Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 644, Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees.

There is no question currency manipulation is a real problem, and I and many other Republicans are committed to fighting it. The bill that we are going to conference on includes strong currency provisions, thanks to the hard work of Representative MILLER and members of the Michigan delegation.

In addition, earlier this year, we passed a trade promotion authority legislation that, for the very first time, raised fighting manipulation to a primary negotiating objective and provides the administration more tools to tackle the practice.

However, if the United States begins unilaterally levying tariffs, our trading partners will no doubt do the same, leading to a very dangerous cycle. This would undermine the very purpose of trade agreements: to break down barriers and to open economic freedom. More importantly, this would hurt American competitiveness and hurt our jobs.

I am also concerned that pursuing a unilateral approach could cause the United States to be a target for retaliation by countries like China, harming our businesses and their employees, and risk putting the United States in violation of international obligations and out of WTO compliance.

And the administration agrees.

Earlier this year, Secretary Lew sent a letter to Congress stating that the administration would oppose legislation that would use the countervailing duty process to address currency undervaluation because it would raise questions about consistency with our international obligations and that it would be counterproductive to our ongoing bilateral and multilateral engagement as well as to our efforts to promote greater accountability on currency policies in the context of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Mr. Speaker, the United States has a unique responsibility as a world reserve currency. This type of measure puts our standing at risk.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

People often ask: How do you end the gridlock in Washington? The answer is found in the Constitution. The House of Representatives passes its best idea on how to solve a problem, the Senate does the same, and then you go to a conference committee to try to find common ground and to try to find solutions that advance the principles of both parties to try to solve big problems.

The motion we passed earlier tonight was to start that open and transparent process of going to a conference committee and having representatives of the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats, come together to try to work out these issues. The underlying bill passed the House and the Senate earlier this summer. There have been a lot of, I think, very healthy discussions between both Chambers and both parties in how we find common ground.

So this motion is to instruct those conferees; but in truth, what we are seeking is that open, transparent, I think, constitutional process where we listen to the ideas of, for example, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Ways and Means Committee whom I respect, where we listen to the ideas of Senate Republicans and Democrats and we, again, try to find common ground on a couple of things: one, how do we streamline the time and the cost and efficiency of America trading its goods as we work to sell America throughout the world, working through issues that were raised in trade promotion authority by both parties.

These are legitimate, sincere issues. We have got an opportunity at conference to discuss them. Then, hopefully, we will find common ground and bring that solution back to the House and to the Senate for final approval. This is simply what we are trying to do.

Again, this motion to instruct goes after an issue we all agree on: currency manipulation. The key is to do it the right way so that it doesn't boomerang on America but actually gets to this issue. We are going to have this discussion in the conference committee.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I am prepared to close if the gentlewoman from New Hampshire is prepared to do so as well.

The value of a country's currency is a complex issue. It is determined by a number of factors: how much a country saves, how much it invests, the strength of its economy, its trade flows in and out. It is a complex issue.

Where Republicans and Democrats and the White House find common ground is the desire that countries don't manipulate their currency in order to give themselves an unfair trade advantage.

The difference is how best to go about it. And because it is a complex issue, there are some very good ideas on all parties' sides on how best to do that.

This motion essentially says to forget those discussions and don't have Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate work together through this complex issue and find a common solution. This motion simply says to forget all that. There is only one solution, and we insist upon it. End the discussion.

I don't think that is the right way to go about it. I think, frankly, there are real serious concerns not just from Republicans, but from the White House on insisting on this one solution.

I think our country is better served and those who want to stop currency manipulation are better served by bringing our best ideas together in this conference committee.

That is what I am determined to do. That is what the American public wants us to do, an open, transparent, regular process that brings about the very best solution for America.

That is why I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to instruct.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source