Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another valued member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a longtime veteran of this Congress.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Ashford).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, would you tell us how much time remains.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of yielding 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. LEVIN. How much time do I have remaining, please?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want everybody to understand how these three bills are sequenced and how and why they were set up this way by the majority so people will understand our votes. The sequence is the first vote will be TAA; next, TPA; and next, Customs. The reason for TAA being first is to try to maximize the votes among Democrats for TPA. That is really why they were set up this way. Why is Customs last? It is because there are many Democrats who will vote for TPA--at least some, there aren't that many perhaps--who don't like the Customs bill. Everybody who is listening should understand the rationale for this sequencing, and everybody should understand our reaction to the sequencing and what has happened here. The way this has evolved is this. For years, I have worked to try to build strong bipartisan support for trade agreements, and we often have succeeded. With Peru, it was over 100 Democrats. We worked on Korea and got less, but the leadership and I voted for it because we worked together eventually for a truly bipartisan bill. This TPA bill doesn't have that, and essentially, what has happened-- in part, because of that--is that the leverage has been lost by the administration, to some extent, and on our side to resist items like in the Customs bill. That is really what is happening here. So this Customs bill has to go over to the Senate, but everybody should understand the predicament that this places the administration and all of us in. For example, the language regarding Malaysia and human trafficking-- or human trafficking generally. What this Customs bill does is to weaken the language that is in the Senate bill. This is on human trafficking, sex human trafficking. It also relates to workers. Hundreds of thousands of people--for example, in Malaysia, and other countries--essentially come to those countries. Often, their passports are taken. They have no rights. We say this should not happen. Malaysia is in tier 3, and the original amendment said any country in tier 3 should not have the benefits of TPP. This weakens it and places this in--if it succeeds--in the TPA bill. Secondly, on climate change--we worked hard in the Peru FTA to incorporate the May 10 agreement. We worked hard on worker rights, on environment, on medicines. Actually, because the then-Administration would not negotiate it, Mr. Rangel and I negotiated the United States- Peru Free Trade Agreement with the Peruvian Government. Let no one say I am not for expanded trade--or lots of other Democrats. It had an annex in it relating to forestation and deforestation and illegal logging. Why? It is because the Amazon affects all of us, and it affects trade. Now, what we have is language which, if accepted here and then in the Senate, would essentially preclude that kind of an agreement. That is what happens when you don't proceed on a truly bipartisan basis and there is no leverage for some of us. Let me also talk about currency. There is also a provision on immigration which could have an impact in terms of the negotiation. I don't know that there will be a provision. What I do know is that this amendment takes out the Schumer amendments on currency. Let me just say a word. You have put some language into this bill on currency. It is like every other negotiating objective. It is not even Swiss cheese, with lots of holes. It is the weakest kind of cheese that has no real substance to it, except maybe a good taste, but this has a bad taste. Those negotiating objectives really are not meaningful; they are so vague, and it is the person who negotiates it who judges whether those vague negotiating objectives have been met. So you take out the Schumer amendment. Now, what has been the impact of currency manipulation on jobs in the United States of America? This is one of the bases of the feeling of a lot of people in various communities, including the labor community, but way beyond--and our citizenry. Because of Japan's manipulation of currency--and then China's--we lost several million jobs. That is the reality. When people come here and say this bill of theirs, this TPA bill will help in terms of job creation, and they say, as was said many times in various places, these are jobs we have already lost, that is nonsense. There are more jobs in manufacturing and other places that could be lost that relate to the worker provisions in terms of Mexico, which competes with us, but it also relates to currency manipulation. The President has now said that China is interested, and there will be no meaningful currency manipulation in TPP. Essentially, we are opening the door for more and more currency manipulation. This is the reason for the depth of our feeling about this TPA and these amendments that will make it even worse. Everybody listening should understand the depth of the feeling from so many of us in and out of this place, every movement--whether labor, environmental, medicines, or whatever--to what is going on here. I think this Customs bill makes TPA even worse and essentially has tied the hands--because there is not a strong bipartisan basis--I think, of the Administration to really throw its weight around in terms of these amendments. I am afraid some of them are going to become law, and that should not happen. I strongly urge strong opposition to this Customs bill, H.R. 644. It is one of the several reasons we should be voting ``no'' on the three votes that are coming before us. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, and the chair of our caucus.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I take special pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.