[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 23, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7337-H7339]
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. 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} 1052
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 on Tuesday,
July 22, 2003, the bill had been read through page 103, line 26, and
pending was the amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) each have 1 minute remaining in the debate on the
amendment. The gentleman from Arizona has the right to close.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the very distinguished and
vibrant leader of the minority.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in support of the Levin amendment and commend the gentleman
from Michigan for his leadership in bringing this important amendment
to the floor and his important work on behalf of America's working
families.
As House Democratic leader, I proudly assert the Democratic Party's
commitment to trade and what it does for our economy. That commitment
to trade was exemplified in President Kennedy's 1962 State of the Union
Address, which I point to with great pride. At that time President
Kennedy said: ``For together we face a common challenge: to enlarge the
prosperity of free men everywhere, to build in partnership a new
trading community in which all free nations may gain from the
productive energy of free competitive effort.''
That was his challenge and it was followed up by the Kennedy Round,
the most ambitious round of trade negotiations under the aegis of GATT
until that time. The Kennedy Round lasted from 1963 to 1967. Its goal
was to lift up developing countries of the world, open our markets to
their products to help them develop and create markets for U.S.
products abroad. The gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Levin) amendment is
in keeping with that proud tradition. I thank the gentleman.
Last night the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the distinguished
representative of the majority party on this debate and chairman of the
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee
said ``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.'' Then the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) went on to oppose the amendment by
saying ``But I have to say the net result is quite mischievous.''
I beg to differ, and I leave it up to my colleagues and am asking
them to support the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Levin) amendment. Is
it mischievous to ask the Trade Representative in negotiating for a
Free Trade Area of the Americas with the Central America Freed Trade
Amendment to protect against piracy of copyright? Is it mischievous to
say that we should not support a treaty that does not open markets for
United States agricultural products, high technology, and other
manufactured exports that provide greater rights? Is it mischievous to
tell him not to support a trade agreement that provides greater rights
for foreign investors than Americans in the United States? And is it
mischievous to ask that Trade Representative not to acquire adoption
and enforcement of the basic prohibitions on exploitative child labor,
forced labor, and discrimination and to guarantee the right to
associate and bargain collectively?
A vote for the Levin amendment is a vote for America's workers who
see our manufacturing and technological base fading away. American
workers are the most productive workers in the world. Let us let them
compete. The gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Levin) amendment does just
that. I urge my colleagues to support the Levin amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just to set the order of how we are doing this, last night we had the
debate for the most part on the substance of this, and so at the
conclusion of my remarks I will make a point of order that I reserved
last night that this amendment is not in order.
{time} 1100
I did say, indeed, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Michigan was
ingenious in the device of this amendment. He was very clever.
It does not mean I think it is right in policy. Indeed, I think it is
very wrong policy, because what it does is say that no funds shall be
expended by the U.S. Trade Representative unless the negotiations do
exactly the following things. In other words, the USTR is in a
straitjacket from the very beginning of negotiations.
The very essence of a negotiation on trade agreement is we give
something here, the other side gives something there. But to demand
they have exact parity from the very beginning absolutely destroys the
essence of a negotiation. That is the substance of what we are talking
about here.
It would be very bad policy. It would essentially mean that we could
not have a Central American Free Trade Agreement or a Free Trade
Agreement of the Americas. We would essentially be saying to the
Ecuadorans and the Salvadorans and the Costa Ricans that we will never
allow them to trade with us, that we do not care that they are in
poverty, we do not want to give them the opportunity to trade with the
United States, to have access to our markets. It would be bad policy.
Point of Order
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that I reserved
last evening.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, the substance of the remarks that I just
made go right to the point of order.
I do make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes
to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation
bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law the
amendment imposes additional duties.''
As I will explain in my appeal, this clearly imposes additional
duties, and I would ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Do other Members wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I spoke last night, and I will be very, very
[[Page H7338]]
brief. I disagree with the gentleman's analysis of what is appropriate
here under the rules.
I also want to mention, last night when we discussed the provision
that says there shall be no funds made available for negotiating a
CAFTA or an FTAA that does not require adoption and enforcement of the
basic prohibitions on exploitive child labor, forced labor and
discrimination and guarantee of the right to associate and bargain
collectively, that the important matter was a job, and not what was in
that job, what payment there was for the job or under what conditions
the job was carried on.
I think that is terribly wrong. If people are going to have a chance
to climb up the ladder, they have to have a chance to be able to
associate and to bargain collectively. We should not base a trade
agreement on the suppression of the workers of Central America or of
any other place in the Americas.
So, I urge that the Chair rule this in order, and we are now prepared
to hear the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, before the Chair rules, I would just like to
respond to what the gentleman from Michigan said.
The Levin amendment would forbid expenditure of funds that would be
used to negotiate free trade agreements that do not contain certain
listed provisions. The listed provisions impose duties that are not now
required by law and they make the appropriations contingent upon the
performance of the new duty and on successful trade negotiations with
other countries.
For example, in the area of labor law, the Levin amendment seeks
provisions in a trade agreement that would mandate, mandate, adoption
in domestic law and enforcement of the basic recognized rights of
workers. This sharply contrasts with the Trade Act, which only goes so
far as to seek to promote respect for workers' rights, to promote
universal ratification and full compliance with the ILO Convention 182.
The differences between the approach of the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) and the current law are manifold. The Trade Act does not
call for adoption and enforcement of the labor rights listed in the
Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Indeed, the Trade Act seems to uphold the
right of other countries to establish domestic labor standards.
Similarly, in investment, Mr. Chairman, the Levin amendment seeks
provisions in a trade agreement that would ensure the free trade
agreement does not provide for an investor's greater rights than
Americans. This also contrasts sharply with the Trade Act, which
carefully states that foreign investors are not to be afforded greater
substantive rights. The Levin amendment would deny foreign investors
greater procedural rights as well as substantive rights, and certainly
this would be a duty not present in the U.S. law.
So for that reason, and for others that I could go on, I would urge
the Chair to make a ruling that this amendment is not in order.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond very briefly. In those
respects, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is very wrong. This
does not change existing law. Our USTR representative is not prohibited
by the present Trade Promotion Act, is not prohibited from carrying out
the provisions that are spelled out here that there shall be no greater
rights for foreign investors than Americans in the U.S. There is
nothing in TPA that prohibits his doing just that; and there is nothing
in the present TPA, which I opposed, but there is nothing, and we had
an alternative, that prohibits the USTR from requiring adoption and
enforcement of the basic prohibitions on exploitative child labor,
forced labor and discrimination, and the guarantee of the right to
associate and bargain collectively.
We are saying in this amendment that that is exactly what the USTR
should be doing, and I ask the Chair to rule in our favor.
The CHAIRMAN. Do other Members wish to be heard?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Michigan is not in order under clause 2
of rule XXI. The amendment would limit funds for negotiating two
specific specified trade agreements that fail to achieve specified
goals. However, the amendment does not define those goals nor tie them
to provisions in existing laws.
Therefore, the amendment imposes new duties on the Trade
Representative to determine whether the proposed agreements protect
against piracy of copyrights, open markets for United States
agriculture products, et cetera, before applying the limitation. As
such, the amendment imposes new duties not required by existing law in
violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand
as the judgment of the Committee?
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, this 15-minute vote
on the appeal of the decision of the Chair may be followed by 5-minute
votes on the four amendments debated last night on which requests for
recorded votes were postponed.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231,
noes 198, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 411]
AYES--231
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--198
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
[[Page H7339]]
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--5
Berkley
Bishop (UT)
Ferguson
Ford
Gephardt
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are reminded there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1127
So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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.
Quinn) 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.
____________________