[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 159 (Friday, November 16, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H8253-H8261]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3009, ANDEAN TRADE PROMOTION AND
DRUG ERADICATION ACT
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 289 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 289
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3009) to extend the
Andean Trade Preference Act, to grant additional trade
benefits under that Act, and for other purposes. The bill
shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in
the bill shall be considered as adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purposes of debate only.
(Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 289 is a closed rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade Promotion
and Drug Eradication Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate,
evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means and one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
The Committee on Rules provided the opportunity for the minority, Mr.
Speaker, to offer a substitute. However, they declined the opportunity.
This is a fair rule, Mr. Speaker, that will allow consideration of this
very important issue.
The underlying legislation promotes and strengthens the U.S.-Andean
trade relationship which will increase economic growth in the United
States. This legislation will also work to bolster anti-corruption
programs in South America.
As originally passed by Congress in 1991, the Andean Trade Preference
Act sought to provide assistance to countries that have been troubled
in the recent past in the form of tariff-free American goods, while
simultaneously opening American markets to certain exports from these
Nations. The effect of offering strategic economic advantages to these
countries was to help eliminate financial dependence on narco-
trafficking in the Andean region.
Due to ATPA, the U.S. and the Andean nations have enjoyed an $18
billion beneficial trade relationship for the past 10 years, but all of
this is set to expire on December 4 if we do not act to extend the best
elements of ATPA and continue the support of our allies in the Andean
region.
The extension of ATPA is not merely a matter of economic or trade
policy but is, in fact, a decision with consequences for U.S. foreign
and national policy in the western hemisphere.
Bolivia, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador are nations that are good solid
allies in the United States. They have repeatedly indicated over the
past decade that they wish to be strong members of a free and
democratic hemisphere, a hemisphere hopefully one day free of terrorism
as well as free of tyranny.
Continuing ATPA will help the Andean nations fight poverty, terrorism
and drug production as well as further promote democracy and human
rights.
ATPA promotes job creation in a region where the alternative for many
workers is easily a life devoted to drug production. ATPA provides
these individuals an alternative and protects the rights of Andean
workers. It also helps the economy in the United States and helps
American workers. The bill contains the same worker protections
contained in the Trade Development Act of 2000. Promoting development
in the region, in the western hemisphere, is crucial to a U.S. foreign
policy that seeks to support countries fighting against terrorism and
drug trafficking.
I urge my colleagues to consider the benefits of extending ATPA, not
only to our South American neighbors but also to American consumers who
enjoy a wide variety of product choice without artificial constraints
and restrictions.
Extending and improving ATPA is a decisive step toward improved
relations with the western hemisphere. This legislation will foster the
expression of mutually supportive and beneficial relationships between
the United States and our neighbors in this hemisphere.
This legislation will help in the effort to strengthen our economy
and add to the stabilization of the Andean region. There have been
numerous challenges to democracy in the Andean region in the past
decade. Many of them have been overcome, but it is still an area that
is very delicate; and we must help it, especially since all of the
countries in the Andean region are solid allies in the United States.
I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and
all of those who have worked very diligently on this important piece of
legislation. This is a fair rule, providing for the consideration of
very important legislation, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to
support both the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
I rise in opposition to the closed rule. I oppose the process it
represents and the indifference it signals for our colleagues on both
sides of the aisle with legitimate concern over this bill.
No one in this body disputes the importance of U.S. efforts to
counter drug production in South America, but the measure before us is
simply not ready for floor consideration. In a hastily thrown together
Rules hearing this morning, it became apparent that serious,
substantive questions remained regarding the impact of this measure on
many regions of this country.
Our colleagues from California, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa
expressed concern over how this measure would impact the domestic
processing and fishing industry. They have profound concerns over this
measure accelerating job losses in an already unstable economy.
My friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
[[Page H8254]]
Myrick), expressed heartfelt reservations over the impact these trade
measures have on the region of the country where the textile industry
is struggling. I have no doubt that other Members would have similar
concerns if they had only been afforded the opportunity to review the
underlying bill.
Moreover, why is the leadership prioritizing this measure when other,
pressing needs affecting our constituents at a time of war are never
allowed to see the light of day? I do not mean to disparage our friends
to the south, but ensuring the duty-free treatment of 6,000 products
from the Andean countries of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru
surely should not take precedence over legislation impacting our
homeland security and measures to help those who have lost jobs and
loved ones in the wake of September 11.
Finally, the leadership missed a golden opportunity with this measure
to rebuild the bipartisanship that previously existed on trade matters.
Had the chairman worked on a bipartisan basis with the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and
Means, I have no doubt that the measure would enjoy broader support
both in the Committee on Ways and Means and on the floor. That
bipartisanship enabled measures like the African free trade bill to
move forward last year and would have been welcomed by proponents of
fair trade on both sides of the aisle.
This process does not bode well for fast track advocates who are
hoping to craft an agreement to move forward in the days ahead.
Mr. Speaker, Members are fully aware that the Andean nations are
struggling to combat the problems of illegal drugs, and while their
economy is falling into recession and their governments confront civil
unrest, the concerns of our colleagues certainly would have been better
taken into account so this measure could move forward with less
controversy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Before yielding to my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), I would simply point out that this
legislation passed out of the Committee on Ways and Means on a voice
vote. It has the cosponsorship of many people on both sides of the
aisle, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking
member, who was an original cosponsor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), for yielding me the time.
I hate to be standing up here today and doing this; but very
honestly, I cannot support the Andean trade bill, and I understand
completely the importance of this bill to our neighbors to the south
and what it means relative to trying to get stable businesses started
in those countries.
I serve on the Speaker's drug task force so I am very much aware of
all of that, but I disagree with the timing in particular of this being
brought up before the trade promotion authority vote is on the floor.
I am not a protectionist. I am a free trader. I totally support free
trade. I voted for it before many times; but quite frankly, it also
needs to be fair trade, and we need to be able to export our products
into those same countries freely, as well as them bringing theirs into
ours.
Never in my 7 years on Capitol Hill have I seen a bigger slap in the
face to the textile industry and the workers because in the last year,
just the last year alone, we have lost 60,000 jobs, 20,000 of them in
my State of North Carolina and most of them in my district.
As the New York Times reported on Tuesday, our Nation's economic
slowdown has impacted the South more than any other region of the
country, and how does Congress respond? On the very day after
Burlington Industries, which is one of the largest textile companies in
the world, the day after they file for bankruptcy, we have this bill on
the floor that gives away our textile jobs. It is just unbelievable to
me.
Make no mistake about it, H.R. 3009, as reported by the Committee on
Ways and Means, allows other nations to avoid our duties and quotas by
shipping their yarn and fabric through South America.
The only bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has
shown to me, and every other textile State lawmaker, would smooth the
way for Andean apparel made with fabric and yarn from anywhere in the
world. It would create a giant loophole in our textile trade laws, and
for weeks now the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has said this
loophole will be fixed, but I have never seen a fix and neither has
anybody else.
There is a larger issue at stake here, and this is an issue that is
very important to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my
chairman of the Committee on Rules. He is on this floor practically
every day speaking about it and that is trade promotion authority.
The bill coming to the floor in just a few days is one that I would
desperately like to support because I believe it is very important to
give our President that authority to open foreign markets and to
protect our jobs here at home. I am very afraid by having this bill on
the floor at this time it is going to doom those efforts.
I just think that the folks who scheduled this vote are making a
very, very serious mistake. There are several textile State lawmakers
who, like myself, want to support the President on TPA, and what are
they asked to do? They are asked to vote on a bill today that is bad
for textiles just a few days ahead of this other bill coming to the
floor. Hard to understand.
Some folks say this will not hurt the President's efforts on TPA
because textile State lawmakers are not going to vote for this anyway.
Well, that is a bunch of bull crap, excuse my French. Very simply,
there are a lot of us who want to vote for it and have done everything
we can to try and make that possible because we believe in it. We have
been promised assistance for the textile industry, but no package has
appeared yet.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has shown us language that
would help crack down on transshipments, but the language has not
reached the floor. I have heard plenty of talk and promises, but the
promises have resulted in nothing; and quite frankly, until something
is voted on on the floor it is just a promise.
So while we wait, the leadership brings an antitextile bill to the
floor. This could have been brought up later. It could have been an
extension. There are many ways we could have dealt with this, to have
the vote after the TPA vote; but that has not happened.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am very afraid that the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas) is making it easy for those who are on the fence to vote
no.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my remarks in
associating myself also with the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) for her comments and certainly our total opposition to the
rule.
Mr. Speaker, I want to plainly state for the Record that I do support
U.S. efforts to counter drug interdiction and production in trade among
the Andean countries. I also want to note that I am a free trader but
only ask that trade be fair. That is all we are asking for.
For the information of my colleagues, the U.S. tuna industry has
already provided under the current provisions of the Andean trade
agreement explosive growth in opportunity for our Andean country
neighbors.
{time} 0930
Under the present ATPA rules, tuna loins are already exempt from any
of the meaningful duties. As a result, the number of tuna loin
factories in Andean countries have increased by 229 percent since the
enactment of ATPA in 1991. Production capacity has increased by 400
percent. Exports to the United States have increased by 56 percent.
Sales of tuna from the Andean countries now total almost $100 million a
year. Thanks to the present ATPA tuna rules, Andean countries are now
the largest exporters of tuna to our country.
[[Page H8255]]
In return for U.S. efforts, Ecuador currently imposes a 20 percent
duty on canned tuna from the United States. Other Andean countries
impose duties of 10 percent and 15 percent. To protect its own market
from product dumping, Mexico imports a duty free of 24 percent on
canned tuna imported from Ecuador. In the middle of all this, Mr.
Speaker, is the U.S. Congress really now going to allow canned tuna to
come to the United States duty free? Where is the fairness of all of
this, Mr. Speaker?
I believe it is important for my colleagues to understand that
Ecuador and Colombia have the capacity now to process more than 540,000
tons or 48.6 million cases of tuna per year. With U.S. consumption of
45.3 million cases per year, Ecuador and Colombia have the production
capacity to wipe out literally, Mr. Speaker, the entire U.S. tuna
industry.
In an effort to save approximately 10,000 American jobs and protect
the fragile economy of my own district in my own territory, including
workers in California and Puerto Rico, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means; the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), and I have worked together
to build, hopefully, a bipartisan coalition to object to this
legislation.
I want to note for the Record that Chicken of the Sea, Bumble Bee,
the United Tuna Cooperative, the entire U.S. fishing fleet, and ConAgra
are adamantly opposed to the inclusion of canned tuna in ATPA.
With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I am also disappointed that no
hearings were held in the House on this very bill. I would hope that
Members whose districts would be potentially affected by pending
legislation such as this will be given the courtesy at least of an
input of Members of the House whose districts are definitely going to
be affected as a result of this bill.
The bottom line, in my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, is that my
territory is more than 85 percent dependent, either directly or
indirectly, on the U.S. tuna processing and fishing industries. As
StarKist has repeatedly testified, ``A decrease in production or
departure of one or both of the existing processors in American Samoa
would devastate the local economy, resulting in massive unemployment
and insurmountable financial problems.''
This begs the question, Mr. Speaker: Why is only canned tuna up for
discussion? What happened to the other industries doing their fair
share to provide economic alternatives to drug production in the Andean
countries? I am all for helping our Andean countries, but I want to
ensure that the U.S. tuna industry, the U.S. tuna fishing fleet, and
the workers in California, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa are also
protected in the process.
I want to quickly note that if canned tuna is not excluded, this
country will see the end of the U.S. fishing fleet which is composed of
50 vessels. Investments in these vessels are worth hundreds of millions
of dollars. Our World War II veterans built this fleet and for almost
100 years, the tuna industry has been with us. In times of national
crisis, our tuna fishing fleet has been our eyes and ears on the high
seas. Our fishing fleets report to the Coast Guard and other Federal
agencies any suspicious movements of vessels that may also affect the
security of our Nation.
My colleagues need to understand that there are no fishing licenses
left in the eastern Pacific. Our U.S. tuna fishing fleet cannot fish in
the eastern region of the Pacific. What kind of justice is this, Mr.
Speaker?
Mr. Speaker, canned tuna represents the third fastest moving product
category in the entire U.S. grocery business. Canned tuna provides a
high-quality, affordable source of protein for 96 percent of U.S.
families. If H.R. 3009 is not amended, if this legislation is not shut
down, canned tuna will become a foreign-controlled commodity instead of
a branded product that U.S. consumers have trusted with confidence for
over 95 years.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote down on this proposed rule
concerning this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to exclude canned
tuna from this bill and vote against the rule which will not allow
Members from both sides of the aisle to introduce appropriate
amendments so that at least we can debate the merits of this bill.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means.
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, when the world changes, it is always
difficult and sometimes painful, but the fact of the matter is, the
world will change. In this area of economic relationships, it is
becoming extremely dynamic.
First of all, people need to understand that the people who primarily
take the floor are those who are opposed to what is going to occur. We
do not ordinarily get an enormous number of people who are in support.
So when we listen to the arguments that people are making as to why we
should be opposed to this bill, which allows for modest importations
from sub-Saharan Africa, modest adjustments for the Caribbean region,
and the opportunity, for the first time, for the Andean region, which
has taken significant responsibility for reducing the production of
coca and, therefore, cocaine, taking away literally a cash crop and not
getting anything in return, that what we are doing is reaching out to
them in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, T-shirts, if you will, are going to be produced
somewhere in the world. I understand my friends from the former
textile-producing areas, because quite frankly, in the latter part of
the last century it was New England that was the textile center of the
U.S. What we saw was movement regionally to the Atlantic States and
then to the South because it was following cheap labor. And what has
happened is, it has begun to jump off the North American continent and
continues to find cheap labor.
Cheap labor is all over the world. The T-shirt, if it is not made in
the U.S., is going to be made somewhere: Madagascar, Bangladesh, India.
It is not going to be made in the U.S. And the idea that if we simply
stop the world, we are going to keep the jobs, that is just not
reality.
What we have to do is rethink our relationships. What the U.S. can do
and do well is to continue to supply fabric, cotton, primarily yarn,
and also raw material.
Now, where do we have a better chance of sustaining the U.S.'s future
role in textiles coming into the U.S.? Making sure that the people who
send that T-shirt, either in Madagascar or in Bangladesh or somewhere
else 10,000, 15,000 miles away from the U.S., or building a win-win
relationship with our friends in the Western Hemisphere? We have to
start with the idea that that T-shirt is not going to stay here. People
have said, one of the major mills, Brunk, is now in bankruptcy; 60,000
jobs were lost. This legislation is not in effect, so it must have been
for some other reason. Time marches on.
What we are trying to do is to create a relationship that will
produce a lasting, beneficial, harmonious balance in which our friends
in our own hemisphere, which also provides us with shortened logistics
for our own products to assist, and a little bit of help and
recognition, that they have made significant advances on the supply
side of the drug problem. We obviously need to work on the demand side,
but they are working on the supply side.
So when we listen to the arguments, including the gentleman from
American Samoa, about the potential displacement of jobs, that is a
real concern for American Samoa because they have a significant number
of people who are employed in this industry. What has not been
presented yet is clear evidence of the facts that a direct result of
what we do will diminish jobs. Will there be readjustment? Will
companies go into business and go out of business? Will other companies
expand to absorb the loss of the jobs from that other business? That is
what we have to analyze; not say, change will take place and,
therefore, do not move forward. What is the impact of the change? What
is the dynamic of the change, and how can we make sure that any
downside is diminished?
My friend came to the floor and mentioned my name a number of times
and said that certain bills have not passed and that this should not be
in front of trade promotion authority. I will tell my colleagues, I did
everything in my
[[Page H8256]]
power to make sure that trade promotion authority came first.
I had a letter from the Speaker saying that it was going to be voted
on prior to today. I do not control scheduling on the floor. We do know
that this particular provision will expire December 4. The Andean bill
has been where the Andean bill has been; the trade promotion authority
has been changed. This bill has not been changed. Trade promotion
authority has been changed. I do not have control over that.
So what we have in front of us today is the possibility to build a
stronger lasting relationship with every commitment on the part of the
sponsors of this bill; and by the way, there has been a lot of comment
about the fact that we have not been bipartisan. I support the bill,
the ranking member supports the bill, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Trade supports the
bill, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Trade supports the bill. The bill came out of committee
on a voice vote.
Mr. Speaker, we can just go so far. It is not perfect. Trade involves
relocation. I will commit to anyone, lay the facts in front of me,
clear evidence of the downside, and we will work on making that
adjustment. But to say that we have to stop now and not move forward in
this process because frankly the Senate has to take the bill up, I am
quite sure that the Members over there will effect change in the bill.
We will have a conference and we will move forward. Our job today is to
not send a signal to our friends around the world that the answer is no
and nothing.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel).
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and against
the cockamamie idea that only people that are against trade or are
against the bill can come to the floor to have something to say about
it. I just do not believe that when we support a bill or we support a
rule, that automatically means that it is bipartisan. Bipartisan means
that Republicans and Democrats set aside their labels and try to find
out what is best for the country, what is best for international trade,
what is best for Members of Congress. Just because everything is not
violently opposed does not mean that people support the concept of
bringing bills to the floor based on the thoughts of the distinguished
chairman from California.
There is the old fashioned way to do it, and they call it hearings.
We do not have to do it that way, but just because there is not a name-
throwing episode with everything that comes out of the committee, I do
not think it raises this type of procedure to the level of being called
bipartisan. And supporting trade, international trade, does not mean
that one can be insensitive to the impact that it has on hard-working
Americans.
Of course, economic growth is going to be dependent on expansion of
trade. Of course, expansion of trade means that there is going to be
dislocation and pain. That comes from progress. But it does not mean
that we should not be sensitive to the negative impact that it has on
hard-working Americans and that we should not do all that we can to
ease that pain. And we should discuss it; we should have hearings.
Americans, whether in Puerto Rico or whether they are in American
Samoa, should have an opportunity to share with us what will be the
negative economic impact on our citizens in that part of the world.
{time} 0945
The fact that I support the rule and support the legislation does not
mean that I am not going to do all I can to make certain that equity is
displayed not only for our textile workers and manufacturers, but for
our people in American Samoa and people in Puerto Rico.
It seems like if anyone has a complaint about anything, that they are
depicted as being whining and screaming and un-American. Even when it
gets to the trade promotion authority, one can be even unpatriotic
because one disagrees with some unilateral proposal that came out of my
committee. We have to get back to the idea that just because we all do
not read from the same page does not mean that one is less patriotic
than the next person.
I want to say that we have a lot of things to work out here. We have
assurances from the chairman that he has to see some negative evidence
of what is happening in Samoa and Puerto Rico, and we have to do that.
We have to work with our friends, Republicans and Democrats in the
Senate. We have to try to perfect this. We have to try to do in
conference what we did not do at hearings.
So let us try to be a little more gentle with each other. The country
is at war. We have a job to do. We have to have mutual respect for the
intent of the Members that are trying to perfect our legislation, and
not just be opposed to it.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, this issue or these represented issues seem to have a
way of polarizing Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, all
over the field.
My good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the very
able chairman of the powerful Committee on Ways and Means, he and I are
at odds on this.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), I am not sure where he is
on this; but he is nonetheless my friend, whether he is for me or
against me.
Nevertheless, this has a way of separating people. The United States
textile industry has already suffered its worst crisis since the Great
Depression. We have lost nearly 60,000 jobs, nearly 10 percent of the
entire workforce, in just the last 12 months.
Our suppliers in the cotton, wool, man-made fiber, textile,
machinery, and chemical industries have also been damaged by this
crisis.
H.R. 3009, Mr. Speaker, will be extremely damaging to the United
States textile industry. It will cause even more U.S. job losses, and
make our current crisis even worse. The bill would harm American
textile manufacturers, including producers of fabric, yarn, and thread.
Mr. Speaker, this week, two giants in my district came forward with
distressing news. One announced that it is filing chapter 11. A second
one announced it is laying off 13,000 workers.
Mr. Speaker, my mom was a machine operator in a hosiery mill. I knew
as a youngster in the rural south the significance of a textile check
coming in every week as a result of a woman laboring arduously over
that machine, before the days of air conditioning, I might add, Mr.
Speaker. Now those textile checks are less frequent. They are being
seen less and less frequently.
The bill allows, Mr. Speaker, a huge amount of regional fabric made
in the Andean countries, increasing to nearly 1 billion square meter
equivalent annually by 2006, to be assembled as garments and enter the
United States duty free, quota free.
That is a slap in the face to our textile community, which is
synonymously known as success in this country. When we mention success,
we immediately think of the textile industry, the way it started, the
jobs that were created. The bill also allows apparel assembled in the
Andean countries of U.S. or Andean regional fabric to use yarn from
anywhere in the world.
Finally, unrelated to the basic Andean bill, this legislation would
grant duty-free treatment to vast quantities of apparel imports
assembled in sub-Saharan Africa from African or Third World countries,
usually Asian fabric.
Mr. Speaker, I am unwilling and/or incapable of turning a blind eye
and a deaf ear to the textile community which has been so obviously
significant in the success of this country. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that this bill is not
just about drugs, and it is certainly not just about Colombia. It is
about stability in the Andean region.
As someone who serves on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
and who has traveled extensively in the
[[Page H8257]]
region, I can tell my colleagues that this region, this region
presently is on the verge of profound instability. Things are getting
worse. Things are getting substantially worse.
All of these countries are experiencing a level of civil unrest. I
think that it is critical to understand. Colombia's economy is still
stuck in the worst recession in 70 years. Ecuador's economy is a basket
case. Peru and Bolivia remain desperately poor. The conditions in those
nations continue to deteriorate.
Now, this decline is partly a result of the extension of trade
benefits to the Caribbean Basin, which I opposed. I opposed it because
they lack the necessary safeguard in terms of workers, workers' rights,
and environmental standards. I opposed it in part because I feared
exactly what is happening: workers in the Andean countries are not
competing with American workers. They are now competing with workers in
the Caribbean because of CBI, and they are losing that competition. The
economic impact of September 11 has not even been felt yet, but we know
it will.
So it should not come as any surprise that the peasants in those four
countries are back growing coca and opium again. The successes that
have been achieved in Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia are eroding rapidly.
They are at risk. The unemployment rates in these nations are
escalating dramatically.
That is why the economic opportunities provided in this bill are so
critical, not just for ending drug cultivation and promoting stability,
but they are essential for peace and harmony in the region.
By the way, it is for the same reason that I have been urging the
administration to accelerate the dollars that have been appropriated
under Plan Colombia for alternative crop substitution and economic
development.
Now, I share the concern of my colleagues about labor rights in the
region. I am not happy with the labor provisions in the bill. But if
the state has failed, there is nobody to guarantee these labor rights,
and state collapse may come sooner than we think in the Andean region.
The region, believe me, has serious problems.
We have seen what happens when states fail. We have the example
currently of Afghanistan. We do not want to allow that to happen in the
Andean region. I urge support for the bill.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, this is probably the most important
antinarcotics vote that will be cast in Congress this year. There is
just no way to avoid it.
I do not support TPA. I am not exactly known as Mr. Free Trader. This
is something where we have to look at the facts. As my friend, the
gentleman from Massachusetts, just pointed out, whether we like NAFTA
or not, we have that; whether we like the Caribbean Basin Initiative or
not, whether we like the Andean trade preference, that is what is there
now.
This vote is whether to repeal the trade advantage in the most
critical cocaine and heroin region in the world at a time that the
surrounding nations have these advantages because of the legislation in
this United States Congress.
Let us look at the facts of this situation: in Colombia, we once had
a narcostate that has now elected a free government, that is helping us
eliminate the cocaine and heroin. As they elect a government that now
responds to our concerns, we are going to tell them they do not have
anywhere to sell their products if the farmers stop growing poppy and
coca?
In Bolivia, which used to supply 30 percent of our cocaine and
heroin, they now are down to less than 5 percent and going towards
complete eradication. We have a president who succeeded President
Banzer, President Quiroga, who is committed to providing trade
opportunities so the campocinos have some way to feed their families
other than feeding our children cocaine and heroin. And we are going to
say, no, we are going to stop that trade?
In Peru, we have a newly elected government, a country riven by
tremendous crisis because of past illegal activities in security issues
with President Fujimori. That president is trying to build and rebuild
a coalition, and we want to yank his opportunity out from underneath
him? Mind you, we already have an Andean trade preference. This is
whether to repeal it. We are going to yank it out at a critical time in
Peruvian history?
In Ecuador, which has had five different governments in 5 years, that
is teetering on instability. As we see the coca and heroin producers
look at their region as a possible place to go in, we want to tell
their government that is saying, we need to trade, we need to build our
relations with the United States, we want to stiff-arm them and repeal
their opportunities?
For those who come here and say, we do not want to do eradication, we
do not want to do fumigation, we do not want to shoot down airplanes,
to do all the interdiction, we do not want to throw people in prisons,
what do they propose to do to help these people?
My friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, has said it well: in the
Andean initiative, we are trying to do alternative development. We are
trying to rebuild their legal systems. But we are going to stop and
repeal the trade initiatives at the very time this Congress has put $1
billion into Plan Colombia, we are putting another half a billion into
the Andean initiative, and now we want to yank out the essential
follow-through that gives something for these people to do to make a
living to feed their families at a time when they most need it?
I just do not understand it. My friends who supported the
interdiction efforts, as we eradicate their crops, as we intercept
their ships, as we shoot down their planes, what do we propose they do?
That is a fundamental question Members are dealing with today.
We cannot on the one hand, and look, this is a tough decision. I
understand that this is not likely to help my district in the trade
question, but it is certainly going to help the kids and families on
the streets of Indiana if we can lower the amount of heroin and cocaine
coming in and protect them.
We have to make some tough decisions. I strongly support this act. It
is essential. It is the centerpiece of the antidrug efforts. We cannot
just tell these people: eat coke. We have to have an alternative.
This is not an easy vote, but it is one of the most essential votes
in this hemisphere in the antidrug efforts that Members will cast this
year or next year.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman
for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules refused to
allow an amendment that I made a request on which would require the
certification by the President that Colombia is actively engaged in the
investigation of the murder of labor activists in its country.
The country, Colombia, has exported many products to the United
States; but that is not what it will be remembered for. It will be
remembered for the killings that are taking place.
During the 1990s, more trade union activists were killed in Colombia
than any other country. No other country is even close. The numbers are
truly astonishing. Over 1,000 labor activists have been murdered since
this trade agreement was enacted.
It is not because of this trade agreement; but the fact is, during
this 10-year relationship, that is what has happened. In this year
alone, 131 labor activists have been killed. This cannot just be a
coincidence of these people being killed in the firefight that is
taking place.
I do not diminish the complexity of the problems of violence in
Colombia on both the right and the left, but the fact of the matter is
that, according to the ILO, these murders have continued. They have not
been investigated. People have not been identified. The core ILO
agreements have not been dealt with.
In fact, the ILO report of last year says that the cases where the
instigators and perpetrators of the murders of
[[Page H8258]]
trade union leader are identified are practically nonexistent, as is
handing down guilty verdicts.
{time} 1000
The point is this, the government is doing little or nothing to try
to investigate and identify the people who are killing the labor
activists across the country. When labor activists are asking for
protection from the government the protection is not forthcoming and
the assassinations continue. These people are assassinated at work.
They are assassinated in the streets. They are assassinated in their
own homes in front of their families. And they are all labor activists.
That is what they have in common. The time has come to stop that.
We talk about the benefits of the trade agreements. One of the
benefits, theoretically, is the labor will prosper, the people have the
ability to organize. They will improve their working conditions. They
will improve their pay, and they will be able to provide for their
families. But that does not happen in and of itself. It happens because
labor organizers talk to the workers. They talk to them about the
benefits of joining a union.
Colombia has a history of union involvement but it is now being
eradicated. According to the ILO, it is being eradicated by the para-
military organizations on the right for the most part. And I think it
is time to come where not only we will be investing in Plan Colombia,
but we are extending trade agreements to Colombia that we understand
the need to stop the assassination in this country of these labor
activists, because it just takes away any ability to try and organize
the working place so, in fact, people can have the benefits that
supposedly free trade is supposed to bring to those countries in terms
of the economic opportunity.
Thirty members of the Congress joined me in sending a letter to the
president of Colombia asking for these investigations, asking for an
effort to bring these people to justice. And we have received no
response from the president. And I was hoping that this amendment would
have been accepted and we could have sent that message to the president
requiring those actions to take place in the certification by the
President of United States that those investigations were ongoing.
Unfortunately, this trade agreement will probably pass. Those
investigations will not take place. We are talking about a reign of
terrorism in Colombia right under our noses in a country where we are
financing a war supposedly to end that; and yet we cannot get the
government to participate in the effort to investigate these
assassinations and these crimes against labor activists. I thank the
gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goode).
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to H.R. 3009. I
have had hundreds of letters from textile employees and the plant
managers from my part of Virginia. They are very concerned that this
legislation, if passed and signed into law, will cost more jobs in
southside Virginia. This week VF. Knitwear announced the termination of
2,300 persons in Martinsville and Henry County. This brings to a total
of over 10,000 jobs lost in the past year and a half under the so-
called free-trade benefits.
This bill is a turkey. It would be an awful Thanksgiving present for
the persons in my district if this bill were to pass. We need to kill
this turkey, and we need to relegate it to a place where hope is a
stranger and where mercy will never reach.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the Andean Free Trade Preference Act expires
in December; and if all we were talking about was the extension of the
bill, it would be a simple matter. Most of us would vote for it. But
this Andean Free Trade Pact extension is also an expansion. It goes far
beyond simply expanding the free trade pact that has been in existence
for the last 10 years.
First of all, for the first time it extends duty-free, quota-free
access to textile and apparel imports from four countries, the Andean
countries. Secondly, it takes this bill which needs to pass in December
and piggybacks on to it wholly gratuitous concessions to sub-Saharan
African countries, 22 of them, who last year got substantial
concessions in the African Growth and Opportunity Act. And then it
extends a third time substantial concessions to the Caribbean
countries, 24 of them.
So we have really got three trade-expansion bills wrapped up in one.
If it were just the Andean Pact we were talking about, it would be
simple; but the problem is it goes much further.
Mr. Speaker, over the last 15 years, we have liberalized trade and
textiles and apparel again and again and again. First there was free
trade for Israel. Then there was free trade or substantial concessions
for the Caribbean countries. Then there was NAFTA. Then there were more
concessions for the Caribbean countries so they would be treated like
Mexico. Then there was the phase-out and elimination of quotas as a
result of agreement on textile and clothing which was part of the WTO
agreement in 1994.
What is the result? What is the result of all of these free-trade
concessions? Today, last year, textile and apparel imports into this
country were $77.5 billion, $77.5 billion, up by 90 percent since 1994.
Up by $35 billion since 1994.
What is the result for the American textile worker? When I came here
in 1983, there were 2.1, 2.2 million Americans engaged in textiles and
apparel. Today there is barely over a million. And in the last 9
months, 118,000 textile and apparel workers have lost their jobs in
this country. In the last 3 months, 46,000 textile and apparel workers
have lost their jobs. This bill, this triple package with the Andean
countries and the Caribbean countries and the sub-Saharan African
countries all benefiting, substantially gaining greater rights to duty-
free, quota-free access to our markets, this bill cannot help but
continue the hemorrhage in job losses that we have experienced for the
last 10 years.
This struggling industry will be dealt a death blow by this
particular bill. I am not exaggerating.
There is a simpler, easier conclusion. We can have a clean bill, a
mere expansion of the Andean Trade Preference Act, extend it for 5
years, extend it for 10 years. It does not matter to me what you extend
it for, but keep it clean. Keep it related to the purpose at hand.
Simply extend the pact that we have got. I will give the House that
opportunity when the time comes for a motion to recommit, if of course
this motion is not defeated; and that is the most efficient solution,
defeat the motion and send the bill back so that it conforms to simply
the Andean Free Trade Pact.
But if the rule passes, I will offer a motion to recommit which will
give everybody in the House that option, the option simply of extending
the Andean Trade Pact so it helps those countries that we purport to
help; but it does not help them at the expense of the million textile
workers who are still left.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), for a colloquy with the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy
with my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
The reason is the U.S. must continue to exempt canned tuna or they
will destroy domestic processing and the entire fishing industry not
only in California but Samoa, Puerto Rico, and other places. I have
been working with my good friend, the gentleman from American Samoa
(Mr. Faleomavaega), and others on this position.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas) has committed if we can bring him the facts that in the
conference report he will take into consideration and allow our
amendment that will at least stop the loss of jobs. And we estimate
right now just in San Diego over 10,000 jobs will be lost if they are
able to dump this tuna. Do we have the gentleman's commitment to take a
look at the facts and work this in conference, because the Senate
supports our position?
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman, as I said both
privately and publicly, we are currently analyzing the situation. We
have been provided by our friend from American
[[Page H8259]]
Samoa an amendment something other than simply banning. That is a
significant step in the right direction.
We are willing to look at limitations on volume, quota or
consumption, whichever is the most appropriate structure. I understand
and appreciate the gentleman's concern because he is dealing with only
a canning operation in which the processing comes from the very country
that is the subject of the tuna expansion in Andean and Ecuador. And
the pressures are significant. The facts are there. We will make
adjustments so that the gentleman will have at least a minimal comfort
level.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank and I take the gentleman's words
from California (Mr. Thomas) as a friend and I take his word as gospel.
But I will say if the problem cannot be worked out, my friends from
American Samoa, from Puerto Rico and from California, we will be forced
in the conference report to vote against the rule, to vote against the
conference report; and then I will support the motion to recommit in
the conference report.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I will tell my friend who said that the
solution is to simply extend the Andean Pact, it means the African
provisions are out, the Caribbean provisions are out and all of the
help, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) said, in replacing the
drug costs will be out as well. That does not sound exactly like a good
deal.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining
on either side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) has 6\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) has 4\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the debate on the rule to urge defeat of this
rule. I ask defeat of this rule because of the situation at hand. The
United States Congress has been asked to adopt, reapprove the Andean
Trade Act, which was adopted over 10 years ago. It had a sunset in it
so that there would be debate to be able to revise it and look at it
and debate it.
This bill comes to the floor without any public hearings, without any
debate. In fact, it was rushed through the Committee on Rules just a
few hours ago. And now we are asked to adopt one of the most important
trade policies to affect the southern hemisphere. It affects all of
Central America, the Caribbean, and the Andean region of Latin America.
There are a lot of concerns that you hear from Members here, concerns
that ought to be addressed and these trade agreements ought to be
modernized and updated with the circumstances at hand. And we need to
have a public process and a public hearing to do that. It did not occur
here; and, therefore, the rule ought to be defeated and the bill ought
to be defeated.
Yes, there is pressure on us because the bill does sunset. But we can
do a better job than what we have done with bringing this bill to the
floor at this time, at this moment. So I urge a defeat of the rule.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman on the Committee on
Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, there is an expression that probably will
only be understood by my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart), of those in the Chamber. I do not know how many bilingual
people there are here. But I have struggled, as the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) knows, with my Spanish and this was a term
that was taught to me by our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Napolitano). It is: ``Tapar el sol con un dedo.''
It basically means you try to block the sun with your thumb, which
obviously is not going to happen. We need to realize that there is
overwhelming momentum worldwide to break down tariff barriers and to
expand trade.
Many people who traditionally have not been supportive of that in the
past in Latin America are now strong proponents; and we know that,
obviously, improved trade increases the standard of living for people.
It allows them to focus on political repression and other challenges.
This bill is designed to deal with a number of factors. Obviously, it
is focused on challenges that exist in Africa and the Caribbean basin.
One of key issues in focusing on Andean trade is that we have been able
to do everything possible to try and wean those countries that have
been reliant on the crops that provided drugs to move off of that.
{time} 1015
Several weeks ago, I and a number of my colleagues had the
opportunity to visit Bolivia, and there is no stronger example of a
nation which has stood for that transfer away from coca, the drug crop,
to legal, wonderful, productive crops than Bolivia. And there needs to
be an even greater incentive as we try to diminish that flow of illicit
drugs into the United States and other parts of the world. This measure
is designed to do just that.
There are, as has been pointed out in the debate, a wide range of
other factors included in here, and there are concerns. But as I said
with that expression, to try to block the sun with your thumb is
something that we cannot do here. The world is changing, and I am happy
to say that it is moving towards free trade because it does benefit the
consumers. I do not want to see the tuna industry impacted negatively,
I do not want to see the textile industry impacted negatively. And I
know there are very understandable questions that have come forward,
and I hope that we will be able to take steps to diminish the
deleterious impact that this might have.
I am convinced, I am convinced that as we deal with these shifts that
have taken place domestically, as was pointed out earlier in the
debate, that are now taking place globally, it is clearly the right
thing for us to do to move in this direction. Our next step, then, Mr.
Speaker, will be to grant trade promotion authority so that we can
expand even further the very, very important message of freedom.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I rise in support of the Andean Trade Preference Act.
We are at a critical point in our ongoing relationship with our good
friends in Central and South America. The expansion and extension of
ATPA is a necessary component of a comprehensive strategy to improve
our collective security in the Western Hemisphere.
We have already established free trade agreements with Canada and
Mexico, and now we must look to widen our horizon, expand our
opportunities and share the good fortunes of trade with our Andean
neighbors and then the rest of the democratic countries of South
America.
The ATPA has helped foster trade between the United States and the
Andean region that has nearly doubled over the last decade to $18
billion to the mutual benefit of the United States and Andean
businesses. To date, we have made a bet that a $1.3 billion American
assistance program can help solve this problem. If we truly want to
shape the environment to ensure our success, we must protect our bet
with a trade package that sets the conditions for economies that need
to change their earnings from drug money to industries that are part of
the 21st century economy.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade
Promotion and Drug Eradication Act.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again how much time there
is?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Evans).
[[Page H8260]]
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, this rule prevents consideration of an
amendment the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I would
have introduced to strike Colombia from this trade preference due to
their horrendous record on labor rights.
This bill allows Colombia to import numerous goods across our borders
duty free. This preference costs us $262 million. This is a lot of lost
revenue at the expense of a country that does nothing to ensure the
basic security of trade unionists. Four thousand trade unionists have
been gunned down in the last few years, and 133 trade unionists have
been murdered this year alone. In Colombia, virtual immunity exists for
the murderers of these trade unionists.
The Miller-Evans amendment suspends Colombia from this trade
preference until it begins to investigate the murders of these labor
leaders. We are really not asking too much for several million dollars
of duty free treatment.
I think we should stand in solidarity with the families of the 4,000-
plus slain union leaders in Colombia that died for peace and human
rights while their pleas for protection have been ignored by their own
government. Their families have no consolation as the killers or these
trade unionists remain free from prosecution.
I urge my colleagues to remember that labor rights are human rights.
Trade unionists risk their lives every day to ensure no person is
subject to a wage that does not allow them to feed their family or
works in a hazardous and dangerous workplace around the world. These
are basic principles we must insist on if Colombia is ever to receive
the benefits of trade with our Nation.
I urge my colleagues to stand up and fight for labor rights and human
rights.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Baird).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, last weekend, I had the great privilege of
visiting the Pendleton Woolen Mills in Washougal, Washington. I met
with many of the hundreds of employees who work there, many of whom
have been there for 20 or 30 years. Their whole life has been spent
working in one of America's finest textile industries.
The challenge we face today is that we are presented with legislation
that possibly will cost these people their jobs, with very, very little
time to discuss this, with little time to debate it, and with little
time to explore the ways we can improve it and minimize the impact on
the people who might be displaced.
I have supported trade, proudly supported trade in this body: trade
in the Caribbean, trade with Africa, and trade with China, and
elsewhere in the world. But to bring a piece of legislation to this
body with so little time, when it could affect so many of our American
workers, is not the kind of procedure we should follow. It does a
disservice to those workers, and frankly, it does a disservice to the
principles of trade itself.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation and
``no'' on the rule until we get this right. We need time, we owe the
time to the people whose jobs could be lost, to do this right.
I am a supporter of trade, but we need to return to a more
deliberative, conceptual, thoughtful process here in this body; we are
not doing it, and it is a darn shame. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this rule.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, has the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) yielded back her time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I wish to thank all my colleagues who have spoken today
and in the Committee on Rules, where we met at 7:00 this morning and
had a hearing and a vote on this very important legislation before
bringing it to the floor.
We are dealing, with regard to the Andean region, with four
democracies. I am a strong believer and always have been in free trade
among free peoples. There are four democracies in this hemisphere,
allies of the United States, facing tremendous challenges, not the
least of which is narcotrafficking. The strongest signal we could send
to them, that we appreciate their friendship, and that we look forward
to working with them to mutually seek progress and prosperity in the
United States and in our neighborhood in this hemisphere, is by passing
this legislation today.
With regard to the argument that there have been problems with labor
leaders in Colombia, the same person that came to advocate for that
today before the Committee on Rules to prevent free trade with
Colombia, advocates for free trade, for example, with the only
dictatorship in this hemisphere today where there are no labor rights.
How can you be for free trade with the Cuban dictatorship, where there
are absolutely no labor rights, and then come and advocate for the
denial of free trade or a trade relationship with a democracy because
there are some problems?
So, anyway, this is important legislation, and I want to thank those
who have worked so hard on it. It expires, the agreement with the
Andean countries, December 4, so in talking about timeliness, it is so
important, Mr. Speaker, that we pass this before we leave today or
tomorrow for a few days, before we come back. And so I would urge my
colleagues to support the underlying legislation and to support this
rule.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and to
applaud the conferees for their work on the Aviation Security
conference report.
This conference report will provide the government with the ability
to fully protect our citizens from another horrible attack such as the
ones that occurred on September 11.
I especially want to applaud the successful efforts of the conferees
in both Houses to remove the ``Super-citizenship'' clause that was
present in the Senate bill.
Many of us in Congress and in minority communities throughout the
country were very concerned about that provision because it allowed
naturalized citizens to be treated differently than natural-born
citizens.
Had the ``Super-citizenship'' provision been enacted, it would have
set the first precedent for further restrictions on a portion of our
U.S. citizenry.
I and many others are comforted by the fact that the conference took
a fair and just stance on this issue.
I do have to acknowledge, though, that thousands of Legal Permanent
Residents will lose their jobs as a result of this legislation.
This is yet another strong argument for worker relief.
We cannot purposely take jobs away from hard-working, tax-paying
individuals without offering them assistance.
I hope my colleagues will join me in efforts to address the needs of
screeners who, through no fault of their own, will soon be standing in
the unemployment line.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because
it did not allow an amendment submitted by Representative George Miller
on violence against Colombian labor leaders.
I strongly believe that Colombia should benefit from the Andean Trade
Preferences Act.
If we want Colombia to abandon illegal commerce, then we must provide
Colombia with benefits and incentives to support of legal enterprises.
This trade amendment is one such effort to do that.
This bill might have a negative impact on some textile companies in
my own congressional district, although that is not assured. It would
be a lot easier for those business owners and the workers to accept
this trade agreement if they knew that Colombia's workers were
protected from human rights violence. At a minimum, the companies and
workers in my district need to know that if the worst happens, and
Colombian union leaders and workers are murdered, then Colombian
justice will actively investigate, hunt down, prosecute, and imprison
the murderers.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Earlier this year, I met with a
very impressive delegation of Colombian business leaders, members of
the Colombian Chamber of Commerce. They also believe that the Colombian
government needs to do a great deal more to protect both business
owners and union leaders from kidnapping and murder. More trade
unionists are killed in Colombia than all other countries combined.
[[Page H8261]]
Mr. Speaker, that is a horrible reality. I have been to Colombia. I
know that everyone in every part of the country is threatened by
violence. The sources of violence include the paramilitary groups, the
guerrilla forces and official armed forces. I know that stopping the
violence will take a long time.
Congressman Mr. Miller was not asking for anything so grand in his
amendment.
We are only asking that the Colombian Government apprehend and try
the parties responsible for the killings of trade union members. Not
because they are more important than any other sector of Colombian
society, but because such action will send a clear message that
impunity is ended for those who target labor leaders for murder.
I want to promote and expand legal commerce and markets for Colombia.
All I ask for is that Colombia demonstrate the political will to
demand justice for murdered labor leaders.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 191, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 446]
YEAS--225
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Chambliss
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--191
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Castle
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hayes
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Menendez
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickering
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--16
Bono
Clay
Cubin
Flake
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lantos
Largent
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Ros-Lehtinen
Waxman
Young (AK)
{time} 1045
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, Mrs. MALONEY of New York and Messrs. FORD,
SKELTON, SNYDER, McDERMOTT, TOWNS and PAYNE changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ROHRABACHER and Mr. TANCREDO changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 446, had I been
here I would have voted ``no'' on this bill; however, I was detained by
a conference meeting with the White House and was unable to vote at the
appropriate time.
____________________