[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.

                          ____________________