Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. President.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I first want to talk about the Zika public health emergency that is coming to the United States of America. We have to act now to fund the administration's request of $1.9 billion in supplemental funding.

Zika is a disease carried by the Aedes aegypti mosquito, a vector that has already caused a dengue epidemic in my State of Hawaii. The Aedes mosquitoes are in more places than we previously thought throughout the United States.

Zika is the first mosquito-borne illness to be associated with a congenital birth defect. We are continuing to learn more about this devastating disease every day, including its association with Guillain- Barre syndrome--a type of paralysis--eye abnormalities, and more.

While there have not yet been any locally transmitted diseases of Zika in the continental United States, we do have hundreds of travel- related cases and up to 500 cases of active transmission in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As I mentioned, Hawaii is recovering from a dengue epidemic. So we must provide emergency funding for mosquito-borne illnesses, and we must do it now. This is an emergency.

The administration has clearly laid out its request to combat Zika, which includes the following: $830 million for the CDC. This money would include grants and technical assistance to Puerto Rico and the U.S. territories and help our domestic and international response activities; about $250 million for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, to increase the Federal match rate to Puerto Rico; and several hundred million dollars for the National Institutes of Health and BARDA to invest in vaccine research and development. That is the long-term solution. There is a high degree of competence that we will be able to get a vaccine but not without the funding. This is an absolute emergency. We need $10 million for the FDA vaccine and diagnostics development and review, which is absolutely critical--we don't have diagnostic tests that are quite as efficient and effective as we are eventually going to need--and $335 million for USAID efforts abroad in public health infrastructure.

I was fortunate to visit the CDC in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago to learn more about their efforts to combat Zika, dengue, and other vector-borne diseases. I saw firsthand how the CDC has activated its Level 1 Emergency Operations Center to combat Zika. During my questions at the Labor-HHS appropriations hearings, I heard how the CDC is strapped for funds and has already programmed its Ebola funds and how these Ebola funds are critically needed to prevent another Ebola crisis. I have total confidence in the CDC, but they need this emergency funding request to be granted.

We are about to go on a 1-week recess. There is no reason that we can't at least get on the supplemental this week. This is an absolute emergency. There are a lot of things we are doing that are important this week in terms of individual appropriations bills, but let's be clear: None of these appropriations bills are going to pass in the next week or even the next month. We still have the House that needs to take action, and there is no doubt we are going to go to conference. So in terms of whatever other legislative vehicles are pending or about to be pending, there is no urgency for us to move to those instead of what is happening right now in terms of a public health emergency with Zika. This is an absolute emergency.

The reason this is not smashing through every headline online, on television, in the newspapers, and on the radio is that it is still cold outside in a lot of places and the mosquitoes haven't come out. This is about to be a very serious public health crisis.

For those of us who have differing views about the size and scope of government, I just want to say this: We have arguments about the EPA's role, about the Department of Human Services' role, about the Department of Education's role, and the size and scope of government across the board, but can't we agree that government's basic job is to protect its citizens, and can't we agree that the CDC is one of the best agencies in the government across the board, and can't we agree that this is a real emergency and ought not to wait until May or June or July and ought to be taken up immediately?

Mr. President, this is an emergency, and we ought to fund the supplemental on a big bipartisan vote. Trans-Pacific Partnership

Mr. President, I would like to talk about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Many promises were made about the TPP. Before the final text was available, I received dozens of phone calls from advocates of the deal asking for my support. They said that this trade agreement was going to be different; that it would raise standards rather than lower them; and that my concerns about labor, the environment, climate change, public health, and consumer protection would be addressed. But since the text was released, I have read it, and unfortunately this deal does not turn out to be any different from the previous deals. It looks like just another race to the bottom.

Proponents claimed that the labor and environment chapters would contain enforceable commitments, and I know a lot of people worked very hard to make that true. But when you look closely at the wording of these chapters, you see that the commitments are basically just strongly worded suggestions. There are very few requirements. Instead, the countries have promised to ``promote,'' ``encourage,'' ``cooperate,'' ``strive,'' and ``endeavor'' to do various things. I have no clue how one can enforce an obligation to encourage something or discourage something. Many of the provisions contain this weak language, carefully written by lawyers to be unenforceable.

Here are a few examples from the environment chapter, which is particularly weak.

First, the chapter opens with a general commitment that ``each Party shall strive to ensure that its environmental laws . . . provide for, and encourage, high levels of environmental protection.'' That is right; they are to ``strive to ensure.''

On transitioning to a low-emissions economy, ``Parties shall cooperate to address matters of joint or common interest.'' There is nothing more on climate change whatsoever.

On marine animal conservation, ``Each party shall promote the long- term conservation'' of sharks and various marine animals through ``such measures'' considered appropriate. I don't even know what that means. What is clear is that none of this is enforceable. So the problem is, no accountability. There is no requirement that countries meet their obligations before Congress has to vote on the agreement and no independent verification of whether those obligations are ever met.

We will vote to open our markets on day one to goods made under terrible labor and environmental conditions and hope that over time, after we have forfeited our leverage, these countries will implement and enforce the kinds of labor laws our country has had for decades.

What this means is that we are giving them the deal, and after we forfeit all of our leverage, we hope they will see the light and do the right thing. Take Vietnam as an example. The economic benefits to Vietnam of reduced or eliminated U.S. duties are enormous. Importers from Vietnam currently pay around $2 billion in annual tariffs. Most of that comes from imports of apparel and footwear--industries that frequently utilize forced and child labor. Although Vietnam is supposed to comply on day one with the labor side agreement it signed with the United States, there is no independent verification. The side agreement sets up a long process of consultation before punitive action can be taken. At that point, Vietnam will already be enjoying the benefit of the elimination of the tariff, and the United States will have lost jobs that cannot compete with forced child labor. No punitive action will bring back those jobs.

Now let's talk about the enforcement side. Our track record, unfortunately, is not good. In the limited instances in which there are enforcement mechanisms in our trade agreements, we rarely utilize them. Recently, the GAO reported a systemic failure to enforce labor and environmental commitments across several trade agreements, even in light of compelling evidence of violations. The reason for this is that we don't really provide the resources for enforcement. But more importantly, there is a real lack of political will. For instance, the inclusion of Malaysia in this trade zone gives us insight into the lack of political will.

When we debated fast-track authority last year, Congress agreed on an important negotiating objective: No trade deals with countries that earn the worst human trafficking ranking, according to the U.S. State Department. This seems like something everyone ought to agree to. At the time, this included Malaysia, which had the lowest ranking. But just after fast-track became law, Malaysia's ranking was upgraded--to the surprise of human rights experts everywhere. The upgrade allowed the circumvention of Congress's will and the continued inclusion of Malaysia in TPP. This came just a few months after the discovery of human cages and 130 graves at a human trafficking detention camp on the Malaysia-Thailand border. Against this backdrop, it is hard to have confidence that we will ever prioritize labor rights, human rights, or environmental protection over commercial interests.

I am also deeply concerned about the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions, or ISDS for short. ISDS provides a special forum outside of our court system that is just available to foreign investors. These investors are given the right to sue governments over laws and regulations that impact their businesses--a legal right that is not granted to a labor union, an individual, or anyone else.

Here is how it works: If a decision is made by a national government that is contradicted by a provision in a trade agreement, the trade agreement wins. If a law that we pass contradicts a provision in TPP, TPP trumps our law. Corporations are increasingly seeing this as a viable legal strategy to increase profits and undermine public health and environmental and labor protections.

The ISDS forum is not available to anyone other than foreign corporations. It is not open to domestic businesses, labor unions, civil societies, or individuals who allege a violation of a trade agreement obligation.

The arbitrators in ISDS who preside over these cases are literally not accountable to anyone. Their decisions cannot be appealed. By profession, the arbitrators usually make their living working as lawyers for multinational corporations. The arbitrators cannot force the government to change its laws, but they can order the government to pay the investor when they lose money as a result of a law that contradicts a trade agreement, which can have the same effect.

It is one thing for the United States to decide to pay a penalty to keep a law in place, but small countries cannot afford to go up against these multinational corporations in the ISDS context. Not only will they repeal their national laws, they sometimes will not enact national laws knowing that they will be subject to fines under this ISDS process.

The government often agrees to change the law or regulation that is being challenged, in addition to paying compensation. The threat of a case can be enough to convince a government to back away from legitimate public health, safety, or environmental policies. The practical implication is potentially sweeping. ISDS could prevent us from addressing climate change, raising the minimum wage, protecting consumers from harmful products, or preventing another financial crisis.

Each time we pass a law or regulation to improve the lives of the American people, foreign investors will effectively have the final say. These risks are not theoretical. In fact, for the United States, the risk of ISDS has become very real. In January, TransCanada--the Canadian company behind the Keystone XL Pipeline--filed a claim against the U.S. Government under NAFTA's ISDS provisions for failing to approve the pipeline. If TransCanada wins, taxpayers--U.S. taxpayers-- would be on the hook for $15 billion in damages being demanded by foreign corporations.

Make no mistake. This is a new strategy for fossil fuel companies to challenge laws and regulations that are attempting to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change. There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, and with that on the line, you have to believe that law firms are spending hours systematically scouring every trade and investment agreement for provisions they can use to invalidate Federal law. This is the legal strategy to bust up laws designed to protect public health, the environment, and consumers.

Corporate interests should not be the driving force for public policy decisions. Yet that is exactly what this trade agreement would allow. A lot of us had hopes that this trade agreement would be different, but in a lot of ways, it is the same as the bad agreements that have come before it, and in some ways, it is actually worse.

We are forfeiting valuable leverage across a huge area of the Asia Pacific that we could have used to lift labor and environmental conditions and level the playing field for our workers. This is not a question of whether you are for trade or whether you believe we should be engaged in the Pacific region, it is a question of how.

This deal is, unfortunately, a lowest common denominator agreement. For these reasons, I must oppose the TPP.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source