Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 644, Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, this motion is the next step in fast-track consideration of Asian trade agreements and perhaps other trade agreements.

The fast-trackers know that the only way they can sell this agreement to the American people is to rely on stealth as much as possible to hide the agreement, as they have, for as long as possible; and then, even at the present time, not to give full information about all aspects of this agreement, such as the alleged $18,000 tax cuts being provided foreigners, without indicating what tax cuts are available for Americans or what the effect of these tax cuts might be. And now, today, under this new, more inclusive House that we have heard so much about with the new Speaker, we are provided less than an hour's notice for the fast-trackers to strike again.

In moving to go to conference on a bill to attempt to fix a defective fast-track proposal, they have done so under a procedure that cut off all debate. We were not permitted to say a word about the customs bill as a whole, and the only way that we are able to comment about what is happening here at all is thanks to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire who has offered a nonbinding motion about one of the many questionable provisions in this customs bill. It is a very important provision concerning currency manipulation that allows some foreign trading partners to use their currencies and adjust them to get what they cannot do through normal trade procedures and greatly disadvantage American manufacturers and hurt American jobs.

I applaud the gentlewoman's consideration and offering of that amendment. Even though it will not bind the conference committee, it is a way for the House to speak out about that issue.

But this is not the only flaw that exists in the customs bill. Indeed, the first provision included in this customs bill as passed by the House--ironically, brought up today, as countries with good will are struggling with the issue of how we address climate change in Paris--instructs that no trade agreements can obligate the United States with respect to global warming or climate change.

So the bill that is being sent to conference, as approved in the House, is designed to prevent our acting concerning climate change, which is the great threat--perhaps one of the major national security threats, and certainly the greatest environmental threat of our time. We can see the effects all around us when we are not surrounded by climate change deniers, of which there are many in this House who refuse to accept science and prefer mythology and ideology to science. Hence, this provision in a bill in a trade negotiation that began considering ways to address climate change now has a prohibition against doing it.

A second problem--I am all for trade. I voted for trade or supported trade with most of the countries that are in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. One of those countries, however, believes in turning a blind eye to trading women, trading children, trading indentured workers, and that country is Malaysia.

Until the last couple of months, Malaysia was in a category with North Korea and a handful of other countries as a country that was doing the least and had the worst record when it comes to human trafficking. So the United States Senate approved a provision to address that concern with Malaysia. And when that provision was in the Ways and Means Committee in markup, I specifically asked then-Chairman Ryan to ensure that we had any human trafficking amendment language from the Senate committee in this customs bill or in his TPP bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

He told me in the course of that hearing that he would oppose truly conforming the House bill with the Senate bill because ``it would make it more difficult to negotiate TPP,'' this Asian trade agreement.

So we put the desire for trade over our principles. I think it is possible to have more trade and support a 21st century trade policy without sacrificing our values as Americans.

What has happened in the meantime is a reclassification of Malaysia, all designed to get the trade there without getting Malaysia to do what it should about human trafficking, which I think is really tragic.

Then there is the third issue addressed in this customs bill, and that is the question of enforcement. Of course, when it comes to protection of the environment, when it comes to standards so that we are not in a race to the bottom with our American workers versus foreign workers, say in Vietnam working for 60 cents an hour, this United States Trade Representative's office has been asleep at the wheel. That is the name of a great Texas swing band, but it is not a very good policy when it comes to enforcing the law. Unfortunately, these enforcement provisions which are part of this customs bill leave it to USTR to proceed as it has in the past.

I think, instead of going to conference, what we should be doing is going back to the drawing board in the committee, looking at the enforcement provisions, and asking why it is that, though it has had responsibility to enforce environmental and labor guarantees, it has not brought successful actions to accomplish either.

And specifically with regard to the environment, in addition to the climate change provisions, one of the most troubling developments as far as both climate and the environment is the question of logging in the Amazon region and other sensitive areas. USTR was charged with seeking audits of that logging and seeing that we acted under agreements that were approved during the Bush administration. It has failed to do so.

So, for one reason after another, going to conference is a mistake. I applaud the motion. I hope it is adopted, but it is tragic that we are moving in this direction.

Source