Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) and eleven of his Senate colleagues are urging the Senate’s appointed conferees to exclude a misplaced attack on the environment from the conference report for the trade and customs enforcement bill.
The provision in the House-passed version of the bill creates an unclear, unnecessary negotiating objective that can harm the success of trade deals. It would effectively tie the hands of U.S. trade officials, preventing them from negotiating enforceable protections for the environment.
In a letter to the Senate conferees, the lawmakers wrote, “This language is misplaced, ambiguous, and serves only to send the wrong message to the world on the seriousness of the United States on climate policy.”
“It is unclear how the language relates to the carefully crafted, robust negotiating objectives on environmental protections that Congress included in the Trade Promotion and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA)… They help to ensure a level playing field for U.S. producers, who are often subject to stronger environmental requirements under U.S. law than their competitors overseas. They also reduce the prospect that increased trade from our agreements will harm the environment,” the lawmakers added.
In addition to Bennet, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Thomas R. Carper (D-DE), Christopher A. Coons (D-DE), Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Claire McCaskill (D-MO).
Full Text of the Letter:
July 17, 2015
Dear Conferees:
As you work to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of the Trade Facilitation and Enforcement Act of 2015 (“the Customs bill”), we write to urge you to exclude the House language on climate change. Specifically, the bill creates a negotiating objective that seeks to “ensure that trade agreements do not require changes to U.S. law or obligate the United States with respect to global warming or climate change.” This language is misplaced, ambiguous, and serves only to send the wrong message to the world on the seriousness of the United States on climate policy.
First, the language is out of place. Our country has never negotiated obligations or changes to U.S. law with respect to global warming or climate change in a trade agreement subject to trade promotion authority. Rather, these matters have been the subject of multilateral talks that the State Department negotiates through international institutions such as the United Nations or G-7. Any international treaty negotiated at such talks would be subject to ratification by Congress.
Second, it is unclear how the language relates to the carefully crafted, robust negotiating objectives on environmental protections that Congress included in the Trade Promotion and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA). Those objectives reflect the importance of ensuring that our trading partners comply with international obligations on issues ranging from wildlife trafficking to pollution from ships. They help to ensure a level playing field for U.S. producers, who are often subject to stronger environmental requirements under U.S. law than their competitors overseas. They also reduce the prospect that increased trade from our agreements will harm the environment. It is unclear how the House climate language in the Customs bill relates to these objectives, which bipartisan majorities of both the House and Senate approved.
At the same time, we are gravely concerned that this language sends the wrong message to the world about the seriousness with which the United States intends to approach the subject of climate change. To be clear, we believe that tackling climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time. As Pope Francis recently stated, “Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. . . . It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day.” Even for those that do not share our view, Congress’s time is better spent having a robust debate on this subject, rather than inserting ambiguous and counterproductive language into an unrelated trade bill.
We urge you to remove this language before the final bill is reported to the House and Senate.
Sincerely,
# # #