[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 22, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7311-H7319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 326 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2799.
{time} 2124
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2799) making appropriations for the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier
today, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 1 offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) had been postponed.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to destroy or conceal physical and electronic records
and documents related to any use of Federal agency resources
in any task or action involving or relating to members of the
Texas Legislature for the period beginning May 11, 2003, and
ending May 16, 2003.
[[Page H7312]]
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to
the Committee on Appropriations for the Commerce, Justice, and State
for, I think, a very direct and important reason. The American people
have a right to believe that their Federal agencies and Federal
resources are used appropriately for the mission statement and the
legislative directive upon which these agencies are organized.
This amendment is simple. It states: ``None of the funds made
available by this act may be used by the Department of Justice to
destroy or conceal physical and electronic records and documents
related to any use of Federal agency resources in any task or action
involving or relating to members of the Texas legislature in the period
beginning May 11, 2003, and ending May 16, 2003.''
The purpose of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to prohibit the use
of funds by the Department of Justice to destroy or conceal any
documents related to that use of Federal agency resources in the Texas
redistricting controversy in May of 2003.
During the Texas redistricting controversy in May of this year, there
were numerous published reports that Federal law enforcement resources
were used to conduct surveillance, attempt to locate, or otherwise
track the location of Democratic members of the Texas legislature who
left Texas to break a quorum. Included in the reports were accounts of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation being contacted to locate
Democrats.
United States Marshals received phone calls to arrest Texas Democrats
and Federal resources were being used to track airplanes belonging to
Texas Democrats.
In the wake of the redistricting controversy and the allegations of
the misuse of Federal resources, there have been numerous attempts to
obtain documents related to the misuse of Federal law enforcement
resources. Democratic members of both the United States House of
Representatives' Committee on the Judiciary and Select Committee on
Homeland Security have repeatedly requested documents. Such documents
have not been forthcoming. The many requests have either been ignored,
or the information received has been redacted.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, the other body has requested information.
This amendment is simple on its face, to ensure as this process moves
forward that no documents will be destroyed.
Mr. Chairman, this is another issue that I think is very important.
Might I offer visually to my colleagues that when we requested
information, this redacted document was the kind of document that we
received, and I am going to have this document submitted into the
Record. It is a statement from the United States Department of Homeland
Security, Office of the Inspector General.
This issue is beyond the isolated and defined issue dealing with the
Texas redistricting saga. It has to do with dignity, it has to do with
civil rights and civil liberties. It is an outrage that we would have
Federal officials using Federal resources to track civilians who
perpetrated no crime. It is an outrage that we have as a statement
regarding the use of a U.S. Attorney something noted by a reporter,
reported elsewhere, that a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's office
in San Antonio had no official comment, but a source confirmed that an
unidentified person had called to inquire about federalizing the arrest
warrant, that is, regarding a Texas legislator. This was reported in
the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 14, 2003.
I believe we already had another article saying that the elected
official here in Washington, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay),
already had a United States attorney in Texas researching how to employ
Federal resources. This was Hugh Aynesworth, Washington Times, May 14,
2003.
This is not pointed at any particular individual, per se, as much as
it is a horror about not being able to determine whether resources were
being used adversely against civilians. This is, as I said, a question
that this House should take up.
So my amendment is simple. It allows or says that no funds should be
used to allow the Department of Justice to destroy any documents that
may be relevant to this particular issue. It is out of the issue, out
of the basis of transparency, out of the idea that the American people,
no matter what the situation may be, are owed a responsible answer and
responsible actions as relates to their Federal resources.
And then I would say, Mr. Chairman, in this time when we are fighting
terrorism and using all of the resources that we might, Department of
Justice, Department of Transportation, Homeland Security Department,
all of these departments should be focused singularly on one purpose.
That is, all the Federal might and resources to fight the war against
terrorism.
{time} 2130
I would hope my colleagues would support this amendment so that we
can find out the truth and ensure that transparency always prevails in
the United States Government.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General--
Investigations--Memorandum of Activity
(Type of Activity: Personal Interview. Case Number: IN03-
0IG-LA-0662. Case Title: Air and Marine Interdiction Center.)
On May 22, 2003, . . ., Texas Department of Public Safety
(DPS), Austin, Texas, . . . or . . ., was interviewed by the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of Inspector
General (OIG) regarding allegations that the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE), Air and Marine
Interdiction Coordination Center (AMICC), DHS allegedly
misused DHS resources in the search of missing Texas state
legislators, specifically, by looking for a missing airplane.
Others present during this interview were . . ., DPS, Austin;
. . ., DPS, Austin; and . . ., . . , DPS, Austin. During the
questioning of . . . the DHS-OIG was consistently interrupted
and challenged by DPS participants that questions were not
within the scope of the DHS-OIG investigation. The DPS asked
the OIG if . . . would be given Miranda warnings The OIG
advised the DPS that . . . would not be given Miranda
warnings since . . . was only a witness regarding a DHS-OIG
investigation. The DHS-OIG advised that . . . was not under
criminal investigation. . . . provided, in substance, the
following information:
. . . has worked for the DPS for . . . said . . . knew that
USCS tracked airplanes. . . . said . . . was unaware that
this USCS California office was part of the DHS.
. . . said . . . called the USCS about a missing airplane
on May 12, 2003, between the hours of 6:45 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.
. . . said . . . asked for the ``TX Desk'' which . . . said
referred to the Texas area.
. . . was questioned as to who instructed . . . to make an
inquiry regarding the missing airplane. . . . said several
individuals requested . . . to look for the airplane. At that
point in the interview . . . asked . . ., and . . . it . . .
had to answer the question regarding who requested . . . to
look for the airplane. . . . advised . . . that this question
was outside the scope of the DHS-OIG investigation. The DHS-
OIG informed . . . that this question was pertinent to the
investigation; however, the DHS-OIG could not compel . . . to
answer. . . . declined to answer the question.
At the direction of unnamed individuals, . . . said . . .
called the USCS to locate the airplane since it was past its
travel time and missing. . . . said . . . identified . . .
and told the USCS call center employee that . . . needed to
locate a missing airplane. . . . said . . . did not recall
speaking with . . . at the USCS. . . . advised that there
were legislators on board the aircraft; however, . . . did
not know their identity. . . . said . . . provided the USCS
with the airplane's tail number and advised them that . . .
did not have the airplane's flight schedule. . . . said . . .
could not remember the exact details of who was contacted to
look for the airplane's tail number . . . asked USCS if they
could assist . . . with locating the missing airplane. . . .
said the USCS advised that they would research the matter and
call . . . back . . . said . . . was called back by the
USCS and advised that the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) followed the flight plan from Ardmore, Oklahoma, to
Mineral Wells, Texas.
. . . said the airplane departed Ardmore, Oklahoma, at 5:00
p.m. and was scheduled to arrive in Georgetown, Texas, at
6:13 p.m. . . . said the airplane's flight time was
approximately one hour and thirteen minutes. . . . said the
airplane's tail number was N711RD, which was registered to
Hale Center, Texas. . . . stated . . . did not know to whom
the airplane belonged. . . . said . . . checked with Austin
Flight to verify if there was a flight plan from Ardmore,
Oklahoma, to Georgetown, Texas, prior to calling USCS.
. . . said at approximately 8:00 p.m. . . . spoke with the
USCS to check on the status of the missing airplane. The USCS
advised . . . that they had been unsuccessful in locating the
airplane in Mineral Wells, Texas, and that the next step
would be to contact the FAA, Forth Worth, Texas. . . . said
the USCS advised the only thing left to do was a search and
rescue . . . said the USCS provided . . . with the telephone
number for the FAA Fort Worth tower.
. . . said . . . called the FAA, identified . . . and
requested assistance related to some
[[Page H7313]]
missing legislators. . . . did not recall who . . . spoke
with or the time of the call to the FAA. The FAA advised . .
. that the missing airplane traveling from Ardmore, Oklahoma,
to Georgetown, Texas, went off the FAA radar in Bridgeport,
Texas. . . . said . . . was told that the Bridgeport, Texas,
and Mineral Wells, Texas, airports would be checking for the
missing airplane.
. . . said when . . . contacted the FAA Forth Worth tower
for the second time . . . could not recall what time it was
or who . . . spoke with . . . said the FAA told . . . that
they did not locate the missing airplane and that the next
step was to check some more airports in the area for the
missing airplane. . . . said the FAA told . . . that Possum
Kingdom, Texas, Graham, Texas, and Weatherford, Texas, were
in the Bridgeport, Texas, area. . . . said . . . asked the
FAA how to conduct a search and rescue. . . . said the FAA
explained that a search and rescue involved checking airports
and looking on the ground for the missing airplane.
. . . said . . . spoke with the FAA three different times
with the third discussion informing the FAA that the missing
airplane had been located by the DPS in Graham, Texas. . . .
said . . . did not know who at DPS located the airplane . . .
said . . . had no recollection of the specific times during
the night that . . . spoke with the FAA. . . . opined that
the calls were made after 8:00 p.m. and prior to midnight on
May 12, 2003.
. . . was questioned regarding any notes taken regarding
the missing airplane. . . . said . . . notes from . . .
conversations regarding the missing airplane with the USCS
were shredded . . . said . . . did not shred the notes. . . .
said . . . does not recall who . . . gave the notes to for
shredding.
. . . opined that the total time utilized by DHS to assist
. . . with the missing airplane was fifteen minutes related
to some telephone calls made.
Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to H.R. 2799, the Commerce,
Justice, State, Appropriations Act of 2004.
The amendment states, ``None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used by the Department of Justice to destroy or conceal physical
and electronic records and documents related to any use of Federal
agency resources in any task or action involving or relating to Members
of the Texas Legislature in the period beginning May 11, 2003, and
ending May 16, 2003.''
The purpose of this amendment is to prohibit the use of funds by the
Department of Justice to destroy or conceal any documents related to
the use of Federal agency resources in the Texas redistricting
controversy in May 2003.
During the Texas redistricting controversy in May of this year, there
were numerous published reports that Federal law enforcement resources
were used to conduct surveillance, attempt to locate, or otherwise
track the location of Democratic member of the Texas Legislature who
left Texas to break a quorum. Included in the reports were accounts of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation being contacted to locate
Democrats, the United States Marshals receiving phone calls to arrest
Texas Democrats, and Federal resources being utilized to track
airplanes belonging to Texas Democrats.
In the wake of the redistricting controversy and the allegations of
misuse of Federal resources, there have been numerous attempts to
obtain documents related to the misuse of Federal law enforcement
resources. Democratic Members of both the U.S. House of
Representatives' Judiciary Committee and Select Committee on Homeland
Security have requested documents. The many requests have either been
ignored, or the information received has been redacted.
This amendment is designed to prevent the Department of Justice from
destroying or concealing any documents related to the Texas
redistricting controversy. It is imperative that these documents be
released so that Members of Congress can determine if Federal resources
were misused.
Mr. Chairman, as America continues to fight a war on terrorism and
attempts to protect our communities from crime, it is critical that
every possible Federal resource is used for its intended purpose. The
misuse of Federal resources cannot be tolerated because such misuse
makes our communities unsafe, and our country more vulnerable to a
terrorist attack. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee accepts the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendments No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments numbered
3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered
en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:
Amendments offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas consisting
of amendments numbered 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8:
Amendment No. 3
At the end of the bill after the last section (preceding
the short title) insert the following new title:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Department of State to regulate the issuance
of consular identification cards by foreign missions in the
United States.
____
Amendment No. 4
At the end of the bill after the last section (preceding
the short title) insert the following new title:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Department of State to extend a visa issued
pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act more than 8 times.
____
Amendment No. 5
At the end of the bill after the last section (preceding
the short title) insert the following new title:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. Notwithstanding section 214(c)(1)(C) and section
286s of the Immigration and Nationality Act or any other
provision of law, amounts from fees pursuant to the issuance
of visas under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act shall be used as follows:
(1) 4 percent shall be used for the processing of visas for
nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
(2) The remainder shall be used as additional resources for
accelerating the processing by consular officers of other
nonimmigrant visa applications.
____
Amendment No. 6
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to prohibit the study of the issue of implementing
``good time'' for persons incarcerated for non-violent crimes
in the Federal prison system.
____
Amendment No. 8
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new title:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to prohibit the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration from providing technical assistance to small
business concerns participating in the rebuilding of Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order on the
amendments en bloc.
The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I hope that out of my
discussion of these amendments I will engage my colleagues in what I
believe are very serious issues that need to be both debated and
resolved.
Let me raise the first amendment, Amendment No. 3, which indicates
that no funds in this bill should be utilized to prevent a sovereign
nation from using counselor identification cards.
I will simply submit for my colleagues' consideration the fact that
there was an amendment passed in the foreign relations authorization
bill last week that would prohibit the State Department from
authorizing the use of these matricula cards by various counselors
around the Nation, in particular those cards that have been utilized by
the Mexican counselors all over the Nation. I happen to have such a
counselor in my congressional district.
It seems ironic that we passed this legislation when, in fact, the
United States Treasury Department has written a regulation that
specifically says that they will allow a financial institution to
accept any one or more of the following; a U.S. taxpayer identification
number, a passport number and county of issuance, an alien
identification card number, or the number and country of issuance of
any other government-issued document evidencing nationality or
residence and bearing a photograph or similar safeguard.
[[Page H7314]]
This is hypocrisy and, of course, a conflict in law, where we would
pass legislation to prevent it and, in fact, we do have rules that
would allow it. So I hope that we will find a way to remove any block
to various counselors being allowed to utilize those counselor cards.
Let me also say that I have an amendment that addresses the question
of visas with respect to the trade bills that will be on the floor
tomorrow. It is a shame that we are using those trade bills, if you
will, to do immigration law on trade bills. I will be debating those
questions tomorrow, but I had amendments regarding the nonimmigrant
visas and as well the H-1B fees. But I will, if you will, be allowed to
debate that fully tomorrow, and I would only argue that we should not
do immigration policies on trade bills.
The bill that I really want to discuss, that I am presenting in this
amendment, is the issue of ``good time.'' Mr. Chairman, let me simply
cite that in the Bureau of Prisons we have 143,000 inmates, 14,000 in
private prisons, and that we have any number of prisoners who are, in
essence, nonviolent. By race, we have 56.5 percent are white, black are
40.4 percent, Native American 1.6 percent, Hispanic 3.2 percent.
My idea of an amendment dealing with ``good time'' is to be able to
give some relief to those nonviolent prisoners who are incarcerated.
This issue is being discussed all over the country. Families are
begging for us to address the question of mandatory sentencing. Our
prison system is overcrowded.
I hope that I can gather my colleagues to reasonably look at an
important concept, which is putting in the concept of ``good time'' in
our Federal prisons. My constituents happen to come from an inner-city
district and are overloaded in the prisons. Many of them are there for
nonviolent crimes. Many of their families are crying. Many of their
families were willing to take them in, and also in many instances they
have been rehabilitated and can be more contributing to society if they
are released.
The very fact they are being held in prison on a mandatory sentence,
not having the opportunity for ``good time,'' I think is a waste of
resources. It is costing the United States of America millions of
dollars. These are not violent criminals. I am not arguing for violent
criminals; I am arguing for those nonviolent criminals that are in, who
could do well to be released.
My last amendment has to do with recognizing that small businesses
are the backbone of America. With 6 million people unemployed, this
amendment would simply provide for the Small Business Administration to
provide technical assistance for small businesses who want to do
business in rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope to be able to work
with the Small Business Administration to ensure that this kind of
technical assistance is provided.
Likewise, I would hope to be able to work with the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, my colleagues on the House Committee on the Judiciary and
ultimately the Committee on Appropriations to look at the idea of
``good time'' being placed in law, recognizing the need to address this
frightening, staggering statistic of overcrowding prisons with inmates
and people incarcerated that could do well to benefit from Federal
sentencing guidelines being modified by a ``good time'' provision, one
day per one day of good time, and giving a reward to nonviolent
criminals in the Federal prison.
We are overcrowded, everyone recognizes it, families are being
penalized; and I would ask that my colleagues would entertain these
ideas in the future as we discuss ways of solving problems that need to
be solved.
The purpose of this amendment is to prohibit funding needed for the
Secretary of the Department of State to regulate the issuance of
consular identification cards by foreign missions in the United States.
H.R. 2799 requires the Secretary to decide what the consulates of other
countries can and cannot do with respect to consular identification
documents in the United States.
Although the Secretary's decisions would apply to all consulate
offices in the United States, it is apparent that the objective of the
requirement is to regulate the issuance of a particular consular
document, the Matricula Consular issued by the Mexican consulates.
The Mexican consulates issue these cards to create an official record
of its citizens in other countries. The Matricula is legal proof of
such registration. This registration facilitates access to protection
and consular services because the certificate is evidence of Mexican
nationality. It does not provide immigrant status of any kind, and it
cannot be used for travel, employment, or driving in the United States
or in Mexico. The Matricula only attests that a Mexican consulate has
verified the individual's identity.
If the Secretary of State were to regulate the consulates of Mexico
and other foreign governments, it would interfere with the rights of
other sovereign nations to issue whatever identification cards they
want to issue to their citizens abroad, provided that they meet the
requirements of the Vienna Convention. Under that convention, consular
function is established as ``performing any other functions entrusted
to a consular post which are not prohibited by the laws and regulations
of the receiving State.''
There is no United States federal law that forbids the issuance of
consular identification cards. In fact, the Treasury Department has
issued regulations under Section 326 of the PATRIOT Act that would
allow financial institutions to accept consular identification cards as
valid forms of identification for the purpose of opening accounts.
I urge you to vote for my amendment.
The implementing legislation for the Singapore and Chile trade
agreements would create a new nonimmigrant visa classification for
workers from those countries which would be similar to the present H-1B
nonimmigrant visa classification. The H-1B program generates a $1,000
fee that employers must pay. Under the H-1B provisions, 4 percent of
the $1,000 must be used for processing the H-1B visa applications, and
the remainder must be used to run training programs for American
workers.
The new nonimmigrant visa classification also would generate a $1,000
fee. In fact, the fee for the new classification would be the same as
the fee for the H-1B classification. If the H-1B fee is lowered, the
new classification's fee also would be lowered.
My amendment would use the same type of distribution system that is
currently used by the H-1B system, only the remainder would be used for
a different purpose. The Secretary would have to use the remainder for
processing other types of nonimmigrant visa classifications. I want to
emphasize that my amendment does not affect the use of the fees
generated by H-1B applications.
The reason for earmarking the extra funds generated by the new fees
this way is to accelerate the processing times for nonimmigrant visas.
Our consulate offices in other countries have enormous caseloads of
nonimmigrant visa applications, which has created unfortunate delays.
For instance, people from other countries who are seeking medical
treatment in the United States sometimes cannot obtain nonimmigrant
visas until it is too late. Something has to be done about this
situation. The fee distribution system I am proposing would provide
help to improve this situation.
I urge you to vote for my amendment.
The implementing legislation for the Singapore and Chile trade
agreements would create a new nonimmigrant visa classification for
workers from those countries who want to work in the United States. The
new visa classification would be similar to the existing H-1B visa
classification. The purpose of my amendment is to prohibit the funding
of renewals for the new nonimmigrant visa classification beyond 8
times.
The existing H-1B classification permits foreign employees to enter
the United States for a 3-year period. At the end of that period, the
employee must go home unless he is granted a renewal. One 3-year
renewal is permitted. At the end of the renewal period, the foreign
employee must go home.
The new visa classification would authorize the foreign employee to
work in the United States for 1 year, instead of 3 years, as is the
case with the present H-1B classification. When the year is completed,
however, the new visa classification provisions would permit an
infinite number of renewals in 1-year increments. Theoretically, the
foreign employee could enter the United States as a nonimmigrant
employee at the age of 22 and remain until he is ready to retire at the
age of 70 by obtaining renewals at the end of each 1-year period.
The provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act for nonimmigrant
classifications did not intend such a result. The term ``nonimmigrant''
is defined as an alien in the United States who is not an
``immigrant.'' An ``immigrant'' is an alien who has made the United
States his home. An immigrant is a permanent resident. In contrast, a
nonimmigrant is someone who is in the United States on a temporary
basis. The new nonimmigrant visa classification would violate that
definition by making it possible for alien employees to spend their
entire careers working in the United States. That is not a temporary
admission by any stretch of the imagination.
My amendment would prohibit funding more than 8 1-year renewals. This
would permit the
[[Page H7315]]
alien employee to remain for a total of 9 years, which is 50 percent
longer than the 6-year period that a person with an H-1B classification
can remain.
I urge you to vote for my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 2799.
The purpose of this amendment is to promote the study of ``good time''
in federal sentencing guidelines for persons incarcerated for non-
violent crimes. Mr. Chairman, ``good time'' is a reduction in sentenced
time in prison as a reward for good behavior. It is usually one-third
to one-half off the maximum sentence.
Mr. Chairman, at this time we are faced with a crisis. Our federal
prison systems are severely overcrowded. We are running out of
resources and facilities to house our prisoners. Mr. Chairman, at this
time there are currently thousands of non-violent offenders, first time
offenders, serving time in these federal prisons. Some of these
prisoners are prisoners who realistically pose no more of a risk to
society than you or I. I firmly believe that some of these non-violent,
in many cases first time offenders, should be given a second chance to
prove themselves and become positive contributors to this great society
of ours.
I would also say, Mr. Chairman, that at this time recidivism is also
a major problem now plaguing our prison system. We are experiencing a
phenomenon in where many prisoners who spend time serving lengthy
prison sentences are released and soon return to incarceration. It is
my impression, Mr. Chairman, that lengthy prison sentences just do not
work; we need to begin to conquer the root of the problem.
I propose this amendment to H.R. 2799, the Commerce Justice State
Appropriations Act for FY 2004.
The purpose of this amendment is to prohibit any funds allocated
under this act from being used to prevent the small business
administration from providing technical assistance to small businesses
participating in rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. I am a proponent of
the full participation of small businesses, minority-owned businesses,
and women-owned businesses in efforts to rebuild post-war Iraq and
Afghanistan. In the department of defense reauthorization bill I
included language to help America's small business community. This
amendment also helps America's small business community. The amendment
ensures that no funds will be used to prevent the small business
administration from helping America's small businesses rebuild the
cities of our international allies. I propose this amendment as a means
of helping the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan and also helping
America's small business community. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendments because it proposes to change the existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part ``an amendment to a general
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Texas wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, these are
very, very important issues to me and many of the constituents and
advocacy groups that I have engaged in. I do believe that we should not
do immigration policies on trade bills, and of course, those bills will
be up tomorrow. They involve those kinds of issues.
Likewise, I think it is extremely important, as I said, that we do
something to solve the overcrowding of the Federal Bureau of Prisons
and other prisons and, as well, address the question of small
businesses attempting to do work in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But I will look forward to working with my colleagues on these very
important issues as we work through the Congress's business in the
108th Congress and hope to be eventually successful with these
amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with my colleagues in
bringing forward amendments that they will accept and that we will have
a positive vote on.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendments en
bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendments en bloc are
withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as we get close to the end of this debate and the end
of the evening, I just wanted to take this opportunity, first of all,
to commend you, sir, for the work you have done today and for the
professional and fair way in which you have treated all of us. It is
always a pleasure to have you in the chair, and I know that I speak
probably for both sides, but certainly for this side, in thanking you
for the way in which you treat us, in your fair and honest way.
Secondly, I take this opportunity once again to say to my chairman,
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), that it is a pleasure always to
work with him. We have had some little lumps today, but I think when
the final vote is taken tomorrow, everything will show that we did what
was right and we did what was fair; and I just want to thank the
gentleman for being a good partner in this endeavor of ours.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I feel exactly the
same way. I thank the gentleman very much.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rush
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rush:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for the sentencing phase of any Federal prosecution
in which the penalty of death is sought by the United States.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is modest in scope. It
temporarily stays Federal death penalty prosecutions for the fiscal
year 2004.
I want to say that this is not an abolition of the Federal death
penalty. Specifically, Mr. Chairman, it prohibits Federal funds under
the act from being used in the sentencing phase of Federal death
penalty cases.
Mr. Chairman, there are too many mistakes that happen in the Federal
judicial system. Last year, I am sure you know, a district court ruled
that the Federal death penalty is unconstitutional because it does not
afford defendants enough opportunity to prove their innocence.
This decision was overturned by the Second Circuit, but only on legal
grounds, and it shows that there is controversy over the factual
accuracy of death penalty cases.
In Illinois, the State that I represent, where my district is
located, the former governor, the Republican governor, I might add,
George Ryan, imposed an indefinite moratorium on State death penalty
cases because too many defendants were being exonerated.
This amendment tries to emulate what Governor Ryan did. However, it
is more modest in scope, because it only lasts 1 year.
Mr. Chairman, in Illinois we had literally tens of individuals who
were on death row, who had been placed on death row by a process that I
am sure that Members of this body would not be proud of, including
torture in terms of soliciting their confessions, and in terms of they
had faulty defense counsel and various other kinds of issues and
problems that they were not able to overcome.
As a result, there were approximately 61 people who were actually
freed from death row. If I am not mistaken, there were a number of
people freed from death row because it was determined that their
confessions had been solicited after being tortured in the jail system
or in the Cook County jail or the Chicago police stations.
So this amendment is meant to deal with that issue, to deal with
similar issues in the Federal system.
I might add that since Governor Ryan imposed his indefinite
moratorium on the death penalty, Illinois has passed a lot of reforms
that came about as a result of the findings of a commission that
Governor Ryan convened during this moratorium.
Our State has passed common-sense reforms that will more adequately
safeguard defendants from wrongful
[[Page H7316]]
death penalty prosecutions. They have imposed a minimum defense
requirement, and now, Mr. Chairman, I am so proud that my State is the
first State in the Nation that has imposed videotaping of all
interrogations. That means that in any death penalty case, all the
interrogation has to be videotaped by the police department in the
first instance. That bill was signed into law last week, and I think
that we at the Federal level should do no less than what we have done
at the State level.
I might remind the Members of this House that in the year 2000, the
Department of Justice survey of the Federal death penalty system shows
that the system disparately affects people of color. Eighty percent of
cases in which the death penalty was sought involved defendants of a
minority ethnic group, and over half of the cases involved African
American defendants. It seems that with 80 percent of these cases, that
certainly is out of line with what the population of this Nation is.
Since 1988, another factor that I want Members of this body to know
is 60 percent of white defendants avoided the death penalty through
plea bargaining, while only 41 percent of African American defendants
were able to plea bargain in such a fashion.
So, this particular amendment, Mr. Chairman, is, I think, a
worthwhile amendment. It is a sound amendment and it really is meant to
eradicate some injustices that might exist, that do exist, in the
criminal justice system.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the fact that these death penalty
laws are carried out in such a biased way, one-sided way, affecting
minorities, that it is shameful on this Nation for this to be allowed
to continue.
{time} 2145
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. It
really is not an appropriate amendment for an appropriations bill. It
really should be dealt with by the authorizers.
Also, the gentleman's amendment would allow the Department of Justice
to prosecute cases involving the death penalty, but would then prohibit
them from the sentencing phase. That is probably not a very good way to
go.
I understand what he is trying to do, but the Congress has enacted
numerous bills dealing with these issues, and I think undoing these
bills with a funding limitation is probably not the way to go. I would
urge the gentleman to go through the authorizers. I know they are
opposed to this amendment.
So because of that, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Levin
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Levin:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be expended by the United States Trade Representative for
negotiating a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), or a
Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), that does not
protect against piracy of copyrights, that does not open
markets for United States agricultural products and high
technology and other manufactured exports, that provides
greater rights for foreign investors than Americans in the
United States, and that does not require adoption and
enforcement of the basic prohibitions on exploitative child
labor, forced labor, and discrimination, and guarantee of the
right to associate and bargain collectively.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and any
amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes to be equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and by an opponent, and that would be, I
think, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will consider the point of order reserved
throughout the debate.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is being offered for a clear set of
reasons. Expanded trade is critical. It is critical that the terms of
this expanded trade be effectively shaped. The pace of trade
negotiations is indeed increasing. This heightened pace needs to take a
global economy and all of its people, and I emphasize all of its
people, in the right direction upwards.
This amendment is not a case of tying the hands of our negotiators.
It is a matter of Members of Congress showing their hands, showing what
should be the course of these negotiations.
So this amendment underlines, on behalf of this House, some
priorities: protection against piracy of copyrights, open markets for
agricultural goods, open markets for high-tech and other manufactured
exports, no greater rights for foreign investors and Americans, and
guarantee of the right of workers to associate and bargain
collectively.
Since CAFTA, the Central America Free Trade Agreement, is the next
trade negotiation that is farthest along, let me discuss it in terms of
this amendment.
In this negotiation of CAFTA, there is a particular relevance of the
provision in this amendment relating to the rights of workers to
associate and to bargain collectively. CAFTA represents a major
opportunity, and I emphasize that, to integrate further the economies
of our Nation and the nations of Central America. Such integration
includes sensitive areas such as apparel and textiles and agriculture.
This further economic integration of Caribbean nations, including the
United States, beyond that in the CBI arrangements, cannot be achieved
unless there are some basic standards negotiated into the new CAFTA
trade agreement. This expanded trade and further integration of our
markets cannot be achieved based on the suppression of the workers in
Central America in the sectors I mentioned or any other.
There is clearly such suppression of workers today in the three
Central American countries I visited 3 months ago: El Salvador,
Nicaragua, and Guatemala. That is verified clearly by both the State
Department and ILO reports. Laws in those countries that are woefully
weak, that clearly violate ILO standards, woeful enforcement of these
clearly inadequate laws, putting forth in the negotiations of CAFTA as
the U.S. is doing as a standard, enforcing your own laws can only lead
to the opposite of strong laws and strong enforcement.
If this does not change, one, workers in these Central American
nations will not be able to climb up the ladder, cannot become part of
an expanded middle class so important to them, so important to their
countries, and important to the U.S. in terms of ability of people in
those countries to buy our goods and services; two, there will be a
race to the bottom among the nations as to which Central American
nation can have the worst conditions, the most suppressed workers;
three, workers and an increasing number of consumers in our Nation will
oppose any trade agreement.
Mr. Chairman, we have a chance, and I emphasize this, an opportunity,
to build integrated economic structures that can compete with all
nations, build on standards that uplift the people of the United States
and Central America, and eventually all other nations.
This amendment says the Congress wants USTR to seize this
opportunity. I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H7317]]
I rise in opposition to the amendment that is offered by the
gentleman from Michigan. At the appropriate time, I will make the point
of order as to why I believe that this amendment is not in order. As I
understand it, just so we are clear as to how we are going to proceed
here this evening, our intention is for the two of us or others who may
want to debate to use the time, and reserve, each of us, 1 minute of
debate for tomorrow, and I will make the point of order at that time
and we will address the issue at that time.
But aside from the issue of the parliamentary procedure that is
involved here as to whether this amendment is in order and, as I said,
I will address that at the appropriate time, I do have strong
objections to the content of this amendment.
I have a lot of respect, a tremendous amount of respect for the
gentleman from Michigan. I appreciate both the intellect and the
passion that he brings to the subject of trade and its discussions. He
and I worked together, sometimes on opposite sides, on trade issues in
this Chamber over the years. On any given day, when there is a trade
panel discussion, whether it is here in the Capitol or some place
downtown, he and I are usually paired together as discussers. But as
many of my colleagues may know, we do possess very different views
about trade policy.
I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan for the crafting of
this particular amendment. With it I think he has shown a great deal of
legislative brilliance and some policy ingenuity as well.
But I have to say the net result is quite mischievous. The gentleman,
through his amendment, seeks to have his cake and then to eat it as
well. Or on another plane, it attempts, this amendment attempts to be
all things to all people. It purports to satisfy all constituencies:
expertise in agriculture, manufacturing, technology, U.S. producers of
intellectual property through copyright protection, antiglobalization
environmental organizations focused on investment issues, and even
labor organizations focused on labor rights.
In the context of trade negotiations, it sets very high hurdles or
high marks on the pole vault poles that the U.S. trade negotiators must
meet in order to get over that hurdle. It cherry-picks the very best
USTR has been able to negotiate so far in other free trade agreements
with other countries. And, in this case, it picks on the two that are
here in our hemisphere. It says that the Central American Free Trade
Agreement and the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, both under
active consideration and active negotiation, should emulate the
copyright provisions from the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement. On the
agriculture, manufacturing and market access, the amendment says that
CAFTA and the FTAA should replicate the outcomes of the U.S.-Singapore
Free Trade Agreement. On the issue of investor rights, it creatively
interprets how Trade Promotion Authority, TPA, which has been adopted
by this body and enacted into law, it creatively interprets how TPA was
written to meet its own ends. Lastly, it would seek to make Jordan, the
Jordan agreement a model for future agreements on the issue of labor
rights.
Mr. Chairman, as I said a moment ago, this amendment really aims to
be all things to all people. But when we get below the surface, we have
to realize that this amendment is a poison pill, a poison pill that
dooms the hope of Hondurans and Equadorans, El Salvadorans, and all
others in this hemisphere for more market access, for the opportunity
to trade with the United States. The aim of this amendment is nothing
less than to sink the negotiations on the Central American Free Trade
Agreement and the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, and that would
be a disaster. It would be a disaster for the U.S. economy. It would be
a disaster for our foreign policy, which has made such a strong
commitment to these countries, to give them the access that they do not
now have. It would be a disaster for the future development of
democracy in the Western Hemisphere.
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, every agreement is unique. We can be sure
that USTR will get the best possible deal for U.S. workers, for
exporters, and for importers. We can be sure that the U.S. Government
will seek to get the best deal for consumers and for America's working
families. But, Mr. Chairman, we cannot prejudge the outcome like this
gentleman attempts to do with his amendment by directing it in advance.
Every negotiation, every trade negotiation that we have ever had is
different; but we all expect that in the end the agreements that are
negotiated by USTR will improve the status quo for free trade in the
Western Hemisphere and with the Central American countries. That is our
goal for CAFTA and for the FTAA. This agreement, by seeking to put a
straitjacket around the USTR as to how they would negotiate that
agreement, would assure that in the end we have no such agreement. It
is as simple as that.
For that reason on substance, this amendment should be opposed.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
withholding on his point of order so we may make our points.
I am most concerned with this amendment with respect to the sections
dealing with labor, the issues of forced labor and exploited child
labor, and the right to associate and to bargain collectively. Those
are all determinations that would be made in the countries that we
signed the agreement with. To suggest that somehow we cannot conduct
free trade, that we cannot conduct trade with countries in Central
America and South America, or anywhere in the world; that if those
people have the right of freedom of association, or they have a right
to collective bargaining, that that would destroy the trade agreements.
Yet, we have seen a country like Cambodia that now has a textile
agreement, that has the ILO poor labor standards in it. We see American
companies flocking to Cambodia to do business there, because, in fact,
they find those poor labor standards provide a value added. They find
out now that when they come under attack for the processes in which
they use to manufacture their goods, they have the ability to refer
them to the ILO.
{time} 2200
It has been settled and many of them have escaped jeopardy because
they had done nothing wrong, but there was a neutral forum to do that.
The Cambodian Government finds, as I said, that this is a value added
for them.
What are they doing? They are allowing people in a country that just
a few short years ago was considered a killing field, they are allowing
people to freely associate, to collectively bargain, to form the union,
and to develop the workers' rights in accordance with that proposition.
That is all we are asking. We are not asking them to take American
labor union agreements, the American labor collective bargaining
standards, but we are allowing people to freely associate and to
participate. And the fact of the matter is, it can work because if you
do not do that, then what you simply do is develop what has been
written about the first generation of globalization, and that is the
incredible exploitation, the incredible exploitation in the Third World
countries as we open them up for trade for purposes of manufacturing
where the benefits are not shared, the benefits are not derived in
those societies, and that has got to stop. Not only is that unfair
competition for American workers, but it is exploitative competition
for the people in those countries.
Why is it that when banana pickers try to get together in Ecuador,
they are beaten by the police? Their houses are set on fire. They are
beaten outside the place of their employment. Their families are
intimidated. That is fair trade? That is the treatment that we want to
bring to people? We do not want to suggest that these people are
entitled to more? You can buy 10 pounds of bananas for 99 cents, so
that somehow we can justify that?
No. This is about whether or not over a long period of time if these
people
[[Page H7318]]
have these rights and they are enforceable, they will have the ability
to freely associate, to collectively bargain, to get rid of forced
labor, to get rid of child labor. And that would be the American market
being used for the best of purposes to leverage these people into a
better life and a better standard of living.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Michigan (Mr.
Levin) for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, where I come from, trade is a four-letter word, J-O-B-
S. Unfortunately, this administration, this Trade Representative, the
leadership in this Congress just simply do not spell very well.
We all know what has happened. We lost 3.1 million jobs in the 2\1/2\
years the Bush administration has been in the White House. We have lost
2.1 million manufacturing jobs. We have lost them because of an
economic program of tax cuts for the wealthy, the most privileged. We
have lost them because of the cuts in veterans, in education, in health
benefits. And we lost them because of trade agreements, one trade
agreement after the other.
Last Sunday, I spoke at a rally for Goodyear. There are 14 Goodyear
plants left in the United States. Worker after worker came up to me and
said, What are you doing about our jobs that move overseas?
They understand that NAFTA has been a failure from a billion-dollar-
plus trade surplus 10 years ago, pre-NAFTA, to a $25 billion deficit
with Canada and Mexico post-NAFTA. They understand that our China trade
policy has been a failure. Only $100 million, with an ``M,'' trade
deficit a dozen years ago; $100 billion, with a ``B,'' trade deficit
today where thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe
a million U.S. jobs have gone to China.
Two years ago Congress got it right. This body passed without dissent
a Jordan trade agreement. They got it right because it had labor
standards. It had environmental standards. It represented American
values and Jordanian values that lifted people up, not pulled standards
down.
But now we have Singapore. Now we have Chile; next we have the
Central America Free Trade Agreement, where the model under Jordan was
strong environment, strong labor standards, strong food safety
standards, our values.
The Levin amendment makes sense because it will restore what this
Congress rallied around, a Jordan-type trade agreement which meant
raising values, supporting American values, raising the standards that
we hold dear on labor and the environment. It makes sense. It is the
right message. It is the right legislation for American jobs. It will
explain to those Goodyear workers in Akron and 13 other plants across
this country, explain to steel workers who have lost their jobs,
explain to auto workers that might lose their jobs that this Congress
actually is on the side of American values, is on the side of fighting
for American jobs, cares about the environment, cares about food
safety, cares about supporting American values, bringing back American
jobs, preserving what we have, fighting for what we have.
The Levin amendment makes sense.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to be sure about the time since
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I are both reserving a
minute at the end and the minority leader is going to take that minute
tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, do I have 4 minutes left?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I begin by an expression of my strong respect for the
chairman of the Foreign Ops appropriations subcommittee. I disagree
with him on the amendment before us, which states that basically the
funding of our Trade Representative shall be applied towards
negotiating agreements that protect against piracy of copyrights, open
markets for United States ag products, open markets for our high tech
and other manufactured exports, and that provide for basic labor
agreements in the countries we are negotiating with.
I think the American taxpayer has a right to understand that there
are some governing principles behind the way we approach these trade
negotiations. And I would like to focus specifically on agriculture for
a minute.
Some might think that if it is agriculture that is exported, then
trade agreements are good. It depends on how those trade agreements are
negotiated. We presently are locked in a regimen, for example, with
Europe where they have very significantly higher export subsidies, and
we are looking at a WTO run where they are basically evaluating whether
or not to bring each of them down an equal percentage, still leaving in
place an essential disparity between the subsidies that Europe provides
their exports and we provide ours.
We have a trade agreement with Canada that protects the operation of
their state trading monopoly, the Canadian Wheat Board, a monopoly
trading enterprise that we believe provides subsidies illegally to the
Canadian farmers. So our farmers are not competing against Canadian
farmers; they are competing against the Canadian Wheat Board and its
government. They could make that clear by opening their books, but they
have adamantly refused to open their books.
We have sued them. We have tried all kinds of things. And now we have
a case pending in front of the WTO, years of delay, disadvantage to our
farmers, lost markets, all accomplished under these trade agreements
that were supposed to bring us new markets.
So it is important that we have a very clear vision, going in, that
we are advancing our interests, we are advancing it compatible with our
values. And that means opening markets. And that means labor
protections.
This comes into sharp focus as we are on the eve of potentially
voting on and maybe approving agreements that have previously been
negotiated for Singapore and Chile.
We had a vote last week in the Committee on Ways and Means. I voted
for each of those trade agreements, and I intend to vote for them on
the floor. But let me make it very clear, a vote for those agreements
does not mean that that is somehow a template, some kind of stamped
form agreement that we can apply to countries that are fundamentally
different from the advanced countries of Singapore and Chile with the
functional labor protections and other protections.
This is an important resolution before us. I urge its adoption.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has 9 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes, although I do not
expect to use it, but I want to make sure I protect 1 minute at the end
there.
Mr. Chairman, as I listen to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr.
Pomeroy), who is a good friend of mine and somebody whom I have the
greatest respect for, I realize that what we are talking about here is
something that on one level sounds very good.
Who in the world is not in favor of opening our markets? Who in the
world is not in favor of protecting us against copyright invasion? Who
is not in favor of rights for American investors at least as good as
foreign investors have? Who in the world would not be for good labor
standards that do not allow for exploitation of child labor or forced
labor?
All of those things, of course, we are for. But we have to look at
the specific words of the amendments that is being offered here, Mr.
Chairman. It is not just nice rhetoric we are talking about. We are
talking about an amendment that is being proposed to a piece of
legislation that is being proposed to be enacted into law. So let us
look at it.
It says none of the funds, none of the funds, made available to the
United States Trade Representative, none of the funds in here, which is
well over $24 million this year, none of the funds made available to
the U.S. Trade Representative may be used in negotiating a Free Trade
Agreement of the Americas or a Central American Free Trade
[[Page H7319]]
Agreement, CAFT agreement, that does not protect against piracy of
copyright. Well and good. Who determines that? How does it get
determined? How do we know if we are making sufficient progress during
the negotiations to know whether or not we could be expending any funds
that does not open markets for the United States agricultural products
and high technology and other manufactured products.
Does that mean that only if it opens markets for our products? Does
it mean it cannot open our doors for products from other countries
coming into the United States? Is this supposed to be just under this?
Is USTR supposed to assume it has to be a one-way trade agreement that
is to be negotiated, that provides for greater rights for foreign
investors? What are greater rights? What does that mean? Cannot provide
for greater rights for foreign investors than U.S.? Do we have to
compare each tax law? How do we compare the tax laws as opposed to our
own tax laws? How are they supposed to know?
The point of all of this, Mr. Chairman, the point that I am trying to
make here, is that what we are talking about here is a negotiating
process. We are talking about the U.S. Trade Representative entering
into a negotiation. And when you enter into negotiations, you cannot
prejudge and say that at the outset it has to be better than it was
before in all agricultural products. It has to provide for more
protection for U.S. investors than for other investors.
And how are they supposed to know day by day during this negotiation
whether they are allowed to expend funds?
It is a completely unworkable kind of amendment that is being offered
here today. So just on the surface of this amendment it is something
that could not really possibly work. The bottom line is we all want to
have protection for investors, protection for copyrights, open access
to markets in other countries.
But we are also talking about some of the least developed countries,
certainly, in this hemisphere, some of the lesser-developed countries
in the world. And part of what we want to do with these trade
agreements is give them an opportunity to have economic growth, give
them an opportunity to hope for the future, give them a hand up, not a
hand out, hold our hand out to them with open trade, with open markets;
not to keep giving them more assistance that only robs them of the
ability to send their markets, send their products to our markets.
That, Mr. Chairman, is what we are talking about with these free
trade agreements.
I am reminded finally of how the head of the international labor
organizations at one time with the group of members of this body was
being questioned about labor rights and what kind of labor rights
should exist in other countries; and he finally said, We want jobs, of
course, we want good jobs in these Latin American countries, but first
we have to have the job before we can talk about how we protect that
job, before we can talk about having worker protections and building on
that and making those jobs better and providing for more rights for our
workers. First, we have to have the jobs.
{time} 2215
That is what we are talk about with CAFTA and the FTAA. We are
talking about providing these jobs for people there, giving them a
chance, giving them hope for the future. Let us not rob them of that
hope. Let us not do the Central American Free Trade Agreement; let us
not do the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas with an amendment like
this.
Tomorrow we will make our points of order on the issue itself as to
whether this amendment should be in order.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time except for the 1
minute that remains.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Ose) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
2799) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________