Mr. President, Senator Sanders has raised some questions about our trade policy. I do believe we need to examine our trade policies more carefully. As I have said in the last few days, we need to defend our legitimate interests as a nation, and I have supported legislation that would curtail China's ability to manipulate its currency to gain a trade advantage over us. Trade agreements are not a religious thing with me. I think some of the free traders are accused of believing it is a religious thing--that whatever you do to further trade, even if we are at a disadvantage, somehow it is still better for us to sign these agreements; that we should just do this and not worry about it--cancer will be cured, peace will occur in the world, we will all be better friends, and things will happen good. Things do tend to happen good when you have a trading relationship with a nation. I will support all three of these trade agreements. But I believe it is healthy to have Senators examine and make sure that these are the kinds of agreements that advance our national interest. Is this the kind of trading partner we feel comfortable signing an agreement with? Will they honor it? Do we have prospects for improved trade over the years that could help both our countries? Any business that does business with another business presumes it will be beneficial to them, and the other company that agreed to do business with this other company assumes it will be good for them.…
Share & report
More from Pete Sessions
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. Mr. Speaker, tonight, we join Texans back home in a day of celebration for the State of Texas. The State of Texas, as you have heard, began its formation not just at the Alamo but…
Mr. Speaker, it is important what we are doing here because our friends, the Democrats, were arguing that there is no additional rights of action, that this isn't going to change anything. In fact, this same discussion that we are having…
So it would definitely be designed to have a less powerful not just Speaker, but a less powerful majority. So, it would mean the majority would be like a King with no clothes.
The purpose of this hearing is to begin this face-to-face investigation by the IG.





