Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise this morning in support of a rule which would allow for an up- or-down vote in the House on the Senate amendment to H.R. 1295, the Trade Preferences Extension Act, so that it can be considered by the full House; and, if the bill passes, it will head to the President's desk along with the trade promotion authority for the President's signature. This bill that would be considered after passage of this rule renews the Generalized System of Preferences program, extending the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and reauthorizes Trade Adjustment Assistance, known as TAA. The activity on the floor of the House today represents a promise to Congress made by Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader McConnell. After House Democrats voted down TAA last week, the House considered and passed TPA, with a bipartisan majority, and sent it to the Senate. In the meantime, the Speaker and the Senate majority leader promised that they would ensure that both TPA and TAA receive votes in the House and the Senate. As promised, here we are today. The Senate yesterday delivered it, when it passed TPA 60-38, which is now headed to the President's desk for his signature. The Senate also passed the Senate amendment to H.R. 1295, which will be considered today under the rule which we are speaking about. The final legislative step is for the House to consider the Trade Preferences Extension Act, and that is exactly what the rule will do. This rule and the underlying bill represents the end of a long process to deliver trade promotion authority on behalf of the American people. Mr. Speaker, it is a Republican agenda about jobs. By passing TPA, the House and the Senate proved to the world that America is willing to lead and to stand for jobs and interaction between great countries to help lead in the 21st century. We believe in the rule of law, we believe in intellectual property, and we believe in an opportunity for consumers to have the best products, wherever they are around the world, at a great price. The world has responded, and our partner nations have indicated that they are now ready to begin the negotiation to bring their best deals to the table. As these negotiations heat up, it is vital that the administration follow the requirements of TPA, some 160 separate, specific items which this House and the legislation very clearly talks about. It will lead negotiation to a deal that is good for the American people. If the administration violates that promise, the House can turn off TPA and stop the process. Once a trade agreement is completed, the President is required to make public the text of an agreement for 60 days before the President seeks approval to it. The President must then submit the final text of any trade agreement to Congress 30 days before it gets a vote. Because of this important transparency feature of TPA, the American people have seen a better process than what existed today. We will have months to read the text of any deal before Congress votes on it. Most importantly, though, Congress retains its right to vote up or down on any agreement. So if the President brings us a bad trade deal, we can and we would vote that down. This ensures that Congress, and only the U.S. Congress, can change and agree to any law or agreement that is made that becomes U.S. law. We have also proved that Washington has learned from some States, like my home State of Texas, which benefit greatly from trade. Trade supports over 3 million jobs in Texas, and last year Texas exported $289 billion worth of goods and services to trading partners around the globe. Because of the process Congress has gone through the past few weeks, we can ensure that the growth, the availability of better jobs, and high-paying opportunities lie ahead for the American people. At a time when it has become very difficult to create jobs in this country, we will, through trade promotion authority and these trade deals, offer new and great opportunities for more jobs and to build more American products and to sell more products around the globe. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my friend, 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 338 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman brings up a lot of good issues. We have been on the floor talking about this bill for a long, long time: hours of debate up in the Committee on Rules; hours of debate not only in the Committee on Ways and Means, but also watching the United States Senate for weeks work through this issue. I think the gentlewoman knows and understands that any final trade deal will result in our ability to see in writing--and the public--this document; and the gentlewoman knows and understands it is simply not true if we try and say that we can't see what is in the bill, we don't know what is in the bill. Plenty of time, plenty of time to do that. It is just not available yet. So why would you put out something that has not yet been negotiated? I wouldn't do that. And whether the administration has handled this entire process well or not may be up for speculation, but I find it hard to criticize. Any Member of Congress was given an opportunity to come and read what exists today. This is not the final deal. Members of Congress have not seen the final deal because it has not been negotiated. When it is negotiated, when whoever the President is brings a trade deal back to the United States, to the United States Congress, we will be able to see it. Secondly, very specifically, Chairman Paul Ryan of the Committee on Ways and Means put in the law that any Member of Congress may take part in any of the trade talks as they evolve around the country. Members of Congress are allowed to do this, and I think that it is a real advantage to have more authority for Members of Congress of rules and regulations, putting us into the process to where we are a part of understanding not only what we would be voting on, but the importance of us being involved throughout the process. Lastly, the gentlewoman is right. I do understand that the rules and regulations that have been added, not every Member of this House would like them, but I felt like they were important. I would like to just go through some of those very quickly. One of them is that we are not going to allow any part of a trade deal to end up as an immigration deal. That is the wrong thing. This should be about trade, not about immigration. Secondly, it shouldn't be about climate change, and we specifically said it cannot be about climate change. Lastly, we said that for our own authority--and I think the constitutional bounds are there for us to say that--if there are any changes in this document, those changes have to come through Congress for us to approve them. Of course, not every colleague that we have in the House would be for those rules, but I believe that they are in the best interest of this body. I believe they are in the best interest of making sure that the way the world sees us is that we work together from a democracy, a republic perspective; that we work back through the things that we agree to in law, in bilateral deals, would have to involve the United States Congress. It would have to involved the United States Senate and the President and us working together. By the authority granted within this TPA, that is exactly what we will do. I think it is well balanced. I think it is really a work of art that Chairman Ryan has crafted, along with our colleagues in the Senate, and I am proud of that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman, my friend from Massachusetts, is a great man and a very dear friend, but I would respond and say to the gentleman that you are going to have an opportunity, and I can't wait to get you invited to every single round of these and have you find time to go do exactly what you think Members of Congress ought to be doing because, in fact, that is the way the TPA is written. Now, we haven't agreed to it yet because it has not been signed by-- well, that has--but this whole process. As soon as that takes place, the gentleman will have all the opportunity he wants to go and take part in every round of the discussions. I don't believe that is what we were elected for. I don't believe we were elected to go and have to do all the work that is described that the gentleman said to get back into the fight, to go offer the trade deals, to go do the negotiating. He will be given that chance. He will be given that chance every single day. As soon as it is signed by the President, he can go at it. He can maybe even just tell the President he wants to do this for a full-time job; I don't know, but he will have that opportunity. Every Member of this body will have that same chance. He and every Member will have a chance to go and negotiate, be in the room, be a part of the discussion, and make sure all these big, multilateral corporations that he talks about that will be in the room--which they won't be because that would not be the right thing. There would be ethics violations. I am sure the White House, the executive branch, can notify him of that, but he will be allowed as a Member of Congress. Mr. Speaker, the things that are being talked about most as negative points about this bill, there is already an answer to it. That is what Republicans did. This is a Republican bill. This is about the authority of the House of Representatives, the United States Congress, to make sure we are involved. That has never been allowed before. Fast track is what we used to have. That is what we did have. We now have a bill before us today which will help us complete the entire process, to make sure Members of Congress are involved, not just the United States negotiator; but all the world will know the piece parts about how we are going to negotiate the trade deal. If it doesn't come back that way, we will vote it down. Do we need to second-guess them now today? I don't think so, but if any Member wants to be involved in this, they can just get on their plane and go wherever they want and get it done. By law, they will be allowed that opportunity. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I really, once again, appreciate the gentleman for coming to the floor and speaking directly with you and all of his colleagues about the importance of this bill and, really, the problems he has with it. But I would also like to let you know, Mr. Speaker, that the number one selling car in Korea is an American-made car. We signed a trade agreement in 2011 with Korea. The Toyota Camry from Georgetown, Kentucky, the Toyota made in Georgetown, Kentucky, is the number one selling vehicle in Korea starting last year. Now, there may not be a lot of them necessarily where the gentleman visited in Korea, but that is a fact; and the gentleman from Georgetown, Kentucky, Andy Barr, who is a Member of this Congress, has talked about this for a long, long time. The trade agreements, when the United States engages with them, we end up with surpluses, and it is better for the American worker. The trade agreement jobs pay 30 percent more than the nontrade-associated jobs in this country; and by virtue of what we are doing we are trying to get a trade deal now where Japan would be involved because we do want Japan to open up their marketplaces. But where we have these agreements, that is what happens. The American worker wins. So TPA is already the law of the land. The question we have today is whether we are going to include in that package the last parts of this, which would be TAA, which do give, if there is a difference as a result of the trade deals where an industry, where a town, where a group of people were ``harmed,'' then the law would be there for retraining. I think that is the right vote. That is why Speaker Boehner is bringing this back, even though, by and large, this concept was turned down by the Democratic Party, from the very top of their organization to the bottom. That is why Speaker Boehner understood the right and fair thing to do. Senate Majority Leader McConnell said the right thing to do is to bring it back; let's see if we can repackage it. Let's see if we can take a little bit of time, measure three times, saw again, see if we can get it right. That is what we are trying to do. Trade Promotion Authority that the gentleman has been speaking of is already the law of the land. The question is will this last piece be a part of it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts, the gentlewoman from New York, for their engagement today. Mr. Speaker, confirmed again, the number one car, the car of the year in Korea in 2013: Toyota Camry, made in Georgetown, Kentucky. I have had 10 people text me trying to give me more information about what a great opportunity this is for American workers. Mr. Speaker, that is what this bill is about. It is about the jobs opportunity and a fair proposal, not just by the administration, not just by the House and the Senate but, really, a Republican bill for jobs. This is a jobs bill, a jobs bill that will allow the American worker to have new boundaries, new opportunities to go out in. And let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I don't travel very much. But I will tell you that I know from the stories that come back, people want American-made products. They want American-made, everything from jeans all the way to high-tech products. They want American products because of the reliability of the American workers, because of the stability of America, and we have got a great opportunity with this final piece, part of this trade agreement to move it forward. I think 5 years from now we are going to look back and say, Wow, what did we do great? And you can mark it just like they do this year, 2 years ago, looking back to the Toyota Camry, number one in the Korean market. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for, I think, just an up-or-down vote--it is really simple--to Senate amendment H.R. 1295, the Trade Preferences Extension Act. By passing this rule today, we can move on. The House will have an opportunity to consider the bill, and it will head to the President's desk, this package of bills to the President. I urge adoption of the rule and look forward to the debate that will follow on the real substance of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Section 8 of the TPA. I did not say TPP. Mr. Speaker, I believe we have pretty well beaten this dead donkey to its point. Its logical conclusion is we now move forward. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the question of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SESSIONS. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 321 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise with a sad heart regarding the occurrences and the things which happened in South Carolina last night. I know, I join the gentlewoman as well as all the Members of this body to express our condolences and our sorrow with the things that have happened. I know that later in the day we will take time to offer those formally by the members of the South Carolina delegation. Mr. Speaker, the question before us is, should the House now consider House Resolution 321. That is what we are here for. While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the motion to concur with the amendment, the committee is not aware of any violations of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This is simply a dilatory tactic that the gentlewoman wants to use to talk further about the issue at hand. I get that. We have spent weeks talking about this. The United States Senate spent weeks talking about this issue. The gentlewoman wanted to use her time to talk about all the things that she believes are wrong with the bill, and that is okay. That really doesn't bother me. But the bottom line to the entire matter is that we are using our responsibility under the Constitution for the Congress of the United States to establish the laws and to direct the President of the United States that we believe is very constitutional to say to the President of the United States, we want you to go engage the world in a trade deal, and we are going to tell you the parameters, some 160 different parameters about how we believe you should engage the foreign countries in these trade deals. The gentlewoman is right, there are some difficult piece parts in there, as the gentlewoman mentions about immigration. Yes, I made sure that was in there because I don't believe this should be about immigration or visas. I believe this should be about trade. And, yes, there is language that is in there about climate change because I don't believe this should be about the United States in a political circumstance trying to push our ideas on a trade deal about global warming or these considerations that might be related to that issue. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is right, there are piece parts of this agreement, the trade promotion authority, that not everybody likes, but let's not act like you didn't have an opportunity to read the bill or understand the bill. But much like any contract--and that is what we are engaging here in. We are engaging in saying to the President, we want you to go sign a contract, an agreement with these foreign countries that are in the Far East who have not only large populations, but growing economic circumstances to buy our products, and us to make sure that we lower tariffs or taxes on those products to where they are available to us. Yes, we understand currency manipulation is a problem, and primarily that is a problem with perhaps two countries. Neither of those countries do we have a free trade agreement with, and one of them we want to have a free trade agreement with. Another country simply, I don't believe, understands rule of law or intellectual property, and I think they are thugs and don't care. They are a country that steals openly hundreds of billions of dollars from the United States, and they do not respect any rule of law or international agreements. So we probably won't sign an agreement with them. But this is a good deal. It is a good deal. The last 10, 20 countries that America has had a trade agreement with, we have a $10 billion surplus with those countries because those countries want American products, because the American worker does a great job, and we have the best engineering and manufacturing and pricing, but the product is worthy in the world market and will sell. The State of Texas, which I am from, sells $289 billion of Texas-made products overseas every year. That is an example of how important trade is. This trade deal contract that we are wanting to empower the President--whoever that may be for the next 7 years--is to say let's go cut a deal that is good to that country and to America. In the process, Mr. Speaker, we added some language for those of our friends that are watching along with you, Mr. Speaker, as I address my comments to you. Section 8, subsection A on page 101 says: United States law to prevail in event of conflict. Mr. Speaker, it lays it out right here: No provision of any trade agreement entered into under section 3(b) nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance that is inconsistent with any law of the United States, any State of the United States, or any locality in the United States shall have effect. Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to suggest to you is, there are a lot of things about this bill; some that some people like, some things that others don't like. But we had a chance to read it; we had a chance to understand it. This is a contract that we have not even agreed to yet. Why would someone go and publicly talk about a deal that they haven't made? So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that what is happening right now is that we should say that this point of order should not prevail. I think that what we should do is move to the direct discussion that we are going to have to allow the House to continue its business, and I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question under consideration. I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my friend, 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. Mr. Speaker, once again, I believe that our comments this morning should be tempered with a reminder about the events of South Carolina and how much this body and its Members offer their prayers and consideration not only of our colleagues but all the people of South Carolina, the men and women, law enforcement, and people of faith all across this country. I want to, once again, express my consideration of those ideas. Mr. Speaker, before I go through my opening statement, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Irvine, California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of confusion down here. Everybody thinks we are now talking about ObamaCare, and we are not. The gentlewoman talked about diminishing wages, diminishing job opportunities for the future, diminishing opportunities for American workers to have higher wages. There is no bill that I have ever seen that diminished wages or people's opportunity to work the hours that they would like to work more than ObamaCare. But we are not debating that today. Mr. Speaker, we are here--and I want to be clear--about trade promotion authority, TPA--not TPP, not any of the other bills. We are here for TPA today, exactly the same bill that this House passed last week. That is what we are here for. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Sunnyside, Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. We forgot to make sure everybody knew: we are only doing TPA today. We are not doing TPP. We are not doing these other agreements. I am sorry. I forgot to say that for the 57th time. Where we cut deals, we win. With the 20 trade agreements America has, we had a $10 billion surplus last year alone. I don't know where all these people are getting off and scaring and making fear statements about the American worker. I don't get it, when they talk about us not passing TAA when they are the ones--the Democrat Party--that turned it down. I don't understand why they are beating us up for putting in provisions about immigration. I guess they want to flood our workforce with foreign workers. I don't get where the Democrat Party and its great stalwarts are coming from today. This is about TPA, and that is what we are going to vote on. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman knows that in the TPA agreement there is an agreement that she can go and attend every single round of the discussions and negotiation, by law. She can be right there. She can watch it as it happens. We can be engaged in this, as Members of Congress, the entire way. That is what this agreement is about. This is about TPA, not TPP. The fear factor, Mr. Speaker, is incredible. Let's go and do the right thing for the American worker and our future. That is what we are doing now. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Raleigh, North Carolina (Mr. Holding), from the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Butler, Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), one of the most exciting new Members of Congress from the Ways and Means Committee. I have visited and watched this young man as he not only ably represents a proud group of people, but is a strong American.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a member of the Ways and Means Committee and an awesome free trader.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, I have to remind my colleagues we have got to follow some understanding about what we are trying to do here. This is TPA. TAA was up last week, and my colleagues that are Democrats turned down the same things they are now talking about were provisions to protect the American worker. The Democrat Party voted against the American worker last week. They are the ones that turned down exactly what the gentleman is talking about needs to be a part of this deal. The Democrat Party turned their back on the American worker. That was last week. This week, now, they are trying to talk about things that are in TPP. Mr. Speaker, we are not here today for TPP. We are here today for trade promotion authority. That is it, TPA. The gentleman, Mr. Kelly, was very right to say let's talk about the real facts of the case and the truth. This is about TPA. It is exactly the same bill that was here last week. There were other considerations last week. The Democrat Party turned their back last week on the worker. We are not trying to do that today--trade promotion authority. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Small Business Committee.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that our friends on the other side of the aisle are not opposed to job creation, Congressional oversight and global economic prosperity. But I predict they will unfortunately chose unions and outside groups over giving assistance to their own workers when a trade package comes before this body. So, because of that, for the first time in half a century, they will let this policy that is so important to their party expire. While I predict that TPA will pass, it will be a shame if the whole package isn't enacted due to the failure of this President to work with members of his own party.