PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1314, ENSURING TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 644...
(House of Representatives - June 11, 2015)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 93 (Thursday, June 11, 2015)]
[Pages H4227-H4236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1314, 
    ENSURING TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ACT, AND 
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 644, 
                 FIGHTING HUNGER INCENTIVE ACT OF 2015

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 305 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 305

         Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 
     be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     1314) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
     for a right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse 
     determinations of tax-exempt status of certain organizations, 
     with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the 
     House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion 
     offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or 
     his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment. 
     The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as 
     read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its 
     adoption without intervening motion. The

[[Page H4228]]

     question of adoption of the motion shall be divided as 
     follows: first, concurring in section 212 of the Senate 
     amendment; second, concurring in the matter comprising the 
     remainder of title II of the Senate amendment; and third, 
     concurring in the matter preceding title II of the Senate 
     amendment. The portion of the divided question on concurring 
     in section 212 of the Senate amendment shall be considered as 
     adopted. The Chair shall first put the question on the 
     portion of the divided question on concurring in the matter 
     comprising the remainder of title II of the Senate amendment. 
     If any portion of the divided question fails of adoption, 
     then the House shall be considered to have made no 
     disposition of the Senate amendment.
         Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 644) to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend 
     and expand the charitable deduction for contributions of food 
     inventory, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to 
     consider in the House, without intervention of any point of 
     order, a single motion offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Ways and Means or his designee that the House: (1) concur 
     in the Senate amendment to the title; and (2) concur in the 
     Senate amendment to the text with the amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution modified by the amendment printed in part B 
     of that report. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be 
     considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question. If the motion is adopted, then 
     it shall be in order for the chair of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means or his designee to move that the House insist on 
     its amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 644 and request 
     a conference with the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my very dear friend, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of Ronald Reagan 
Republican free trade principles and in support of trade promotion 
authority, which is known as TPA.
  Since the days of President Ronald Reagan, Republicans have supported 
free trade because we know that when America competes, America wins. 
TPA is a vital piece of our free trade agenda because it creates the 
process that we need to secure trade agreements that grow our economy, 
create good-paying jobs, and lower prices for American consumers.
  For America to continue to determine the rules of the global economy, 
we need to lead by crafting free trade agreements, and thus, the House 
is here today to provide to the President the parameters under which he 
or she should negotiate a trade promotion authority.
  Free trade means more good-paying American jobs. Free trade means 
that American workers make American products at American businesses to 
be sold all across the globe. More than 38 million American jobs are 
tied to trade, and these jobs pay well. In fact, trade-related jobs, on 
average, pay 18 percent more than jobs that are not trade related.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party is here today with Ronald Reagan 
watching from Heaven down on us, to say that we are continuing what he 
really began, and that is a process of American exceptionalism around 
the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary time.
  Mr. Speaker, shortly after midnight Tuesday night, the Rules 
Committee learned we would consider the Senate's package of three 
sweeping trade bills. We convened mere hours later and considered 
hundreds of pages of new text rewriting our trade laws and the rules of 
the House.
  Part of that package includes what is called fast track, a procedure 
that has outlived its purpose and circumvents congressional authority 
because it does not allow for committee debate or for the Members to be 
able to amend it or change it, just to vote up or down--at least that 
is what happened over here in the House.
  It silences the debates of the Members of the Chamber, and by doing 
that, the Americans who send us here don't have a voice. We are being 
asked to push this Trans-Pacific Partnership through by using fast 
track, and what is more, we are being asked to push fast track through 
with a closed rule.
  Now, we have been very concerned about what is in this fast track. As 
you know, we really aren't allowed to know. We are only allowed to vote 
up or down on the trade bill itself, once fast track is passed.
  I realized how awful it was for us here; if we wanted to go see it, 
we had to take someone with us with a security clearance, but we would 
not be allowed to talk about it.
  I learned of something this morning that is even worse, an article of 
The New York Times about the Australian Government and the members of 
Parliament there who say that, if they go down and read the trade bill, 
they have to sign an oath that they will not speak of it for 4 years.
  Now, that asks the question: Who runs these democracies, the 
Representatives of the people of the United States or the corporate 
giants who write the trade bills that we are not able to see?
  It is pretty clear who runs it here because, from what we have heard, 
that was leaked out through WikiLeaks, is that major parts of this bill 
have been negotiated by Big Pharma, the pharmaceutical industries of 
America, and the financial system. Neither one of those have shown any 
aptitude to try to put the members of the public first.
  Australia is so concerned about the fact that pharma is asking for 12 
more years' extension on their patents that they are very much afraid 
it will destroy their healthcare system.
  More and more people are finding out simply by the leaks of what is 
in this bill, and so far, according to the polls, nobody much likes it.
  Instead of the weeks that we could have had a transparent debate 
about a bill we had seen and a bill that we know, all we do is roll 
what happened in the Rules Committee yesterday. Yesterday, no Member of 
the Rules Committee or any Member of the House who came before it was 
allowed to have amendments approved.
  Now, the Senate did; the Senate allowed amendments to change the 
bills considerably, but not us. Amendments were offered in the Rules 
Committee to provide for transparency so that we will know what these 
things are all about.
  To change the investor's state, what we need to really bear down on--
and the Australians are also aware of--is that disputes from any of the 
12 countries in this trade agreement, if they do not approve of or 
believe they are losing money because of our Clean Air Act or our Clean 
Water Act, they can go to the three-person tribunal of corporate 
lawyers and act against us.
  We know that that is a concern in this Congress because just 
yesterday, they voted away the country of origin labeling because they 
were concerned about the WTO.
  As I pointed out, we had those amendments. We also had one amendment 
on currency manipulation, which is a major concern. We lose lots of 
jobs and lots of money because of currency manipulation, and we simply 
allow it to happen.
  We will not do anything--everybody says, if that should be in this 
bill at all, that the President would veto it--so the American public, 
once again, those of us standing here trying to take care of them, are 
not going to be able to do it because we only know by word of mouth or 
what we have been able to read in the newspapers what is in there.
  Let me tell you what is in the rule. That is a very important piece. 
Most of the discussion in the House has been around what we call the 
pay-for part of the trade bill, which is called trade adjustment 
allowance. That is supposed to take care of all the people who are laid 
off, who lose their jobs. The fact

[[Page H4229]]

that we have asked for such a large number indicates to me that they 
expect an awful lot of jobs lost in this country.
  So how the TAA was paid for, as it came from the Senate, was with a 
$700 million cut in Medicare. Nancy Pelosi has driven mightily, along 
with John Boehner, to change those cuts that will be paid for with the 
TAA.
  I need to make it very clear, and I want everybody to understand that 
the bill we voted on this morning, the African growth bill, which 
contains the new pay-fors other than Medicare, are not valid until 
after the Senate acts on that bill. If tomorrow on the floor, the trade 
adjustment allowance and the fast track authority pass, they will go to 
the Senate, with the pay-fors coming from Medicare.
  I think it is very important that we make that point because many of 
the people that serve with us here are confused about exactly where 
that is coming from.
  Let me repeat that. The pay-fors that substitute from the use of 
Medicare to pay for trade adjustment allowance will not be valid until 
after there is Senate action, if or when that takes place.
  We were told that the Speaker said over in the Senate that he would 
do this under unanimous consent, but we have also been told that 
unanimous consent will not be given.
  Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the advocates of the fast track and TPP are 
telling us that this is going to be a wonderful trade deal.
  We know that it is not going to create jobs because none of them 
have. Those of us in upstate New York, after NAFTA, we were told we 
were going to get at least 250,000 new jobs; instead, as the Speaker 
probably knows, we lost a great deal.
  If we, as Members of Congress, wanted to view the deal, we could not 
talk about it; and that, by itself, should be enough to have us not do 
it.

                              {time}  1515

  In a seminal sociological and political discussion of our early 
American democracy, ``Democracy in America,'' Alexis de Tocqueville 
said of our Nation in 1835: ``The surface of American society is 
covered with a layer of democratic paint. But from time to time, one 
can see the old aristocratic colors breaking through.''
  This is one of those times, Mr. Speaker, because this bill, this 
trade bill that affects every person in the United States--and will for 
maybe a generation to come--is not being written by the Members of the 
House of Representatives or of the Senate, but in a closed, backroom 
deal and, as we are told, by major corporations in the United States to 
benefit themselves. That certainly appears to be what we are going to 
get.
  By giving away the role of Congress in setting the trade policies, we 
give away our ability to safeguard America's jobs and, most importantly 
again, as I pointed out, the American laws meant to protect the 
citizens we represent, such as the Clean Water Act. I have never seen 
in my years of Congress a trade bill come out of this Congress that 
benefited either the American manufacturer or the American worker. This 
one is the same.
  Any lawmaker thinking about voting for another job-killing trade 
agreement should take a serious look at NAFTA and at our growing trade 
deficit with South Korea and think about whether they want to be 
responsible for shipping their constituents' jobs overseas.
  Now, we know this bill has been modeled after the failed policies 
that have shuttered store windows and closed factories all across the 
Nation. That is the legacy, ladies and gentlemen, of free trade. What 
we ought to demand in our trading bills is fair trade. America should 
not be the supplier of jobs to bolster the rest of world and improve 
their economies at the cost of ours.
  From food safety, clean air, and labor standards to environmental 
protections, this trade deal would impact every facet of our daily 
lives. Ninety percent of the seafood now that is consumed by Americans 
is imported. Less than 3 percent of it is inspected. Tons of it have 
been sent back just from that small amount being inspected.
  We will not be able to interfere with them coming in here under the 
investor-state dispute settlement or under this free trade act.
  I urge my colleague to vote ``no'' on the rule and carefully, 
carefully consider the trade package before us.
  I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman originally, I believe, is 
from Kentucky, and she will recognize when I tell this awesome story 
about how important a free trade agreement is.
  A couple of years ago, we did a free trade agreement with the country 
of Korea. Within a year, Mr. Speaker, as a result of that trade 
agreement, the number one selling car in Korea came from Georgetown, 
Kentucky. It is a Toyota Camry made in the United States. The Koreans 
love it, a Kentucky-made product.
  Mr. Speaker, if we didn't have a free trade agreement with Korea, the 
people in Georgetown, Kentucky, couldn't claim to be the number one car 
in Korea.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the young gentleman 
from Auburn, Washington (Mr. Reichert), a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I am rising today in support of today's 
rule, which will allow us to proceed in consideration of trade 
promotion authority, trade adjustment assistance, and customs 
legislation.
  Passage of trade promotion authority is absolutely critical to our 
economic growth and global leadership. Without TPA, we will not be able 
to bring home the benefits of a high-standard trade agreement.
  Now, what are the benefits of high-standard trade agreements? Job 
creation, selling American products across this globe to 96 percent of 
the market, which exists outside of this country. Selling American, 
that is what we want to do.
  And, by the way, we not only create jobs, but we create jobs that are 
higher paid wages, which we are all trying to struggle with across this 
country in raising the minimum wage. We can do that in this trade 
adjustment and trade promotion authority.
  This is counter to exactly what communities across the Nation need 
right now: more opportunities, more good paying jobs; and that leads to 
a promising future for our families, for our children, to better-
paying, high-tech jobs and manufacturing jobs across this country.
  I am proud to be the House sponsor of legislation to renew trade 
adjustment assistance because I understand the necessity of TAA.
  Now, not only is this a great trade initiative here, but we are also 
taking into consideration, as we move ahead in this global economy, 
that there may be people who do have opportunities to look at other 
jobs; and this TAA bill provides training and education for people to 
have and gain better jobs, higher paying jobs. So I would encourage my 
colleagues to vote for this rule in support of TPA, TAA, and the 
customs legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute because I do so 
appreciate my friend, Mr. Sessions, giving us a good Kentucky story. I 
need to change that story just a little bit. That factory has been in 
Georgetown for at least three decades. It is Toyota, which is Japanese.
  All of South Korea has only 26 car dealers in the country that will 
sell an American car. Of course, we buy Japanese cars that are made 
here, but they don't buy ours in Japan. I think about 2 years ago we 
had only sold 8,000 American cars in Japan for that entire year, and I 
would imagine we sell that many Japanese cars in the United States on a 
daily basis.
  So I appreciate the story. Georgetown, I know, would love to be 
mentioned, but we have got to get it right.
  Now I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because 
America's middle class and our workers have been under economic attack. 
I rise to voice my opposition to the very restrictive process being 
used to shove these job outsourcing trade deals through Congress.
  The Republican leadership has denied our House any amendment, even on 
currency manipulation, on legislation that is sure to impact every 
single American, turning our oversight role into little more than a 
rubberstamp. This makes a mockery of the House's

[[Page H4230]]

clear, constitutional authority on trade and commerce.
  Worse still, this limitation is being pursued because Republican 
leaders simply do not want to go to conference with the Senate. This 
belies every American, every Member their right to be represented and 
have a voice in this process.
  Hundreds, however, of multinational corporations and lobbyists, the 1 
percent, helped to write, amend, and draft the TPP, the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership, line by line.
  But today, years into the process and with negotiation in the final 
stages, Members of Congress were only recently given our first access. 
To read it, you have to go to a secure room, deep in the Visitor 
Center. We are supervised. Any notes we take are confiscated, and we 
can't discuss what we find with anyone unless they have top secret 
clearance.

  The trade deal is a secret deal because they want to fast-track it 
through Congress, hoping Congress really won't understand what is in 
it. And I find it hard to imagine a more dangerous or irresponsible 
approach than fast-tracking another trade deal through Congress.
  TPA, the authority to fast track, is a gateway to the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership. Both will further harm workers and communities to a faster 
global race to the bottom, with more outsourcing of jobs, more lower 
wages, more dropping benefits, more lower standards for worker safety, 
compensation, and environment. We have seen that since NAFTA passed 30 
years ago.
  For decades, I have fought against destructive trade deals that were 
brought down on our Nation's workers and communities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Over this period of time, every time one of these so-
called free trade deals is signed, America moves into deeper and deeper 
trade deficit, deeper and deeper red ink, as more of our jobs get 
shipped abroad.
  I remember standing at the corner of Ohio and Michigan Avenues in 
Matamoros, Mexico, and looking at the TRICO windshield factory that was 
moved from the State of New York down there, and Parker Seals. It 
almost seemed like a movie set but for one thing, it was real.
  Last year alone, our trade deficit cost us 20 percent of our GDP. Is 
anybody here paying attention or are we all a part of the 1 percent and 
forget about the 99 percent who have had to bear the brunt of this 
terrible, terrible outsourcing of jobs?
  Average American wages across my region have dropped by $7,000. This 
trade deficit didn't happen by accident. Some people got filthy rich 
off of it.
  This is a time for America to say, ``No more. No more. We are going 
to do it right. We are going to create trade deals that create jobs in 
our country, create a stronger middle class, raise wages, improve the 
environment, here and abroad. No more taking it out of the hide of 
America's workers.''
  We are here because we stand on their shoulders. Vote ``no'' on this 
rule and ``no'' on TAA and ``no'' on TPP.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, you know, I love the fervency of our 
colleagues who come down here and argue Japan is the problem. You can't 
talk about the trade agreement that we have with Korea where it works--
Japan, Japan, Japan.
  Well, good gosh, this is about getting a trade deal with what is 
called TPP, of which Japan would be included. This is a deal where my 
colleagues come down and don't like our trade deficits, but the bottom 
line is that the United States has a trade surplus with its 20 free 
trade partners.
  So we are trying to take people from nontrade agreement, where we run 
a deficit and they close their market, to a trade deal where we run a 
surplus where people want to buy American-made products. If they will 
listen, we have got a good deal for them today. And one of those good 
deals, Mr. Speaker, is agriculture, so that our men and women engaged 
in agriculture can sell their products around the world.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Midland, Texas (Mr. Conaway), 
the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, and I 
especially want to commend Chairman Ryan and his colleagues on Ways and 
Means for their hard work in bringing us the underlying legislation.
  Everyone in the room knows that America's farmers and ranchers are 
the most productive in the world. They have continuously proven their 
ability to meet rapidly growing and ever-changing demands here at home, 
and their reach stretches well beyond the shores of America. In fact, 
exports now account for almost one-third of total U.S. farm income. In 
the case of commodities like cotton, tree nuts, rice, and wheat, over 
one-half the total production is exported.
  In 2014 alone, U.S. agricultural exports set a record $152.5 billion, 
highlighting the growing demand for quality food and fiber around the 
world. As was noted in a recent hearing before the House Agriculture 
Committee, the United States exported almost as much beef, pork, and 
poultry to the 20 nations with which we have trade agreements as they 
did the other 170-plus nations in the world.
  Beyond the obvious benefits to producers, trade also helps support 
almost 1 million American jobs in production agriculture and in related 
sectors like food processing and transportation. As a result, it is 
crucial not only to American agriculture, but to the U.S. economy as a 
whole, to maintain and increase access to the world's 7 billion 
consumers, 95 percent of whom live outside the shores of the United 
States. To obtain that access, it is imperative that we work to reduce 
and eliminate international barriers to trade so that our farmers and 
ranchers can compete on a level playing field in the global market.
  With negotiations in the World Trade Organization languishing for the 
last 14 years, regional free trade agreements represent our best 
opportunity for expanding trade opportunities for U.S. agricultural. 
History has shown that trade promotion authority in one form or another 
has been vital in completing and implementing past agreements. In fact, 
Congress has granted TPA to every President since 1974, and the 114th 
Congress should be no exception.
  TPA will provide our negotiators with the credibility necessary to 
conclude the most effective trade agreements possible by making it 
clear to the rest of the world that Congress and this administration 
are serious about this endeavor.
  The legislation before us today empowers Congress to move the 
aggressive trade agenda. It includes the strongest measures, to date, 
for ensuring that this President sticks to the negotiating objectives 
laid down by Congress, including the unicameral ability to turn TPA off 
on an individual agreement. At the end of the day, it is Congress that 
will decide the fate of each agreement.
  In conclusion, I am a strong proponent of free trade and the benefits 
it provides our Nation's producers and consumers. However, if we are 
not going to continue to expand American markets, other countries, 
often with lower standards, will step up to the plate and fill that 
demand. Markets are not won or regained easily after they have been 
lost, and billions around the globe still want America's quality food 
and fiber.

                              {time}  1530

  We can win over new markets, boost our economy, and meet these global 
demands first and foremost by showing that we are, in fact, a strong 
and reliable trading partner. We can make that happen by passing this 
rule and the underlying TPA agreement.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
and for her tremendous leadership on so many issues.
  I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. Our country has 
already lost too many good-paying American jobs because of past trade 
deals. We should be clear about what this rule would do. This rule is 
really a vote to extended Medicare sequestration and provides for no 
amendments in the fast track bill, Trade Adjustment Assistance, and the 
customs bill.
  We have seen what happens when bad trade deals are passed without 
congressional oversight: American jobs shift

[[Page H4231]]

overseas--many come from communities of color; dangerous food makes its 
way to our meals; human rights are violated; labor standards are 
ignored; and the effects of climate change get worse.
  The American people do deserve better. The American people deserve a 
trade policy that creates American jobs and an open process for passing 
trade deals that gives them a strong voice.
  Passing this rule and passing fast track does neither. This is a bad 
deal for American workers. It is bad for American jobs. It needs to go 
back to the drawing board, a drawing board that is public and that 
gives the American people a voice in trade policy, not just big 
corporations and hedge fund managers.
  Between 2001 and 2011, the growing trade deficit with China cost more 
than 2.7 million jobs. Nearly 1 million of these jobs, mind you, came 
from communities of color. After these workers lost their jobs, their 
situation went from bad to worse.
  These workers saw their wages fall nearly 30 percent--or more than 
$10,000 a year. The total economic cost of this job loss to these 
communities is more than $10 billion. Now, that is $10 billion each and 
every year.
  We cannot allow another bad trade deal to shift millions more of 
American jobs overseas. We cannot allow another bad trade deal to strip 
billions from struggling communities. We cannot allow this rule or a 
flawed TAA or fast track to pass.
  Make no mistake, I support trade. I have the honor of representing 
the Port of Oakland, and I understand the critical role that trade 
plays in the economy in my district in California and also in our 
country.
  However, let me just say, trade only grows our economy. This bill is 
not fair; it is not open, and it is not transparent.
  I have the honor of representing the Port of Oakland and I understand 
the critical role that trade plays in the economy of my district, 
California and our country.
  However, trade only grows our economy when it's fair, open, 
transparent and creates jobs.
  This bill--Fast Track--is not fair.
  It's not open--
  And it's not transparent.
  So once again, I urge a ``NO'' vote on this Rule, a ``NO'' on the 
flawed TAA, and a ``NO'' on Fast Track.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Good gosh, Mr. Speaker, I was afraid she was in reference to 
ObamaCare, which is why we are losing American jobs all across this 
country.
  The bottom line is that, where there is trade with other countries 
and we have a trade deal, America wins, and we get more jobs. As an 
example, 3 million jobs in the Lone Star State of Texas are related to 
trade, and jobs are growing nearly twice as fast as nontrade jobs. This 
is what is happening. It is the vibrancy of America.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Harrison Township, Michigan (Mrs. Miller), chairman of the House 
Administration Committee.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of this rule.
  I come from southeast Michigan, which, of course, is the heart of 
American manufacturing. Michigan manufacturers, especially the Big 
Three domestic auto companies, have all had concerns for years about 
the unfair competitive disadvantage that they face by nations that 
manipulate their currency such as Japan, South Korea, and China.
  It was very important to me that, as Congress moves forward with 
legislation to give trade promotion authority to this President and 
others, that the package must also include strong, new tools allowing 
America to fight back against those nations that unfairly manipulate 
their currency and those that harm American manufacturers.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very, very thankful that Chairman Ryan and House 
leadership agreed to work with us to craft an approach which I believe 
is a strong step forward. For decades, administrations of both parties 
have refused to identify foreign currency manipulators or to take any 
action to stop it.
  The manager's amendment, put forward by Chairman Ryan, that we worked 
with him to develop, gets very, very tough on currency manipulators. 
For the first time ever, Mr. Speaker, it puts in place a three-part 
test to define currency manipulation with specific guidance requiring 
nations that manipulate their currency to be named publicly.
  Also, for the first time, the focus will be shifted from reporting 
and monitoring to actionable items and to steps that will show the 
impact of currency manipulation on the American economy, as well, Mr. 
Speaker, as requiring remedial action to be taken.
  These tough steps will impact every Nation that we trade with, not 
just those that might be included in the TPP, but every Nation that we 
trade with, including South Korea and China, as I mentioned, Japan.
  Certainly, while these are steps in the right direction, more needs 
to be done; absolutely, more needs to be done. Here in Congress, every 
Member of Congress continues to reserve the right to oppose any TPP 
agreement that does not meet the needs of the American economy and the 
American manufacturing industry.
  With these changes that I have outlined here that are going to be in 
the manager's amendment, I support--and I am proud to support--this 
trade package that will provide an opportunity to drive our economy 
forward.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to Congress, I worked for a while as an 
ironworker at the Quincy shipyard in Quincy, Massachusetts. I was a 
welder.
  Unfortunately, because of bad trade policy, that shipyard closed 
down, and thousands of workers were laid off. Later on, I also worked 
at the General Motors facility in Framingham, Massachusetts, and the 
company decided to close that plant down, while they opened three new 
ones in Mexico. I have seen what lousy trade policy can do.
  The fundamental problem with our trade policy is that it is 
negotiated in secret by multinational corporations who are basically 
hiring foreign labor at very low wages, move the jobs overseas, and 
then export the products back into the United States.
  If you look at some of the minimum wages for the countries that we 
are dealing with in this trade agreement for Malaysia and Vietnam, it 
is less than $1 an hour for the minimum wage in those countries, and 
they maintain those low wages so that they can attract business. It is 
a race to the bottom.
  I do want to say that, as part of my job with the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee, I have had a chance to go to South Korea 
and Japan to see how our trade agreements have been working out there.
  I was in South Korea for several days, and just on my own, with my 
staff, I looked for an American car for several days. We were in 
traffic a lot. South Korea is a booming industrial country, major 
highways. I saw hundreds of thousands of cars.
  I saw two--two--United States cars. One was the one I was driving in 
from the Embassy, and the second car was my security detail behind me. 
Those were the only two U.S. cars, only two U.S. cars.
  Our trade with Japan--I was in Japan as well. You need a detective to 
find a U.S. car in Japan. That is the plain and simple fact. They 
import $1 billion worth of U.S.-manufactured products in auto and the 
air industry; we import $25 billion.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts just to ask one simple question: What was that trade deal 
that you were talking about?
  Mr. LYNCH. The Korea-U.S. trade agreement.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Two years ago?
  Mr. LYNCH. Two years ago.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thought you said you lost your job?
  Mr. LYNCH. What is that? No, no, no. The job I lost--you were talking 
to people--the job I lost, 2,700 workers lost at the GM plant, those 
plants were reopened in Mexico.
  Mr. SESSIONS. When was that? What trade deal?

[[Page H4232]]

  Mr. LYNCH. That was right after NAFTA. That was another bad trade 
agreement.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, we gave you a good job, and you came to Congress.
  I think the gentleman makes a point that I would like to make, and 
that is we need a trade deal with Japan to level the playing field, and 
that is exactly what we are going to do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), who sits on the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairmen Ryan, 
Sessions, and Tiberi for their tireless effort to move us closer to 
realizing trade deals that will unlock new markets and bolster our 
national security.

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both the rule in front of us today 
and the trade promotion authority legislation we will consider 
tomorrow.
  The benefits of increased free and fair trade are well established 
and undeniable. For companies in my State, the pending trade deals 
would remove tariff barriers and unlock doors for businesses such as 
Morris & Associates, who export the world's best poultry chilling 
equipment; or a company like Cummins Engine in my State to export U.S.-
made engines; and to allow countless farms in my district and State to 
export hogs, chickens, tobacco, and sweet potatoes all across the 
globe. This means increased productivity, which means better wages and 
more jobs.
  More importantly, Mr. Speaker, TPA is about empowering Congress, 
making sure that this body and the people's elected representatives 
keep tight reins on this President.
  Now, I am certainly no supporter of the President's laundry list of 
unconstitutional actions from immigration, to his administration's 
unilateral attempts to salvage the sinking ship that is ObamaCare, 
which is why TPA is needed.
  The President is going to negotiate trade deals whether or not we 
pass TPA. Why wouldn't we want to make this President's negotiators 
more accountable, the deals themselves more transparent, and make our 
oversight more effective?
  Now, here is how it works. If the President disregards the parameters 
Congress sets out or fails to consult Members at every step, Congress 
can turn off TPA. If the President comes back with a bad trade deal, 
Congress can vote it down.
  Mr. Speaker, we need TPA to not only get the best deals possible, but 
also need this authority to check the President.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support TPA.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the land of cars, Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the rule we are considering today 
represents everything for me that is wrong with politics. We are 
currently debating the most important package of trade legislation in a 
generation; yet, despite how critical this issue is to American jobs, 
this rule does not allow any amendments.
  Currency manipulation, the mother of all trade barriers, has cost 
this country as many as 5 million jobs. A bipartisan group of 20 
Members--10 Republicans, 10 Democrats--proposed an amendment to address 
this, and it is vital that Congress debate and vote on how to address 
currency manipulation as we set U.S. trade policy for the next decade.
  With nothing but the deepest of respect for the chair of the Rules 
Committee, I want to give you the facts about the Korean free trade 
agreement. The reality is that after it passed, we increased exports to 
Korea from 14,000 to 34,000.
  By comparison, Korea exported 800,000 to the U.S. before the trade 
agreement and now exports 1.3 million. We increased our exports to 
Korea by 20,000, and they have increased their exports to this country 
by 461,000.
  Toyota made more money last year in currency manipulation in this 
country than Ford Motor Company did in its worldwide operations.
  The American people deserve a full and open debate on trade policy, 
not procedural gimmicks and political games that shut out amendments 
and avoid the tough questions.
  Let's defeat this rule and have a real debate on the issues that the 
working men and women of this country have sent us here to consider and 
that are so critical to the livelihood and the backbone of this 
American economy. American jobs are at stake.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Sunnyside, Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a farmer and a rancher and a 
freshman Member on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I thank the chairman for yielding his time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the rule and the underlying 
trade promotion authority granted by H.R. 1314.
  As a member of the Rules Committee, I can affirm that the committee 
heard and seriously considered many amendments and concerns from both 
Democratic and Republican Members late into the night. This rule has 
been very fair, deliberative, and interested parties have been given 
ample opportunity to weigh in on it and on the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, as you just heard, I come from the State of Washington, 
which is the most trade-benefited State in the country. If my 
colleagues want to see the benefit trade brings and the jobs it 
creates, they only have to look at my State. We export coffee, 
aircraft, footwear, software--you name it. We also have an enormous 
agriculture industry. In Washington, we export fully 30 percent of the 
apples we grow, more than 85 percent of the wheat, 75 percent of the 
hops. Right now, consumers around the world are enjoying a brand new 
crop of fresh Washington State cherries, but the trade success story I 
want to share with you today is about potatoes.
  Prior to the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement that the Congress passed 
and the President signed in 2011, we shipped $53 million worth of 
french fries to South Korea. After that agreement was passed, that 
value rose to $83 million--a 57 percent increase in just 2 years--
largely attributed to the trade barriers that were lowered. For the 
record, that potato industry supports fully 24,000 jobs in my State. 
Those are good-paying jobs which are all supported by trade.
  Trade promotion authority is about creating a fair playing field for 
American producers so we can create more jobs here at home. Most people 
may not know this, but, right now, American wines face 50 percent 
tariffs in Japan. Chilean and Argentinean wines face no tariffs at all. 
Our beef faces a 38 percent tariff--our oranges, a 16 percent tariff. 
TPA will instruct our negotiators to work on lowering these barriers to 
U.S. products.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans produce some of the finest products in the 
world, and if given the chance to compete fairly, I believe they can. I 
have no doubt that we can outperform almost any competitor in the 
world, but we can't continue to allow other countries to stack the deck 
against us, which is happening right now. By granting the President the 
power to negotiate a treaty and by Congress telling him what priorities 
must be negotiated, we can create a fair playing field and create those 
jobs we need here at home.
  I understand there are concerns about the privacy surrounding the TPP 
deal. I share those concerns, which is why I have personally gone and 
reviewed the text of this deal three times now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. The reason this vote on TPA is so important is that it 
will make the deal public. It will give the American people at least 2 
months and as much as 5 months to review any negotiated deal. That is 
months to tell their Members of Congress whether they should support 
the deal or not. Without voting on TPA, there is no review period. The 
deal can stay a secret.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule and the underlying bill are critical to our 
economy. Without TPA, our country will be left disadvantaged against 
other countries, and we will be left to trade with one arm tied behind 
our back. With it, we

[[Page H4233]]

can open new opportunities for our businesses. They can grow and create 
more jobs, and we can ensure that the American economy remains the most 
competitive, strongest economy in the world for decades to come.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is filled with 
plenty of procedural gimmicks but with no opportunities to actually 
improve the underlying bills.
  These bills fail to have enforceable environmental negotiating 
objectives; they fail to address currency manipulation adequately; and 
they fail to recognize climate change and its connection to trade. I 
had proposed amendments to address these issues, which were, 
unfortunately, not made in order.
  Since NAFTA and other subsequent deals, millions of United States 
manufacturing jobs--one in four, in fact--have been lost, and when 
manufacturing workers lose their jobs due to trade, the story doesn't 
get much better: three in five of them take cuts if they find a new 
job. This is a bad deal for those who lose their jobs due to trade, of 
course, but it is also bad for all Americans, and it is one reason 
wages have stagnated for the last two decades. We cannot afford to 
fast-track another NAFTA on steroids.
  On top of that, according to the Department of Labor, four TPP 
negotiating partners are using forced labor or child labor in violation 
of international standards. Are these the types of countries to which 
we want to give fast-tracked trade privileges? Plenty of multinational 
corporations will benefit from TPP, from increased drug prices to 
access to cheaper labor, when American jobs are offshored. That much is 
clear. Yet it is not clear how the average American worker--the people 
of New York's Capital Region that I represent and the people who sent 
all of us to be their voices in Washington--would benefit.
  Let's end this foolishness and take up bills that actually help our 
working families by passing a minimum wage, by requiring paid family 
leave, by investing in STEM education and research, and by rebuilding 
our infrastructure.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, to defeat this inadequate 
trade adjustment assistance and to defeat fast track. My message: Hands 
off the American worker. Hands off the American worker's children. 
Hands off the American Dream.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a very savvy member of our trade team and a 
gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the chairman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of trade agreements being carried out 
all over the world today, and the United States--our country--is 
sitting on the sidelines. Ninety-five percent of the market is closed 
off in many respects because we don't have trade agreements; we don't 
have the market opening. We are an open economy. They are sending stuff 
here, but we don't have the opportunity to sell there. That is a 
problem.
  Let's talk about what trade promotion authority really is. At a very 
basic level, it is the catalyst for American economic engagement around 
the world. It is the catalyst for American leadership. I, for one--and, 
I think, for most of my friends here on this side of the aisle--am not 
ready to just step back and relinquish American leadership to others. 
That is just unacceptable. Trade promotion authority gets us started.

  We are on the verge of negotiating two very important trade 
agreements with growing areas around the world--the Asia-Pacific region 
and the European Union. This represents the lion's share of gross 
domestic product growth around the world. Why would we want to lock 
ourselves out of these markets? It is absolutely ridiculous. It is 
absurd. We want the American worker to have access to those markets. I 
want mothers around the world to buy goods off the shelves that read, 
``Made in America.'' Those markets are closed. Let's open them. Let's 
get trade promotion authority in place.
  What is it?
  It is not the trade agreement, itself. It is the process by which we 
get the strongest and highest quality trade agreement for American 
workers that would be most beneficial to our country. It is the whole 
way we are going to achieve growth in this economy. We can't do it to 
the extent we need to without this. It puts Congress in the driver's 
seat, providing over 150 negotiating priorities that we set, not the 
administration. We set these as we negotiate with foreign countries. If 
we fail to pass this, the President negotiates on his own priorities, 
not on the priorities of the American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Trade promotion authority gives more transparency to 
the whole process. Right now, we don't have the kind of transparency 
that is necessary. TPA, trade promotion authority, is public. That is 
public. That is the process. It is very public. Go to congress.gov. 
Anybody can read the legislation. It is public. Plus, passing TPA will 
require that the final trade agreement--those negotiations aren't done 
yet, but once they are concluded, the President has to make it public 
for 60 days in order for anybody and everybody to read it. That is 
transparency.
  If we fail to pass this, we are giving up American leadership. We are 
basically throwing the American worker under the bus. We need growth. 
We need American leadership, and trade promotion authority is the 
catalyst for providing that leadership. Trade promotion authority is 
necessary for Congress to provide the proper checks and balances on the 
administration. I don't want the administration negotiating without our 
having a robust consultative role in this, and that is what TPA does.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support this 
underlying legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the only way to get better trade agreements 
is to reject this fast-track bill and develop a better alternative that 
reflects our values and the realities of the 21st century.
  As one who has supported legislation for more trade with most of the 
countries that are TPP agreement countries, I would like to support 
more trade today, but, as happened in the Ways and Means Committee, 
this rule shuts out every single attempt of Democrats to strengthen and 
improve this bill.
  These Fast Trackers--they say they want free trade. Well how about 
trade that is free of secrecy and connivance? How about trade that is 
free of deals that jeopardize our the health and safety such as the 
food that we eat as American families? How about trade that is free of 
corporate panels that will be able to award taxpayer dollars to foreign 
corporations with more rights than American businesses, instead of 
relying on our system of justice?
  I think we have to look at the trade agreements we have had in the 
past--the free trade agreements--and realize that, for too many 
American workers, they haven't been free. They have come at a 
tremendous cost. This trade agreement has been shrouded in secrecy in 
order to assure there is not a full and fair debate or a discussion of 
the failures of the USTR.
  The USTR, as of right now, has not shared with this Congress a single 
document to show how Vietnam, instead of being the great human rights 
abuser it is today, will begin to show even the slightest measure of 
decency to its workers. The USTR has ignored the record of sex 
trafficking and human trafficking in Malaysia. One of the worst and in 
a category by itself with North Korea--and a handful of others--in 
human trafficking. And they are being rewarded in this deal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Too often, the USTR simply does not believe in law 
enforcement. It wouldn't enforce the law in Guatemala and Honduras 
under prior labor agreements. In Peru, it ignored the audit 
responsibility that it had.
  We can do better than this. We can do better than some kind of 
Christmas

[[Page H4234]]

wish list of multiple objectives that this President doesn't have to 
follow. And indeed, this Christmas wish list is being proposed for the 
next President, who has not even been elected--an open-ended ability to 
have more trade agreements that come at the cost of too many families. 
We can do better.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I just love our friends who come up to the 
podium and talk about jobs; yet it is this administration and the 
Democrat policies that have taken American jobs, including ObamaCare, 
climate change, and all of the other rules and regulations--175,000 
pages of rules and regulations--and have inhibited growth and job 
development in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Butler, 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), one of the most exciting new, young Members 
of Congress.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this. We have a duty here to legislate based on truth and not on 
fiction. Let's establish the facts. First of all, if you want really 
strong trade agreements, then you have to be in a position to negotiate 
those because, I will tell you, my friends, if we are not at the table, 
we are on the menu.
  As we talk about growing the economy and growing jobs and making sure 
that America is secure going into the future, and if you are worried 
about having an agreement that doesn't meet the demands that the 
American people are asking for, trade promotion authority is the only 
thing that gives us the ability to drive strong trade agreements to 
make sure that every single American is taken care of.
  Now, this TPA does not give President Obama any new power, none 
whatsoever. For those of us who don't trust the President's judgment, 
then TPA is absolutely necessary. It is not an option. We look at 
things and we talk about the people's House and what the responsibility 
of the people's House is and how would the people's House move forward.
  This puts us in the driver's seat. This allows this Congress, the 
people's House, to set the parameters of any future trade agreements. 
It does not negate them; it enforces them. So if you are worried about 
a strong trade agreement, then make sure that we give ourselves the 
power to actually set the parameters of the way a trade agreement 
should look.
  It is time to get rid of all this bogeyman talk about what is going 
on. I have got to tell you, if you want the United States of America to 
dominate a global economy and not just participate in a global economy, 
then you have to have trade promotion authority. My lifetime has been 
spent negotiating. When you sit down at the table to actually negotiate 
something, the question that always came up to me: Was there anybody 
else other than yourself that would be responsible for making the 
decision? Without that decision, without that clarity, we can't draw on 
strong trade agreements. TPA is the only thing that gives us that. If 
you want to strengthen our country, if you want to grow our economy, if 
you want to create new jobs for America, then we need strong trade 
agreements.
  Now, fast track, anything but fast track. Smart track, safe track, 
sure track, and something that gets America's economy back on track--
absolutely. Vote for TPA. Vote for American jobs. Vote for the United 
States of America to drive the global economy and continue to write the 
rules and not China.
  If you really are concerned about American jobs, and if you are 
really concerned about America's role in the world, then don't put us 
behind; put us in front. Let America, with the strongest economy, drive 
the trade agreements. TPA gives us that, gives us the ability to grow 
an American economy, grow American jobs, and make America more safe and 
secure. And it gives our partners around the world the certainty that 
America has not walked away from the table; America will continue to be 
your strongest partner and your strongest ally to build a stronger and 
more safe world.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this rule covers three bills. It covers TAA 
and TPA. I asked Rules to place in order a substitute bill on TPA that 
would have helped a full discussion of this vital issue affecting 40 
percent of global GDP. Under the rule before us, if a majority does not 
vote for TAA, there will not be a vote on TPA tomorrow. This will give 
the House another opportunity to improve TPA and TAA, of which I am an 
author. TAA should not be a bargaining chip for a flawed TPA bill.
  The third bill, Customs, weakens the TPA bill on human trafficking, 
prohibits any provision in TPP relating to climate, likewise as to 
immigration, and strikes out the Schumer provision on currency 
manipulation. The manager's amendment on currency is more rhetorical 
language without any teeth.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Genoa Township, Ohio (Mr. Tiberi). He is one of our three captains that 
has driven this entire thing in addition to Chairman Paul Ryan and 
myself. He has done an outstanding job.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership. 
Texas is lucky to have him.
  Ladies and gentlemen, today and tomorrow, we are not voting on a 
trade agreement. We are not voting on a trade agreement. In fact, we 
are voting on a bill called TPA, which is this. It is public. We can 
all read it. Our constituents can read it. We are not voting on 
anything today or tomorrow that we can't read, that is secret.
  A lot of confusion out there. Here is what TPA is, and you have heard 
it before. It is a process. It is a process where Congress inserts 
itself to what the executive branch already can do, which is negotiate 
a trade agreement. But it is a process that, quite frankly, empowers 
the Congress. It tells the President, as the lead negotiator, this is 
what we would like him to do, and we are going to hold our authority, 
and we are going to say whatever the President negotiates, we are going 
to either approve it or not.
  But you know what? By passing TPA, we are going to require that, 
whatever is negotiated, the public is given 60 days to review, which 
doesn't have to be done unless TPA is passed.
  Mr. Chairman, I didn't have 6 hours to review ObamaCare--not 6 hours. 
My constituents will have 60 days before the President can sign any 
deal he negotiates. That is what TPA does. It inserts Congress. It 
inserts the American people into any trade agreement the President--
this one or the next--negotiates. It empowers the people to review that 
process, to review that agreement--no secrecy.
  This is what we are voting on tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen, TPA. 
Please go to congress.gov to look at it. Another day, maybe tomorrow, 
we will talk a little bit about what trade has done, not done, what it 
has done for American consumers and American employees and American 
businesses.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hill). The gentlewoman from New York has 
5 minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me take 30 seconds and say, that is really great, 
go ahead and read the TPA, but it is the bill we are worried about, the 
TPP. We have to have an armed guard, practically, to go look at that.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, there really is quite a lot on the line here, despite 
what some speakers would submit, which is, oh, you know, this is just 
the TPA; it is not a big thing. No, this is a huge thing.
  As a matter of fact, this particular rule we are voting on right now 
does three important things. One is that it has the pay-for for the 
trade adjustment assistance that includes cuts to Medicare. No matter 
how you slice it, if you vote for this rule, you are voting to cut 
Medicare. Then what it does, it sets up a vote for the trade adjustment 
assistance and trade promotion authority.

  The fact is, if you go home and you try to explain to Americans, 
``Oh, I

[[Page H4235]]

didn't vote to cut Medicare,'' the fact is you will not be able to 
honestly say that. You might be able to say, ``Well, I did, but then 
they fixed it.'' You might be able to say, ``Well, yeah, I cut 
Medicare, but then later on we passed a thing and maybe Mitch McConnell 
won't try to change it later.'' You can say anything you want, but the 
maneuverings on this floor and in this body to get us to where we are 
have not changed one solid fact, which is that we are voting to cut 
Medicare.
  Now, there are all kinds of cute procedural maneuverings and 
different kinds of rules we are invoking, but you cannot escape the 
essential fact: the cut to Medicare is not going to be cut and excised 
out of this. If you vote for the rule, you voted to cut Medicare. Our 
seniors have taken enough on the chin. Do not put their livelihood at 
risk.
  Now, let me also say that this TAA is not supported by the AFL-CIO. 
Trade adjustment assistance is to help workers who are displaced by bad 
trade deals. Wouldn't you think that the president of the AFL-CIO would 
say, ``Yeah, well, we definitely would want TAA''? And he usually 
almost always does, but not this time because he knows what all of us 
should know, which is this trade adjustment authority is cutting 
Medicare.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. ELLISON. This trade adjustment authority is paid for by Medicare. 
It continues to be underfunded. Trade adjustment authority is 
underfunded. It is like if you kick somebody off their job because of a 
bad trade deal and then you tell them, ``We are going to help you 
adjust to it.'' Well, you know what? At least we should fund it 
properly. Given the billions of dollars that will be made by this trade 
deal by multinational corporations, doesn't it make sense that we 
should at least try to fully fund trade adjustment authority, trade 
adjustment assistance? But we don't.
  Then the fact is that it excludes public sector workers. Public 
sector workers are negatively impacted by bad trade deals, just like 
all other workers. Why wouldn't we include them in it? They are not 
included in it.
  So this TAA, this trade adjustment assistance, package is 
insufficient. We must vote it down. I urge a ``no'' vote. I just want 
to let Members know, when you walk into that senior center and Mrs. 
McGillicuddy asks you, ``Did you vote to cut Medicare?'' I hope you can 
answer truthfully you did not vote to cut Medicare. Vote ``no'' on this 
rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.
  I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the Nation's bad trade bills have gutted 
our manufacturing economy, transformed our stature on the global stage, 
and taken millions of jobs from American workers. Heavens to Betsy, 
let's not do it again. We need to demand a trade deal that will let us 
sell American-made goods to every customer in the world, and we need a 
trade bill that is negotiated through a transparent and open process 
that doesn't mortgage our patents, our innovation, and our future.
  Let me echo what Congressman Ellison just said. This rule, this vote 
right now that we are about to take, codifies, it ensures, that this 
money for the trade adjustment assistance will come from Medicare. That 
is what will go to the President. If you vote for this, you are voting 
for Medicare to be used in that way.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying 
bills.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I support TPA because it provides an unprecedented level of 
transparency. Let me be clear. A vote for TPA is a vote for jobs. It is 
a vote so that we can grow our economy. It is not a vote for a secret 
document. It is a vote to set up a process that ensures the American 
people understand exactly what any trade deal is before Congress votes 
on it. We will have 60 days to do that. TPA requires that the President 
make public the text of a complicated trade agreement for at least 60 
days, and we are going to do just that.
  Over the last few months, I have worked with Chairman Paul Ryan and 
Chairman Pat Tiberi and other Members of Congress to strengthen TPA so 
that the President cannot hijack free trade agreements. I think it is 
obvious here: no one in this body really trusts the President of the 
United States to go and negotiate something that we would be in favor 
of. That is why we are making this trade TPA, so that we are following 
our agenda, one that we know that we have heard of. We have heard the 
concerns of the American people regarding immigration, climate change, 
currency, American sovereignty, and I think we have addressed all of 
these.
  My constituents are just like me. They want to know that we are going 
to support jobs. But we do not trust the President, and that is why we 
are doing this deal today. This grants no new authority to the 
President of the United States.
  Just the other day, I began working further after the Senate passed 
their TPA bill, and I worked with Congressman Steve King of Iowa to 
ensure that the trade agreements do not require changes to U.S. 
immigration laws or to obligate the United States to gain access or to 
extend access to visas.
  We had an excellent idea, also, that we took from Senator Ted Cruz 
from Texas. We just strengthened it and made it more straightforward, 
and it is in this deal that we do.
  This trade package also includes language that would prohibit the 
administration from attaching any climate change commitments to a 
trading agreement.

                              {time}  1615

  We have also worked to guarantee that American sovereignty is upheld. 
TPA reflects what the Constitution requires, and that is that Congress 
maintain authority over any changes to U.S. law and our constitutional 
rights to approve any trade agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this rule. I look forward to the 
debate that will follow. I urge my colleagues to listen to every single 
bit of this, and they will understand why a vote for TPA and this rule 
is the right thing to do.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule to consider the Senate amendment to H.R. 644, Trade Facilitation 
and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.
  I strongly support legislation to update the Homeland Security Act of 
2002 to authorize U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as it exists 
today. That said, I must voice my great dismay with the inclusion of 
H.R. 878, the ``United States Customs and Border Protection 
Authorization Act,'' in a vehicle that circumvents regular order and is 
under threat of veto.
  Enactment of CBP authorization legislation could help clarify and 
enhance Congressional intent for this critical agency as well as the 
oversight of its activities. In the previous Congress, the Committee on 
Homeland Security marked up and reported such legislation, which was 
subsequently considered and passed by the House. Because authorizing 
such a large and important agency requires a thoughtful and thorough 
approach, H.R. 878 should have gone through regular order this 
Congress.
  There are 10 new Members of Congress serving on the Committee on 
Homeland Security this Congress. Upending regular order, as the House 
Leadership is doing, effectively prevents my Committee and its newest 
members from applying the knowledge we acquired through oversight about 
CBP programs and activities to improving the legislation before us 
today.
  Moreover, the text of the legislation in which these important 
provisions are included was just made available at midnight on 
Wednesday, and we are now considering it under a rule that does not 
allow for amendments. By limiting the ability of my Members to weigh in 
on the CBP Authorization provisions, even if only on the House floor, 
we are denied the opportunity to address changes that the Ways and 
Means Committee made to the text.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I support authorizing U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection but am deeply disappointed that the fate of this non-
controversial legislation, which was overwhelmingly approved by the 
113th Congress on suspension, is now tied to controversial measures 
that the President may well veto. This, Mr. Speaker, is no way to 
legislate.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.

[[Page H4236]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on the question on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of 
the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 212, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 359]

                               YEAS--217

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gibbs
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Larsen (WA)
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--212

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buck
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duncan (SC)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fleming
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Harris
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoho

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Amodei
     Clawson (FL)
     Gowdy
     Himes
     Thompson (CA)

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi and Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. WALORSKI, Messrs. WITTMAN, BLUMENAUER, DELANEY, and ROHRABACHER 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________