[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.
____________________