Mr. Speaker, i rise today in strong support of the newly announced partnership with Florida International university the speaker pro tempore the gentleman is correct. The house will be in ordered. The gentleman from florida. Mr. Curbelo thank you mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of the newly announced partnership with Florida International university, a nationally respected institute of Higher Learning in my district and Florida Power and light. They are working to provide cleaner Energy Solutions to south florida, something i whole heartedly support. It involves the installation of solar panels on 23 canopy light structures that will be constructed in f. I. U. S EngineeringCenter Parking lot. F. I. U. Students will directly monitor the amount of energy generated from these solar panels and the effect they have on the electricity grid. It was announced that f. P. L. Is expected to triple its presence in the business by 2016. Such an undertaking is only possible with talented and capable students and im glad to see f. P. L. Is helping train a new generation of engineers that will help create Fresh Solutions for our energy needs. With that, i want to congratulate f. I. U. And f. P. L. On their partnership and wish them successism look forward to visiting the campus soon and seing the progress being made. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition . Without objection the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for one minute. Ms. Duckworth this is a budgeting gimmick thats an end around sequestration. Oko oco funds are supposed to be used for war operation and their use in that way misleads the American People. The sequestration cuts continue to have devastating impacts on our schools infrastructure and research. Now is the time to fix the sequester, not deceive the American People about defense spending. Our Service Members and their families deserve to know their future more than just one year at a time. As a nation, we need to base our military strategy on an appropriate longterm defense spending plan, not a budgetary womenic. Mr. Speaker, i voted for this legislation because we cannot lee our troops who are currently in harms way without funding. But as the appropriations process moves forward, i urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to provide our military with the longterm support it needs and the American People with the transparency they deserve. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman yields back. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . Without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. Thank you mr. Speaker. Tonight i rise in fond memory of a friend from Nevada County, lowell robinson. Mr. Lamalfa a Community Icon who passed away recently at the age of 9. He was entrepreneurial career started in 1949 when the designed equipment for a local saw mill. A few years later he began a logging business known as robinson and sons he also started a business that included gold mining and distribution and sales. He was a supporter of the Nevada County community. He was a kind gentleman liked by everybody and his legacy will be felt for many, many years in the work he did for helps united way, h 4h, just about anything worth doing he was involved with in Nevada County. Including my own personal travels. A small Indian Springs school still stands where he attended. I join Nevada County in mourning his loss, a great friend a kind hearted person who you just get along great with. Our condolences go out to wanda and his family. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition . Without objection the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. Mr. Mcdermott i have generally admired president obamas bold policy decisions, however, the announcement to send another 150 military advisors to iraq and arm the shia forces and Kurdish Peshmerga is a grave misjudgment. Arming the sunni tribes could undermine iraqi Prime Minister abecause dee and the Central Government abadi and the Central Government the u. S. Is trying desperately to prop up. Sunni assistance may in turn push iran to more aggressively arm their shia militias in iraq. Worse still arming the shia fighters will further inflame iraqs deep sectarian divide which isis has exploited so skillfully. The Kurdish Peshmerga is perhaps the most only reliable and ready force deserving u. S. Military assistance but no amount of heavy weaponry will defeat isis without a concerted political settlement both in baghdad and damascus. All of this comes just days after president obama said yet again, we do not have a complete strategy to defeat isis in iraq or syria. The u. S. Has few palatable options when it comes to entangling the res current untangling the regions current chaos. However the current strategy to arm everyone and let god sort it out is a serious miscalculation. The speaker pro tempore are there further requests for oneminute speeches . Under the speakers announced policy of january 6 2015, the gentleman from california, mr. Sherman is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority of the minority leader. Mr. Sherman mr. Speaker, thank you. Im going to address the issues that well be voting on tomorrow. Trade adjustment assistance and the trade Promotion Authority or fast track. I know that a number of my colleagues are within the sound of my voice and i hope that if they share my views on these issues, theyll come down to the floor and invite me to yield them time. Until then, im going to first focus on the trade adjustment assistance bill that will be that will be before us tomorrow. There are so many reasons to vote against trade adjustment assistance in this form. Even if it was a Free Standing bill. First, its inadequate. Its got roughly 450 million. And theres no assurance that that money will be available next year or the year after that. We know that the majority of this house is opposed to funding this program at all. Theyre doing it in an effort to pass fast track. Once fast track is passed, every effort will be made on this floor to cut this program to zero. Bait and switch, youve been warned. But second, this amount of money , who is supposed to be eligible . The proponents of fast track have said, well weve expanded those who are eligible. Not just those who lose their job because of the Transpacific Partnership trade deal were planning, not just those who lost their job because of nafta but everybody who has lost their job. Because of globalization in any of its forms. Well, that is also a bait and switch. Theyre able to tell tens of millions of americans youre going to be eligible for this program, but the program has only 450 million in it nationwide. So its like, you win because we give you a lottery ticket. And then you we determine whether youll be one of the very small percentage of those who have lost their job due to globalization who benefit from the program. This program is inadequate. It also explicitly contains language excluding any Public Sector employee from a benefit. Imagine that great unfairness. If youre at a Public University and somehow grading of tests is offshored, you cant benefit. But if youre at a private university same job, same offshoring whether it be a call center or any other services that can be offshored, you could possibly, probably not going to get anything but you can at least apply for a benefit. The exclusion of the Public Sector may have made sense 40 or 50 years ago when only manufacturing jobs were subject to foreign competition. But today anything thats done on the internet, anything thats done on a phone, anything that is part of the information economy is a job that can be taken offshore. And its going to be very difficult for members of this house to explain that they voted for a program that slapped in the face those who lose their jobs because its a Public Sector job. But the biggest problem with t. A. A. Is that it cuts medicare two different ways. One way were told one way were told is an acceptable way to cut medicare, and the other were told isnt going to really happen. Its actually two cuts to medicare. The first that they say theyve ironed out is the 700 million cut to medicare that will under the rule just passed in this house by a small majority, graft itself on to the trade adjustment assistance bill if that bill unfortunately passes. So you will be in a position to explain why you voted for a bill, knowing full well that as soon as it passed, a 700 million cut to medicare was grafted on it and that the president would get a chance, would have on his desk and intended to sign, a bill that cut medicare by 700 million. Now, you can present a complicated chart showing how you voted for trade adjustment assistance but you didnt vote for the rule and the cut for medicare was supposed to be undone by the other bill that you voted for before you voted against it. And if youre able to make that explanation, more power to you. But if youre a democrat, you will be in a particularly weak position to make that explanation. Because the aflcio announced issued a letter today that said a vote for trade adjustment assistance in this form with this rule in this here you see it now you dont, well take it away dont worry about it medicare cut is a cut to medicare. So youre going to be explaining why your opponents attack on you is unfair when youre a democrat and you say its unfair but the aflcio says its not only fair, its absolutely true. A special problem for democrats. Republicans will not have the difficulty in explaining that an attack is that why they disagree with the aflcio. But then theres a medicare cut that is supposed to become law. This is the dialysis cut. And heres the thinking. Medicare will be more efficient in dealing with dialysis. We will pass we pass a statute that allows them to make use of clinics instead of hospitals. So through new procedures and new Technology Medicare will save roughly 250 million. Ok. Does medicare keep that savings . No. Its used to buy votes for fast track. Now, how is medicare going to be sustained if every time new Technology Allows medicare to save money, we take the savings and use it for Something Else. But every time new Technology Creates new medical costs, new things for medicare to pay for, well medicare has to pay for them. If we establish a principle that every new technology that saves medicare money is money to be spent on Something Else and every medicare every change in technology that increases medicare cost estimate, medicare will be brank bankrupt and go bankrupt more quickly as we change medicine. And that cut is supposed to become law if you vote for t. A. A. But t. A. A. Is on this floor for only one reason. Its a way to put a bandaid on a giant decapitation of the american middle class. A tiny trade bill that will govern 40 of the worlds g. D. P. Dont be an enabler. Do not go back home and say you opposed fast track but that you voted for the bill that will enable fast track. If youre against fast track then you got to vote no on t. A. A. Well what about fast track . What about this new asia deal thats being negotiated . In the past, the proponents of these trade deals have come forward and said that they were going to reduce our trade deficit, create more jobs than will be lost. For this deal they dont even make that assertion. Their bait and switch is to say it will create some jobs in exports, but theyre so arithmetically challenged they dont subtract the jobs that will be lost to imports. The fact is that time and again the proponents of our current trade policy have wildly misestimated the job effect of each action. For example, on this floor we were told that the trade agreement with north with south korea would reduce our trade deficit. That deficit has skyrocketed. We were told that permanent most favored nation status for china would increase our trade deficit by only 1 billion. The proponents were off by 30,000 . So now they dont even say that were going to get more jobs than well lose. They simply say the jobs we lose dont count because that involves subtraction. The fact is this is bad for the american middle class as has our policy over the years. Since nafta, we have hallowed out the middle class, weve hallowed out American Manufacturing. Since nafta, we have had a stagnation of wages in this country and now as we begin to recover from the catastrophe of 2008, now as there begins to be the possibility that employers are going to have to pay more in wages to compete for employees, we have a giant trade deal that guarantees that wages will decline or stagnate for another decade or longer. So the economics are against the Transpacific Partnership and the fast track thats designed to carry it. So theres a shift. The argument now is well, it may be bad for our economy but its a great antichina Alliance Great geopoliticks geopolitics disguised as a bad trade deal. Ive been on the Foreign Affairs subcommittee for 19 years, i tell you this deal is not only bad Economic Policy it is bad it is bad geopolitics as well. Lets look at how china benefits from this deal. First and foremost, we are told that this deal is going to set the terms of trade in asia, and then you go to a basement and you look at this deal and as reported in the press, there is a statement that there will not be anything in this trade deal about currency manipulation. So china, if this deal goes forward, wins without even having to sign it. China gets a new approach to world trade which is currency manipulation go to it. It will be applauded. It will not be countered. But china gets something even more. Go deeper into the basement and look at the rule at the rules of origin provisions. Now, what are these rules of origin provisions . You would think that under this deal goods made in vietnam, goods made in japan goods made in the other countries that are part of the deal come into our country dutyfree, that this deal benefits goods made in japan vietnam, etc. , but only to the countries that sign the deal. But then you get down to the details and you see that goods that are 50 or 60 made outside the countries that are parties to this deal goods that are 50 or 60 made in china are eligible to be fast tracked into the United States with no tariffs, no limits. And goods where the manufacturer admits that its 50 or 60 made in china may actually be 70 or 80 made in china. So goods that are chiefly chinese made gets the benefit of this agreement with china not even having to sign it. Our trade deficit will balloon, not only from goods that are really made in japan and really made in vietnam, and these are the two countries made by the agreement. We have others part of the Transpacific Partnership. Those are the two main countries. Not only goods made in those countries but goods that are kind of polished in vietnam finished in japan but made in china. So were told this is part of some clever system to contain china when in reality we establish the international principle that currency manipulation the number one tactic of china to run up the largest trade deficit in history with the united we have the largest trade deficit. They have the largest trade surplus in history. That becomes the norm, and then second goods made in china chiefly made in china finished in japan, get dutyfree into the United States. But finally, think of what an insult it is to our men and women in uniform to be told that in order that our allies in asia are so disdainful of our help as they fight china over the islets that are in question that we have to give away our jobs and enter into a bad trade deal just to have the honor of deploying our troops and our navy to defend the islets claimed by korea japan and vietnam. You would think that the willingness of america to put its blood and treasure on the line to defend not only our allies but even vietnam would be enough, not that we would be told that in order to have that honor we have to enter in this trade agreement. And finally and mr. Speaker, i will end with this. There is the issue of admitting vietnam into this deal. Were told that the purpose of this deal, the upside is that we get free access to vietnams markets free access to their markets. The only problem is that vietnam doesnt have freedom and it does not have markets. So yeah, this deal is great for nike. They can manufacture shoes in vietnam and pay 30 cents, 40 cents an hour. They can then add a few jobs in oregon as they hire the marketing skill necessary to push off the shelves the last remnant of americanmade shoes. They can add some jobs in oregon where they can find the tax lawyers to make sure that they dont pay any u. S. Taxes on the enormous profit ruck get for making a shoe profit for making a shoe for 40 cents an hour and selling it for 100. A few jobs which will lead to pushing off the shelves all the americanmade shoes. And so thats what we get on the import side. The jobs we get are tax lawyers making sure that the importers dont pay any taxes. And by the way, its already been revealed nike will save several hundred Million Dollars in taxes on this, chiefly tariffs. But what access do we get for our exporters .