[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.
____________________