[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 104 (Friday, July 26, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H5969-H5986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3009, TRADE ACT OF 2002

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 509, I call up 
the conference report on the 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. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
509, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today.)
  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.
  First of all, I want to thank all the Members of the House and 
especially those 18 members on this conference committee of six 
different committees on House side and the five Senators from the 
Finance Committee for allowing all of us to be placed in a time period 
which is extremely unusual to resolve a conference committee. It was 
done in a manner and an attitude that produced a product that I think 
the institution, the House of Representatives and the Senate, should be 
pleased, notwithstanding the fact the President has not had the power 
to negotiate since 1994 when finally the Senate acted and the House was 
able to go to conference with the Senate. We have relatively quickly 
resolved the differences between the two Houses.
  Notwithstanding the fact that we have fallen behind in terms of 
bilateral and multilateral trade relationships around the world because 
the Presidents have not had this power, the House and the Senate in 
this particular historic agreement have understood in a far more 
sophisticated way completely the consequences of trade.
  Clearly when we engage in trade, it means change. The positive change 
is, of course, better-paying jobs, and it provides cheaper goods to 
consumers. The downside of course is that that change means some jobs 
are traded for other jobs. And what has not been fully recognized is 
that we get the benefits of the upside, but a full understanding of 
trade means we need the protections on the downside because if you can 
take care of those who, through no fault of their own, have lost their 
job through trade, you create an atmosphere and a desire to engage in 
even more trade.
  And that is what this conference report reflects. An understanding 
the President needs the negotiating power but that also included is a 
structure to make sure that through no fault of those who lose their 
job, they are taken care of, not just in terms of employment or 
retraining, but in terms of providing, for example, health insurance, 
to the extent that it is entirely possible that under these provisions, 
someone, who was not able to get health insurance when they were 
employed during the retraining program, would get health insurance. 
That is how enlightened this particular measure is.
  I am extremely pleased to say that four of the five Senators, two of 
the three Democratic Senators, have agreed with this conference report, 
and I would like to say that the chairman of the Finance Committee, 
Senator Max Baucus of Montana, deserves an enormous amount of credit in 
terms of his willingness to sit very long hours discussing issues that 
sometimes are very difficult to resolve but nevertheless having the 
will and the fortitude to come out the other side to produce this 
document.
  And then just let me say that we would not be here tonight if it were 
not for three very brave, I was going to say colleagues. I will say 
friends of mine on the other side of the aisle, ironically someone 
represents a district that is directly next to mine. We share a portion 
of the San Joaquin Valley, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley); 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner); and the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
  If they did not have the courage and the conviction to sit down and 
say it has been too long, let us try to work out a document, because as 
has been the case most frequently, this House led. It led in a 
bipartisan way. And we are here tonight largely because of their 
courage and conviction. And I want to thank them very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I did not know how many other Democrats the distinguished chairman 
was going to laud here, but I see they all fled the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, on this historic occasion at two o'clock in the morning, 
the chairman would like for everyone to believe that we are embarking 
on a

[[Page H5970]]

trade agreement that is going to cause the free world to thank us for 
the great work that we have done. Of course when one would ask how many 
people in this august body has had the opportunity to read the 304 
pages of this bill we are referred to the Web site and e-mail to find 
out what is here.

                              {time}  0200

  So I guess basically what the chairman is saying is, do not vote for 
the bill because we can assume that the Members do not know exactly 
what is in these 304 pages. What he is suggesting is that Members trust 
him.
  So maybe we can staple him to whatever newsletter we are going to 
send out to tell people what we have done for the free world and how 
this is going to help the workers. But I doubt very seriously whether 
we can wave the flag and be so proud of the fact that, when we are 
talking about international trade, he had to find two Democrats that 
made it possible, when Democrats in the House are almost half of the 
House.
  What we should be doing when we deal with foreign policy and when we 
deal with trade is to be able to say when that American flag goes up 
that it was a bipartisan effort that we made; and that deals were not 
made in the middle of night or Members not selected one or two, but it 
means that we come together to find out what is in the best interest of 
the United States of America and not what is in the best interest of 
the majority.
  In the final analysis, the work that we do in this House is not the 
work of Democrats, it is not the work of Republicans, it is the work of 
the people in the House of Representatives that have a responsibility 
to deal with the commerce provisions of the United States Constitution.
  Now, there are some people that may not care what happens in the 
World Trade Organization. They may say let the executive branch 
negotiate and we give up these powers. But when the final day is 
written and it is over and the history is written, it is going to be 
what did the United States of America do to set standards for the rest 
of the working people in this world.
  A lot of people have suffered and died for the right of unions to be 
able to come and to give us a decent wage, vacation, and all those 
things. We do not expect that in developing countries, that they would 
assume our standards. What we do hope is that they would be able to 
assume our dreams, our aspirations, and be able to do that. On this 
side of the aisle, we say that should be incorporated in each and every 
agreement that we have, no matter how undeveloped a country is.
  But, listen, the best time to talk about our best work is when 
everyone is sleeping. The best time to talk about what we did is when 
no one knows what we have done. The best time to bring up a historic 
bill is 1 a.m. in the morning and debate it until 3 a.m. in the 
morning.
  So I guess we are going to find out what happens in this bill at some 
time, at some place, but this is no way for this Congress to be 
conducting its business.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Trade.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 3O09.
  Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan conference agreement is the culmination 
of a process that began in the Subcommittee on Trade over a year ago 
when I introduced H.R. 2149, the Trade Promotion Authority act. Since 
that time, Republicans and Democrats have trudged miles together in 
search of this delicate consensus.
  Mr. Speaker, trade is fundamental to our relations with other 
nations. As the President strives to neutralize international threats 
to our security, Trade Promotion Authority is an essential tool for him 
to build coalitions around the world that safeguards our freedoms.
  This bill is about arming the President with authority that achieves 
trade agreements written in the best interest of U.S. farmers, 
companies, and workers. This legislation will ensure that the world 
knows that Americans speak with one voice on issues vital to our 
economic security. At the same time, it ensures that the President will 
negotiate according to clearly defined goals and objectives written by 
Congress.
  TPA simply offers the opportunity for us to negotiate from a position 
of strength. In no way does TPA constitute the final approval of any 
trade agreement. Congress and the American people retain full authority 
to approve or disapprove any trade agreement at the time the President 
presents it to Congress.
  I am also pleased that included in this legislation is my bill, the 
Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, which renews our 
commitment to help the Andean countries in the war on drugs. Notably, 
the Andean provisions include expanded benefits for Andean apparel made 
of U.S. and regional fabrics, yarn, and for tuna in pouches.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, Americans have never been reluctant to go 
head to head with our trading partners. We should not dash the best 
chance we have of creating a better future of dynamic economic growth 
and success for our workers, businesses, and farmers in the 
international markets. Restoring this authority will help the U.S. 
resume its rightful role as the world leader when it comes to trade.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an historic moment for the House. Accordingly, I 
urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 3009.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  We are not the only people in America working at 2 a.m. in morning. 
In the textile plants, what few are left in the South and other places 
in the country, there are people working the third shift. And here is 
what I want to tell them if they have a chance to listen. I am voting 
on a piece of legislation that affects your jobs, and I have no idea 
exactly how it works. But I know this: On page 271, 272, page 281, 243, 
and 244, the amount of duty-free apparel that can come into this 
country to compete with your job has doubled and tripled, and it is 
some of the dyeing and finishing protections that we fought so hard 
for, which I think have been tremendously undermined.
  My colleagues are asking me to vote on a bill to give the President 
the ability to unilaterally negotiate trade agreements, and dozens of 
pages affect textile policy. And when you double the amount that can 
come in from foreign countries, where the wage rates are almost 
nothing, no environmental laws, you are going to put some of my people 
out of business. And you are making me vote in the middle of the night 
on something I do not know about, and I resent the hell out of it, and 
I am going to vote no.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to first off commend 
the conferees that put together this conference report, in particular 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), who joined with the 
majority leader in the Senate, Mr. Daschle, and Senator Max Baucus, a 
member of the Senate Committee on Finance, and really put together what 
I think is a significant step forward on the Trade Promotion Authority 
that is complemented with the Trade Adjustment Act.
  These individuals, Democrats and Republicans, came together because 
they understand that the future and the welfare of the American people 
is going to be best advanced if we move forward with a trade agenda 
that embodies a policy of economic engagement, and that by building 
stronger trade relationships we are going to provide greater economic 
opportunities for the businesses and the workers that they employ.
  But these Democrats and Republicans also understood that we also have 
to be providing assistance to those workers who are dislocated because 
of increased competition in trade. They built upon some of the good 
work of Democrats in the House in the Trade Adjustment Act. They 
ensured that this final package that we are going to be voting on 
today, for the first time, includes health benefits for

[[Page H5971]]

workers who are dislocated because of trade. Sixty-five percent tax 
credit for their health insurance. This is a new benefit that never has 
been provided before.
  This trade adjustment package also ensures for the first time ever 
that older workers will have wage insurance that they have not had 
before. And this Trade Adjustment Act package we are voting on today 
ensures we have a significant expansion of coverage for secondary 
workers. That is going to ensure that tens of thousands of workers that 
were not eligible for trade assistance benefits in the past will be 
covered today.
  This is a comprehensive package that embraces the best of policies in 
terms of how we can advance our economic opportunities and also expand 
the values of the United States. Through this increased trade with 
these countries, we ensure that we can expand democracy and capitalism 
and human rights, while at the same time providing the legitimate 
safety net for the workers in this country.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a senior member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this has been an amazing night. First, 
the President gets the Homeland Security bill he wants, and now he has 
the fast track bill he wants.
  As I was listening and watching the first, and now reading the second 
a little bit, I thought of a quote. ``Beware the leader who bangs the 
drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, 
for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the 
blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have 
reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has 
closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the 
citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by 
patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and 
gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am 
Caesar.''

                              {time}  0210

  Now, does that sound familiar to what is going on here tonight? This 
is an historic bill. When Members return in September, they will give 
back their voting cards and get a rubber stamp, and they can stamp 
approve, approve, approve, anything the President wants. The President 
is going to bring a trade bill here, and Members are going to get a 
chance to stamp approve; or not approve.
  Why do I worry about that? Let me tell Members. Let us look at his 
record. It is not as though he is an amateur who just wandered on the 
scene. This man signed a law for $180 billion worth of farm subsidies, 
which fly in the face of our international commitment to reduce trade-
distorting subsidies. Those subsidies drive down the price of 
agricultural goods, and seriously impair the efforts of developing 
countries to cultivate their own means of food production.
  The President has imposed WTO noncompliant steel tariffs, which have 
exacerbated our problems with Europe. Despite NAFTA and WTO, the 
President has slapped the Canadian softwood lumber with 30 percent 
tariffs. The President has withdrawn the United States from the ABM 
treaty.
  This is the man that Members are giving the right to go out and 
negotiate for them, and all they have is their stamp ``approved,'' or 
not. That is what Members are going to get. That is the participation 
of Members. Members are yielding up their rights fully to this man. If 
Members feel comfortable with that, they can jump up and vote ``aye.''
  This President walked away from the Kyoto treaty. I have several 
pages of what he has done in the international arena. This is the man 
who sat on the stage with the President of Brazil and after he made 
some comments, the Brazilian President said, ``We consider him an 
amateur.''
  Mr. Speaker, we are giving an amateur the right of the American 
people to decide what happens to child labor, what happens to our 
economy. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it rather ironic that back in December this House 
examined the trade promotion authority that was sent over to the Senate 
that created this conference. In that measure was the strongest 
structure for oversight and control by the Congress in any trade 
promotion program. The House and the Senate by simply moving a 
resolution can deny the President the ability to enter into any 
agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe), a Member who has been a stalwart in trade for many years.
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this by conference 
agreement on trade promotion authority. We have traveled a long and 
difficult road to arrive at this moment.
  For 8 years, American leadership and national interests have been 
sitting on the sidelines. During this time, American companies and 
workers have stood by while we have watched our competitors from other 
countries gain advantages through trade agreements from other countries 
at our expense because the President of our country did not have the 
authority to negotiate agreements of our own.
  At last we are bringing a positive trade agenda for the American 
economy for our consumers, workers, families, farmers. I want to 
suggest three reasons why trade promotion authority needs to be 
promoted and supported.
  First, it is an economic growth incentive. During the decade of the 
1990s, trade has accounted for more than a quarter of domestic economic 
growth. Today more than ever, we need the engine of economic growth if 
we are going to continue.
  Second, trade promotion authority is critical to job creation. In 
manufacturing, one of every five jobs comes from trade. In the services 
sector, U.S. exported $295 billion in exports, $180 billion more than 
was imported.
  This bill will create job opportunities for American workers in all 
kinds of industries, while at the same time it helps those who might 
lose their jobs with trade adjustment assistance.
  Third, trade promotion authority will improve our standard of living. 
President Bush's remark that free trade has increased the standard of 
living for a family of 4 by as much as $2,000 through the combined 
effect of higher wages and lower consumer prices.
  All of those reasons show how trade promotion is in our national 
economic interest. But it is also in our foreign policy interests. It 
is a key tool for encouraging economic growth abroad. The reason we 
pursue a strong global economy as a key planking of our foreign policy 
is because successful economic growth abroad helps us achieve our 
humanitarian and national security policy objectives.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill deserves our consideration and support. I urge 
Members to vote ``aye.''
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I believe in trade. I believe trade is 
important for our country. I believe trade is important for the world. 
I believe that former Secretary of State Cordell Hull had it just about 
right when he said that when goods and products cross borders, armies 
do not. I believe that.
  But tonight's debate is not about whether we believe in trade or are 
against trade. Tonight's debate is about what the rules of trade are 
going to be. The trade negotiations of the 21st century will be less 
about the reduction of tariffs and quotas and more about the 
establishment of important standards and what those standards are going 
to be like, not only in this country but globally. Standards such as 
worker rights, environmental protection, child labor protections, food 
safety and the sanctity of our own domestic laws. And the question will 
be whether or not the harmonization of those standards will move 
upwards, or whether it will result in a race to the bottom.
  I believe Presidents need trade promotion authority, but it is more 
than just words in a document. A large part of it is based on trust and 
confidence in the delegation of this extraordinary

[[Page H5972]]

power from the Congress to the executive branch.
  With all due respect, I wish I had more confidence that the trade 
policy decisions coming out of this White House was based more on 
principle rather than politics, because the track record thus far does 
not inspire that type of confidence. We merely have to look at the 
steel tariff decision or the textiles deals that are being cut, or the 
lumber decision; but especially the complete 180 degree reversal on the 
farm bill that the President initially opposed but ultimately signed at 
the end of the day.
  A farm bill that I still believe holds the single greatest potential 
of bringing down the next round of trade talks that we are about to 
enter into.
  Mr. Speaker, I was one of the few sounding the alarm about how bad 
this bill was to our Nation's trade policy. The administration cut my 
legs and the legs of some of my colleagues out from under us in what 
they did. Now they ask for our vote of confidence in giving them this 
authority. I wish I could, but I cannot; and, therefore, I will vote 
``no'' this evening.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith).

                             {time}   0220

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, there are two stats that have 
always stuck out for me in trade that I first heard from President Bill 
Clinton. The first is that 96 percent of the people live someplace 
other than the United States of America, which means that if we wish to 
grow and expand our markets, we are going to need access to those 
markets. You cannot do that without fast track trade negotiating 
authority. Without the ability to negotiate, to reduce tariff barriers 
to other countries that we have, you cannot move forward. Right now the 
U.S. is in the unfortunate position of facing much higher tariffs than 
we have here at home. We need to negotiate to change those.
  The second stat is that the U.S., despite being only 4 percent of the 
world's population, is still responsible for over 20 percent of the 
world's consumption. So if you are in the developing world that we have 
heard much about tonight, if you have any hope of growing economically, 
you need access to our markets as well.
  Despite those two facts, we have heard a lot about how, Yes, we 
support trade, but this isn't the way to do it because of all the 
challenges we face. But what I think we have to think about is under 
those terms, what would a trade agreement look like that the opponents 
support? What can we possibly do in a trade agreement to raise the 
labor standards throughout the developing world, throughout the world 
that does not have our standards, to our level? The answer, of course, 
is that we cannot. We are not going to get there. Fully 70 percent of 
the world is dramatically below us in labor standards.
  Does that mean that we do not trade with them? Does that mean that we 
simply say we are going to erect a protectionist barrier? Certainly 
that is a trade agreement that I guess we would all like. You would 
like to be able to have access to other countries' markets without them 
having access to yours; but that is not realistic, and it is not good 
for global stability. I submit that we can move forward, that the world 
that has been described tonight by those who say that these trade 
agreements have destroyed us simply is not the one any of us lives in. 
We can compete. We have competed and succeeded. Under Bill Clinton's 
leadership, amongst others, we enjoyed the fastest economic expansion 
ever, and that was across the board. That was not just the wealthiest 
10 percent. That was everybody. We can compete and win. We cannot shut 
out the rest of the world.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the 
Budget.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, this conference report does far more than 
just give the President fast track authority. Packed into these 400 
pages is something called the Andean Trade Promotion Act, and if you 
come from textile country, this is no trivial matter. These provisions 
open up duty-free access for Andean textile imports that is four times 
current trade.
  Also packed into this conference report are major amendments to the 
Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act. These almost triple the amount 
of apparel that can come in duty-free from the 26 countries in the 
Caribbean and Central America. As if that were not enough, this 
conference report goes on to expand the African Growth and Opportunity 
Act, doubling the amount of apparel that can come in duty-free, 
unencumbered from 35 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
  Over the last several years, believe me, I come from textile country, 
hundreds of plants have closed and textile apparel workers by the 
thousands have lost their jobs. By opening our markets in this report 
to a flood tide of new imports from the Andes, from Africa and from the 
Caribbean, from 70 countries in all, this bill can only add to an 
industry that is already hemorrhaging from a trade deficit that is 
running right now at $62 billion.
  Let me cut through all the technical detail and give you one example 
of how gratuitously generous this bill is. Right now Caribbean 
countries can ship duty-free to this country knit apparel made of 
regional fabric to the extent of 336 million square meters. This bill 
would expand that 336 million square meter limit, or cap, to 500 
million square meters by October 1, and to 970 million square meters by 
October 1, 2004. That is unprecedented and totally unnecessary.
  It is true that it closes the so-called ``printing and dyeing'' 
loophole, but this bill opens up a bigger gap and does no net good on 
the whole. These concessions are unprecedented, they are unnecessary, 
they are an unmitigated disaster, and if they indicate the kind of 
trade agreements that will be brought back for a fast track vote, they 
are reason enough to vote this conference report down.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I tell the gentleman that I would like to have every T-shirt that 
everyone sees sold in the mall and every store come from the USA. The 
fact of the matter is they do not anymore. We can lament the fact that 
they do not, but the fact is they do not. And the choice is do you want 
them to come from Sri Lanka, do you want them to come from Pakistan, do 
you want them to come from areas that find Australian cotton far more 
available, or do you want to help our friends in the Caribbean when the 
choice is between someone tens of thousands of miles away or someone 
100 or 200 miles away that will be purchasing U.S. cotton and U.S. yarn 
from the very areas the gentleman comes from and encourage a win at 
home, a win in the hemisphere?
  Because if we are debating whether we are going to have U.S. T-shirts 
or foreign T-shirts, that debate is over. Are we going to help our 
friends close to home that buy our product or are we going to make sure 
that we continue to lose opportunities because we refuse to understand 
reality?
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Dunn).
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and speak on behalf 
of this bill. It has been a long time in coming. I want to congratulate 
Chairman Thomas for successfully negotiating this agreement. America 
has been falling behind in expanding trade since the expiration of TPA 
back in 1994. We produce the highest quality services, the most 
bountiful crops, and the most advanced technologies in the world. Yet 
the high tariffs we face overseas destroy our competitive edge. While 
our foreign competitors weave a web of preferential trade opportunities 
for themselves, American companies, farmers, and workers continue to 
face higher tariffs and other barriers that hinder access to American 
products and American services.
  In Washington State where one out of three jobs is related to trade, 
we know that expanding trade opportunities works for America. Today we 
renew our commitment to engage in trade by passing a TPA bill that will 
expand access to markets and reduce other trade barriers. TPA will 
enhance our competitiveness, create jobs, and help bolster our economic 
recovery.
  It is time for Congress to pass TPA.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H5973]]

  I just want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I support the trade 
provisions in this bill. But I also support the protection of workers 
in the United States, especially those that have been displaced. And I 
am more than certain that if Republicans and Democrats would have 
gotten together and members of the Committee on Ways and Means and 
explained what we were trying to do in trade and at the same time 
protect our workers here, that we would not have a partisan bill, but 
we would have a bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to ask you to vote ``no.'' Vote ``no'' 
tonight. Maybe next year, maybe the year after that, but right now we 
do not need to pass this bill.
  We call ourselves being here because we want to have trade promotion 
authority, we say we are here because we want to have fast track, and I 
keep asking myself, why did that take 300 pages? Why could we not give 
the President the authority he wants with 10 pages? What is all this 
other about? I have been trying to figure it out since 7 o'clock 
tonight. Well, I do not know all the answers, but I know enough to know 
this. It is the final nail in the coffin of the textile industry in 
America. This will do it. We will not have to fight about it anymore. 
We are going to lose the jobs if this passes.
  Many of us right here are going to lose wool plants in our district, 
you know who you are, just because somewhere in this 300 pages there is 
another three lines or two.
  The President has authority right now. He can make trade agreements 
anytime, anyplace he wants to. We do get to say yes or no, reject or 
agree, and we actually get to amend. That is what we are trying to take 
away here, is it not? We want to take away our ability to amend.
  Well, ladies and gentlemen, we just ought not to give up our 
responsibility. Five previous Presidents have had this authority. What 
has happened to us? Well, we import more and we export less and the 
trade deficit rises. We talk in this bill about displaced workers. I 
never could figure out what a displaced worker was. But I am pretty 
sure they are some of the folks in my district who are losing their 
jobs.
  I wish I had longer, but just vote ``no'' tonight.
  The past five presidents had this authority and what happened? We 
imported more and exported less. The trade deficit keeps climbing. What 
does free trade mean to you? Does it mean we open our borders to 
receive foreign imports or does it mean foreign countries open their 
borders so we can export? Whatever it means to you, the fact remains we 
are importing $2 hammers and exporting jobs and closing our industries.
  We talk about displacing workers--what does that mean? It means 
thousands of people losing their jobs in the textile industry, the 
timber industry, in agribusiness, and the steel industry, without 
American labor laws--antidumping.
  We have generous benefits for ``displaced workers'' and health 
benefits--even for workers whose factories move overseas to countries 
that have preferential trade agreements with the U.S. That is 
tantamount to saying we know our trade agreements will lead to more 
factories closing and more displaced workers. Why would you ever need 
this if this bill is about exporting? The Senate said we want a vote if 
you are going to trade away our antidumping laws or weaken trade remedy 
laws. Why would anyone object to this unless you are going to trade 
away American trade laws and turn trade over to the WTO, where China 
has as many votes as we do?
  But do not worry Congress, we are not giving our responsibility over 
to someone else. We can always pass a resolution that we do not agree 
with a trade deal that is unfair to the U.S. Then what? So what? We can 
write letters to the trade ambassador saying don't go to Doha and agree 
to nonreciprocal trade agreements and the ambassador can do what he 
pleases, as he did at Doha.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  0230

  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that the bill before us today is actually a 
pretty good bill. I voted for the fast track bill that President 
Clinton sent up, and I think this bill is better than the bill that 
President Clinton sent up. I also think that this bill contains some 
items that this House has not seen until tonight.
  There has been a lot of discussion about the displaced worker 
provisions, the trade adjustment assistance. I have worked on that with 
others in this body, and I think, quite frankly, we have been arguing 
over whether the glass is half full or half empty.
  But I think, quite frankly, in this bill, if you look at the facts, 
the glass is at least three-quarters full from where we started in this 
House. It may not be as much as what was in the other body, but it has, 
for the first time, refundable health insurance for displaced workers. 
That is not in current law. It expands coverage for secondary workers 
and shifts in production where we have trade agreements. That is not in 
current law. It has wage insurance for older workers. That is not in 
current law. It now matches the training benefits with the monetary 
benefits. That is not in current law. And it extends them and it 
increases the appropriations dramatically. That is not in current law.
  I think this is good public policy. And while we have disagreements 
within this House and I have disagreements within my own party, which 
are, I think, legitimate disagreements, what we should not disagree 
upon is the fact for the first time in 40 years since this program, the 
TAA program, was created by John Kennedy, this is a landmark revision 
of this program.
  I think we ought to take advantage of it, and I think we ought to 
pass it, because I think it is good for the country and it is good for 
workers, and I hope that our colleagues will pass this tonight.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the senior member of the New 
York delegation, and, at the same time, on behalf of the delegation, 
thank him for the great service he has provided to his country and to 
this Congress.
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, fast track authority, Trade Promotion 
Authority, is a fraud. It is a hoax. The President has plenary 
authority to negotiate anything he wants to. What we are purporting to 
do is forfeit Congressional authority. That is what it is about. We do 
not grant authority, we purport to forfeit Congressional authority to 
offer amendments. There is a difficulty. We cannot do it legislatively, 
because we have that power constitutionally. So this legislation, if it 
passes unanimously, is constitutionally unenforceable.
  Now, I do not think there is a constitutional scholar who would 
differ with that. But if they did, legislatively it is a hoax, because 
in every single so-called fast track bill, there has been a provision. 
There is in this bill, on page 217, lines 15 through 19. Basically what 
it says, we will give up our authority to amend, unless we change our 
mind and wish to amend, at which time we come forth with a rule and we 
offer any amendments we want. It is a hoax, a fraud.
  What we really are doing here is purporting to change for the 
purposes of trade a representative democracy into a parliamentary 
democracy, where the President is really prime minister, and presidents 
love that, and the Congress is a parliament, and we are stupid enough 
to go along with it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and Workforce.
  Prior to that, I would just like to say for folks who have not been 
able to read this, I sure hear a lot of citations on pages 200, 300, 
350, 361. I just do not get it.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate our colleague from 
California, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means (Mr. 
Thomas), for what really was a very successful negotiation with the 
Senate over putting this Trade Promotion Authority bill together.
  We all know that much of the growth in our economy over the last 10-
20 years has come from our ability to

[[Page H5974]]

trade more with others around the world. As we reduce trade barriers 
around the world, it will continue to enure to the benefit of our 
children and theirs in this global economy we find ourselves in.
  The most significant part of this package, though, is the fact that, 
for the first time, we make a significant effort to help those who may 
lose their jobs as a result of their company ceasing operations here.
  I think the help that is in this bill is in fact substantial. We 
expand the National Emergency Grants to help those workers, whether it 
is with health care, child care, transportation, training. This bill 
authorizes some $510 million to help dislocated workers through these 
grants.
  It is a good bill. It deserves our support.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a broad-ranging trade bill before us which 
purports to deal with antiterrorism, with intellectual property, with 
transparency, anticorruption, foreign investment, labor and the 
environment. A prior speaker asked, what would it take to get your 
support on a trade bill? I will tell you right now, to add one more 
item to this list; human rights, enforceable human rights.
  I know that I might be one lonely voice in the wilderness on this 
right now, but I think that ultimately we will prevail. And I will tell 
you, even being alone on this issue, it is a heck of a lot better place 
to be than those who are in prison or suffering under tyrannical 
regimes in other places, when we can do something about it, when we can 
use our trade leverage.
  Now, let me underscore, we are dealing with subjects as diverse as 
intellectual property and foreign investment, labor and the 
environment. But being a slow reader, Mr. Speaker, I only got to page 
174, and I want to point out that it is with respect to labor and the 
environment that there is a terrific loophole built into this bill, and 
I want to point this out with specificity so that no one can say they 
did not know about it.
  Page 174: Parties to a trade agreement retain the right to exercise 
discretion with respect to investigatory, prosecutory, regulatory and 
compliance matters, and to make decisions regarding the allocation of 
resources and enforcement with respect to other labor and environmental 
matters determined to have higher priorities, and to recognize that a 
country is effectively enforcing its laws if a course of action or 
inaction reflects a reasonable exercise of such discretion or results 
from a bona fide decision regarding the allocation of resources, and, 
here is the key part, no retaliation may be authorized based on the 
exercise of these rights or the right to establish domestic labor 
standards and levels of environmental protection.
  To deem this a loophole is to call the hole in the side of the 
Titanic a small leak. I urge rejection of this bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is landmark legislation that provides solid 
benefits to workers and communities facing the challenges of 
globalization. At a time of record trade deficits, this legislation 
gives the President the authority to conduct negotiations to strengthen 
U.S. trade policy in a dramatic way, while at the same time opening new 
markets to American products.
  It establishes a new national compact on trade which will guarantee 
workers who have been laid off better access to health care benefits, 
and it provides income stabilization for older workers by giving them 
the difference between the salary they can earn from a lower-paying job 
as opposed to their earlier job that they lost because of a trade-
related displacement.
  This legislation incorporates broader trade adjustment assistance for 
those who need it in the wake of a trade-related layoff; broader by 
providing secondary worker benefits for upstream workers, as well as 
for downstream workers, affected by trade shifts to Canada and Mexico. 
It broadens TAA by providing benefits to workers if a firm shifts 
production to any country with a free trade agreement with the U.S. or 
any country eligible under a variety of agreements.
  This legislation also gives the administration the power to challenge 
egregious labor practices in foreign countries, such as child labor, 
and it promotes greater coordination between the WTO and the ILO.

                              {time}  0240

  In short, we will be creating opportunities to link trade, labor 
rights, and environmental policy to a degree never before achieved.
  There are some who will say that this bill will not accomplish 
enough, Mr. Speaker, and as a group, I marvel even now at their 
pessimism about the competitiveness of the American worker and the 
American economy. But how many of them have been moving the goal post 
as we have been crafting this legislation, and how many of them have 
associated themselves with the less aggressive trade policy of the last 
administration?
  Vote this trade bill through. It is the beginning of a new day and a 
stronger trade policy for America.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
permitting me to speak on this measure this evening.
  The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means 
professes surprise that Members who disagree with him can read the 
bill. I find it interesting. I remember the same gentleman told us here 
with a flourish that this proposal had been posted at 3 p.m. this 
afternoon. It has been pointed out by several people that the Members 
were not notified until 6:53. But if the gentleman would use the Web, 
turn to the bottom of the page of 304, he will find that it was not 
posted until 5:20 p.m.
  If he cannot tell time, it makes one wonder what else has been left 
out in the consideration of this proposal.
  I believe in free trade. I came to this Congress immediately 
involving myself in trade issues, because it was one of the few areas 
where we could work together in a bipartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, that 
has been shattered over the last couple of years, and it is a sad, sad 
note.
  Let me give just one example of a concern that I heard from my 
constituents back home when they knew that I supported trade promotion 
authority. They talked about the imbalance under Chapter XI provisions 
that provided a superior position for foreign investors, and they said, 
that is wrong to go to an international tribunal and avoid the 
requirements of U.S. law.
  Well, what has happened in the conference committee is they fixed it, 
they fixed it all right, but they fixed it so that not only can foreign 
investors avoid the responsibilities of U.S. law, but now American 
interests can obey our regulatory provisions and be able to avail 
themselves to a tribunal rather than be involved under the same 
requirements that we have now. That is not what my people wanted.
  I strongly urge a rejection of this ill-advised piece of legislation 
and the willingness to draw bright, partisan lines and give up issues 
of textiles, steel, and agriculture. It is not the way to do the 
business of the House.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the 
conferees. This trade is a hard issue for all of us, but the conferees 
worked long and hard. We have a Republican House and a Democratic 
Senate. This is a conference report. I think that is bipartisan.
  We are talking about economics, basically, and it is a fact that in 
this country, we can grow more food than we can eat and make more stuff 
than we can buy and sell to each other. Given that fact, it is an 
economic fact that unless we can get rid of this surplus production 
through trade, somebody is going to lose their job. That is not a 
political argument; that is an economic fact of capitalism.

[[Page H5975]]

  Now, how do we get this surplus production out of here? We do it by 
economic engagement with the rest of the world through the 
institutional process of granting to any administration, not this one, 
but any administration the ability to negotiate to the bottom line with 
those who would negotiate with us so that we can get rid of this 
surplus production and keep jobs in this country.
  This bill is stronger in every respect than current law. The TAA 
provisions are really unprecedented, and many others have spoken to 
that one.
  But finally, I would like to convey this thought to my colleagues. 
Economic engagement is truly a matter of national security. If history 
teaches us anything, it teaches us that economic partners sooner or 
later become military allies, and I want to see us having American jets 
flown by the Brazilian Air Force or having American ships sailed by 
other countries; not French, not others, not Japanese or whatever.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is making excellent points, he 
just does not make them as fast as most people; therefore, I yield him 
an additional minute.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. It is a curse of where 
I am from, I guess. But I do want to continue this line.
  The economic engagements that I believe this country must engage in 
is truly a matter of national security. As I said, history teaches us 
that economic partners become military allies, and we have seen over 
the course of the last few years over 190 trade agreements and we are 
not a part of them, and we will not be a part of them because we do not 
have the institutional ability to engage to the bottom line those who 
would trade with us and those who would negotiate with us on these 
trading arrangements.
  So for that reason, and because I think the bill is far better than 
any law that we have ever passed before in TPA, and better than TAA in 
every respect than current law, it deserves our consideration and our 
vote.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the former whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, since 1994, 3 million jobs in our country have 
evaporated as a result of bad trade laws. In my home State of Michigan, 
we have lost 150,000 workers to these trade laws. They have lost their 
paychecks, good jobs, jobs that one can sustain a family with; gone to 
Asia, to Mexico.
  Not only have we lost these jobs, we have crippled whole communities. 
If one drives through parts of Detroit or Flint or Saginaw, and one can 
see the devastation that these trade laws have caused. There is no tax 
base left to pay for fire and police and education and health care. 
They have been absolutely devastated. We are losing our manufacturing 
sector. Does anybody deny that? Look at what has happened to steel, 
textiles, autos. It is a tragedy. And what is even as much a tragedy 
for this institution is the surrender of the congressional prerogatives 
given to this body by the Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, this night will be recorded as one of the largest 
surrenders of constitutional authority in the history of our 
government, giving it to the presidency. And it is not just goods and 
services we are talking about; we are talking about labor law, 
environmental law, copyright law, investment, safety law. That is all 
under the rubric of trade today. One vote is all we are going to get, 
up or down, that is it, and we know how that works. Historic evening, 
Mr. Speaker. Vote ``no'' on this.

                              {time}  0250

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I think we have a very clear recent 
historical example of what happens when Congress is not wise enough to 
make sure that they delegate the authority that Congress retains and 
the responsibility to allow the President to negotiate. We have not had 
the Presidential ability to negotiate for more than 8 years. We have 
had no agreements.
  Members can covet the power and not use it, or we can sensibly 
delegate it, with the clear ability to bring it back if necessary, and 
enter into bilateral, multilateral, and world trade arrangements which 
clearly benefit all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Houghton), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am not at my best at 10 minutes of 3 in 
the morning, but I will do what I can in order to put this thing in 
clear perspective, as far as I am concerned.
  This piece of legislation loses no jobs. As a matter of fact, it does 
not even gain jobs. But we all know that 96 percent of the world's 
population live outside of the United States. They are our market in 
the future. We can take a look in terms of the impact of export jobs, 
and it ranges between 15 and 20 percent extra pay for those people who 
produce those products.
  This is very straight forward. We want more business. In order to get 
more business, we have to negotiate. In order to negotiate, we have to 
have the government behind us. This allows the government to get behind 
us.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means and one who has fought for trade throughout his career.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the basic partisanship which has marked this 
legislation from the beginning in this House even blinds the majority 
as to what has happened these last years.
  No trade agreements? Jordan, CBI, Africa, the China PNTR? They were 
all developed on a bipartisan basis. It is the only way to shape trade 
policy that is viable.
  They started on a partisan foot; and they think because they have a 
few Democratic hands that that makes it a bipartisan product. It does 
not. 161 Democrats voted for a fast track bill in this House. They did 
not reach out for 1 minute to try to meld the two bills into one. As a 
result, they come here tonight with a partisan product more than a 
bipartisan product, and trade policy built on partisanship is built on 
sand and will sink.
  True, there is some TAA here; but a half-baked TAA is no substitute 
for good trade policy, and half-baked it is. If workers are laid off 
because a company moves to, say, Ecuador, they are covered; to China or 
Japan or some other place, they are not covered. That is half-baked, at 
best.
  Thirdly, I want to say a word about oversight. There is more facade 
in this discussion than in any other respect, perhaps. Trade today is 
not about tariffs; trade today is not about nontariff barriers. It is 
about health and safety, it is about antitrust, it is about 
environment, it is about core labor standards; and no one is talking 
about introducing American standards as the requirement, just so people 
do not use child labor, and they emasculated the child labor 
provisions, emasculated. That is what we are talking about. That is 
what trade is in the 21st century.
  They built up this facade that Congress is going to be involved. It 
is consultation at the whim of the administration. They say there is a 
sense of Congress, that that can be expressed. It undoes the only 
protection we now have that something can come through the Committee on 
Ways and Means or the Committee on Finance. We need, in this Congress, 
to be a partner, not a second-class citizen. If we remain that way, the 
citizens of the United States are going to be undermined by the 
executive of this country.
  Vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, gee, I thought when we were talking about trade 
agreements, it was a structure in which, over time, the trade between 
those two countries was mutually beneficial and that what we want to do 
is have a broad-based relationship between people who see benefits 
going both ways.
  The Caribbean Basin Initiative, an outreach to our friends in the 
Caribbean? I would not exactly say that is a reasonable, equal 
relationship. Free Trade Agreement with Jordan? A clear reward for the 
kind of friend we have in a very difficult area of the world, probably 
far more motivated for geopolitical reasons than really for trade. 
Southern Africa? We have neglected

[[Page H5976]]

that area for years and years, and what we are doing is reaching out, 
not enough, way too late.
  And what we hear are criticisms because we are talking about not 1 
percent of someone's amount of trade; we are talking tenths of 1 
percent. That is not a long-term mutually beneficial relationship in 
which the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from New York 
talked about how we mutually better each other.
  Those are important humanitarian outreaches under the structure of 
trade. But if that is what we get without trade promotion authority, we 
had better have trade promotion authority.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 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 for yielding time to 
me. I want to commend him for coming to a resolution on a very 
difficult and complex issue, and that is the trade promotion authority 
and trade adjustment assistance.
  This has been a long road, Mr. Speaker. Not since 1994 has this 
country had the ability to navigate world commerce and to be able to 
open up barriers to U.S. trade. It is time for America to get back in 
the game.
  Without this authority, countries are not going to deal with us, and 
others have disputed that tonight, but the proof is in the pudding. 
There are now 120 trade agreements out there; the United States is 
party to three. Since 1990, the European Union has negotiated 20 new 
trade agreements. These are our competitors. These are people who are 
competing for jobs with our workers. They are currently in negotiations 
for 15 additional trade agreements.
  It is time to get back in the game. It has been long past time. By 
doing so, we not only open up foreign trade for our goods and our 
services, we also are able to export our free market economy, which has 
brought us unprecedented prosperity and has the ability and potential 
to do that for the rest of the globe, to truly lift all boats.
  I am amazed to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who 
are free traders, but tonight say that although they supported 
President Clinton's trade promotion authority, they cannot support this 
one. They cannot support trade promotion authority, even though, as 
compared to the Clinton trade promotion authority, we now have more 
consultation with Congress.
  In fact, it is unprecedented consultation with Congress. It has real 
teeth. It has a real congressional oversight group. It has never had 
that before. It has much stronger labor and environment provisions, 
including on child labor, stronger provisions than in the Clinton trade 
promotion authority. The ability to effectively enforce other countries 
to enforce their own standards is new. We have not had that before. 
Members may not think that is perfect, but that is a lot more than we 
have had before.
  Stronger protection of U.S. trade remedies, including the ability for 
Members of Congress to help protect our antidumping laws, our 
countervailing duty laws, our trade remedies here at home by being able 
to offer a motion on the floor of this House. Any Member would be able 
to do that. That is more than we ever had in terms of protecting our 
own trade remedies.
  Finally, of course, a dramatic expansion of trade adjustment 
assistance. I appreciate the fact that there are some on the other side 
of the aisle who tonight are going to vote for this trade promotion 
authority primarily because there are unprecedented benefits to workers 
who have been displaced by trade, both in terms of health care and 
other benefits.
  I want to commend the chairman, because he has gotten the United 
States, through this new agreement, back in the game. We need to get 
back in the game for our workers; we need to get back in the game for 
our jobs here at home.
  Vote ``yes'' on this good bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

                              {time}  0300

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, some call it trade promotion authority. Some call it 
fast track. I call it a missed opportunity. To be honest, and we should 
all be honest, we had a chance to meaningfully promote the elimination 
of abusive child labor practices by our trading partners. We had a 
chance to protect our domestic laws on the environment and on consumer 
protection. We had a chance to advance progressive trading practices by 
eliminating barriers and tariffs to productive trade among our 
international friends.
  But, instead, Mr. Speaker, this conference report favors foreign 
investors over U.S. citizens and businesses in this country. It 
extracts the teeth from the enforcement provisions meant to prevent 
unscrupulous foreign businesses willing to violate their country's laws 
and our laws, and this conference report sidesteps our responsibility 
to the displaced workers and impacted communities that we know will 
result from this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of doing something meaningful, we have punted. 
Instead of doing something right, we have walked through the back door 
to trade. Instead of doing what America believes we should, we dared 
not to lead. At a time when we find abuse by predators of children in 
this country to be offensive, we could have told the world we will lead 
and make sure that nowhere in the world will children be abused, 
whether by a predator or by any unscrupulous employer.
  At a time when we could have told our workers, if you are displaced, 
we will provide you with some benefits, including health care, what we 
do in this bill is we actually tell a worker we will offer you health 
care, but it will cost you more when you are unemployed as a result of 
this trade than it would have cost you when you were working. That is 
not leading.
  Mr. Speaker, we could come up with a good bill to lead. Let us dare 
to lead. Vote against this conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) has 30 seconds remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, to close on behalf of the minority.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the 
State of New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Democratic 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  First of all, what I would like to do if I may is respond to some of 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle but basically on the 
Democratic side of the aisle that says that we have trade adjustment 
assistance, and that alone, or among other things, is enough to get us 
to support this legislation.
  If, in fact, the bill that came out of the Senate was part of the 
conference report, I would say, well, okay, if you want trade 
adjustment assistance, that is fine. But the bill that came out of the 
conference report is not the bill that left the Senate. Because 
essentially what we see here is a bill that is really kind of a mirage. 
For example, if a U.S. factory closes and goes overseas to China and 
5,000 U.S. workers are out of a job in your congressional district, 
those workers are not covered under this bill of trade adjustment 
assistance. They will not get trade adjustment assistance and they will 
not get health care benefits.
  It is very rare when this provision will be used, and that is why it 
is in the bill because the goal was not to use trade adjustment 
assistance. So it is really a mirage. So if Members think they can go 
home and tell their colleagues and their constituents that they will 
get trade adjustment assistance, they are flat out wrong. It will 
rarely be used.
  Let me make one other observation, if I may. This next round will not 
be about trading goods. It will not be about reducing tariffs and 
quotas. We have done that. That is pretty much over. You can trade 
goods back and forth all over the world if you want today. What this 
will be about this next round is about moving investments, and we all 
know that. And that means basically every U.S. regulation, whether it 
is accounting standards, whether it is defining whether a lawyer can 
practice law, these are going to be all on the table in this next 
round.

[[Page H5977]]

  Members mention antitrust laws, that will be on the table. This 
legislation is not needed for the President at this time. He can 
negotiate without giving this major delegation of authority by the 
United States Congress to the President of the United States. I urge a 
no vote.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tone of the debate. I am concerned 
about the content. For the first time, not primary but secondary 
workers are covered. Five times in this legislation references to the 
most abusive forms of child labor are listed. Some of the statements 
simply are not factually true.
  What is true is we have fallen behind in creating arrangements that 
help us in world trade. It is time to pass legislation to get us back 
in the game.
  With that, I would ask my colleagues to vote yes and I want to thank 
all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their courage 
and cooperation.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his 
very strong support for the conference report for Trade Promotion 
Authority (TPA) (H.R. 3009). This Member would like to thank the 
distinguished gentleman from California, the Chairman of the House Ways 
and Means Committee (Mr. Thomas) for introducing the original TPA 
legislation and for his efforts to move this legislation through the 
legislative process. Additional appreciation is expressed to the 
distinguished gentleman from California, the Chairman of the House 
Rules Committee (Mr. Dreir) for his efforts in expediting the 
consideration of this legislation; to the Chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee, the senior senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus); and to 
all the supportive conferees who worked to bring this conference report 
to the House and Senate.
  Under the conference report of H.R. 3009, Congress would agree to 
vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on any trade agreement in its entirety, without 
amendments. This Member in the past has always supported TPA, or 
``Fast-Track Authority'' as it was previously called, because it is an 
absolutely critical authority to delegate to the President, acting 
through the United States Trade Representative, to conclude trade 
agreements with foreign nations for approval by the Congress. 
Certainly, TPA is necessary to give our trading partners confidence 
that the negotiated agreements will not be changed by Congress. Without 
the enactment of TPA, the United States will continue to fall further 
behind in expanding its export base and that will cost America 
thousands of potential jobs. Granting TPA to the President is 
absolutely essential for America to reach towards its export potential.
  Mr. Speaker, giving examples of expanded trade liberalization 
agreements from my own state, I can stay with confidence and 
anticipation that approval of TPA certainly will enhance Nebraska's 
agricultural exports. According to estimates from the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, Nebraska ranked fourth among all states with 
agricultural exports of $3.1 billion in 2000. These exports represented 
about 35% of the state's total farm income of $8.9 billion in 2000. In 
addition to increasing farm prices and income, agricultural exports 
support about 44,800 jobs both on and off the farm. The top three 
agricultural exports in 2000 were live animals and red meats ($1 
billion), feed grains and products ($769 million) and soybeans and 
products ($454 million). However, Nebraska agricultural exports still 
encounter high tariff and a whole range of significant nontariff 
barriers worldwide. Similar opportunities for growth in exports also 
exist in Nebraska's service and manufacturing sector.
  At the November 2001 World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial in 
Doha, Qatar, trade ministers representing over 140 countries agreed to 
the Doha Declaration, which launched a comprehensive multilateral trade 
negotiation that covered a variety of areas including agriculture. The 
trade objectives in the Doha Declaration called for a reduction of 
foreign agriculture export subsidies, as well as improvements in 
agriculture market access. In order to help meet these trade 
negotiation objectives, TPA would give the President, through the 
United States Trade Representative, the authority to conclude trade 
agreements which are in the best interest of American farmers and 
ranchers.

  This legislation is very important for Nebraska because our state's 
economy is very export-dependent. According to the U.S. Department of 
Commerce International Trade Administration, Nebraska has export sales 
of $1,835 for every state resident. Moreover, 1,367 companies, 
including 998 small- and medium-sized businesses with under 500 
employees, exported from Nebraska in 1998. Therefore, TPA is critical 
to help remove existing trade barriers to exports of Nebraska and 
American goods and services.
  To further illustrate the urgency for TPA, it must be noted that the 
U.S. is only party to ``free trade agreements'' with Mexico and Canada 
through NAFTA and with Israel and Jordan. However, Europe currently has 
entered over 30 free trade agreements and it is currently negotiating 
15 more such agreements. In addition, there are currently over 150 
negotiated preferential trade agreements in the world today. Without 
TPA, many American exporters will continue to lose important sales to 
countries which have implemented preferential trade agreements. For 
example, many American exporters are currently losing significant 
export sales to Chile because Canadian exporters face lower tariffs 
there under a Canada-Chile trade agreement.
  This Member would like to focus on the following five subjects as 
they relate to the conference report of H.R. 3009: financial services; 
labor and the environment; congressional consultation; the 
constitutionality of TPA; and the foreign policy and national security 
implications of TPA.
  First, as the Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee 
on International Monetary Policy and Trade, this Member has focused on 
the importance of financial services trade, which includes banking, 
insurance, and securities. This Subcommittee was told in a June 2001 
hearing that U.S. trade in financial services equaled $20.5 billion in 
2000. This is a 26.7% increase from the U.S.'s 1999 financial services 
trade data. Unlike the current overall U.S. trade deficit, U.S. 
financial services trade had a positive balance of $8.8 billion in 
2000.
  The numbers for U.S. financial services trade have the potential to 
significantly increase if TPA is enacted into law. The U.S. is the 
preeminent world leader in financial services. TPA would further 
empower the United States Trade Representative to negotiate with 
foreign nations to open these insurance, banking, and securities 
markets and to expand access to these diverse financial service 
products.
  Certainly, TPA would particularly benefit U.S. financial services 
trade as it relates to the Free Trade Area of the Americans since many 
of the involved countries are emerging markets where there will be an 
increasing demand for sophisticated financial services. Furthermore, 
TPA would also benefit financial services trade as it is part of the 
larger framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO) General 
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). In 2000, GATS members began a 
new round of service negotiations.

  Second, the conference report of H.R. 3009 includes important labor 
and environmental provisions. For example, among other provisions, TPA 
adds a principal U.S. negotiating objective to ensure that a party to a 
trade agreement does not fail to effectively enforce its own labor or 
environmental laws. This type of provision was also included in the 
U.S.--Jordan Free Trade Agreement which was signed into law on 
September 28, 2001 (Public Law No. 107-43).
  Third, it is important to note that this legislation has strong 
congressional consultation provisions for the time before, during, and 
after the negotiations of trade agreements. For example, the President 
is required, before initiating negotiations, to provide written notice 
and to consult with the relevant House and Senate committees of 
jurisdiction and a Congressional Oversight Group at least 90 calendar 
days prior to entering into trade negotiations. This Congressional 
Oversight Group, the Members of which would be accredited as official 
advisers to the United States Trade Representative, would provide 
advice regarding formulation of specific objectives, negotiating 
strategies and positions, and development of the trade agreement. In 
addition, TPA would not apply to an agreement if both Houses separately 
agree to a procedural disapproval resolution within any 60-day period 
stating that the Administration has failed to consult Congress.
  Fourth, enactment of TPA is required to secure a constitutionally 
sound basis for American trade policy in the globalized economic 
environment focusing our country today. Under Article II of the U.S. 
Constitution, the President is given the authority to negotiate 
treaties and international agreements. However, under Article I of the 
U.S. Constitution, Congress is given the power to regulate foreign 
commerce. In this TPA legislation, any trade agreement still has to be 
approved by Congress by a straight-forward ``yes'' or ``no'' vote, 
without any amendments, by both the House and the Senate before it can 
be signed into law. As a result, TPA does not impinge upon the 
exclusive power of Congress to regulate foreign commerce. Furthermore, 
the U.S. Constitution does not ban the adoption of a Senate or House 
rule which prohibits amendments from being offered to a bill during 
Floor consideration. In fact, the House considers bills almost every 
legislative week which cannot be amended on the Suspension Calendar.
  Fifth, extending TPA to the President has critical national security 
implications. Indeed, the terrorist attacks of September 11th 
highlighted the extent to which American security

[[Page H5978]]

is placed at risk when the U.S. fails to remain engaged. in areas 
around the world. Many countries of Central America, South America, 
Asia, and Africa have fragile democratic institutions and market 
economies. They remain in peril of falling into the hands of unfriendly 
regimes unless the U.S. helps to develop the kind of economic stability 
underpinning democratic societies that enhanced trading opportunities 
can provide.

  Mr. Speaker, this Member is very pleased that the final conference 
report for H.R. 3009 does not include the amendment which was offered 
in the other body by the junior senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) and 
the senior senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig) and included in the version 
of TPA which was passed by the other body. The Dayton-Craig provision, 
while undoubtedly well intended, would have opened trade agreement 
bills negotiated by the President under the TPA to amendment--thereby 
making it very unlikely that other nations would complete trade 
negotiations with the U.S. Trade Representatives, knowing that such 
agreements could be further amended by Congress. That problematic 
circumstance is why Congress had to develop the Fast-Track arrangement 
in the first place--what we now call TPA or Trade Promotion Authority.
  This Member would have been compelled to vote against passage of the 
conference report for H.R. 3009 if the Dayton-Craig amendment had been 
included in the final report. The Dayton-Craig amendment certainly 
would have made TPA unacceptable to the other countries with whom we 
were attempting to negotiate free trade agreements.
  Mr. Speaker, for the above stated reasons and many others, this 
Member strongly supports TPA because it is absolutely critically 
important to the health and the future growth of the U.S. economy. 
Therefore, this Member very strongly urges his colleagues to support 
the conference report for H.R. 2009. This is probably the most 
important vote of the 107th Congress.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in profound regret, 
disappointment and anger as we consider the conference report before us 
tonight. The House leadership is attempting to ram through this bill, 
in the dead of night, without giving the American public the ability to 
look at it and express their views before we vote. It is clear why.
  The United States should be using its unprecedented economic power 
and global leadership position to fight for trade policies that respect 
labor and human rights, expand economic opportunities for workers, and 
improve the environment, both at home and abroad. We should use our 
power not just to promote corporate profits but to promote higher 
standards of living for working families. We should help stop the 
global race to the bottom in which some multinational companies move 
operations from country to country as they search for the one that lets 
them pay the lowest wages, commit the worst labor abuses, use child 
labor, and damage the environment without penalty. We should use the 
power of our markets to push for democratic reforms, equal rights for 
women, and stronger human rights. And, we should ensure that property 
rights and profits do not come first, ahead of the ability of 
governments to protect the very lives of their people.
  We had an opportunity in this bill to accomplish those objectives. 
Tragically, the House Republican leadership rejected that opportunity.
  This bill abrogates Congressional authority and Congressional 
responsibility to review trade agreements to ensure that workers' 
rights and environmental protection are included. If we pass this bill, 
Congress would have the opportunity to consider only one privileged 
resolution on each WTO negotiation, agreements that may last five to 
seven years. Even if serious information arose regarding food safety, 
environmental regulation or health standards, Congress would get one 
and only one opportunity to exercise its Constitutional prerogative to 
review and ratify trade agreements.
  This bill fails to provide Trade Adjustment Assistance to all workers 
who lose their jobs. Instead, it makes arbitrary and extraordinarily 
unfair distinctions. Workers who lose their jobs because of foreign 
imports are deemed worthy of assistance. Workers who lose their jobs 
because their employer shut down a factory and moved it to China are 
not.
  The bill holds out the theoretical possibility that workers who lose 
their jobs because of trade policies will get help in maintaining 
health insurance coverage for their families, then dashes any hope for 
meaningful assistance. Laid-off workers would have to pay 35 percent of 
premium costs for coverage, an enormous financial burden. There are no 
market protections, so insurance companies could change whatever 
premium they want for whatever coverage they decide to provide.
  The bill rejects Senate language endorsing the Doha Declaration on 
TRIPS and Public Health, meaning that the monopoly patent rights of 
pharmaceutical companies will be protected while the right of 
developing countries to deal with the AIDS pandemic through compulsory 
licensing and generics will not.
  Finally, this bill eliminates Senate language to require that, in 
order to receive special trade benefits under the Generalized System of 
Preferences (GSP), countries end child labor and discrimination against 
women and other groups.
  Mr. Speaker, if we in this body care about the rights of women and 
workers; the needs of children and the sick; the environment and human 
rights; we must reject this conference report. We owe it to the people 
of our country and the people of the world.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, global commerce is a force for 
progress. However, current trade rules are too often used to undermine 
environmental protections and democratic rights in the name of ``free 
trade.'' Fast Track is the expansion of presidential authority in 
international trade. However, the fast track trade promotion authority 
conference report does not provide meaningful healthcare coverage for 
numerous workers who lose their jobs because of trade. Fast track 
legislation consistently overlooks the rights of workers in developing 
countries.
  The Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Chairman of 
the Senate Finance Committee have prepared a conference report that is 
big on fluff but short of substance. An example of this is that U.S. 
businesses will have broad new protections for operating in foreign 
markets. However, the conference report guts healthcare coverage for 
workers when businesses shift jobs overseas. What this means is that if 
a Houston company employing 500 workers lose their jobs due to 
increased imports from Asia, these workers are eligible for healthcare 
coverage; however, if the same company shuts down their operations in 
Houston and relocates its operations to Asia, there's no coverage under 
this bill. Is this fair?
  The conference report would allow foreign investors to have greater 
rights than are currently afforded them under U.S. law. The language in 
the conference report could lead to vague, overly broad international 
standards undermining the Supreme Court's decisions on the environment, 
antitrust, tort law, worker health and safety, and other issues.
  The conference report provides laid-off workers a tax credit for 
insurance coverage. However, this tax credit is poor. It forces workers 
to pay more for health insurance at the time they lose their job. On 
average, employers pays 85% of health insurance premiums, however the 
conference report would only provide a tax credit that would cover 65% 
of the premium. Is this fair?
  In addition, the conference report fails in major ways. It does not 
guarantee coverage for workers and omits essential market reforms 
necessary to make sure that the limited health care options are 
available. Moreover, the conference report fails to provide a minimum 
standard of benefits for workers. What this means is that the 
conference report does not include premium protection. A displaced 
worker who has diabetes or a heart condition can be charged by an 
insurer five to ten times the normal rate. Is this fair?
  This is a time when the public has clearly voiced that global trade 
matters move more into the eye of public scrutiny, and this conference 
report makes the fast track trade bill look like NAFTA on steroids. 
Since NAFTA's passage in 1995, the trade deficit between the United 
States and Mexico has ballooned to $29 billion annually. An estimated 
700,000 American jobs have been lost to nations that don't have to play 
by the same labor and environmental rules that American workers do.
  Furthermore, the GAO found that African Americans made up 15% of the 
workers displaced by the trade under the general Trade Authority 
Assistance (TAA) program in 1999, though African American workers 
account for less than 12% of the overall workforce.
  The conference report also marginalizes and diminishes Congress' role 
on issues such as antitrust, environmental regulation, food safety, 
accounting standards and telecommunications. The conference report adds 
a completely new restriction that was not in either the House or the 
Senate bill.
  This restriction allows only one privileged resolution per 
negotiation. This means that only one privileged resolution could be 
raised for WTO negotiations that may last 5-7 years. The conference 
report creates a historic shift in Congress' Constitutional prerogative 
to regulate not just foreign commerce, but more importantly domestic 
commerce (areas like antitrust, food safety, accounting standards).
  The conference report language insulates customs officials from 
liability for racial profiling. The report notes that Customs officers 
have a legal shield unavailable to any other law enforcement officer in 
the country. This would have the direct effect of weakening protections 
against racial profiling and other illegal and unconstitutional 
searches by the Customs Service that have been highlighted in recent 
GAO studies. Specifically, the GAO

[[Page H5979]]

found that passengers of particular races and genders were more likely 
than others to be subjected to intrusive strip and x-ray searches after 
frisks or patdowns, even though the results of such searches found that 
they were less likely to be in possession of contraband.
  The most extreme examples of racial profiling by the Customs Service 
were directed against African-American women, who were nine times more 
likely than white women to be the victim of an intrusive search, even 
though they were only half as likely as white women to be found 
carrying contraband. In light of the conduct of the Customs Service, 
such a broad grant of immunity, absent legislative scrutiny and 
oversight, invites continuing civil liberty violations.
  I am very strongly opposed to the Fast Track provisions contained in 
the conference report for H.R. 3009. As we search for increased 
national security, we must be mindful of the fact that our civil 
liberties are a precious resource and ensure that freedom is not a 
casualty of vigilance. The conference report language tramples on the 
ability of individuals to address the overzealous activities of the 
Customs Service and undermines the expectation of privacy.
  Moreover, this legislation takes a step backwards on workers' rights 
and environmental protection. The conference report would essentially 
rule out the enforcement of workers' rights and environmental 
protection in future fast-tracked trade agreements, reversing the 
bipartisan progress that was made on the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade 
Agreement. The workers' rights negotiating objectives, taken as a 
whole, are weak and counter-productive. The report will make it 
impossible to negotiate anything like the U.S.-Jordan FTA on workers' 
rights.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose passage of the 
conference report for H.R. 3009.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, some days are harder than others. The last 
24 hours was excruciating. The votes on establishing a Department of 
Homeland Security were difficult, but its urgency is underscored by the 
continuing threat from terrorism.
  Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is another hard issue. I represent a 
trade-dependent district and am well aware that LAX and the Port of Los 
Angeles are huge trade multipliers. The Port of Los Angeles and 
neighboring Port of Long Beach moved $175 billion worth of cargo last 
year and accounted for 500,000 trade-related jobs in the region. The 
Los Angeles Customs District is the Nation's second largest, based on 
value of two-way trade. In 2001, this totaled $212.5 billion, compared 
with $214.1 billion of the first place New York.
  In the South Bay, trade clearly generates high skill, high wage jobs. 
But not everyone benefits, and so the conversation about trade should 
properly address those who are hurt. The challenge is to retrain 
affected workers not freeze them and their outdated skills in an 
uncompetitive workplace. The policy answer is to provide what has 
traditionally been called trade adjustment assistance (TAA)--training, 
wage assistance, and healthcare--to those who are hurt.
  I voted against TPA last December because the Administration refused 
to include TAA in the legislation. The conference report we vote on 
tonight does not make the same mistake. The TAA package is three times 
as big as any ever proposed, and includes most of the improvements 
proposed by the Eshoo-Bentsen bill (H.R. 3670) which I cosponsored and 
strongly support.
  This TPA enables displaced workers to purchase group healthcare with 
an advanceable and refundable tax credit and expands coverage to 
include workers whose jobs as suppliers to other manufacturers are 
affected by trade. It provides wage insurance for older workers who 
lose their jobs to trade and fills part of the gap between their old 
and new earnings, and it doubles the funding for job training to $220 
million per year.
  For the first time, this legislation requires labor and environmental 
issues be given the same consideration as other negotiating objectives. 
It provides the U.S. with remedies against countries that degrade their 
labor and environmental laws and requires increased consultations with 
Congress through a Congressional advisory board.
  Trade plus trade adjustment assistance is good for American workers. 
Trade plus greater respect for labor and environment is good for the 
world's workers.
  This agreement is not perfect, but it is better than prior trade 
negotiating authority and includes the most comprehensive TAA package 
ever. I will support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents one of the 
finest examples of how the tragedy of September 11th is being used to 
abuse process and rationalize offenses against the Constitution. 
Sections 341 and 344 of this bill needlessly expands the scope of 
Federal authority and threatens the protection of civil rights by 
granting broad search immunity to customs agents and allowing 
warrantless searches of outgoing international U.S. mail. Although I 
strongly believe that the Federal Government should aggressively 
investigate and prevent future terrorist attacks, increased security 
should not come at the cost of our constitutional rights.
  Section 341 of the bill provides immunity to a Customs officer 
conducting a search of a person or property provided he or she was 
acting in ``good faith.'' Presumably an officer could engage in 
blatantly discriminatory conduct, but if he in ``good faith'' believed 
that he was justified in doing so, he could not be held liable.
  This provision would, in effect, expand immunity so that a person 
would not be entitled to relief from an unconstitutional search unless 
the officer acted in ``bad faith''--a nearly impossible standard to 
meet. Even though this provision would dramatically change immunity 
law, it was attached to a Customs Authorization Bill and never 
considered by the Judiciary Committee.
  Current law already provides qualified immunity to Customs agents. 
Qualified immunity is based on an assessment of what a reasonable 
officer should have done in any given situation. Under current law if a 
law enforcement officer conducts an unconstitutional search based upon 
a reasonable but mistaken conclusion that reasonable suspicion exists, 
the officer is entitled to immunity from suit. This standard provides 
Customs agents protection against unreasonable lawsuits but also 
protects individuals from unconstitutional searches.
  When an official seeks qualified immunity, a court is obligated to 
make a ruling on that issue early in the proceedings so that, if 
immunity is warranted, the costs of trial are avoided. The Customs 
Service has not offered a reasonable justification as to why the 
qualified immunity standard should be changed. Moreover, Customs has 
offered no examples of cases where the existing qualified immunity 
doctrine has failed to protect an agent acting within the scope of 
their authority.
  Section 341 would accord Customs officers a legal shield unavailable 
to any other law enforcement officer in the country. This provision 
would have the direct effect of weakening protections against racial 
profiling and other illegal and unconstitutional searches by the 
Customs Service that have been highlighted in recent GAO studies. Out 
of all the possible Federal law enforcement agencies, the Customs 
Service should not be provided with additional immunity.
  The racial profiling problems of the Customs Service are not 
imaginary and have been subject to documentation and litigation. The 
GAO found that passengers of particular races and genders were more 
likely than others to be subjected to intrusive strip and x-ray 
searches after frisks or patdowns, even though the results of such 
searches found that they were less likely to be in possession of 
contraband.
  The GAO concluded that the Customs Service's pattern of selecting 
passengers for intrusive searches (their profile) was inconsistent with 
rates of finding contraband and recommended the implementation of 
policies that target passengers more consistently with their search-hit 
rate and other more accurate indicators of criminal conduct.
  The most extreme examples of racial profiling by the Customs Service 
were directed against African-American women, who were nine times more 
likely than white women to be the victim of an intrusive search 
(including strip search and body cavity searches), even though they 
were only half as likely as white women to be found carrying 
contraband.
  Many major civil rights organizations opposed this provision in the 
House bill including: the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the 
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the 
National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, 
the Counsel on American Islamic Relations and the American Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee. The civil rights community believes that 
passage of this provision would be a major set-back in the fight to end 
racial profiling.
  This legislation compounds the erosion of civil rights protections by 
weakening the legal standard for the searching of U.S. mail. Under 
current law, the Customs Service is empowered to search, without a 
warrant, inbound mail handled by the United States Postal Service and 
packages and letters handled by private carriers such as Federal 
Express and the United Parcel Service.
  The Customs Service's interest in confiscating illegal weapons' 
shipments, drugs or

[[Page H5980]]

other contraband inbound or outbound is adequately protected by its 
ability to secure a search warrant when it has probable cause. Short of 
an emergency, postal officials can always hold a package while they 
wait for a court to issue a warrant. There is simply no legitimate 
justification for this expansion of search authority, unless of course 
you exclude the need to circumvent the Constitution.
  Recently, the U.S. Postal Service wrote a letter to the Chairman of 
the Financial Services Committee on the issue of searching outbound 
mail without a warrant: The Postal Service has taken the position that, 
``There is no evidence that eroding these long established privacy 
protections will bring any significant law enforcement improvements 
over what is achieved using existing, statutorily approved law 
enforcement techniques.'' In short, experts from the Postal Service 
have determined that this provision is unnecessary.
  As we search for increased national security, we must be mindful of 
the fact that our civil liberties are a precious resource and ensure 
that freedom is not a casualty of vigilance. Given that Congress has 
recently expanded the police powers of government officials, now is not 
the time to cut back on the mechanisms in existing law that are 
designed to ensure police powers are not abused.
  Without arguable justification, these provisions trample the ability 
of individuals to address the overzealous activities of the Customs 
Service and undermine the expectation of privacy in the U.S. mail. I 
urge you to join me in opposing this legislation.

The Subjective-Intent Qualified Immunity Proposal for Customs Officials


                    problems with the house proposal

       This issue involves the Constitution--not slip-and-fall 
     cases, or security fraud cases. This proposal would affect 
     cases involving alleged violations of individuals' 
     constitutional rights, and we should be very careful before 
     we tamper with the rules.
       The doctrine of qualified immunity has been established and 
     refined by the Supreme Court over four decades. Congress has 
     never enacted a statute that would change the standard for 
     officials' qualified immunity in constitutional tort cases. 
     This would be the first time.
       Current law protects against frivolous lawsuits. The 
     Supreme Court has instructed lower courts to resolve 
     qualified immunity issues at the earliest opportunity. Even 
     if government officials fail to win qualified immunity at the 
     dismissal or summary judgment stage, they still have the 
     option of appealing those judgments to a higher court 
     immediately.
       This proposal would hurt real people. It would increase the 
     likelihood of meritorious claims being thrown out. Parties 
     would end up fighting at length over whether an official did 
     or did not subjectively believe his conduct to be lawful--
     even if existing law clearly established that it wasn't. 
     Resolving such complicated disputes would expend valuable 
     judicial resources and often lead to inaccurate results. And 
     officials who violated clearly established constitutional 
     rights might not be held accountable.
       Why treat customs officials better than the F.B.I. or local 
     cops? Customs officials serve a very important role. However, 
     there is simply no reason to treat them differently from 
     other government officials--such as border patrol agents, 
     state and local police officers who work near the border, or 
     prison guards. All of these officials are entitled to the 
     same, strong shield to liability. There is no need to change 
     the rules for customs officials.


                              current law

       Under current law, every government official--federal, 
     state, and local--is protected by the doctrine of qualified 
     immunity. This is a very broad shield from liability. In the 
     words of the Supreme Court, it protects ``all but the plainly 
     incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.'' Malley 
     v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). Officials are shielded 
     from liability ``as long as their actions could reasonably 
     have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged 
     to have violated.'' Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 
     (1987).
       When an official seeks qualified immunity, a court is 
     obligated to make a ruling on that issue early in the 
     proceedings so that, if immunity is warranted, the costs of 
     trial are avoided. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001). 
     The Supreme Court has repeatedly ``stressed the importance of 
     resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage 
     in litigation.'' Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991).
       Before 1982, the test for qualified immunity had both an 
     objective and a subjective component. First, an official had 
     to prove that he did not violate ``clearly established'' law. 
     Second, he had to show that he acted in ``subjective good 
     faith'': i.e., that he believed that he was not violating the 
     plaintiff's constitutional rights and was not acting with a 
     ``malicious intention.''
       In 1982, the Supreme Court eliminated the subjective 
     component. It emphasized that consideration of an official's 
     subjective motivations often involved ``broad-ranging 
     discovery and the deposing of numerous persons, including an 
     official's professional colleagues. Inquiries of this kind 
     can be peculiarly disruptive of effective government.'' 
     Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817 (1982). In other 
     words, the subjective test made this issue less--not more--
     likely to be resolved in summary judgment proceedings. Id. at 
     816. See also Anderson, 483 U.S. at 641 (``Anderson's 
     subjective beliefs about the search are irrelevant.'').

        How the Customs Service Has Fared in Three Recent Cases

       1. Saffell v. Crews, 183 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 1999)
       Facts: Airline passenger was subjected to a strip search 
     following her return from a trip to Jamaica. Customs 
     inspector conducted a pat-down search, then a partial strip 
     search. No drugs found.
       Outcome: Inspector is entitled to qualify immunity: 
     ``Crews, an experienced Customs inspector, was neither 
     incompetent, nor did the district court find that she 
     intentionally violated the law.''
       2. Bradley v. United States, 164 F.Supp.2d 437 (D.N.J. 
     2001)
       Facts: Passenger who was subjected to a strip search 
     claimed racial discrimination and invasion of her privacy.
       Outcome: Even assuming that customs agents violated the 
     passenger's rights, they were entitled to qualified immunity: 
     ``Qualified immunity is afforded to federal employees to 
     protect them from reasonable mistakes or poor judgment 
     calls.''
       3. Brent v. Ashley, 247 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2001)
       Facts: Only African American passengers on plane from Italy 
     were detained, isolated, strip searched, and then x-rayed. No 
     contraband was found.
       Outcome: Inspectors' decision to conduct strip search and 
     x-ray examination based merely on ``general profile of 
     arrival from a source country'' and ``nervousness'' violated 
     the Fourth Amendment. Because these grounds had been 
     ``explicitly rejected'' by both the supreme Court and 
     Eleventh Circuit, the inspectors were not entitled to 
     qualified immunity. However, the subordinates who assisted in 
     the searches were entitled to qualified immunity.
                                  ____


        NAACP Overwhelming Passes Resolution Opposing Fast Track


                       emergency resolution no. 1

       Whereas, the fast track promotion authority bills now 
     entering a conference between the House and the Senate, give 
     the administration the authority to negotiate new trade 
     agreements that cannot be amended or fully debated by 
     Congress, but only voted up or down; and
       Whereas, previous grants of fast track authority have 
     resulted in flawed trade deals including the North American 
     Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] and the World Trade Organization 
     [WTO] and the current administration seeks to expand and 
     replicate these trade deals; and
       Whereas, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that these 
     trade agreements--which have resulted in ballooning new trade 
     deficits--have cost more than three million American jobs and 
     job opportunities since 1994, with NAFTA alone accounting for 
     the destruction of three quarters of a million of these jobs; 
     and
       Whereas, the Department of Labor has certified for trade 
     adjustment assistance more than 400,000 workers who lost 
     their jobs due to NAFTA, and the GAO found that African 
     Americans made up 15% of workers displaced by the trade under 
     the general TAA program in 1999, though accounting for less 
     than 12% of the overall workforce; and
       Whereas, free trade contributes to the rise in income 
     inequality and downward pressure on wages and employers use 
     the threat of moving overseas to take advantage of new trade 
     rules in order to thwart union organizing drives and exact 
     concessions at the bargaining table; and
       Whereas, trade deals that cost jobs, lower wages and 
     increase employer threats hurt the African American 
     community, where median wages are lower, overall unemployment 
     is significantly higher and the benefits of union membership 
     are greater than among white workers; and
       Whereas, workers in developing countries have also suffered 
     under the free trade rules--Mexican workers saw their real 
     wages drop and poverty increase under NAFTA, while the 
     proliferation of export processing zones in Asia and Latin 
     America has exposed young woman workers to health hazards and 
     rights violations--and free trade agreements increase the 
     power of multi-national companies to pit workers against 
     workers in a race to the bottom in wages and working 
     conditions; and
       Whereas, agreements on trade and investment in services 
     such as the General Agreement on Trade in Services [GATS] 
     encourage the privatization and deregulation of services, 
     including public services like transportation and utilities, 
     thus threatening an important source of good jobs for African 
     American workers; and
       Whereas, investment rules such as Chapter Eleven of NAFTA 
     give private foreign companies the right to demand taxpayer 
     compensation for public interest regulations which diminish 
     the value of their investments, thus giving foreign investors 
     more rights than domestic investors and small-business owners 
     and threatening important environmental and public health 
     regulations such as California's ban on the toxic fuel 
     additive MTBE; and
       Whereas, pharmaceutical companies have used the 
     intellectual property rules in trade agreements to threaten 
     developing countries with retaliation if they violate patent 
     rules

[[Page H5981]]

     in order to provide affordable access to essential life-
     saving medicines, even medicines needed to treat people with 
     HIV/AIDS; and
       Whereas, the last twenty years of increased trade and 
     investment liberalization have coincided with slower global 
     growth, an increase in global income inequity and higher 
     public debt burdens, especially in the poorest countries of 
     Sub-Saharan Africa; and
       Whereas, most trade deals continue to be negotiated in 
     secret and trade disputes are resolved in secret, thus 
     denying the public an opportunity to participate in important 
     public policy decisions which affect their families, 
     communities and livelihoods; and
       Whereas, ongoing trade negotiations at the WTO and towards 
     a Free Trade Area of the Americas [FTAA], which would expand 
     NAFTA to the rest of the Hemisphere, have failed to make 
     progress towards the creation of fairer trade rules which 
     would protect public health and safety and public services, 
     safeguard the environment, contain enforceable commitments to 
     the International Labor Organization's core labor standards 
     (freedom of association, the right to organize and bargain 
     collectively and prohibitions on child labor, forced labor 
     and discrimination) and stimulate broad-based economic 
     development at home and abroad;
       Whereas, the current fast track bills also fail to make 
     real progress on these fundamental issues, thus guaranteeing 
     that future trade deals will harm workers, degrade the 
     environment and undermine progress towards sustainable, 
     equitable and democratic development around the world.
       Therefore, be it resolved, that the NAACP oppose the fast 
     track bills now being discussed in Congress and urge members 
     of Congress to vote against the fast track bill that comes 
     out of the current conference; and
       Be it further resolved, that the NAACP urge the Bush 
     Administration to consult closely with Congress and the 
     public, especially with communities of color, before 
     negotiating any new trade agreements and to release draft 
     negotiating texts and open up dispute settlement panels; and
       Be it further resolved, that the NAACP support the 
     inclusion of enforceable protections for the environment, 
     workers' rights, public services and public interest 
     regulations in all new trade agreements; and
       Be it finally resolved, that the NAACP urge the Bush 
     Administration to ensure that trade agreements do not include 
     a commitment by the United States to privatize significant 
     public services, including services related to national 
     security, social security, public health and safety, 
     transportation, utilities and education.
                                  ____



                        Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,

                                    Washington, DC, July xx, 2002.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the Leadership Conference on 
     Civil Rights, the nation's largest and most diverse civil and 
     human rights coalition, I write to express our strong 
     opposition to section 141 of the House version of the Customs 
     Border Security Act of 2001 (H.R. 3129), and to urge that 
     this provision not be included in the final version of the 
     bill that comes out of Conference. This provision would 
     unjustifiably weaken protections against racial profiling and 
     undermine President Bush's call to end this pernicious 
     practice.
       Section 141 would provide Customs officers with legal 
     immunity from civil lawsuits stemming from searches of 
     individuals entering the country, based on the officer's 
     assertion that the search was conducted in ``good faith.'' We 
     are unaware of any precedent for this sweeping protection. 
     Customs officers would be afforded a legal shield unavailable 
     to any other federal law enforcement officer.
       Under current law, the ``qualified immunity'' doctrine 
     protects officers from liability for actions ``that did not 
     violate any clearly established constitutional or statutory 
     rights.'' The additional protection now sought by the Customs 
     Service apparently would cover searches that do violate 
     clearly established constitutional or statutory rights but 
     which were undertaken in good faith.
       This additional protection is unjustified for several 
     reasons. First, individuals victimized by official actions 
     that violate ``clearly established constitutional or 
     statutory rights'' deserve legal redress. Second, a good 
     faith exception puts a premium on ignorance of the law; 
     officers should not gain immunity because they did not 
     understand what constitutes a ``clearly established 
     constitutional or statutory rights.'' Finally, there is no 
     reason for the Customs Service to have this additional 
     protection that other law enforcement agents do not. If 
     Congress is going to debate whether all agents should receive 
     this unjustified protection, that debate should not occur on 
     this bill.
       In considering whether the Customs Service deserves this 
     unprecedented protection, Congress should recall that in a 
     March 2000 report, the General Accounting Office found that 
     black female U.S. citizens were nine times more likely than 
     white female U.S. citizens to be subjected to x-ray searches 
     by the Customs Service. This disparity persisted despite the 
     fact that black women were less than half as likely to be 
     found carrying contraband as white females. We understand 
     that the Customs Service has taken steps to address this 
     problem, but this is no time to reverse the agency's 
     progress.
       Instead of weakening protections against racial profiling 
     on an ad hoc, agency-by-agency basis, Congress should enact 
     legislation to ban racial profiling. A bipartisan bill to 
     implement that goal, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001 
     (H.R. 2074), has been endorsed by the Leadership Conference 
     and currently has 93 cosponsors.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views. Please feel 
     free to contact Julie Fernandes of the Leadership Conference 
     staff at (202) 263-2856 regarding this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Wade Henderson,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                              American Civil Liberties, Union,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 2002.
       Dear Senator: The ACLU urges Members of the Conference 
     Committee to reject several troubling provisions included in 
     the House and Senate versions of H.R. 3009, the Andrean Trade 
     Preference Act. Sections 341 and 344 of the House bill and 
     Section 1143 of the Senate bill should be removed in 
     Conference. These provisions would weaken protections against 
     racial profiling and other illegal searches and undermine the 
     right to privacy in personal correspondence.


               unwarranted immunity for customs officials

       Section 341 of the House bill provides immunity to a 
     Customs officer conducting a search of a person or property 
     provided he or she was acting in ``good faith.'' The Senate 
     Bill does not contain a similar provision. Even though this 
     provision would dramatically change immunity law, the 
     provision was attached to a Customs Authorization Bill (H.R. 
     3129) and never considered by the judiciary committee. Many 
     major civil rights organizations opposed this provision in 
     the House bill including: the Leadership Conference on Civil 
     Rights, the National Association for the Advancement of 
     Colored People, the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican 
     American Legal Defense Fund, the Counsel on American Islamic 
     Relations and the American Arab Anti-Discrimination 
     Committee. The civil rights community believes that passage 
     of this provision would be a major set-back in the fight to 
     end racial profiling.
       Current law already provides qualified immunity to customs 
     agents. Qualified immunity is based on an assessment of what 
     a reasonable officer should have done in any given situation. 
     Under current law if a law enforcement officer conducts an 
     unconstitutional search based upon a reasonable but mistaken 
     conclusion that reasonable suspicion exists, the officer is 
     entitled to immunity from suit. See United States versus 
     Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997). This standard provides customs 
     agents protection against unreasonable law suits but also 
     protects individuals from unconstitutional searches. The 
     customs service has not offered a reasonable justification as 
     to why the qualified immunity standard should be changed.
       Section 341 would provide a customs officer with ``good 
     faith'' immunity. The term ``good faith'' is not defined in 
     the bill. Presumably an officer could engage in blatantly 
     discriminatory conduct, but if he in ``good faith'' believed 
     that he was justified in doing so, he could not be held 
     liable. This bill would expand immunity so that a person 
     would not be entitled to relief from an unconstitutional 
     search unless the officer acted in ``bad faith''--a nearly 
     impossible standard to meet. No law enforcement official is 
     entitled to this broad grant of immunity. Given that Congress 
     has recently expanded the police powers of government 
     officials, it should not at the same time cut back on the 
     mechanisms in existing law that are designed to ensure police 
     powers are not abused.
       Out of all the federal law enforcement agencies, the 
     Customs Service should not be provided with additional 
     immunity. The Customs Service has a documented record on 
     racial profiling. A March 2000 General Accounting Office 
     report found that while African American men and women were 
     nearly 9 times more likely to be searched as white American 
     men and women, they were no more likely to be found carrying 
     contraband. After the GAO Report was released, then 
     Commissioner Raymond Kelly implemented a series of changes to 
     customs search policy designed to address the problem. In 
     June of 2001, the total number of customs searches had 
     decreased, but people of color, especially African-Americans, 
     constituted the majority of the targets of the searches.
       Furthermore, customs agents have the authority to conduct 
     extraordinarily intrusive searches. Based only on a finding 
     of reasonable suspicion, a customs agent can subject a 
     traveler to a full body cavity search and an x-ray search. In 
     the recent case Brent versus Odesta Ashly, et al. 247 F.3d 
     1294 (11th Cir. Ct. App. 2001), customs agents in Florida 
     subjected an African-American woman to a painful strip search 
     and then an x-ray search even though there was virtually no 
     evidence of drugs or other contraband.
       Recommendation: We strongly urge the Conference Committee 
     to exclude Section 341 of the House Bill from the final Trade 
     bill.


                 privacy of outgoing international mail

       Section 344 of the House bill, ``Border search authority 
     for certain contraband in outgoing mail,'' would allow the 
     U.S. Customs Service to open outbound international mail 
     without a warrant if they have reasonable cause to suspect 
     the mail contains certain contraband. Under current law, the 
     Customs Service is empowered to search, without a warrant, 
     inbound mail handled by the United States Postal Service and 
     packages and letters handled by private carriers such as 
     Federal Express and the United Parcel Service.

[[Page H5982]]

       Section 344 would allow Customs officials to open sealed, 
     outbound international mail without a warrant, without 
     probable cause, and without any judicial review at all. 
     People in the United States have an expectation of privacy in 
     the mail they send to friends, family, or business associates 
     abroad. The Customs Service's interest in confiscating 
     illegal weapons' shipments, drugs or other contraband is 
     adequately protected by its ability to secure a search 
     warrant when it has probable cause. Short of an emergency, 
     postal officials can always hold a package while they wait 
     for a court to issue a warrant.
       Last fall, the U.S. Postal Service wrote a letter to the 
     Chairman of the Financial Services Committee on the issue of 
     searching outbound mail without a warrant: ``There is no 
     evidence that eroding these long established privacy 
     protections will bring any significant law enforcement 
     improvements over what is achieved using existing, 
     statutorily approved law enforcement techniques.'' (Letter to 
     Chairman Oxley from the USPS, dated October 10, 2001.)
       Section 1143 of the Senate bill is similar to Section 344. 
     However, Customs officials would only have authority to 
     search outbound international mail over 16 ounces without a 
     warrant. Section 1143 improves on the House provision because 
     it protects the privacy of letter-weight mail. But, the 
     Senate provision also fails to provide any checks and 
     balances on Customs officials' unilateral authority to open 
     personal mail over 16 ounces. Customs officials' power to 
     open personal correspondence without a warrant would be open 
     to abuse because there would be no way to track warrantless 
     searches and no independent third party review of their 
     decisions. At a minimum, Section 1143 should establish 
     oversight mechanisms to ensure Customs officials do not abuse 
     their authority.
       Recommendation: We strongly urge the Conference Committee 
     to exclude Section 344 of the House bill and Section 1143 of 
     the Senate bill from the final Trade legislation.
       We urge you to reject sections 341 and 344 of the House 
     bill and Section 1143 in the Senate bill because they would 
     weaken protections against racial profiling and other illegal 
     searches and undermine the right to privacy in personal 
     correspondence. For more information contact Rachel King at 
     675-2314 or Katie Corrigan at 675-2322.
           Sincerely,
     Laura Murphy,
       Director, Washington National Office.
     Rachel King,
       Legislative Counsel.
     Katie Corrigan,
       Legislative Counsel.
                                                        Council on


                                   American-Islamic Relations,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2002.
     Re: H.R. 3129--Do not include customs immunity into the trade 
         bill
       Dear Representative: We are writing to urge you to NOT 
     include section 141 of H.R. 3129, ``The Customs Border 
     Security Act of 2001'' in the current trade bill. Section 141 
     of H.R. 3129 would weaken protections against racial 
     profiling and other illegal searches.
       We are writing to you on behalf of the Council on American-
     Islamic Relations, as organization that works to protect the 
     rights of American Muslims. Since Sept. 11 many American 
     Muslims have been subjected to acts of racial discrimination 
     and harassment. We are concerned that this bill will lead to 
     more discrimination because it will immunize customs officers 
     who engage in that type of behavior.
       Customs agents currently enjoy protections from unwarranted 
     claims of abuse through qualified immunity from prosecution 
     based on objective criteria. Section 141 of H.R. 3129 would 
     grant `good faith' immunity, without defining what `good 
     faith' means. An officer could engage in blatantly 
     discriminatory or unconstitutional conduct, but if he in 
     ``good faith'' believes that the was justified in doing so, 
     he could not be held liable. Such broad and open immunity 
     would make it nearly impossible for a person who has suffered 
     an unconstitutional search and/or seizure to seek redress. No 
     law enforcement agency currently has such a broad grant of 
     immunity.
       Customs agents routinely conduct highly intrusive searches, 
     and have a poor record on racial profiling. For example, a 
     March 2000 General Accounting Office report found that while 
     African American ere nearly 9 times as likely to be searched 
     as white Americans, they were no more likely to be found 
     carrying contraband. This combination of power and immunity 
     will undoubtedly lead to civil rights abuses.
       We urge you to NOT include text from H.R. 3129 in the 
     current trade bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jason C. Erb,
     Director, Governmental Relations.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 2002.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance, Hart Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Baucus: I urge you and the other Senate 
     Conferees to reject Sections 341 and 344 of the House bill 
     and Section 1143 of H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade Preference 
     Act. These troubling provisions would weaken protections 
     against racial profiling and other illegal searches and 
     undermine the right to privacy in personal correspondence. 
     Democratic members of both the Judiciary and Ways and Means 
     Committees have consistently opposed these provisions when 
     raised in Customs authorization legislation and the demerits 
     of these proposals should not escape full scrutiny before 
     passage.
       Section 341 of the House bill provides immunity to a 
     Customs officer conducting a search of a person or property 
     provided he or she was acting in ``good faith.'' The Senate 
     Bill does not contain a similar provision. Even though this 
     provision would dramatically change immunity law, the 
     provision was attached to a Customs Authorization bill (H.R. 
     3129) and never considered by the judiciary committee.
       Through a series of meetings, we sought some justification 
     for this proposed change in liability law. The Customs 
     Service, however, failed to demonstrate that existing 
     qualified immunity doctrine provided inadequate protection 
     for Customs agents acting within the scope of their official 
     authority. In fact, the existing doctrine of qualified 
     immunity more than adequately shields public officials 
     performing discretionary functions from civil damages if 
     their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory 
     or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should 
     have known. I know of no case where a Customs agent, acting 
     within the scope of his authority, has ever been issued a 
     judgment and most cases are dismissed prior to trial. The 
     Supreme Court has also repeatedly held that the 
     reasonableness of an officer's behavior, not the subjective 
     ``good faith'' standard used in this legislation is the 
     proper test for liability.
       Section 11 would accord Customs officers a legal shield 
     unavailable to any other law enforcement officer in the 
     country. This provision would have the direct effect of 
     weakening protections against racial profiling and other 
     illegal and unconstitutional searches by the Customs Service 
     that have been highlighted in recent GAO studies. 
     Specifically, the GAO found that passengers of particular 
     races and genders were more likely than others to be 
     subjected to intrusive strip and x-ray searches after frisks 
     or patdowns, even though the results of such searches found 
     that they were less likely to be in possession of contraband. 
     The most extreme examples of racial profiling by the Customs 
     Service were directed against African-American women, who 
     were nine times more likely than white women to be the victim 
     of an intrusive search, even though they were only half as 
     likely as white women to be found carrying contraband. In 
     light of the conduct of the Customs Service, such a broad 
     grant of immunity, absent legislative scrutiny and oversight, 
     invites continuing civil liberty violations.
       Similarly, the Customs Service failed to demonstrate 
     evidence of a need to change the legal standard for searching 
     U.S. mail. Under current law, the Customs Service is 
     empowered to search, without a warrant, inbound mail handled 
     by the United States Postal Service and packages and letters 
     handled by private carriers such as Federal Express and the 
     United Parcel Service. The Customs Service's interest in 
     confiscating illegal weapons' shipments, drugs or other 
     contraband inbound or outbound is adequately protected by its 
     ability to secure a search warrant when it has probable 
     cause. Short of an emergency, postal officials can always 
     hold a package while they wait for a court to issue a 
     warrant.
       Recently, the U.S. Postal Service wrote a letter to the 
     Chairman of the Financial Services Committee on the issue of 
     searching outbound mail without a warrant: ``There is no 
     evidence that eroding these long established privacy 
     protections will bring any significant law enforcement 
     improvements over what is achieved using existing, 
     statutorily approved law enforcement techniques.'' (Letter to 
     Chairman Oxley from the USPS, dated October 10, 2001.)
       Times of crisis are the true test of a democracy. As we 
     search for increased national security, we must be mindful of 
     the fact that our civil liberties are a precious resource and 
     ensure that freedom is not a casualty of vigilance. Without 
     arguable justification, Sections 341, 344 and 1143 trammel 
     the ability of individuals to address the overzealous 
     activities of the Customs Service and undermine the 
     expectation of privacy in the U.S. mail. I, therefore, urge 
     you to strike these provisions from the trade bill.
           Very truly yours,
                                                John Conyers, Jr.,
                       Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Trade Promotion 
Authority conference report. I am for free and open trade, and I want 
this President and all presidents to have Fast Track authority. Today, 
I think we need to remove some misconceptions about Trade Promotion 
authority. This is not a trade agreement. Rather, it would give our 
government the authority to negotiate trade agreements.
  Congress would still get to vote up or down on every trade agreement 
that's made, and I would stand by my commitments to American workers 
and to protecting our labor standards and environmental laws during 
each and every one of those votes.
  I believe trade is critical to America's economic growth and 
prosperity. The great strength of the American economy is really in the 
spirit of its people. It's American innovation, entrepreneurship, and 
competitiveness that drives our industry, agriculture, and local

[[Page H5983]]

businesses. The good news is every American stands to benefit from free 
trade.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see the conference report contains a solid 
trade compromise with robust trade adjustment assistance for displaced 
American workers. In fact, this is the most progressive trade authority 
ever considered by Congress. It expands the current worker assistance 
program threefold, and for the first time provides health care 
assistance for the unemployed.
  As we move forward in a global economy, this legislation provides the 
right balance between reaping the rewards of free trade and protecting 
displaced American workers. Free trade is in the long-term interest of 
the United States and our economy, and in the creation of jobs that 
benefit American workers. I look forward to voting for this 
comprehensive trade legislation.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3009--the 
Fast Track Conference Report. I also rise in opposition to the 
amendment to authorize the President to grant duty-free treatment for 
Andean exports of ``tuna packed in flexible (e.g., foil), airtight 
containers weighing with their contents not more than 6.8 kg each.''
  For months, I have provided the House and Senate with documentation 
that clearly shows that the Andean countries have the production 
capacity to destroy U.S. tuna operations in American Samoa, Puerto 
Rico, and California. I have also clearly demonstrated that the economy 
of American Samoa is more than 80 percent dependent, either directly or 
indirectly, on the U.S. tuna fishing and processing industries, and any 
give away to the Andean countries will adversely impact cannery 
operations in American Samoa.
  Simply put, duty-free treatment for pouch products poses the same 
threat as duty-free treatment for canned products. Although the pouch 
tuna business is currently estimated to be about 6 percent of the total 
tuna business, conservative estimates suggest that the pouch business 
will grow three, five, and ten years at 75, 50, and 25 percent 
respectively. This equates to 8 percent share by 2005, 12.2 percent by 
2007, and about 15.4 percent of total U.S. tuna trade by 2012.
  Reuters wire service recently reported that StarKist intends to move 
away from the standard 6-ounce cans and boost distribution of tuna in a 
pouch. In other words, pouch product will displace canned product and 
canneries in American Samoa and Puerto Rico will be unable to compete 
with low labor costs in the Andean region. This will force a shut down 
of cannery operations in American Samoa and Puerto Rico. This will also 
lead to the demise of the U.S. tuna fishing fleet which will be forced 
to transship its product to the Andean countries at a cost disadvantage 
that will be impossible to overcome. In short, canned tuna will become 
a foreign controlled commodity instead of the branded product American 
consumers have trusted with confidence for over 95 years.
  Given these eventualities, I cannot support a position that includes 
unlimited duty-free treatment for pouch products. I stand firm on 
capacity limitations which equate to no more than 18.1 million 
kilograms of tuna in airtight containers. I also stand firm on rules of 
origin. The U.S. tuna boat owners, Chicken of the Sea, and Bumble Bee 
also support my position and I am grateful for their support.

  I also wish to note that I am disappointed that the House receded 
with an amendment to grant duty-free treatment for tuna packed in 6.8 
kg pouches. Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a 6.8 kg pouch and 
it is almost inexcusable that the House would be misinformed on such a 
critical issue. To set the record straight, there are only two pouch 
sizes. There is a 7 oz. retail pouch and a 43 oz., or 1.22 kg, 
institutional food service pouch.
  The food service pouch is packed in American Samoa by Chicken of the 
Sea. The 7 oz. pouch is controlled by StarKist. StarKist has said it 
will never pack its 7 oz. pouch in American Samoa. Why? Because 
StarKist is a company that is always in search of low-cost labor. Labor 
rates in the Andean region are 69 cents an hour and less. In American 
Samoa, tuna cannery workers are paid $3.60 per hour. Given these wage 
differences, it is unconscionable for the U.S. Congress to give 
StarKist one more edge in the marketplace and one more reason to leave 
American Samoa.
  This legislation is flawed. It is based on the idea that drugs lords 
will be enticed to pack tuna for 69 cents an hour. It is baseless 
thinking and I cannot and will not support the inclusion of tuna in the 
ATPA. The Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia have also expressed their 
concerns and provided Congress with statements regarding the economic 
impact the ATPA would have on their region. The Government of the 
Philippines has blatantly stated that the inclusion of tuna would 
impede its efforts to eradicate poverty and combat terrorism.
  Chicken of the Sea, Bumble Bee, the U.S. tuna boat owners, Puerto 
Rico, and American Samoa offered up a fair and reasonable compromise to 
resolve the controversy surrounding the inclusion of tuna in the ATPA. 
Our compromise was the Breaux amendment which passed the Senate Finance 
Committee. The Breaux amendment limits the amount of tuna that can 
enter the U.S. duty-free and also requires a source of origin provision 
that would require tuna to be caught by U.S. or Andean flag ships.
  Capacity limitations are key to ensuring the continued viability of 
the U.S. tuna and fishing operations in American Samoa, Puerto Rico and 
California. Rules of origin are necessary to protect our U.S. tuna 
fishing fleet which is based in the Western Pacific Tropic. There are 
no fishing licenses left in the Eastern Pacific Tropic and the U.S. 
tuna boat owners are almost entirely dependent on cannery production in 
American Samoa. Any fluctuation in production affects the livelihood of 
the U.S. tuna boat owners.
  There are about 30 U.S. flag purse seiners operating in the Western 
Pacific Tropic. This fleet supplies about 200,000 tons of tuna per year 
to the canneries in American Samoa. The loss of American Samoa as a 
base would mean the end of the U.S. tuna fishing fleet. The Breaux 
amendment, however, limits the loss to 50.4 million pounds, or 2.1 
million cases. The Breaux amendment also offsets this loss by providing 
opportunity for the U.S. tuna boats owners to sell their fish to the 
Andean canneries. Our compromise also encourages Andean countries to 
develop their own fishing fleets as a means to maximize economic 
benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, the Spanish fishing fleet, which is subsidized by the 
government of Spain, is alive and well and fishing for lightmeat tuna 
in the Eastern Pacific Tropic. Japan and Taiwan are well at work 
transshipping albacore tuna to Andean canneries. It is a well-
documented fact that StarKist is purchasing albacore from Japan and 
Taiwan and transshipping it directly to Ecuador for packing.
  I am concerned about these developments because I do not believe the 
ATPA should provide backdoor benefits for non-Andean countries. Neither 
Spain nor Japan nor Taiwan should be allowed to send their fish into 
the U.S. market duty-free. In my opinion, this would violate the intent 
of the ATPA and would unfairly disadvantage the ASEAN countries. In 
fairness to the U.S. tuna boat owners, in fairness of the ASEAN 
countries, in fairness to American Samoa, Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia 
and Peru, I believe source of origin must be included in the ATPA. 
Limits must also be placed on the amount of tuna that can enter the 
U.S. duty-free.
  I stand firm on capacity limits and rules of origin. In short, it is 
the people of American Samoa who will suffer economic loss as a result 
of the inclusion of any amount of tuna in the ATPA. To offset this 
loss, I believe Congress should make a sincere commitment to provide 
for an IRS Section 936 substitute which specifically addresses the 
needs of American Samoa. I also believe Congress should be prepared to 
assist American Samoa if it suffers massive unemployment and 
insurmountable financial problems.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation. We are not divided here today on the benefits of free 
trade. We are divided on how to best achieve it--to compete on a level 
playing field in the global economy. Fast Track turns it back on hard 
working families. It will not stem the tide of lost jobs and lower 
labor standards seen since the passage of NAFTA.
  Fast Track is not the answer. It makes protection of environmental 
and labor rights non-mandatory. It guts provisions that ensure that 
countries do not use child labor to gain advantage over the United 
States. We should be working to increase the safety of workers, not 
expose them to new dangers and new insecurities.
  This agreement eliminates common sense trade assistance reform that 
would have covered worker dislocation caused by factories moving 
offshore. So, if you lose your job due to increased imports you are 
eligible for coverage. But if you lose your job because your factory 
shut down and moved offshore to Asia, you are not. Mr. Speaker, that 
isn't right.
  Increasingly, American families are struggling everyday to make ends 
meet. Congress has the opportunity and the responsibility to ensure 
that American values define the international market and that our 
citizens build solid futures. Show that Congress cares about and 
understands America's hopes and fears for the future and vote ``no'' on 
Fast Track.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Trade 
Promotion Authority.
  This legislation reflects a solid product that extends to President 
Bush the trade negotiating authority that Congress has extended to the 
past five presidents. It also enables the president and the Trade 
Representative to begin negotiations on a new WTO trade round that can 
lead to further trade liberalization on American products and services 
overseas.

[[Page H5984]]

  World trade lifts people out of poverty and stimulates economic 
development in developing countries, which results in more stable and 
law-abiding government.
  There's no denying that our economy is changing and with that change 
comes new industries and economic opportunities. The hallmark of the 
United States' economic vitality is the ability of our country to 
innovate and develop new products and services.
  TPA will help enable our trade negotiators to open new doors to 
international trade that are essential if we as a country want to 
remain a leader in world trade.
  If we do not approve TPA today, we are forfeiting a critical 
mechanism to influence negotiations on new trade agreements.
  I believe that approval of trade promotion authority legislation is 
essential to the health of our economy. It benefits American consumer 
and workers alike.
  By providing trade promotion authority to the President, the Congress 
is signaling its support for the Administration to negotiate trade 
agreements that benefit Americans and that require Congressional 
consultation.
  More importantly, we are sending an important message about U.S. 
leadership in the global economy. Without TPA, our trade representative 
cannot demonstrate Congressional support for a new round of WTO 
negotiations.
  This bill also provides some much needed assistance for workers who 
have been displaced by Trade. Under this bill, for the first time 
displaced workers will be eligible for a 65 percent advanceable, 
refundable tax credit that can be used to pay for COBRA.
  This bill recognizes how difficult it can be for older workers to 
change careers and provides wage insurance to bridge the gap between 
old and new earnings (up to $10,000 over 2 years).
  But that's not all--there's a TAA program for farmers and ranchers, 
and an expanded training budget (retraining for displaced workers), and 
extends the availability of benefits for up to 2 and a half years.
  As I have always said, I may be pro Trade, but I am also pro helping 
displaced workers, and this bill delivers on that promise.
  We must act with one voice in supporting this legislation and the 
responsibility of Congressional oversight in trade.
  We now live in a global economy that has been brought together 
through advances in technology, transportation and communications. 
International trade is not only a reality, but it is a necessity if we 
plan to thrive in the 21st century.
  In this climate marked by a global economic downturn and a war on 
terrorism that crosses international borders, this legislation is an 
opportunity to signal U.S. leadership in the world.
  Trade opens economic opportunities that minimizes the conditions that 
give rise to extremist groups, dictatorships and violations of human 
rights.
  America's role in the world is defined largely by trade and economic 
ties with other countries. Our security is dependent upon prosperity.
  We could spend countless hours modifying this bill, but the question 
comes down to whether this Congress supports a vision whereby America 
continues to be a global leader.
  If we reject this balanced proposal, we send entirely the wrong 
signal to other countries that America does not support an ongoing 
policy of trade expansion that has been the hallmark of our country's 
prosperity and a model for people and democracies the world over.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this proposal and stand on the side 
of economic opportunity and openness. It is the right time and right 
thing to do.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I support free trade. The removal of 
trade barriers by both the United States and our trading partners will 
ultimately strengthen the economies of all nations.
  I have long believed that the best process for achieving the 
elimination of trade barriers is for us to grant the President a 
properly-structured authority to submit trade agreements, negotiated 
pursuant to that structure, for an up-or-down vote by the Congress. 
With the proper provisions for environmental and labor protections, 
trade agreements can facilitate both our economic and our environmental 
goals.
  Sadly, the leadership of this House has refused to give us such 
legislation or even an open process to consider the bill before us. 
Once again the Republican majority has resorted to a ``martial law'' 
rule, preventing members from having even one day to look at the bill 
on which we're voting. This is the latest in a series of affronts to 
bipartisanship, collegiality and the legislative process. Until early 
this evening it was not even possible for Members to obtain a copy of 
the conference report on which we are voting.
  Relying as we must on third-party descriptions of the conference 
committee's agreement, I conclude that my concerns about labor, the 
environment and meaningful trade adjustment assistance have not been 
met in this report, just as they were not in the trade promotion bill 
that was rammed through this House by a single-vote margin in December. 
The conferees have not dealt with the flaws in the mechanisms 
established for investment protection under the North American Free 
Trade Agreement--mechanisms the New York Times yesterday called 
``secret trade courts'' in its editorial urging the conferees to 
correct this. The conference language does not ensure the continued 
enforceability of environmental agreements the United States has 
entered into with other nations. The conference bill fails to extend 
the core labor standards of the International Labor Organization to 
trade agreements entered into with our neighbors in the Americas. The 
bill shortchanges dislocated American workers with inadequate trade 
adjustment assistance.
  As I have argued before, in this body and to the Administration, we 
could have achieved broad, bipartisan support for trade promotion 
authority if the Republican leadership had dealt fairly and openly with 
these issues as part of their legislation. Instead, the leadership has 
continued a pattern of unduly partisan, non-participatory legislating 
on trade. For me, this is perhaps the most disappointing feature of the 
bill before us.
  Finally, it is most ironic that this partisan approach to TPA has 
forced the Administration to make a hash of this nation's trade 
priorities. In the name of advancing free trade, the Administration has 
made egregious projectionist concessions on steel, textiles and 
agricultural products in order to secure votes for passage. I can only 
hope this atmosphere changes and we return to building a majority for 
an honest, bipartisan trade policy for our nation's future.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report to H.R. 3009, the Fast Track Trade legislation that comes before 
us today. I do support trade agreements that will benefit all parties 
involved; however, the conference report that we consider today does 
not do this. It is a far departure of where I think we should be going 
in the direction of fair and equitable trade agreements. Everything 
that was positive was eliminated in conference and the result is a 
piece of legislation that will take us down a precarious, dangerous 
path for our nation.
  Specifically, my concerns lie with the workers that will be 
negatively affected by this open and free granting of negotiating 
authority for the President. While we look at Fast Track as a way to 
create new opportunities and jobs for many Americans and other workers 
overseas, it is completely irresponsible and heartless for Congress not 
to provide safeguards for those U.S. workers that will be negatively 
impacted. This is unacceptable and shows where our priorities really 
are. Saying ``yes'' to the conference report to the Fast Track 
legislation before us today is an anti-worker vote with too many 
implications that we cannot afford.
  Workers are the backbone of any company, but Fast Track would erode 
the rightful safeguards they are owed. Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(TAA) and health care protections are significantly weakened in the 
conference report. The tax credits included would not assist displaced 
workers, by forcing them to pay more for their health insurance. 
Moreover, there is no guarantee that workers who had health coverage 
for a only a couple of months, or had no health coverage at all, prior 
to losing their jobs would even be afforded assistance. And for those 
workers that belonged to companies who shifted their factories 
overseas, this bill basically says to them, ``tough luck for you.'' 
What kind of assistance are we providing them? This is not assistance, 
it's corporate maximization, and it's the workers that pay the price.
  Proponents of the trade agreement state that the conference report 
does indeed contain strong labor protections for U.S. workers; and that 
the provisions in the report are modeled after the Jordan Free Trade 
Agreement. That's simply not correct. The conference report falls short 
of the standards set in the Jordan FTA by excluding key commitments 
that deal with the incorporation of core labor standards in domestic 
law and the commitment to work towards the implementation and 
improvement of these laws. To state that the conference report affords 
strong labor protections is disingenuous.
  In addition to the unacceptable worker protections in the conference 
report, there are a long string of other dangerous provisions that 
would take us backwards in our dealings. First, the environment plays 
second fiddle, if not worse, to promoting trade. Instead of being a 
leader in this area and protecting and advancing our standards, the 
U.S. would promote poor environmental policy in the name of signing a 
``good agreement.''
  Congressional oversight in ensuring that trade agreements are sound 
policy is also completely diluted. The conference agreement adds two 
new restrictions on Congress' ability to withdraw fast track and denies 
Congress our right to ensure that the trade laws of our nation are not 
forsaken in trade agreements.

[[Page H5985]]

On the other hand, foreign investors would be afforded even more rights 
than they have under current law. While Congress' rights are 
restricted, the rights of foreign investors are increased. This is a 
sell-out of the worst kind.
  This conference report gives the President and his Administration a 
blank check to sign away worker protections, environmental protections, 
Congressional oversight, and so much more. It's a check that we 
shouldn't let pass--it's a check that we should stamp with a big 
``void.'' For these reasons, I oppose passage of the conference report 
to H.R. 3009. We can and should do much better.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, tonight we have before us the 
Conference Report on Trade Promotion Authority--or Fast Track.
  I was hopeful that the Conferees would give us a bill that had real 
and meaningful protections for America's working men and women. I was 
hopeful that the Conferees would give us a bill that had real and 
meaningful safeguards for our environment. I was hopeful that the 
Conferees would give us a bill that had real and meaningful protections 
of Congressional prerogative to change U.S. trade laws. I was hopeful 
that the Conferees would give us a bill that had real and meaningful 
expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. I was hopeful 
that the Conferees would give us a bill that had real and meaningful 
instructions regarding international accounting rules. I was hopeful 
that the Conferees would give us a bill that had real and meaningful 
protections for U.S. taxpayers against unfair suits against domestic 
public-interest laws.
  However, and not surprisingly, H.R. 3009 has none of these important 
components. Therefore, I will vote ``no'', and I urge my colleagues to 
do the same.
  While I was hopeful that H.R. 3009 would have real and meaningful 
protections for working families, it amazingly takes a great step 
backwards on workers' rights. As written, this bill effectively rules 
out any enforcement of workers' rights in future trade agreements. How 
can American workers compete with foreign companies who pay their 
workers slave wages? How can American workers compete with foreign 
companies who crush union representation? How can American workers 
compete with foreign companies that employ children? Put simply, they 
cannot.
  While I was hopeful that H.R. 3009 would have real and meaningful 
safeguards for the environment, this bill actually reduces the role of 
this Congress to enforce environmental standards. We should be 
encouraging our international competitors to protect the environment. 
We should be providing assistance to other nations to achieve real 
environmental protections. However, this bill fails to ensure parity 
between the environment and commercial considerations in future trade 
agreements.
  While I was hopeful that H.R. 3009 would have real and meaningful 
protections of Congressional prerogative to change U.S. trade laws, 
this bill is a major step backwards. Why was the Dayton-Craig language 
from the Senate bill stripped from the Conference Report? This bill 
actually diminishes the already minimal oversight Congress has over 
U.S. trade laws. This bill actually prevents Congress from withdrawing 
from a trade agreement, even if the trade agreement is found to 
undermine our trade laws.
  I was hopeful that the Conferees would give us a bill that had real 
and meaningful expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. 
Amazingly, this Conference reduces the Senate-passed TAA proposal to 
cover only 65 percent tax credit to cover health care costs. During 
these times of economic uncertainty, this is another slap in the face 
to laid-off workers. Worst of all, this 65 percent figure is below what 
most employers offer, so these struggling workers will actually pay 
more for their health coverage at a time when they've lost their jobs.
  While I was hopeful that H.R. 3009 would have real and meaningful 
instructions regarding international accounting rules, this bill does 
not address the issue. At a time when we are passing long-overdue 
changes to our domestic accounting industry, this bill does nothing to 
prevent many of the shortcomings on the international front. We've just 
taken some great steps to improve what we do here in the U.S., but this 
bill could limit congressional changes to accounting regulations that 
are deemed ``more trade restrictive than necessary.''
  I was hopeful that the Conferees would give us a bill that had real 
and meaningful protections for U.S. taxpayers against unfair suits 
against domestic public-interest laws. As a former State Attorney 
General, I am particularly sensitive to the unintended consequences of 
federal laws. As 35 current State Attorneys General wrote to Chairman 
Thomas and Chairman Baucus, they had grave concerns that the investment 
provisions . . . [and] to the independence of our judicial system.'' As 
we already have seen in California, foreign companies have used the 
NAFTA investor rules to sue U.S. taxpayers for $1.7 billion over a 
California clean-water law and a Mississippi jury award in a fraud 
case. We should not allow our own state laws to be used against us in 
the name of free trade.
  While I cannot support this bill, I have taken many pro-trade votes 
in this Congress. I will continue to support trade agreements that 
protect the environment. I will continue to support trade agreements 
that provide important safeguards to protect the rights of American 
working families as well as the rights of our trading partners' 
workers. I will continue to support trade agreements that protect our 
ability to exercise our Constitutional duty to provide oversight of the 
executive branch. As I've stated previously, this legislation does none 
of these things.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Fast Track Conference 
Report.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Trade Promotion 
Authority Conference Report. I would like to thank the distinguished 
Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Thomas, for crafting this 
balanced and fair legislation. Trade Promotion Authority is absolutely 
critical to reenergize our economy, create jobs and stimulate growth. 
TPA will grant the President, in consultation with Congress, the 
ability to negotiate in good faith with our trading partners. Without 
TPA the United States will once again be excluded when the other 
nations of the world begin negotiations for a free trade agreement. Our 
competitors in Europe are already party to over one hundred free trade 
agreements, while the U.S., the world's largest and most powerful 
economy, is party to only 3 such agreements.
  I would like to address my colleagues on the importance of TPA as it 
relates to trade in services. The U.S. is the world's largest exporter 
of services, and service is the fastest growing sector of the U.S. 
economy, accounting for 80 percent of both GDP and private employment. 
In 2000, the cross-border services trade surplus was $76.5 billion, 
offsetting 17 percent of the $452 billion trade deficit that year. 
These exports supported 4.4 million U.S. jobs in 2000 and added 20.6 
million new U.S. jobs to the economy between 1989 and 1999. Services 
encompass all economic activity other than agriculture, manufacturing 
and mining.
  Financial services are a key component in the trade in services 
equation. Financial services firms contributed more than $750 billion 
to U.S. Gross Domestic Product in 1999, nearly 8 percent of total GDP. 
More than six million employees support the products and services these 
firms offer. Expanded trade in financial services will enable U.S. 
service providers to gain access to more markets in critical global 
financial centers and developing countries.
  With greater trade in financial services, global economies will be 
required to develop more sophisticated and more transparent financial 
systems. This is turn will result in a stronger and more innovative 
global economic marketplace. With economic hardships in Argentina, 
Japan and China, expanded trade in financial services will act as an 
incentive for these countries and others to reform their financing 
practices and develop more stable economic systems.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote to approve TPA. This 
legislation will give the President critical authority to seek to open 
additional markets for U.S. financial service providers, improve the 
regulation of international financial markets, and provide 
international customers access to a greater number of financial 
products. All of these actions will lead to a more sophisticated, 
better run global financial marketplace and a faster economic recovery. 
Our workers are counting on us, our employers are counting on us, and 
the world is counting on us. We must approve TPA today.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this fast track conference 
report as submitted. This agreement clearly does not reflect the needs 
and concerns of my constituents. In the last two years, I have 
witnessed two major steel mills close in my district and several 
factories shift production lines overseas. This legislation gives the 
President unabridged authority to enter into more trade agreements that 
send good paying jobs overseas, while weakening existing trade laws.
  As I have said before, I do not share President Bush's vision for 
unfettered free trade that hurts the workers of the 17th district of 
Illinois. The President has continually threatened to veto any 
agreement that contains language preventing him from weakening anti-
dumping statutes. This agreement fulfills the President's desire to 
freely trade away anti-dumping protections.
  The President has indicated one of his first steps after passage of 
fast track will be to expand NAFTA to include all of Central and South 
America. This expansion benefits a few importers at the expense of 
thousands of workers and farmers in my district. Never has there been a 
worse time in the economy to give the President so much authority to 
trade away jobs. We should not give the President

[[Page H5986]]

this far reaching authority, especially during an economic crisis.
  This agreement also does not include strong transitional assistance 
to workers whose company moves overseas or shuts down due to unfair 
trade. Mr. Speaker, I have assisted thousands of my constituents with 
the poorly funded TAA program and cannot afford to watch more families 
turned away from needed assistance. This plan also expects families to 
cover high health insurance costs with a tax credit. To expect families 
during an unforeseen lay off to benefit from a tax credit which they 
would not see until the next year is ineffective and insulting.
  Mr. Speaker, I support free trade when it benefits American workers. 
But, I do not believe we should grant the President fast track to 
negotiate trade agreements in this form. I urge my colleagues to vote 
down this conference agreement, which makes no improvement on previous 
attempts to implement fast track.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, 
nays 212, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 370]

                               YEAS--215

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Collins
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--212

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Blunt
     Combest
     Hansen
     Lipinski
     Meehan
     Roukema
     Stump

                              {time}  0330

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________