Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2685, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2393, Country of Labeling Amendments Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, country of origin labeling stands for the proposition that knowledge is power. The more knowledge you have, the better decisions that you can make. This is true about the food that you eat, and it is also true about the trade deals that we are being asked to swallow this week.

With Fast Track hurtling down on us for a vote the day after tomorrow, this recent World Trade Organization decision against the United States ought to serve as more than a blinking yellow light. It ought to be viewed as a giant red stoplight.

The World Trade Organization ruled that it just isn't ``cool'' to supply consumers more information. And while this decision may not actually overrule our law, what you are seeing today is the possibility--indeed, the probability--of expensive retaliation against American exports unless we yield to this WTO decision. If you support local decisionmaking, you need to consider the significance of our experience at the World Trade Organization.

There have previously been some challenges to United States laws just like this, and the record of the United States at the World Trade Organization when it is challenged is not one to be really proud of. We have had 6 wins and 66 losses. These are losses that have been sustained when other countries challenge our laws.

Only recently, as my colleague from Connecticut Rosa DeLauro and I attempted to present an amendment to a bill to say that corporate deserters--those that leave our country and renounce their charters here in order to dodge taxes--ought not to be given government business paid for by our taxpayers, we had some organizations who came and said: You can't do that. You can't deny corporate deserters an opportunity to get money from other taxpayers for government work because the World Trade Organization wouldn't like it.

So there is already a range of threats being used based on existing trade laws. Consider now what will happen when the number of those who can challenge decisions in this Congress, at the State level, and at the local level is multiplied geometrically because of the fact that now, under an investor-state dispute settlement provision, thousands of foreign corporations can challenge our regulations and our laws. Taxpayers will be exposed to unprecedented amounts of liability because of our decision to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people that we represent.

At least the World Trade Organization, the group that decided this case, has an appeal process. There is no such appeal process for these cases that will be brought by foreign corporations.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DOGGETT. And the panels that will decide them are usually made up of a majority of private lawyers, who one day are litigating cases for multinationals and the next day are deciding these cases.

If you agree that foreign investors should not receive greater rights than American investors, if you support local and State decisionmaking to keep our air and water and our environment clean without having to pay foreigners for the privilege of doing so, then there should be great concern about these trade deals that are being fast-tracked this week.

We don't have to look far to see the damage that could occur, because only three months ago, in Canada, it happened when a local decision about expanding a quarry in an environmentally sensitive area was challenged successfully. That is an unfortunate decision.

We need to be wary of these Fast-Track proposals and insist that they put us on the right track for more trade without jeopardizing the health and safety of Americans. I tried to do that in the Ways and Means Committee, but, like every other amendment to put us on the right track, it was rejected. We need to reject that wrong track approach this week.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source