[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 31, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4871-H4881]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES-JORDAN FREE TRADE AREA IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2603) to implement the agreement establishing a United
States-Jordan free trade area, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2603
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``United States-Jordan Free
Trade Area Implementation Act''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to implement the agreement between the United States
and Jordan establishing a free trade area;
(2) to strengthen and develop the economic relations
between the United States and Jordan for their mutual
benefit; and
(3) to establish free trade between the 2 nations through
the removal of trade barriers.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the Agreement
between the United States of America and the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area,
entered into on October 24, 2000.
(2) HTS.--The term ``HTS'' means the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States.
TITLE I--TARIFF MODIFICATIONS; RULES OF ORIGIN
SEC. 101. TARIFF MODIFICATIONS.
(a) Tariff Modifications Provided for in the Agreement.--
The President may proclaim--
(1) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
(2) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
(3) such additional duties,
as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to
carry out article 2.1 of the Agreement and the schedule of
duty reductions with respect to Jordan set out in Annex 2.1
of the Agreement.
(b) Other Tariff Modifications.--The President may
proclaim--
(1) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
(2) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
(3) such additional duties,
as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to
maintain the general level of reciprocal and mutually
advantageous concessions with respect to Jordan provided for
by the Agreement.
SEC. 102. RULES OF ORIGIN.
(a) In General.--
(1) Eligible articles.--
(A) In general.--The reduction or elimination of any duty
imposed on any article by the United States provided for in
the Agreement shall apply only if--
(i) that article is imported directly from Jordan into the
customs territory of the United States; and
(ii) that article--
(I) is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of
Jordan; or
(II) is a new or different article of commerce that has
been grown, produced, or manufactured in Jordan and meets the
requirements of subparagraph (B).
(B) Requirements.--
(i) General rule.--The requirements of this subparagraph
are that with respect to an article described in subparagraph
(A)(ii)(II), the sum of--
(I) the cost or value of the materials produced in Jordan,
plus
(II) the direct costs of processing operations performed in
Jordan,
is not less than 35 percent of the appraised value of such
article at the time it is entered.
(ii) Materials produced in united states.--If the cost or
value of materials produced in the customs territory of the
United States is included with respect to an article to which
this paragraph applies, an amount not to exceed 15 percent of
the appraised value of the article at the time it is entered
that is attributable to such United States cost or value may
be applied toward determining the percentage referred to in
clause (i).
(2) Exclusions.--No article may be considered to meet the
requirements of paragraph (1)(A) by virtue of having merely
undergone--
(A) simple combining or packaging operations; or
(B) mere dilution with water or mere dilution with another
substance that does not materially alter the characteristics
of the article.
(b) Direct Costs of Processing Operations.--
(1) In general.--As used in this section, the term ``direct
costs of processing operations'' includes, but is not limited
to--
(A) all actual labor costs involved in the growth,
production, manufacture, or assembly of the specific
merchandise, including fringe benefits, on-the-job training,
and the cost of engineering, supervisory, quality control,
and similar personnel; and
(B) dies, molds, tooling, and depreciation on machinery and
equipment which are allocable to the specific merchandise.
(2) Excluded costs.--The term ``direct costs of processing
operations'' does not include costs which are not directly
attributable to the merchandise concerned, or are not costs
of manufacturing the product, such as--
(A) profit; and
(B) general expenses of doing business which are either not
allocable to the specific merchandise or are not related to
the
[[Page H4872]]
growth, production, manufacture, or assembly of the
merchandise, such as administrative salaries, casualty and
liability insurance, advertising, and salesmen's salaries,
commissions, or expenses.
(c) Textile and Apparel Articles.--
(1) In general.--A textile or apparel article imported
directly from Jordan into the customs territory of the United
States shall be considered to meet the requirements of
paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) only if--
(A) the article is wholly obtained or produced in Jordan;
(B) the article is a yarn, thread, twine, cordage, rope,
cable, or braiding, and--
(i) the constituent staple fibers are spun in Jordan, or
(ii) the continuous filament is extruded in Jordan;
(C) the article is a fabric, including a fabric classified
under chapter 59 of the HTS, and the constituent fibers,
filaments, or yarns are woven, knitted, needled, tufted,
felted, entangled, or transformed by any other fabric-making
process in Jordan; or
(D) the article is any other textile or apparel article
that is wholly assembled in Jordan from its component pieces.
(2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1), an article
is ``wholly obtained or produced in Jordan'' if it is wholly
the growth, product, or manufacture of Jordan.
(3) Special rules.--
(A) Certain made-up articles, textile articles in the
piece, and certain other textiles and textile articles.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(D) and except as provided in
subparagraphs (C) and (D) of this paragraph, subparagraph
(A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), as appropriate, shall
determine whether a good that is classified under one of the
following headings or subheadings of the HTS shall be
considered to meet the requirements of paragraph (1)(A) of
subsection (a): 5609, 5807, 5811, 6209.20.50.40, 6213, 6214,
6301, 6302, 6304, 6305, 6306, 6307.10, 6307.90, 6308, and
9404.90.
(B) Certain knit-to-shape textiles and textile articles.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(D) and except as provided in
subparagraphs (C) and (D) of this paragraph, a textile or
apparel article which is knit-to-shape in Jordan shall be
considered to meet the requirements of paragraph (1)(A) of
subsection (a).
(C) Certain dyed and printed textiles and textile
articles.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(D), a good
classified under heading 6117.10, 6213.00, 6214.00. 6302.22,
6302.29, 6302.52, 6302.53, 6302.59, 6302.92, 6302.93,
6302.99, 6303.92, 6303.99, 6304.19, 6304.93, 6304.99,
9404.90.85, or 9404.90.95 of the HTS, except for a good
classified under any such heading as of cotton or of wool or
consisting of fiber blends containing 16 percent or more by
weight of cotton, shall be considered to meet the
requirements of paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) if the
fabric in the good is both dyed and printed in Jordan, and
such dyeing and printing is accompanied by 2 or more of the
following finishing operations: bleaching, shrinking,
fulling, napping, decating, permanent stiffening, weighting,
permanent embossing, or moireing.
(D) Fabrics of silk, cotton, manmade fiber or vegetable
fiber.-- Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(C), a fabric
classified under the HTS as of silk, cotton, man-made fiber,
or vegetable fiber shall be considered to meet the
requirements of paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) if the
fabric is both dyed and printed in Jordan, and such dyeing
and printing is accompanied by 2 or more of the following
finishing operations: bleaching, shrinking, fulling, napping,
decating, permanent stiffening, weighting, permanent
embossing, or moireing.
(4) Multicountry rule.--If the origin of a textile or
apparel article cannot be determined under paragraph (1) or
(3), then that article shall be considered to meet the
requirements of paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) if--
(A) the most important assembly or manufacturing process
occurs in Jordan; or
(B) if the applicability of paragraph (1)(A) of subsection
(a) cannot be determined under subparagraph (A), the last
important assembly or manufacturing occurs in Jordan.
(d) Exclusion.--A good shall not be considered to meet the
requirements of paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) if the
good--
(1) is imported into Jordan, and, at the time of
importation, would be classified under heading 0805 of the
HTS; and
(2) is processed in Jordan into a good classified under any
of subheadings 2009.11 through 2009.30 of the HTS.
(e) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury, after
consultation with the United States Trade Representative,
shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry
out this section.
TITLE II--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS
Subtitle A--General Provisions
SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this title:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the United
States International Trade Commission.
(2) Jordanian article.--The term ``Jordanian article''
means an article that qualifies for reduction or elimination
of a duty under section 102.
Subtitle B--Relief From Imports Benefiting From The Agreement
SEC. 211. COMMENCING OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.
(a) Filing of Petition.--
(1) In general.--A petition requesting action under this
subtitle for the purpose of adjusting to the obligations of
the United States under the Agreement may be filed with the
Commission by an entity, including a trade association, firm,
certified or recognized union, or group of workers that is
representative of an industry. The Commission shall transmit
a copy of any petition filed under this subsection to the
United States Trade Representative.
(2) Provisional relief.--An entity filing a petition under
this subsection may request that provisional relief be
provided as if the petition had been filed under section
202(a) of the Trade Act of 1974.
(3) Critical circumstances.--Any allegation that critical
circumstances exist shall be included in the petition.
(b) Investigation and Determination.--
(1) In general.--Upon the filing of a petition under
subsection (a), the Commission, unless subsection (d)
applies, shall promptly initiate an investigation to
determine whether, as a result of the reduction or
elimination of a duty provided for under the Agreement, a
Jordanian article is being imported into the United States in
such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to
domestic production, and under such conditions that imports
of the Jordanian article alone constitute a substantial cause
of serious injury or threat thereof to the domestic industry
producing an article that is like, or directly competitive
with, the imported article.
(2) Causation.--For purposes of this subtitle, a Jordanian
article is being imported into the United States in increased
quantities as a result of the reduction or elimination of a
duty provided for under the Agreement if the reduction or
elimination is a cause that contributes significantly to the
increase in imports. Such cause need not be equal to or
greater than any other cause.
(c) Applicable Provisions.--The following provisions of
section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) apply
with respect to any investigation initiated under subsection
(b):
(1) Paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) of subsection (b).
(2) Subsection (c).
(3) Subsection (d).
(d) Articles Exempt From Investigation.--No investigation
may be initiated under this section with respect to any
Jordanian article if import relief has been provided under
this subtitle with respect to that article.
SEC. 212. COMMISSION ACTION ON PETITION.
(a) Determination.--By no later than 120 days (180 days if
critical circumstances have been alleged) after the date on
which an investigation is initiated under section 211(b) with
respect to a petition, the Commission shall make the
determination required under that section.
(b) Additional Finding and Recommendation if Determination
Affirmative.--If the determination made by the Commission
under subsection (a) with respect to imports of an article is
affirmative, the Commission shall find, and recommend to the
President in the report required under subsection (c), the
amount of import relief that is necessary to remedy or
prevent the injury found by the Commission in the
determination and to facilitate the efforts of the domestic
industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition.
The import relief recommended by the Commission under this
subsection shall be limited to that described in section
213(c).
(c) Report to President.--No later than the date that is 30
days after the date on which a determination is made under
subsection (a) with respect to an investigation, the
Commission shall submit to the President a report that shall
include--
(1) a statement of the basis for the determination;
(2) dissenting and separate views; and
(3) any finding made under subsection (b) regarding import
relief.
(d) Public Notice.--Upon submitting a report to the
President under subsection (c), the Commission shall promptly
make public such report (with the exception of information
which the Commission determines to be confidential) and shall
cause a summary thereof to be published in the Federal
Register.
(e) Applicable Provisions.--For purposes of this subtitle,
the provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section
330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d)) shall be
applied with respect to determinations and findings made
under this section as if such determinations and findings
were made under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2252).
SEC. 213. PROVISION OF RELIEF.
(a) In General.--No later than the date that is 30 days
after the date on which the President receives the report of
the Commission containing an affirmative determination of the
Commission under section 212(a), the President shall provide
relief from imports of the article that is the subject of
such determination to the extent that the President
determines necessary to prevent or remedy the injury found by
the Commission and to facilitate the efforts of the domestic
industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition,
unless the President determines that the provision of such
relief is not in the national economic interest of the United
States or, in extraordinary circumstances, that the provision
of such relief would cause serious harm to the national
security of the United States.
(b) National Economic Interest.--The President may
determine under subsection
[[Page H4873]]
(a) that providing import relief is not in the national
economic interest of the United States only if the President
finds that taking such action would have an adverse impact on
the United States economy clearly greater than the benefits
of taking such action.
(c) Nature of Relief.--The import relief (including
provisional relief) that the President is authorized to
provide under this subtitle with respect to imports of an
article is--
(1) the suspension of any further reduction provided for
under the United States Schedule to Annex 2.1 of the
Agreement in the duty imposed on that article;
(2) an increase in the rate of duty imposed on such article
to a level that does not exceed the lesser of--
(A) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS
on like articles at the time the import relief is provided;
or
(B) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS
on like articles on the day before the date on which the
Agreement enters into force; or
(3) in the case of a duty applied on a seasonal basis to
that article, an increase in the rate of duty imposed on the
article to a level that does not exceed the column 1 general
rate of duty imposed under the HTS on the article for the
corresponding season occurring immediately before the date on
which the Agreement enters into force.
(d) Period of Relief.--The import relief that the President
is authorized to provide under this section may not exceed 4
years.
(e) Rate After Termination of Import Relief.--When import
relief under this subtitle is terminated with respect to an
article--
(1) the rate of duty on that article after such termination
and on or before December 31 of the year in which termination
occurs shall be the rate that, according to the United States
Schedule to Annex 2.1 of the Agreement for the staged
elimination of the tariff, would have been in effect 1 year
after the initiation of the import relief action under
section 211; and
(2) the tariff treatment for that article after December 31
of the year in which termination occurs shall be, at the
discretion of the President, either--
(A) the rate of duty conforming to the applicable rate set
out in the United States Schedule to Annex 2.1; or
(B) the rate of duty resulting from the elimination of the
tariff in equal annual stages ending on the date set out in
the United States Schedule to Annex 2.1 for the elimination
of the tariff.
SEC. 214. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.
(a) General Rule.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no
import relief may be provided under this subtitle after the
date that is 15 years after the date on which the Agreement
enters into force.
(b) Exception.--Import relief may be provided under this
subtitle in the case of a Jordanian article after the date on
which such relief would, but for this subsection, terminate
under subsection (a), but only if the Government of Jordan
consents to such provision.
SEC. 215. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.
For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President
under section 213 shall be treated as action taken under
chapter 1 of title II of such Act.
SEC. 216. SUBMISSION OF PETITIONS.
A petition for import relief may be submitted to the
Commission under--
(1) this subtitle;
(2) chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974; or
(3) under both this subtitle and such chapter 1 at the same
time, in which case the Commission shall consider such
petitions jointly.
Subtitle C--Cases Under Title II Of The Trade Act of 1974
SEC. 221. FINDINGS AND ACTION ON JORDANIAN IMPORTS.
(a) Effect of Imports.--If, in any investigation initiated
under chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974, the
Commission makes an affirmative determination (or a
determination which the President may treat as an affirmative
determination under such chapter by reason of section 330(d)
of the Tariff Act of 1930), the Commission shall also find
(and report to the President at the time such injury
determination is submitted to the President) whether imports
of the article from Jordan are a substantial cause of serious
injury or threat thereof.
(b) Presidential Action Regarding Jordanian Imports.--In
determining the nature and extent of action to be taken under
chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974, the President
shall determine whether imports from Jordan are a substantial
cause of the serious injury found by the Commission and, if
such determination is in the negative, may exclude from such
action imports from Jordan.
SEC. 222. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
Section 202(a)(8) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2252(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence--
(1) by striking ``and part 1'' and inserting ``, part 1'';
and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end ``, and title
II of the United States-Jordan Free Trade Area Implementation
Act''.
TITLE III--TEMPORARY ENTRY
SEC. 301. NONIMMIGRANT TRADERS AND INVESTORS.
Upon the basis of reciprocity secured by the Agreement, an
alien who is a national of Jordan (and any spouse or child
(as defined in section 101(b)(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)) of the alien, if
accompanying or following to join the alien) shall be
considered as entitled to enter the United States under and
in pursuance of the provisions of the Agreement as a
nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(E) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)), if
the entry is solely for a purpose described in clause (i) or
(ii) of such section and the alien is otherwise admissible to
the United States as such a nonimmigrant.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 401. RELATIONSHIP OF THE AGREEMENT TO UNITED STATES AND
STATE LAW.
(a) Relationship of Agreement to United States Law.--
(1) United states law to prevail in conflict.--No provision
of the Agreement, nor the application of any such provision
to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any
law of the United States shall have effect.
(2) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(A) to amend or modify any law of the United States, or
(B) to limit any authority conferred under any law of the
United States,
unless specifically provided for in this Act.
(b) Relationship of Agreement to State Law.--
(1) Legal challenge.--No State law, or the application
thereof, may be declared invalid as to any person or
circumstance on the ground that the provision or application
is inconsistent with the Agreement, except in an action
brought by the United States for the purpose of declaring
such law or application invalid.
(2) Definition of state law.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``State law'' includes--
(A) any law of a political subdivision of a State; and
(B) any State law regulating or taxing the business of
insurance.
(c) Effect of Agreement With Respect to Private Remedies.--
No person other than the United States--
(1) shall have any cause of action or defense under the
Agreement; or
(2) may challenge, in any action brought under any
provision of law, any action or inaction by any department,
agency, or other instrumentality of the United States, any
State, or any political subdivision of a State on the ground
that such action or inaction is inconsistent with the
Agreement.
SEC. 402. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal
year after fiscal year 2001 to the Department of Commerce not
more than $100,000 for the payment of the United States share
of the expenses incurred in dispute settlement proceedings
under article 17 of the Agreement.
SEC. 403. IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.
After the date of enactment of this Act--
(1) the President may proclaim such actions, and
(2) other appropriate officers of the United States may
issue such regulations,
as may be necessary to ensure that any provision of this Act,
or amendment made by this Act, that takes effect on the date
the Agreement enters into force is appropriately implemented
on such date, but no such proclamation or regulation may have
an effective date earlier than the date the Agreement enters
into force.
SEC. 404. EFFECTIVE DATES; EFFECT OF TERMINATION.
(a) Effective Dates.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this
Act take effect on the date the Agreement enters into force.
(b) Exceptions.--Sections 1 through 3 and this title take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Termination of the Agreement.--On the date on which the
Agreement ceases to be in force, the provisions of this Act
(other than this subsection) and the amendments made by this
Act, shall cease to be effective.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman
Sensenbrenner), for their willingness to expedite this process. As you
know, many committees share jurisdiction over issues; and on this
particular piece of legislation, notwithstanding the Committee on the
Judiciary's jurisdictional prerogative, they were willing to exchange
letters with us so that we might move forward.
As Chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, I include these letters
for the record and thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman
Sensenbrenner).
[[Page H4874]]
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Jim: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2603,
the ``United States-Jordan Free Trade Area Implementation Act
of 2001.''
As you have noted, the Committee on Ways and Means ordered
favorably reported, H.R. 2603, ``United States-Jordan Free
Trade Area Implementation Act of 2001,'' on Thursday, July
26, 2001. I appreciate your agreement to expedite the passage
of this legislation despite containing provisions within your
Committee's jurisdiction. I acknowledge your decision to
forego further action on the bill was based on the
understanding that it will not prejudice the Committee on the
Judiciary with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives or
the appointment of conferees on this or similar legislation.
Finally, I will include in the Congressional Record a copy
of our exchange of letters on this matter. Thank you for your
assistance and cooperation. We look forward to working with
you in the future.
Best regards,
Bill Thomas,
Chairman.
____
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
Hon. William M. Thomas,
Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth HOB,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Bill: Thank you for working with me regarding H.R.
1484, the ``United States-Jordan Free Trade Areas
Implementation Act,'' which was referred to the Committee on
Ways and Means and the Committee on the Judiciary. As you
know, the Committee on the Judiciary has a jurisdictional
interest in this legislation, and I appreciate your
acknowledgment of that jurisdictional interest. Because I
understand the desire to have this legislation considered
expeditiously by the House and because the Committee does not
have a substantive concern with those provisions that fall
within its jurisdiction, I do not intend to hold a hearing or
markup on this legislation.
In agreeing to waive consideration by our Committee, I
would expect you to agree that this procedural route should
not be construed to prejudice the Committee on the
Judiciary's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this
or any similar legislation and will not be considered as
precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional
interest to my Committee in the future. The Committee on the
Judiciary takes this action with the understanding that the
Committee's jurisdiction over the provisions within the
Committee's jurisdiction is in no way diminished or altered,
and that the Committee's right to the appointment of
conferees during any conference on the bill is preserved. I
would also expect your support in my request to the Speaker
for the appointment of conferees from my Committee with
respect to matters within the jurisdiction of my Committee
should a conference with the Senate be convened on this or
similar legislation.
Again, thank you for your cooperation on this important
matter. I would appreciate your including our exchange of
letters in your Committee's report to accompany H.R. 1484.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, approval of this agreement will do a number of things.
One, it will provide some degree of recognition, and, if you will, a
small acknowledgment of the gratitude that the people of the United
States have for the people of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Jordan has played a constructive role through 2 generations of
leadership in the Middle East. Their steadfast advocacy for peace and
cooperation in fighting terrorism not only needs to be recognized in
symbolic ways, but I believe with this particular trade pact it will be
recognized in a very realistic way as well.
Although Jordan is a small market, Jordan is a trusted friend and
ally; and, as importantly, it is strongly committed to liberalizing its
economy. Once this agreement is ratified, more than 50 percent of the
tariffs between our two countries will be eliminated overnight, and
then gradually the more difficult areas will be worked down to zero, so
that at the end of the 10 years, it truly will be a free trade
relationship.
In addition to that, the quality of particular areas of this
agreement are unsurpassed. The intellectual property rights provisions
contain the highest levels of copyright protection ever included in a
trade agreement. In addition, Jordan will be the first of our trading
partners to bind itself to no customs duties on electronic commerce.
Clearly this agreement will open Jordan's markets to U.S. services and
U.S. markets to Jordan's products, whereby they can earn their way by
trade.
Mr. Speaker, the reason that we are now in front of the House is
that, notwithstanding those excellent portions of the agreement that I
indicated, there was an attempt in this particular agreement in dealing
with our friend and ally to dictate the way in which sanctions would be
dealt with; that is, to expand beyond historical parameters, that for
the first time, this agreement includes treating labor and the
environment equally with trade. That in itself is not necessarily not a
good thing to do, but what it did do was lock in the old-fashioned
trade sanctions, while expanding it to new areas. That, to the present
administration, to this majority, is an unacceptable structure.
Not wanting to go back and require a revision of the agreement, what
we were able to do was to exchange between the Hashemite Government of
Jordan and the United States Government an exchange of letters in
which, notwithstanding the Clinton Administration's attempt to use this
particular agreement to further its own agenda, neither the Government
of the United States nor the Government of Jordan intend to exercise
trade sanctions in the areas in the agreement, especially in terms of
formal dispute resolution. Rather, they have committed themselves to a
cooperative structure in the exchange of these two letters, especially
looking for alternate mechanisms that will help to secure compliance
without recourse to, as I said, those traditional trade sanctions that
are the letter of the agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the exchange of letters between
the Hashemite Government of Jordan and the United States Government.
U.S. Trade Representative,
Washington, DC, July 23, 2001.
His Excellency Marwan Muasher,
Ambassador of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to the United
States.
Dear Mr. Ambassador: I wish to share my Government's view
on implementation of the dispute settlement provisions
included in the Agreement between the United States of
America and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on the
Establishment of a Free Trade Area, signed on October 24,
2000.
Given the close working relationship between our two
Governments, the volume of trade between our two countries,
and the clear rules of the Agreement, I would expect few if
any differences to arise between our two Governments over the
interpretation or application of the Agreement. Should any
differences arise under the Agreement, my Government will
make every effort to resolve them without recourse to formal
dispute settlement procedures.
In particular, my Government would not expect or intend to
apply the Agreement's dispute settlement enforcement
procedures to secure its rights under the Agreement in a
manner that results in blocking trade. In light of the wide
range of our bilateral ties and the spirit of collaboration
that characterizes our relations, my Government considers
that appropriate measures for resolving any differences that
may arise regarding the Agreement would be bilateral
consultations and other procedures, particularly alternative
mechanisms, that will help to secure compliance without
recourse to traditional trade sanctions.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Zoellick,
U.S. Trade Representative.
____
Embassy of the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan,
Washington, DC, July 23, 2001.
Hon. Robert B. Zoellick,
U.S. Trade Representative,
United States of America.
Dear Mr. Ambassador: I wish to share my Government's views
on implementation of the dispute settlement provisions
included in the Agreement between the Hashemite Kingdom of
Jordan and the United States of America on the Establishment
of a Free Trade Area, signed on October 24, 2000.
Given the close working relationship between our two
Governments, the volume of trade between our two countries,
and the clear rules of the Agreement, I would expect few if
any differences to arise between our two Governments over the
interpretation or application of the Agreement. Should any
differences arise under the Agreement, my Government will
make every effort to resolve them without recourse to formal
dispute settlement procedures.
In particular, my Government would not expect or intend to
apply the Agreement's dispute settlement enforcement
procedures to secure its rights under the Agreement in a
manner that results in blocking trade. In light of the wide
range of our bilateral ties and the spirit of collaboration
that characterizes our relations, my Government considers
that appropriate measures for resolving any differences that
may arise regarding
[[Page H4875]]
the Agreement would be bilateral consultations and other
procedures, particularly alternative mechanisms, that will
help to secure compliance without recourse to traditional
trade sanctions.
Sincerely,
Marwan Muasher,
Ambassador.
Mr. Speaker, with these letters, it means that, notwithstanding the
narrow, specific wording of the document, the attempt to drive a
particular political agenda with this agreement, in which all are in
favor of increasing trade to the point of free and open trade between
the United States and Jordan, this agreement becomes acceptable,
especially when this is the first instance in which the 21st century
needs to be addressed with clearly a better way to deal with perceived
violations and actual violations of agreements.
Alternate mechanisms beyond the old-fashioned 19th and early 20th
century tools are really what is needed to develop and grow trade in
this century. I am pleased to say that with the exchange of letters,
notwithstanding the specifics of this agreement, we have begun to move
down that direction; and we continue to work together to present to
this House a Trade Promotion Authority which builds on this exchange of
letters between the Government of the United States and the Hashemite
Government of Jordan.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement indeed is an important one. It is
important in terms of national security. Jordan is important in the
quest for peace and security in the Mideast.
This agreement is important economically. A healthy Jordanian economy
is important in and of itself, and for Jordan to play a constructive
role in the Middle East.
This agreement is important because it addresses essential
ingredients of the economic relationship between our two nations.
It is important because it recognizes that included in that economic
relationship are labor and environmental standards.
This agreement is so important that it should have been presented to
this House for approval many months ago. The delay was because some did
not like the provisions relating to labor and the environment. That
position was and is misguided.
Domestic labor markets and environmental standards are relevant to
trade and competition within a nation and competition and trade between
nations. That has become increasingly true as the volume of
international trade has increased dramatically and as nations with very
different economic structures trade and compete with one another.
Recognition of that reality is simply inescapable in this era of trade.
It is not a political question, it is a matter of sheer economic
reality.
The Government of Jordan was willing from the start, and I emphasize
that, to address that reality. Some in the United States were not. As a
result, after several different notions have been suggested, there has
been an exchange of letters between the two governments. They do not
amend the agreement, they do not forego any of its provisions; they say
what their intention and expectations are as to implementation of all
the provisions in the agreement.
Both nations have strong practices on labor and environmental
standards. The governments say in the letters that if either fails to
meet their commitments to enforce such standards, or any other
provisions of the agreement, and I emphasize that, any of the other
provisions of the agreement, they do not expect or intend to use
traditional trade sanctions to enforce them.
That was unnecessary and unfortunate. It is unwise to say that
regardless of the violations of a trade agreement, the expectation is
that any method of enforcement will not be used. Trade sanctions are
always a last resort, but to set a precedent in any agreement that
under no circumstances is there any expectation that they may have to
be used as to any provision is a mistake, an unwise precedent.
It was unnecessary because the agreement carefully sets up a
framework for all kinds of consultations and mediation over a long
period of time before either party could use sanctions, and only after
recurring violations affecting trade, and only with appropriate and
commensurate measures.
I support our approving this agreement because of the importance of
the U.S.-Jordanian relationship and because the agreement within its
four corners still stands.
{time} 1030
But cutting corners on the important issues of labor and
environmental standards and trade agreements is a step backwards for
future constructive action on trade. But today, to proceed on Jordan is
important, and we should do so.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to the gentleman the only unfortunate circumstance in
this agreement was the unfortunate consequences of taking advantage to
push a domestic agenda on trade with as important and vital a strategic
partner as Jordan. We would have preferred that this domestic agenda on
trade be done in a slightly different way. The letters, in fact, go a
long way toward correcting that attempt, to grab the initiative on a
domestic agenda on trade by using this agreement.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), one of the leading advocates
and spokesmen for trade in the House of Representatives and the
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I, of course, was going to begin by talking about the great
importance of bringing about stability in the region and the benefits
of this U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement to economic growth and all,
but since both the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) have gotten to the issue of labor
and the environment and this very important exchange of letters, and I
congratulate the chairman for having put that arrangement together. I
think it is important to underscore why it is that there seems to be
this disagreement.
We believe very passionately that the best way to deal with those
important issues of labor and the environment is through economic
growth. Mr. Speaker, there is a great arrogance that exists as we
proceed with this debate on trade for the United States of America to
try to impose on developing nations around the world, nations that are
struggling to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder, standards
with which they cannot comply. They cannot comply.
I recall so well, following the very important December 1999 Seattle
ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization, the cover of the
Economist Magazine the week after that meeting was very telling. It
said, when they talked about the imposition of sanctions, when
President Clinton talked about the imposition of sanctions on issues of
labor and the environment, the cover had a picture and above that
picture was the caption: ``Who Is the Real Loser at Seattle?'' The
photograph, Mr. Speaker, was of a starving baby in Bangladesh.
It is so apparent that those countries which we hope to help get into
the international community are being prevented because of, as the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said appropriately, the
imposition of a domestic agenda on other nations. It is unfortunate
that Jordan was caught in the middle on this issue; however, we do want
to see environmental standards and worker rights improved in Jordan.
We believe that the economic growth that is going to follow this kind
of effort is important for the stability of the region. It is very
important for bringing about greater stability as it expands throughout
the Middle East. I hope this is just really the second, following the
U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the second in steps that will help us
bring about the very, very important economic growth and stability that
is needed there.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to move on to other speakers, but I want the
Record to be clear: I was in meetings with the Jordanian Government
from the outset, at least in discussions with this
[[Page H4876]]
body, and the King said they were willing to negotiate on labor and
environmental standards. Do not talk about shoving this down somebody's
throat. It is not true.
Secondly, imposition of our standards? Nonsense. When it comes to
core labor standards, these are ILO standards that most nations have
already agreed to.
Child labor? Forced labor? The ability of workers to associate and
organize? That is imposing our standards? These are international
standards. Are we imposing our standards when we insist on intellectual
property or on subsidies in agriculture? The gentleman uses a different
standard when it comes to one or another.
Environmental standards. The President withdrew from Kyoto because
developing nations were not in the Kyoto Accord, and now someone comes
to this floor and says because we want countries to enforce the
environmental standards, in this case, their own, it is a domestic
agenda or it is a political agenda. It is not. This relates to the
terms in competition of countries, and there are some basic standards
that need to be applied and to be implemented.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the agreement that is before us.
Jordan is a friend of the United States in the Middle East. They are
moving forward in opening direct trade between their country and
Israel, and they are truly our ally in seeking peace in the Middle East
and in fighting terrorist activities.
I also support this agreement because it is a good agreement. It is a
good agreement from the point of view of the United States. We already
have a Free Trade Agreement with Israel. This Free Trade Agreement will
open up opportunities for American producers and manufacturers. And we
have made progress, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has
pointed out, on labor and environment; that is, removing barriers to
fair trade because of the standards of other countries being far below
the standards here in the United States. That works to the disadvantage
of U.S. manufacturers and producers. We made progress in this agreement
because Jordan agreed to enforce its own laws in the trade agreement.
What is wrong with that?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must tell my colleagues, I am concerned about the
letters that were exchanged between Jordan and the United States that
the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means put in
the Record. These letters were requested by the United States. Make no
mistake about it, this was not Jordan's idea, this was the United
States' idea. It was because we were concerned that we were painting
new territory in allowing us to have in the core agreement labor and
the environmental standards.
Mr. Speaker, if we are going to enforce labor and environmental
standards, they have to be in the core agreement. We have seen that
every time we have tried to put them in side agreements, it has been
ineffective in enforcing the standards that we told the American public
that we were fighting for. This letter puts labor and environment as a
second tier issue. That is wrong. It should not be a second tier issue.
Most of the other provisions in the Jordanian agreement can be enforced
through WTO since they are in the multinational agreement.
Mr. Speaker, this letter, I hope, will not be precedent for the
future, because we can make progress in bilateral agreements on
increasing world standards for labor and environment; we can make
progress so that American producers and manufacturers and farmers can
effectively compete internationally by raising international standards
in labor and environment. We make progress in the bilateral agreement
such as with Jordan so that we can move the WTO, the multinational
agreements, so that they can move forward in these areas.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good agreement. It should be supported. We
made a mistake by requesting the exchange of letters.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I can understand the perplexity of my friends on the
other side over the letters in which they say the letters were not
Jordan's idea. Well, let us return to the negotiation between the
Clinton administration and the Jordanians.
I cannot believe it was the Jordanians' idea to lay on the table old-
fashioned sanctions in which products are used to retaliate against
violations extended to labor and the environment. I have a hunch it was
the Clinton administration that laid these on the table. And, of
course, my friend from Michigan then says, they did not object to them.
Of course they are not going to object to them. They are going to say,
yes, to whatever is laid on the table.
So I do not think the argument about basic standards being
implemented is the issue. It was the fact that the Jordanians were
required to agree to a sanctions structure that was imposed upon them
by the Clinton administration. The letters were not Jordan's idea, but
the basic document was not Jordan's idea either.
What we have is an ability to reach agreement and move forward.
Frankly, we would not be here today without the letters. So I think the
letters were a very good thing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. English), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, our relationship with Jordan is a strategic one, and
that alone is reason enough for this trade agreement to be desirable.
But H.R. 2603 is also a model for how we can pursue a balanced trade
relationship with a developing country whose legal system and workplace
environment is radically different from our own.
This trade agreement with Jordan represents the first free trade
agreement with an Arab Nation and will give us closer trade ties to the
Arab world. Trading with Jordan will be mutually beneficial and
strengthen them as our ally.
But Jordan also represents a country that plays a critical role in
the Middle East peace process. Beyond that, this agreement negotiated
by the last administration provides us with a sensible and balanced
approach to addressing blue and green issues in trade agreements,
discouraging a race to the bottom by countries seeking to attract
investment and lure jobs.
This agreement will benefit not only Jordanians, but American workers
by creating an export market for high value-added U.S. products in a
nation that cannot make these products for themselves. The bill phases
out all tariffs during a 10-year period and establishes the first-ever
bilateral commitment regarding e-commerce. It also addresses
intellectual property rights and the protections for copyrights,
trademarks and patents, as well as makes a specific commitment to
opening markets in the services sector.
But as a truly inclusive trade agreement, H.R. 2603 addresses various
labor and environmental concerns. This agreement does not seek to place
further labor and environmental regulations on Jordan, but rather,
requires that they enforce the law that they already have on their
books. Jordan cannot relax environmental standards to attract trade,
and they have agreed to fully enforce national labor laws. This
agreement provides us with a model, perhaps not the only one, but a
very promising one, for engaging in fair trade with a developing
country, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I certainly support this agreement, as I
did in committee, but the handling of this bill really represents
another foreign policy failure for the Bush Administration.
During the last week alone, this Administration has stood alone and
isolated from 178 other countries on how to resolve climate change and
global warming. It has stood alone and isolated from seven years of
negotiations about how to make an international agreement on germ
warfare more effective. And it reasserted its intention to unilaterally
reject the Antiballistic
[[Page H4877]]
Missile Treaty that has contributed to three decades of peace.
Little wonder that this week's conservative Economist magazine raises
the question: ``Stop the World, I Want to Get Off: Has George Bush Ever
Met a Treaty that He Liked?'' Well, it is not this one, because today
the Republicans here on the House floor display their real paranoia
about any attempt to protect workers and the environment from the
potential adverse consequences of international trade.
Mr. Speaker, this is an outmoded trade policy that the Bush
Administration is advancing at the very time that a number of our
trading partners are recognizing that environmental issues need to be
addressed as we look at the question of international trade. It is a
policy that is consistent only with the Bush Administration's anti-
environmental attitudes and policies here in the United States.
{time} 1045
Trade is certainly vital to our country, but if more international
commerce with a particular country leads to the reliance on more child
labor or the destruction of rain forests or endangered species, those
are important considerations to be avoided through negotiation.
This agreement with the small, but important, country of Jordan
fortunately did not involve any of those particular concerns; but the
Clinton Administration, wisely working with the country of Jordan,
provided that if there were repeated violations of a country's own
laws, not our laws in Jordan but Jordan's laws in Jordan to protect
workers and the environment, then that could be the subject of trade
sanctions.
That scares the Republicans to death, the very thought that on an
international level we might give consideration to the way trade
impacts workers, child laborers, the environment, endangered species,
rain forests, or other sensitive environmental areas.
They are opposed to even the most modest safeguards like those
contained in this agreement, so they have not fast-tracked this
agreement; rather, they have slow-tracked it. They have slow-tracked it
for the last six or seven months, refusing to present this trade
agreement to the Congress to act upon.
Today they rush it to the floor with minimum debate because they do
not want any attention on the contradictions in their own trade policy.
That is a trade policy of slow-tracking that tells us a great deal
about this so-called fast track proposal.
I support more trade, but not by granting President Bush a blank
check, open-ended trade authority to do anything he wants. It is clear
from his rejection of these modest safeguards that he will not do right
by workers and the environment unless we put strict conditions on any
trade negotiating authority that Congress decides to delegate to him.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
I rise in very strong support of this agreement, Mr. Speaker, and I
urge my colleagues on both sides to support passage.
The U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement will provide economic benefits
to both countries. That is what we are really here about. This
agreement will eliminate tariffs on virtually all trade between the two
countries within 10 years. Passage of this agreement offers the
prospect of rapid growth in the U.S.-Jordan trade relationship.
In addition to economic benefits, this agreement will help to
strengthen our association with a key ally in the Middle East. Jordan
is a trusted friend and ally of the U.S. and is strongly committed to
liberalizing its economy. The agreement provides important support to
Jordan's commitment.
In addition, the U.S.-Jordan FTA builds on other U.S. initiatives in
the region designed to encourage economic development and regional
integration. This includes, of course, the 1985 U.S.-Israel Free Trade
Agreement and its extension to areas administered by the Palestinian
Authority in 1996.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this
agreement.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Michigan, for yielding time to me.
Let me preface my statement by saying that I support the Jordan-U.S.
trade agreement and plan to vote for it. That said, this agreement
illustrates why this Congress must not relinquish our right to amend
future trade agreements and why we must vote down Fast Track.
When we look closely at this, we see the fingerprints of the brand-
name drug industry all over it. This agreement provides protections for
the drug industry more stringent than those established by the World
Trade Organization.
Look at the fine print of section 20 of Article 4 on intellectual
property. Not only does this agreement impose barriers to generic
access in Jordan that are greater than those in place here, it prevents
the United States from using a WTO sanction mechanism, compulsory
licensing, to bring down grossly inflated drug prices.
The Jordan trade pact blocks the U.S. from ever enacting compulsory
licensing law, now or in the future, to combat excessive drug prices.
While Congress waited for the trade agreement to be negotiated, our
drug industry convinced the U.S. Trade Representative to tie our hands
and to tie Jordan's hands. It is outrageous that the drug industry can
have this kind of influence, particularly when their pricing practices
are robbing Americans blind. But that is what happens when Congress has
too little oversight in trade agreements.
If Fast Track passes, what will the future hold once the drug
industry and other special interests know that Congress cannot amend
the trade agreement? How many poison pills will we have to swallow or
will the American public have to swallow?
It is provisions like these, slipped into trade agreements, which are
the reason why Fast Track is such a threat to the best interests of our
constituents. While trade agreements go to great lengths to protect
investors and protect property rights, these agreements rarely include
enforceable provisions to protect workers in the U.S. or abroad. Like
the Jordan agreement, corporations will slip provisions into the text
that will abuse the most vulnerable of society.
Three years ago, Fast Track was defeated in Congress, 243 to 180.
Vote for the Jordan trade agreement but defeat Fast Track, which allows
bad provisions in good trade agreements.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in
yielding time to me to speak on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I have a slightly different perspective than my friend,
the gentleman from Ohio. I happen to believe very strongly that trade
promotion authority is important and that our future, not just from our
region but for our country and for developing nations around the world,
lies in fairer, freer trade.
I supported the trade promotion authority for the last
administration. I hope to be able to support it for this
administration.
But I would look at this agreement today as a model for an approach
that we can have trade promotion authority, which I think is important,
but do it in a way that brings us together, where we can have 300 or
400 people on this floor, as the gentleman from Michigan is looking for
ways to be able to express these concerns about environment, about
worker standards.
This agreement that we have before us can be a template in a way that
does not divide us but actually strengthens free trade. It brings it in
a way that does not have to have a partisan edge to it, and actually
encourages countries to be able to develop their own labor and
environmental standards.
We have a number of companies around the world that are doing
pioneering work in their own work to be able to advance higher
standards for the environment and the workplace; international
corporations that are showing the way in terms of how to treat their
employees in patterns of compensation and worker safety.
I would strongly urge that we approve this agreement before us, and
[[Page H4878]]
that we look at this as a template for how we ought to put together
trade promotion authority.
I commend the gentleman from Michigan for the work that he is doing
on our side of the aisle to have a broader conversation. He, I think,
has shown through his work on China that there are ways to bring us
together. I encourage this Chamber to look at this agreement as a way
that we can do this in a way that we will not lose the opportunity to
develop the consensus. I thank the gentleman for his efforts.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), who through his time and talent has
assisted for a long time. I look forward to working with him as we move
trade promotion authority.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the U.S.-Jordan Free
Trade Agreement. I want to begin by thanking President Clinton,
acknowledging his role in negotiating this agreement. I want to praise
President Bush for bringing this agreement forward in a determined
fashion.
I really want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and the gentleman
from the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and the
ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), for their
bipartisan support in bringing this agreement forward.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement is critical to the foreign policy of the
United States. It is of enormous political significance to us. Jordan
is a vital ally of ours in the Middle East. It has been in the past;
and it continues to be a leader in this peace process, this Middle East
peace process.
Let there be no doubt, we have relied heavily on Jordan to play a
constructive role in building peace in the region, and certainly the
least we can do today is extend our hand in free trade.
This role that Jordan has played is a very difficult one. It is
located geographically between Iraq and Syria and the west bank of the
Jordan. Over half of its population is of Palestinian descent. In
short, it is in the heart of a region that is plagued by centuries of
conflict. It lies on the edge of a potential conflict all along all of
its borders.
Despite this, it has had strong political leadership over the years
that has taken repeatedly difficult steps towards peace, started by
former King Hussein with a peace agreement between Jordan and Israel in
1994, and that continues today under the leadership of his son, King
Abdullah II.
We must implement this free trade agreement, not because of the
economic benefits the U.S. may receive, although there are some. We
must implement this agreement because it will help Jordan develop
economically and become more prosperous. With the prosperity and the
prospect for economic stability, we can help it continue to lead by
example in a region where greater, stronger leadership is so
desperately needed.
Just a couple of months ago, I led a delegation of members of the
Committee on Appropriations to Israel, Egypt, and to Jordan. In all of
those countries, we appreciated the importance of trade as a driver of
regional economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important agreement. I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our distinguished whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to
me, and I thank him and others who worked on this agreement.
Mr. Speaker, the agreement we face today is a good agreement. It
furthers our relationship with our friends and allies; and it increases
the prospect, as we have heard, for economic and political stability in
the Middle East. It contains modest yet meaningful standards for worker
rights and the environment. For the first time, Mr. Speaker, these
values are considered as terms of the agreement, just as tariffs, just
as intellectual property traditionally have been.
But what I am concerned about is the interjection of these side
letters. The administration, I think, is undermining a good deal with
these side letters. The side letter effectively removes the possibility
of enforcing labor and environmental violations by tough enforcement
mechanisms of sanctions. The side letter places a higher value on
commercial provisions which are still enforceable by sanctions through
the WTO.
Overall, the side letters suggest that we value our goods over our
workers. It has been the nexus, the heart of the problem we have had on
the trade issue. This was a solid agreement negotiated in good faith by
two strategic friends and partners. It deserves to be implemented as
such.
This agreement was once a good step forward, including worker rights
and environmental standards in a trade agreement. Now, with the side
letter, it becomes yet another reflection of the trade policies of the
past that deny the realities of today.
We must remember the administration's actions to gut these modest
worker rights and environmental provisions when we look to future
agreements in this Congress, especially Fast Track. Fast Track requires
us to put all our faith in Presidential authority. The action on the
Jordan agreement should warn us against that. This administration gives
with one hand while trying to take away with the other.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this trade agreement because I believe
in the deal that was negotiated, and that is on the floor today. It is
a step forward. But I am deeply disappointed with the administration's
attempt to undermine the deal and to turn the clock back.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2603, which, in a
comprehensive fashion, eliminates barriers to bilateral trade in goods
and services between the United States and the Hashemite Kingdom of
Jordan.
I would posit that this agreement does bring us together by providing
a positive structure for dealing with trade violations, rather than
controversial and potentially ineffective sanctions.
Economic prosperity, stability, and religious tolerance form the
foundation of our foreign policy in the Middle East. In a region where
daily violence has almost become a fact of life, the establishment of
economic cooperation is a vitally important aspect of creating an
environment where the nations of the Middle East can exist in peace and
with prosperity.
This agreement will enable the United States to have a productive
economic exchange with a valuable trading partner that has been a
stabilizing factor in that region. The spirit of bilateral economic
cooperation between these two countries will be beneficial to both our
nations, and sends a signal to the world that nations that share our
values and desire for peace will prosper.
Jordan has been a steadfast partner for promoting peace and fighting
terrorism, and I welcome this agreement.
{time} 1100
I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his
leadership on the issue and again urge my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, my very
distinguished colleague from Michigan, Mr. Levin, for yielding me this
time.
I strongly support this resolution that approves the U.S.-Jordan Free
Trade Agreement. The United States rarely gets a chance to score a
clear victory that will promote economic growth, regional stability,
reward a trusted ally, and affirm our most basic democratic values. We
have such an opportunity right now with this agreement. Even though
Jordan is only our 100th largest trading partner, the Jordan Free Trade
Agreement is crucial to our national interest.
First, this agreement holds the potential of jump-starting a process
of trade liberalization that has slowed down considerably since 1995.
Under this agreement, duties on almost all goods would be phased out
over a 10-year period. Jordan commits itself to
[[Page H4879]]
opening its markets fully to U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and service
providers. The Jordan FTA is the first such agreement ever to address
issues related to electronic commerce and the Internet, with Jordan
promising to ratify international agreements ensuring the protection of
software and audio recordings on the Internet. Also under this
agreement both sides pledge much greater openness in the resolution of
disputes.
More significant than this contribution to open trade is what the
Jordan FTA should mean for our continuing pursuit of peace and
stability in the Middle East. Since coming to power after the death of
his legendary father, King Hussein, 2 years ago, King Abdullah has
launched a series of progressive reforms intended to modernize Jordan's
economy. The nation has joined the World Trade Organization,
deregulated some of its service industries, and strengthened its
intellectual property laws. It has also stood with the United States
politically, helping to enforce our trade embargo against Iraq, and
serving as a voice of moderation among the Arab states.
By entering into this agreement, we are promoting regional economic
growth, and sending a strong and positive signal of support to a
crucial ally. If we were to delay this trade agreement that the
previous Clinton administration worked out so constructively, it would
send the opposite and wrong signal. This trade agreement marks a new
approach to addressing labor and environmental provisions that I think
is reasonable and realistic.
Approval of this agreement should give us some momentum now to move
forward on our larger bipartisan trade agenda, most notably trade
promotion authority. Global agreements can be values driven as well as
profits driven, and that is why I urge my colleagues to approve this
agreement and reaffirm our commitment to this vital ally in the Middle
East.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, a long 30
seconds, to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, so much to say.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to vote for the Jordan treaty, but the world
will little note nor long remember what we do here today. But what was
important about today was the President of the United States showed his
hand. He is not trustworthy. He will take an agreement, and when it is
being out here on the floor he will then write a letter and undo it.
Now, let us give them trade promotion authority, shall we? He will go
and negotiate, he will bring a treaty in here, we will vote for it, and
as we vote ``aye'' or ``no,'' he will be putting in the mailbox at the
White House a letter to somebody saying, ``I didn't mean it, guys. This
does not really count. You know we didn't really mean what's in this.''
Watch and remember what happened with those letters on this issue.
Vote for this but do not forget.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. THOMAS. Well, gee, Mr. Speaker, I guess I am a little bit
confused. Apparently the gentleman from Washington thinks that
President Bush negotiated this agreement. Perhaps I should shock him
into reality and indicate that the proper response on this floor should
have been shame on you. Shame on your administration in trying to push
your domestic trade agenda by making an offer to Jordan you knew they
could not refuse. What kind of diplomatic relationship is that?
The mistake of using Jordan as a pawn has partially been corrected by
the exchange of letters. And so when my colleague stands up here and
says piously, gee, we are trying to reverse an agreement in which we
just want some standards for labor and the environment, I would note,
as I said at the very beginning, there is nothing wrong with that. We
need to move in that direction. Get over it. The previous
administration tried to sneak an agreement through, and it was not
done. Now, let us sit down and work together and talk about not using
antiquated sanctions in resolving these new issues.
The bottom line is this, Mr. Speaker. This agreement is on the
suspension calendar. We all agree that our friend and ally is long
overdue this recognition. Let us vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2603.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement with
the United States is good for Jordan, good for the United States and
good for peace in the Middle East. By eliminating trade barriers
between both our countries, it will increase trade. In doing so, it
will strengthen one of the most constructive regimes in the Middle East
regarding the Peace Process.
Under King Abdullah's leadership, Jordan has already made significant
strides in modernizing its economy and in opening its markets to the
outside world. For example, Jordan has embarked on a major
privatization program that includes its telecommunications sector, and
has improved its record on intellectual property rights.
This agreement will accelerate that process by guaranteeing:
The elimination of all tariffs on industrial goods and farm products
within 10 years;
Free trade in services, giving American service providers full access
to services of key importance;
Modern intellectual property rights commitments, which will provide
prospects for technology-based industries, copyright-based industries,
and pharmaceutical companies;
A joint commitment to promote a liberalized trade environment for e-
commerce that should encourage investment in new technologies, and
avoid imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions.
Just as Jordan has been a model for constructive participation in the
Peace Process, the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement can help to make it
an economic model for the rest of the Arab world.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 2603,
the United States-Jordan Free Trade Implementation Act.
Jordan is a small Arab country with abundant natural resources such
as oil. The Persian Gulf crisis aggravated Jordan's already serious
economic problems, forcing the government to put a hiatus on the
International monetary Fund program, stop most debt payments, and
suspend rescheduling negotiations. However, the economy rebounded in
1992, thanks to the influx of capital repatriated by workers returning
from the Gulf.
After averaging 9 percent in 1992-95, GDP growth averaged only 2
percent during 1996-99. In an attempt to spur growth, King Abdallah of
Jordan has undertaken some economic reform measures, including partial
privatization of some state-owned enterprises. These actions culminated
with Jordan's entry in January 2000 into the World Trade Organization
(WTO).
I have personally met with King Abdallah on several occasions. I was
pleased to host the King and Queen in 1999, when they visited Northern
Virginia to discuss possible investment opportunities in Jordan with
regional high technology and telecommunications companies. The King and
representatives from his government showed a keen interest in exploring
trade opportunities with our technology sector. The attendees, which
included CEOs and Presidents of national high-tech organizations and
companies, were overwhelmingly impressed with the King's knowledge of
the industry and his openness towards working with them.
Mr. Speaker, I believe passage of H.R. 2306 will have significant and
positive economic and political impacts for both Jordan and the United
States. The U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement (FTA) will increase levels
of trade in services for both nations, boost the Jordanian economy,
contribute to easing unemployment, attract foreign direct investments
from both U.S. and other foreign-based companies, and reinforce
momentum for additional economic reform in Jordan. In the year 2000,
total bilateral trade between the U.S. and Jordan was approximately
$385 million, with U.S. exports to Jordan accounting for about 80
percent or $310 million of this total. In the same year, U.S. imports
from Jordan totaled $73 million and accounted for approximately 20
percent of total bilateral trade.
The FTA builds on other U.S. initiatives in the region that are
designed to encourage economic development and regional integration,
including: the 1996 extension of the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement
to areas administered by the Palestinian Authority; and the 1996
creation of Qualified Industrial Zones (QIZ), which are areas under
joint Israeli and Jordanian control whose exports are eligible for
duty-free treatment in the United States.
Once passed by the Congress and the Jordanian Parliament, the U.S.-
Jordan FTA will be the first U.S. free trade agreement with an
independent Arab country, and Jordan will be the fourth country in the
world to have a bilateral free trade agreement with America-all of
which reflects the close bond between the two nations, and reaffirms
our commitment to this burgeoning relationship.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a co-sponsor of H.R. 2603, the
United States-Jordan Free-Trade Agreement.
[[Page H4880]]
This legislation, as approved, would implement H.Doc. 107-15 as it
was submitted to Congress on January 6, 2001 by former President
Clinton, and would make the trade agreement we negotiated with the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan operational.
Jordan is a moderate Arab nation and an ally of both the United
States and Israel. The free trade agreement negotiated by the Clinton
administration will help to solidify trade and commerce between the
United States and Jordan.
As you know Mr. Speaker, free trade is vital to political stability
and economic development not only in the Middle East but also around
the world. With free trade nations are not only able to exchange goods
but also ideas. It is the ideas of freedom and democracy that is the
greatest export the United States can offer to the rest of the world.
Under the agreement negotiated by the United States and Jordan, both
nations have committed themselves to removing almost all duties on
trade in ten years. The two countries have also committed themselves to
safeguarding intellectual property and copyrights.
Most importantly the agreement includes provisions to protect worker
rights and the environment.
The Middle East is an emerging region and the United States should do
all it can to help the nations of the Middle East develop their
economic potential. Jordan has played an integral role in leading the
region to a freer and a more secure future.
King Abdullah has made important commitments to implement necessary
economic and political reforms. Jordan has also been an important
partner in the Middle East peace process, and a leading voice among
moderate Arab nations for normalizing relations with the State of
Israel.
By supporting free trade with Jordan the United States Congress will
be recognizing Jordan's role as a peace partner in the Middle East.
Free trade will give American companies more access not only to the
Jordanian market but also to markets in Israel and Egypt. While at the
same time providing for greater economic development in the region.
Currently, New York State conducts $23 million worth of trade with
Jordan. In the next ten years this volume is expected to increase as
Jordan's economy continues to grow. This will create more jobs for my
constituents and more prosperity for the people of Jordan.
Mr. Speaker, it is important for the United States to continue
playing its historic role in the Middle East as a voice for peace and
democracy. Free trade with Jordan recognizes both Jordan's role as a
peace partner in the Middle East and it reasserts America's commitment
to peace and stability in the Middle East. I would also like to point
out the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement is supported by
Israel, evidence of Israel's continued commitment to peace and
stability in the region.
At this hour of crises in the Middle East it is important for the
United States Congress to stand with the people of Israel and Jordan by
supporting free trade and democracy in the region.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation,
which provides for implementation of a free trade agreement between the
United States and Jordan, eliminating duties and commercial barriers to
bilateral trade in goods and services.
The U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement was negotiated during the
Clinton Administration, although it was completed too late to secure
Congressional action last year. If enacted, Jordan would become only
the fourth country, after Canada, Mexico and Israel, with which the
United States has a free-trade arrangement. I support implementation of
the Jordan FTA because I believe it will help advance the long-term
U.S. objective of fostering greater Middle East regional economic
integration, while providing greater market access for U.S. goods,
services, and investment.
The Jordan FTA not only sends a strong message to Jordanians and its
neighbors about the economic benefits of peace, but significantly
contributes to stability throughout the region. This Agreement is the
culmination of our economic partnership with Jordan, which has also
included U.S.-Jordanian cooperation on Jordan's accession to the World
Trade Organization (WTO), our joint Trade and Investment Framework
Agreement, and our Bilateral Investment Treaty. This Agreement also
represents a vote of confidence in Jordan's economic reform program,
which should serve as a source of growth and opportunity for Jordanians
in the coming years.
I am pleased that the Jordan FTA includes the highest possible
commitments from Jordan on behalf of U.S. business on key issues,
providing significant liberalization across a wide spectrum of trade
issues. The FTA builds on economic reforms Jordan has made by requiring
it to eliminate tariffs on agriculture goods and industrial products
within a decade, strengthen intellectual property protections and
liberalize services trade.
Perhaps most importantly, the Jordan FTA contains provisions in which
both our countries agree not to relax environmental or labor standards
in order to enhance competitiveness. For the first time, these
provisions are in the main body of the agreement. It is important to
note that the FTA does not require either country to adopt any new laws
in these areas, but rather includes commitments that each country
enforce its own labor and environmental laws. While I understand that
the Bush administration has exchanged letters with Jordan pledging
neither country would use sanctions to enforce that part of the pact, I
believe the approach taken under this bill is the right approach--it
allows this body to move forward on an agreement of strategic
importance that emphasizes the importance of labor and environmental
standards to existing and future U.S. trade policy. In light of the
agreement on this issue, it would serve this body well to work toward a
similar compromise that can garner broad bipartisan support for Trade
Promotion Authority, which the House may consider as soon as this week.
I am pleased that the House moved the Jordan FTA largely as
negotiated. However, with less than $400 million in two-way trade
between the U.S. and Jordan--about the same volume of trade the U.S.
conducts with China in a single day--the real impact of congressional
approval of this agreement is to show our support for a key U.S. ally
in a troubled region of the world. Given the relatively small volume of
trade with Jordan, the strategic significance of the U.S.-Jordanian
relationship, and the importance Jordanians place on this free trade
agreement, it is highly unlikely that any Administration, Democrat or
Republican, present or future, will be forced to impose trade sanctions
on Jordan. However, since this agreement includes language that neither
mandates or precludes any means of enforcement, it signifies a critical
shift in U.S. priorities; one that reflects growing concerns over the
effect of globalization on U.S. jobs and economic opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, passage of the Jordan FTA is more significant than the
trade benefits included in this legislation. Passage of this
implementing bill sends an important signal of support to our allies
and our trading partners that the U.S. intends to be an important
player in promoting trade policies that open markets to U.S. exports
and create U.S. jobs, while addressing concerns related to the effects
of increased globalization on our economy. We may never reach consensus
on the issue of the most appropriate means of enforcing labor and
environmental violations, but I think that all Members can agree on the
importance of expanding exports and creating good paying jobs for
Americans, while providing adequate safeguards to preserve our economic
interests. With passage of the Jordan FTA, I believe we are taking an
important first step in achieving these goals, and I urge my colleagues
to approve this bill.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his
support for H.R. 2603, which implements the United States-Jordan Free
Trade Area Agreement. This Member would like to thank the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the Chairman of the House Ways
and Means Committee, for introducing this legislation and for his
efforts in bringing this measure to the House Floor.
The U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, which was signed by President
Clinton on October 24, 2000, will eliminate commercial barriers and
duties to bilateral trade in goods and services originating in Jordan
and the United states. The agreement will eliminate virtually all
tariffs on trade between Jordan and the U.S. within ten years.
The U.S.-Jordan Agreement is part of the broader U.S. effort to
encourage free trade in the Middle East. For example, in 1985, the
U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement was signed and it was extended to
areas administered by the Palestinian Authority in 1996. In addition,
the U.S. has also signed Trade and Investment Framework Agreements with
Egypt in 1999 and Turkey in 2000. It should also be noted Jordan joined
the World Trade Organization in April of 2000.
This Member would like to focus on the following three aspects of the
U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement: the agriculture sector, the services
sector, and the environmental and labor provisions.
First, with regard to agriculture, the top U.S. exports to Jordan
include wheat and corn. In 1999, the U.S. exported $26 million of wheat
and $10 million of corn to Jordan. With low prices and higher supplies
of agricultural commodities, this free trade agreement is a step in the
right direction.
Second, the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement opens the Jordanian
service markets to U.S. companies, which includes engineering,
architecture, financial services, and courier services to name just a
few. Some U.S. companies should directly benefit from this opening of
the service markets in Jordan. Services
[[Page H4881]]
trade is becoming a bigger part of the overall trade picture. In fact,
worldwide services trade totaled $309 billion in 1998, which resulted
in an $84 billion positive balance for the U.S. in services for 1998.
This positive trade balance for services is in stark contrast to the
U.S. merchandise trade deficit.
As the Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on
International Monetary Policy and Trade, this Member has focused on the
importance of financial services trade. My Subcommittee conducted a
hearing in June 2001 on financial services trade with insurance,
securities, and banking witnesses testifying. At this hearing, the
Subcommittee learned that U.S. trade in financial services equaled
$20.5 billion. This is a 26.7 percent increase from the U.S.'s 1999
financial services trade data. Unlike the current overall U.S. trade
deficit, the U.S. financial services trade had a positive balance of
$8.8 billion in 2000.
Third, the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement also includes labor and
environment provisions. This is the first time that these types of
provisions have been included in the main text of a U.S. free trade
agreement. This Member would like to note that these labor and
environment provisions focus on Jordan and the U.S. enforcing its own
labor and environmental laws. This agreement does not impose any labor
and environment standards on Jordan or the U.S.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this Member urges his colleagues to
support H.R. 2603, the implementation of the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade
Agreement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 2603, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________