Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015 -- Motion to Proceed -- Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Brown for putting this
group together to discuss the important trade issues facing our Nation.

In Massachusetts, we know what a good trade deal looks like and what
a bad trade deal looks like. Remember, we are the ones that traded Babe
Ruth, so we know a bad trade deal when we see one. Right now in
Massachusetts, we are seeing the United States negotiate two
significant agreements--the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Asia and the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership in Europe.

Both of these agreements would establish binding rules on a wide
range of issues, such as labor rights, energy, the environment,
medicine pricing, patents, Internet freedom, and innovation. The scope
goes far beyond the previous trade deals that focused on tariffs or
access to markets.

These trade deals need to meet several criteria in order to be
acceptable:

No. 1, workers rights. It is critically important that both trade
deals protect workers rights. When we put goods on a ship, we can't do
it by casting off workers rights. These deals need to benefit the
middle class in our country and protect the rights of workers of our
trading partners. They must also have robust and fully enforceable
labor provisions that ensure compliance with international core labor
standards.

No. 2, protect our environment. If companies want to make more green,
great, but they have to be green, too, and follow the environmental
laws to protect our resources and our planet. Both trade deals must
include new and robust commitments from member countries to protect and
conserve forests, oceans, wildlife, and obligate member companies to
comply with both domestic environmental laws and meet their commitments
under multilateral environmental agreements. These commitments must be
strong and binding and enforceable.

No. 3, don't export our oil. Longstanding U.S. law prohibits the
export of crude oil except in instances in which the President
determines that exports are consistent with the national interests.
There should not be any language in the Trans-Pacific Partnership
agreement requiring the United States to automatically approve exports
of oil without such a determination. We shouldn't be sending oil abroad
even as we send young men and women in the military to dangerous
regions of the world to protect oil shipments coming into our country.
We still import 5 million barrels of oil a day. We are the largest
importer in the world. We should not be exporting oil.

No. 4, no fishy stuff. The Trans-Pacific Partnership should eliminate
harmful fishery subsidies. It should maintain the ability of
governments to support conservation of ocean resources, promote
sustainable development and viable fishing industries and the coastal
communities that depend on them, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership
should include strong measures that address illegal fishing.

No. 5, don't try to sneak through bad sneaker deals. It is my
understanding that the current Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement
includes a provision that eliminates all trade barriers for sneakers
and shoes. This provision would endanger more than 1,350 critical
manufacturing jobs at the New Balance facilities in Massachusetts and
Maine. New Balance has decided to keep its manufacturing in the United
States, despite economic pressures and additional costs. As the last
remaining U.S. manufacturer of running shoes, New Balance already has
smaller profit margins on the U.S.-made shoes than most of its
competitors have on their imported shoes. They should be congratulated
for making a commitment to American workers, but if the TPP agreement
is passed by the Congress in its current form, we will not be making
that same commitment and that is because New Balance will be forced to
immediately compete with Vietnam running shoe companies which have a
dramatic advantage with low hourly wages and subsidized businesses.
Those 1,350 jobs might be lost. That is wrong, and we must do better
for our manufacturers.

No. 6, don't go around the U.S. courts. Both the Trans-Pacific
Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership have
provisions to allow other countries to take legal action if they do not
like the decisions made by our government and do it outside of our own
courts. These separate panels could subject American taxpayers to
billions in taxes, and when they have a problem with decisions in other
countries, we will have to argue in an independent court or even in
their home country courts. This double standard is wrong and it should
not be included. We need trade deals that don't ship workers' rights
overseas along with their jobs. We need trade deals that don't cloud
our skies with more pollution or plunder our seas with illegal fishing.
We need trade deals that keep our oil and manufacturing jobs here at
home. We need trade deals that don't outsource justice or jobs
overseas.

That is why we need to make sure, just as when Babe Ruth was traded,
that we don't put a curse on our own economy by passing trade bills
that do not protect the American worker.

Finally, I understand my good friend from Oklahoma Senator Inhofe
came to the floor to argue that the existence of winter disproves
global warming. I know some in my home State of Massachusetts might be
thinking the same thought right now, because after the first snowstorm
people look for a good place to sled. After the second snowstorm,
people look for a place to pile the snow. After the third and fourth
snowstorms, people stop looking for things to do and just start asking,
Why? Why so much snow? Why such intense storms? Why won't it stop?

What if I told my colleagues that it was all part of climate change;
that the winters we have known have now been supercharged by warmer
waters and stronger storms; that the carbon pollution that is making
our summers hotter is also making our winters more unpredictable.

Here are three facts I want my colleagues to know.

No. 1, the waters off Massachusetts--and indeed up and down the
Atlantic coast--have been at record warm levels; in one case, off Cape
Cod, 21 degrees warmer than normal. Warmer water gives storms more
moisture. That moisture has to drop at some point, and when it does, it
means more snow. That is what is going on.

No. 2, cold air is part of winter. We are New England, after all. But
new research is suggesting that the melting of the Arctic icecap is
causing more of those polar vortex situations that send frigid air
rushing down to Canada and then down to us. That is global warming.

No. 3, more intense precipitation events have increased by 71 percent
in New England since 1958--71 percent more intense precipitation.
Supercharged storms from climate change are a little like Rob
Gronkowski. They are bigger, they are stronger, and whether they spike
the ball or drop their snow, it is going to come down harder--a lot
harder.

Across the globe temperatures are going up. It is called global
warming. This last year was the warmest on record across the globe. A
few weeks of cold in one place does not mean global warming isn't
happening. That is the difference between weather and climate. Global
warming does not cancel the seasons. We will still have winter.
Sometimes it will be still very cold, but overall it is going to be
warmer--a lot warmer. When warmer water makes more moisture and it goes
into the clouds, it has to come down, and when it does and it is cold,
it should be no surprise that we will get more snow. If there is one
issue we can all agree on regarding the climate, it is that every
person in Massachusetts would rather be in Florida at Red Sox spring
training camp right now because this snow is still coming down. But it
is not just weather, it is climate change as well.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source