an independent tribunal. How insane is that--that a country trying to protect its kids from getting cancer is being sued by Philip Morris because it might cost them profits? So this is not only a health issue--in this case of cancer prevention--but this is an issue of basic democracy.

Do the people of Uruguay, do the people of Australia, do the people of any country have a right to be very vigorous in protecting the health of their kids and their citizens without worrying about being sued by a cigarette manufacturer that is trying to poison these kids with deadly products.

So this is not only a health issue, it is a basic democratic issue, and if Philip Morris wins this case, it will be sending a message to every government in the world that they can't be aggressive in doing things to protect their kids from cigarettes.

That is one example. Let me give another equally outrageous example. Under this investor-state provision, a French waste management firm--Veolia--is suing for $110 million under the France-Egypt bilateral investment treaty over changes to Egypt's labor laws, including an increase in the minimum wage.

Now, let me be honest. I know nothing about Egypt's minimum wage, but I do think Egypt and every other country on Earth has a right to raise its minimum wage, if they think it makes sense, without worrying about being sued by some company that will have to pay higher wages. How crazy is that? So, again, not being terribly knowledgeable about domestic policies in Egypt, the idea that they are being sued for the crime of raising their minimum wage is, to me, beyond comprehension.

Again, this is just an example of what is happening now and what will only happen in an accelerated manner if we pass this agreement, but let me give one last example.

A Swedish energy company called Vattenfall launched a $5 billion lawsuit over Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power. This initiative was implemented in response to the Fukushima disaster. Germany, last I knew, was an independent country, with an elected government, and they made a decision to phase out nuclear energy. Some people think it is a good idea, some think it is a bad idea, but last I heard that should be a decision of the German Government and the people who elected that government. The elected officials of Germany are not dummies. I presume they do what their people want them to do or they pay the political consequence.

But that was the decision of the elected officials of Germany. They said: Let's phase out nuclear power. Yet now they are being sued by a Swedish energy company, Vattenfall, for some $5 billion because they made that decision.

Now, that is just what is going on right now. Think about what that means into the future. It means any government around the world or in this trade agreement, it means any State in the United States--if my State of Vermont, which is sensitive to the environment, decides to go forward on an environmental piece of legislation, some large corporation can go to an independent tribunal and say: Look, we are going to sue Vermont for $1 billion because we wanted to do business there and their environmental regulations are impacting our ability to make a profit. That undermines what the State of Vermont or the State of Georgia or any other State chooses to do.

To me, it is just beyond comprehension that anybody would vote for that type of legislation. We can disagree with what they do in Egypt or disagree with what they do in Uruguay, we can disagree with what we do here, but to say an independent tribunal can provide billions of dollars in damages to a corporation because of a democratically made decision in the United States or any other country around the world is, to me, just incomprehensible.

The last point I would want to make deals with a health issue. Clearly, one of the health crises we face not only in America but around the world is the high cost of prescription drugs. In our country, if my memory is correct, some 25 percent of Americans who receive prescriptions from doctors are unable to afford to fill those prescriptions--someone goes to the doctor who diagnoses that individual and writes out a script, and the person says thank you very much but doesn't have the money to fill that script. It is bad in this country, but obviously it is much worse in very, very poor countries around the world.

What this agreement will do, among other things, if it is passed, is allow pharmaceutical companies to fight back against their brand-name products being converted into generics at much lower prices, so poor countries all over the world would have to struggle to come up with very high prices for medicine for people who don't have a whole lot of money.

In fact, that is why Doctors Without Borders has said--and Doctors Without Borders, as you may know, is a heroic group of doctors who, whenever there is a health care crisis around the world--whether it is Ebola in Africa or whatever--travel to those places and put their lives on the line. Some have died to provide medical treatment in the most difficult of circumstances to the poorest people around the world. They are really a heroic group of people. But Doctors Without Borders has said: ``The TPP agreement is on track to become the most harmful trade pact ever for access to medicines in developing countries.''

So to my mind, the vote we are going to have in a short time is really a no-brainer. Are we dumb enough to continue down the road of failed trade policies? I would hope not. Do we think it is a good idea to be siding with corporate America, which has already used previous trade agreements to outsource millions of our jobs and thinks this agreement is just wonderful? Are we going to stand with Wall Street, whose greed has no limits? Are we going to stand with the pharmaceutical industry, which wants to sell drugs to people all over the world at a higher price or do we stand with unions, environmental groups, religious groups? Do we get involved in a trade agreement which allows corporations to undermine the democratic rights of countries that stand up for their environment, stand up for the health and well-being of their kids? Do we make it harder for poor people around the world to get the medicines they need?

This is a no-brainer. I would hope Members of the Senate send a resounding note to the corporate world that says you can't have it all; that we are going to pass trade agreements which protect working families, which protect the middle class, and which protect struggling people all over the world and we are going to vote no on fast-track and no on the TPP.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source