[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 97 (Wednesday, July 14, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5675-H5682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CUSTOMS BORDER SECURITY AND TRADE AGENCIES AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2004
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4418) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2005 and
2006 for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland
Security, for the Office of the United States Trade Representative, for
the United States International Trade Commission, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4418
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Customs
Border Security and Trade Agencies Authorization Act of
2004''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION AND BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
Subtitle A--Authorization of appropriations; related provisions
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Establishment and implementation of cost accounting system;
reports.
Sec. 103. Study and report relating to customs user fees.
Sec. 104. Report relating to One Face at the Border Initiative.
Subtitle B--Technical amendments relating to entry and protest
Sec. 111. Entry of merchandise.
Sec. 112. Limitation on liquidations.
Sec. 113. Protests.
Sec. 114. Review of protests.
Sec. 115. Refunds and errors.
Sec. 116. Definitions and miscellaneous provisions.
Sec. 117. Voluntary reliquidations.
Sec. 118. Effective date.
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous provisions
Sec. 121. Designation of San Antonio International Airport for Customs
processing of certain private aircraft arriving in the
United States.
Sec. 122. Authority for the establishment of Integrated Border
Inspection Areas at the United States-Canada border.
Sec. 123. Designation of foreign law enforcement officers.
Sec. 124. Customs services.
Sec. 125. Sense of Congress on interpretation of textile and apparel
provisions.
Sec. 126. Technical amendments.
TITLE II--OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE III--UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Sec. 301. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE I--BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION AND BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations; Related Provisions
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 301 of the
Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19
U.S.C. 2075) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), to read as follows:
``(1) For the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2004, and each
fiscal year thereafter, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security for the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement only such sums as may
hereafter be authorized by law.'';
(2) by striking paragraph (2);
(3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
(4) in paragraph (2) (as redesignated)--
(A) by inserting ``and the Assistant Secretary for United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, respectively,''
after ``Commissioner of Customs''; and
(B) by striking ``Customs Service'' and inserting ``Bureau
of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement''.
(b) Salaries and Expenses.--Subsection (b) of such section
is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) Bureau of customs and border protection.--
[[Page H5676]]
``(A) There are authorized to be appropriated for the
salaries and expenses of the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection not to exceed the following:
``(i) $6,203,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
``(ii) $6,469,729,000 for fiscal year 2006.
``(B)(i) The monies authorized to be appropriated under
subparagraph (A) with respect to customs revenue functions
for any fiscal year, except for such sums as may be necessary
for the salaries and expenses of the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection that are incurred in connection with the
processing of merchandise that is exempt from the fees
imposed under paragraphs (9) and (10) of section 13031(a) of
the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
(19 U.S.C. 58c(a)), shall be appropriated from the Customs
User Fee Account.
``(ii) In clause (i), the term `customs revenue function'
means the following:
``(I) Assessing and collecting customs duties (including
antidumping and countervailing duties and duties imposed
under safeguard provisions), excise taxes, fees, and
penalties due on imported merchandise, including classifying
and valuing merchandise for the purposes of such assessment.
``(II) Processing and denial of entry of persons, baggage,
cargo, and mail, with respect to the assessment and
collection of import duties.
``(III) Detecting and apprehending persons engaged in
fraudulent practices designed to circumvent the customs laws
of the United States.
``(IV) Enforcing section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and
provisions relating to import quotas and the marking of
imported merchandise, and providing Customs Recordations for
copyrights, patents, and trademarks.
``(V) Collecting accurate import data for compilation of
international trade statistics.
``(VI) Enforcing reciprocal trade agreements.
``(VII) Functions performed by the following personnel, and
associated support staff, of the United States Customs
Service prior to the establishment of the Bureau of Customs
and Border Protection: Import Specialists, Entry Specialists,
Drawback Specialists, National Import Specialists, Fines and
Penalties Specialists, attorneys of the Office of Regulations
and Rulings, Customs Auditors, International Trade
Specialists, and Financial System Specialists.
``(VIII) Functions performed by the following offices, with
respect to any function described in any of subclauses (I)
through (VII), and associated support staff, of the United
States Customs Service prior to the establishment of the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection: the Office of
Information and Technology, the Office of Laboratory
Services, the Office of the Chief Counsel, the Office of
Congressional Affairs, the Office of International Affairs,
and the Office of Training and Development.
``(2) Bureau of immigration and customs enforcement.--There
are authorized to be appropriated for the salaries and
expenses of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
not to exceed the following:
``(A) $4,011,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
``(B) $4,335,891,000 for fiscal year 2006.''.
SEC. 102. ESTABLISHMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF COST ACCOUNTING
SYSTEM; REPORTS.
Section 334 of the Customs and Border Security Act of 2002
(19 U.S.C. 2082 note) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 334. ESTABLISHMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF COST
ACCOUNTING SYSTEM; REPORTS.
``(a) Establishment and Implementation; Customs and Border
Protection.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2005, the
Commissioner of Customs shall, in accordance with the audit
of the Customs Service's fiscal years 2000 and 1999 financial
statements (as contained in the report of the Office of
Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury issued on
February 23, 2001), establish and implement a cost accounting
system--
``(A) for expenses incurred in both commercial and
noncommercial operations of the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection of the Department of Homeland Security, which
system should specifically identify and distinguish expenses
incurred in commercial operations and expenses incurred in
noncommercial operations; and
``(B) for expenses incurred both in administering and
enforcing the customs laws of the United States and the
Federal immigration laws, which system should specifically
identify and distinguish expenses incurred in administering
and enforcing the customs laws of the United States and the
expenses incurred in administering and enforcing the Federal
immigration laws.
``(2) Additional requirement.--The cost accounting system
described in paragraph (1) shall provide for an
identification of expenses based on the type of operation,
the port at which the operation took place, the amount of
time spent on the operation by personnel of the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection, and an identification of
expenses based on any other appropriate classification
necessary to provide for an accurate and complete accounting
of expenses.
``(b) Establishment and Implementation; Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2005, the
Assistant Secretary for United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement shall, in accordance with the audit of the
Customs Service's fiscal years 2000 and 1999 financial
statements (as contained in the report of the Office of
Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury issued on
February 23, 2001), establish and implement a cost accounting
system--
``(A) for expenses incurred in both commercial and
noncommercial operations of the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security,
which system should specifically identify and distinguish
expenses incurred in commercial operations and expenses
incurred in noncommercial operations;
``(B) for expenses incurred both in administering and
enforcing the customs laws of the United States and the
Federal immigration laws, which system should specifically
identify and distinguish expenses incurred in administering
and enforcing the customs laws of the United States and the
expenses incurred in administering and enforcing the Federal
immigration laws.
``(2) Additional requirement.--The cost accounting system
described in paragraph (1) shall provide for an
identification of expenses based on the type of operation,
the amount of time spent on the operation by personnel of the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and an
identification of expenses based on any other appropriate
classification necessary to provide for an accurate and
complete accounting of expenses.
``(c) Reports.--
``(1) Development of the cost accounting systems.--
Beginning on the date of the enactment of the Customs Border
Security and Trade Agencies Authorization Act of 2004 and
ending on the date on which the cost accounting systems
described in subsections (a) and (b) are fully implemented,
the Commissioner of Customs and the Assistant Secretary for
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
respectively, shall prepare and submit to Congress on a
quarterly basis a report on the progress of implementing the
cost accounting systems pursuant to subsections (a) and (b).
``(2) Annual reports.--Beginning one year after the date on
which the cost accounting systems described in subsections
(a) and (b) are fully implemented, the Commissioner of
Customs and the Assistant Secretary for United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, respectively, shall
prepare and submit to Congress on an annual basis a report
itemizing the expenses identified in subsections (a) and (b).
``(3) Office of the inspector general.--Not later than
March 31, 2006, the Inspector General of the Department of
Homeland Security shall prepare and submit to Congress a
report analyzing the level of compliance with this section
and detailing any additional steps that should be taken to
improve compliance with this section.''.
SEC. 103. STUDY AND REPORT RELATING TO CUSTOMS USER FEES.
(a) Study.--Beginning 180 days after the date on which the
cost accounting systems described in section 334 of the
Customs and Border Security Act of 2002 (as amended by
section 102 of this Act) are fully implemented, the
Comptroller General shall conduct a study on the extent to
which the amount of each customs user fee imposed under
section 13031(a) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(a)) approximates
the cost of services provided by the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security
relating to the fee so imposed. The study shall include an
analysis of the use of each such customs user fee by the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.
(b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date on
which the cost accounting systems described in section 334 of
the Customs and Border Security Act of 2002 are fully
implemented, the Comptroller General shall submit to the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate
a report in classified form containing--
(1) the results of the study conducted under subsection
(a); and
(2) recommendations for the appropriate amount of the
customs user fees if such results indicate that the fees are
not commensurate with the level of services provided by the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.
SEC. 104. REPORT RELATING TO ONE FACE AT THE BORDER
INITIATIVE.
Not later than September 30 of each of the calendar years
2005 and 2006, the Commissioner of Customs shall prepare and
submit to Congress a report--
(1) analyzing the effectiveness of the One Face at the
Border Initiative at enhancing security and facilitating
trade;
(2) providing a breakdown of the number of personnel of the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection that were personnel
of the United States Customs Service prior to the
establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, that
were personnel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service
prior to the establishment of the Department of Homeland
Security, and that were hired after the establishment of the
Department of Homeland Security;
(3) describing the training time provided to each employee
on an annual basis for the various training components of the
One Face at the Border Initiative; and
(4) outlining the steps taken by the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection to ensure that expertise is retained with
respect to customs, immigration, and agriculture inspection
functions under the One Face at the Border Initiative.
Subtitle B--Technical Amendments Relating to Entry and Protest
SEC. 111. ENTRY OF MERCHANDISE.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 484 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1484) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting after ``entry'' the
following: ``, or substitute 1 or more reconfigured entries
on an import activity summary statement,''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(A)--
(A) in the second sentence, by inserting after
``statements,'' the following: ``and permit the filing of
reconfigured entries,''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``Entries filed
under paragraph (1)(A) shall not be liquidated if covered by
an import activity summary statement, but instead each
reconfigured
[[Page H5677]]
entry in the import activity summary statement shall be
subject to liquidation or reliquidation pursuant to section
500, 501, or 504.''.
(b) Reconciliation.--Subsection (b)(1) of such section is
amended in the fourth sentence by striking ``15 months'' and
inserting ``21 months''.
SEC. 112. LIMITATION ON LIQUIDATIONS.
Section 504 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1504) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``filed;'' and inserting
``filed, whichever is earlier; or''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) if a reconfigured entry is filed under an import
activity summary statement, the date the import activity
summary statement is filed or should have been filed,
whichever is earlier;''; and
(2) by striking ``at the time of entry'' each place it
appears.
SEC. 113. PROTESTS.
Section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``(relating to refunds and errors) of this Act'' and
inserting ``(relating to refunds), any clerical error,
mistake of fact, or other inadvertence, whether or not
resulting from or contained in an electronic transmission,
adverse to the importer, in any entry, liquidation, or
reliquidation, and'';
(B) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``, including the
liquidation of an entry, pursuant to either section 500 or
section 504'' after ``thereof''; and
(C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``(c) or''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), in the sixth sentence, by striking
``A protest may be amended,'' and inserting ``Unless a
request for accelerated disposition is filed under section
515(b), a protest may be amended,''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``ninety days'' and inserting ``180 days'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``notice of'' and
inserting ``date of''; and
(iii) in the second sentence, by striking ``90 days'' and
inserting ``180 days''.
SEC. 114. REVIEW OF PROTESTS.
Section 515(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1515(b)) is amended in the first sentence by striking ``after
ninety days'' and inserting ``concurrent with or''.
SEC. 115. REFUNDS AND ERRORS.
Section 520(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1520(c)) is repealed.
SEC. 116. DEFINITIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
Section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(t) Reconfigured Entry.--The term `reconfigured entry'
means an entry filed on an import activity summary statement
which substitutes for all or part of 1 or more entries filed
under section 484(a)(1)(A) or filed on a reconciliation entry
that aggregates the entry elements to be reconciled under
section 484(b) for purposes of liquidation, reliquidation, or
protest.''.
SEC. 117. VOLUNTARY RELIQUIDATIONS.
Section 501 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1501) is
amended in the first sentence by inserting ``or 504'' after
``section 500''.
SEC. 118. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this subtitle shall apply to
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions
SEC. 121. DESIGNATION OF SAN ANTONIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FOR CUSTOMS PROCESSING OF CERTAIN PRIVATE
AIRCRAFT ARRIVING IN THE UNITED STATES.
(a) In General.--Section 1453(a) of the Tariff Suspension
and Trade Act of 2000 is amended by striking ``2-year
period'' and inserting ``6-year period''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall be effective as of November 9, 2002.
SEC. 122. AUTHORITY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INTEGRATED
BORDER INSPECTION AREAS AT THE UNITED STATES-
CANADA BORDER.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The increased security and safety concerns that
developed in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the
United States on September 11, 2001, need to be addressed.
(2) One concern that has come to light is the vulnerability
of the international bridges and tunnels along the United
States borders.
(3) It is necessary to ensure that potentially dangerous
vehicles are inspected prior to crossing these bridges and
tunnels; however, currently these vehicles are not inspected
until after they have crossed into the United States.
(4) Establishing Integrated Border Inspection Areas (IBIAs)
would address these concerns by inspecting vehicles before
they gained access to the infrastructure of international
bridges and tunnels joining the United States and Canada.
(b) Creation of Integrated Border Inspection Areas.--
(1) In general.--The Commissioner of the Customs Service,
in consultation with the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency
(CCRA), shall seek to establish Integrated Border Inspection
Areas (IBIAs), such as areas on either side of the United
States-Canada border, in which United States Customs officers
can inspect vehicles entering the United States from Canada
before they enter the United States, or Canadian Customs
officers can inspect vehicles entering Canada from the United
States before they enter Canada. Such inspections may
include, where appropriate, employment of reverse inspection
techniques.
(2) Additional requirement.--The Commissioner of Customs,
in consultation with the Administrator of the General
Services Administration when appropriate, shall seek to carry
out paragraph (1) in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts
on the surrounding community.
(3) Elements of the program.--Using the authority granted
by this section and under section 629 of the Tariff Act of
1930, the Commissioner of Customs, in consultation with the
Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency, shall seek to--
(A) locate Integrated Border Inspection Areas in areas with
bridges or tunnels with high traffic volume, significant
commercial activity, and that have experienced backups and
delays since September 11, 2001;
(B) ensure that United States Customs officers stationed in
any such IBIA on the Canadian side of the border are vested
with the maximum authority to carry out their duties and
enforce United States law;
(C) ensure that United States Customs officers stationed in
any such IBIA on the Canadian side of the border shall
possess the same immunity that they would possess if they
were stationed in the United States; and
(D) encourage appropriate officials of the United States to
enter into an agreement with Canada permitting Canadian
Customs officers stationed in any such IBIA on the United
States side of the border to enjoy such immunities as
permitted in Canada.
SEC. 123. DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
(a) Miscellaneous Provisions.--Section 401(i) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401(i)) is amended by inserting ``,
including foreign law enforcement officers,'' after ``or
other person''.
(b) Inspections and Preclearance in Foreign Countries.--
Section 629 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1629) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or subsequent to
their exit from,'' after ``prior to their arrival in'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by inserting ``or exportation'' after ``relating to the
importation''; and
(B) by inserting ``or exit'' after ``port of entry'';
(3) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
``(e) Stationing of Foreign Customs and Agriculture
Inspection Officers in the United States.--The Secretary of
State, in coordination with the Secretary and the Secretary
of Agriculture, may enter into agreements with any foreign
country authorizing the stationing in the United States of
customs and agriculture inspection officials of that country
(if similar privileges are extended by that country to United
States officials) for the purpose of insuring that persons
and merchandise going directly to that country from the
United States, or that have gone directly from that country
to the United States, comply with the customs and other laws
of that country governing the importation or exportation of
merchandise. Any foreign customs or agriculture inspection
official stationed in the United States under this subsection
may exercise such functions, perform such duties, and enjoy
such privileges and immunities as United States officials may
be authorized to perform or are afforded in that foreign
country by treaty, agreement, or law.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Privileges and Immunities.--Any person designated to
perform the duties of an officer of the Customs Service
pursuant to section 401(i) of this Act shall be entitled to
the same privileges and immunities as an officer of the
Customs Service with respect to any actions taken by the
designated person in the performance of such duties.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 127 of the Treasury
Department Appropriations Act, 2003, is hereby repealed.
(d) Effective Date.--This section, and the amendments made
by this section, take effect on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 124. CUSTOMS SERVICES.
Section 13031(e)(1) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(e)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(1) Notwithstanding section 451 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1451) or any other provision of
law (other than paragraph (2)),'' and inserting:
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Scheduled flights.--Notwithstanding section 451 of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1451) or any other
provision of law (other than subparagraph (B) and paragraph
(2)),''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Charter flights.--If a charter air carrier (as
defined in section 40102(13) of title 49, United States Code)
specifically requests that customs border patrol services for
passengers and their baggage be provided for a charter flight
arriving after normal operating hours at a customs border
patrol serviced airport and overtime funds for those services
are not available, the appropriate customs border patrol
officer may assign sufficient customs employees (if
available) to perform any such services, which could lawfully
be performed during regular hours of operation, and any
overtime fees incurred in connection with such service shall
be paid by the charter air carrier.''.
[[Page H5678]]
SEC. 125. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INTERPRETATION OF TEXTILE AND
APPAREL PROVISIONS.
It is the sense of Congress that the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security
should interpret, implement, and enforce the provisions of
section 112 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19
U.S.C. 3721), section 204 of the Andean Trade Preference Act
(19 U.S.C. 3203), and section 213 of the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703), relating to
preferential treatment of textile and apparel articles,
broadly in order to expand trade by maximizing opportunities
for imports of such articles from eligible beneficiary
countries.
SEC. 126. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Tariff Act of 1930.--Section 505(a) of the Tariff Act
of 1930 is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``referred to in this subsection'' after
``periodic payment''; and
(B) by striking ``10 working days'' and inserting ``12
working days''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``a participating''
and all that follows through the end of the sentence and
inserting the following: ``the Secretary shall promulgate
regulations, after testing the module, permitting a
participating importer of record to deposit estimated duties
and fees for entries of merchandise, other than merchandise
entered for warehouse, transportation, or under bond, no
later than the 15 working days following the month in which
the merchandise is entered or released, whichever comes
first.''.
(b) Customs User Fees.--(1) Section 13031(b)(9)(A) of the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19
U.S.C. 58c(b)(9)(A)) is amended by striking ``less than
$2,000'' and inserting ``$2,000 or less''.
(2) Section 13031(b)(9)(A)(ii) of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C.
58c(b)(9)(A)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) Notwithstanding subsection (e)(6) and subject to the
provisions of subparagraph (B), in the case of an express
consignment carrier facility or centralized hub facility--
``(I) $.66 per individual airway bill or bill of lading;
and
``(II) if the merchandise is formally entered, the fee
provided for in subsection (a)(9), if applicable.''.
(3) Section 13031(b)(9)(B) of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(9)(B)) is
amended--
(A) by moving the margins for subparagraph (B) 4 ems to the
left; and
(B) in clause (ii), by striking ``subparagraph (A)(ii)''
and inserting ``subparagraph (A)(ii) (I) or (II)''.
(4) Section 13031(f)(1)(B) of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(1)(B)) is
amended by moving the subparagraph 2 ems to the left.
TITLE II--OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--Section 141(g)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(g)(1)(A)) is amended by striking clauses
(i) and (ii) and inserting the following:
``(i) $39,552,000 for fiscal year 2005.
``(ii) $39,552,000 for fiscal year 2006.''.
(2) Rule of construction.--The amendment made by paragraph
(1) shall not be construed to affect the availability of
funds appropriated pursuant to section 141(g)(1)(A) of the
Trade Act of 1974 before the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations for the Office of the
General Counsel and the Office of Monitoring and
Enforcement.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Office of the United States Trade Representative for the
appointment of additional staff in the Office of the General
Counsel and the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement--
(1) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(2) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
TITLE III--UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 330(e)(2)(A)
of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(e)(2)(A)) is
amended by striking clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting the
following:
``(i) $61,700,000 for fiscal year 2005.
``(ii) $65,278,000 for fiscal year 2006.''.
(b) Rule of Construction.--The amendment made by subsection
(a) shall not be construed to affect the availability of
funds appropriated pursuant to section 330(e)(2)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930 before the date of the enactment of this
Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4418. I am particularly
pleased by the strong bipartisan work that has been done on this
legislation. The bill was introduced by the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and its
original cosponsors include the ranking member of the full committee,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel); the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin); and on
our side of the aisle, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
{time} 1230
The bill was reported unanimously out of the committee on a rollcall
vote of 33 to 0.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4418, the Customs
Border Security and Trade Agencies Authorization Act of 2004. I am
particularly pleased by the strong bipartisan work that has been done
on this legislation. The bill was introduced by Congressman Crane,
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, and original cosponsors included
Congressmen Rangel, Shaw, Levin, and Ramstad. The bill was then
reported unanimously out of the Committee on a vote of 33 yeas to 0
nays.
Our customs and trade agencies authorization bill is part of our two-
year authorization process to provide guidance and exercise oversight
of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (or CBP), U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (or ICE), the Office of the United States Trade
Representative (or USTR), and the U.S. International Trade Commission
(or ITC).
This week the House will focus on trade legislation as a means to
enhance our economic well-being, including legislation to implement the
U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. While free trade agreements bring
obvious economic benefits, the provisions in the customs sections of
this legislation are the nuts and bolts of trade facilitation. This
legislation provides the critical resources that CBP and ICE need to
safeguard our borders while still facilitating the flow of legitimate
trade.
The legislation provides resources for USTR, which has done a
tremendous job in recent years of negotiating trade agreements and
enforcing the obligations in those agreements to ensure that our
business, farmers, workers, and consumers reap the benefits of these
agreements. This legislation will provide an additional $2 million in
funding above the President's budget request for staff in the Office of
the General Counsel and the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement to
ensure that USTR can continue to perform its vital functions. This
earmark will allow USTR to address a variety of needs that will best
enable U.S. companies, farmers, and workers to benefit from the trade
agreements to which the United States is party.
Finally, the bill ensures adequate resources for the ITC, which has
provided valuable advice on the probable economic effects of U.S. trade
agreements and other trade legislation considered by the Congress.
In conclusion, this legislation provides the resources and the
administrative flexibility that allows legitimate trade to flow freely
across our borders. I urge the support of my colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a distinguished member of our committee.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and join our chairman in support of this legislation.
I do want to point out that it also provides for the authorization of
our United States Trade Representative and gives our USTR some
additional resources, $2 million of additional funding, in order to be
able to more aggressively represent our interests, particularly in the
World Trade Organization.
We have been involved in numerous litigations within the WTO, and we
have found in the last couple of years that we have been on the losing
side of some very important cases. I think the importance of this
legislation to provide the additional resources is so that the USTR can
more aggressively represent U.S. interests in the World Trade
Organization on cases which are consistent, particularly with our anti-
dumping and countervailing duty laws. We have found over and over again
that we have not been successful in defending our rights under these
domestic laws in the WTO. We also, of course, found on the tax issues
we were unsuccessful.
So we are hopeful that these additional funds will, in fact, be used
by the United States Trade Representative to fight for U.S. interests
in the World Trade Organization that is consistent with our domestic
law to prevent our market from being flooded by illegally subsidized
products that we have seen over and over again, particularly in steel.
[[Page H5679]]
So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I just
wanted to point out to our membership the additional resources that are
being made available, and certainly our intentions are that they are to
be used by the USTR to defend the right of American producers and
manufacturers, particularly when they are facing unfair competition
from foreign markets.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Trade.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, on May 20, 2004, I introduced legislation
along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) authorizing appropriations for
fiscal year 2005 and 2006 for the Customs and Border Protection, or
CBP; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE; the Office of
the United States Trade Representative, or USTR; and the International
Trade Commission, ITC.
This legislation is necessitated by the expiration at the end of this
fiscal year of the existing authorization for the former U.S. Customs
Service. It is also a part of our ongoing process of exercising
oversight and focusing on the critical importance of the efficient flow
of trade across our borders.
The Customs Service has a long and distinguished history. It was the
first agency of the Federal Government to be created over 220 years ago
to collect revenue and to ensure that imports flow smoothly across the
border. Today, Customs collects more than $20 billion in revenue each
year.
With international trade comprising nearly 25 percent of our gross
domestic product, CBP's mission to move goods across the border in a
smooth, efficient, and predictable manner is a vital part of our
economic strength and viability.
In addition to this, over the years, Customs has taken on many other
functions because of its unique border presence. Fighting against
illegal drugs, transshiped t-shirts, and Rolex knock-offs are just a
few of these other functions.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States, the role
of Customs in guarding our borders against chemical, biological, and
conventional weapons has become more prominent.
This legislation authorizes sufficient funding for CBP and ICE to
satisfy all of their various responsibilities.
This legislation also authorizes appropriations for fiscal years 2005
and 2006 for the Office of the United States Trade Representative of
$39.6 million per year. In order to ensure that we benefit from free
and fair trade, it authorizes an additional $2 million per year for the
appointment of additional staff in the Office of the General Counsel
and the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this legislation passed the Committee
on Ways and Means by a bipartisan 33 to nothing vote, and I look
forward to its passage by the House today.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is on suspension today. There has been on each
occasion on these trade bills references to bipartisanship, and I
simply want to express my regret to the chairman that this bill was
placed on suspension. I do not think that it is a useful way to proceed
on a bill of this nature. I am not sure that it has been done
traditionally on this bill.
I am going to support it.
But we did raise in the committee several amendments. They were
discussed, they were voted on, they were voted down, but we should have
had the opportunity to raise these issues, or at least try, with the
Committee on Rules to obtain a rule that allowed us to bring up these
amendments.
One was an amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal)
that related to penalties from fines that were being levied against
China, anti-dumping countervailing duty levies. We have a serious
problem, and that is we have these orders, we have fines, but they are
not being collected. The amount involved is over $100 million, perhaps
as high as $130 million. What has been happening is, as the government
has tried to implement the anti-dumping countervailing duties, was to
allow people to post bonds instead of some amount of cash. These bonds,
I guess in most cases, turned out to be worthless. So essentially, we
are left holding an empty bag. And it is really our manufacturers who
are left without redress, because under legislation passed by this
Congress, there would be redress directly for the injured party.
Well, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) raised this issue;
and, actually, I guess in full committee, there was a decision to
postpone action on it, with the hope that there could be something
worked out. But when it is put on suspension, it essentially snuffs out
any chance for us to raise the issue through an amendment.
But, secondly, there is the issue of the additional $2 million for
USTR. And the reason we had discussion within the committee and before
that in the subcommittee was this: In our judgment, the judgment of
many of us, there has not been vigorous enforcement of our laws. We
pass trade laws, we enter into trade agreements, but they require, as
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has pointed out, active,
vigorous enforcement by the executive. And that has not been true. It
has been lacking, though there has been a spurt these last 5 or 6 or 7
months.
So there was offered in the subcommittee, and then again in the
committee, an amendment to be sure that part of the $2 million that we
were adding to USTR in this authorization would be spent for
enforcement. The $2 million, the way it is written in the bill, goes to
the General Counsel and the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement. None
of this has to go to the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement, the way
it is written. That is true. None of it has to. All of it could go to
the General Counsel, at least as I read it, or maybe $1 could go to the
Office of Monitoring and Enforcement.
Anyway, we proposed an amendment to be sure that some of the funds
would be used for various purposes of enforcement. That was called an
earmark. I am not sure that is an appropriate term. Why money, extra
money going to two offices is not an earmark, but including how they
might spend it is one, I do not quite get that, especially in view of
the fact that there has been such a need for the enforcement of our
laws.
I referred earlier to China. We have a huge deficit with China, and
enforcement has been a major problem. We need to do better, and what
our amendment proposed was to be certain that some of the monies, and
we did not specify for each of the purposes, but that some of the
monies would be used for the purposes of enforcement. That was voted
down.
Now the problem with putting this on suspension is that we do not
even have a chance to go to the Committee on Rules and ask for a rule
that would allow us to raise this amendment on the floor. There has
been a lot of talk about bipartisanship here, and I admired the
majority for sticking to a message and repeating it time and time
again, but the test is not in the words but in the actions. And the
test is whether you let us raise issues on the floor of the House if
you disagree with our position so we can have a full airing of these
issues and, if we want to, vote, and maybe even win.
We objected to this being placed on suspension, but here we are with
the alternative of voting it down or passing it when it is for a
purpose that is an important one.
I also understand that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) is
going to raise an issue regarding the new provisions regarding boats
that apply to fishing boats, and I think he will speak regarding that.
So in a word, I am going to vote for this. I hope my colleagues will
vote for it. However, it is important, I think, that we realize that
placing a bill on suspension of this nature does limit our ability to
try to have a debate and action in a vote on important amendments, and
I hope very much that this will not be repeated. One thing I can assure
my colleagues of, if we take back the House, this bill will not be put
on suspension.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the House has a series of procedures which determine
whether
[[Page H5680]]
or not a bill is a candidate to be placed on suspension. One of the
first things that one would look at, obviously, is the way in which the
bill was dealt with in committee. I said in my opening statement that
this bill passed 33 to 0. One cannot get any more unanimous than that.
I would ask my friend, because he is my friend, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin), while he is recounting the amendments that were
offered, which were presented, arguments examined, decision made by the
committee, and it just so happens that each of the amendments were not
accepted. They had every right at that time to vote against the
measure. Not being able to completely divine the reason for why they do
such things, but they came to the conclusion that the bill,
notwithstanding not being amended, was perfectly acceptable.
I do, however, have to ask my colleague, when an argument is made in
committee and absolutely and completely refuted, it does not lend
itself to a continued positive working relationship to then come to the
floor and repeat the same argument, which was absolutely refuted in
committee, as though he had no knowledge that what he was saying was
not accurate.
{time} 1245
The gentleman said that the $2 billion the gentleman from Maryland
was kind enough to indicate we all agreed would be appropriate could
not go at all for enforcement. The language in the bill is ``and
between general counsel and enforcement,'' not ``and/or.'' It is
``and.'' And the gentleman's argument that no money can go there is
simply not accurate. It was not accurate when he made it in committee,
and it was refuted. It is not accurate on the floor when he makes it.
And so after all is said and done with all of the concerns and all of
the arguments which end with ``and we will support the bill,'' the only
conclusion one can reasonably come to is that the problem is we are the
majority and they are not.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), a very distinguished, active
gentleman from Washington; and then I will respond to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas) a bit later.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding
me this time, and I understand that the chairman of the committee would
be willing to engage in a brief colloquy.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMAS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to engage the gentleman in a
colloquy.
Mr. BAIRD. I thank him for that, as this is an issue of great
importance to fish processors and the economy of my region.
Mr. Speaker, my concern is that small fishing ships are now required
to transmit electronically information about the contents of their
cargo 24 hours before docking in a U.S. port. This requirement and
several others are causing a great hardship for small, independently
operated fishing vessels.
As a result, the vessels are docking in Canada and processing fish
there, thereby costing jobs in an area where we greatly need those
jobs.
As a result, Washington State is losing more jobs, and fish
processing jobs; and I would ask and hope that we can work together to
address this issue immediately.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; and as the gentleman
knows, this is an issue that was just presented to us now, and in
trying to do some immediate research, we could not determine whether it
is amenable to an administrative resolution or a legislative
resolution; but certainly the chairman is willing to work with the
gentleman from Washington, as our staffs confer, to try to address
those concerns.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to that, and there is some
urgency to this, so I look forward to working with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) on this; and I thank him for his indulgence.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, and I thank the gentleman for his rapid
response to a problem in his district.
Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield as much time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), a cosponsor of
the legislation.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong
supporter of this important legislation. Today's passage of the Customs
Border Security and Trade Agencies Authorization Act is absolutely
vital because it authorizes funding for four agencies that play
critical roles in formulating and implementing American trade policy:
The U.S. Trade Representative, the International Trade Commission,
and the newly formed agencies of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
I want to especially thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman
Crane) of our Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade for
including a provision I offered in the bill to allow, but not mandate,
customs officials to work overtime if smaller air carriers arrive at an
airport after normal customs hours.
This legislation is necessary because charter air carriers often use
smaller feeder airports, providing needed relief to air traffic at
larger international airports; and, unfortunately, this means that
chartered carriers are often unfairly restricted in the hours in which
they can land, as smaller airports do not have extended hours for
customs officials like larger international airports.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4418 will change current law by allowing customs
officials to work overtime, with the overtime costs paid for by the
arriving carrier. This is good policy for the carrier, as they have
more flexibility in their flight schedules. It is good policy for the
taxpayer, as there is no additional cost to them. And it is good policy
for customs employees, as they have the option to work overtime if they
so desire.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, international trade is absolutely
critical to our economy; and we must do all we can to open foreign
markets and increase the efficiency of our ports. No issues are more
important to the American people today than homeland security and
economic security, and I am pleased this legislation helps improve both
by securing our borders and improving the flow of goods across our
borders.
I urge my colleagues to continue to support H.R. 4418, and I want to
thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the Committee on
Ways and Means for their unanimous vote to approve this important
legislation. And I hope that spirit of bipartisan pragmatism continues
here in the House vote today.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
have made my points. I will not repeat them. In terms of a vote that is
unanimous in committee, I hope that is not the precedent for putting
bills on suspension, especially bills of major import. This relates to
the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Bureau of Customs
Enforcement of the Department, and customs enforcement of the
Department of Homeland Security, the office of USTR and for ITC.
So we did, I think, clearly say to the majority we did not want this
bill on suspension, and it was placed on suspension anyway. I do not
think that is a bipartisan way to proceed, and there has been use of
much of the term ``bipartisanship'' here today, and I want to make it
clear the test is not in rhetoric but in actual performance.
And let me just say a word to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas), and I want to repeat this because I hope USTR gets the message
about enforcement. I do not know if all the money went to General
Counsel, whether it would be considered a violation of this language. I
think maybe so, but maybe not; but as I said in my remarks, if they
gave a dollar to the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement and the rest
to General Counsel, I think it will meet the terms of this provision.
And the reason we have raised it is not to be picky or not to fly-
speck, but because the issue of enforcement of our trade laws is a
vital one. We have worked to pass trade laws. We worked to place some
major provisions in the
[[Page H5681]]
China PNTR. We have worked to try to maintain our antidumping and
countervailing duty laws. We have worked to have some strong trade
laws; but if they are not vigorously enforced, it does not do much
good.
And so we wanted to be sure the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin)
addressed this, and we raised it in committee. We wanted to make sure
that if there were going to be adequate or additional funding, that
some portion of it in a meaningful way would go for enforcement of our
laws. And we named three areas in which we needed more vigorous
enforcement. That is what this is all about. Those of us who favor
expanded trade want to do so first of all so that the terms of trade
are shaped so that there is widespread benefit; and, number two, we
want to make sure that the laws that we support and help to shape are
implemented, are enforced. And the record of this administration, in my
judgment, has been unsatisfactory, to put it mildly.
And that is why we raised the issue, and that is why it would have
been better to have this bill not on suspension, but in the normal
course. That is what this is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I see that another gentleman is here to speak, but I
will reserve the balance of my time, with the understanding I probably
will not speak again if the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is
ready to wrap up.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding me
this time, and I have two comments I wanted to make in particular on
this bill. I was particularly happy to see that the bill is requiring
the commissioner of the Customs and Border Protection Agency to work to
establish integrated border inspections areas on the U.S.-Canada
border.
As we have worked through the last few years in homeland security and
the narcotics areas, as well as with the U.S.-Canada Parliamentary
Group, Canada is our most important trading partner. We have one
example up in Montana where we have an integrated customs border
station. When we developed that, we had some problems in developing it,
because at that point we were still having questions of whether our
customs agents could carry their guns to the restrooms. So the
restrooms all had to be on the American side.
We were trying to get integrated immigration laws, because if they
got a foot on Canadian soil, they could claim the full rights of the
Canadian citizenship. We had to put barriers up in the middle of that
building and angle it down a hill, and so two-thirds of the immigration
station wound up on the American side with all sorts of problematic
issues involved with that.
But the Canadian leadership has shown much more willingness to try to
accommodate some of the concerns we have. This is critically important
in Detroit, where there is not enough room on the American side to
expand trunk clearance facilities; and we need to work with the city of
Windsor, as well as up at Port Heron and the tunnel at Windsor. It is
critical in Buffalo, where we have had huge concerns about whether we
need additional bridges and how we handle the American side there, and
at Niagara Falls.
And if we can work out integrated systems at these major border
crossings where we do not have to have it on both sides, we do not have
to have the truck traffic and car traffic backing up the bridges, it is
very important, where we have, in many cases, land on the Canadian side
but not on the U.S. side. And I am really pleased to see that this was
raised in the bill.
There is a second issue that is not in the bill that may come up in
our Committee on Homeland Security markup later this week. The
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has been a leader in this, and I
have been supportive, and that is what to do with the air and marine
division of ICE, because the air and marine division of the Legacy
customs division, the focus was narcotics, and it does not purely fit
either being on the border or doing investigatory follow-up. And it is
probably the most critical area, as far as air interdiction, marine
interdiction and the follow-up of illegal narcotics, that we need some
flexibility so that that air and marine has a unique mission separate
from the Coast Guard and the air division of the Border Patrol. And
that is in flux right now, and we are trying to address that in the
Select Committee on Homeland Security.
And if so, I hope we can work with the authorizers as they go to
conference on this important bill so that we can match the authorizing
committee with the Committee on Homeland Security and the narcotics
subcommittee that I chair, and I look forward to working with the
chairman on that.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will tell the gentleman that as we are moving forward with the
integration at the border, this committee and its responsibilities,
especially in the area of customs, will always work with the other
authorizing committees to make sure that not only is it more seamless
in terms of security, but, frankly, we need to be much more efficient
in the movement of economic goods across international lines,
especially in the areas that you mentioned, especially in the area of
Detroit and Windsor where unbeknownst to a lot of people, when you
travel south, you go to Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, but I will tell the
gentleman from Michigan I have no other speakers, and I am prepared to
close.
{time} 1300
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
To make sure that everyone is perfectly clear, I think we may need to
recount what occurred in committee in the discussion of this bill in
front of the full Committee on Ways and Means.
There were three Members on the minority side that had indicated that
they either wanted to offer amendments or they wanted to discuss points
at which they may or may not be prepared to offer amendments. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) raised a point, there was a
discussion between staff and Members, and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Becerra) terminated his discussion.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) indicated that he was
going to offer amendments. There was a colloquy between the chairman
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and he withdrew his
amendment.
The gentleman from Michigan then offered an amendment and had the
clarification, which the Chair is grateful for, which was the subject
of his amendment and that is that no money could go to enforcement. The
gentleman corrected his statement, although he still believes that
perhaps the United States Trade Representative is engaged in
gamesmanship and perhaps they would send a dollar to enforcement but
that would be all.
That was precisely the basis of the discussion that occurred in
committee.
The Chair offered to work with the maker of the amendment, the
gentleman from Michigan, to put report language that would clarify the
concerns that all of us have that this is not an issue over which games
should be played.
But what was not mentioned was the fact that an amendment was offered
with a specific reference to one country in terms of enforcement. That
is, the Chair believes and apparently a majority of the committee
believed, because the amendment was put to a vote, there were 11 ayes
and 21 noes, that perhaps that degree of direction and specificity is
not appropriate; and that had the gentleman not attempted to
micromanage, he would have found far more support. Notwithstanding
that, he decided to move his amendment.
The offer was made, let us work together to reconcile the concerns,
and we can put report language in that shows the concern of the
committee that we need money both to general counsel and to
enforcement. That offer was rejected.
The gentleman from Michigan instead chose to move his amendment. That
amendment was defeated, not for the basic concept of wanting to make
[[Page H5682]]
sure that the United States Trade Representative work in the
enforcement area as general counsel, because of the way the amendment
was written. The degree of specificity and the desire to micromanage
and control was the reason the amendment was rejected.
So once the attempt to micromanage failed, then a vote was requested.
At any point any Member could have voted no. The vote was 33 to zero,
and I think that indicates the true depth of support for this
provision.
There truly is no real controversy; and, frankly, there should be no
real opposition. I would ask Members to vote for H.R. 4418 with the
intent and purpose of its content supported unanimously out of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, July 13, 2004.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: Thank you for your letter
regarding H.R. 4418, the ``Customs Border Security and Trade
Agencies Authorization Act of 2004.'' The Committee of Ways
and Means ordered favorably reported, as amended, H.R. 4418
on Thursday, July 8, 2004 by a 33-0 vote. I appreciate your
agreement to expedite the passage of this legislation
although it contains several immigration provisions that are
within your Committee's jurisdiction. I acknowledge your
decision to forego further action on the bill is based on the
understanding that it will not prejudice the Committee on the
Judiciary with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on
this or similar legislation.
Our committees have long collaborated on these important
initiatives, and I am very pleased we are continuing that
cooperation. Your leadership on immigration issues is
critical to the success of this bill. I appreciate your
helping us to move this legislation quickly to the floor.
Finally, I will include in both the Committee report and
the Congressional Record a copy of our exchange of letters on
this matter. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. I
look forward to working with you in the future.
Best regards,
Bill Thomas,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee of the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, July 13, 2004.
Hon. Bill Thomas,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thomas: In recognition of the desire to
expedite floor consideration of H.R. 4418, the ``Customs
Border Security Act of 12004,'' the Committee on the
Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the bill.
Certain sections of H.R. 4418 contain matters within the
Committee on the Judiciary's Rule X jurisdiction: Section 101
(insofar as it authorizes funding for immigration matters);
Section 102 (insofar as it requires cost accounting systems
for immigration matters); and Section 122 (insofar as the
Integrated Border Inspection Areas include immigration
matters). Because of the need to expedite this legislation, I
will not seek to mark up the bill under the Committee on the
Judiciary's secondary referral.
The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the
understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over these
provisions is in no way diminished or altered. I would
appreciate your including this letter in your Committee's
report on H.R. 4418 and the Congressional Record during
consideration of the legislation on the House Floor.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4418, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________