Mark Pocan

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, on the 50th anniversary of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, now more than ever we must ensure that every kid has access to a great school. It shouldn't matter who your parents are, what ZIP code you live in, or how many zeros are at the end of your bank account. H.R. 5 breaks the promise made 50 years ago to help all kids get a good public education and to recognize the challenges faced by kids living in poverty. Republicans will have the opportunity to make their bad bill even worse by allowing an amendment to come to the floor today which essentially turns all of ESEA into a block grant, allowing States to use Federal resources for any educational purpose, meaning States can redirect Federal funds towards taxpayer-funded vouchers for private and religious schools. That has been a failed experiment in Wisconsin, and that strips money away from public schools and hurts kids everywhere. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5, a bad bill that could likely get even worse today.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a constituent who dedicated her life's work to advancing principles of justice and fairness in her community, her state, and her country. Anne Nicol Gaylor began her life in a small town near Tomah, Wisconsin. After graduating high school at age 16 and earning a degree from University of Wisconsin-Madison, she became a businesswoman and editor at Middleton Times Tribune where she successfully transformed the publication into an award-winning weekly. Anne notably founded the Women's Medical Fund which has raised and donated nearly $3 million to low-income women who lack access to healthcare services. Throughout her career, Anne remained involved with the Women's Medical Fund and was a tireless advocate for women's rights. In 1976, Anne founded the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the nation's leading defender in the fight to protect and preserve the separation of church and state. This organization grew from a small group of committed individuals discussing the advancement of civil liberties into a major national organization with more than 23,000 members. Throughout her retirement, she remained active in the Women's Medical Fund, dedicating her time to providing direct service to those in need. Thanks to her tireless leadership, Anne received a number of prestigious awards and recognitions, including the Humanist Heroine Award from the American Humanist Association, Wisconsin National Organization for Women's Feminist of the Year Award, and NARAL's Tiller Award. These outstanding achievements and recognitions are a testimony to Anne's resilient spirit and tireless advocacy on behalf of the issues closest to her heart. Anne's commitment to community and work as an activist, feminist, and free-thinker have been invaluable to Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize Ms. Anne Nicol Gaylor today.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time. I am not going to go into the exact same debate we had 1 week ago because the facts are still the same. If we pass fast track authority, the facts are identical around the fact we will lose jobs here in this country and we will depress our wages here in this country. We will lose our sovereignty and control over our laws, and we will have problems with everything from food safety to intellectual property rights and so many other laws. What is different about this week from last week is this is not the same trade promotion authority. This trade promotion authority will take away American jobs, but it lacks the trade authority that gives us the assistance and the dollars to help those people find other jobs. This includes all of the amendments that affect us from taking away the provisions the Senate put in around currency manipulation, take away the amendments around human trafficking, and specifically say that we cannot address climate change in these trade negotiations. Now, that alone is an issue that I want clarity from the White House on. I have been in and looked at the language, and I will not talk about classified language on the floor, but the amendment specifically--we need clarity about where we are on climate change in this agreement. This is not the same TPA. It will cost jobs. It will lower our wages. It will not provide any protections for those workers who lose their jobs because of this. Now, because of last week's actions, the bill before us is a far, far worse bill. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues, let's let the American people have a say. The only way they will is if Congress retains our authority to amend and debate this bill. If we give that away, it is our own fault today.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I grew up in an auto town, where almost everyone had a family member who worked in the industry, but today there are no cars made there anymore. To me, trade deals should be about whether or not we will fight for American jobs and American workers' wages. Bad trade deals cost us both. Unless we have a say, unless the American people have a say, this trade deal will do exactly the same and cost us more jobs. I have read the text, and I know where we are at with it as of now. I would like to see a deal that has better real protective teeth for labor and environmental law, strong protections for American sovereignty, and better protections for food safety and more. Bottom line: I want a trade deal that protects American jobs and lifts our wages right here at home. If we vote for TPA, we will have no ability to make it better. For this trade deal or any other trade deal in the next 6 years under any President, if we want the American people to have a voice, a real voice, we must retain our authority to impact trade deals and vote against TPA in all votes that affect it today.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement is the biggest trade deal our country has seen since NAFTA. With 12 participating countries, it encompasses 40 percent of the world's gross domestic product, so we have to get it right. Working men and women in our communities are counting on us to get it right, not just fast, and that is why I oppose granting fast-track authority. You can see the impact of fast-tracked trade agreements in communities across the country, in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, factory jobs, middle class jobs, and lower wages for hard-working Americans. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that since NAFTA, the U.S. has lost more than 700,000 jobs as production has moved to Mexico. The communities I represent in south central Wisconsin bear the scars of past trade agreements which have not lived up to what the supporters say for fast track. Take Janesville, Wisconsin. Parker Pen has been in Janesville, Wisconsin, and employed at one time over 1,000 workers. Thanks to bad trade deals, in 2009, the remaining 150 jobs were shipped to Mexico. We are not just talking the last few years. We are talking the last few months. In Darlington, Wisconsin, the Merkle-Korff Industries plant in Darlington, a town of 2,400 people, announced they are closing. Thirty- six family-supporting jobs are leaving that community. If that were proportional in Madison, Wisconsin, that would be like losing 3,600 jobs in a community that size. Every time an American job is shipped out of the country, it pushes wages down for workers here. Now, fast-track authority means that the American people, through their elected Representatives, will lose their voice in Congress by limiting the ability of Congress to debate and to amend the trade agreement. Due to limited debate, because of the fast-track process, each Member would have a little over 2 minutes to debate that trade deal. Members would have no opportunity to offer amendments on an agreement that has 29 chapters, that covers everything from food safety to environmental standards, labor rights, intellectual property, and more. It would give Congress' constitutional authority to the President for 6 years. That means this President, the next President, and potentially, the next President; and all Congress would be left with is a yes-or-no vote. Before Congress grants fast-track authority, we need to get the Trans-Pacific Partnership right. What does it mean to get it right? Well, one, it means having strong enforcement language to protect American workers and our environment, which we don't currently have in the current deal. On several occasions, I have reviewed the labor and environmental chapters of the law. While, in some instances, the language is marginally better, it still lacks enforcement. With the Colombia free trade agreement, we can see exactly what happened. While language has been implemented in the law to protect labor rights, there has been absolutely no implementation of that language. In fact, in the 4 years since the Colombia free trade agreement has passed, 105 union organizers have been killed--murdered-- in that country. The environmental chapter, I would argue, is arguably worse and still lacks the same enforcement capacity to protect our country. Getting TPP means scrapping the investor state dispute settlement provisions that put corporate interests ahead of American sovereignty. The ISDS provisions are unique. They create a tribunal run by the same corporate trade lawyers who, on Monday, represent the multinational corporations; on Tuesday, are supposed to be the fair arbitrators of the law; and on Wednesday, are back on the corporate payroll. These provisions are only for multinational corporations and not for American small businesses or labor or environmental violations. Getting the Trans-Pacific Partnership right means having other important provisions included, like currency manipulation, protections against human trafficking, and protections for human rights for LGBT individuals and for single mothers in countries that have implemented sharia law. Getting the Trans-Pacific Partnership right means having open and transparent negotiations because there is still too much the American people don't know about this secretive agreement. After all, only about 600 people have been involved in drafting this agreement, largely corporate CEOs, but not you and not me. The bottom line is that this will cost jobs and wages. Another bad trade deal will cost more American jobs and lower our wages. We have seen how free trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, and the U.S-Korea Free Trade Agreement passed using the same fast-track process have turned out to be a bad deal for American workers. We need to get this right, not just fast. Congress must say ``no'' to the fast-track process.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I thank Subcommittee Chairman Dent and Ranking Member Bishop for all of their work on this bill. This amendment is a simple amendment to make sure that Members of Congress have access to inspector general reports, should they request one. We recently came across this issue when there was a bipartisan field hearing in Tomah, Wisconsin, regarding the Tomah VA facility. The Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General had a report regarding the overprescription of opiates resulting in multiple deaths in the area. And in this case, the VA Office of Inspector General completed a report that uncovered these practices, and they gave the recommendations to the local and regional manager. However, the report and these recommendations were never reported to the Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Bob McDonald, any congressional committees of jurisdiction, or the public, as the report was administratively closed. What is more, the initial report was requested by a Member of the House of Representatives, and the VA Office of Inspector General failed to even provide the completed report to the Member of Congress. Ultimately, that Member of Congress had to do a Freedom of Information request, a very unusual request, in order to get a copy of that report. Instead, it was left largely to local facilities to implement the recommended changes without any oversight from the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs or from the Members of Congress who had specifically requested that report. It is all about sunlight. I think we function better if we could have that information. And we should make sure that those reports are available to every Member of Congress. This amendment would simply make sure that no funds can be expended in withholding a report, as this report was in the State of Wisconsin. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, hopefully, the second time is the charm. This is an amendment on behalf of myself, Representative Ellison, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This amendment would bar taxpayer dollars from going to companies that have recent wage theft convictions or civil penalties reported in the government's contracting database. No hard-working American should ever have to worry that their employer will refuse to pay his or her work, overtime, or take money out of their paycheck, especially if they work for a Federal contractor. As a small-business owner who has had previous contracts, it is not a right, but an earned responsibility and privilege to have these contracts, and any employer that would do wage theft--which is considered to pay less than the minimum wage, to be shorting someone their hours, being forced to work off the clock, not being paid overtime, or not being paid at all--should not be able to get these Federal contracts. A recent National Employment Law Project survey found that 21 percent of Federal contract workers were not paid overtime, and 11 percent have been forced to work off the clock. Eighteen Federal contractors were recipients of one of the largest 100 penalties issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the Department of Labor between 2007 and 2012, and almost half of the total initial penalty dollars assessed for OSHA violations were against companies holding Federal contracts in 2012. Overall, 49 Federal contractors responsible for large violations of Federal labor laws were cited for 1,776 separate violations of these laws and paid $196 million in penalties and assessments; yet, just in fiscal year 2012, these same companies were awarded $81 billion in taxpayer dollars. The Federal Government cannot look the other way when Federal contractors take advantage of their employees. Those who violate the Fair Labor Standards Act deserve more than a slap on the wrist; they don't deserve to do business with the government anymore. Those contractors who engage in wage theft should not be rewarded with contracts to do business with the Federal Government. This was included in last year's appropriation. We would appreciate consideration again in this year's appropriation, to make sure that we are protecting the workers for these Federal contractors. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say I agree with the gentleman. I was at the hearing, and I heard the conversation that was there. The difference we had is that the hearing--I understand there was a disagreement with the executive order, but I would hate for us to confuse the disagreement with the executive order with the action that we can do here in Congress. We had concluded this last year in the appropriations bill, the exact same language, to the best of my understanding; and I know that, since then, there has been an executive order that we are trying to have a conversation with the executive branch about. However, it is not fair to the contractors who abide by the law that, when you bid against someone who doesn't abide by the law because they are shortchanging their employees, that makes it an unfair practice. We think the bottom line is we should be protecting those good contractors; we should be protecting the employees who don't get their fair pay; and, despite any disagreement we might have with the executive branch, I think we should, at minimum, as a Congress, stand up for those workers and for those good contractors. Mr. Chairman, I have been in business for 28 years as a small- business owner. I know that, when I bid on something, I want to know I am at a fair and even playing field. We are not making a fair playing field when you have this number of people who are getting violations who already get Federal contracts and are really getting a slap on the hand, $196 million in penalties versus 81 billion in taxpayer dollars in contracts awarded. Clearly, there is an imbalance, and that becomes a cost to business for a bad company, but you are punishing the good companies and the good workers by doing that. I would certainly hope that we would support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and work of former Representative Robert W. Kastenmeier from Wisconsin's 2nd Congressional District. Bob Kastenmeier died on March 20 at his home in Arlington, VA at the age of 91. As we remember Bob's life and his service to our country, our thoughts are also with his wife, Dorothy; their three sons William, Andrew, and Edward; and two grandchildren. Born on January 24, 1924 in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, Bob later attended the University of Wisconsin Law School. During World War II, he interrupted his studies to serve in the U.S. Army in the Philippines. After the war, he returned to the University of Wisconsin to finish his law degree and practiced law in southern Wisconsin until he was first elected to Congress in 1958. During his 32-year career in Congress, Bob was the standard bearer for Wisconsin's proud tradition of public service and progressive values. Looking back, it turns out Bob was on the right side of history more often than not. As a courageous and principled public servant you could always count on Bob to speak truth to power. He opposed funding for the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee. He stood up to a president of his own party to criticize the Vietnam War. He continued to speak out as thousands of American GI's, including more than 1,100 Wisconsinites, died in Vietnam. Bob Kastenmeier served during a tumultuous period in our nation's history that includes passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the Vietnam War, and the impeachment trials for President Nixon. Through it all, Bob was quintessential Bob, a calming presence in Congress who held the institution to its values and principles. Bob leaves behind a long legacy as a champion for the people of Wisconsin and the United States. Through his leadership on the Judiciary Committee, Bob became a giant in the field of intellectual property law. Most notably, Bob helped draft and pass the landmark 1976 Copyright Act, the first overhaul of U.S. copyright law since 1909. He was also influential in the passage of several patent, trademark, and counterfeiting statutes. I got my start in national politics working on Bob's campaigns while in college. I'll always remember how much all those who were touched by his life's work loved and admired him. His legacy of honest public service remains an inspiration to me and other elected officials in Wisconsin and across the country. Bob was a leading voice for civil rights and civil liberties, an advocate for peace, and a leader in Congress during his 32 years as a U.S. Representative. He will always be remembered as one of Wisconsin's greatest legislators--among the likes of Bob LaFollette, Gaylord Nelson, and William Proxmire. I ask my colleagues to join the people of Wisconsin to mourn the loss of a leader whose humility and dedication will forever serve as the model to every person who answers the call to public service. It was a privilege to know him as a friend. It is an honor to continue his legacy in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. I thank Mr. Ellison for all his work with the Progressive Caucus. Madam Chairman, I have got to tell you, I couldn't disagree more with the good Governor of South Carolina on the budget. To call the Republican Tea Party-infused budget progressive is like calling Velveeta a type of Wisconsin cheese. It just doesn't compare. The Republican budget means Americans will work harder and earn less. It will be harder to buy a home, it will be harder to send your children to college, and harder to save for a secure retirement. It will do nothing to grow wages or help people get ahead. But it will do one thing for the people in the middle class. It will give you a $2,000 tax increase so that the wealthiest in this country can get a tax break. The Progressive Caucus budget is exactly the opposite. The people's budget boosts economic opportunity for more Americans and gives hard- working Americans a raise. The Progressive Caucus Budget grows our economy and will create 8.4 million jobs by investing in the very things the economy needs most, things like infrastructure and teachers. It puts money into the pockets of workers so that you can get a raise and go out shopping or go to a movie and boost our economy and create jobs via that. The Progressive budget puts our next generation on a better track by making college more affordable--even debt free--and more accessible for more people. That is why I am supporting the people's budget, the Progressive Caucus budget, because it will grow your paycheck and create more jobs for hard-working Americans. I encourage my colleagues to join me in that support.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Bobby Scott, for yielding me time. I am a small business owner, and I am a union member, and I have a union business. The disapproval of the NLRB rule under the Congressional Review Act is an extreme move that would roll back hardworking Americans' rights to a fair and timely election on union representation. Let us look at what this rule does, two things: One, it modernizes communications; and, two, it protects workers from dishonest employers. When this law was written, emails and iPhones didn't exist, so it simply adds them to the list of what is available to contact people about joining a union. Second, it creates a fair, modern workplace election process that elections can be done in a timely manner. The current process has long been vulnerable to manipulation, delay, and drawn out legal maneuvering by some unscrupulous employers. The reality of today's workplace is employers still hold all the cards. The few bad actor employers can delay a union vote by intimidating or threatening employees. They already have the phone numbers, the emails, and the home addresses. Let's face it: What is more intimidating, getting an email or saying you know where someone lives? The bottom line is this isn't about the NLRB rule; this is about a process that we see across the country attacking hardworking Americans. Whether it is through so-called right-to-work laws or preventing the NLRB from updating the union election process, this is more evidence that the majority party is out to hurt the very hardworking Americans who want the ability to form a union. This has a substantial impact on their lives. Workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement are paid more on average than those not covered and are more likely to have health care, retirement, and paid leave benefits than nonunion workers. I would strongly urge us to vote against this political maneuvering message.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Scott. Mr. Chairman, this bill breaks the promise made 50 years ago to help all kids get a good, quality public education and to recognize the challenges faced by kids living in poverty. When talking about the problems with this Republican bill, one wonders where to start. Is it the tearing apart of public education that comes in the form of dismantling title I funding? or the fact that the portability scheme is a slippery slope to turning our public school system into one big taxpayer-funded voucher program with public dollars sent to private schools? or the fact that Republicans have failed to address the need for early education or the maintenance of efforts of education? or that this bill diminishes the focus on professional development for teachers or the clear protections for collective bargaining agreements that are already part of State laws? or, ultimately, that this bill provides insufficient funding lower than what the title I authorization for last year authorized under the current law? This bill doesn't provide real student success, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is having our Special Order hour today to talk about the Nation's need for infrastructure--the fact that we need to keep serious investments in infrastructure not only to keep our roads and bridges and other important parts of our country together but also to help the good, family-supporting jobs that come along with these important investments in our infrastructure. I serve on the Budget Committee, and we were talking one day with Dr. Elmendorf from the Congressional Budget Office, our nonpartisan agency that we deal with to talk about budgetary matters. Specifically, I asked the question of Dr. Elmendorf about the Recovery Act that we passed in this country a number of years ago. Dr. Elmendorf said that, thanks to that Recovery Act, over 3 million jobs were saved or created because of the investment we put into our Nation's infrastructure. In my State of Wisconsin, I was at the State legislature at the time and I chaired our budget committee. We had a report from the road building industry and the vertical construction industry that said 54,000 jobs just in Wisconsin were saved or created because of the Recovery Act. As much as that helped provide a boost to the economy and help fill our infrastructure needs, we still have so many more to take care of. We have been given a grade of D-plus by the very engineering society that grades our Nation's infrastructure. We have been told that we have 100,000 bridges in this country, or 16 percent, old enough that they can qualify for Medicare. As we know from recent disasters that we have seen in different parts of the country where bridges have fallen and people have literally been killed, we need to reinvest in that infrastructure so that we have a country that operates, that businesses can function. Also, we need to help create those jobs now for people who are still out of work. As the economy is coming back, we know that wages have been stagnant, and these are good, strong, family-supporting jobs that can provide it. The Congressional Progressive Caucus will soon be putting out our version of the budget, just as we will among the Democrats and the Republicans, but we will put out our version of the budget--just as the President has--with a deep investment in our infrastructure needs because we know that that investment is one of the pillars of the strong economy. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Tonko, for your leadership. I really enjoyed working with you over the last several years. We are actually getting to the point that it looks like this may be coming to a vote in Congress. This is perfect timing, with another round of negotiations upon us. I am so glad we are on the floor tonight talking about this and trying to channel the energy from the gentlewoman from Connecticut. I love her passion. This is an issue that goes far back for me. When I was 23, I started a small business in Madison, Wisconsin, a specialty printing business. One of the things we did is source American-made and union-made products. We screen-printed T-shirts and did promotional items like pens and lapel pins we wear as Members of Congress, all things that were done in the United States. Over the last almost 28 years, trade deal after trade deal, I have watched the number of products made in the United States diminish. T- shirts, it is almost impossible to find a mill that still makes T- shirts and apparel in the United States. Almost everything is done in other countries or overseas, things like pens and our emblem pins. It is almost impossible to find American-made pens. In my area, just 45 minutes south from Madison, is the city of Janesville, where Representative Paul Ryan is from and represents. That town used to have a thousand good, family-supporting wages at a company called Parker Pen which made quality, American-made pens. At one point, that was a thousand jobs in that region. With trade deal after trade deal, finally, a few years ago, we watched the last 150 of those jobs go to Mexico, those family- supporting wages that no longer exist in the company. They were then hit by GM closing down, which allowed even further job loss in that community. As Representative DeLauro said, it is those people that used to make $25 an hour in a manufacturing job who lost their job and, now, the best that might be available to them is a $10-an-hour job. You can't pay your mortgage when you go from $25 an hour to $10 an hour. You can't send your kids to college when you used to make $25 an hour and, now, you are making $10 an hour. Those are the jobs we have seen all too often leave because of bad trade deals; whether it be New York, Connecticut, Ohio, or Wisconsin, we have all seen the same thing happen across our communities. As much as I do agree with the President when he said in the State of the Union, Look, I'm the first one to admit that past trade deals haven't always lived up to the hype--I think we all agree on that. We have seen that. We have seen that the jobs promised don't happen, and that is why we have concern. Tonight, I want to talk specifically about fast-track authority. That is where we give up our right as Members of Congress, which means we give up our constituents' right--a say--in these trade deals. This isn't a Democratic issue. It isn't a Republican issue. It isn't an Independent issue. It is in the Constitution. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says the Congress has the sole power ``to regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' For 200 years, that is the way it was, but President Nixon changed that when he seized those powers through a mechanism called fast track. It is a legislative technique used to kind of skid the way through for these trade deals. The problem with that is when we do fast-track authority, we give up our rights as Members of Congress and, therefore, the public's right to question what is in one of these trade deals, the next trade deal that can have even more jobs leave the United States. We give up our ability to debate and to amend these agreements, and that is what fast-track authority is. That is very likely the first vote we would see on the floor of Congress, which the President asked for in the State of the Union, but that gives our sole authority to the President. Now, I have a lot of respect and I agree with so much of what President Obama has done, but this isn't about President Obama, and it is not about President George W. Bush and not about President Nixon or any other President who has tried to get these powers. It is about our ability as Members of Congress and the public to have a say through these trade deals. When you look at this and you think about the history of the fast- track process, the last time we authorized fast track was in 2002, at 3:30 in the morning, right before a congressional recess, to bring this antiquated mechanism into place, and it was approved by only three votes. Since 2007, Congress has refused this extreme procedure, even after it was getting renamed to try to make it sound a little more palatable. There are so many reasons why we shouldn't give up our authority. If you think about it, people say: If we don't give the President authority, we won't get trade expansion. Well, fast track isn't needed for that. In fact, President Bill Clinton was denied fast-track authority for 6 of his 8 years in his office, but he completed more than 100 trade investment pacts without fast track. We are giving away our ability to actually see this document which, as you know, we haven't seen. There are 29 chapters, only of which about five affect trade, and everything else from currency manipulation to medicines to food safety, all those things now are thrown into these deals that go way beyond what it was originally in place for, and we would have no say in that. Fast track has been used 16 times in the history of this country, and usually, it is to enact more controversial trade pacts. Bottom line, we know that the U.S. Trade Representative right now is redoing their Web site to make it more transparent. Here is transparency to me: show us the text, show Members of Congress the text, show our staff the text, show the public the text. If this deal is as good as they have promised, then show us how great it is; but if this is nothing more than warmed over fast track or something else that is going to cost us jobs and depress our wages, then that is usually when this procedure is put in place. No offense to this President or to any President, but Congress has to have its say on fast track. I just want to commend you, again, for doing this. I just wanted to come by for a very few minutes to talk about that, but as this procedure could be coming before us in the coming month or months, we have to be ready. We are going to work together, as we have been, to make sure we do everything possible to make sure the public knows what is in this deal, and that means Congress has to have our say, and that is why we have to oppose fast track. Again, I thank the gentleman for this time. I continue to look forward to working with you on this issue.

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, on January 12, 2015 I missed recorded votes #17-19 due to travel delays. I would like to reflect how I would have voted if I were present for these votes. On Roll Call #17, I would have voted YEA (Passage of H.R. 203). On Roll Call #18, I would have voted YEA (Passage of H.R. 33). On Roll Call #19, I would have voted YEA (Approval of the Journal).

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Hahn. I think you said it very eloquently. We are all for trade. I don't think there is a Member in this body who doesn't want to see trade happen, but we want fair trade. We don't want the so-called free trade that makes it harder for American workers, that depresses our wages and ultimately includes a whole lot of other things that affect everything from food safety to environmental concerns to our ability to have something as basic as buy American laws and buy local laws. So thank you for your comments. I would also like to yield to a gentleman, a colleague, and a friend from the State of Michigan, someone who represents the Flint and Saginaw area. I would like to yield to Representative Dan Kildee from the great State of Michigan.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I am here on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in our Special Order hour where we want to share with the American public our concerns about a trade deal that we think will be coming through Congress in the first few months or first half of this session. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the biggest and the baddest of the trade deals that we have seen come before this country. It represents a dozen countries. From Chile to Japan, almost 800 million people are represented by countries that would be included within the Trans- Pacific Partnership, and it represents 40 percent of the world's economy. Yet the trade agreement has been drafted largely in secret. No one from the public has seen it. Quite honestly, Members of Congress haven't seen it. But about 600 people in this country are involved with the drafting of this trade deal. It has great ramifications that go beyond trade, the 29 chapters that make up the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We anticipate there also could be a move from leadership to introduce legislation to Fast Track the trade deal. What that means to Fast Track it is to really take away the public's ability, through their elected Members of Congress, to have a say, to be able to debate and to amend the trade deal. We anticipate that could be one of the first votes that would come to us this Congress about trade. We at the Progressive Caucus want to share with the public the various concerns that we may have about this very, very large, all-encompassing trade deal that could affect American jobs, could affect food safety, could affect environmental concerns, could affect things like buy American laws, currency policy, and many, many more issues. I am joined by a number of Members of Congress today who would like to take part in this, and I would like to, at this time, yield to my colleague from the great State of New York, who has put a number of efforts towards this in working very strongly to make sure the public knows what is in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I would like to yield to Mr. Paul Tonko from New York.

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Tonko. As you mentioned, one of the concerns we have, not only in your region but in my district, is the loss of jobs that we have had because of some of these past trade deals that haven't quite gone as promised. It has been estimated we have lost 4 million U.S. jobs due to just three trade deals, and three-quarters of those jobs lost were in the manufacturing sector. I had mentioned earlier today at a press conference in Rock County, Wisconsin, a county that I share with Representative Paul Ryan, we used to have Parker Pen, made good American-made quality pens. A thousand jobs at one time were in that community working at Parker Pen. In early 2010, the final jobs had moved to Mexico. That is just one example of the number of jobs that we lost just in south central Wisconsin, much less Flint, Michigan, and Los Angeles, California, and other parts of the country. So we appreciate your efforts and your comments. I would like to also yield to another colleague of mine from the great State of California, someone who has been a strong member of our Progressive Caucus. I would like to yield to Representative Janice Hahn of the great State of California.

Mr. POCAN. Again, thank you so much, Representative Kildee. When you mentioned the auto industry, I have to admit that I grew up in Kenosha, Wisconsin. American Motors was the company that ran the town. Almost everyone had a family member or a neighbor who worked at American Motors. Now, granted, we made Pacers and Gremlins, so there were some mistakes along the way. American Motors eventually went away to Renault, and it went away to Chrysler. It went away to nothing as well as the people who had the strong family-supporting wages from that auto industry. Now the companies that have replaced the auto industry are, quite honestly, jelly bean manufacturers and companies like that. It does not pay the same wage. It doesn't support the family in the same way. Just as we were promised with the Korean free trade agreement, especially around autos, in that 70,000 jobs would be created, instead, 60,000 jobs were lost. That is exactly why we have to be involved now while it matters, not after it has been negotiated. We don't have a debate, and we don't have a chance to amend it. So thank you for all of your work on this on behalf of the people of Michigan. I would also like to yield to another colleague of mine, someone who has been a stalwart in the Progressive Caucus, someone I respected long before I ever had the chance to come to Congress. I would like to yield to my great colleague, Representative Barbara Lee, from the great State of California.

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Lee. I look forward to working with you on our Progressive alternative also for the budget, when, I think, we will showcase many of those initiatives that we would much rather see the country do to help create good-paying jobs and get more people back to work. So thank you for all of your efforts. At this point, I would like to yield to a colleague of mine from the great State of Ohio, who has seen much of this firsthand and who, today, has very eloquently explained her experiences of being around when NAFTA had passed. Let me yield to Representative Marcy Kaptur from the great State of Ohio.

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Kaptur, for all that you have done. You have been an articulate spokesperson on behalf of jobs and the effects of these bad trade deals on jobs. And I have to say, I am really glad you brought up the textile industry, because when we talk about the need to work together in this Congress, this is an issue where Democrats and Republicans can absolutely unite. About 12 years ago, I was on a delegation of the American Council of Young Political Leaders. And one of the people on the delegation was a very conservative judge from the State of Mississippi. She and I and the group had met with some sweatshop workers in Indonesia to talk about all the mills that have left, especially in the southern part of the United States, and those jobs are pretty much gone forever. I have been in business for 27 years, since I had hair. I have had a small business. And in that role, we screen-print on T-shirts. And I have watched over the years all of the mills that made T-shirts in the United States pretty much leave. It is pretty hard to find clothes still made in the USA. It is even harder to find them union-made in the USA. And this is something that unites people of different political ideologies because we see those jobs leaving. It doesn't matter. It is not a Democratic job or a Republican job. These bad trade deals too often just cost us jobs. I appreciate you bringing that up, and thank you again for all that you do. Next I would like to yield to someone who has been an extraordinary leader in this area. She has helped to coordinate Members of Congress like no one else, not just on this issue but on many other issues. She is an absolutely tireless advocate for the American public and for making sure that Congress has the proper role when it comes to trade agreements. She is someone whom I am extremely honored to have as a colleague and a friend. I would like to yield to the great Representative Rosa DeLauro from the State of Connecticut.

Mr. POCAN. Again, thank you so much, Representative DeLauro, for all your leadership. You are helping to coordinate all of our voices in this battle, and we really appreciate that and all your efforts. Thank you so much. When you brought up the public opinion of Congress, there is no question. If you were actually to explain this process to anyone, regardless of their political ideology, that for the last 2 years, about 600 people in this country from America's biggest corporations and Wall Street's biggest banks have been involved in trying to craft this legislation that we haven't seen and the American public hasn't seen and we are going to be asked to vote on something that would take away our ability, sight unseen, to vote to limit our ability to debate and to amend any kind of a trade agreement--that is exactly what is wrong with Washington. That is why people, I think, get so disgusted with Washington. We need to stand up, Democrats and Republicans together, to make sure that we have our ability to have our voices heard, which is the public's voices through Members of Congress. So your efforts on Fast Track, on TPP, food safety, and so many areas, thank you so much. Again, I appreciate it. Another one of our leaders of our caucus is here who has been an articulate fighter on so many progressive issues. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the State of Maryland, Representative Donna Edwards, my great colleague.