[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 30 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H819-H822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




WAIVING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TRADE ACT OF 1974 RELATING TO APPOINTMENT 
                      OF U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 5) waiving certain provisions of the 
Trade Act of 1974 relating to the appointment of the U.S. Trade 
Representative.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 5

       Whereas paragraph (3) of section 141(b) of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(b)(3)) became effective on January 1, 
     1996, and provides certain limitations with respect to the 
     appointment of the United States Trade Representative and 
     Deputy United States Trade Representatives;
       Whereas paragraph (3) of section 141(b) of the Trade Act of 
     1974 does not apply to any individual who was serving as the 
     United States Trade Representative or Deputy United States 
     Trade Representative on the effective date of such paragraph 
     (3) and who continued to serve in that position;
       Whereas Charlene Barshefsky was appointed Deputy United 
     States Trade Representative on May 28, 1993, with the advice 
     and consent of the Senate, and was serving in that position 
     on January 1, 1996;
       Whereas paragraph (3) of section 141(b) of the Trade Act of 
     1974 does not apply to Charlene Barshefsky in her capacity as 
     Deputy United States Trade Representative; and
       Whereas in light of the foregoing, it is appropriate to 
     continue to waive the provisions of paragraph (3) of section 
     141(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the 
     appointment of Charlene Barshefsky as the United States Trade 
     Representative: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of section 
     141(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(b)(3)) or any 
     other provision of law, the President, acting by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate, is authorized to appoint 
     Charlene Barshefsky as the United States Trade 
     Representative.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on Senate Joint Resolution 5.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in strong support of Senate Joint Resolution 5.
  I strongly support Ambassador Barshefsky's nomination as USTR. In her 
capacity as Deputy USTR, Acting USTR and USTR-Designate, she has served 
the United States admirably, forging a number of important trade 
agreements which opened markets for U.S. exports.
  Unfortunately, because of a provision adopted last Congress that 
amends the Trade Act of 1974, we must take action in the House today in 
order to permit Ambassador Barshefsky to serve as USTR. In very vague 
terms, current law bans the nomination of anyone as USTR or Deputy USTR 
if that person has ever aided, represented, or advised a foreign 
government in a trade negotiation or trade dispute. We must seek this 
waiver today because Ambassador Barshefsky had a minimal advisory role 
to the Canadian Government a number of years ago and would therefore be 
automatically precluded from serving as USTR despite this very, very 
minor role.

                              {time}  1415

  Now I agree we should not have individuals in positions of authority 
over our trade policy if there is any doubt of their loyalty to the 
United States and commitment to trade policies that benefit our 
economy, businesses and workers. However, I believe that this provision 
is an intrusion into the current confirmation process, which already 
permits Congress to consider the background of candidates and whether 
prior representation is relevant to the ability of an otherwise 
qualified individual to carry out the tasks of any of these positions. 
Indeed, it severely limits the pool of qualified candidates for these 
positions in a way that may well be unconstitutional.
  In fact, when the provision was being considered last year, the 
Justice Department wrote to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] of 
the Committee on the Judiciary that the provision raises serious 
constitutional concerns because it limits the President's 
constitutional prerogatives to nominate persons to a senior executive 
position, particularly in the trade area, a letter that I am submitting 
for the Record today.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the waiver of this 
provision for Ambassador Barshefsky's nomination as USTR. I believe she 
has done a good job in her other capacities, and I think she will do a 
good job in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

                              Agency Views

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                 Washington, DC, November 7, 1995.
     Hon. Henry Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This provides the views of the 
     Department of Justice on S. 1060, the ``Lobbying Disclosure 
     Act of 1995,'' as passed by the Senate. We understand that 
     the House may act on this legislation later this year.

[[Page H820]]

       The Department strongly supports the purpose of this bill 
     and its central provisions. It will ensure that federal 
     officials are aware of the outside sources of information and 
     opinion made available to them and will significantly enhance 
     public understanding of the lobbying process.
       Certain features of the bill, however, present difficulties 
     that can and should be remedied.
       First, the Department has constitutional concerns about the 
     role the bill gives to the Secretary of the Senate and the 
     Clerk of the House; the bill's disqualification of certain 
     persons from serving as United States Trade Representative or 
     Deputy United States Trade Representative; and the specific 
     manner in which the bill seeks to protect the exercise of 
     religion, a goal with which the Administration strongly 
     agrees.
       Second, the Department has policy concerns about the 
     relationship between the bill and the Foreign Agents 
     Registration Act of 1938, as amended, 22 U.S.C. Sec. 611 et 
     seq. (FARA).
       Accordingly, we recommend that Congress pass this 
     legislation with certain changes to ensure that it is both 
     constitutional and effective.
     Constitutional concerns
       1. The bill provides that lobbyists would need to file 
     disclosure statements with the Secretary of the Senate and 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives. If those officials 
     determined that a lobbyist's statement did not comply with 
     the law, they would notify the lobbyist. If the lobbyist did 
     not correct the deficiency to their satisfaction, they could 
     forward the matter to the United States Attorney for the 
     District of Columbia, who could bring an action for a civil 
     file. See Sec. Sec. 4-7, S. 1060. The bill would define a 
     civil offense consisting of the knowing failure to ``remedy a 
     defective filing within 60 days after notice of such a defect 
     by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives.'' See Sec. 7(2).
       This arrangement would raise serious constitutional 
     problems. Congress may not provide for its agents to execute 
     the law. Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 726, 733-34 (1986); 
     see also Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. 
     Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U.S. 
     252 (1991). Here, in contrast to the current law that gives 
     agents of the Congress the responsibility only to collect and 
     publish information, see 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 261-70, the bill 
     would provide that an action for one type of civil offense 
     could be initiated against a lobbyist only if the 
     congressional agents, pursuant to their interpretation of the 
     statute, issued a notice finding the lobbyist's filing to be 
     deficient.\1\ The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of 
     the House of Representatives thus would be performing 
     executives functions of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 140-41 
     (1976) (executive functions include giving ``advisory 
     opinions'' and making ``determinations of eligibility for 
     funds and even for federal elective office itself''), even 
     though Congress may vest such functions only in officials in 
     the executive branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives would also ``develop common standards, rules, 
     and procedures for compliance'' with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       2. The bill would forbid the appointment, as United States 
     Trade Representative or Deputy United States Trade 
     Representative, of anyone who had ever ``directly 
     represented, aided, or advised * * * a foreign [government or 
     political party] in any trade negotiation or trade dispute 
     with the United States.'' This provision, too, would raise 
     serious constitutional concerns. The Department of Justice 
     has long opposed broad restrictions on the President's 
     constitutional prerogative to nominate persons of his 
     choosing to senior executive branch positions. The 
     restriction in the bill is particularly problematic because 
     it operates in an area in which the Constitution commits 
     special responsibility to the President, who ``is the 
     constitutional representative of the United States in its 
     dealings with foreign nations.'' See, e.g., United States v. 
     Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1, 35 (1960). The officers in question 
     perform diplomatic functions as the direct representative of 
     the President, a fact that Congress itself has recognized by 
     providing that they should enjoy the rank of ambassador, 19 
     U.S.C. Sec. 2171(b). Regardless of whether the President 
     would, as a policy matter, be willing to accept this 
     particular restriction, Congress would exceed its 
     constitutionally assigned role by setting such a broad 
     disqualification. See, e.g., Civil Service Commission, 13 Op. 
     Att'y Gen. 516, 520-21 (1871).
       3. Section 3(8)(B)(xviii) would exempt lobbying contacts by 
     churches and other religious organizations from the 
     registration requirements. The Administration supports the 
     strongest possible protection for the exercise of religion. 
     We are concerned however, that the exemption now included in 
     the bill could be susceptible to valid constitutional 
     challenge in the courts. The Supreme Court has held that the 
     Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the 
     government from singling out religious organizations for 
     especially favorable treatment, whether in the form of an 
     exemption from a government requirement or in the form of a 
     direct benefit. See, e.g., Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel v. 
     Grumet, 114 St. Ct. 2481, 2487 (1994) (plurality opinion) 
     invalidating creation of a special school district for 
     religious community) (Establishment Clauses requires that the 
     government ``pursue a course of neutrality toward religion, 
     favoring neither one religions over other nor religious 
     adherents collectively over nonadherents'') (internal 
     quotation omitted). In Texas Monthly v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 
     (1989), for instance, the Supreme Court held that the 
     Establishment Clause prohibits a state from exempting certain 
     periodicals distributed by religious organizations, and no 
     other periodicals, from its sales and use tax.
       At the same time, the Court has permitted the government in 
     certain circumstances to provide an exclusive 
     ``accommodation'' to religion. See Corporation of Presiding 
     Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987) (upholding exemption of 
     secular nonprofit activities of religious organization from 
     Title VII prohibition on employment discrimination based on 
     religion). The accommodation doctrine permits the government 
     to provide religion with an exclusive exemption from a 
     regulatory scheme when the exemption would ``remov(e) a 
     significant state-imposed deterrence to the free exercise of 
     religion'' Texas Monthly, 489 U.S. at 15 (plurality opinion); 
     see also Amos, 483 U.S. AT 335 (government may act to 
     ``alleviate significant governmental interference'' with 
     religious exercise). Under the Court's accommodation 
     doctrine, section 3(8)(B)(xviii) would be far less 
     susceptible to constitutional challenge if it were rewritten 
     to apply only when the operation of the Act would in fact 
     burden the exercise of religion. Specifically, we recommend 
     the following language, which tracks the standards enunciated 
     by the Supreme Court and incorporated in the Religious 
     Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-4:
       (B) The term ``lobbying contract'' does not include a 
     communication that is * * *
       (xviii) of such a nature that its coverage under this Act 
     would substantially burden any person's exercise of religion. 
     In determining whether coverage under this Act of any 
     lobbying contact would substantially burden a person's 
     exercise of religion, the standards of the Religious Freedom 
     restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-2000bb-4, shall apply.
       The bill could also include a provision that ``any 
     regulation promulgated hereunder shall incorporate the 
     maximum protection under the Constitution and laws of the 
     United States for the exercise of religion by lobbyists or 
     clients.''
       Alternatively, a more general exemption, reaching non-
     religious as well as religious organizations, would not raise 
     Establishment Clause problems. See Texas Monthly, 489 U.S. at 
     15-16 (plurality opinion); id. at 27-28 (Blackmun, J., 
     concurring). The Establishment Clause would be implicated by 
     a provision permitting churches and religious organizations 
     to use the narrower definition of lobbying contained in 26 
     U.S.C. Sec. 499(d), which would relieve them of some of the 
     burdens of the legislation in a manner similar to that 
     afforded other non-profit organizations.
     Relationship to Foreign Agents Registration Act
       In addition to these constitutional concerns, we are 
     concerned about the relationship between the bill and FARA 
     set forth in sections 3(8)(B)(iv) and 9(3) of S. 1060. 
     Exempting from registration under FARA all agents of foreign 
     principals who register under this bill would significantly 
     reduce public disclosure about such agents. It would also 
     reduce the Department's receipts under its FARA user fees 
     program, which may implicate the ``Pay-As-You-Go'' provisions 
     of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
       FARA reflects a judgment that broad disclosure is 
     particularly important with respect to foreign influences on 
     the political process. Accordingly, the extent of disclosure 
     with respect of activities, receipts and disbursements, 
     including political contributions, required of agents of 
     foreign principals under FARA is significantly more detailed 
     than that required of all lobbyists under S. 1060. FARA also 
     covers a broader range of political activities than this 
     bill, including advertising, public relations activities and 
     political fund-raising. The result of enactment of section 
     9(3) of the bill would be to exempt many agents of foreign 
     principals from the wider and more detailed disclosure of 
     their activities FARA intended, whenever they make a covered 
     ``lobbying contract'' under this bill.
       The Department recommends, therefore, that agents of 
     foreign principals who are required to register under FARA, 
     and who in fact do so, be exempted from registration under 
     the Lobbying Disclosure Act. This approach would maintain the 
     higher scrutiny Congress has historically applied to foreign 
     influences on the domestic political process. It also has the 
     advantage of maintaining government ``user fee'' revenues, 
     because FARA recovers the costs of the administration from 
     the agent population, and the present bill has no comparable 
     revenue producing mechanism.
       In summary, we strongly support the laudable goals of S. 
     1060 and its central provisions. We stand ready to assist in 
     the important effort to achieve reform in this area. Please 
     do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of additional 
     assistance in connection with this or any other matter. The 
     Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no 
     objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program 
     to the presentation of this report.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Andrew Fois,
                                       Assistant Attorney General.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Crane].

[[Page H821]]

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to let my distinguished 
colleague on the minority side take precedence over me.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Senate Joint Resolution 5, 
legislation to waive certain provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
of 1995 with respect to the nomination of Ambassador Charlene 
Barshefsky to become the U.S. Trade Representative. This legislation is 
necessary to complete the nomination process of Ambassador Barshefsky. 
The Ambassador has broad bipartisan support and deserves to be our next 
Trade Representative.
  Last week the other body approved her nomination and the waiver 
legislation before us today by overwhelming votes of 99 to 1 and 98 to 
2, respectively. During her 4 years, nearly 4 years, of service at the 
Office of the USTR, first as Deputy USTR and since April of last year 
as Acting USTR, Ambassador Barshefsky has compiled an impressive 
record, opening foreign markets for U.S. exporters and defending U.S. 
trade interests. Recently, she concluded successful multinational 
agreements which will reduce or eliminate tariffs worldwide on trade 
and information technology products and which will open foreign markets 
for basic telecommunication services.
  Last December, she concluded a bilateral agreement with Japan on 
insurance, which opens that market for United States insurance 
providers. Last year she also struck an agreement with China providing 
for stronger enforcement of United States intellectual property rights 
in that country.
  Clearly, the Ambassador has shown that she is tough and a skillful 
negotiator internationally. More important, however, Ambassador 
Barshefsky understands that international trade and our Nation's trade 
policies have an impact on the lives and future of all Americans. For 
that reason she consults closely with Members of Congress and the 
public at large on her action, and she clearly recognizes that trade 
policy is a shared responsibility of the executive and legislative 
branches and carries her responsibilities out accordingly.
  For those who have questions or concerns about this waiver, it must 
be noted that Congress has previously passed legislation to waive a 
statutory requirement on who may serve in a particular Government 
position with respect to a specific nominee. It should also be noted 
that as Deputy USTR, Ambassador Barshefsky was specifically exempt from 
the provisions in question in the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The Senate 
Finance Committee carefully studied her record in the private sector 
and agreed unanimously that a waiver was entirely appropriate for 
Ambassador Barshefsky.
  Mr. Speaker, in the past several years I have come to know, admire, 
and work with Ambassador Barshefsky, who is a tireless, dedicated 
person on behalf of the American people. I heartily endorse the 
legislation before us today and urge my colleagues to support it. 
Ambassador Barshefsky will be a U.S. Trade Representative of which all 
of us will be proud.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Solomon was allowed to speak out of order 
for 1 minute.)


  Announcement of Amendment Process for H.R. 1, The Working Families 
                            Flexibility Act

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask for this time for the purpose of 
making an announcement.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of 
March 17 to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process for H.R. 
1, the Working Families Flexibility Act. The Committee on Education and 
the Workforce ordered the bill reported on March 5. Amendments should 
be drafted to the text of the bill as reported, which will be filed 
tomorrow, Wednesday, March 12. Copies are also available at the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce office should Members wish to 
view the bill today.
  Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies 
and a brief explanation of the amendment by 12 noon on Monday, March 
17, to the Committee on Rules, at room 312 in the Capitol. Members 
should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their 
amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the 
Parliamentarian to be certain that amendments comply with the rules of 
the House.
  Again, I call my colleagues' attention to, if they want amendments 
considered to this legislation, they must prefile them with the 
Committee on Rules prior to noon on Monday, March 17.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Senate Resolution 5, which 
waives certain provisions of the Trade Act of 1974. This resolution 
would grandfather Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky from the application 
of certain restrictive provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
1995. The Senate has also done this on occasion when there has been an 
outstanding candidate before them also. I would like to note, however, 
that this resolution applies only to Ambassador Barshefsky and in no 
way modifies the statute, nor does it have implications for any other 
prospective nominee to serve as the U.S. Trade Representative.
  As a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I have indeed been 
fortunate to work with Ambassador Barshefsky and know very much how 
well she carries out her duties. Ambassador Barshefsky has been 
instrumental in developing and pursuing a strong international trade 
policy and has successfully completed many negotiations, but what I 
like best about the ambassador is she is able and willing to get up 
from the table and walk away when nothing is being offered. Given her 
tenacity and resolve on behalf of our country's trade interests, I 
firmly believe Charlene Barshefsky to be capable and well prepared. I 
have worked with few people who possess the ability to discuss the 
minimal, little, arcane, terribly, terribly difficult to understand 
details of a trade pact and then could look at the whole picture and 
explain it to people who have to understand it.
  I am confident that the ambassador will continue to pursue a strong 
and fair trade agenda that seeks to promote our national interests. We 
could not be better represented than having this woman as our USTR.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui], the ranking 
minority member on the Subcommittee on Trade.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, the 
chair of the Subcommittee on Trade for yielding me this time. Of course 
I thank the ranking member of the committee as well. I appreciate this. 
This is in the spirit of Hershey and bipartisanship.
  Mr. Speaker, I would only like to support Senate Joint Resolution 5 
as well. I think that this resolution is vitally needed given the fact 
that we need a waiver and a grandfather specifically for the next U.S. 
Trade Representative, Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky. As everyone 
knows, Ambassador Barshefsky has been the Deputy USTR now for 4 years, 
and she has been perhaps one of the greatest representatives we have 
had in terms of overseas negotiations.
  Most recently under her leadership as acting USTR, the United States 
completed a multilateral agreement, the Information Technology 
Agreement, which will cover over $500 billion in global trade, and just 
recently, in the last month, she and her staff have completed the basic 
Telecommunications Services Agreement, which will actually cover over 
90 percent of the global population and perhaps have an additional to 
$600 billion worth of trade, and so I urge that we adopt Senate Joint 
Resolution 5 to make Charlene Barshefsky the next U.S. Trade 
Representative.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
this time to me.

[[Page H822]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Joint Resolution 5. As 
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, I believe it is vital that 
the person representing the United States in trade negotiations and 
resolutions of disputes recognize that agriculture is an extremely 
important and essential issue to be considered in all trade 
negotiations and resolutions of disputes. American farmers and 
ranchers, the most productive in the world, can prosper only where 
there is free and fair world trade.
  In fact, in 1996, Mr. Speaker, agricultural exports totaled $60 
billion, and the agricultural trade surplus exceeded $26 billion. There 
is nevertheless ample opportunity for expansion. It is incumbent upon 
the administration, through the Office of Trade Representative and the 
Department of Agriculture, to make sure that opportunities exist for 
trade expansion and that trade disputes are resolved in a timely 
manner.
  I had the opportunity to meet Ambassador Barshefsky, and she assures 
me that her knowledge of agriculture and her commitment to ensuring the 
proper emphasis will be on agriculture export issues. In our discussion 
we agreed that agriculture is the No. 1 high technology export and that 
it is also the No. 1 priority with the U.S. Trade Representative. In my 
discussions with the Ambassador, she assures me that agriculture will 
be her top priority, and that is why I support Senate Joint Resolution 
5 and the waiver needed to assure that she will be indeed the next U.S. 
Trade Representative.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Oxley].
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Joint Resolution 
5 regarding the appointment of Charlene Barshefsky as U.S. Trade 
Representative. I had the opportunity to work closely with the 
Ambassador and Deputy Trade Representative Jeff Lang during 
negotiations on the WTO Telecommunications Agreement, and I must say 
that I was pleased with her determination to consult regularly with 
Congress during these talks, and I do mean regularly. They were most 
helpful.
  Perhaps more to the point, I was deeply impressed by what was 
achieved in Geneva. The agreement covers 95 percent of rural telecom 
revenue, giving United States firms unprecedented access to markets in 
Europe, Asia, and Latin America, and covers some 70 countries in its 
sweep.
  In my opinion, the agreement is proof that Charlene Barshefsky's 
reputation as a tough, stalwart negotiator is well-deserved, and I 
would certainly support the waiver. I am just sorry that we really have 
to have a waiver because I think the provision in current law is too 
xenophobic and unrealistic.
  On a related matter I want to correct a continued misperception that 
was repeated on the floor of the other body during debate on this 
measure. The gentleman from South Carolina took a statement from the 
Record made by the chairman of the House Committee on Commerce, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and inferred from it that the 
administration, by inference USTR, asked this Member to amend section 
310(b) of the Communications Act on their behalf.

                              {time}  1430

  This is simply not so. The statement alluded to our efforts during 
debate on the Telecommunications Act to satisfy the concerns of the 
executive branch regarding international investment in U.S. 
telecommunications firms. However, the chief changes made were in the 
area of national security, and we worked very closely with the FBI and 
National Security Agency and the CIA, and the effect was to tighten the 
law, not the loosen it.
  The input we received from the executive branch came at the request 
of the cosponsor, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], and the 
advice we received came primarily from the security agencies, as I 
recall, not from the Office of the Trade Representative.
  Of course, I did consult with USTR on the effect my language would 
have on their negotiations, as any responsible legislator would, but 
these consultations came at my request, not the other way around, and I 
wanted to point that out for the record.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the resolution, I oppose the 
waivers.
  Current law says that no one may be appointed as U.S. Trade 
Representative or Deputy Trade Representative if they have ever in 
their past represented a foreign government in a trade dispute or a 
trade negotiation with the United States. Now look, I think Charlene 
Barshefsky is a great woman, a great American, and may be doing a great 
job. However, one of the reasons we passed this legislation is some of 
these trade representatives, after they leave, go on the employ of some 
of these foreign governments and companies overseas.
  Now, we just passed this law a year ago, and now we are about to 
waive it, with Japan approaching $70 billion in trade surpluses, China 
approaching $50 billion in trade surpluses. I have nothing against 
Charlene Barshefsky, but here is the question I pose to the Congress of 
the United States: Can we not find one qualified American to be the 
trade representative of our country that has never been in the employ 
of, represented a foreign interest, or had a connection in resolving or 
monitoring or negotiating or resolving a trade matter on behalf of a 
foreign country with our Nation? I think that is the issue.
  I am certainly not going to ask for a vote, and I know this is going 
to pass overwhelmingly, but it is no surprise our young people are 
responding to ads in the newspaper box so-and-so where the job is in 
Mexico and overseas. There is not going to be a damn job left in this 
country.
  The only thing that bothers me, I am beginning to wonder if we have 
anybody in the right circle that could actually apply for these 
positions that has never had a tie to a foreign nation. Beam me up, 
here. I am a ``no.'' I am not going to ask for a vote, but I am opposed 
to this waiver, and I think the Congress should follow the laws that 
they pass that have some common sense attached to them.

                          ____________________