Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are beginning the 114th Congress the way we ended the previous one--with legislation that is more about message than about solving real problems.

The message of H.R. 351 is that we are interested in elevating the interests of the oil and gas industry above any others. Consumers will not benefit from this policy, and manufacturers will not benefit from this policy. Eliminating the public interest determination sends that message clearly.

In spite of the assertions by its supporters, H.R. 351 won't do much for our allies either, especially those in Europe or Ukraine. The bill fixes no problem. There is no backlog of applications at the Department of Energy. Japan, our ally and the world's largest purchaser of LNG, has three importers who signed contracts in 2013 with three approved LNG export facilities, those being Freeport, Cameron, and Cove Point.

Because natural gas is such an important and strategic resource, we should, if anything, be questioning the administration about the wisdom of issuing so many approvals. Why? They are relying on assumptions, models, and estimates of recoverable domestic gas reserves that are very uncertain and that have been decreasing as new information becomes available.

Exporters sign these contracts to guarantee deliveries for some 10 to 20 years. I am not willing to risk price spikes for consumers, families, and small businesses or to risk the benefits of lower gas prices for our manufacturing sector for a slightly improved trade balance. I am unwilling to repeal the requirement for a consideration of the public interest before more export facilities are approved, not for a resource that is so strategic and widely used.

H.R. 351 does not fix any real problems, but it could, indeed, help to create some. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we thank you for the opportunity to gather as

Democrats in this 30-minute Special Order opportunity to discuss our Nation's recent free trade agreements. And I will note that nomenclature: free trade. There are concerns about fair trade being the outcome, and we will be talking about that here in this format.

This is more important now than ever before as our United States Trade Representative Ambassador Michael Froman testified before the House and Senate today. The Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations are being held as we speak this week in New York City. And some Members of Congress have suggested a trade promotion authority bill, better referenced as a ``fast track,'' that may be introduced in the near future, a fast track that would deny the checks and balances of Congress, one that would not allow us to actively overview the impact of these negotiated settlements, these contracts, and would require a simple thumbs up-thumbs down vote without, again, that interactive quality that serves that responsibility to the Members of Congress.

But before we give away Congress' ability to conduct proper oversight and review these trade agreements that are currently being negotiated, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we need to discuss how free trade agreements from the past two decades have not delivered on their promises.

These trade deals will have far-reaching impacts on American life. They could include impacts on food safety or perhaps affordable medicine or perhaps regulations with the banking industry, the financial industry.

Let's not be reckless and allow these deals to move forward without thorough and proper consideration by Congress. Frankly, these deals have not lived up to the hype. President Obama indicated as much in his recent State of the Union message: ``I'm the first one to admit that past trade deals haven't always lived up to the hype.''

So whether it was NAFTA--the North America Free Trade Agreement--or the Korean Free Trade Agreement, supporters of our past FTAs have promised these deals would create a good outcome, create United States jobs, create a lesser trade deficit, and improve global labor and global environmental standards.

Tragically, sadly, this has not been the outcome.

TPP supporters have said this one will be different. The Trans- Pacific Partnership, which could cover a great majority of the international economy, has its supporters saying that this will be a 21st century agreement, far different from those that have preceded it.

Leaked information from the TPP negotiators shows that it is being modeled by the negotiations, themselves, not by the negotiators, showing that it has been modeled on trade policies that have proven to offshore good-paying jobs in our economy and to force wages down for America's working families. That is why respected economists, including many who have previously supported free trade, such as Jeffrey Sachs, as well as Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, have expressed skepticism about the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiation. They are coming to realize what many of our constituents have long known: these trade agreements do not respond favorably to the American middle class.

Sachs' speech at a trade forum on Capitol Hill included comments that indicated:

I don't think TPP and TTIP rise close to the standard of

being 21st century trade and investment agreements, not even

close. They are very much 20th century agreements which were

already out of date by the time they were negotiated. This is

a NAFTA treaty writ large or these are the same negotiations

that we have had in many other cases.

In the New York Times, Mr. Krugman indicated:

I am, in general, a free trader, but I will be undismayed

and even a bit relieved if the TPP just fades away. The first

thing you need to know about trade deals in general is that

they aren't what they used to be. The glory days of trade

negotiations and the days of deals like the Kennedy Round of

the 1960s, which sharply reduced tariffs around the world,

are long behind us.

Then Mr. Stiglitz, in the New York Times, is quoted as saying:

Based on the leaks--and the history of arrangements in past

trade pacts--it is easy to infer the shape of the whole TPP,

and it doesn't look good. There is a real risk that it will

benefit the wealthiest sliver of the American and global

elite at the expense of everyone else.

Tonight, I hope we can have a thoughtful discussion about jobs, about wages, about environmental standards that could be impacted, about child labor laws that could, perhaps, be thrust upon us that have been promised for every FTA in the past two decades. Sadly, our constituents are looking for that sort of progressive outcome that has not been realized, and, certainly, our workers have been impacted. I represent a district that is tremendously impacted by these trade negotiations.

So, tonight, it is a pleasure to work with my colleagues in order to get out the message about the broken promises of our trade agreements.

I see my good friend and colleague who has been a very passionate voice on speaking out about these issues. He is Tim Ryan, our Representative from Ohio's 13th District. Let me yield to Mr. Ryan so he can share some thoughts with us.

Welcome.

Thank you, Representative Ryan, for bringing it right down to the basic, core ingredient, and that is the dignity of work for American families. You speak it so well for those you represent in Ohio.

This is about broken promises. It is about promises for jobs, promises for worker opportunity, promises for environmental standards, promises for labor standards. We need to let the American public know exactly what is happening. If you are a believer in fair trade--not necessarily in free trade. If you believe in fair trade and if you don't think of fast track, which is when we circumvent the authorities and responsibilities of Congress, then let your voice in Congress know that. Let everyone know what you are thinking, because these are critical moments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to a good friend and colleague who is a very outspoken voice for social and economic justice, who has spoken to the unfairness of these negotiated arrangements for trade, and who has led us as a Democratic Caucus in this House to speak out forcefully about the fast-track process and about fair trade versus free trade. She is none other than my good friend and colleague from the Third District of the State of Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro.

Thank you, Representative DeLauro. You strike a very encouraging cord at the end of your comments.

The American public needs to be engaged, if you believe that Congress should have overview responsibility, a checks and balances agenda, because these agreements need to be front and center about the well- being of American workers, and so call into this process, reach into this process, and share your opinion with those who speak for you in the House.

Is a fast track a thing you want to see--without the information exchange--or do you want Congress to review these contracts and understand what impact there will be on the American economy, on American jobs, on standards for the environment, for public safety, for child labor laws, a number of things?

We appreciate your comments.

Very well stated. Every bit of American style is about tethering the American Dream. The people come here to have the right to the dignity of work and to pursue that American Dream.

One of our newest faces in Congress in his second term, I believe, has been an outspoken voice for the American Dream. I yield to the Representative from Wisconsin's Second District to share his thoughts about the process here for fast track and free versus fair trade.

Thank you, Representative Pocan. I again urge the general public out there to engage in this process. Let your Representative know if you believe we should have overview authority and that we should have the chance to know what is in these negotiated agreements.

This affects our American economy, the American Dream. It is about jobs. It is about wages. It is about critical labor standards. It is about critical environmental standards. We can make it happen. We can work on trade issues and have fair trade out there that will grow our economy and grow the American Dream for America's working families.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 12 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, January 28, 2015, at 9 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Queens, State of New York, for the opportunity to share some thoughts here this evening with our leader, Nancy Pelosi, and members of the New York delegation, as we pay tribute to the life of Mario Matthew Cuomo, the greatest of Governors in New York, and certainly a true

statesman, a bold and great individual, a humble giant, and a roaring voice, a lion voice for social, economic, and environmental justice.

This evening, what I recall about the life of Mario Cuomo is that as I entered the New York State Assembly in 1983, that was the same year that he entered into the office of Governor, and for my first 12 years of service in the New York State Assembly, it was guided and nurtured and impacted by the strength and the passion of Mario Cuomo.

The walk with him and with Matilda Raffa Cuomo as a first couple of New York was a joyous one but a challenging one to pay tribute to the greatness, the foundation of family, and the passion of immigrants. Those two guiding dynamics drove the principles, the integrity, and the message of Mario Cuomo.

As a member of his upstate cabinet informing and alerting the Governor to various strengths, vitalities, contributions, and history of upstate New York, we were able to connect in a very meaningful way; the work with him very deliberate and very challenging. I will forever be grateful for the learning curve that was developed by working alongside this person of greatness.

I think, also, we need to understand that, as his son Governor Andrew Cuomo eulogized at his funeral service, he made mention very deliberately, Mario Cuomo would not offer, render his words of speeches to an audience telling them what they choose to hear but, rather, what he needed to share. That, I think, speaks to the humble greatness of this individual, one who had a vision not only for his State, but for his country and, for that matter, the world.

I was also touched by the Governor's sharing about his dad, the eloquence of his speech, the eloquence of his speaking, his public speaking that reached so many people throughout the world. He talked about those words and put it into an analogy of a fine bit of jewelry where each word seen as a gem would be deliberately chosen, strategically placed, and majestically clustered in a way where that array would reach our senses, would speak to our senses about what is correct, what is socially just and morally sound. That is true leadership. And it is no wonder through that speech in San Francisco that he lit within the minds, hearts, and souls of Americans the best within us, how we could assume this level of greatness by understanding that we are at our best when we incorporate in an inclusive set of principles in our world of politics.

Mario Cuomo impacted all of us, myself included, by his reverence for his parents' journey as immigrants. That journey, which was a pathway to freedom, that journey which settled into a grocery story, a corner grocery store, became the pulse of the American Dream for his family that was tethered into this country called the United States of America. He never forgot that. He revered it. He was guided by it. The light that he brought to his field of politics was immense, and it was driven by fairness and inclusion.

So this evening, it is an honor to join with my colleagues to speak to a humble man, a great individual, who, with his wife alongside him, Matilda, brought to this State of New York a sense of hope when there was despair.

As was said at the funeral, he will continue to live. His voice may have been silenced, but his integrity, his spirit, and his principles will long live in the lives of those who struggle and reach to America, to her government, for a better tomorrow.

May he rest in peace.

``The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Pocan. It is great to join him in this hour of discussion about the Fast Track method that has been associated with trade negotiations and with fair trade/free trade concepts alike.

I represent a district in upstate New York, the 20th Congressional District, which is primarily the confluence of the Hudson and Mohawk River Valleys, and it was there that we became the donor area to the Erie Canal that gave birth to westward movement for this Nation and sparked an industrial revolution. It was there that we saw the development of a necklace of communities, dubbed mill towns, that then rose as the epicenters of invention and innovation that saw manufacturing booming as we went forward as a nation.

Many an immigrant called that their new home, that region their new home, and they tethered their American Dream to the prosperity that was continuing to grow in the region. I think back to the manufacturing sector and all that it meant to my ancestors, all it meant to me and the opportunities that came into my life, and it was that empowerment that came through the availability of work, the dignity of work, the opportunity to earn a paycheck that really made a difference.

I think of those same towns today having really lost millions of jobs across America. We are reflective of all those towns that became those manufacturing centers, that enabled people again to engage in meaningful employment and to be able to have those dreams, those American Dreams fully, fully strengthened by the opportunity for work.

When I see the reduction of standards, of environmental standards, where we are willing to have our children exploited by the ugly sins of the past with concerns for child labor laws that might erode, when we think about some of the inequities that are brought to bear with the denial of collective bargaining, all of these items have snuck into trade negotiations. There is an importance for Congress to be able to provide the oversight and the assessment of these various negotiations, where we can look at these trade deals and suggest amendments or have sound debate.

We not only have a right as Members of Congress, I think the public that we represent has a need for Congress to review these documents and to suggest improvements. So I look forward to this hour of discussion where you and I and our several colleagues will join together in speaking to the wisdom, or lack thereof, of some of the processes that have followed this entire trade discussion.

We are talking about a trade deficit now that has ballooned beyond belief, to record proportions, and where we are putting our economy and that American Dream at risk and where we are denying meaningful employment to those whom we represent here in Washington.

I thank you for leading us in this hour of discussion, and I know that the information that we will exchange will be very critical and important to people who will be airing into this discussion and allowing them to trade those, exchange those ideas with their given elected representatives.

With that, I thank you for leading us in this important discussion.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 6, I was absent while attending the funeral of Governor Mario M. Cuomo in New York.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 5, I was absent while attending the funeral of Governor Mario M. Cuomo in New York.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 7, I was absent while attending the funeral of Governor Mario M. Cuomo in New York.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1 I was absent while attending the funeral of Governor Mario M. Cuomo in New York. Had I been present, I would have voted ``present.''

Mr. Speaker on rollcall No. 2. I was absent while attending the funeral of Governor Mario M. Cuomo in New York.

Had I been present, I would have voted for Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 3. I was absent while attending the funeral of Governor Mario M. Cuomo in New York. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 4. I was absent while attending the funeral of Governor Mario M. Cuomo in New York. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. Speaker, during yesterday's rollcall votes, I was absent because of my attendance at the funeral of Governor Mario M. Cuomo in New York.

Had I been present, however, on rollcall No. 1, I would have voted ``present.''

On rollcall No. 2, I would have proudly voted for Representative Pelosi for Speaker.

On rollcall No. 3, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 4, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 5, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall No. 6, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 7, I would have voted ``yea.''