Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 159 (Friday, November 16, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 159 (Friday, November 16, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H8282-H8300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ANDEAN TRADE PROMOTION AND DRUG ERADICATION ACT

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 289, I call up
the

[[Page H8283]]

bill (H.R. 3009) to extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, to grant
additional trade benefits under that Act, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution
289, the bill is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 3009 is as follows:

H.R. 3009

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 ``Andean Trade Promotion and
Drug Eradication Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Since the Andean Trade Preference Act was enacted in
1991, it has had a positive impact on United States trade
with Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Two-way trade has
doubled, with the United States serving as the leading source
of imports and leading export market for each of the Andean
beneficiary countries. This has resulted in increased jobs
and expanded export opportunities in both the United States
and the Andean region.
(2) The Andean Trade Preference Act has been a key element
in the United States counternarcotics strategy in the Andean
region, promoting export diversification and broad-based
economic development that provides sustainable economic
alternatives to drug-crop production, strengthening the
legitimate economies of Andean countries and creating viable
alternatives to illicit trade in coca.
(3) Notwithstanding the success of the Andean Trade
Preference Act, the Andean region remains threatened by
political and economic instability and fragility, vulnerable
to the consequences of the drug war and fierce global
competition for its legitimate trade.
(4) The continuing instability in the Andean region poses a
threat to the security interests of the United States and the
world. This problem has been partially addressed through
foreign aid, such as Plan Colombia, enacted by Congress in
2000. However, foreign aid alone is not sufficient.
Enhancement of legitimate trade with the United States
provides an alternative means for reviving and stabilizing
the economies in the Andean region.
(5) The Andean Trade Preference Act constitutes a tangible
commitment by the United States to the promotion of
prosperity, stability, and democracy in the beneficiary
countries.
(6) Renewal and enhancement of the Andean Trade Preference
Act will bolster the confidence of domestic private
enterprise and foreign investors in the economic prospects of
the region, ensuring that legitimate private enterprise can
be the engine of economic development and political stability
in the region.
(7) Each of the Andean beneficiary countries is committed
to conclude negotiation of a Free Trade Area of the Americas
by the year 2005, as a means of enhancing the economic
security of the region.
(8) Temporarily enhancing trade benefits for Andean
beneficiary countries will promote the growth of free
enterprise and economic opportunity in these countries and
serve the security interests of the United States, the
region, and the world.

SEC. 3. ARTICLES ELIGIBLE FOR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

(a) Eligibility of Certain Articles.--Section 204 of the
Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3203) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c) and redesignating
subsections (d) through (g) as subsections (c) through (f),
respectively; and
(2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
``(b) Exceptions and Special Rules.--
``(1) Certain articles that are not import-sensitive.--The
President may proclaim duty-free treatment under this title
for any of the following articles only if the article is the
product of an ATPEA beneficiary country and only if the
President determines that the article is not import-sensitive
in the context of imports from ATPEA beneficiary countries:
``(A) Footwear not designated at the time of the effective
date of this Act as eligible for the purpose of the
generalized system of preferences under title V of the Trade
Act of 1974.
``(B) Petroleum, or any product derived from petroleum,
provided for in headings 2709 and 2710 of the HTS.
``(C) Watches and watch parts (including cases, bracelets
and straps), of whatever type including, but not limited to,
mechanical, quartz digital or quartz analog, if such watches
or watch parts contain any material which is the product of
any country with respect to which HTS column 2 rates of duty
apply.
``(D) Sugars, syrups, and molasses classified in
subheadings 1701.11.03, 1701.12.02, 1701.99.02, 1702.90.32,
1806.10.42, and 2106.90.12 of the HTS.
``(E) Handbags, luggage, flat goods, work gloves, and
leather wearing apparel that--
``(i) are the product of an ATPEA beneficiary country; and
``(ii) were not designated on August 5, 1983, as eligible
articles for purposes of the generalized system of
preferences under title V of the Trade Act of 1974.
``(2) Exclusions.--Duty-free treatment under this title may
not be extended to--
``(A) textiles; or
``(B) rum and tafia classified in subheading 2208.40.00 of
the HTS.
``(3) Apparel articles.--
``(A) In general.--Apparel articles that are imported
directly into the customs territory of the United States from
an ATPEA beneficiary country shall enter the United States
free of duty and free of any quantitative restrictions,
limitations, or consultation levels, but only if such
articles are described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Covered articles.--The apparel articles referred to
in subparagraph (A) are the following:
``(i) Apparel articles assembled from products of the
united states and atpea beneficiary countries or products not
available in commercial quantities.--Apparel articles sewn or
otherwise assembled in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries
exclusively from any one or any combination of the following:

``(I) Fabrics or fabric components formed, or components
knit-to-shape, in the United States (including fabrics not
formed from yarns, if such fabrics are classifiable under
heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are formed in the United
States).
``(II) Fabrics or fabric components formed, or components
knit-to-shape, in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries, from
yarns formed in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries, if
such fabrics (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if
such fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of
the HTS and are formed in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary
countries) are in chief weight of llama, or alpaca.
``(III) Fabrics or yarns, without regard to where they are
formed, if such fabrics or yarns are classifiable under
headings of the HTS from which a change in tariff
classification is allowed under the applicable rules for the
good under General Note 12(t) of the HTS (except for goods
classifiable under heading 6212.10 of the HTS), without
regard to whether the components of such yarns or fabrics
determine the tariff classification of the apparel article,
except that if such yarns or fabrics are used to produce
knit-to-shape components, the components must be knit-to-
shape in the United States or in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary
countries.

``(ii) Additional fabrics.--At the request of any
interested party, the President is authorized to proclaim
additional fabrics and yarns as eligible for preferential
treatment under clause (i)(III) if--

``(I) the President determines that such fabrics or yarns
cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial
quantities in a timely manner;
``(II) the President has obtained advice regarding the
proposed action from the appropriate advisory committee
established under section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2155) and the United States International Trade
Commission;
``(III) within 60 days after the request, the President has
submitted a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the
Senate that sets forth the action proposed to be proclaimed
and the reasons for such action, and the advice obtained
under subclause (II);
``(IV) a period of 60 calendar days, beginning with the
first day on which the President has met the requirements of
subclause (III), has expired; and

``(V) the President has consulted with such committees
regarding the proposed action during the period referred to
in subclause (III).

``(iii) Apparel articles assembled in 1 or more atpea
beneficiary countries from regional fabrics or regional
components.--(I) Subject to the limitation set forth in
subclause (II), apparel articles sewn or otherwise assembled
in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries from fabrics or from
fabric components formed or from components knit-to-shape, in
1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries, from yarns formed in
the United States or in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries
(including fabrics not formed from yarns, if such fabrics are
classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are
formed in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries), whether or
not the apparel articles are also made from any of the
fabrics, fabric components formed, or components knit-to-
shape described in clause (i).
``(II) The preferential treatment referred to in subclause
(I) shall be extended in the 1-year period beginning December
1, 2001, and in each of the 5 succeeding 1-year periods, to
imports of apparel articles in an amount not to exceed the
applicable percentage of the aggregate square meter
equivalents of all apparel articles imported into the United
States in the preceding 12-month period for which data are
available.
``(III) For purposes of subclause (II), the term
`applicable percentage' means 3 percent for the 1-year period
beginning December 1, 2001, increased in each of the 5
succeeding 1-year periods by equal increments, so that for
the period beginning December 1, 2005, the applicable
percentage does not exceed 6 percent.
``(iv) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--A
handloomed, handmade, or folklore article of an ATPEA
beneficiary

[[Page H8284]]

country identified under subparagraph (C) that is certified
as such by the competent authority of such beneficiary
country.
``(v) Special rules.--

``(I) Exception for findings and trimmings.--An article
otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under this
paragraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment because
the article contains findings or trimmings of foreign origin,
if such findings and trimmings do not exceed 25 percent of
the cost of the components of the assembled product. Examples
of findings and trimmings are sewing thread, hooks and eyes,
snaps, buttons, `bow buds', decorative lace, trim, elastic
strips, zippers, including zipper tapes and labels, and other
similar products.
``(II) Certain interlining.--(aa) An article otherwise
eligible for preferential treatment under this paragraph
shall not be ineligible for such treatment because the
article contains certain interlinings of foreign origin, if
the value of such interlinings (and any findings and
trimmings) does not exceed 25 percent of the cost of the
components of the assembled article.
``(bb) Interlinings eligible for the treatment described in
division (aa) include only a chest type plate, `hymo' piece,
or `sleeve header', of woven or weft-inserted warp knit
construction and of coarse animal hair or man-made filaments.
``(cc) The treatment described in this subclause shall
terminate if the President makes a determination that United
States manufacturers are producing such interlinings in the
United States in commercial quantities.
``(III) De minimis rule.--An article that would otherwise
be ineligible for preferential treatment under this
subparagraph because the article contains fibers or yarns not
wholly formed in the United States or in one or more ATPEA
beneficiary countries shall not be ineligible for such
treatment if the total weight of all such fibers or yarns is
not more than 7 percent of the total weight of the good.

``(C) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--For
purposes of subparagraph (B)(iv), the President shall consult
with representatives of the ATPEA beneficiary countries
concerned for the purpose of identifying particular textile
and apparel goods that are mutually agreed upon as being
handloomed, handmade, or folklore goods of a kind described
in section 2.3(a), (b), or (c) of the Annex or Appendix
3.1.B.11 of the Annex.
``(D) Penalties for transshipment.--
``(i) Penalties for exporters.--If the President
determines, based on sufficient evidence, that an exporter
has engaged in transshipment with respect to apparel articles
from an ATPEA beneficiary country, then the President shall
deny all benefits under this title to such exporter, and any
successor of such exporter, for a period of 2 years.
``(ii) Penalties for countries.--Whenever the President
finds, based on sufficient evidence, that transshipment has
occurred, the President shall request that the ATPEA
beneficiary country or countries through whose territory
the transshipment has occurred take all necessary and
appropriate actions to prevent such transshipment. If the
President determines that a country is not taking such
actions, the President shall reduce the quantities of
apparel articles that may be imported into the United
States from such country by the quantity of the
transshipped articles multiplied by 3, to the extent
consistent with the obligations of the United States under
the WTO.
``(iii) Transshipment described.--Transshipment within the
meaning of this subparagraph has occurred when preferential
treatment under subparagraph (A) has been claimed for an
apparel article on the basis of material false information
concerning the country of origin, manufacture, processing, or
assembly of the article or any of its components. For
purposes of this clause, false information is material if
disclosure of the true information would mean or would have
meant that the article is or was ineligible for preferential
treatment under subparagraph (A).
``(E) Bilateral emergency actions.--
``(i) In general.--The President may take bilateral
emergency tariff actions of a kind described in section 4 of
the Annex with respect to any apparel article imported from
an ATPEA beneficiary country if the application of tariff
treatment under subparagraph (A) to such article results in
conditions that would be cause for the taking of such actions
under such section 4 with respect to a like article described
in the same 8-digit subheading of the HTS that is imported
from Mexico.
``(ii) Rules relating to bilateral emergency action.--For
purposes of applying bilateral emergency action under this
subparagraph--

``(I) the requirements of paragraph (5) of section 4 of the
Annex (relating to providing compensation) shall not apply;
``(II) the term `transition period' in section 4 of the
Annex shall mean the period ending December 31, 2006; and
``(III) the requirements to consult specified in section 4
of the Annex shall be treated as satisfied if the President
requests consultations with the ATPEA beneficiary country in
question and the country does not agree to consult within the
time period specified under section 4.

``(4) Customs procedures.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Regulations.--Any importer that claims preferential
treatment under paragraph (1) or (3) shall comply with
customs procedures similar in all material respects to the
requirements of Article 502(1) of the NAFTA as implemented
pursuant to United States law, in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury.
``(ii) Determination.--

``(I) In general.--In order to qualify for the preferential
treatment under paragraph (1) or (3) and for a Certificate of
Origin to be valid with respect to any article for which such
treatment is claimed, there shall be in effect a
determination by the President that each country described in
subclause (II)--

``(aa) has implemented and follows; or
``(bb) is making substantial progress toward implementing
and following,

procedures and requirements similar in all material respects
to the relevant procedures and requirements under chapter 5
of the NAFTA.
``(II) Country described.--A country is described in this
subclause if it is an ATPEA beneficiary country--

``(aa) from which the article is exported; or
``(bb) in which materials used in the production of the
article originate or in which the article or such materials
undergo production that contributes to a claim that the
article is eligible for preferential treatment under
paragraph (1) or (3).
``(B) Certificate of origin.--The Certificate of Origin
that otherwise would be required pursuant to the provisions
of subparagraph (A) shall not be required in the case of an
article imported under paragraph (1) or (3) if such
Certificate of Origin would not be required under Article 503
of the NAFTA (as implemented pursuant to United States law),
if the article were imported from Mexico.
``(5) Definitions.--In this subsection--
``(A) Annex.--The term `the Annex' means Annex 300-B of the
NAFTA.
``(B) ATPEA beneficiary country.--The term `ATPEA
beneficiary country' means any `beneficiary country', as
defined in section 203(a)(1) of this title, which the
President designates as an ATPEA beneficiary country, taking
into account the criteria contained in subsections (b) and
(c) of section 203 and other appropriate criteria, including
the following:
``(i) Whether the beneficiary country has demonstrated a
commitment to--

``(I) undertake its obligations under the WTO, including
those agreements listed in section 101(d) of the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, on or ahead of schedule; and
``(II) participate in negotiations toward the completion of
the FTAA or another free trade agreement.

``(ii) The extent to which the country provides protection
of intellectual property rights consistent with or greater
than the protection afforded under the Agreement on Trade-
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights described in
section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
``(iii) The extent to which the country provides
internationally recognized worker rights, including--

``(I) the right of association;
``(II) the right to organize and bargain collectively;
``(III) a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or
compulsory labor;
``(IV) a minimum age for the employment of children; and
``(V) acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum
wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health;
``(iv) Whether the country has implemented its commitments
to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, as defined in
section 507(6) of the Trade Act of 1974.
``(v) The extent to which the country has met the counter-
narcotics certification criteria set forth in section 490 of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j) for
eligibility for United States assistance.
``(vi) The extent to which the country has taken steps to
become a party to and implements the Inter-American
Convention Against Corruption.
``(vii) The extent to which the country--

``(I) applies transparent, nondiscriminatory, and
competitive procedures in government procurement equivalent
to those contained in the Agreement on Government Procurement
described in section 101(d)(17) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act; and
``(II) contributes to efforts in international fora to
develop and implement international rules in transparency in
government procurement.

``(C) NAFTA.--The term `NAFTA' means the North American
Free Trade Agreement entered into between the United States,
Mexico, and Canada on December 17, 1992.
``(D) WTO.--The term `WTO' has the meaning given that term
in section 2 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C.
3501).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 202 of the Andean
Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3201) is amended by inserting
``(or other preferential treatment)'' after ``treatment''.
(2) Section 204(a) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19
U.S.C. 3203(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(or otherwise provided
for)'' after ``eligibility''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subsection (a)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (1)''.

SEC. 4. TERMINATION OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

Section 208 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C.
3206) is amended to read as follows:

[[Page H8285]]

``SEC. 208. TERMINATION OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

``No duty-free treatment or other preferential treatment
extended to beneficiary countries under this title shall
remain in effect after December 31, 2006.''.

SEC. 5. TRADE BENEFITS UNDER THE CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC
RECOVERY ACT.

Section 213(b)(2)(A) of the Carribean Basin Economic
Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(2)(A)) is amended as follows:
(1) Clause (i) is amended by striking the matter preceding
subclause (I) and inserting the following:
``(i) Apparel articles assembled in one or more cbtpa
beneficiary countries.--Apparel articles sewn or otherwise
assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from
fabrics wholly formed and cut, or from components knit-to-
shape, in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the
United States, (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if
such fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of
the HTS and are wholly formed and cut in the United States)
that are--''.
(2) Clause (ii) is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) Apparel articles cut and assembled in one or more
cbtpa beneficiary countries.--Apparel articles cut in one or
more CBTPA beneficiary countries from fabric wholly formed in
the United States, or from components knit-to-shape in the
United States, from yarns wholly formed in the United States
(including fabrics not formed from yarns, if such fabrics are
classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are
wholly formed in the United States), if such articles are
sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more such countries
with thread formed in the United States.''.

SEC. 6. TRADE BENEFITS UNDER THE AFRICAN GROWTH AND
OPPORTUNITY ACT.

Section 112(b) of the African Growth and Opportunity Act
(19 U.S.C. 3721(b)) is amended as follows:
(1) Paragraph (1) is amended--
(A) by amending the heading to read as follows:
``(1) Apparel articles assembled in one or more beneficiary
sub-saharan african countries.--''; and
(B) by amending the matter preceding subparagraph (A) to
read as follows: ``Apparel articles sewn or otherwise
assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African
countries from fabrics wholly formed and cut, or from
components knit-to-shape, in the United States from yarns
wholly formed in the United States, (including fabrics not
formed from yarns, if such fabrics are classifiable under
heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are wholly formed and cut
in the United States) that are--''.
(2) Paragraph (2) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Apparel articles cut and assembled in one or more
beneficiary sub-saharan african countries.--Apparel articles
cut in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries
from fabric wholly formed in the United States, or from
components knit-to-shape in the United States, from yarns
wholly formed in the United States, (including fabrics not
formed from yarns, if such fabrics are classifiable under
heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are wholly formed in the
United States) if such articles are sewn or otherwise
assembled in one or more such countries with thread formed in
the United States.''.
(3) Paragraph (3) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting
``, or components knit-to-shape,'' after ``from fabric wholly
formed'';
(B) in subparagraph (A)(ii)--
(i) by striking ``1.5'' and inserting ``3''; and
(ii) by striking ``3.5'' and inserting ``7''; and
(C) in subparagraph (B), by amending clause (i) to read as
follows:
``(i) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (A),
preferential treatment under this paragraph shall be extended
through September 30, 2004, for apparel articles wholly
assembled or knit-to-shape and wholly assembled in one or
more lesser developed beneficiary sub-Saharan African
countries regardless of the country of origin of the fabric
or the yarn used to make such articles.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 289, the
amendment printed in the bill is adopted.
The text of H.R. 3009, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 3009

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 ``Andean Trade Promotion and
Drug Eradication Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

SEC. 3. ARTICLES ELIGIBLE FOR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

(a) Eligibility of Certain Articles.--Section 204 of the
Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3203) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c) and redesignating
subsections (d) through (g) as subsections (c) through (f),
respectively; and
(2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
``(b) Exceptions and Special Rules.--
``(1) Certain articles that are not import-sensitive.--The
President may proclaim duty-free treatment under this title
for any article described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or
(D) that is the growth, product, or manufacture of an ATPDEA
beneficiary country and that meets the requirements of this
section, if the President determines that such article is not
import-sensitive in the context of imports from ATPDEA
beneficiary countries:
``(A) Footwear not designated at the time of the effective
date of this Act as eligible for the purpose of the
generalized system of preferences under title V of the Trade
Act of 1974.
``(B) Petroleum, or any product derived from petroleum,
provided for in headings 2709 and 2710 of the HTS.
``(C) Watches and watch parts (including cases, bracelets
and straps), of whatever type including, but not limited to,
mechanical, quartz digital or quartz analog, if such watches
or watch parts contain any material which is the product of
any country with respect to which HTS column 2 rates of duty
apply.
``(D) Handbags, luggage, flat goods, work gloves, and
leather wearing apparel that were not designated on August 5,
1983, as eligible articles for purposes of the generalized
system of preferences under title V of the Trade Act of 1974.
``(2) Exclusions.--Subject to paragraph (3), duty-free
treatment under this title may not be extended to--
``(A) textiles and apparel articles which were not eligible
articles for purposes of this title on January 1, 1994, as
this title was in effect on that date;
``(B) rum and tafia classified in subheading 2208.40 of the
HTS; or
``(C) sugars, syrups, and sugar-containing products subject
to over-quota duty rates under applicable tariff-rate quotas.
``(3) Apparel articles.--
``(A) In general.--Apparel articles that are imported
directly into the customs territory of the United States from
an ATPDEA beneficiary country shall enter the United States
free of duty and free of any quantitative restrictions,
limitations, or consultation levels, but only if such
articles are described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Covered articles.--The apparel articles referred to
in subparagraph (A) are the following:
``(i) Apparel articles assembled from products of the
united states and atpdea beneficiary countries or products
not available in commercial quantities.--Apparel articles
sewn or otherwise assembled in 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary
countries, or the United States, or both, exclusively from
any one or any combination of the following:

``(I) Fabrics or fabric components formed, or components
knit-to-shape, in the United States, from yarns formed in the
United States or 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries
(including fabrics not formed from yarns, if such fabrics are
classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are
formed in the United States).
``(II) Fabrics or fabric components formed or components
knit-to-shape, in 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries,
from yarns formed in 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries,
if such fabrics (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if
such fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of
the HTS and are formed in 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary
countries) or components are in chief weight of llama or
alpaca.
``(III) Fabrics or yarn that is not formed in the United
States or in one or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries, to the
extent that apparel articles of such fabrics or yarn would be
eligible

[[Page H8286]]

for preferential treatment, without regard to the source of
the fabrics or yarn, under Annex 401 of the NAFTA.

``(iii) Apparel articles assembled in 1 or more atpdea
beneficiary countries from regional fabrics or regional
components.--(I) Subject to the limitation set forth in
subclause (II), apparel articles sewn or otherwise assembled
in 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries from fabrics or
from fabric components formed or from components knit-to-
shape, in 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries, from yarns
formed in the United States or 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary
countries (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if such
fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the
HTS and are formed in 1 or more ATPDEA beneficiary
countries), whether or not the apparel articles are also made
from any of the fabrics, fabric components formed, or
components knit-to-shape described in clause (i).
``(II) The preferential treatment referred to in subclause
(I) shall be extended in the 1-year period beginning December
1, 2001, and in each of the 5 succeeding 1-year periods, to
imports of apparel articles in an amount not to exceed the
applicable percentage of the aggregate square meter
equivalents of all apparel articles imported into the United
States in the preceding 12-month period for which data are
available.
``(III) For purposes of subclause (II), the term
`applicable percentage' means 3 percent for the 1-year period
beginning December 1, 2001, increased in each of the 5
succeeding 1-year periods by equal increments, so that for
the period beginning December 1, 2005, the applicable
percentage does not exceed 6 percent.
``(iv) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--A
handloomed, handmade, or folklore article of an ATPDEA
beneficiary country identified under subparagraph (C) that is
certified as such by the competent authority of such
beneficiary country.
``(v) Special rules.--

``(II) Certain interlining.--(aa) An article otherwise
eligible for preferential treatment under this paragraph
shall not be ineligible for such treatment because the
article contains certain interlinings of foreign origin, if
the value of such interlinings (and any findings and
trimmings) does not exceed 25 percent of the cost of the
components of the assembled article.
``(bb) Interlinings eligible for the treatment described in
division (aa) include only a chest type plate, `hymo' piece,
or `sleeve header', of woven or weft-inserted warp knit
construction and of coarse animal hair or man-made filaments.
``(cc) The treatment described in this subclause shall
terminate if the President makes a determination that United
States manufacturers are producing such interlinings in the
United States in commercial quantities.
``(III) De minimis rule.--An article that would otherwise
be ineligible for preferential treatment under this
subparagraph because the article contains fibers or yarns not
wholly formed in the United States or in one or more ATPDEA
beneficiary countries shall not be ineligible for such
treatment if the total weight of all such fibers or yarns is
not more than 7 percent of the total weight of the good.

``(C) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--For
purposes of subparagraph (B)(iv), the President shall consult
with representatives of the ATPDEA beneficiary countries
concerned for the purpose of identifying particular textile
and apparel goods that are mutually agreed upon as being
handloomed, handmade, or folklore goods of a kind described
in section 2.3(a), (b), or (c) of the Annex or Appendix
3.1.B.11 of the Annex.
``(D) Penalties for transshipment.--
``(i) Penalties for exporters.--If the President
determines, based on sufficient evidence, that an exporter
has engaged in transshipment with respect to apparel articles
from an ATPDEA beneficiary country, then the President shall
deny all benefits under this title to such exporter, and any
successor of such exporter, for a period of 2 years.
``(ii) Penalties for countries.--Whenever the President
finds, based on sufficient evidence, that transshipment has
occurred, the President shall request that the ATPDEA
beneficiary country or countries through whose territory the
transshipment has occurred take all necessary and appropriate
actions to prevent such transshipment. If the President
determines that a country is not taking such actions, the
President shall reduce the quantities of apparel articles
that may be imported into the United States from such country
by the quantity of the transshipped articles multiplied by 3,
to the extent consistent with the obligations of the United
States under the WTO.
``(iii) Transshipment described.--Transshipment within the
meaning of this subparagraph has occurred when preferential
treatment under subparagraph (A) has been claimed for an
apparel article on the basis of material false information
concerning the country of origin, manufacture, processing, or
assembly of the article or any of its components. For
purposes of this clause, false information is material if
disclosure of the true information would mean or would have
meant that the article is or was ineligible for preferential
treatment under subparagraph (A).
``(E) Bilateral emergency actions.--
``(i) In general.--The President may take bilateral
emergency tariff actions of a kind described in section 4 of
the Annex with respect to any apparel article imported from
an ATPDEA beneficiary country if the application of tariff
treatment under subparagraph (A) to such article results in
conditions that would be cause for the taking of such actions
under such section 4 with respect to a like article described
in the same 8-digit subheading of the HTS that is imported
from Mexico.
``(ii) Rules relating to bilateral emergency action.--For
purposes of applying bilateral emergency action under this
subparagraph--

``(I) the requirements of paragraph (5) of section 4 of the
Annex (relating to providing compensation) shall not apply;
``(II) the term `transition period' in section 4 of the
Annex shall mean the period ending December 31, 2006; and
``(III) the requirements to consult specified in section 4
of the Annex shall be treated as satisfied if the President
requests consultations with the ATPDEA beneficiary country in
question and the country does not agree to consult within the
time period specified under section 4.

``(aa) has implemented and follows; or
``(bb) is making substantial progress toward implementing
and following,

``(aa) from which the article is exported; or
``(bb) in which materials used in the production of the
article originate or in which the article or such materials
undergo production that contributes to a claim that the
article is eligible for preferential treatment under
paragraph (1) or (3).
``(B) Certificate of origin.--The Certificate of Origin
that otherwise would be required pursuant to the provisions
of subparagraph (A) shall not be required in the case of an
article imported under paragraph (1) or (3) if such
Certificate of Origin would not be required under Article 503
of the NAFTA (as implemented pursuant to United States law),
if the article were imported from Mexico.
``(5) Definitions.--In this subsection--
``(A) Annex.--The term `the Annex' means Annex 300-B of the
NAFTA.
``(B) ATPDEA beneficiary country.--The term `ATPDEA
beneficiary country' means any `beneficiary country', as
defined in section 203(a)(1) of this title, which the
President designates as an ATPDEA beneficiary country, taking
into account the criteria contained in subsections (c) and
(d) of section 203 and other appropriate criteria, including
the following:
``(i) Whether the beneficiary country has demonstrated a
commitment to--

``(I) the right of association;
``(II) the right to organize and bargain collectively;

[[Page H8287]]

``(III) a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or
compulsory labor;
``(IV) a minimum age for the employment of children; and
``(V) acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum
wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health;

``(iv) Whether the country has implemented its commitments
to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, as defined in
section 507(6) of the Trade Act of 1974.
``(v) The extent to which the country has met the
counternarcotics certification criteria set forth in section
490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j)
for eligibility for United States assistance.
``(vi) The extent to which the country has taken steps to
become a party to and implements the Inter-American
Convention Against Corruption.
``(vii) The extent to which the country--

``(C) NAFTA.--The term `NAFTA' means the North American
Free Trade Agreement entered into between the United States,
Mexico, and Canada on December 17, 1992.
``(D) WTO.--The term `WTO' has the meaning given that term
in section 2 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C.
3501).
``(E) ATPDEA.--The term `ATPDEA' means the Andean Trade
Promotion and Drug Eradication Act.''.
(b) Determination Regarding Retention of Designation.--
Section 203(e)(1) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19
U.S.C. 3202(e)(1)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively;
(2) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) The President may, after the requirements of
paragraph (2) have been met--
``(i) withdraw or suspend the designation of any country as
an ATPDEA beneficiary country, or
``(ii) withdraw, suspend, or limit the application of
preferential treatment under section 204(b)(1) or (3) to any
article of any country,

if, after such designation, the President determines that, as
a result of changed circumstances, the performance of such
country is not satisfactory under the criteria set forth in
section 204(b)(5)(B).''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 202 of the Andean
Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3201) is amended by inserting
``(or other preferential treatment)'' after ``treatment''.
(2) Section 204(a) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19
U.S.C. 3203(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(or otherwise provided
for)'' after ``eligibility''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subsection (a)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (1)''.

SEC. 4. TERMINATION OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

Section 208 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C.
3206) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 208. TERMINATION OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

``No duty-free treatment or other preferential treatment
extended to beneficiary countries under this title shall
remain in effect after December 31, 2006.''.

SEC. 5. TRADE BENEFITS UNDER THE CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC
RECOVERY ACT.

Section 213(b)(2)(A) of the Carribean Basin Economic
Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(2)(A)) is amended as follows:
(1) Clause (i) is amended by striking the matter preceding
subclause (I) and inserting the following:
``(i) Apparel articles assembled in one or more cbtpa
beneficiary countries.--Apparel articles sewn or otherwise
assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from
fabrics wholly formed and cut, or from components knit-to-
shape, in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the
United States, (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if
such fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of
the HTS and are wholly formed and cut in the United States)
that are--''.
(2) Clause (ii) is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) Other apparel articles assembled in one or more
cbtpa beneficiary countries.--Apparel articles sewn or
otherwise assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary
countries with thread formed in the United States from
fabrics wholly formed in the United States and cut in one or
more CBTPA beneficiary countries from yarns wholly formed in
the United States, or from components knit-to-shape in the
United States from yarns wholly formed in the United States,
or both (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if such
fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the
HTS and are wholly formed in the United States).''.
(3) Clause (iii)(II) is amended to read as follows:
``(II) The amount referred to in subclause (I) is as
follows:

``(aa) 290,000,000 square meter equivalents during the 1-
year period beginning on October 1, 2001.
``(bb) 500,000,000 square meter equivalents during the 1-
year period beginning on October 1, 2002.
``(cc) 850,000,000 square meter equivalents during the 1-
year period beginning on October 1, 2003.
``(dd) 970,000,000 square meter equivalents in each
succeeding 1-year period through September 30, 2008.''.

(4) Clause (iii)(IV) is amended to read as follows:
``(IV) The amount referred to in subclause (III) is as
follows:

``(aa) 4,872,000 dozen during the 1-year period beginning
on October 1, 2001.
``(bb) 9,000,000 dozen during the 1-year period beginning
on October 1, 2002.
``(cc) 10,000,000 dozen during the 1-year period beginning
on October 1, 2003.
``(dd) 12,000,000 dozen in each succeeding 1-year period
through September 30, 2008.''.

(5) Section 213(b)(2)(A) of such Act is further amended by
adding at the end the following new clause:
``(ix) Apparel articles assembled in one or more cbtpa
beneficiary countries from united states and cbtpa
beneficiary country components.--Apparel articles sewn or
otherwise assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary
countries with thread formed in the United States from
components cut in the United States and in one or more CBTPA
beneficiary countries from fabric wholly formed in the United
States from yarns wholly formed in the United States, or from
components knit-to-shape in the United States and one or more
CBTPA beneficiary countries from yarns wholly formed in the
United States, or both (including fabrics not formed from
yarns, if such fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or
5603 of the HTS).''.

SEC. 6. TRADE BENEFITS UNDER THE AFRICAN GROWTH AND
OPPORTUNITY ACT.

Section 112(b) of the African Growth and Opportunity Act
(19 U.S.C. 3721(b)) is amended as follows:
(1) Paragraph (1) is amended by amending the matter
preceding subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
``(1) Apparel articles assembled in one or more beneficiary
sub-saharan african countries.--Apparel articles sewn or
otherwise assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan
African countries from fabrics wholly formed and cut, or from
components knit-to-shape, in the United States from yarns
wholly formed in the United States, (including fabrics not
formed from yarns, if such fabrics are classifiable under
heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are wholly formed and cut
in the United States) that are--''.
(2) Paragraph (2) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Other apparel articles assembled in one or more
beneficiary sub-saharan african countries.--Apparel articles
sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-
Saharan African countries with thread formed in the United
States from fabrics wholly formed in the United States and
cut in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries
from yarns wholly formed in the United States, or from
components knit-to-shape in the United States from yarns
wholly formed in the United States, or both (including
fabrics not formed from yarns, if such fabrics are
classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are
wholly formed in the United States).''.
(3) Paragraph (3) is amended--
(A) by amending the matter preceding subparagraph (A) to
read as follows:
``(3) Apparel articles from regional fabric or yarns.--
Apparel articles wholly assembled in one or more beneficiary
sub-Saharan African countries from fabric wholly formed in
one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from
yarns originating either in the United States or one or more
beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries (including fabrics
not formed from yarns, if such fabrics are classified under
heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS and are wholly formed in one
or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries), or from
components knit-to-shape in one or more beneficiary sub-
Saharan African countries from yarns originating either in
the United States or one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan
African countries, or apparel articles wholly formed on
seamless knitting machines in a beneficiary sub-Saharan
African country from yarns originating either in the United
States or one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African
countries, subject to the following:'';
(B) in subparagraph (A)(ii)--
(i) by striking ``1.5'' and inserting ``3''; and
(ii) by striking ``3.5'' and inserting ``7''; and
(C) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
``(B) Special rules for lesser developed countries.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (A),
preferential treatment under this paragraph shall be extended
through September 30, 2004, for apparel articles wholly
assembled, or knit-to-shape and wholly assembled, or both, in
one or more lesser developed beneficiary sub-Saharan African
countries regardless of the country of origin of the fabric
or the yarn used to make such articles.
``(ii) Lesser developed beneficiary sub-saharan african
country.--For purposes of clause (i), the term `lesser
developed beneficiary sub-Saharan African country' means--

``(I) a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country that had a
per capita gross national product of less than $1,500 in
1998, as measured by the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development;
``(II) Botswana; and
``(III) Namibia.''.

(4) Paragraph (4)(B) is amended by striking ``18.5'' and
inserting ``21.5''.
(5) Section 112(b) of such Act is further amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Apparel articles assembled in one or more beneficiary
sub-saharan african countries from united states and
beneficiary sub-saharan african country components.--Apparel
articles sewn or otherwise assembled in

[[Page H8288]]

one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries with
thread formed in the United States from components cut in the
United States and one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African
countries from fabric wholly formed in the United States from
yarns wholly formed in the United States, or from components
knit-to-shape in the United States and one or more
beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from yarns wholly
formed in the United States, or both (including fabrics not
formed from yarns, if such fabrics are classifiable under
heading 5602 or 5603 of the HTS).''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
When we were younger and engaged in various activities, I was
involved in sports, and I know on those long workouts during the summer
we would be doing jumping jacks. One of the things we repeated
constantly was, ``Every day in every way we're getting better and
better,'' probably in the hopes that mind would overcome matter because
we were not very good in terms of the team. But the belief that you can
do better, I think, is important. We never said, ``Every day we're
perfect.'' We were getting better.
There have been a number of discussions on this floor about the
procedure, about the substance and about the way in which the House has
been operating. I am here to tell you that today in every way, we are
getting better and better. Are we perfect? No.
What you have in front of you is a piece of legislation sponsored by
the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, cosponsored by the
ranking member, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade and the
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade. In addition to that, I
want to thank our colleagues on the committee, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms.
Dunn). I especially want to underscore the contribution that the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) made not just on this bill, but on
the Caribbean Basin bill in terms of labor rights, which we adopted to
place into the Andean portion of this bill. I want to thank the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce) in terms of their assistance and support on the
African portion of this bill.
The fundamental premise of this bill is that we ought to trade
commercial products, not drugs. To the degree that is going to be
possible, we can affect the supply side of the supply-demand problem
with drugs. We included the Caribbean Basin Initiative and Africa in
this bill because I think it is extremely important that when we offer
these regions marginal benefits under our laws that they do not think
that it is taken from one area to be given to another, that in fact a
rising tide can float all boats.
And so today we are pleased to bring to the floor a bipartisan bill
that passed the committee on a voice vote; that although there are some
concerns by some areas because whenever you talk about trade, you are
talking about change and change is not only painful, but difficult. We
will commit to those who believe they are disadvantaged that when the
facts are presented and the case is made, we will do everything in our
power to adjust the arrangement so that it contains and will be what we
believe this bill is, a win-win relationship.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This agreement expires on December 4, and I rise in support of the
bill. I sharply disagree with the statement made by the chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means that this bill is just a little short of
being perfect. I think we have a very, very long way to go to get our
House and to get our committee back to the traditional concept that
trade bills ought to be done in a bipartisan way.
There are just some things that are so important that many of us
believe that we ought to set aside the strong objections that we have
because it would be in the best interests of trade, the best interests
of the people in the Andean countries, and fulfill the commitments that
the American people have to our friends in this area. But I just wonder
whether it is just old-fashioned to have bills and to have hearings on
these bills, to have Members be able to share their concern about the
economic impact that would result as a result of passing legislation.
I do not think we should have Republican bills and Democratic bills.
And I do not think there is anyone in this House that objects to having
trade, because it is just abundantly clear that trade is good for the
United States. Trade creates jobs here, it expands our economic base,
it allows us to have stronger friends, stronger trading partners, it
promotes peace; but I do not see why we should not have more dialogue,
why we should not have more hearings, why all of these things have to
be done in such a unilateral way and why people just have to come to
the floor and vote up and down, and if anyone disagrees with a bill
that has been drafted unilaterally that automatically their patriotism
is being challenged.
It is not over just because we pass a bill here. There are
conferences. There are differences that have to be worked out. There is
no reason why a good bill has to cause people to lose their jobs,
whether it is in the textile industry or whether it is in the tuna
industry. And people that complain about these jobs are not just
whiners and those that are opposed to trade, they are just trying to
keep the people in their districts from going on welfare or from having
to try to get unemployment compensation, which we cannot even get a
decent bill out of our committee to do that.
We have to realize that we are at war, and war means that we have to
at least appear to be bipartisan and that we cannot allow personalities
and politics to have a stronger impact in what we do than having
respect for each other even when we disagree. I have a lot of
disagreements with what is in this bill. I have a lot of disagreements
with the procedure. I have a lot of disagreements with the process, the
same way I do and did with the so-called trade promotion authority
bill, or fast track.
I am not going to let anyone challenge my patriotism because I
disagree with the process, the procedure and the substance of those
bills. Nobody should have their patriotism challenged because they have
legislative disagreements. We have to try desperately hard to make
certain that these real disagreements do not bubble up to be
disagreements that are going to be attached to parties, because if you
study this bill, there are enough things that Republicans and Democrats
should be working out together rather than having egos control the
agenda.
And so while I support this bill, we have commitments to our friends
in Africa, in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, we have to give support
to those that are fighting the drug fight. My good friend and brother,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and I have been around the
world for decades trying to stamp out the growth and the processing of
drugs. But in poor countries you have to make certain that you give
them some economic opportunities to substitute for those crops of death
and destruction with crops and industries that promote a positive
production of goods and services.

{time} 1100

So I just hope that because I have cosponsored this bill and because
Democrats on the committee that have very strong objections to the way
this came to the floor are voting for this bill, that it not be
perceived that the problems that we had yesterday have disappeared
today. If by coming forward and supporting the progress of this bill,
it means that we can expect more cooperation from the other side of the
aisle in conference, and that is turning and becoming a new attitude as
it relates to other trade agreements that we will participate in, then
it is a good day.
I would like to point out, too, that I have not had any problem with
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Trade; but I might add that I am disappointed that he
has not been able to play the role that he has played in past sessions
of Congress in trade because we have had just as many differences of
opinion, but we have found ways to work our way out of them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H8289]]

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Trade, the sponsor of the bill and someone who has worked long and
hard in this area and frankly very fruitfully in the last few years.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3009, the
Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act. While this is an
important piece of trade legislation that supports U.S. efforts to
achieve the free trade area of the Americas, FTAA, by 2005, the
President also believes this bill is central to U.S. national security
and our efforts to combat drug trafficking both here in the United
States and in the Andean region.
H.R. 3009 will renew and expand duty free tariff treatment to our
regional trading partners Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. The
current Andean Trade Preference Program will expire on December 4
unless Congress acts.
We need this critical legislation to expand U.S. trade and to help
Andean entrepreneurs find practical and profitable alternatives to
cultivating crops for the production of illicit drugs. If we fail to
renew APTA, we not only turn our backs on the people of Bolivia,
Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru who are struggling daily to resist the lure
of the drug economy, but we also will be turning our backs on our
fellow Americans who are fighting drug scourge here at home and in
Latin America.
Thanks in large part to the APTA's duty free tariff treatment, Peru
and Bolivia in particular have succeeded in stamping out much of their
illicit drug production while expanding job opportunities in trade and
legitimate agriculture and rural industry. Although Colombia and
Ecuador's success have been less dramatic, new strategies, including
Plan Colombia, are even now being implemented to combat the drug
cartels. Instead of waging a war against the drug cartels solely
through military aid, APTA endeavors to target the region's poverty and
the lack of job opportunities as motivation for otherwise good,
productive citizens becoming involved in illicit crop cultivation and
the drug trade.
Trade statistics demonstrate that over the life of the existing APTA
program, two-way trade between the United States and the region is
nearly doubled. When we consider the secondary effects, legitimate jobs
created in the Andean region and the economic and civil stability that
these jobs bring, we realize that the APTA has been a useful tool in
our war against drugs.
The bill before us builds on the successful APTA program by enhancing
benefits available to Andean countries interested in pursuing our
objectives relating to expanded market access for U.S. exports, fair
treatment for U.S. investors, and strong protections for our valuable
intellectual property rights. I would say to my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle that the bill also includes conditionality drafted by
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) relating to the extent to which these countries
provide internationally recognized worker rights.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3009 will be a valuable tool for President Bush and
his team to use to undermine the powerful drug cartels and to spur our
country's broader trade agenda. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3009.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for the purpose of controlling
time, an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade and one who, without his
efforts, we would not have many of the trade bills that we have today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), my friend.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3009, the Andean
Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act.
For years, Latin American countries have struggled to strengthen
their economies to ensure a better quality of life for their people. I
have visited many of these countries and know firsthand the progress
that has been made and the work that still needs to be done.
Since the inception of the APTA in 1981, Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, and
Ecuador have worked hard to reduce their narcotics trade and to move
workers into nondrug-related industries. Because of APTA, they have
increased their exports to the U.S.A. by almost 80 percent and have
created an estimated 140,000 jobs in their region.
This trade, however, has not been one-sided. The U.S.A. has benefited
by becoming the largest exporter to the APTA countries. Two-way trade
has doubled since 1991. This increase in exports has expanded job
opportunities in the U.S.A. Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador are on
the front lines in our war against narcotics, and we need to do
everything we can to help them win this war. By extending this act for
another 5 years, we will encourage democracy, free enterprise and
economic security in the region.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Africa of the Committee on International Relations and someone who
has worked with members on our committee to make sure that the African
portion of this bill is as good as we could get it.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will promote economic growth
in Latin America and in Africa. It is going to promote American
national security.
Last year, the African Growth and Opportunity Act was signed into
law. It was bipartisan legislation. For the first time, our country
stated its interests and established a meaningful policy to trade with
the nations of Africa. The U.S. Government and, more importantly, the
U.S. private sector have begun to treat Africa as a place to do
business; and this bill will help further.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, I am pleased to report
this legislation is having a profoundly positive impact on Africa.
Several of the African countries that are making the market reforms
required in the bill are attracting levels of foreign investment, and
they are importing well beyond expectations. In these countries,
desperately needed jobs are being created as more jobs are being
created overall in the United States as a result. It is strengthening
the rule of law in Africa.
The bolstering of the rule of law and economic reforms are good for
Africa, and they are good for the U.S. U.S. exports to Africa are up
since it went into effect, and there is a national security gain for
us.
Yesterday, I chaired a hearing on Africa's role in the fight against
global terrorism. One witness described the continent as the soft
underbelly in the fight against terrorism. One thing is for sure, when
people are jobless, they are more susceptible to those who would lure
them into radicalism.
The bill also won us political goodwill in Africa, a valuable asset
in today's world where cooperation matters more now than ever.
We are going to be doing more to promote trade with and economic
development in Africa and Latin America, and I describe this
legislation as a step in the right direction for our many interests in
the southern hemisphere; but we better be running a sprint, not
walking, in many parts of the developing world if we are going to be
effectively combatting terrorism.
We need to be doing all that we can, as soon as we can, to see that
large parts of the world are not mired in hopelessness. It is a tall
task to change that. It will not happen overnight; but we have some
tools, including this legislation, to help our interests in Africa and
in the western hemisphere.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
I support renewal of APTA. It will help promote economic development
and growth in the Andean countries. It is the most valuable way that we
can assist them and combat the grip of illegal drugs on their
economies.
I also support a reasoned, balanced expansion of the products under
APTA, to include textile and apparel products.
The trade issues are multi-dimensional. We must strike the right
balance by taking into account the impact

[[Page H8290]]

on other countries and very vigorously the impact on our country, our
workers, our businesses.
Last year, when we passed the African and Caribbean bills, we struck
an appropriate balance. We crafted a bill to build on the
complementarities between the textile and apparel industry in those
countries and in ours.
Regarding APTA, the committee staffs were working to craft a bill
that would expand it while recognizing the multi-dimensional nature of
trade. There was agreement, and I point this out, on duty free
treatment for the following Andean apparel products: unlimited quantity
of apparel made from U.S. fabric and made from two specialty regional
fabrics, and limited quantities of apparel made from regional fabrics
and yarn.
Then on short notice, the chairman of our committee called a markup.
He eliminated the requirements relating to use of U.S. yarn in U.S.
fabric, and he doubled the cap on apparel made from regional fabric and
yarn. He proposed substantial changes in the textile and apparel caps
and quotas within the Caribbean and African bills, bills which have
been in place for only a year or little more, and bills where the
textile and apparel provisions were reached only after long and hard
negotiations. I asked at the markup what the impact of these new
provisions would be on American jobs, but no one had an answer. There
clearly is a need for serious re-examination of the proposed formulas
in this bill for textile and apparel, both in the Andean nations and
for CBI and AGOA.
There also remain outstanding questions on the implementation of the
international core labor standards. One of the core aspects mentioned
of this bill is that it addresses the issue of labor-market standards
and trade. It has strengthened the labor market criteria previously
applicable to APTA.
These provisions have particular current relevance to the situation
in Colombia where large numbers of labor leaders have been murdered.
The government of Colombia recently sent a letter to us describing
Colombia's commitment to core labor standards and discussing in some
detail programs to combat child labor and for the protection of union
leaders.
Because we are now in the process of trying to complete discussions
with the Colombians on implementation of these programs--by the way we
need the involvement of our administration--and because of the need for
further work on the proposed changes relating to apparel and textile
imports, it is regrettable that the majority decided suddenly to bring
up this bill with only a day or two of notice.
Because APTA expires on December 4, there is a strong argument that
on balance it is better for Members who, as I do, have concerns about
this bill to vote to move it along, a bill, by the way, which I have
not cosponsored, and to focus on working with the Senate and any
subsequent conference to address the shortcomings in this bill in its
present form.
In that regard, I spoke last night with the chairman of the Finance
Committee of the Senate, Max Baucus. After this conversation, I was
reassured that the Senate will provide a meaningful opportunity for
consideration of the changes proposed in this bill that were not fully
aired in our committee. Also, there will be a chance to fully analyze
all parts of it before action. Such opportunity must include a weighing
of all the potential impact on the economy, businesses, and workers of
this Nation.
Consequently, I have decided on balance that the better course is to
vote to move along this bill to the Senate. I do so with the intention
to continue to be in fullest touch with colleagues in the Senate and to
participate as actively as possible in any conference to ensure that
the final bill remedies the problems in the bill before us; and if that
does not happen, to be able to vote against the bill when it returns to
the House for final action.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1115

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of
the committee.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago the United States made a commitment to the
Andean region, and today we have an indispensable opportunity to renew
that commitment. Renewing and expanding the Andean Trade Preference Act
will promote broad-based economic development in the region, as well as
develop viable economic alternatives to coca cultivation and cocaine
production.
Beyond that, and very importantly, H.R. 3009 eliminates the U.S.
tariffs on the import of tuna from Andean nations. The tariffs on tuna
are among the highest and most anticonsumer anywhere in our system: 10
percent when packed in water, 35 percent when packed in oil. The irony
is, the domestic industry that these tariffs allegedly protect has
largely moved offshore. The only major U.S. production center remaining
is in American Samoa where StarKist employs 2,700; and Thai Union, a
foreign competitor, employs 2,500. It is worth noting that domestic
production of tuna totals 30 million cases per year, which is only two-
thirds of the U.S. demand, so we expect to import a significant amount
of our tuna.
Mr. Speaker, clearly no dumping of tuna in U.S. markets will occur as
a result of this legislation and no operational capacity will be
shifted out of American Samoa either. The western tropical Pacific is
and will remain the best tuna fishing grounds, and StarKist has made it
clear that they are prepared to pick up any job losses that might
result in their competitor facility.
Given these economic statistics, U.S. trade policy during the last 8
years has supported reducing tuna tariffs. Ironically, Ecuador, which
is not part of NAFTA or CBI, is still facing these high tuna tariffs,
whereas the participants in those agreements are not. Yet Ecuador is
the only nation in all of Latin America and the Caribbean to be
certified by the U.S. Department of Commerce as being in compliance, as
``dolphin safe'' and in compliance with the eastern Pacific tuna
conservation measures.
Environmental groups active on the ``dolphin safe'' issues support
the inclusion of this legislation. To quote the Earth Island Institute,
the leading environmental group on dolphin-safe fishing, ``By reducing
tuna tariffs for Ecuador, Congress can reward that country for their
efforts to protect dolphins. Furthermore, by reducing tuna tariffs,
Congress can provide incentives to other nations to protect marine
mammals.''
Contrary to some allegations that are made here, including tuna in
this bill will not adversely affect the job situation in the United
States. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, the
original ATPA agreement ``does not appear to have had an adverse impact
on or have constituted a significant threat to U.S. employment.'' This
is a win-win for us.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support this bill and move it forward as an important part of
our commitment to our partners in Latin America.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes and 15
seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3009, because
the hemorrhaging of jobs must stop and someone has to take a stand.
I am not surprised, and I do not think anybody should be surprised,
by how this bill got to the floor. The same folks who engineered this
bill getting to this floor support, surrendered the Congress' authority
to deal with trade matters outlined in Article I, Section 8. I did not
come here to surrender my responsibilities. Read Article I, Section 8.
I join my colleagues in their concerns about Andean countries that
the actual jobs and working conditions would be poor at best of those
jobs created. We are giving our jobs to these countries even though
4,000 trade unionists have been murdered in the last 15 years, and 130
of them so far this year.
My district, Mr. Speaker, is probably one of the largest Peruvian
American populations of any Member in the House. Some of my Andean
constituents want this legislation passed to give their unemployed
relatives back home jobs. However, many Peruvian Americans are the same
immigrants

[[Page H8291]]

whose jobs will be lost in my district under the provisions of this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, we have set up a Catch-22 situation. We are unfairly
pitting brother against brother and sister against sister, and it was
tremendously outlined this morning when the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Coble) pointed out very succinctly what this means.
According to the Associated Press, the U.S. Trade Representative
admitted at the WTO meeting that ``The United States said. . .it
conceded everything it can without the approval of Congress.''
Our economy is in too much turmoil to send decent manufacturing jobs
overseas, not to be replaced with wage and benefit equivalent jobs. Why
do our policies allow this to happen? What do Americans get in return
for giving up their jobs?
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I commend him for
putting together a balanced product. It is not a lot of trade for the
United States; it is a relatively small amount of trade with the Andean
countries, but it is extremely important to the Andean countries.
As has been already talked about this morning, it gives the President
the authority to grant duty-free treatment. This existing authorization
has resulted in a doubling of bilateral trade between our countries in
the last 10 years, dramatic improvements in living standards in
countries in the Andean region; and unfortunately, this needed
authorization expires on December 4. So we need to move and move
quickly.
If we do not, it would essentially raise duties on $2 billion of
imports from our Andean trading partners. This would send exactly the
wrong message to our Andean friends who have made great strides in the
last decade with regard to international drug trafficking and have also
recently been strong partners with the United States with regard to
terrorism.
The drug trade is something that, of course, is very important to all
of us here, Mr. Speaker. We are told that practically all of the
cocaine and most of the heroin that comes into the United States and is
consumed here comes from the Andean region. Many of the areas' farmers
turn to growing coca and opium poppy, of course the raw materials for
cocaine and heroin, because they simply, given the economic problems in
these countries, do not have other viable, legitimate, lawful
activities. Most of these farmers would rather not be part of the
odious drug trade that has so many detrimental impacts for those
countries, as well as for our country, but they are left with no viable
options to take care of their families.
We need to give these people other viable options. We can do that
through trade. We have done that over the past 10 years. We need to
continue to and expand on it.
Always, ATPA, the way the chairman has put together this bill before
us today, which I think is a balanced product, is a very important way
to use trade to level the playing field, as compared to other countries
in the Western Hemisphere, in the Caribbean, in Central America,
Mexico; and that is extremely important for these Andean countries.
Mr. Speaker, expanding trade and economic opportunities in this area
will bolster regional stability, strengthen democratic institutions,
and dramatically assist in our fight against drug trafficking. I
strongly urge the Members to support it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the bipartisan nature of
this bill, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) from our side of the aisle.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I support the provision
relating to the Andean Preference Act, of course the provisions to
enhance worker rights, human rights, for democracy-building, for
antinarcotics provisions, and to promote U.S. exports for both Latin
America and the Caribbean. But I rise today to speak on behalf of the
AGOA II provisions in the bill before us.
Increased international trade and investment is a key component
leading to economic development and growth in sub-Saharan Africa, and
economic growth is an integral element of any sub-Saharan strategy to
overcome the many and severe social, health, political, environmental
and other challenges.
Last year the African Growth and Opportunity Act became law, as the
Trade and Development Act of 2000, and marked the historic policy which
defined the trade and investment policy in this neglected region of the
world. Indeed, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or AGOA, is just
over a year old and already has had remarkable results. U.S. trade with
sub-Saharan Africa increased 50 percent in the year 2000.
Examples of results from the AGOA include a Government of Kenya
estimate of the creation of 50,000 direct and 150,000 indirect jobs
resulting from new investments; new investments in Lesotho of $120
million, four times the official development assistance for that
country; investment plants for a new tuna processing facility in Ghana;
and significant increases in apparel exports from countries such as
Lesotho, Kenya, Madagascar and South Africa.
Clearly, AGOA has demonstrated initial success in promoting greater
commercial activity between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa,
has spurred and bolstered economic reform in several African countries,
and has facilitated closer relations between the United States and sub-
Saharan Africa. Imports from Africa are growing more quickly this year
than imports from Asia, Europe or Latin America, with apparel making up
most of the import growth, translating to thousands of new jobs.
I and others have traveled many times to Africa in the last year to
gain a firsthand view of how the bill is operating in practice. In all,
we were able to gather important information which was used to design
the AGOA II legislation. While the provisions of the bill do not
include all of the items that we would want in the AGOA II bill, I am
pleased that the Congress and our chairman and our ranking member and
others have continued to focus on the commitment to Africa and these
countries.
Specifically, the AGOA II provisions amend the AGOA to clarify that
preferential treatment is provided to knit-to-shape or ``wholly
assembled'' apparel articles assembled in beneficiary countries; amend
the AGOA to provide preferential treatment for apparel articles that
are cut both in the U.S. and beneficiary countries; doubles the apparel
cap for apparel made in Africa from regional fabric made with regional
yarn from 3 to 7 percent over 8 years; and allow Namibia and Botswana
to benefit from the ``lesser developed beneficiary sub-Saharan African
country'' provisions of the act.
It also gives guidance to our administration as to how to interpret
the act's provisions and provides technical assistance for capacity-
building. I know that there are, though, domestic concerns regarding
the narrow expansion of the apparel benefits in the bill.
It is important to note that while imports of apparel from sub-
Saharan Africa increased in 2000, they still represent less than 1.5
percent of U.S. woven apparel imports and less than 1.2 percent of U.S.
knit apparel imports. The AGOA program can hardly be considered a
threat to domestic producers.
Drug trafficking, the AIDS pandemic, arms proliferation, terrorism,
these are the real threats. Economic growth and development and job
creation are powerful weapons to counter these concerns that affect the
global community of which the U.S. has a leadership role.
I know that many of my colleagues have raised concerns with the House
considering the bill at this time, but now is the time. These
provisions are essential for African nations at this time, as African
economies will likely be the hardest hit by the global economic
slowdown. The U.S. has committed itself to promoting prosperity,
stability, and democracy in sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, and the
Andean region. We cannot let our friends down in this time of great
need.

[[Page H8292]]

I urge my colleagues' support for this bill as we strengthen our
efforts to improve the operation of AGOA and improve sub-Saharan Africa
utilization of the AGOA program.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations, and someone who
has devoted extraordinary time in the area of trade internationally,
and who has been an enormous help on this bill as well.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I thank him for his comments. I also wanted to commend him
for his leadership in bringing this extraordinarily important piece of
legislation to the floor at this time.

{time} 1130

I do stand here today because of my role as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs, understanding the interrelationship between our foreign
policy and our economic policy.
Offering the promise of greater trade with the United States to the
Andean countries is a critical component of our foreign policy. The
original ATPA was created to foster legitimate economic relations
between the United States and the Andean region and to stimulate
legitimate economic alternatives to narcotics production and
trafficking in the Andean region.
The ATPA has been successful in both counts. It has helped to foster
trade between the U.S. and the Andean countries, and it has nearly
doubled over the last decade the trade with that region to $18 billion,
to the mutual benefit of U.S. and Andean businesses, and to consumers
here in the United States.
At one level, expanded trade is about consumerism. Lower tariffs
means lower prices for the U.S. consumers, families, and businesses
that import products from these countries. The interests of these
consumers are vital. When we lower barriers to trade, we increase the
quality of life for our citizens.
But at another level, ATPA is about our national security policy at
home and in this hemisphere. We are fighting a drug war here in the
United States and abroad. This bill helps to generate economic growth
in the Andean region. Such growth is needed to stabilize these
democracies and empower their societies with the means to improve their
quality of life.
During consideration of our foreign operations bill, an overwhelming
number of Members supported alternative development efforts by USAID
and others. In the fight against drugs, ATPA is the best alternative
development plan we have going.
When I visited this region last spring to look at our Andean
initiative, every single official that I talked with said the single
most important help we could give to the region was to renew and expand
the Andean trade Preference Act and allow them to trade.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
bill and in support of the motion to recommit to be offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Step by step, I guess we could say thread by thread, I think we have
unraveled the viability of textiles and apparel manufacturers in this
country to operate. We have done it by making it possible, indeed
encouraging, the largest manufacturers to take their manufacturing
operations offshore in search of cheaper labor, and by making it
impossible for small manufacturers to compete staying here because they
cannot take their operations offshore. So the result is an industry
that just simply cannot survive.
We have done it in the name of free trade, in the name of helping
those in other countries. We have ignored the viability of businesses
that employ people down the street from us in our own communities. We
cannot continue to do this. This bill is yet another step in that
direction.
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) is right, that if we
look at this bill in single focus, it does not have the gigantic
impact; but when we couple it with NAFTA and other free-trade
agreements that have taken place, the totality gets us to a point where
textiles and apparel in this country simply cannot exist. That is not a
result that we should encourage or allow.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the committee.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is good for America, it is good for the Andes,
and it is good for anyone who is concerned about more jobs and better
jobs, and about the environment and labor here in America and around
the world.
In the last decade, because of this new trade between America and the
Andes, we have created 140,000 new jobs in the Andean region, jobs that
used to be dependent on drug trafficking but now are dependent on a
real economy. As a country like America knows, we have had so many in
our families destroyed by drug trafficking here and at home, so every
effort we can do to replace that and stem that offshore is good for us.
In Colombia, for example, we have seen the flower industry become a
model industry, initiating antiviolence training programs, helping
people buy new homes, leading a ``greener Colombia'' effort. These are
model industries for worker rights and the environment they have never
done before.
They can do more and want to have more model industries, and we hold
them back, because only 10 percent of the goods from the Andes are
eligible for ATPA benefits. We need to expand them, because in the end,
competition is not only good for America, but it is our future, as
well.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished
ranking member of our Subcommittee on Trade for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, are our neighbors to
the south. They are our friends, and they are hurting.
Bolivia's economy particularly is hurting, in large part because they
did exactly what we asked them to do: they eradicated the drug culture
in their country. All they are asking from us now is for us to give
them the opportunity to sell their legal products and produce to the
United States. Products like alpaca and llama wool which we don't even
produce. They have really paid an enormous cost, and they deserve this
treatment under our ATPA.
Likewise, Colombia: we are sending billions of dollars through our
military to wipe out the drug trade in Colombia with relatively limited
success. The principal reason why it has limited success is because
there is very little alternative for many of these farmers, unless we
can enable them to have a competitive market in the United States for
their produce and their products.
Likewise with Peru, who just elected an indigenous leader, a fine
person who wants to work very closely with our country. So also is the
case with Ecuador.
This bill, very importantly, includes the kind of help that Africa
for generations has needed, as well as the Caribbean Basin countries.
It includes very strong labor protections: the right to organize, to
form unions; minimum employment age; much-improved working conditions.
We passed the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act overwhelmingly, and
this simply sustains it.
Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of bill that we need when the world's
economy is falling into recession. We need to pull ourselves out of
recession by opening up free and fair trade. Let us vote for this
needed bill.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I do so to announce that the next speaker is the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins). He is a member of the Committee
on Ways and Means, and obviously, given the geographic location of his
State, he is significantly involved with and concerned

[[Page H8293]]

with textiles, from raw fiber to the production of the final product.
He, along with most of the other people in the textile belt, has
suffered significantly.
The reason I took this extra time is that I wanted to make sure in
the introduction that everyone understands the role that he has been
playing, that is, he has looked at the way the world is and wants to
work to make sure that we have a viable and useful relationship and
that we do not just try to stop the world.
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, yes, we are all concerned about the instability in parts
of the world that we have trading partners in: Africa, the Caribbean,
the Andean areas. We should be worried and concerned about them,
because as trade partners, they need the wherewithal to buy our
products. They need jobs to help bring stability to those areas.
But as the chairman said, I am concerned about jobs in the United
States, too, in one particular area, and that is in the area of
textiles, which has been suffering for some years now, based in large
part on some of our trading in the past.
Mr. Speaker, this bill in no way is perfect. We understand that. The
chairman has mentioned that. I remember back in the early part of this
year I was in Thomaston, Georgia, meeting with the chamber of commerce
and people representing agencies from the State and the Federal
Government to talk about economic recovery, because the textile mill
that had been in operation for 102 years made the announcement they
were closing their doors, that they no longer could compete.
As I sat and listened to those who presented all these good programs
to help the people who were being displaced from their jobs, I made the
comment, it is great to hear these people here with these offerings,
but where were they when the patient was becoming ill? I had been
conversing with the people at Thomaston Mill for several years and
heard they were on their way out because they could not compete.
No, this bill is not perfect. The part that bothers me is the
regional content, the cloth and yarn provisions dealing with CBI in
Africa, and the Andean reauthorization.
But the chairman understands this. He has stated here today that he
knows this bill is not perfect. He has listened to the Representatives
from the textile area, the caucus on textiles. He has heard their
input. He has done some things in other areas that I think show it is
evident that he has listened.
We have problems with transshipments, contraband, counterfeit
material, claiming it is U.S. He has put provisions in the Customs
reauthorization requiring additional people, paying for it, pertaining
to textile transshipments.
He has put report language in the ATPA on rules of origin, to
instruct our ambassador to go back and look at previous agreements and
how we have negotiated those, and how it has made us more competitive
in certain markets, particularly textile.
He is willing to increase and help in the area of the Trade
Adjustment Act, so we can help with benefits for those who are
displaced. We know there will be some.
In the area of currency, where we have all had problems, devaluation
of currency in other areas, in other countries, for the first time, in
ATPA there is legislative language that instructs the ambassador to
make sure we have consultation up front in the discussions reflecting
that we are going to be aware and marking what they do with their
currency.
The report language requires that we talk and consult about
reciprocating access so we can get our products into their market, not
a one-way street.
The chairman has shown good faith, and I think he will continue to do
so. The administration has shown good faith with the trade ambassador,
Bob Zoellick. I think he will continue to do so.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote ``yes'' on this bill; I
want to move it forward. But I also am going to work with the chairman
and the administration to see that we can perfect the areas that we all
know are imperfect today. So I will be voting ``yes'' for that purpose,
and I know that purpose will come through.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the Andean trade debate because I think this
is one of the most important votes, one of the most important decisions
that this House ever makes affecting the Andean countries in South
America.
Certainly with the amendments to the Caribbean initiative and the
Africa initiative, this is a very, very important trade bill.
The Andean Trade Pact was adopted in 1991. It sunseted this year so
we would have a chance to review.
One of the parts that is broken in the process is essentially the
flower imports from Colombia. I have spoken many times about the
inequities.
We set that program up in the early 1990s because we wanted the
Colombian flower growers to make sure they have a legitimate market to
divert investment away from cocaine. The Colombian flower growers have
done very well. They have done so well that they are now 70 percent of
the American market. In fact, practically every flower we see in a
supermarket in America comes from Colombia.
There has been an expense of that on the domestic side. We have lost
hundreds of flower-growing small farms, small community greenhouse
operations all over the United States. That is why so many Members of
Congress have invested in this issue of wondering whether we ought to
put the tariffs back on for Colombian flowers. Colombian flowers is big
business. They can afford to pay the tariffs, the same tariffs that are
paid by other countries that import flowers. It is an equal playing
field, a level playing field.

{time} 1145

This is the one part of the bill that never gets revisited. And
obviously I voted against the rule because we did not get to bring an
amendment up to the floor. And we are not going to be able to amend it
at this moment. But I would hope that after 10 years of discussion,
after 10 years of pointing out what the problem is, with even the
Colombians admitting they are in a different situation now than they
were 10 years ago, with the fact that it is not about cocaine any more.
It is about a big business being able to have an exceptional break that
is a detriment to our domestic market.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to work on trying to get the
tariffs back on Andean flowers and I appreciate their concern. Thank
you very much.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman).
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3009, the Andean
Trade Promotion Act and Drug Eradication Act. I want to commend the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from New York's (Mr.
Rangel) leadership in this initiative.
The current Andean Trade Preference Act provides duty-free treatment
from a variety of U.S. imports from four Andean nations: Colombia,
Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador. That program will expire in December of this
year in a little over 2 weeks.
The current Andean program excludes many products that are key
exports for the Andean region, such as apparel, footwear, tuna, which
are essential to the region's future economic growth and development.
If we fail to take this opportunity to expand legitimate trade links
with this region, these opportunities are going to be lost and the
ability to sustain the gains of the last decade will be diminished.
Eradication of drugs and creating jobs to increase trade go hand in
hand, especially in our own western hemisphere.
The ATPA, which is now 10 years old, has played a vital role in the
Andean region in the fight against illicit drugs.

[[Page H8294]]

All of the world's cocaine comes from the Andean ridge.
In recent years more than 60% of the heroin sold or seized on our
streets come from the Colombian Andes.
The minimal economic impact of ATPA pales in comparison with the
annual $100 billion societal cost of these illicit drugs, and the
16,000 lost lives here each year.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3009.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDERMOTT), my very distinguished colleague on the
Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in
support of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson). I think he made the best case
for why the part that I really am most knowledgeable about that goes to
this bill is a good change.
Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for less than 1 percent of American
exports and less than 2 percent of U.S. imports. It is an area where we
struggle to have peace. And we cannot have justice without peace. We
have to have some economic justice. We are watching the same problems
in Afghanistan. We are watching them all over the world, and the whole
idea of trade as a mechanism of peace is really very important.
Now, the reason we have these AGOA provisions here, there is a slight
increase in the amount that they can import to the United States; but
basically we are here because when we wrote the bill last year,
legislators thought they knew what they were doing. We sent it over to
the bureaucracy and Customs wrote the rules so that the Africans could
not use the provisions to bring apparel into the United States. So part
of this is simply being put in place to clarify what we did last year.
I think that if we do not do this kind of thing, we will begin
spending our time and energy, we have already watched Sierra Leone, we
have watched South Africa, we have watched all those countries that
have had troubles, Ethiopia, all of them have had troubles; and what is
needed is an economy that gives people a way to make a living, take
care of their family, take care of their kids. This is essential as a
part of our foreign policy. And I think that if Members do not like
what we are doing in a lot of other places in the world, Members ought
to be looking at trade as a way to help.
Mr. Speaker, I only would close by saying we did not deal with one of
issues which is an issue we ought to be thinking about and that is the
whole question of Bangladesh. Bangladesh is one of the poorest
countries in the world that is being squeezed by all of the changes we
have made, and you wind up with a country where women make up about 70
percent of the workforce and suddenly they will be out of work because
of competition from other areas. So there is much more to be done in
this trade area.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3009, the Andean
Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act.
In 1987, after serving 15 years in the Washington State legislature,
I decided to leave politics. I wanted to continue in public service,
however, and I joined the Foreign Service as a medical officer based in
Zaire where, for a year and a half, I provided psychiatric services to
Foreign Service, AID, and Peace Corps personnel in sub-Saharan Africa.
I have witnessed first hand the severe social, health, political and
environmental challenges the people of this region face on a daily
basis. Increased international trade and investment is a key component
leading to economic development and growth in sub-Saharan Africa.
Last year, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) became law.
It is the most significant U.S. policy statement to date on our
commitment to assist these countries with their efforts to stimulate
economic growth and development in this long-neglected region of the
world. Imports from Africa are growing more quickly this year than
imports from Asia, Europe, or Latin America, with apparel making up
most of this import growth. This investment translates into thousands
of new jobs and increased growth for many African economies. This boost
comes at a critical time, as African economies are likely to be the
hardest hit by the global economic slowdown.
AGOA II would: clarify that preferential treatment is provided to
knit-to-shape or ``wholly assembled'' apparel articles assembled in
beneficiary nations; provide preferential treatment for apparel
articles that are cut both in the U.S. and beneficiary countries;
``double'' the apparel cap for apparel made in Africa from regional
fabric made with regional yarn from 3 to 7 percent over eight years;
and allow Namibia and Botswana to benefit from the ``lesser developed
beneficiary sub-Saharan African country'' provision.
H.R. 3009 builds on the success of the Andean Trade Preference Act,
which is set to expire on December 4, 2001, and builds on the
bipartisan success of the Trade and Development Act of 2000--which was
supported by an overwhelming majority of House and Senate Democrats,
and signed into law by President Clinton. These efforts are critical
tools in our efforts to build on our partnerships in the Andean
countries, the Caribbean, and Africa, to promote democracy, and to
combat illegal drug trafficking in our own Hemisphere. This bill will
improve the operation of AGOA and increase sub-Saharan country
utilization of the AGOA program. Moreover, the current program excludes
many products that are key exports from the Andean region--such as
apparel, footwear, and tuna--and are essential to the region's future
economic growth and development. It is important that Congress renew
the ATPA before it expires, but also to expand the program to provide
trade preferences to commodities that are currently excluded.

The original ATPA was created to foster legitimate trade-based
economic relations between the United States and the Andean region and
stimulate legitimate economic alternatives to narcotics production and
trafficking there. The ATPA has been a success on both counts, and has
helped foster trade between the U.S. and the Andean region that has
nearly doubled over the last decade to $18 billion to the mutual
benefit of U.S. and Andean businesses. If we fail to take the
opportunity to expand legitimate trade links with this region, these
opportunities will be lost and the ability to sustain the gains of the
past decade will be severely diminished. This bill contains the same
worker protections contained in the Trade and Development Act of 2000--
these include the right to form unions, a minimum employment age, a ban
on forced labor, and acceptable conditions of work--wages, hours,
safety, health, the environment--as well as promoting international
obligations to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. These
provisions have the support of unions in Andean, Caribbean and African
countries.
This bill is a grant of conditional trade benefits. Congress sets the
term and conditions for expanded trade with the United States, and our
trading partners must abide by them--if they do not--they will have
these benefits taken away--period. Increase trade with the United
States would lead to the building of new textile and apparel factories
that would quickly provide jobs to thousands of rural peasants and
urban workers. Jobs in these factories would pay wages at higher levels
than the national average wage. They would also provide employment
opportunities, particularly for women.
Throughout modern history, the pattern of economic development in
every country has shown that the establishment of a viable textile and
apparel industry has always been the first rung on the ladder to
creating a modern, industrial economy. The pattern has also shown, that
giving women employment opportunities and control over their family's
finances is the best way to provide people in developing countries the
economic resources to move up the economic ladder and obtain marketable
education and training.
Increased trade and investment with these developing regions will
continue to promote U.S. exports and create jobs here in this country.
Enhancing the trade programs will continue to support democracy-
building policies and reinforces the United States' commitment to
promote prosperity, stability, and democracy in sub-Saharan Africa, the
Caribbean and the Andean region.
I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the committee.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3009, which is a
bill to extend the Andean Trade Preference Act through 2006. I want to
thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for their work in helping our friends in
South America.
This legislation gives to the President the authority to grant duty-
free treatment for certain imports from Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, and
Peru. We know that trade is a vital part of our comprehensive strategy
to fight the production and exportation of illegal drugs. But I
thoroughly agree with the preceding speaker, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDERMOTT), that this is a very important tactic that
can be used in many different ways.

[[Page H8295]]

We can use trade, for example, to encourage Andean nations to pursue
legitimate business activities that promote jobs and maintain economic
and political stability in that region.
This legislation also includes provisions to amend the African Growth
and Opportunity Act that we passed last year that helped Sub-Saharan
African nations. The inclusion of preferential treatment for knit-to-
shape articles, for example, a completed sweater, will help apparel
companies in my part of the country, the northwest of the United
States, that are now suffering from the slowdown in our economy.
It is my hope that we can address asparagus as this legislation moves
forward. As the chairman is aware, Washington State has a huge
asparagus industry that could be affected by increased imports from
Peru. We need to find the answer to that problem.
In 1992, Peruvian asparagus imports amounted to only 4.1 percent of
total United States production. In 2000, those same imports equaled 34
percent of the United States production. In 2000, asparagus production
in 22,000 acres in Washington State added $51 million to the ag
economy; and this represent 32 percent of national production, making
Washington State the second largest producer in the Nation.
This is a vital agricultural product for my State, Washington State;
and I look forward to working with the gentleman from California
(Chairman Thomas) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Crane), as we try to find an answer that will help
growers in California and Washington and Michigan.
Nevertheless, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we need to move forward
with this measure. We need to do it now before the current agreement
expires. And so I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3009.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), a very distinguished colleague.
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my appreciation
and thanks to the chairman of the committee, as well as our senior
ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for their
willingness to see that maybe down the line in the legislative process
we may work out a compromise; but at this point in time, I have to
respectfully oppose the current legislation as it now states.
Mr. Speaker, my district is home to the largest tuna cannery
facilities in the world. One cannery is operated by StarKist, which
employs about 2,700 workers; and the other cannery is operated by
Chicken of the Sea out of California, which employs about 2,500
workers. I note also to my friend from Pennsylvania, it is true,
Chicken of the Sea is foreign owned, but so is Shell and British
Petroleum and they are legally doing business here in our country,
employing millions or even thousands of American people.
Today these companies employ, as I said earlier, 74 percent of our
workforce. Approximately 85 percent of the private sector jobs in
American Samoa are dependent either directly or indirectly on the tuna
fishing or processing industry.
Mr. Speaker, I asked specifically StarKist and Heinz executives what
financial loss StarKist would incur if canned tuna was not included in
this agreement. I was told that StarKist would suffer no economic loss,
other than the exception to the fact that tuna workers in Ecuador are
being paid 69 cents an hour. My colleagues are probably not aware that
minimum wage for cannery workers in American Samoa is only $3.20 cents
an hour, which is far below even our national minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker, I submit my people do not want handouts. They want to
work. Maybe of interest to my colleagues, for 40 years our leaders and
our people purposefully did not want to have anything to do with the
welfare program that was instituted in our country. Why? Because they
did not want handouts. They want to work.
When all is said and done, Mr. Speaker, tuna processing and the
fishing industry we have there is the only industry holding together
the fragile economy of my district. American Samoa's only advantage in
the global market place is duty-free access to the U.S. market. And
what price did America Samoa pay for this trade privilege? We owe
allegiance to the United States. Other countries do not.
Again, I submit I sincerely hope that we will be able to work out
something that will be helpful not only to our tuna industry but as
well as to assist our friends from the Andean countries.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw), a member of the Subcommittee on Trade of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
There is one part of this, and I understand the regional problems
that some of the Members have with various portions of this particular
bill. I think as Tip O'Neill expressed it very well, ``All politics is
local.'' And they will vote according to their constituencies, and I
think we all understand that. But we do have a common constituency that
is suffering now, and we are getting aid and help for them in this
bill, and that is the terrible problems that we are having across this
country with drug abuse.
These countries, the Andean countries, they are working with us in
trying to solve this problem. We need to close the vacuum that they are
going to have on the economic damage that this is going to do and the
job losses there. I think in all, and in the total of the bill, it is
good for American workers. It is good for American business. But there
are obviously winners and losers.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the greater good be served and that all
Members support this most important bill.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I have spent my career working to expand
international trade. I firmly believe that free trade, economic
stability and political freedom go hand-in-hand. The bill before us
today will continue to encourage growth and stability in the Andean
region.
That said, I would like to add that I also have concerns with
Colombia's treatment of American companies and their failure, in some
instances, to uphold their contractual obligations. As the author of
this bill, I am pleased by the strides made both politically and
economically by all of the countries in the legislation. However, given
the fact that Kal Kan Foods, a major exporter of pet food to Colombia,
has a large plant in my home state, I am very concerned about the
effect prohibitive tariffs imposed by Colombia on pet food has on the
hard working Americans in my state and across the country.
I believe it is essential for ATPA beneficiary countries to follow
established WTO rules and adopt, implement and apply transparent--
nondiscriminatory regulatory procedures and enforce their arbitration
and court awards. These things are a condition of Colombia's benefits
under current Andean trade law. To that end, I have included report
language in this bill that directs the USTR to insist that the
Colombian government remove all pet food from the price band system and
apply 20% common external tariff on imports of pet food.
My concern on this issue is further exacerbated by reports about
Colombia's failure to honor other agreements--specifically binding
arbitration decisions as required under the current ATPA guidelines.
The apparent disregard for the arbitration process found in the Nortel
case does not appear to be an isolated incident. Other U.S.
corporations like Sithe Energies, who is partnered with Exelon
Corporation, find themselves in the same predicament. Resulting from
arbitration, Sithe through their Colombian affiliate TermRio, was
awarded approximately $61 million. Unfortunately, the Colombian
government has failed to pay this award, contending that the claim is
on appeal. To that end, the report accompanying the legislation
includes the following statement: ``The Committee urges the Government
of Colombia to comply with such decisions and compensate Nortel, Sithe
Energies and other U.S. corporations appropriately in order to maintain
its beneficiary status under the ATPA.''
The apparent failure of the Colombian Government to honor the terms
of their agreements is very disconcerting. It puts at risk future
foreign investment in Colombia at a particularly important moment in
their history and further erodes confidence in the overall investment
climate as well as the broader international business community. I
strongly urge the Colombian government to move swiftly in addressing
these problems, and I urge the Administration to monitor their
progress.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair give us the time remaining,
please.

[[Page H8296]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have about 2 minutes to reach out to
not just the people on this floor, but everybody who is listening in
their offices. I feel like I almost have to conjure John the Baptist to
get this across.
Why are we debating a bill on the Andes when people are hurting all
across this country right now today? If anything can be seen as showing
the irrelevance of this Congress while people are losing their jobs all
across this country, we cannot get a bill on this floor for a retail
sales tax holiday. We cannot get the Travel America Now Act on this
floor. But we can come in and get a bill so that drug dealers in the
Andes can invest in gardening or anything else that they want to get
into in order to come into this country and sell those products as
well.
Do you think for a second that the drug dealers are going out of
business with this bill?
We have got to come on this floor today and vote this down and demand
that the Committee on Ways and Means come in here with bills that are
going to address the economic problems that have happened since
September 11.
All this calm discussion on this floor completely bypasses what has
happened to the people in this country. All the small businesses in
this country that come down here and we say we honor every day in this
Congress, we are ignoring them right now. I am as hot as I can be about
this because we are being ignored. I feel my heart pounding every day
because I see people out of work. They cannot pay their bills in the
next 60 days. They cannot make their mortgage payments. They cannot
tell their kids why they cannot have clothes on their backs when they
go to school, and we are talking about the Andes. We are talking about
we need to move. This bill is time sensitive. What is time sensitive is
whether we are responding to the needs of the people in this country,
right now, post-September 11.
People from New York have to come down here and beg, beg this
Congress to see whether we are going to respond to them. I do not want
to hear any lectures about how the economy will recover in 3 years. I
do not want to hear lectures on philosophic permutations that might
take place in the overall economy.

{time} 1200

I want action now on behalf of the people of this country. Vote this
bill down and get bills on this floor that address the economic needs
of this country right this second.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
The gentleman began by invoking the name of John the Baptist. I would
tell the gentleman if he would review the activity that has taken place
on this floor in terms of moving legislation that would directly
address the concerns that he has, this House has acted. I would suggest
that he should implore the name of Tommy the Daschle if he is really
looking for where the problem is in terms of not moving legislation.
This House has moved, repeatedly. We have sent product after product
after product over to the United States Senate. And I know I am not
supposed to mention the other body by name, and I know I am not
supposed to refer to an individual by name and, therefore, I will say
``the other body ain't there.'' They simply have not done their job.
I sympathize with the gentleman from Hawaii. I would love to have an
economic recovery bill in front of the President. We did our job. I am
anxious to go to conference with the product that the Senate has
produced. I am anxious to rescue the Senate if they are not able to
produce a product. We are ready and able to address all of the concerns
that the gentleman outlined, and I would underscore the fact that we
already have.
But what we have in front of us, Mr. Speaker, is a very modest bill,
a modest bill that a number of people have worked on for a number of
years. And all we have done is told the people of sub-Saharan Africa,
we will give you, rather than 1 percent, 3 percent market penetration.
What we have said to the individuals in the Caribbean is that if you
utilize our fiber and yarn to a very great extent, we will let you
bring a few more products into our marketplace. And what we have said
to the Andean countries is, if we could affect the demand side in this
country to the degree that you have affected the supply side, it would
be a significant advance in the war on drugs; but that, as gratitude,
we will tell you, go pound dirt, because we are not going to offer you
an opportunity to sell your goods in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), someone who has not looked at this from afar,
but someone who has viewed this closely and firsthand.
(Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this critical piece
of legislation in memory of the 5,000 Colombian policemen that have
died in the battle against drugs. This is an important piece of
legislation.
I applaud the gentleman for his support for U.S. national security.
This bill helps to dry up the source of money for drugs that would
support terrorism after September 11.
I want to thank Chairman Thomas, Mr. Rangel, and Chairman Crane, for
sending the Congress a Renewal of the Andean Trade Preference Act.
Eleven years ago, I served President Bush and Secretary Baker as part
of the State Department handling western hemisphere affairs. In one of
the bravest missions of his presidency, President Bush went to
Cartagena, Colombia to stand against the Medellin cartel drug lords and
with the new democracies of the Andes. As part of our commitment, I
worked to craft the first Andean act to boost the legal businesses and
democracies of the Andes.
Since that bipartisan landmark legislation, the Medellin cartel was
crushed and trade of Andean countries shot up 80 percent. Over 140,000
jobs have been created, bolstering the economies of embattled
democracies.
After September 11, the American people learned that we are fighting
a new enemy: wealthy terrorists. Their wealth comes from that illegal
drug trade. If we are to win this battle, we are going to use this
Trade Preference Act to help the democratic governments of the region
to offer their people a new way, based on trade with America.
I want to thank the governments of Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru for
their help. I want to especially highlight Colombia whose National
Police Force has lost over 5,400 officers in the battle against drug
lords and right-wing paramilitaries. This bill offers economic growth,
democracy and human rights. I command the Ways and Means Committee and
urge its adoption.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to ask
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3009.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3009, the Andean
Trade Promotion Act and Drug Eradication Act and I want to commend
Chairman Thomas (CA) and Representative Rangel (NY) for their
leadership in this initiative.
The current Andean Trade Preference Act provides duty free treatment
for a variety of U.S. imports from the four Andean nations--Colombia,
Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador. That program expires on December 4, 2001--
in a little over two weeks. Moreover, the current program excludes many
products that are key exports from the Andean region--such as apparel,
footwear, and tuna--that are essential to the region's future economic
growth and development.
If we fail to take the opportunity to expand legitimate trade links
with this region, these opportunities will be lost and the ability to
sustain the gains of the past decade will be diminished. Eradication of
drugs and creating jobs through increased trade go hand in hand,
especially in our own Western hemisphere.
The ATPA, which is ten years old, has played a vital role in the
Andean ridge in our fight against illicit drugs. All the world's's
cocaine comes from the Andean ridge, and in recent years more that 60%
of the heroin sold or seized on our streets comes from the Colombian
Andes. The small economic impact of ATPA pales in comparison with the
annual $100 billion societal cost of these illicit drugs, and the
16,000 lost lives here each year.
While I support the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), as it
provides a viable alternative for the growing and production of illicit
drugs in the region, a large quantity of

[[Page H8297]]

which make their way into the United States, I am concerned about H.R.
3009's labor standards. Many of my consitutents state that they would
be in favor of the bill if it required adherence to these ``core''
labor standards as a precondition for receiving the benefits under the
Act. By core labor standards, I refer to the International Labor
Organization's 1998 Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at
Work: freedom of association, the right to organize and for collective
bargaining and the rights to be free from child labor, forced labor and
employment discrimination, which many people in the Andean Nations
still face.
We will continue to monitor the reforms process in the Andean nations
as we do in other parts of the world, and we will continue to pay
particular attention to workers' rights. It is important that all
nations respect workers' rights and the ILO's core labor standards and
practices. While it is regrettable that there are violations of
fundamental workers' rights in the region; we will work with the
Governments comprising the Andean nations to ensure that labor
standards are complied with, and those perpetrating acts of violence
against workers are held accountable for their actions.
In addition to workers' rights issues, the Bill's fabric/textile
provisions does not require that the apparel be ``wholly'' assembled in
the Andean nation, and grants duty-free treatment to large quantities
of apparel. While many feel that these provisions will cause more loss
of jobs in an already devastated U.S. textile industry; I am committed
to making sure that the Act in its implementation does not displace
American jobs, and that there are retraining programs available for
those who may suffer as a result of the ATPA.
While H.R. 3009, provides a vehicle to further eradicate the illicit
narcotics trade in the Andean region, we must not lose sight of the
important labor and environmental issues that the Act presents as well.
We must address these issues with the same vigor and particularity as
the trade agreements we seek to promote.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3009. Yes,
we want to promote trade, but we must also protect jobs.
I want to also express my deep disappointment for the Rules Committee
not allowing Representatives Miller and Evans from offering their
important amendment to protect trade unionists in Colombia.
I agree with my colleagues that Colombia should not be able to
benefit from the trade provisions in this bill until that nation's
authorities begin to investigate the deaths of at least 90% of the
trade union deaths this year.
Violence against trade unionists in Colombia is the highest in the
world and is growing each year. In the last 10 years, more than 1200
trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia. The ILO and UN High
Commission on Human Rights have also condemned these attacks. I think
the U.S. and this Congress should do what we can to stop this violence.
The Miller-Evans amendment would have been a strong step forward;
however, it was not allowed to be offered.
Thus, I am not able to support this bill and urge my colleagues to
oppose it as well.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade
Expansion Bill not because I don't want to help eradicate the drug
trade in the Andean region, but because this bill overlooks the
importance of protecting labor rights overseas and sets up unfair trade
circumstances for U.S. textile workers.
Labor activists are being assassinated and threatened in Colombia by
the paramilitary organizations seeking to defend the illicit drug
trade. I have joined with my colleagues in writing to the President of
Colombia asking for him to investigate the various deaths of union
activists who have worked diligently to try to bring fair and legal
trade practices to a country whose primary export is cocaine. We have
received no response and don't expect to. the U.S. is giving the Andean
region duty-free status on various imports in hopes that the region
will replace their drug economy with other sustainable economic
alternatives. We get nothing in return, except corrupt governments that
look the other way when it comes to international core labor standards.
It is up to this Congress to stress the need for labor unionist
protections when basic international labor rights are being violated
and lives are being threatened.
The bill before us adds textiles and apparel to the list of imports
that will be allowed into our country duty and quota-free. In addition
to the Andean countries (Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru) already
included under the current Andean Trade Preference Act, Caribbean and
sub-Saharan African countries will also be included in this duty and
quota-free status for apparel. This will have a devastating affect on
textile and apparel jobs here at home.
As I have already illustrated, the Colombian government has no use
for international labor rights and a workers right to organize. Because
of this disregard for workers rights, workers will continue to struggle
in their plight of poverty toiling away in apparel factories making
meager wages so that the corrupt government can take the proceeds and
continue the drug trade. But it doesn't end here. The oppressed wages
in the Andean countries, not to mention the Caribbean Basin and sub-
Saharan Africa, will siphon off good-paying U.S. jobs to these lower-
wage regions. This bill will hurt workers in the U.S. as well as
workers in the various regions around the world. Clearly, labor is an
inherent component of trade and must be addressed in this bill, as it
must be addressed in every trade bill that confronts this Congress.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 3009.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation is
vital to our efforts to eliminate the flow of illicit drugs into our
Nation's communities. Additionally, we need to better attack terrorist
organizations that use drug trade as a revenue source. While these
measures are very important, I also urge the conferees on this bill to
be careful not to give undue promotion to import products such as
asparagus into this country that unfairly undercut American
agricultural producers.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in qualified support
for H.R. 3009, ``The Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act.''
This legislation, which extends the Andean Trade Preference Act,
authorizes the President to extend trade benefits to Bolivia Ecuador,
Colombia, and Peru. In addition, H.R. 3009 amends both the Caribbean
Trade Partnership Act and The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act in a
liberalizing way.
The legislation achieves these concurrent goals by developing a
comprehensive framework of requirements and obligations. In order to
receive the trade enhancements offered by this act, an eligible country
must demonstrate to the President that it satisfies 7 conditions.
Countries must demonstrate commitments to WTO obligations, be an
active participant toward the completion of the Free Trade Area of the
Americas, provide intellectual property protection equal to minimum
international standards, demonstrate a commitment to internationally
recognized worker rights, eradicate child labor, and ratify and
implement the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption. This
legislation is a critical component of this Administration's effort to
stop the illegal flow of drugs from these Andean countries.
H.R. 3009 provides a litany of criteria pertaining to eligible goods
under the act. The practical effect is to promote a well regulated, yet
liberalizing trade regime that deals directly with issues such as the
unfair transshipment of goods to exploit tariff reductions.
At the heart of this trade philosophy is the profound notion that non
trade goals, such as the eradication of illicit drug use in the U.S.
and the recognition of international labor standards, can be linked to
trade inducements that promote both economic and policy goals. This
legislation therefore represents the recognition that comprehensive
trade policy that recognizes trade externalities is a sound direction
of U.S. Trade policy.
This legislation could be strengthened however, by acknowledging the
additional U.S. trade priority of ensuring a safe sustainable
development and in beneficiary countries so as to promote global
environmental goals. By failing to recognize the importance of
sustainable development to the American people, this legislation
represents less a policy choice than a political one.
Thus, while I support this legislation, it seems to represent a
growing divide among the voices for trade liberalization between those
of use who welcome comprehensive prioritization of all factors
pertaining to trade--labor, the environment, and other policy goals,
with those who prefer to use U.S. trade as a carrot and stick to induce
other countries to undertake U.S. priorities.
It is my sincere hope that the former position out weighs the latter
in this body, and that this legislation and debate leads the way to a
version of Trade Promotion Authority that all pro-trade Members of this
House can be happy with.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Speaker, if enacted, the reduction of duties on
canned tuna included in H.R. 3009 would immediately result in the loss
of thousands of jobs for American workers in the tuna industry. I speak
on behalf of some 600 workers in Mayaguez, hard working women, who will
be without jobs soon if this bill as written is enacted into law.
A major goal of the Andean Trade Preference Act of 1991 is to promote
prosperity, stability and democracy in the Andean region by providing
favorable duty treatment for certain exports to the U.S. Although
canned tuna is exempt from duty-free treatment, the import duty on
frozen tuna loins is virtually zero. Tuna loins are exported to the
U.S. for canning in Puerto Rico, California and American Samoa. The
current duty structure on tuna over the past decade has created
tremendous growth in the Andean Pact tuna industry. For example, over
the past ten years the number of tuna factories has increased 229%,
production capacity has increased 400% and exports

[[Page H8298]]

to the U.S. have increased 567%. Clearly the current tariff structure
for tuna has been a huge success for the Andean region.
I oppose reduced or duty-free treatment for canned tuna because such
an action would destroy the remaining U.S. tuna industry in Puerto Rico
and provide few additional benefits to the Andean region. Today the
U.S. tuna industry provides more than 15,000 good jobs in economically
challenged areas of our country such as Puerto Rico. If canned tuna
from Andean Pact countries is provided favorable duty treatment, canned
tuna will be dumped on the U.S. market destroying the U.S. industry.
Ecuador and Colombia already have enough production capacity to supply
the entire U.S. market and the U.S. canning industry cannot compete
against labor costs of less than $0.70/hour. The risk of this dumping
has already been experienced by Mexico, which recently imposed a 23%
import duty on canned tuna products from Ecuador due to product
dumping.
I do not believe that the U.S. must destroy the local economy of
American Samoa and put at risk 600 jobs in Puerto Rico in an attempt to
help the Andean region. To the contrary, the current tariff structure
has been extremely successful in growing the Andean tuna industry while
at the same time supporting important U.S. jobs. Moreover, the U.S.
tuna industry has done its part to promote the Andean region.
The current tariff structure for tuna has benefited both the Andean
Pact countries and the U.S. Changing it now will cause more layoffs in
Puerto Rico where we have just recently suffered massive layoffs in the
tuna processing industry from the closure a major plant facility.
Changing the current structure would also have negative impacts on
America Samoa and California in regards to job loss.
I want to thank my Democratic colleagues Congressman Rangel and
Congressman Faleomavaega for their steadfast support on this issue. I
also want to recognize the support of Congressman Cunningham and
Congressman Tauzin and I remain hopeful that when and if a conference
committee meets on ATPA later this year, that a compromise concerning
the acceptable treatment of tuna can be realized.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for
the ``Andean Trade Promotion Act.'' This trade legislation provides
vital economic opportunity for the nations of the Andean region in
South America and of sub-Saharan Africa, and for Indiana workers and
businesses.
As we look for ways to stimulate our economy at home, it is important
to seek free and fair trade agreements abroad. This legislation will
continue to foster economic development and growth in the Andean region
and in sub-Saharan Africa. The strengthening of these developing
economies will bolster our economy as we seek to expand on American
exports throughout the world.
I am especially encouraged by the provisions in this bill concerning
issues pertinent to the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). We
must continue to build on the important economic reforms and
encouraging economic development that the AGOA legislation has brought
to Sub-Saharan Africa. Since enactment of the bill two years ago,
United States trade with sub-Saharan African nations has increased by
50%. In fact, the government of Kenya estimates that 50,000 direct and
150,000 indirect jobs have resulted from new economic investments
within their country.
Clearly, there are vast economic opportunities in sub-Saharan Africa,
a region with a population of 700 to 800 million people. The
opportunity to trade our goods made in our factories by our workers
must be exercised immediately. I believe that a strong emphasis on
African economic development must also be accompanied by a continued
commitment to meaningful micro-development loan programs that aim to
empower the poorest people in Africa.
Mr. Speaker, the Andean Trade Promotion Act will spur continued
economic growth and development in South America and sub-Saharan
Africa. I will vote for this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to
support this important trade legislation.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3009, ``The
Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act,'' a measure to extend
and enhance the Andean Trade Preference Act. Signed into law in
December of 1991, this underlying legislation has been instrumental in
promoting economic development and economic alternatives to coca
cultivation in four Andean trading partners and allies in the war on
drugs, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.
It has provided improved access and duty free treatment for a wide
variety of Andean exports into our market, and, according to a number
of reports issued by the International Trade Commission, has helped to
encourage the export of several nontraditional products, thereby
raising the standard of living in rural areas in some recipient drug-
producing countries.
Over the past ten years, the Andean Trade Preference Act has played a
vital role in the effort to combat the production of illicit drugs. All
of the world's cocaine comes from the Andean ridge and in recent years
more than 60 percent of the heroin sold or seized on our streets comes
from the Colombian Andes. The success of our anti-drug efforts in these
Andean countries directly affects our domestic security and the future
of millions of Americans. By passing this measure today, we can bolster
these efforts by creating thousands of jobs in legitimate industries
and sectors that can benefit from duty-free entry into the United
States.
To further enhance the effectiveness of this legislation, I would
urge all the countries of the region to take all possible steps to
enhance the climate for foreign investment in their domestic markets.
Particularly in regard to Colombia, I would urge the government to
resolve as quickly as possible its investment dispute with TermoRio,
including its major U.S. stockholder, Sithe Energies. I ask unanimous
consent to insert in the Record recent correspondence on this dispute
that was sent to the United States Trade Representative, the Honorable
Robert B. Zoellick.
I would also point out that this legislation includes several
important enhancements to the African Growth and Opportunity Act--
promoting economic development and creating thousands of jobs in sub-
Saharan Africa. The African Growth and Opportunity Act, enacted as part
of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, has already promoted greater
trade and investment between the U.S. and sub-Saharan Africa, boosting
trade with that region by 50% last year, creating scores of new
businesses and tens of thousands of new jobs from Kenya to South
Africa.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure which
would further strengthen these trade and investment links, laying a
solid foundation to our long-term relationship with the countries of
sub-Saharan Africa and South America.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Andean Trade
Promotion and Drug Eradication Act and its renewal and enhancement of
the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA).
Additional trade spurs innovations and the development of better
products while fostering competition.
The Act, with its explicit ``Trade Goods--Not Drugs'' message has
fostered legitimate trade based economic relations between the U.S. and
the Andean region and has stimulated legitimate economic alternatives
to narcotics production and trafficking.
Trade between the U.S. and the Andean region has nearly doubled over
the last decade to $18 billion to the mutual benefit of U.S. and Andean
businesses.
In my home state of Virginia, we export over $50 million in products
to the region.
Further progress will require an enhancement of the current programs
to include an expanded range of Andean products.
It has been the policy of the United States to support the Andean
Countries with foreign assistance.
However, removing barriers to trade with the U.S. is arguably more
important to reviving the economic prospects of the region while
helping to eradicate the narcotics menace terrorizing both the Andean
Countries and the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 289, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Spratt

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SPRATT. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Spratt moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3009 to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions that the
Committee report back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT.

Section 208 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C.
3206) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 208. TERMINATION OF DUTY-FREE TREATMENT.

``No duty-free treatment extended to beneficiary countries
under this title shall remain in effect after December 31,
2006.''.

[[Page H8299]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is recognized for 5 minutes
in support of his motion.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, today, with almost no notice, the House
takes up H.R. 3009. The ostensible reason is to extend the Andean Trade
Preference Act. But if that were all it was about, we would voice-vote
that extension in the blink of an eye.
This bill does not stop there. It goes on and, for the first time,
grants duty-free, quota-free access for textile and apparel imports
coming from the Andean countries. In addition to that, as if that were
not enough, it gratuitously grants new trade concessions on top of
those granted last year to 24 Caribbean countries and the 22 sub-
Saharan African countries.
It has been said loosely on the floor here today, these are not major
concessions, that they will not have terrific effects upon the textile
industry. Let me tell my colleagues, this industry is reeling. Because
of massive imports, job losses in textiles and apparel exceed the job
losses in every other sector of our economy. When I came here, there
were 2.1 million Americans working in the textile-apparel industry.
Today, there are barely a million. Thus far, in this year alone, 2001,
118,000 textile and apparel workers have lost their jobs. In the past 3
months alone, 46,000 U.S. textile and apparel workers have lost their
jobs.
What is the cause of these staggering job losses? It is easy. It is a
flood tide of imports. In 6 years, between 1994 and 2000, the annual
level of textile and apparel imports rose by $33 billion, 90 percent.
The total amount of textile and apparel imports into this country last
year was $77.5 billion, and it is inevitably going up this year.
This is known as a protected industry. Well, that is some protection,
$77.5 billion of imports, and only a fraction of that goes back in
exports. The reason for that, among other things, is that a dozen times
over the last 10 to 15 years we have liberalized trade in textiles and
apparel. We did it for the Caribbean, we did it for Israel, we did it
for Jordan, we did it for Cambodia, we did it for sub-Saharan Africa,
and, most notably of all, when we passed the World Trade Agreement, the
Uruguay Round of the GATT talks, we passed something called the
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, which will phase out all quotas by
the end of 2004 and cut tariffs on textile and apparel goods. And the
phaseout is going on as we speak.
So what we have right now is tough enough for this industry to adjust
to. It is struggling to survive. Just this week, Burlington, the
largest textile manufacturer in America when I was elected to Congress,
and for most of the years I have served here, Burlington petitioned for
bankruptcy. That is how tough it is.
Now, there are lots of reasons to vote against this bill, but let me
just say that it is not a trivial imposition on the industry. The
problem is, the devil is buried in the details of the bill, the
technical details of the bill. This will open the floodgates even
further. Let me mention just a couple of snippets from the bill to help
my colleagues understand how.
Despite claims by supporters, this bill will let Andean apparel made
of fabrics formed almost anywhere in the world enter our country free
of duties, free of quotas. By 2006, this bill will allow 1 billion
square meters of regional fabric and apparel goods to enter this
country from these four countries, duty free.
As for sub-Saharan Africa, 22 countries, the Caribbean countries, the
CBI countries, 24 countries, this bill takes last year's bill, which
was a liberal concession, and basically doubles the limits imposed by
the law we enacted last year and allows billions of additional square
meters of fabric to come in. Do not let anyone tell say that the impact
will be trivial; it will be substantial.
I look at this and look at the industry and ask myself, why should
the United States expand textile and apparel imports at a time when the
economy is reeling, this sector of the economy is reeling, and almost
being wiped out by textile and apparel imports? Why has this bill, with
such potential for harm to lots of people, millions of people, been
brought to the floor with such little notice for us to offer
alternatives to it? Why, when we have an obvious alternative?
This motion that I am offering now, this motion to recommit, offers
Congress a square choice: If Congress wants to extend the expiring
Andean Trade Preference Act, we can do it simply, we can do it
expeditiously, we can do it with a clean extension of the act. That is
what this motion would do, what the Senate does in its stimulus bill,
and what we should do in the House: a clean extension of the Andean
Trade Pact for 5 years without inflicting a blow upon an industry that
is struggling to survive.
I urge a ``yes'' vote for the motion to recommit.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina says,
simply extend the Andean Pact. Simply extend it, meaning we go ahead
and tell Botswana and Namibia to continue to stand in line; you do not
deserve the opportunity to participate in AGOA; you do not deserve the
same treatment as the other sub-Saharan African countries.
The gentleman from South Carolina says, simply extend the Andean
Pact. What actually happens is, in the Caribbean, based upon
legislation that we have passed, that means the United States Customs
continues to tell Congress what Customs says we meant when we passed
the legislation. Because contained in this legislation is the Congress
telling Customs what we meant. Simply extend allows a bureaucracy to
tell us what we did.
How many times have I heard people say what we ought to do is tell
them what we meant? That is in this bill. Simply extending removes it.
The gentleman from South Carolina gave us a story which is poignant,
in that one of the industries in his area, Burlington Industries, has
announced that it has now gone bankrupt. I would invite anyone to
investigate some of the major reasons why it went bankrupt. The chief
economist of Burlington Industries himself said one of the reasons was
because we had to gird ourselves against a hostile takeover.
Ask the shareholders and the workers if in fact they wanted the job
that they talked about or they wanted the same people in the board
rooms to remain? How much money was wasted in the effort to keep the
board members, the same board members versus responsible decisions by
that company in terms of the jobs that were currently there?
And more ironic than that, another fundamental reason that Burlington
went under is because they invested $200 million in new plant and
equipment. Guess where. South Carolina? No way. Mexico. They invested
$200 million in Mexico, and they made a bad business decision.
Now, when are we going to say exactly what is going on? We provided
benefits in previous legislation to keep this industry at home, and as
soon as those benefits were passed, they left the country.
What I admire about some of the members in the Textile Caucus who are
working on problems is that they are dealing with the real world, not
just trying to stop the world. This motion to recommit is an example of
stop the world; simply reauthorize the Andean Pact. What it says to
those countries, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia is, thank you
very much for not growing coca, for helping us on the supply side in
the war on drugs; and, in response to that, go pound dirt.
On the margin, can we let these people begin to say, we can do
something else rather than returning to the cash crop that you say is
slowly killing your country? I think the answer should be yes. I think
if you want to tell the bureaucracy what Congress meant, if you want to
let all of the sub-Saharan nations participate in the benefits of the
African Growth and Opportunities Act, and especially if you want to
tell our friends in the Andean region, thank you, do not look at bad
business decisions and say, do not do anything. Rather, realize this is
a complicated problem, we are addressing it, we are trying to move
forward, but at the very least, a very modest couple of percentage
points, thank you is what these people not only deserve but desperately
need.

[[Page H8300]]

I plead with my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit
and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3099.

{time} 1215

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SPRATT. 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.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 168,
nays 250, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 447]

YEAS--168

Abercrombie
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett
Becerra
Berry
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Castle
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Dingell
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hayes
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu

NAYS--250

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
Delahunt
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Farr
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Honda
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
Matsui
McCrery
McDermott
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Payne
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (MI)
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--15

Barcia
Bono
Cubin
Flake
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lantos
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Quinn
Ros-Lehtinen
Thompson (MS)
Waxman
Young (FL)

{time} 1237

Messrs. SWEENEY, BRYANT, RODRIGUEZ, Ms. HART, Mrs. WILSON, and
Messrs. RYAN of Wisconsin, GALLEGLY, ACKERMAN and SCHAFFER changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. COYNE, GOODE, GEORGE MILLER of California, SAWYER, HILLIARD,
MARKEY and Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the
passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________