Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 97 (Wednesday, July 14, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 97 (Wednesday, July 14, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5690-H5720]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNITED STATES-AUSTRALIA FREE TRADE IMPLEMENTATION ACT

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 712, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4759) to implement the United States-Australia Free
Trade Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of H.R. 4759 is as follows:

H.R. 4759

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 ``United
States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT

Sec. 101. Approval and entry into force of the Agreement.
Sec. 102. Relationship of the Agreement to United States and State law.

Sec. 103. Implementing actions in anticipation of entry into force and
initial regulations.
Sec. 104. Consultation and layover provisions for, and effective date
of, proclaimed actions.
Sec. 105. Administration of dispute settlement proceedings.
Sec. 106. Effective dates; effect of termination.

TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Tariff modifications.
Sec. 202. Additional duties on certain agricultural goods.
Sec. 203. Rules of origin.
Sec. 204. Customs user fees.
Sec. 205. Disclosure of incorrect information.
Sec. 206. Enforcement relating to trade in textile and apparel goods.
Sec. 207. Regulations.

TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS

Sec. 301. Definitions.

Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement

Sec. 311. Commencing of action for relief.
Sec. 312. Commission action on petition.
Sec. 313. Provision of relief.
Sec. 314. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 315. Compensation authority.
Sec. 316. Confidential business information.

Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures

Sec. 321. Commencement of action for relief.
Sec. 322. Determination and provision of relief.
Sec. 323. Period of relief.
Sec. 324. Articles exempt from relief.
Sec. 325. Rate after termination of import relief.
Sec. 326. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 327. Compensation authority.
Sec. 328. Business confidential information.

Subtitle C--Cases Under Title II of the Trade Act of 1974

Sec. 331. Findings and action on goods from Australia.

TITLE IV--PROCUREMENT

Sec. 401. Eligible products.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to approve and implement the Free Trade Agreement
between the United States and Australia, entered into under
the authority of section 2103(b) of the Bipartisan Trade
Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3803(b));
(2) to strengthen and develop economic relations between
the United States and Australia for their mutual benefit;
(3) to establish free trade between the 2 nations through
the reduction and elimination of barriers to trade in goods
and services and to investment; and
(4) to lay the foundation for further cooperation to expand
and enhance the benefits of such Agreement.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the United
States-Australia Free Trade Agreement approved by Congress
under section 101(a)(1).
(2) HTS.--The term ``HTS'' means the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States.
(3) Textile or apparel good.--The term ``textile or apparel
good'' means a good listed in the Annex to the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)).

TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT

SEC. 101. APPROVAL AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE AGREEMENT.

(a) Approval of Agreement and Statement of Administrative
Action.--Pursuant to section 2105 of the Bipartisan Trade
Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3805) and section
151 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2191), Congress
approves--
(1) the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement
entered into on May 18, 2004, with the Government of
Australia and submitted to Congress on July 6, 2004; and
(2) the statement of administrative action proposed to
implement the Agreement that was submitted to Congress on
July 6, 2004.
(b) Conditions for Entry Into Force of the Agreement.--At
such time as the President determines that Australia has
taken measures necessary to bring it into compliance with
those provisions of the Agreement that are to take effect on
the date on which the Agreement enters into force, the
President is authorized to exchange notes with the Government
of Australia providing for the entry into force, on or after
January 1, 2005, of the Agreement with respect to the United
States.

SEC. 102. RELATIONSHIP OF THE AGREEMENT TO UNITED STATES AND
STATE LAW.

(a) Relationship of Agreement to United States Law.--
(1) United states law to prevail in conflict.--No provision
of the Agreement, nor the application of any such provision
to any person or circumstance, which is inconsistent with any
law of the United States shall have effect.
(2) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(A) to amend or modify any law of the United States, or
(B) to limit any authority conferred under any law of the
United States,
unless specifically provided for in this Act.
(b) Relationship of Agreement to State Law.--
(1) Legal challenge.--No State law, or the application
thereof, may be declared invalid as to any person or
circumstance on the ground that the provision or application
is inconsistent with the Agreement, except in an action
brought by the United States for the purpose of declaring
such law or application invalid.
(2) Definition of state law.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``State law'' includes--
(A) any law of a political subdivision of a State; and
(B) any State law regulating or taxing the business of
insurance.
(c) Effect of Agreement With Respect to Private Remedies.--
No person other than the United States--
(1) shall have any cause of action or defense under the
Agreement or by virtue of congressional approval thereof; or
(2) may challenge, in any action brought under any
provision of law, any action or inaction by any department,
agency, or other instrumentality of the United States, any
State, or any political subdivision of a State, on the ground
that such action or inaction is inconsistent with the
Agreement.

SEC. 103. IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS IN ANTICIPATION OF ENTRY INTO
FORCE AND INITIAL REGULATIONS.

(a) Implementing Actions.--
(1) Proclamation authority.--After the date of the
enactment of this Act--
(A) the President may proclaim such actions, and
(B) other appropriate officers of the United States
Government may issue such regulations,
as may be necessary to ensure that any provision of this Act,
or amendment made by this Act, that takes effect on the date
the Agreement enters into force is appropriately implemented
on such date, but no such proclamation or regulation may have
an effective date earlier than the date on which the
Agreement enters into force.
(2) Effective date of certain proclaimed actions.--Any
action proclaimed by the

[[Page H5691]]

President under the authority of this Act that is not subject
to the consultation and layover provisions under section 104,
may not take effect before the 15th day after the date on
which the text of the proclamation is published in the
Federal Register.
(3) Waiver of 15-day restriction.--The 15-day restriction
in paragraph (2) on the taking effect of proclaimed actions
is waived to the extent that the application of such
restriction would prevent the taking effect on the date the
Agreement enters into force of any action proclaimed under
this section.
(b) Initial Regulations.--Initial regulations necessary or
appropriate to carry out the actions required by or
authorized under this Act or proposed in the statement of
administrative action submitted under section 101(a)(2) to
implement the Agreement shall, to the maximum extent
feasible, be issued within 1 year after the date on which the
Agreement enters into force. In the case of any implementing
action that takes effect on a date after the date on which
the Agreement enters into force, initial regulations to carry
out that action shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be
issued within 1 year after such effective date.

SEC. 104. CONSULTATION AND LAYOVER PROVISIONS FOR, AND
EFFECTIVE DATE OF, PROCLAIMED ACTIONS.

If a provision of this Act provides that the implementation
of an action by the President by proclamation is subject to
the consultation and layover requirements of this section,
such action may be proclaimed only if--
(1) the President has obtained advice regarding the
proposed action from--
(A) the appropriate advisory committees established under
section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155); and
(B) the United States International Trade Commission;
(2) the President has submitted a report to the Committee
on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means
of the House of Representatives that sets forth--
(A) the action proposed to be proclaimed and the reasons
therefor; and
(B) the advice obtained under paragraph (1);
(3) a period of 60 calendar days, beginning on the first
day on which the requirements set forth in paragraphs (1) and
(2) have been met has expired; and
(4) the President has consulted with such Committees
regarding the proposed action during the period referred to
in paragraph (3).

SEC. 105. ADMINISTRATION OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS.

(a) Establishment or Designation of Office.--The President
is authorized to establish or designate within the Department
of Commerce an office that shall be responsible for providing
administrative assistance to panels established under chapter
21 of the Agreement. The office may not be considered to be
an agency for purposes of section 552 of title 5, United
States Code.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for each fiscal year after fiscal year
2004 to the Department of Commerce such sums as may be
necessary for the establishment and operations of the office
under subsection (a) and for the payment of the United States
share of the expenses of panels established under chapter 21
of the Agreement.

SEC. 106. EFFECTIVE DATES; EFFECT OF TERMINATION.

(a) Effective Dates.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this
Act take effect on the date on which the Agreement enters
into force.
(b) Exceptions.--Sections 1 through 3 and this title take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Termination of the Agreement.--On the date on which the
Agreement terminates, the provisions of this Act (other than
this subsection) and the amendments made by this Act shall
cease to be effective.

TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. TARIFF MODIFICATIONS.

(a) Tariff Modifications Provided for in the Agreement.--
The President may proclaim--
(1) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
(2) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
(3) such additional duties,
as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to
carry out or apply articles 2.3, 2.5, and 2.6, and Annex 2-B
of the Agreement.
(b) Other Tariff Modifications.--Subject to the
consultation and layover provisions of section 104, the
President may proclaim--
(1) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
(2) such modifications as the United States may agree to
with Australia regarding the staging of any duty treatment
set forth in Annex 2-B of the Agreement,
(3) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
(4) such additional duties,
as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to
maintain the general level of reciprocal and mutually
advantageous concessions with respect to Australia provided
for by the Agreement.
(c) Conversion to Ad Valorem Rates.--For purposes of
subsections (a) and (b), with respect to any good for which
the base rate in the Schedule of the United States to Annex
2-B of the Agreement is a specific or compound rate of duty,
the President may substitute for the base rate an ad valorem
rate that the President determines to be equivalent to the
base rate.

SEC. 202. ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL GOODS.

(a) General Provisions.--
(1) Applicability of subsection.--This subsection applies
to additional duties assessed under subsections (b), (c), and
(d).
(2) Applicable ntr (mfn) rate of duty.--For purposes of
subsections (b), (c), and (d), the term ``applicable NTR
(MFN) rate of duty'' means, with respect to a safeguard good,
a rate of duty that is the lesser of--
(A) the column 1 general rate of duty that would have been
imposed under the HTS on the same safeguard good entered,
without a claim for preferential treatment, at the time the
additional duty is imposed under subsection (b), (c), or (d),
as the case may be; or
(B) the column 1 general rate of duty that would have been
imposed under the HTS on the same safeguard good entered,
without a claim for preferential treatment, on December 31,
2004.
(3) Schedule rate of duty.--For purposes of subsections (b)
and (c), the term ``schedule rate of duty'' means, with
respect to a safeguard good, the rate of duty for that good
set out in the Schedule of the United States to Annex 2-B of
the Agreement.
(4) Safeguard good.--In this subsection, the term
``safeguard good'' means--
(A) a horticulture safeguard good described subsection
(b)(1)(B); or
(B) a beef safeguard good described in subsection (c)(1) or
subsection (d)(1)(A).
(5) Exceptions.--No additional duty shall be assessed on a
good under subsection (b), (c), or (d) if, at the time of
entry, the good is subject to import relief under--
(A) subtitle A of title III of this Act; or
(B) chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).
(6) Termination.--The assessment of an additional duty on a
good under subsection (b) or (c), whichever is applicable,
shall cease to apply to that good on the date on which duty-
free treatment must be provided to that good under the
Schedule of the United States to Annex 2-B of the Agreement.
(7) Notice.--Not later than 60 days after the date on which
the Secretary of the Treasury assesses an additional duty on
a good under subsection (b), (c), or (d), the Secretary shall
notify the Government of Australia in writing of such action
and shall provide to that Government data supporting the
assessment of the additional duty.
(b) Additional Duties on Horticulture Safeguard Goods.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) F.O.B.--The term ``F.O.B.'' means free on board,
regardless of the mode of transportation, at the point of
direct shipment by the seller to the buyer.
(B) Horticulture safeguard good.--The term ``horticulture
safeguard good'' means a good--
(i) that qualifies as an originating good under section
203;
(ii) that is included in the United States Horticulture
Safeguard List set forth in Annex 3-A of the Agreement; and
(iii) for which a claim for preferential treatment under
the Agreement has been made.
(C) Unit import price.--The ``unit import price'' of a good
means the price of the good determined on the basis of the
F.O.B. import price of the good, expressed in either dollars
per kilogram or dollars per liter, whichever unit of measure
is indicated for the good in the United States Horticulture
Safeguard List set forth in Annex 3-A of the Agreement.
(D) Trigger price.--The ``trigger price'' for a good is the
trigger price indicated for that good in the United States
Horticulture Safeguard List set forth in Annex 3-A of the
Agreement or any amendment thereto.
(2) Additional duties.--In addition to any duty proclaimed
under subsection (a) or (b) of section 201, and subject to
subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall assess a duty on a horticulture safeguard good, in the
amount determined under paragraph (3), if the Secretary
determines that the unit import price of the good when it
enters the United States is less than the trigger price for
that good.
(3) Calculation of additional duty.--The additional duty
assessed under this subsection on a horticulture safeguard
good shall be an amount determined in accordance with the
following table:

If the excess of the trigger price over The additional duty is an
the unit import price is:. amount equal to:

Not more than 10 percent of the trigger 0.
price.
More than 10 percent but not more than 40 30 percent of the excess of
percent of the trigger price. the applicable NTR (MFN)
rate of duty over the
schedule rate of duty.
More than 40 percent but not more than 60 50 percent of such excess.
percent of the trigger price.
More than 60 percent but not more than 75 70 percent of such excess.
percent of the trigger price.
More than 75 percent of the trigger price. 100 percent of such excess.

[[Page H5692]]

(c) Additional Duties on Beef Safeguard Goods Based on
Quantity of Imports.--
(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``beef
safeguard good'' means a good--
(A) that qualifies as an originating good under section
203;
(B) that is listed in paragraph 3 of Annex I of the General
Notes to the Schedule of the United States to Annex 2-B of
the Agreement; and
(C) for which a claim for preferential treatment under the
Agreement has been made.
(2) Additional duties.--In addition to any duty proclaimed
under subsection (a) or (b) of section 201, and subject to
subsection (a) of this section and paragraphs (4) and (5) of
this subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury shall assess a
duty, in the amount determined under paragraph (3), on a beef
safeguard good imported into the United States in a calendar
year if the Secretary determines that, prior to such
importation, the total volume of beef safeguard goods
imported into the United States in that calendar year is
equal to or greater than 110 percent of the volume set out
for beef safeguard goods in the corresponding year in the
table contained in paragraph 3(a) of Annex I of the General
Notes to the Schedule of the United States to Annex 2-B of
the Agreement. For purposes of this subsection, the years 1
through 19 set out in the table contained in paragraph 3(a)
of such Annex I correspond to the calendar years 2005 through
2023.
(3) Calculation of additional duty.--The additional duty on
a beef safeguard good under this subsection shall be an
amount equal to 75 percent of the excess of the applicable
NTR (MFN) rate of duty over the schedule rate of duty.
(4) Waiver.--
(A) In general.--The United States Trade Representative is
authorized to waive the application of this subsection, if
the Trade Representative determines that extraordinary market
conditions demonstrate that the waiver would be in the
national interest of the United States, after the
requirements of subparagraph (B) are met.
(B) Notice and consultations.--Promptly after receiving a
request for a waiver of this subsection, the Trade
Representative shall notify the Committee on Ways and Means
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance
of the Senate, and may make the determination provided for in
subparagraph (A) only after consulting with--
(i) appropriate private sector advisory committees
established under section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2155); and
(ii) the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate
regarding--

(I) the reasons supporting the determination to grant the
waiver; and
(II) the proposed scope and duration of the waiver.

(C) Notification of the secretary of the treasury and
publication.--Upon granting a waiver under this paragraph,
the Trade Representative shall promptly notify the Secretary
of the Treasury of the period in which the waiver will be in
effect, and shall publish notice of the waiver in the Federal
Register.
(5) Effective dates.--This subsection takes effect on
January 1, 2013, and shall not be effective after December
31, 2022.
(d) Additional Duties on Beef Safeguard Goods Based on
Price.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Beef safeguard good.--The term ``beef safeguard good''
means a good--
(i) that qualifies as an originating good under section
203;
(ii) that is classified under subheading 0201.10.50,
0201.20.80, 0201.30.80, 0202.10.50, 0202.20.80, or 0202.30.80
of the HTS; and
(iii) for which a claim for preferential treatment under
the Agreement has been made.
(B) Calendar quarter.--
(i) In general.--The term ``calendar quarter'' means any 3-
month period beginning on January 1, April 1, July 1, or
October 1 of a calendar year.
(ii) First calendar quarter.--The term ``first calendar
quarter'' means the calendar quarter beginning on January 1.
(iii) Second calendar quarter.--The term ``second calendar
quarter'' means the calendar quarter beginning on April 1.
(iv) Third calendar quarter.--The term ``third calendar
quarter'' means the calendar quarter beginning on July 1.
(v) Fourth calendar quarter.--The term ``fourth calendar
quarter'' means the calendar quarter beginning on October 1.
(C) Monthly average index price.--The term ``monthly
average index price'' means the simple average, as determined
by the Secretary of Agriculture, for a calendar month of the
daily average index prices for Wholesale Boxed Beef Cut-Out
Value Select 1-3 Central U.S. 600-750 lbs., or its
equivalent, as such simple average is reported by the
Agricultural Marketing Service of the Department of
Agriculture in Report LM-XB459 or any equivalent report.
(D) 24-month trigger price.--The term ``24-month trigger
price'' means, with respect to any calendar month, the
average of the monthly average index prices for the 24
preceding calendar months, multiplied by 0.935.
(2) Additional duties.--In addition to any duty proclaimed
under subsection (a) or (b) of section 201, and subject to
subsection (a) of this section and paragraphs (4) through (6)
of this subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
assess a duty, in the amount determined under paragraph (3),
on a beef safeguard good imported into the United States if--
(A)(i) the good is imported in the first calendar quarter,
second calendar quarter, or third calendar quarter of a
calendar year; and
(ii) the monthly average index price, in any 2 calendar
months of the preceding calendar quarter, is less than the
24-month trigger price; or
(B)(i) the good is imported in the fourth calendar quarter
of a calendar year; and
(ii)(I) the monthly average index price, in any 2 calendar
months of the preceding calendar quarter, is less than the
24-month trigger price; or
(II) the monthly average index price, in any of the 4
calendar months preceding January 1 of the succeeding
calendar year, is less than the 24-month trigger price.
(3) Calculation of additional duty.--The additional duty on
a beef safeguard good under this subsection shall be an
amount equal to 65 percent of the applicable NTR (MFN) rate
of duty for that good.
(4) Limitation.--An additional duty shall be assessed under
this subsection on a beef safeguard good imported into the
United States in a calendar year only if, prior to the
importation of that good, the total quantity of beef
safeguard goods imported into the United States in that
calendar year is equal to or greater than the sum of--
(A) the quantity of goods of Australia eligible to enter
the United States in that year specified in Additional United
States Note 3 to Chapter 2 of the HTS; and
(B)(i) in 2023, 70,420 metric tons; or
(ii) in 2024, and in each year thereafter, a quantity that
is 0.6 percent greater than the quantity provided for in the
preceding year under this subparagraph.
(5) Waiver.--
(A) In general.--The United States Trade Representative is
authorized to waive the application of this subsection, if
the Trade Representative determines that extraordinary market
conditions demonstrate that the waiver would be in the
national interest of the United States, after the
requirements of subparagraph (B) are met.
(B) Notice and consultations.--Promptly after receiving a
request for a waiver of this subsection, the Trade
Representative shall notify the Committee on Ways and Means
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance
of the Senate, and may make the determination provided for in
subparagraph (A) only after consulting with--
(i) appropriate private sector advisory committees
established under section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2155); and
(ii) the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate
regarding--

(I) the reasons supporting the determination to grant the
waiver; and
(II) the proposed scope and duration of the waiver.

SEC. 203. RULES OF ORIGIN.

(a) Application and Interpretation.--In this section:
(1) Tariff classification.--The basis for any tariff
classification is the HTS.
(2) Reference to hts.--Whenever in this section there is a
reference to a heading or subheading, such reference shall be
a reference to a heading or subheading of the HTS.
(3) Cost or value.--Any cost or value referred to in this
section shall be recorded and maintained in accordance with
the generally accepted accounting principles applicable in
the territory of the country in which the good is produced
(whether Australia or the United States).
(b) Originating Goods.--For purposes of this Act and for
purposes of implementing the preferential treatment provided
for under the Agreement, a good is an originating good if--
(1) the good is a good wholly obtained or produced entirely
in the territory of Australia, the United States, or both;
(2) the good--
(A) is produced entirely in the territory of Australia, the
United States, or both, and--
(i) each of the nonoriginating materials used in the
production of the good undergoes an applicable change in
tariff classification specified in Annex 4-A or Annex 5-A of
the Agreement;
(ii) the good otherwise satisfies any applicable regional
value-content requirement referred to in Annex 5-A of the
Agreement; or
(iii) the good meets any other requirements specified in
Annex 4-A or Annex 5-A of the Agreement; and
(B) the good satisfies all other applicable requirements of
this section;
(3) the good is produced entirely in the territory of
Australia, the United States, or both, exclusively from
materials described in paragraph (1) or (2); or
(4) the good otherwise qualifies as an originating good
under this section.

[[Page H5693]]

(c) De Minimis Amounts of Nonoriginating Materials.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), a good that does not undergo a change in tariff
classification pursuant to Annex 5-A of the Agreement is an
originating good if--
(A) the value of all nonoriginating materials that--
(i) are used in the production of the good, and
(ii) do not undergo the required change in tariff
classification,

does not exceed 10 percent of the adjusted value of the good;
(B) the good meets all other applicable requirements of
this section; and
(C) the value of such nonoriginating materials is included
in the value of nonoriginating materials for any applicable
regional value-content requirement for the good.
(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the
following:
(A) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 4 of
the HTS or in subheading 1901.90 that is used in the
production of a good provided for in chapter 4 of the HTS.
(B) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 4 of
the HTS or in subheading 1901.90 that is used in the
production of a good provided for in subheading 1901.10,
1901.20, or 1901.90, heading 2105, or subheading 2106.90,
2202.90, or 2309.90.
(C) A nonoriginating material provided for in heading 0805
or any of subheadings 2009.11 through 2009.39 that is used in
the production of a good provided for in any of subheadings
2009.11 through 2009.39, or in subheading 2106.90 or 2202.90.
(D) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 15 of
the HTS that is used in the production of a good provided for
in any of headings 1501.00.00 through 1508, or in heading
1512, 1514, or 1515.
(E) A nonoriginating material provided for in heading 1701
that is used in the production of a good provided for in any
of headings 1701 through 1703.
(F) A nonoriginating material provided for in chapter 17 of
the HTS or heading 1805.00.00 that is used in the production
of a good provided for in subheading 1806.10.
(G) A nonoriginating material provided for in any of
headings 2203 through 2208 that is used in the production of
a good provided for in heading 2207 or 2208.
(H) A nonoriginating material used in the production of a
good provided for in any of chapters 1 through 21 of the HTS
unless the nonoriginating material is provided for in a
different subheading than the good for which origin is being
determined under this section.
(3) Textile and apparel goods.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a
textile or apparel good that is not an originating good
because certain fibers or yarns used in the production of the
component of the good that determines the tariff
classification of the good do not undergo an applicable
change in tariff classification set out in Annex 4-A of the
Agreement shall be considered to be an originating good if
the total weight of all such fibers or yarns in that
component is not more than 7 percent of the total weight of
that component.
(B) Certain textile or apparel goods.--A textile or apparel
good containing elastomeric yarns in the component of the
good that determines the tariff classification of the good
shall be considered to be an originating good only if such
yarns are wholly formed in the territory of Australia or the
United States.
(C) Yarn, fabric, or fiber.--For purposes of this
paragraph, in the case of a textile or apparel good that is a
yarn, fabric, or group of fibers, the term ``component of the
good that determines the tariff classification of the good''
means all of the fibers in the yarn, fabric, or group of
fibers.
(d) Accumulation.--
(1) Originating materials used in production of goods of
other country.--Originating materials from the territory of
Australia or the United States that are used in the
production of a good in the territory of the other country
shall be considered to originate in the territory of the
other country.
(2) Multiple procedures.--A good that is produced in the
territory of Australia, the United States, or both, by 1 or
more producers, is an originating good if the good satisfies
the requirements of subsection (b) and all other applicable
requirements of this section.
(e) Regional Value-Content.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (b)(2), the
regional value-content of a good referred to in Annex 5-A of
the Agreement, except for goods to which paragraph (4)
applies, shall be calculated by the importer, exporter, or
producer of the good, on the basis of the build-down method
described in paragraph (2) or the build-up method described
in paragraph (3).
(2) Build-down method.--
(A) In general.--The regional value-content of a good may
be calculated on the basis of the following build-down
method:

av-vnm

rvc = -------- 100

(B) Definitions.--In subparagraph (A):
(i) RVC.--The term ``RVC'' means the regional value-content
of the good, expressed as a percentage.
(ii) AV.--The term ``AV'' means the adjusted value of the
good.
(iii) VNM.--The term ``VNM'' means the value of
nonoriginating materials that are acquired and used by the
producer in the production of the good, but does not include
the value of a material that is self-produced.
(3) Build-up method.--
(A) In general.--The regional value-content of a good may
be calculated on the basis of the following build-up method:

vom

rvc = -------- 100

(B) Definitions.--In subparagraph (A):
(i) RVC.--The term ``RVC'' means the regional value-content
of the good, expressed as a percentage.
(ii) AV.--The term ``AV'' means the adjusted value of the
good.
(iii) VOM.--The term ``VOM'' means the value of originating
materials that are acquired or self-produced, and used by the
producer in the production of the good.
(4) Special rule for certain automotive goods.--
(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (b)(2), the
regional value-content of an automotive good referred to in
Annex 5-A of the Agreement shall be calculated by the
importer, exporter, or producer of the good, on the basis of
the following net cost method:

nc-vnm

rvc = -------- 100

(B) Definitions.--In subparagraph (A):
(i) Automotive good.--The term ``automotive good'' means a
good provided for in any of subheadings 8407.31 through
8407.34, subheading 8408.20, heading 8409, or in any of
headings 8701 through 8708.
(ii) RVC.--The term ``RVC'' means the regional value-
content of the automotive good, expressed as a percentage.
(iii) NC.--The term ``NC'' means the net cost of the
automotive good.
(iv) VNM.--The term ``VNM'' means the value of
nonoriginating materials that are acquired and used by the
producer in the production of the automotive good, but does
not include the value of a material that is self-produced.
(C) Motor vehicles.--
(i) Basis of calculation.--For purposes of determining the
regional value-content under subparagraph (A) for an
automotive good that is a motor vehicle provided for in any
of headings 8701 through 8705, an importer, exporter, or
producer may average the amounts calculated under the formula
contained in subparagraph (A), over the producer's fiscal
year--

(I) with respect to all motor vehicles in any one of the
categories described in clause (ii); or
(II) with respect to all motor vehicles in any such
category that are exported to the territory of the United
States or Australia.

(ii) Categories.--A category is described in this clause if
it--

(I) is the same model line of motor vehicles, is in the
same class of vehicles, and is produced in the same plant in
the territory of Australia or the United States, as the good
described in clause (i) for which regional value-content is
being calculated;
(II) is the same class of motor vehicles, and is produced
in the same plant in the territory of Australia or the United
States, as the good described in clause (i) for which
regional value-content is being calculated; or
(III) is the same model line of motor vehicles produced in
either the territory of Australia or the United States, as
the good described in clause (i) for which regional value-
content is being calculated.

(D) Other automotive goods.--For purposes of determining
the regional value-content under subparagraph (A) for
automotive goods provided for in any of subheadings 8407.31
through 8407.34, in subheading 8408.20, or in heading 8409,
8706, 8707, or 8708, that are produced in the same plant, an
importer, exporter, or producer may--
(i) average the amounts calculated under the formula
contained in subparagraph (A) over--

(I) the fiscal year of the motor vehicle producer to whom
the automotive goods are sold,
(II) any quarter or month, or
(III) its own fiscal year,

if the goods were produced during the fiscal year, quarter,
or month that is the basis for the calculation;
(ii) determine the average referred to in clause (i)
separately for such goods sold to one or more motor vehicle
producers; or
(iii) make a separate determination under clause (i) or
(ii) for automotive goods that are exported to the territory
of the United States or Australia.
(E) Calculating net cost.--Consistent with the provisions
regarding allocation of costs set out in generally accepted
accounting principles, the net cost of the automotive good
under subparagraph (B) shall be calculated by--
(i) calculating the total cost incurred with respect to all
goods produced by the producer of the automotive good,
subtracting any sales promotion, marketing and after-sales
service costs, royalties, shipping and packing costs, and
nonallowable interest costs that are included in the total
cost of all such goods, and then reasonably allocating the
resulting net cost of those goods to the automotive good;

[[Page H5694]]

(ii) calculating the total cost incurred with respect to
all goods produced by that producer, reasonably allocating
the total cost to the automotive good, and then subtracting
any sales promotion, marketing and after-sales service costs,
royalties, shipping and packing costs, and nonallowable
interest costs that are included in the portion of the total
cost allocated to the automotive good; or
(iii) reasonably allocating each cost that forms part of
the total cost incurred with respect to the automotive good
so that the aggregate of these costs does not include any
sales promotion, marketing and after-sales service costs,
royalties, shipping and packing costs, or nonallowable
interest costs.
(f) Value of Materials.--
(1) In general.--For the purpose of calculating the
regional value-content of a good under subsection (e), and
for purposes of applying the de minimis rules under
subsection (c), the value of a material is--
(A) in the case of a material that is imported by the
producer of the good, the adjusted value of the material;
(B) in the case of a material acquired in the territory in
which the good is produced, the value, determined in
accordance with Articles 1 through 8, article 15, and the
corresponding interpretive notes of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade 1994 referred to in section 101(d)(8) of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, as set forth in regulations
promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury providing for
the application of such Articles in the absence of an
importation; or
(C) in the case of a material that is self-produced, the
sum of--
(i) all expenses incurred in the production of the
material, including general expenses; and
(ii) an amount for profit equivalent to the profit added in
the normal course of trade.
(2) Further adjustments to the value of materials.--
(A) Originating material.--The following expenses, if not
included in the value of an originating material calculated
under paragraph (1), may be added to the value of the
originating material:
(i) The costs of freight, insurance, packing, and all other
costs incurred in transporting the material within or between
the territory of Australia, the United States, or both, to
the location of the producer.
(ii) Duties, taxes, and customs brokerage fees on the
material paid in the territory of Australia, the United
States, or both, other than duties or taxes that are waived,
refunded, refundable, or otherwise recoverable, including
credit against duty or tax paid or payable.
(iii) The cost of waste and spoilage resulting from the use
of the material in the production of the good, less the value
of renewable scrap or byproducts.
(B) Nonoriginating material.--The following expenses, if
included in the value of a nonoriginating material calculated
under paragraph (1), may be deducted from the value of the
nonoriginating material:
(i) The costs of freight, insurance, packing, and all other
costs incurred in transporting the material within or between
the territory of Australia, the United States, or both, to
the location of the producer.
(ii) Duties, taxes, and customs brokerage fees on the
material paid in the territory of Australia, the United
States, or both, other than duties or taxes that are waived,
refunded, refundable, or otherwise recoverable, including
credit against duty or tax paid or payable.
(iii) The cost of waste and spoilage resulting from the use
of the material in the production of the good, less the value
of renewable scrap or byproducts.
(iv) The cost of processing incurred in the territory of
Australia, the United States, or both, in the production of
the nonoriginating material.
(v) The cost of originating materials used in the
production of the nonoriginating material in the territory of
Australia, the United States, or both.
(g) Accessories, Spare Parts, or Tools.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), accessories,
spare parts, or tools delivered with a good that form part of
the good's standard accessories, spare parts, or tools
shall--
(A) be treated as originating goods if the good is an
originating good; and
(B) be disregarded in determining whether all the
nonoriginating materials used in the production of the good
undergo the applicable change in tariff classification set
out in Annex 5-A of the Agreement.
(2) Conditions.--Paragraph (1) shall apply only if--
(A) the accessories, spare parts, or tools are not invoiced
separately from the good;
(B) the quantities and value of the accessories, spare
parts, or tools are customary for the good; and
(C) if the good is subject to a regional value-content
requirement, the value of the accessories, spare parts, or
tools is taken into account as originating or nonoriginating
materials, as the case may be, in calculating the regional
value-content of the good.
(h) Fungible Goods and Materials.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Claim for preferential treatment.--A person claiming
that a fungible good or fungible material is an originating
good may base the claim either on the physical segregation of
the fungible good or fungible material or by using an
inventory management method with respect to the fungible good
or fungible material.
(B) Inventory management method.--In this subsection, the
term ``inventory management method'' means--
(i) averaging;
(ii) ``last-in, first-out'';
(iii) ``first-in, first-out''; or
(iv) any other method--

(I) recognized in the generally accepted accounting
principles of the country in which the production is
performed (whether Australia or the United States); or
(II) otherwise accepted by that country.

(2) Election of inventory method.--A person selecting an
inventory management method under paragraph (1) for a
particular fungible good or fungible material shall continue
to use that method for that fungible good or fungible
material throughout the fiscal year of that person.
(i) Packaging Materials and Containers for Retail Sale.--
Packaging materials and containers in which a good is
packaged for retail sale, if classified with the good, shall
be disregarded in determining whether all the nonoriginating
materials used in the production of the good undergo the
applicable change in tariff classification set out in Annex
4-A or Annex 5-A of the Agreement, and, if the good is
subject to a regional value-content requirement, the value of
such packaging materials and containers shall be taken into
account as originating or nonoriginating materials, as the
case may be, in calculating the regional value-content of the
good.
(j) Packing Materials and Containers for Shipment.--Packing
materials and containers for shipment shall be disregarded in
determining whether--
(1) the nonoriginating materials used in the production of
a good undergo the applicable change in tariff classification
set out in Annex 4-A or Annex 5-A of the Agreement; and
(2) the good satisfies a regional value-content
requirement.
(k) Indirect Materials.--An indirect material shall be
treated as an originating material without regard to where it
is produced, and its value shall be the cost registered in
the accounting records of the producer of the good.
(l) Third Country Operations.--A good that has undergone
production necessary to qualify as an originating good under
subsection (b) shall not be considered to be an originating
good if, subsequent to that production, the good undergoes
further production or any other operation outside the
territory of Australia or the United States, other than
unloading, reloading, or any other operation necessary to
preserve the good in good condition or to transport the good
to the territory of Australia or the United States.
(m) Textile and Apparel Goods Classifiable as Goods Put Up
in Sets.--Notwithstanding the rules set forth in Annex 4-A of
the Agreement, textile or apparel goods classifiable as goods
put up in sets for retail sale as provided for in General
Rule of Interpretation 3 of the HTS shall not be considered
to be originating goods unless each of the goods in the set
is an originating good or the total value of the
nonoriginating goods in the set does not exceed 10 percent of
the value of the set determined for purposes of assessing
customs duties.
(n) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Adjusted value.--The term ``adjusted value'' means the
value determined under Articles 1 through 8, Article 15, and
the corresponding interpretive notes of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade 1994 referred to in section 101(d)(8) of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, adjusted to exclude any
costs, charges, or expenses incurred for transportation,
insurance, and related services incident to the
international shipment of the good from the country of
exportation to the place of importation.
(2) Class of motor vehicles.--The term ``class of motor
vehicles'' means any one of the following categories of motor
vehicles:
(A) Motor vehicles provided for in subheading 8701.20,
8704.10, 8704.22, 8704.23, 8704.32, or 8704.90, or heading
8705 or 8706, or motor vehicles for the transport of 16 or
more persons provided for in subheading 8702.10 or 8702.90.
(B) Motor vehicles provided for in subheading 8701.10 or
any of subheadings 8701.30 through 8701.90.
(C) Motor vehicles for the transport of 15 or fewer persons
provided for in subheading 8702.10 or 8702.90, or motor
vehicles provided for in subheading 8704.21 or 8704.31.
(D) Motor vehicles provided for in any of subheadings
8703.21 through 8703.90.
(3) Fungible good or fungible material.--The term
``fungible good'' or ``fungible material'' means a good or
material, as the case may be, that is interchangeable with
another good or material for commercial purposes and the
properties of which are essentially identical to such other
good or material.
(4) Generally accepted accounting principles.--The term
``generally accepted accounting principles'' means the
recognized consensus or substantial authoritative support in
the territory of Australia or the United States, as the case
may be, with respect to the recording of revenues, expenses,
costs, assets, and liabilities, the disclosure of
information, and the preparation of financial statements.
These standards may encompass broad guidelines of general
application as well as detailed standards, practices, and
procedures.

[[Page H5695]]

(5) Good wholly obtained or produced entirely in the
territory of australia, the united states, or both.--The term
``good wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory
of Australia, the United States, or both'' means--
(A) a mineral good extracted in the territory of Australia,
the United States, or both;
(B) a vegetable good, as such goods are provided for in the
HTS, harvested in the territory of Australia, the United
States, or both;
(C) a live animal born and raised in the territory of
Australia, the United States, or both;
(D) a good obtained from hunting, trapping, fishing, or
aquaculture conducted in the territory of Australia, the
United States, or both;
(E) a good (fish, shellfish, and other marine life) taken
from the sea by vessels registered or recorded with Australia
or the United States and flying the flag of that country;
(F) a good produced exclusively from products referred to
in subparagraph (E) on board factory ships registered or
recorded with Australia or the United States and flying the
flag of that country;
(G) a good taken by Australia or the United States or a
person of Australia or the United States from the seabed or
beneath the seabed outside territorial waters, if Australia
or the United States has rights to exploit such seabed;
(H) a good taken from outer space, if such good is obtained
by Australia or the United States or a person of Australia or
the United States and not processed in the territory of a
country other than Australia or the United States;
(I) waste and scrap derived from--
(i) production in the territory of Australia, the United
States, or both; or
(ii) used goods collected in the territory of Australia,
the United States, or both, if such goods are fit only for
the recovery of raw materials;
(J) a recovered good derived in the territory of Australia
or the United States from goods that have passed their life
expectancy, or are no longer usable due to defects, and
utilized in the territory of that country in the production
of remanufactured goods; or
(K) a good produced in the territory of Australia, the
United States, or both, exclusively--
(i) from goods referred to in any of subparagraphs (A)
through (I), or
(ii) from the derivatives of goods referred to in clause
(i),
at any stage of production.
(6) Indirect material.--The term ``indirect material''
means a good used in the production, testing, or inspection
of a good but not physically incorporated into the good, or a
good used in the maintenance of buildings or the operation of
equipment associated with the production of a good,
including--
(A) fuel and energy;
(B) tools, dies, and molds;
(C) spare parts and materials used in the maintenance of
equipment or buildings;
(D) lubricants, greases, compounding materials, and other
materials used in production or used to operate equipment or
buildings;
(E) gloves, glasses, footwear, clothing, safety equipment,
and supplies;
(F) equipment, devices, and supplies used for testing or
inspecting the good;
(G) catalysts and solvents; and
(H) any other goods that are not incorporated into the good
but the use of which in the production of the good can
reasonably be demonstrated to be a part of that production.
(7) Material.--The term ``material'' means a good that is
used in the production of another good.
(8) Material that is self-produced.--The term ``material
that is self-produced'' means an originating material that is
produced by a producer of a good and used in the production
of that good.
(9) Model line.--The term ``model line'' means a group of
motor vehicles having the same platform or model name.
(10) Nonallowable interest costs.--The term ``nonallowable
interest costs'' means interest costs incurred by a producer
that exceed 700 basis points above the applicable official
interest rate for comparable maturities of the country
(whether Australia or the United States).
(11) Nonoriginating material.--The term ``nonoriginating
material'' means a material that does not qualify as
originating under this section.
(12) Preferential treatment.--The term ``preferential
treatment'' means the customs duty rate, and the treatment
under article 2.12 of the Agreement, that are applicable to
an originating good pursuant to the Agreement.
(13) Producer.--The term ``producer'' means a person who
engages in the production of a good in the territory of
Australia or the United States.
(14) Production.--The term ``production'' means growing,
raising, mining, harvesting, fishing, trapping, hunting,
manufacturing, processing, assembling, or disassembling a
good.
(15) Reasonably allocate.--The term ``reasonably allocate''
means to apportion in a manner that would be appropriate
under generally accepted accounting principles.
(16) Recovered goods.--The term ``recovered goods'' means
materials in the form of individual parts that result from--
(A) the complete disassembly of goods which have passed
their life expectancy, or are no longer usable due to
defects, into individual parts; and
(B) the cleaning, inspecting, or testing, or other
processing that is necessary for improvement to sound working
condition of such individual parts.
(17) Remanufactured good.--The term ``remanufactured good''
means an industrial good that is assembled in the territory
of Australia or the United States, that is classified under
chapter 84, 85, or 87 of the HTS or heading 9026, 9031, or
9032, other than a good classified under heading 8418 or 8516
or any of headings 8701 through 8706, and that--
(A) is entirely or partially comprised of recovered goods;
(B) has a similar life expectancy to, and meets the same
performance standards as, a like good that is new; and
(C) enjoys a factory warranty similar to a like good that
is new.
(18) Total cost.--The term ``total cost'' means all product
costs, period costs, and other costs for a good incurred in
the territory of Australia, the United States, or both.
(19) Used.--The term ``used'' means used or consumed in the
production of goods.
(o) Presidential Proclamation Authority.--
(1) In general.--The President is authorized to proclaim,
as part of the HTS--
(A) the provisions set out in Annex 4-A and Annex 5-A of
the Agreement; and
(B) any additional subordinate category necessary to carry
out this title consistent with the Agreement.
(2) Modifications.--
(A) In general.--Subject to the consultation and layover
provisions of section 104, the President may proclaim
modifications to the provisions proclaimed under the
authority of paragraph (1)(A), other than provisions of
chapters 50 through 63 of the HTS, as included in Annex 4-A
of the Agreement.
(B) Additional proclamations.--Notwithstanding subparagraph
(A), and subject to the consultation and layover provisions
of section 104, the President may proclaim--
(i) modifications to the provisions proclaimed under the
authority of paragraph (1)(A) as are necessary to implement
an agreement with Australia pursuant to article 4.2.5 of the
Agreement; and
(ii) before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act, modifications to correct
any typographical, clerical, or other nonsubstantive
technical error regarding the provisions of chapters 50
through 63 of the HTS, as included in Annex 4-A of the
Agreement.

SEC. 204. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

Section 13031(b) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(b)) is amended by
adding after paragraph (13) the following:
``(14) No fee may be charged under subsection (a) (9) or
(10) with respect to goods that qualify as originating goods
under section 203 of the United States-Australia Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act. Any service for which an
exemption from such fee is provided by reason of this
paragraph may not be funded with money contained in the
Customs User Fee Account.''.

SEC. 205. DISCLOSURE OF INCORRECT INFORMATION.

Section 592(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1592(c)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (9); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new
paragraph:
``(8) Prior disclosure regarding claims under the united
states-australia free trade agreement.--
``(A) In general.--An importer shall not be subject to
penalties under subsection (a) for making an incorrect claim
that a good qualifies as an originating good under section
203 of the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act if the importer, in accordance with
regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury,
voluntarily and promptly makes a corrected declaration and
pays any duties owing.
``(B) Time periods for making corrections.--In the
regulations referred to in subparagraph (A), the Secretary of
the Treasury is authorized to prescribe time periods for
making a corrected declaration and paying duties owing under
subparagraph (A), if such periods are not shorter than 1 year
following the date on which the importer makes the incorrect
claim.''.

SEC. 206. ENFORCEMENT RELATING TO TRADE IN TEXTILE AND
APPAREL GOODS.

(a) Action During Verification.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary of the Treasury requests
the Government of Australia to conduct a verification
pursuant to article 4.3 of the Agreement for purposes of
making a determination under paragraph (2), the President may
direct the Secretary to take appropriate action described in
subsection (b) while the verification is being conducted.
(2) Determination.--A determination under this paragraph is
a determination--
(A) that an exporter or producer in Australia is complying
with applicable customs laws, regulations, procedures,
requirements, or practices affecting trade in textile or
apparel goods; or
(B) that a claim that a textile or apparel good exported or
produced by such exporter or producer--
(i) qualifies as an originating good under section 203 of
this Act; or
(ii) is a good of Australia,
is accurate.

[[Page H5696]]

(b) Appropriate Action Described.--Appropriate action under
subsection (a)(1) includes--
(1) suspension of liquidation of the entry of any textile
or apparel good exported or produced by the person that is
the subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1)
regarding compliance described in subsection (a)(2)(A), in a
case in which the request for verification was based on a
reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity related to such
goods; and
(2) suspension of liquidation of the entry of a textile or
apparel good for which a claim has been made that is the
subject of a verification under subsection (a)(1) regarding a
claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B).
(c) Action When Information is Insufficient.--If the
Secretary of the Treasury determines that the information
obtained within 12 months after making a request for a
verification under subsection (a)(1) is insufficient to make
a determination under subsection (a)(2), the President may
direct the Secretary to take appropriate action described in
subsection (d) until such time as the Secretary receives
information sufficient to make a determination under
subsection (a)(2) or until such earlier date as the President
may direct.
(d) Appropriate Action Described.--Appropriate action
referred to in subsection (c) includes--
(1) publication of the name and address of the person that
is the subject of the verification;
(2) denial of preferential tariff treatment under the
Agreement to--
(A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the
person that is the subject of a verification under subsection
(a)(1) regarding compliance described in subsection
(a)(2)(A); or
(B) a textile or apparel good for which a claim has been
made that is the subject of a verification under subsection
(a)(1) regarding a claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B);
and
(3) denial of entry into the United States of--
(A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the
person that is the subject of a verification under subsection
(a)(1) regarding compliance described in subsection
(a)(2)(A); or
(B) a textile or apparel good for which a claim has been
made that is the subject of a verification under subsection
(a)(1) regarding a claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B).

SEC. 207. REGULATIONS.

The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out--
(1) subsections (a) through (n) of section 203 and section
204;
(2) amendments to existing law made by the sections
referred to in paragraph (1); and
(3) proclamations issued under section 203(o).

TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS

SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this title:
(1) Australian article.--The term ``Australian article''
means an article that qualifies as an originating good under
section 203(b) of this Act.
(2) Australian textile or apparel article.--The term
``Australian textile or apparel article'' means an article--
(A) that is listed in the Annex to the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)); and
(B) that is an Australian article.
(3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the United
States International Trade Commission.

Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement

SEC. 311. COMMENCING OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.

(a) Filing of Petition.--
(1) In general.--A petition requesting action under this
subtitle for the purpose of adjusting to the obligations of
the United States under the Agreement may be filed with the
Commission by an entity, including a trade association, firm,
certified or recognized union, or group of workers, that is
representative of an industry. The Commission shall transmit
a copy of any petition filed under this subsection to the
United States Trade Representative.
(2) Provisional relief.--An entity filing a petition under
this subsection may request that provisional relief be
provided as if the petition had been filed under section
202(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252(a)).
(3) Critical circumstances.--Any allegation that critical
circumstances exist shall be included in the petition.
(b) Investigation and Determination.--Upon the filing of a
petition under subsection (a), the Commission, unless
subsection (d) applies, shall promptly initiate an
investigation to determine whether, as a result of the
reduction or elimination of a duty provided for under the
Agreement, an Australian article is being imported into the
United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms
or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions
that imports of the Australian article constitute a
substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof to the
domestic industry producing an article that is like, or
directly competitive with, the imported article.
(c) Applicable Provisions.--The following provisions of
section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) apply
with respect to any investigation initiated under subsection
(b):
(1) Paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) of subsection (b).
(2) Subsection (c).
(3) Subsection (d).
(4) Subsection (i).
(d) Articles Exempt From Investigation.--No investigation
may be initiated under this section with respect to any
Australian article if, after the date on which the Agreement
enters into force, import relief has been provided with
respect to that Australian article under this subtitle.

SEC. 312. COMMISSION ACTION ON PETITION.

(a) Determination.--Not later than 120 days (180 days if
critical circumstances have been alleged) after the date on
which an investigation is initiated under section 311(b) with
respect to a petition, the Commission shall make the
determination required under that section.
(b) Applicable Provisions.--For purposes of this subtitle,
the provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section
330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d) (1), (2),
and (3)) shall be applied with respect to determinations and
findings made under this section as if such determinations
and findings were made under section 202 of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252).
(c) Additional Finding and Recommendation if Determination
Affirmative.--If the determination made by the Commission
under subsection (a) with respect to imports of an article is
affirmative, or if the President may consider a determination
of the Commission to be an affirmative determination as
provided for under paragraph (1) of section 330(d) of the
Tariff Act of 1930) (19 U.S.C. 1330(d)), the Commission shall
find, and recommend to the President in the report required
under subsection (d), the amount of import relief that is
necessary to remedy or prevent the injury found by the
Commission in the determination and to facilitate the efforts
of the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to
import competition. The import relief recommended by the
Commission under this subsection shall be limited to that
described in section 313(c). Only those members of the
Commission who voted in the affirmative under subsection (a)
are eligible to vote on the proposed action to remedy or
prevent the injury found by the Commission. Members of the
Commission who did not vote in the affirmative may submit, in
the report required under subsection (d), separate views
regarding what action, if any, should be taken to remedy or
prevent the injury.
(d) Report to President.--Not later than the date that is
30 days after the date on which a determination is made under
subsection (a) with respect to an investigation, the
Commission shall submit to the President a report that
includes--
(1) the determination made under subsection (a) and an
explanation of the basis for the determination;
(2) if the determination under subsection (a) is
affirmative, any findings and recommendations for import
relief made under subsection (c) and an explanation of the
basis for each recommendation; and
(3) any dissenting or separate views by members of the
Commission regarding the determination and recommendation
referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2).
(e) Public Notice.--Upon submitting a report to the
President under subsection (d), the Commission shall promptly
make public such report (with the exception of information
which the Commission determines to be confidential) and shall
cause a summary thereof to be published in the Federal
Register.

SEC. 313. PROVISION OF RELIEF.

(a) In General.--Not later than the date that is 30 days
after the date on which the President receives the report of
the Commission in which the Commission's determination under
section 312(a) is affirmative, or which contains a
determination under section 312(a) that the President
considers to be affirmative under paragraph (1) of section
330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d)(1)), the
President, subject to subsection (b), shall provide relief
from imports of the article that is the subject of such
determination to the extent that the President determines
necessary to remedy or prevent the injury found by the
Commission and to facilitate the efforts of the domestic
industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition.
(b) Exception.--The President is not required to provide
import relief under this section if the President determines
that the provision of the import relief will not provide
greater economic and social benefits than costs.
(c) Nature of Relief.--
(1) In general.--The import relief (including provisional
relief) that the President is authorized to provide under
this section with respect to imports of an article is as
follows:
(A) The suspension of any further reduction provided for
under Annex 2-B of the Agreement in the duty imposed on such
article.
(B) An increase in the rate of duty imposed on such article
to a level that does not exceed the lesser of--
(i) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS
on like articles at the time the import relief is provided;
or
(ii) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the
HTS on like articles on the day before the date on which the
Agreement enters into force.
(C) In the case of a duty applied on a seasonal basis to
such article, an increase in the

[[Page H5697]]

rate of duty imposed on the article to a level that does not
exceed the lesser of--
(i) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS
on like articles for the immediately preceding corresponding
season; or
(ii) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the
HTS on like articles on the day before the date on which the
Agreement enters into force.
(2) Progressive liberalization.--If the period for which
import relief is provided under this section is greater than
1 year, the President shall provide for the progressive
liberalization (described in article 9.2.7 of the Agreement)
of such relief at regular intervals during the period in
which the relief is in effect.
(d) Period of Relief.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), any import
relief that the President provides under this section may not
be in effect for more than 2 years.
(2) Extension.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the
President, after receiving an affirmative determination from
the Commission under subparagraph (B), may extend the
effective period of any import relief provided under this
section if the President determines that--
(i) the import relief continues to be necessary to remedy
or prevent serious injury and to facilitate adjustment by the
domestic industry to import competition; and
(ii) there is evidence that the industry is making a
positive adjustment to import competition.
(B) Action by commission.--(i) Upon a petition on behalf of
the industry concerned that is filed with the Commission not
earlier than the date which is 9 months, and not later than
the date which is 6 months, before the date any action taken
under subsection (a) is to terminate, the Commission shall
conduct an investigation to determine whether action under
this section continues to be necessary to remedy or prevent
serious injury and whether there is evidence that the
industry is making a positive adjustment to import
competition.
(ii) The Commission shall publish notice of the
commencement of any proceeding under this subparagraph in the
Federal Register and shall, within a reasonable time
thereafter, hold a public hearing at which the Commission
shall afford interested parties and consumers an opportunity
to be present, to present evidence, and to respond to the
presentations of other parties and consumers, and otherwise
to be heard.
(iii) The Commission shall transmit to the President a
report on its investigation and determination under this
subparagraph not later than 60 days before the action under
subsection (a) is to terminate, unless the President
specifies a different date.
(C) Period of import relief.--Any import relief provided
under this section, including any extensions thereof, may
not, in the aggregate, be in effect for more than 4 years.
(e) Rate After Termination of Import Relief.--When import
relief under this section is terminated with respect to an
article--
(1) the rate of duty on that article after such termination
and on or before December 31 of the year in which such
termination occurs shall be the rate that, according to the
Schedule of the United States to Annex 2-B of the Agreement
for the staged elimination of the tariff, would have been in
effect 1 year after the provision of relief under subsection
(a); and
(2) the rate of duty for that article after December 31 of
the year in which termination occurs shall be, at the
discretion of the President, either--
(A) the applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty for that article
set out in the Schedule of the United States to Annex 2-B of
the Agreement; or
(B) the rate of duty resulting from the elimination of the
tariff in equal annual stages ending on the date set out in
the Schedule of the United States to Annex 2-B of the
Agreement for the elimination of the tariff.
(f) Articles Exempt From Relief.--No import relief may be
provided under this section on any article that--
(1) is subject to--
(A) import relief under subtitle B; or
(B) an assessment of additional duty under subsection (b),
(c), or (d) of section 202; or
(2) has been subject to import relief under this subtitle
after the date on which the Agreement enters into force.

SEC. 314. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.

(a) General Rule.--Subject to subsection (b), no import
relief may be provided under this subtitle after the date
that is 10 years after the date on which the Agreement enters
into force.
(b) Exception.--If an article for which relief is provided
under this subtitle is an article for which the period for
tariff elimination, set out in the Schedule of the United
States to Annex 2-B of the Agreement, is greater than 10
years, no relief under this subtitle may be provided for
that article after the date on which such period ends.
(c) Presidential Determination.--Import relief may be
provided under this subtitle in the case of an Australian
article after the date on which such relief would, but for
this subsection, terminate under subsection (a) or (b), if
the President determines that Australia has consented to such
relief.

SEC. 315. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President
under section 313 shall be treated as action taken under
chapter 1 of title II of such Act.

SEC. 316. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION.

Section 202(a)(8) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2252(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence--
(1) by striking ``and''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end ``, and title
III of the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act''.

Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures

SEC. 321. COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.

(a) In General.--A request under this subtitle for the
purpose of adjusting to the obligations of the United States
under the Agreement may be filed with the President by an
interested party. Upon the filing of a request, the President
shall review the request to determine, from information
presented in the request, whether to commence consideration
of the request.
(b) Allegation of Critical Circumstances.--An interested
party filing a request under this section may--
(1) allege that critical circumstances exist such that
delay in the provision of relief would cause damage that
would be difficult to repair; and
(2) based on such allegation, request that relief be
provided on a provisional basis.
(c) Publication of Request.--If the President determines
that the request under subsection (a) provides the
information necessary for the request to be considered, the
President shall cause to be published in the Federal Register
a notice of commencement of consideration of the request, and
notice seeking public comments regarding the request. The
notice shall include a summary of the request and the dates
by which comments and rebuttals must be received.

SEC. 322. DETERMINATION AND PROVISION OF RELIEF.

(a) Determination.--
(1) In general.--If a positive determination is made under
section 321(c), the President shall determine whether, as a
result of the reduction or elimination of a duty under the
Agreement, an Australian textile or apparel article is being
imported into the United States in such increased quantities,
in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that
article, and under such conditions as to cause serious
damage, or actual threat thereof, to a domestic industry
producing an article that is like, or directly competitive
with, the imported article.
(2) Serious damage.--In making a determination under
paragraph (1), the President--
(A) shall examine the effect of increased imports on the
domestic industry, as reflected in changes in such relevant
economic factors as output, productivity, utilization of
capacity, inventories, market share, exports, wages,
employment, domestic prices, profits, and investment, none of
which is necessarily decisive; and
(B) shall not consider changes in technology or consumer
preference as factors supporting a determination of serious
damage or actual threat thereof.
(b) Provision of Relief.--
(1) In general.--If a determination under subsection (a) is
affirmative, the President may provide relief from imports of
the article that is the subject of such determination, as
described in paragraph (2), to the extent that the President
determines necessary to remedy or prevent the serious damage
and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic industry to
import competition.
(2) Nature of relief.--The relief that the President is
authorized to provide under this subsection with respect to
imports of an article is an increase in the rate of duty
imposed on the article to a level that does not exceed the
lesser of--
(A) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS
on like articles at the time the import relief is provided;
or
(B) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS
on like articles on the day before the date on which the
Agreement enters into force.
(c) Critical Circumstances.--
(1) Presidential determination.--When a request filed under
section 321(a) contains an allegation of critical
circumstances and a request for provisional relief under
section 321(b), the President shall, not later than 60 days
after the request is filed, determine, on the basis of
available information, whether--
(A) there is clear evidence that--
(i) imports from Australia have increased as the result of
the reduction or elimination of a customs duty under the
Agreement; and
(ii) such imports are causing serious damage, or actual
threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article
like or directly competitive with the imported article; and
(B) delay in taking action under this subtitle would cause
damage to that industry that would be difficult to repair.
(2) Extent of provisional relief.--If the determinations
under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) are
affirmative, the President shall determine the extent of
provisional relief that is necessary to remedy or prevent the
serious damage. The nature of the provisional relief
available shall be the relief described in subsection (b)(2).
Within 30 days after making affirmative determinations under
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1), the President, if
the President considers provisional relief to be warranted,

[[Page H5698]]

shall provide, for a period not to exceed 200 days, such
provisional relief that the President considers necessary
to remedy or prevent the serious damage.
(3) Suspension of liquidation.--If provisional relief is
provided under paragraph (2), the President shall order the
suspension of liquidation of all imported articles subject to
the affirmative determinations under subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (1) that are entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption, on or after the date of the
determinations.
(4) Termination of provisional relief.--
(A) In general.--Any provisional relief implemented under
this subsection with respect to an imported article shall
terminate on the day on which--
(i) the President makes a negative determination under
subsection (a) regarding serious damage or actual threat
thereof by imports of such article;
(ii) action described in subsection (b) takes effect with
respect to such article;
(iii) a decision by the President not to take any action
under subsection (b) with respect to such article becomes
final; or
(iv) the President determines that, because of changed
circumstances, such relief is no longer warranted.
(B) Suspension of liquidation.--Any suspension of
liquidation ordered under paragraph (3) with respect to an
imported article shall terminate on the day on which
provisional relief is terminated under subparagraph (A) with
respect to the article.
(C) Rates of duty.--If an increase in, or the imposition
of, a duty that is provided under subsection (b) on an
imported article is different from a duty increase or
imposition that was provided for such an article under this
subsection, then the entry of any such article for which
liquidation was suspended under paragraph (3) shall be
liquidated at whichever of such rates of duty is lower.
(D) Rate of duty if provisional relief.--If provisional
relief is provided under this subsection with respect to an
imported article and neither a duty increase nor a duty
imposition is provided under subsection (b) for such article,
the entry of any such article for which liquidation was
suspended under paragraph (3) shall be liquidated at the rate
of duty that applied before the provisional relief was
provided.

SEC. 323. PERIOD OF RELIEF.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the import
relief that the President provides under subsections (b) and
(c) of section 322 may not, in the aggregate, be in effect
for more than 2 years.
(b) Extension.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the President
may extend the effective period of any import relief provided
under this subtitle for a period of not more than 2 years, if
the President determines that--
(A) the import relief continues to be necessary to remedy
or prevent serious damage and to facilitate adjustment by the
domestic industry to import competition; and
(B) there is evidence that the industry is making a
positive adjustment to import competition.
(2) Limitation.--Any relief provided under this subtitle,
including any extensions thereof, may not, in the aggregate,
be in effect for more than 4 years.

SEC. 324. ARTICLES EXEMPT FROM RELIEF.

The President may not provide import relief under this
subtitle with respect to any article if--
(1) import relief previously has been provided under this
subtitle with respect to that article; or
(2) the article is subject to import relief under--
(A) subtitle A; or
(B) chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).

SEC. 325. RATE AFTER TERMINATION OF IMPORT RELIEF.

When import relief under this subtitle is terminated with
respect to an article, the rate of duty on that article shall
be the rate that would have been in effect, but for the
provision of such relief, on the date the relief terminates.

SEC. 326. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.

No import relief may be provided under this subtitle with
respect to any article after the date that is 10 years after
the date on which duties on the article are eliminated
pursuant to the Agreement.

SEC. 327. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President
under this subtitle shall be treated as action taken under
chapter 1 of title II of such Act.

SEC. 328. BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

The President may not release information which is
submitted in a proceeding under this subtitle and which the
President considers to be confidential business information
unless the party submitting the confidential business
information had notice, at the time of submission, that such
information would be released, or such party subsequently
consents to the release of the information. To the extent a
party submits confidential business information to the
President in a proceeding under this subtitle, the party also
shall submit a nonconfidential version of the information, in
which the confidential business information is summarized or,
if necessary, deleted.

Subtitle C--Cases Under Title II of the Trade Act of 1974

SEC. 331. FINDINGS AND ACTION ON GOODS FROM AUSTRALIA.

(a) Effect of Imports.--If, in any investigation initiated
under chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2251 et seq.), the Commission makes an affirmative
determination (or a determination which the President may
treat as an affirmative determination under such chapter by
reason of section 330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930), the
Commission shall also find (and report to the President at
the time such injury determination is submitted to the
President) whether imports of the article from Australia are
a substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof.
(b) Presidential Determination Regarding Australian
Imports.--In determining the nature and extent of action to
be taken under chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of
1974, the President shall determine whether imports from
Australia are a substantial cause of the serious injury or
threat thereof found by the Commission and, if such
determination is in the negative, may exclude from such
action imports from Australia.

TITLE IV--PROCUREMENT

SEC. 401. ELIGIBLE PRODUCTS.

Section 308(4)(A) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19
U.S.C. 2518(4)(A)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
(2) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) a party to a free trade agreement that entered into
force with respect to the United States after December 31,
2003, and before January 2, 2005, a product or service of
that country or instrumentality which is covered under the
free trade agreement for procurement by the United States.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to the
rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4759, which is
the instrument that implements the United States-Australian Free Trade
Agreement.
This particular Free Trade Agreement is good, it is solid, it will
benefit American workers, farmers, consumers, businesses, and the U.S.
economy. It brings the United States and Australia closer together
economically. No two countries in the world are closer in terms of
their views of the world, especially in terms of strategic military
concerns; and, frankly, as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means,
this agreement, in my opinion, is long overdue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade; and I
ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois control the
remainder of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark) will control the minority time.
There was no objection.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of my time to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and I ask unanimous consent that
he be allowed to yield such time as he sees fit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am in opposition to H.R. 4759, Mr. Speaker. It deals with issues of
credibility, and it deals primarily with issues of pharmaceutical drugs
and the possibility of reimportation, an issue dear to the hearts of
many of the seniors in this country who are paying outrageous prices
and are not being helped by the recent Republican pharmaceutical
benefit.
We have been repeatedly either lied to or have had information
withheld. I know many of my colleagues are aware that the actuaries in
CMS knew that the drug bill was going to cost closer to $500 billion,
or $550 billion rather than the $400 billion which was promised. That
information was withheld.
For those of my colleagues who read The New York Times this morning,

[[Page H5699]]

they are aware of further withholding of information on the part of the
Republicans. I guess it is not a lie, but I only bring it up at this
point to indicate that I do not think we can trust any statements as to
what the trade negotiator or trade representative may or may not be
negotiating with Australia and what their intention is in the future.
We were told by OMB in the pharmaceutical drug bill that 2.4 million
employees would lose their retiree prescription benefits when we voted
for this last pharmaceutical bill under Medicare. Well, guess what?
Just earlier this week, we received from the CMS, another branch of the
administration, a memo showing that 3.8 million workers will lose their
drug benefits as a result of the Republican drug bill. A mere mistake
of 1.4 million Americans who are going to lose drug benefits after we
were opportuned to pass that bill with the idea that only 2.4 million
would lose coverage.
Now my colleagues may or may not care about another almost 1.5
million workers being denied their retirement drug benefits, I know the
Democrats do, but I raise these two issues, a difference of almost $200
billion low-balling us on the cost of a drug bill and then
subsequently, just today, finding out that 1.5 million more workers are
going to lose their benefits. Now how can we depend on the
administration to tell us anything straight that is in this trade bill?
I get now to my point. We are concerned that intellectual property
language allows pharmaceutical manufacturers to contractually prohibit
reimportation of prescription drugs from Australia. We know that. Once
we approve this language, any attempt to pass reimportation language
will immediately run afoul of the Australian Free Trade Agreement. This
is not just about the U.S. and Australia. This is a bill that was
engineered by the pharmacy lobby.
Let me point out, when the trade representatives met, they have a
board, there were 15 members of the pharmaceutical industry sitting
down to advise the trade representative and not one representative of
the consumer community. What does that tell us? It tells us that
certainly the trade representative representing the administration can
undermine the will of the people in this country and the majority of
Congress through trade negotiation power over which we are powerless to
change after we vote today.
The last time that I checked, reimportation of pharmaceutical drugs
was a domestic health policy issue that should be debated in Congress,
and we should be making domestic health policy in this Chamber, not the
U.S. Trade Representative.
Now, the trade representative is promising to use this language over
and over again in future free trade agreements, and eventually it is
going to come back to haunt us.
Now I have no doubt that the trade representative knows how to
negotiate free trade, but I have a real question if he has any interest
in protecting the health care of American citizens. Not only have we
given PhRMA the keys to the kingdom, we are now letting them pillage
their way through our health care programs.
In a brief moment of honesty, the U.S. Trade Representative admitted
that transparency requirements in annex 2(c) of the Fair Trade
Agreement actually do apply to a Medicare Part B drug reimbursement
decision. In its current form, the proposed change to an average sales
price reimbursement system does not meet the transparency requirements
of the FTA, it opens the door to challenges, and it frustrates the
ability of this body to pass reasonable, safe reimportation that will
lower the cost of drugs for our senior citizens by, in many cases, 50
percent, far more than the mere 5 or 10 percent that this cockamamie
Buck Rogers discount card that the administration has brought out.
So we are here with a subtle underlying problem, and that is the
health care of 42 million seniors in this country, and now it turns out
almost 4 million more employed Medicare beneficiaries or people who are
receiving their benefits as retirees, and we cannot sell them down the
river, Mr. Speaker. That is not the right thing to do.
We could argue the trade bill all day long, take some of these things
out, and it is probably all right, but it is engineered not to be
amended. We were not allowed to amend it in markup in committee, we
cannot amend it here on the floor, it is up or down. So our only choice
is to vote it down, send it back to the committee, do it right, and
then proceed.
So I urge a no vote.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and ask unanimous consent that he be
allowed to yield that time as he sees fit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to remind my colleague that we can get into the debate on
reimportation of drugs at some time when it is relevant, because it has
no application to this agreement.
I am pleased that the House today will pass the long-overdue U.S.-
Australia Free Trade Agreement. I applaud the efforts of President Bush
and the USTR in negotiating an agreement that opens markets for U.S.
exports by eliminating tariffs, reducing nontariff barriers, opening
services markets, and strengthening intellectual property protections.
This is an important agreement. The U.S. enjoys a $9 billion trade
surplus with Australia, and Australia is our ninth largest goods export
market. Australian firms in the U.S. employ about 85,000 Americans, and
it is estimated that U.S. exports to Australia support more than
150,000 U.S. jobs. Under the terms of this agreement, over 99 percent
of U.S. exports of industrial goods to Australia will become duty-free
immediately. U.S. manufacturers estimate that the elimination of
tariffs could result in nearly $2 billion per year in increased U.S.
exports of manufactured goods.
This agreement also gives our farmers new opportunities. All U.S.
agricultural exports to Australia totaling more than $400 million will
receive immediate duty-free access. Key agricultural products that will
benefit from immediate tariff elimination include soybeans and oilseed
products, fresh and processed fruits, vegetables and nuts, and pork
products. Our dairy farmers also will have immediate access to the
Australian market.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement is also very important to my State of
Illinois, which is home to companies including Caterpillar, Boeing,
Motorola, Abbott Labs, and Zurich Life. Illinois exports to Australia
directly support approximately 4,400 jobs in the State of Illinois.
Additionally, there are 20 Australian-owned companies in Illinois,
employing over 2,000 people. Nine hundred of these positions are
manufacturing jobs. Trade with Australia supports numerous other high-
paying jobs in areas such as transportation, finance, and advertising;
and between 1999 and 2003, Illinois exports to Australia grew by 12
percent. This Free Trade Agreement means more jobs, better jobs, and
higher-paying jobs in Illinois and America.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, it has been my privilege to
have been involved in the completion of this trade agreement, and I
thank my colleagues who worked so hard to make this a reality.
I would also like to express appreciation to staff, including, to
name just a few, Angela Ellard, Stephanie Lester, Matt Howard, Tim
Reif, Viji Rangaswami, Mike Castellano, Brian Gaston, Sam Geduldig,
Brian Diffell, Andrew Shore, John DeStefano, Amy Heerink, Rachael
Leman, Janet Nuzum, James Koski, Greg Sheiowitz, Chris McConnell, and
Vergil Cabasco. I thank them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

{time} 1445

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for
yielding me this time.
I rise in support of this free trade agreement and urge my colleagues
to support it. This is a bilateral free trade agreement between the
United States and Australia. I think that we stand to make more
progress when we work on

[[Page H5700]]

bilateral agreements rather than multinational agreements, particularly
when we are dealing with a country that is very similar to the United
States.
The United States and Australia have much in common. Both nations
respect basic labor rights and the enforcement of basic workers'
rights. This agreement strengthens the enforcement of those laws. Both
nations respect the environment, and the agreement calls for both
parties to commit to establish high levels of environmental protection
and not to weaken or reduce environmental laws to attract trade or
investment.
Australia is a close ally of the United States in many of our
international activities. The United States enjoys a trade surplus with
Australia of $9 billion per year. It is our ninth largest export
market.
Mr. Speaker, Australia is a good friend, and it is in our interest to
establish a free trade agreement with Australia.
It will open up more markets to U.S. manufacturers and farmers.
Australia's tariffs for manufacturing will basically be eliminated on
goods coming from the United States to Australia; 99 percent will enter
Australia duty free.
There is key relief on the exports of agricultural products to
Australia. The United States estimates that more than 400 million per
year will receive immediate duty-free access to Australia; and let me
just point out as a footnote, there is no additional access to
Australia in regards to sugar. This agreement will help U.S.
manufacturers and farmers. The United States will enjoy tariff
preferences over its European and North Asian competitors and products,
such as chemicals and heavy machinery.
In fact, the U.S. National Association of Manufacturers has estimated
that the free trade agreement will result in a minimum of $2 billion
per year increase in manufacturing exports to Australia. In regards to
farming, the United States is already the second largest supplier of
Australia's food imports. This bill will even give us greater access.
Mr. Speaker, I think my district is somewhat typical in the Nation. I
have a port. We have a large presence of manufacturing. We have a
strong agricultural community. My State and the people of Maryland will
benefit from this free trade agreement. The people of this Nation will
benefit from this free trade agreement. I urge my colleagues to support
it.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It has been a really good year for the drug industry. The
pharmaceutical industry is at it again in this body, attempting to
undermine U.S. efforts to secure cheaper prescription drugs for
millions of Americans. First, the Medicare bill passed late last year
specifically prohibited the U.S. Government from negotiating lower drug
prices for America's seniors and consumers, the drug industry and the
President and the Republican leadership all singing off the same page.
Then the pharmaceutical industry punishes American consumers by
restricting the volume of prescription drug inventories in Canada to
prevent importation to the U.S., the FDA, the President, Republican
leadership and the drug industry again all singing off the same page.
Now the President, the United States Trade Rep together have included
language in this U.S.-Australia trade agreement that would enable the
drug companies to prevent prescription drug importation, again to the
detriment of America's consumers. We can bet those provisions will be
in all future trade agreements negotiated by this administration.
USTR and its drug industry allies, sometimes they are hard to tell
apart, are doing all they can to drive up prices for Americans and the
rest of the world. USTR and the drug industry were the only parties
with a seat at the table for these FTA negotiations, no public interest
groups, no senior groups, nobody advocating for reimportation.
My question is this: Do we trust the USTR and the President and the
drug industry to negotiate lower drug prices? Connect the dots. The
drug makers are using every tool at their disposal to put a
stranglehold on America's seniors and America's consumers. The
reimportation bill this House passed last year included Australia as a
platform. The reimportation bill in the Senate includes Australia as a
platform. Why would both these bills mention Australia if we were not
going to at least attempt to reimport from there?
This FTA shuts the door on all possibilities now and in the future.
Why would we do that, Mr. Speaker? The only way to maintain compliance
if we pass this FTA is to remove Australia from that bill. Although
Australia would likely not be a large reimportation platform, it is not
currently impossible. This FTA slams the door on that possibility. It
slams the door on any future agreement between Australia and us on the
issue.
Now, I want to read for a moment a brief part of a fact sheet from
the Australian embassy: ``Australian law does allow the export of
nonsubsidized drugs, both generics and brand names,'' in spite of what
we heard from my friend here, ``but only by a person who has been given
marketing approval to do so, usually the manufacturer or Australian
licensee.''
From the Australia embassy: ``Australian law does allow the export of
nonsubsidized drugs.'' The drug industry argues the trade agreement is
not damaging, because Australian law already prohibits the export of
subsidized drugs purchased under its pharmaceutical benefit scheme.
However, that prohibition does not include all cost-saving importation
from Australia.
The importers of drugs from Australia to the U.S. do not have to
purchase from the PBS. The provisions of this free trade agreement set
a precedent for another misguided trade policy. We can be sure that
this provision, this precedent that Members are going to vote on today,
this precedent will be in all future FTAs negotiated by this
administration. That is why a ``no'' vote is so very important so we do
not set this precedent in this encouragement for the administration to
continue to negotiate bad trade law, especially bad trade law for
American consumers.
The drug makers are making sure they close off any opportunity for
American consumers to obtain affordable prescription drugs. This, Mr.
Speaker, is another nail in that coffin. If one supports reimportation
of affordable prescription drugs, think twice about the precedent your
vote sets here today. A vote for the U.S. free trade agreement with
Australia is a move against American consumers and a move against
reimportation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to remind everyone of a Dear Colleague that was released
yesterday by our ranking minority member on the Committee on Ways and
Means Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin),
and our ranking member on the full Committee on Ways and Means, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel); and this is in their Dear
Colleague letter: ``The Australia Free Trade Agreement is worthy of
support. Article 17.9.4 of the Australia FTA essentially codifies
existing U.S. law in an international trade agreement. Current U.S. law
allows patent holders to bar the import of their patented products. The
patent provision will not have a practical effect due to the fact that
Australia's domestic law prohibits the export of drugs purchased
through its government-subsidized program which accounts for over 90
percent of all drugs sold in Australia.
``Article 17.9.4 matters only to the extent that the United States is
allowing the import of prescription drugs from Australia, or which are
covered by a patent owned by an Australian firm. As a practical matter,
with or without the Australia FTA, there is little possibility of
importing prescription drugs from Australia.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. Dunn), cochair of the U.S.-Australia Caucus and a member of our
Committee on Ways and Means.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this historic free trade
agreement with Australia. Australia has been a true friend and ally.
They have been there when it counted the most, on the shores of
Normandy, on the

[[Page H5701]]

streets of Baghdad when the odds seemed insurmountable and the light of
victory was far, far away.
Over 50 years ago, we began an alliance with Australia based on
mutual security needs. Today we build on our security alliance in the
past with an economic alliance for the future. Bismarck once said that
``politics is the art of the possible.'' While that is certainly true
and an accurate description of the negotiations of this agreement, this
trade agreement is also about a world of possibilities. There is a
common thread that binds the fabric of both nations' past to the
future. We are both nations that are built on possibilities. Whether
our citizens arrived an Plymouth Rock in Massachusetts or the rocks in
Sydney, many came for the possibility of new beginnings and the
possibility of determining their own destiny; and just like those
before us, this generation of Americans and Australians will paint the
canvas of this trade agreement with their entrepreneurial spirit.
In doing so, we are reminded that the strengths of our nations are
not in our governments, but in the thousands of our citizens who are
turning possibilities into reality; and it is time for this Congress to
make this trade agreement a reality.
This is a trade agreement that creates jobs. Two-way trade in goods
and services between both countries is already $29 billion each year,
supporting more than 270,000 American jobs, 12,500 of which are in my
State of Washington alone.
While all States will benefit from this agreement, the Puget Sound
region will have even more to gain, because Australia already is our
fifth largest trading partner, and the State of Washington leads the
Nation with more than $2.6 billion worth of exports to Australia each
year. It is a trade agreement that will help businesses and farmers in
the Northwest.
For the 25,000 Boeing workers that I represent, this agreement will
ensure that Boeing remains competitive in Australia. Currently, nearly
95 percent of Qantas Airways' operating fleet is Boeing aircraft,
making them one of Boeing's key customers in that region.
For our high-tech industry, strengthening intellectual property
standards will help reduce counterfeiting and piracy, while encouraging
capital investments.
For our farmers, eliminating agricultural tariffs and resolving
technical and regulatory barriers will ensure that Northwest fruits
will enter the Australian market.
Mr. Speaker, vote for this trade agreement, not out of a sense of
obligation but because of a steadfast confidence that Americans and
Australians can better face the challenges ahead by walking side by
side.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the free trade
agreement between the United States and Australia, and I would like to
thank all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked so
hard to see that this bill passes with bipartisan support today.
It has been a pleasure for me to work with the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the majority whip; and my counterparts on the
other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor),
chief deputy whip; the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers); the dean of
my home State, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel); the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Levin); the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley);
and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). I am proud to speak out
in support of this historic bilateral free trade agreement between the
United States and Australia.
This is a great day for our two countries and for what is arguably
one of our truest and tried allies. From World War I to the war on
terror in Afghanistan and in Iraq, Australia has stood shoulder to
shoulder with the United States and has been a strong ally of ours
throughout the world.
As someone who supports free trade and fair trade, I am proud to be a
leader on the Democratic side supporting this free trade agreement.
Concerns have been raised, though, about the issue of pharmaceuticals
this week, in fact, as of Monday. And I would like to make note of
that. I support the reimportation of prescription drugs and have
concerns about this trade agreement becoming a precedent for other
bilateral agreements; but I want to be clear that nothing, I believe,
in this agreement will prohibit the United States from passing its own
reimportation laws. And this agreement does not ban the United States
from reimportation of prescription drugs.
Australia's domestic law prohibits the exportation of drugs purchased
through its taxpayer-subsidized program, which accounts for over 90
percent of all drugs sold in Australia. Why would we ask the Australian
taxpayer to subsidize Rx drugs for Americans?

{time} 1500

The issue of lowering drug prices is something that this Congress
should be working on. In fact, today my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle have the opportunity to do that by signing the discharge petition
to give the authority to Secretary Thompson, the ability to negotiate
lower drug costs for Medicare patients that were stripped away under
H.R. 1.
This agreement will not stop the Snowe-Doggett legislation from
progressing in the Senate, and it does not stop the U.S. from changing
the law and allowing for drug reimportation. I would like to reaffirm
that I do not believe that this agreement should be used as a precedent
for other trade agreements that USTR makes in the future on
reimportation. We need to focus on the positive aspects of this
agreement.
This agreement will also benefit my home State of New York and New
York City. New York will see immediate benefits from this agreement as
it goes into effect. New York last year exported goods valued at over
$392 million to Australia, and when this agreement goes into effect,
those companies will see an average saving of over 5 percent. Australia
is the fifth largest investor in the U.S. equity markets, meaning more
jobs for my constituency and the companies that do business in my city
who trade securities or work for these firms.
This agreement will keep our economy growing and will be a
partnership of equals and will increase the investments and
opportunities for both countries. I support this agreement, and I urge
my colleagues to vote for final passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Australia FTA does not prevent Congress from passing
legislation on drug reimportation. Under the U.S. Constitution, no
trade agreement could do this. Any law passed by Congress will always
trump any FTA. There is nothing in the Australia FTA or H.R. 4759 that
changes U.S. patent laws or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
The patent provision in the FTA restates U.S. law and applies to all
patents, not just pharmaceuticals. Not including this provision would
be devastating to U.S. intellectual property rights holders in every
sector.
Australian law already bans the exportation of drugs dispensed under
its pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Unlike Canada, Australian law
expressly prohibits other parties such as a wholesaler or pharmacist
from exporting non-PBS dispensed drugs. Therefore, any change in U.S.
law would have no practical effect on reimportation to Australia due to
Australia domestic law, regardless of the FTA; and, therefore,
Australia would have no plausible basis to claim harm or pursue
sanctions.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Portman), one of our colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
and I appreciate his clarification and also the clarification of the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) as this legislation before us
relates to the issue of importation of prescription drugs.
I do rise in very strong support of the U.S.-Australian Free Trade
Agreement. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) has said, we
have a long-standing friendship with Australia. We also have a lot of
economic interest and move forward with this particular legislation.
Knocking down barriers always leads to a fairer and a more healthy
relationship between countries

[[Page H5702]]

and for better economics between both countries.
In this case, this bipartisan agreement will give a boost to our
large and growing investment links with Australia and will help
strengthen the U.S. economy. President Bush and Ambassador Bob Zoellick
deserve a lot of credit for moving forward strongly with this
particular agreement and for their continued determination on bilateral
agreements in general.
This agreement will help small business and manufacturers quite a bit
in my home State of Ohio. Australia is now number 11 in terms of
countries to which we export. Total exports are now valued at $389
million. Ohio primarily exports high-value products to Australia,
aircraft engines and parts, auto parts, forklift trucks, pet food,
household appliances. If the Free Trade Agreement was in effect last
year, we would have seen over 93 percent of those exports, including
again some of these manufactured high-quality, high-value exports, 93
percent of them would have entered Australia duty free.
Ohio's exports to Australia directly support about 1,800 good-paying
jobs in Ohio. And, by the way, there are 17 Australian-owned companies
in Ohio, which also employ roughly 1,800 people. 1,300 of those
positions, by the way, are in manufacturing.
Trade with Australia supports countless other high-paying jobs in
areas such as transportation, finance and advertising. This agreement
is good for Ohio. It is good for jobs. It is good for relations with
one of our great friends, Australia. Opening markets across the globe
to Ohio businesses is the key to keeping our Buckeye economy strong.
The U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement is also important because
Australia and the U.S. share a lot of similar goals in terms of
international trade. We are both supporters of achieving trade
liberalization in the current round of trade talks. We are both
pursuing market access through regional and bilateral trade agreements.
Another reason to support this agreement.
With overwhelming support today, we will be helping to fulfill
President Bush's vision of a world that trades in freedom.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have been here 12 years and heard
these same arguments. I look at my State, and we have lost one out of
six manufacturing jobs, 190 jobs every day during the Bush
administration, and I do not see how it adds up.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown), for yielding me time.
I rise in strong opposition to this agreement. It seems to me that
before we rush into yet another free trade agreement we should spend a
little bit of time assessing the horrendous impact that past free trade
agreements have had on the middle class and working families of this
country. If you have a policy which is failing, failing and failing,
why do you want to continue going along that path?
Mr. Speaker, for many years now, corporate America and the big money
interests have told us how good unfettered free trade would be if they
spent a fortune getting these agreements passed. What they forgot to
tell us is that while these free trade agreements are in fact good for
the big corporations and their well-paid CEOs, they have been a
disaster for the middle class and working families of our country.
The reality is, despite tremendous increases in technology and
productivity, the average American today is working longer hours for
lower wages. The gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider,
and poverty is increasing. The middle class in America is collapsing,
and unfettered free trade is one of the reasons.
In the last 3 years alone, we have lost 2.7 million good
manufacturing jobs, over 16 percent of the total, and now after the
collapse of manufacturing we are beginning to see the hemorrhaging of
good-paying information technology jobs. While large corporations throw
American workers out on the streets and move to China, India, Mexico
and other low-wage countries, the new jobs being created here for our
people are mostly low wage with minimal benefits. In fact, according to
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7 out of 10 of the fastest-growing
professions in the next 10 years are going to be with high school
degrees, minimal benefits, lower wages.
Is that the future that we want for our country?
To add insult to injury, Mr. Chairman, the President of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue, the leader of our country's big
business organization, has urged, has urged American companies to send
our jobs overseas. Urged them. That is the kind of contempt that
corporate America has for the working families of this country. By
continuing to pass unfettered free trade agreements, we accommodate Mr.
Donohue's goal; and we will see the loss of more and more good-paying
jobs in this country.
I understand that Australia is not China, and I understand that
workers there earn comparable wages, and I understand they do not go to
jail when they stand up for their rights, and we could perhaps
negotiate good agreements here and there with Australia, but an
unfettered free trade agreement is not good.
Let me conclude by mentioning two specific objections I have.
Number one, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is right about
reimportation and prescription drugs. I worry very much about the
precedent, if we want to lower prescription drug costs in this country
by this agreement.
Second of all, dairy farmers in Vermont, New England and America will
be significantly and negatively impacted by the importation of a lot of
dairy products over the years from Australia.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The State of Vermont exported $12.8 million of merchandise to Australia
in 2003. Vermont's high-value exports to Australia include food for
infants, aircraft and sports equipment; and if the FTA was in place in
2003, 99.8 percent of Vermont's exports would have entered Australia
duty free.
American exports to Australia directly and indirectly support over
270,000 jobs in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague from
Vermont, we have been neglected to be told that free trade is also
responsible for obesity, male pattern baldness and the breakup of the
Beatles.
The fact of the matter is that America needs new customers for our
farm products, for things we are manufacturing. The principle involved
here is, the principle is that if America builds a better product, we
ought to be able to sell it without discrimination throughout the
world. If someone else builds a better product, a better mousetrap, we
ought to be able to buy it for our families and for our business.
America needs more customers like Australia. In Texas, this trade
agreement means some 12,000 jobs for our State. It is good for our
farmers. It is good for our manufacturers. On the day it goes into
place, 99 percent of Australian penalties on products built in Texas
and the U.S. will disappear. That is good for our workers. It is good
for our farmers. It is great for our consumers.
This is a trade agreement that is excellent for U.S. manufacturers
and the workers who work for them.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) to control the remainder of my time for
purposes of yielding.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN OF Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to use the term ``slam
dunk'' any more, but if you cannot agree with this trade agreement, I
do not know what trade agreement you are ever going to agree with. In
fact, you would probably have to oppose agreements between the States
of the United States.
The fact is, of the $28 billion of trade with Australia, we enjoy a
surplus of $9 billion. That means Australia is buying $9 billion more
of goods and services from us than we are buying from them.

[[Page H5703]]

The fact is that this is generating jobs in the United States. Trade
can do that and trade will do that. The fact is that there is $700
million of agricultural products that we are selling to Australia, and
they are now going to be able to be purchased more cheaply because
there will be duty free access. We have National Treatment for our U.S.
investors, guaranteeing fair and non-discriminatory treatment. Who
could be opposed to that?
We have guaranteed, substantial access for U.S. service suppliers,
telecom, financial services, professional service providers. Australia
has agreed to improve its intellectual property laws so we do not have
to worry about that. We are going to have the highest level of
protection throughout the world for U.S. products in that area. Even
more importantly to my Democratic colleagues, Australia has the highest
level of labor and environmental standards. They are tougher than ours.
So it just seems to me that under this agreement we have so much to
gain and very little to lose.
And, again, with regard to this issue that has been brought up with
regard to pharmaceutical products, Australia will not allow the export
of subsidized pharmaceutical products; and 90 percent of its
pharmaceuticals that are prescribed are, in fact, subsidized.
So, again, let us support this agreement. Do the right thing by
America's workers and its employers.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

{time} 1515

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, today, the House is considering, I think,
landmark trade legislation by considering a free trade agreement with
our close ally and trading partner, Australia.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Trade, I have had the opportunity
to review many trade agreements and specific concerns with our trading
partners, and I am happy to conclude that the U.S.-Australia FTA is
among the most pro-American, pro-worker agreements that we have seen
before this House.
For 50 years, we have cooperated closely on security issues and
developed a trading relationship to the tune of $29 billion. What is
more, the United States enjoys a $9 billion trade surplus with
Australia. Indeed, Australia purchases more goods from the United
States than it does from any other country, and that is extraordinary.
While our positive relationship is an important factor in approving
this FTA, to me, Mr. Speaker, this agreement really stands on its own
merits on what it will do for manufacturers in my congressional
district.
Australian companies currently employ 1,600 people in Pennsylvania of
whom 600 are in the manufacturing sector. This agreement would increase
investment opportunities in Pennsylvania and create jobs.
Australia is the eighth largest market for Pennsylvania goods
exports, with total exports valued at $430 million last year.
Pennsylvania's economy is heavily dependent on manufacturing; and 21
percent, or $89 million, of our total exports to Australia was in
manufactured machinery in 2003. Our exports to Australia support, we
estimate, 2,000 jobs in Pennsylvania alone.
This agreement would lower the tariffs on American manufactured
products and create even more opportunities for local manufacturers to
tap into a robust Australian market.
By immediately making almost 99 percent of U.S. manufactured exports
to Australia duty free, American exports would shoot up by an estimated
$2 billion annually. Since 93 percent of our goods exported to
Australia are in industrial products, the significant benefit this
agreement offers U.S. manufacturers is obvious.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that our relationship with Australia is one
of our most important. By approving this FTA, we can deepen this
relationship, and we can also enter into an FTA which will particularly
benefit our manufacturing sector; and that is what sets this treaty
particularly apart from others that have come before this House.
I urge my colleagues strongly, on a bipartisan basis, to embrace this
FTA.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Australia is exactly the type of nation we
should seek trade agreements with, but not with a Xerox of our old and
failed policies under fast track, with no amendments allowed here on
the floor of the House.
There is only one new provision, strangely enough, one to prohibit
the reimportation of less expensive prescription drugs. Where did that
come from, I wonder? It must be American policy. No, I think it is
pharmaceutical industry policy.
Now, we talk about Australia. We have a trade surplus. Why do we need
this agreement? We had a trade surplus with Mexico. They talked about
that how it was going to get bigger. Guess what, now we have a deficit.
If we have a policy that is dramatically failing the Nation, our
workers, our consumers, what do we do? In this Congress and with this
administration, we do more of the same, $525 billion trade deficit, $1
million a minute of American wealth and jobs flowing overseas, mostly
to unfair competition.
This agreement does not have enforceable labor standards. In fact, if
we can have enforceable trademark and property standards, why can we
not have an enforceable labor standard? And if we have not got one with
Australia, who are we ever going to get one with?
It does not have enforceable environmental standards. If we cannot
get enforceable environmental and consumer protection standards with
Australia, who are we going to ever get one with? China? I do not think
so.
Then why are pharmaceuticals in this agreement? Because this
administration and their special trade representatives say this is a
template for all future agreements, and they want to renegotiate our
agreement with Canada to prohibit the reimportation of less expensive
pharmaceuticals because it is undermining the obscene profits of the
pharmaceutical industry. That is plain and simple.
Dairy and cheese and wheat, I think those are all questionable
provisions; and, again, it undermines the ability of State and local
governments to have contracting provisions that give preference to
businesses of their choice.
Everything that is wrong with every other trade agreement that has
led to the $525 billion trade deficit is wrong with the principles in
this one. We are only lucky that it is a country that has a higher
minimum wage, that has national health care, that has strong
environmental laws, and that is not likely to change; but this will
incorporate and further cement in these bad principles a new one that
is absolutely atrocious, which protects the profits of the
pharmaceutical industry against the health and welfare of the American
people.
Vote ``no'' on this, and let us get a new trade policy that works for
all Americans, not just a select few multinational corporations and
special interests.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Oregon is a trader with Australia right now, and Australia is the
10th largest market for Oregon goods that are exported with total
exports valued at over $257 million in 2003. Oregon's high-volume
exports to Australia include chassis trucks, fertilizers, vehicle
parts, and helicopters.
Oregon exports to Australia directly support approximately 1,200
jobs. Additionally, there are 12 Australian-owned companies in Oregon
employing over 300 people. Trade with Australia supports numerous other
high-paying jobs in areas such as transportation, finance, and
advertising.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time, and I appreciate the 2 minutes.
I obviously rise in strong support of the Australia free trade
agreement. Let me add a few positives to what has already been said.
We have some who disagree with us on the other side. They have split
up the other side. Trade is absolutely critical to our economy.
American businesses and workers are the best in world. When we open up
markets for American products, our companies sell more overseas and
create more jobs back here at home.

[[Page H5704]]

This agreement is certainly clearly beneficial to the U.S. Two-way
trade, as has been stated, between the U.S. and Australia is
approximately $29 billion; and I will mention it again, the surplus of
$9 billion. Every State in America exports. Every single State exports
to Australia.
My home State of Michigan, for example, ranks as number five, fifth
highest, over $2 billion in export products in the last 3 years; but we
can do a great deal more than that. Let me take a look at the American
auto industry for a moment. This is a significant part of the economy
in my district and many, many more around the country.
It is no secret that global competition in the auto sector is
intense. Auto companies around the world work hard to realize price
advantages over their competitors. The U.S.-Australia Free Trade
Agreement gives our auto companies a real leg up. As a result of this
agreement, on January 1, 2005, American auto exports to Australia will
cost 10 to 15 percent less than our Japanese, Korean, and European
competitors.
That means more work building cars for export to Australia for the
600,000 Americans employed by auto companies and the 2 million
Americans who work for auto suppliers, as well as the many industries
that support those companies. These are real benefits that we will
bring to those American workers and many others by passing this
agreement today.
Free trade agreements, like the one before us today, are good for our
country, with our good friend Australia in particular. They mean more
jobs at better wages. They mean long-term health for our economy.
So let us make it a reality. Vote ``yes'' on the U.S.-Australia Free
Trade Agreement.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Guam (Mr. Bordallo), a very capable Congresswoman.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Michigan for the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the U.S.-Australia Free
Trade Agreement. The agreement before us deals with some very big
numbers. It supports over 270,000 jobs here at home and the $18 billion
in exports to Australia these workers generate annually.
Australian exports to Guam are approximately $12 million per year,
consisting mainly of consumer goods and building materials. The Guam
shipyard is capable of repairing Australian vessels, and the twice
weekly direct flights between Cairns and Guam bring a steady stream of
tourists in both directions.
Under the agreement, 99 percent of Guam's exports will enter
Australia duty free. Even greater than the numerical case for
supporting this free trade agreement are the shared values that
underpin trade between our two nations. Many of my colleagues have
appropriately used trade agreements in the past to highlight the
failure of our trading partners to address human rights, environmental
quality control, and labor standards within their borders.
Under these trade criteria, Australia is exactly the kind of country
that we should trade with. Australia has an outstanding record on
meeting its international human rights commitments. Australia is our
partner in promoting these values in the Asia Pacific region.
Australia's environmental standards give us the reassurance that our
imports do not abuse global resources. Their laws protecting coral
reefs and their strong enforcement of them serve as a model for
protecting our own endangered ocean habitat.
Australia's labor standards are so deeply ingrained in their society
that they serve as a reminder to us that we owe our own workers a
higher minimum wage. Under this agreement, we are not in a race to the
bottom with Australia's workers; but rather, Mr. Speaker, we are
sharing the best of what we make for our common advantage.
Given our shared values with the people of Australia, it only makes
sense that we pass this agreement today. I urge my colleagues to do so.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding me the time, and I congratulate Ambassador Zoellick and our
President for getting a very good trade agreement with Australia, one
that will benefit workers, consumers, and companies alike.
We have had a long and mutually beneficial relationship with
Australia. It has been a trusted, staunch ally in the Pacific and a
progressive voice for expanding free trade around the globe.
Mr. Speaker, this is a pioneering trade agreement. It is the most
significant reduction in industrial tariffs ever achieved in a free
trade agreement. This is, at its heart, a manufacturers' trade
agreement.
While Connecticut is a long way from Sydney, one would never know it
based on the economic ties between my home State and Australia. Nearly
$140 million worth of merchandise was exported from Connecticut to
Australia in 2003. In 1999, the figure was $81 million. We have
increased exports by $60 million without a trade agreement. Imagine
what we will be able to do with this trade agreement, which reduces
manufacturing tariffs from a full 5 percent. It literally wipes them
out. That is equivalent to a 5 percent price reduction in product in
the market.
So if we have been able to grow our trade with Australia, that is,
between Connecticut and Australia, without this agreement, think what a
boon this will be for nearly 99 percent of Connecticut's exports that
will enter Australia with this agreement duty free.
I believe the Australian agreement is indicative of the bright future
trade liberalization is creating. Australia is a democratic, well-
developed nation with amongst the highest labor and environmental
standards in the world and with a very capable enforcement system. It
simply does not make sense for either nation to preserve antiquated
tariffs in light of our strong economic and political ties.

{time} 1530

I strongly support this U.S.-Australian trade agreement and urge the
House to pass it.
Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by noting that 25 percent of our gross
national product is the direct consequence of exports and trade, and
not to expand that customer base would be to condemn our children and
follow-on generations to a weak economy unable to provide the standard
of living we have come to enjoy. And, therefore, I urge support of this
trade agreement.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to note that I wish our trade policy were working as well for
American manufacturing as my friends say it is.
Mr. Speaker, could the Chair tell each of us how much time the three
of us have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Ohio has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Crane) has 38 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, I would like to call attention to information which
was recently published by The Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and
Health regarding the Australia Free Trade Agreement.
CPATH's report explains that because chapter 15 of the U.S.-Australia
Free Trade Agreement applies to Federal agencies like the Department of
Veterans Affairs that procure pharmaceuticals, under the agreement drug
companies would have the right to challenge VA procurement decisions.
This would include VA decisions about coverage and pricing of
pharmaceuticals. Virtually any aspect of coverage or pricing could be
challenged based on technical specifications, timing, process, or any
number of other agreements or disagreements.
For example, a drug company could claim the VA's decision not to
offer a particular drug is the result of an unfair assessment of the
drug's effectiveness or economic value. Under the trade agreement, the
drug company could then file a complaint against the VA based on these
claims. If the VA's procurement decisions are delayed,

[[Page H5705]]

routinely contested, or reversed on a regular or irregular basis, there
could be a serious effect on access to and prices for medications for
our veterans.
Before we vote on this free trade agreement, please consider this
analysis and its potential effect on our Nation's veterans. It is a
fact that the drug companies could challenge drug listing and pricing
decisions by the VA. The government of Australia is not required to
initiate or authorize these challenges. A drug company could do so. A
drug company with an office in Australia could have standing to
initiate such a challenge.
Now, it does not have to be this way. Many procurement decisions are
already excluded by both Australia and the United States under this
agreement, including motor vehicles, the dredging at construction
sites, and so on. Important government programs that provide benefits
to millions, including vulnerable populations, can be legitimately
added to the list of excluded measures. It was not done in this bill,
and America's veterans are at risk as a result.
It is important that before we vote on this trade bill that we read
it and understand its potential negative effects upon America's
veterans.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Australia is the eleventh largest market for Ohio goods exports, with
total exports valued at around $389 million in 2003. Ohio primarily
exports high-valued products to Australia, such as aircraft engines and
parts, other aircraft parts, auto parts, forklifts, pet food, and
household appliances. If the FTA was in place in 2003, over 93 percent
of Ohio's exports would have entered Australia duty free.
Ohio's exports to Australia directly support approximately 1,854
jobs. Additionally, there are 17 Australian-owned companies in Ohio,
employing 1,800 people, with 1,300 of these positions in manufacturing
jobs. Trade with Australia supports countless other high-paying jobs in
areas such as transportation, finance and advertising.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that Australian businesses
have more than $817 million invested in Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I rise today in strong support of the U.S.-Australia
Free Trade Agreement.
Study after study shows, and history confirms, that nations that are
open to trade grow faster and enjoy higher per capita incomes than
those that hinder trade. That means better housing, better health care,
and better nutrition for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that nations do not trade with
nations, people trade with people. By restricting trade, we are denying
Americans access to more abundant and less costly goods and services.
Just think about the local grocery store for a moment. Alongside the
cheese from Wisconsin and beef from my home State of Texas, we have
melons from Mexico, olive oil from Italy, and coffee from Colombia. By
closing markets, by restricting markets, we limit choices for consumers
and we drive up the cost of products that American families must
purchase every day.
Mr. Speaker, more importantly, when we restrict trade, we deprive
Americans of their fundamental economic liberty. I believe Americans
have a right to determine which products they want to purchase and from
where those products come. With the exception of national security, it
should not be the role of the Federal Government to tell American
consumers where they can buy their goods.
Also, when we restrict trade, we invariably put Americans out of
work. We invite trade sanctions. Nearly one in every 10 jobs in the
United States is directly linked to the export of U.S. goods and
services.
Last year, my home State of Texas exported almost $730 million in
manufactured goods alone to Australia. From agriculture to aerospace,
to computers and chemicals, jobs in Texas and America depend upon
trade, including trade with Australia.
Now, I have heard some Members talk about fair trade. But, Mr.
Speaker, we must also remember that policies that protect some
industries invariably hurt others; and protecting specific industries
does nothing to protect the interest of American consumers or protect
their economic liberties. I urge all of my colleagues to support the
U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to yield 2
minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-
Australia Free Trade Agreement and this bill we are considering today
to implement it.
With few exceptions, I have historically opposed our free trade
agreements because most of them have been negotiated with developing
countries with insufficient labor and environmental standards.
Now, following my colleague from Texas, obviously, we have different
views on this free trade agreement. One of the things I am proud of is
that not only do most of these earlier trade agreements have inadequate
labor and environmental regulations and lower the standard of living
for people residing in those countries, which inhibits the ability for
U.S. companies to compete, when I opposed previous trade agreements it
has always been on the basis that we are putting ourselves at a
competitive disadvantage against countries that have significantly
lower standards of living.
However, this agreement with Australia is different. It puts the U.S.
on a level playing field with a country that has comparable labor and
environmental standards and a minimum wage that exceeds our own. I wish
that were true with CAFTA and NAFTA and a whole bunch of other of our
agreements.
This is fair trade, and this is the kind of agreement I can support.
This agreement will immediately eliminate 99 percent of all tariffs
currently imposed on U.S. exporters. With 93 percent of all exports to
Australia coming from the U.S. manufacturing sector, this agreement is
estimated to boost our manufacturing exports to the tune of $2 billion.
Without a doubt, there are parts of this agreement that I feel are
less perfect. The agreement contains language allowing Australian
pharmaceutical patent holders to prevent the export of their products
to the U.S. market. In considering, though, that 90 percent of
Australian drugs are currently prohibited from being exported by their
law, I do not believe this agreement, in a practical sense, would hurt
our current reimportation effort. However, I do make clear my
opposition to the use of this provision as a precedent for future
agreements.
I would also like to note labor's concerns with the agreement. While
not out-and-out opposing the agreement, the AFL-CIO has stated that the
agreement is ineffective in protecting core worker rights in either the
U.S. or Australia. As a former union printer, I take pride in working
to strengthen labor rights in our own country; and I certainly agree
that improvements can be made in our own country.
Yet, on the whole, both the U.S. and Australia have exemplary labor
laws that, given our constitutional democracies, are not likely to
reach levels that impose significant threats to the health and safety
of our workers.
On balance, it is a fair agreement between two countries that value
democracy, worker rights, and fair competition. It is not free trade.
It is fair trade.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-Australia Free
Trade Agreement, and I want to commend Ambassador Zoellick, the Special
Trade Representative, and especially President Bush on the success of
negotiating a good trade agreement that is good for American farmers,
good for American workers, and good for American business.
My home State of Illinois is one of the top States that currently
exports to Australia. As you know, Illinois manufacturers, like
manufacturers throughout the United States, were hard hit by the
recession back in 2000 and 2001 and of course faced the consequences of
the terrorist attack of 2001 and, in my State, suffered even heavier
taxes imposed by our new governor and our new State legislature.

[[Page H5706]]

But I am happy to say that today Illinois manufacturing is starting to
see some positive health, and that is good news.
A key part of this economic turnaround is expanded trade
opportunities. I would like to point out that my family has personally
experienced the impact of our economy over the last decade. My brother,
a manufacturing worker, he lost his job because of a lawsuit. But he
got a new job because of a company that obtained an export contract.
So, clearly, expanded free trade creates jobs for American workers.
I particularly want to congratulate the architects and negotiators
that produced this U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I would note
that in the Australia-U.S. FTA more than 99 percent of U.S.-
manufactured exports to Australia will become duty free immediately
upon entry into force of this agreement. This is the most significant
immediate reduction of industrial tariffs ever achieved.
Let me say that again: the most immediate reduction of industrial
tariffs ever achieved in a United States free trade agreement. That is
good news for industrial workers. What that means is $2 billion in
additional demands for U.S. products.
Agriculture is also key to my home State's economy, and I want to
point out that under this agreement all U.S. agricultural exports to
Australia will receive immediately duty free access to Australian
markets. This trade agreement is good for Illinois farmers, it is good
for Illinois workers, it is good for Illinois business, and it deserves
bipartisan support. Please vote aye.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, it is important whenever we talk about
trade that we realize that the United States has a massive trade
deficit of over $500 billion; and while the gentleman has been
repeatedly citing the benefits to various States, my own State has lost
200,000 jobs during this administration. The United States, since the
year 2000, has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs. So tell us about your
free trade policies.
If this legislation were only about trade, I could spend the rest of
the time demolishing the arguments that have been offered here about
the advantages that this trade agreement offers, but there is something
that we need to focus on. Like most things around this Chamber, what
you see is not what you get.
The restriction on amendments imposed by Fast Track prevents Members
of Congress from eliminating an extremely harmful precedent against
lower cost pharmaceutical drugs set in the U.S.-Australia Free Trade
Agreement. So my colleagues may think we are just voting about free
trade here, but we are also voting on the issue of drug reimportation,
because we cannot amend the trade agreement.
The administration was able to lay the groundwork, in the words of
the trade representative, for thwarting the reimportation of lower-cost
pharmaceuticals. That is because the U.S.-Australia Free Trade
Agreement codifies current U.S. law which the administration has made
sure prohibits drug reimportation.
So to all those people around the country who are wondering why can
we not get lower price pharmaceuticals, this legislation is one of the
ways in which they are going to ensure it will not happen. This is an
element in the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying effort to keep prices
high in the United States, and the administration has delivered for the
industry at the cost of selling out Americans.
We can predict with 100 percent certainty that the Australia trade
agreement's prohibition on drug reimportation will be replicated in
subsequent trade agreements and that it will have the effect of making
it impossible for the United States to change U.S. law because the
trade agreements will threaten the U.S. with trade sanctions if
Congress does allow drug reimportation.
This offense is so great and so threatening that this bill must be
defeated. We must protect the ability to have drug reimportation.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
simply remind all those paying any attention to the debate that we
enjoy a $9 billion trade surplus with Australia at the present time,
and that will expand greatly with the passage of this free trade
agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished
colleague of mine, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
4759, the U.S.-Australia FTA. This agreement is the most commercially
significant bilateral trade agreement outside of North America that the
United States has entered into. It also addresses several issues that
we have concerns about dealing with labor, the environment, and human
rights. Because of the strength and the size of Australia, we can deal
and talk about rights that are respective for all.
Plus, for example, in the automotive sector, free trade between the
United States and Australia will allow greater trade opportunities in
auto products between our two countries. U.S. auto makers produce over
70 percent of all passenger vehicles made in Australia.
Other industries also benefit from this agreement:
telecommunications, financial services, and our technological firms,
with greater intellectual property protections.
Abroad, this agreement provides Australia with an opportunity to
facilitate a higher quality of health care for its people. Though
Australia has recognized the significant role played by innovative U.S.
pharmaceutical companies in delivering high-quality health care, the
problem of pharmaceutical price controls is still an issue. It is
important that future trade negotiations more closely examine the
possible impact of unfair trade practices that are shifting the cost of
pharmaceutical research and development just simply to the American
consumer.
Mr. Speaker, this is a momentous agreement and is worthy of strong
support from this body, for this is not just a free trade agreement, it
is indeed, in every sense of the word, a fair trade agreement.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we each have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) has 9
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 15\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 32
minutes remaining.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. In light of that, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) use some more of his time, because
I am down to 9 minutes and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is
down to 15. But perhaps the gentleman from Illinois would be willing to
yield 5 minutes of his time over here, since he has no one to speak and
we have so many speakers on this side.
Mr. CRANE. I am sorry I cannot yield my time, but I will, Mr.
Speaker, use some of my time at the present moment.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the administration strongly supports H.R. 4759, which
will approve and implement the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement as
signed by the United States and Australia on May 18 of this year. The
U.S.-Australia FTA advances U.S. national economic interests and meets
the negotiating principles and objectives set out by the Congress in
the Trade Act of 2002.
The agreement enhances our close trade relationship with Australia
and will further open Australia's market for U.S.-manufactured goods,
agricultural products, and services. As soon as the FTA enters into
force, tariffs will be eliminated on nearly all manufactured goods
traded with Australia. In addition, Australia will eliminate tariffs on
all exports of U.S. agricultural products.
The U.S.-Australia FTA further solidifies our relationship with an
important partner in the global economy and a strategic ally. It sets a
strong example of the benefits of free trade and democracy. Opening
markets is part of

[[Page H5707]]

the President's six-point plan for continuing to strengthen America's
economy and to create more opportunities for American workers and
farmers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been a real leader on trade
issues in the last few Congresses.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's trade policy is not so much a
policy as an ideology, and those in the Office of the Trade
Representative bow at the altar of free trade.
One way we can level the playing field in trade is to put labor and
environmental standards on equal footing with other commercial
sections, and why should that not be, such as intellectual property
rights, patents, goods and services.
While the Australia FTA does a great job of mentioning the
international labor organization and saying the right things, the proof
is in the enforcement, and that is lacking in the legislation. The
agreement's enforcement procedure excludes an obligation for both
governments to meet the international labor organization or any other
definable standard.

{time} 1545

In the Jordan FTA, which many look to as a model of how the agreement
should be written, we had input into that agreement. Labor and
environmental articles used the same dispute settlement procedures as
every other commercial provision. This is not the case under the
Australia agreement.
Let us go to the videotape. Article 18.6.5 clarifies that the key
pieces of chapter 21, dispute settlement, ``shall not apply to a matter
arising under any provision of this chapter other than article
18.2.1.''
Excluding 18.1 and 18.2 from any possibility of dispute settlement or
enforcement leaves the sole enforceable labor obligation in these
agreements that countries need to ``enforce their own labor laws.''
This is terrible. And while Australia has a strong labor and
environmental protection, what we are doing in this legislation is
saying if we cannot add strong labor and environmental agreements with
Australia, who the heck can we add it with? Then we are going to get a
solid gold standard when it comes to property rights and commercial
rights, but we are not willing to do it to labor and the environment?
This stinks, and you know it. And we are not going to pray at that
altar.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Australia is the 15th largest market for New Jersey
goods exports, with total exports valued at nearly $307 million in
2003. New Jersey primarily exports high-valued products to Australia
such as pharmaceuticals, printed media, medical equipment, perfumes,
and chemicals. If the FTA was in place in 2003, 99.44 percent of New
Jersey's exports would have entered Australia duty free. New Jersey's
exports to Australia directly support approximately 1,400 jobs.
Additionally, there are 13 Australian-owned companies in New Jersey,
employing 900 people. Seven hundred of these positions are
manufacturing jobs.
Trade with Australia supports numerous other high-paying jobs in
areas such as transportation, finance, and advertising.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I find this agreement to be somewhat of a close call. But where I
come from we have an expression ``once burned, twice cautious.''
We are a major producer of wheat, and yet our farmers compete not
just against the wheat farmers of other countries. In some instances,
they compete against their governments as well, because their
governments countenance a monopoly marketing mechanism called wheat
board. When the Canadian Wheat Board was allowed to continue its
operations in the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and the North American
Free Trade Agreement, what unleashed upon our farmers was a
dramatically unfair set of circumstances that have left them at a
disadvantage and cost them markets and market value to the loss of
millions and millions of dollars.
The U.S. Trade Representative has announced his opposition to state
trading enterprises like the Canadian Wheat Board, but in this
agreement we see the Australian Wheat Board, a very similar state
trading enterprise, being allowed to continue without mention in the
agreement. Unfortunately, this leads me to conclude this agreement
should not go forward. We need more action against state trading
enterprises.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to congratulate my colleague from North Dakota on his support
for this Free Trade Agreement and also explain to folks that Australia
is the third largest market for North Dakota goods exports, with total
exports valued at over $47 million in 2003. North Dakota's exports to
Australia include tractors, front-end loaders, beans, and agricultural
sprayers. These exports support approximately 220 jobs in North Dakota.
The Australia-U.S. Free Trade Agreement provides tremendous
opportunities for North Dakota businesses, offering them preferential
access to a strong economy and growing market. And I think the
gentleman's folks back home will particularly appreciate his support,
as do all the rest of us, for this important Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman from North
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) is voting ``no,'' also.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro), and I thank her for her leadership on trade issues and
fighting for American jobs.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the Australia Free Trade Agreement is for
the most part a good agreement with a strong U.S. ally. But because it
is becoming increasingly clear that the reimportation of prescription
drugs from other countries is on the horizon, so much so that even the
Secretary of Health and Human Services has said that it is coming, this
administration, in cooperation with this majority, has included a
provision into a bill designed to stave off the inevitable, this time
interfering with the reimportation of a patented product into the
United States in a trade agreement and setting a bad precedent for
other agreements with western developed countries.
American seniors, fed up with discount cards that do nothing to
reduce their drug costs, should not be fooled by this. The Republican
leadership has failed to win the reimportation debate on every level.
The American people disagree with them. Their own members disagree with
them. Absent Republican support, this body would not have voted to
legalize the practice last year with 243 bipartisan Members.
Putting any reimportation legislation passed by this Congress in
violation of free trade is their goal in this agreement. It is not
enough for the drug companies to do everything in their power to
prevent the United States from lowering the cost of drugs. Now, through
international trade laws, they are trying to cut off the ability of
others to reimport safe, affordable drugs and the efforts of what other
countries do for their citizens as well. So when the United States
Trade Representative says that his core objectives in negotiating this
deal were ``rewarding innovation and R&D'' and ``due process,'' what he
is actually saying is that the drug companies should be able to keep
their prices as high as they want for as long as they want in America
and across the world.
Before we press ahead with this Free Trade Agreement offered under a
closed, nonamendable process, I urge my colleagues to consider the very
serious ramifications of this bill on every single person in this
country struggling to keep up with the skyrocketing cost of
prescription drugs. Absent allowing the Federal Government to negotiate
the price of prescription drugs, the safe importation of drugs from
other countries is the only way that ordinary people can afford the
drugs they need. That is what is at stake with this legislation.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H5708]]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate a comment I made earlier from
the Dear Colleague released yesterday by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). And it says:
``The patent provision will not have a practical effect due to the fact
that Australia's domestic law prohibits the export of drugs purchased
through its government-subsidized program which accounts for over 90
percent of all drugs sold in Australia.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dooley).
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
this trade agreement, and I want to commend Ambassador Zoellick and his
team at USTR for the negotiations of such a fine and fair agreement. I
want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), ranking member, and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane)
for the great work that they have done too.
There is never going to be an absolutely perfect trade agreement. But
we can come close, and this agreement does. And if we cannot pass an
agreement with one of our strongest allies who has been a partner with
us in every challenge to try to provide for greater international
security in the last century, whom can we be an economic partner with?
If we cannot pass a fair trade agreement and a free trade agreement
with a country that has the same level of economic development that we
have in this country, whom can we adopt a fair trade agreement with? If
we cannot adopt a fair trade agreement with a country that has higher
labor standards, as equal or better environmental standards than we
have in the United States, whom can we adopt a fair trade agreement
with?
This is a solid agreement. It is an agreement that will provide
greater economic opportunities for the workers in the United States and
the businesses that employ them. We should be passing this agreement
with a unanimous vote. It is unfortunate that we will get close but not
quite there.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Dooley) for his commitment to these fundamental
principles that are involved here in the best interest of this country
as well as our good friend and ally Australia for all these years. I
thank him.

{time} 1600

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise in very strong support of
the Australian Free Trade Agreement. I do not think there is any
country in the world that is more loved by Americans than the country
of Australia, and I do not think there is any country in the world that
can claim greater loyalty to this friendship than Australia and the
United States to each other.
I would like to congratulate Ambassador Bob Zoellick for the fair and
solid trade agreement with this long-time ally and, of course, our own
President Bush for pushing forward. Also, I congratulate the Australian
Prime Minister John Howard and Ambassador Michael Thawley on their
commitment for also securing this agreement.
The Australian government has been a long-term friend to the United
States through all the world wars and, of course, now in the war on
terror and the other wars we have been involved in in Asia. They have
been a staunch ally and a great friend, and I guess they are very
similar to the Americans, having evolved in a similar way and having
gained their independence.
I would like to now, for just a moment, to turn our attention to the
effects this agreement would have on my own State of Florida. Florida
exports shipments of merchandise to Australia. In 2003, it totaled $319
million. That is an increase of 12 percent from 2002. Florida ranks
10th in overall export shipments to the Australian market. Overwhelming
amounts of Florida exports are in the manufacturing sector, a sector
tremendously important to the United States and Florida. This agreement
provides increased access for numerous other Florida sectors which have
very positive impact on the State of Florida as well as the entire
country.
I recommend and endorse this most important and most historic
agreement, urge its passage; and as the previous speaker said, this
should be a unanimous, if not near unanimous, decision that came out,
as I recall, in the full Committee on Ways and Means with a unanimous
vote, and it is one of the few truly bipartisan trade agreements that
we have seen come through this House in recent years, and I urge its
passage.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding me this time.
I rise to express my disappointment that an otherwise strong Free
Trade Agreement has been tainted by provisions designed to protect a
captive market for the prescription drug industry in this country,
forcing American senior citizens and taxpayers to pay higher prices
than normal.
Australia has the lowest pharmaceutical prices anywhere in the world,
of developed countries, that is, anywhere. I have supported NAFTA. I
have supported GATT. I voted in favor of Singapore. I voted in favor of
Chile. I believe in free trade. But what we attempted here was a back-
door attempt to continue to force Americans to pay the highest drug
prices anywhere in the world. And we had an opportunity to literally do
something different with a good free trade agreement.
It all makes sense. Eli Lilly, Schering-Plough, PhRMA were all on the
advisory board to the USTR when it came to negotiating this trade deal,
and we are setting a precedent, forcing Americans again to continue to
pay the highest pharmaceutical prices than anywhere in the world when
we could have provided Americans the chance of a free trade agreement
where we reopen markets, bring in competition, lower the prices around
the world. But we did not do that. So we took an ally and tried to
actually, in the negotiations, force them to walk away from their
health care. One does not force a friend and ally to walk away from a
good health care program who is paying lower prices for prescription
drugs than anywhere in the world.
I will not support this agreement on behalf of the senior citizens of
this country.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the Australian
government prohibits the export of drugs from Australia. They subsidize
drugs for their own people, and they prohibit the export of those
drugs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mario Diaz-Balart). This is not a repeat. This is his younger brother.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on
the exceptional relationship between Australia and the United States.
On this day that we are voting on this Free Trade Agreement, Mr.
Speaker, we should take a minute to express our gratitude, our deep
gratitude, to the Australians for their support in the international
war on terror. Their support in the aftermath of September 11, Mr.
Speaker, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq is a testament, a very strong
testament, again to the strength of this alliance between the two
countries. The Australians have also been touched, unfortunately,
tragically, by terrorism when 88 Australians died in the Bali bombings
of 2002.
Mr. Speaker, in friendship we will continue to reach out to them as
they have to us. On this day we thank our mates down under for this
friendship and commend them for their commitment to negotiating this
Free Trade Agreement. Anyone, Mr. Speaker, anyone, who questions the
strength of our alliance is, frankly, just out of touch or, to quote
the famous slang used by our friends in Australia, they have ``too many
kangaroos loose in the top paddock.''
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.

[[Page H5709]]

I am down to 4 minutes because of the passion on this side. I am the
only opponent of the three, and it is pretty clear we are the biggest
number of the House in the passion we share in opposition to this trade
agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this important Free Trade Agreement will enhance the
already strong economic ties that exist between the United States and
Australia. I support this agreement and will vote in favor of the
required implementing legislation.
This pact has been called the ``manufacturing FTA'' because of the
extent to which the United States manufacturing sector will benefit
from the expanded market access provided by this agreement. Perhaps
most importantly, Mr. Speaker, more than 99 percent of remaining
Australian duties on U.S.-manufactured goods will be lifted the day the
agreement takes effect. It is estimated that this immediate tariff
elimination will result in an additional $2 billion in annual exports
to Australia, already one of the world's largest single markets for
U.S. goods. This improved market access will benefit American
companies, ranging from aircraft manufacturers to automakers to
construction equipment suppliers.
Manufacturers, however, will not be the only beneficiaries of this
agreement. All U.S. agricultural exports to Australia will receive
immediate duty-free access, and market access will be provided to
American telecommunications, computer, energy, and financial services
companies, among others.
Mr. Speaker, I have and will continue to support free trade
agreements that balance the need for expanding markets for American
companies with the importance of providing a level playing field for
American workers and protection for the environment. We must consider
the specific labor and environmental conditions that exist in the
countries that we seek to trade with as well as the provisions included
in the agreements to protect workers both here and in other countries
and environmental concerns as well.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that these goals will be met with
respect to Australia. Australia is almost a mirror economy of the
United States; and, in that context, I think we can have real
confidence that this will be an agreement that will benefit America,
benefit Australia, and benefit our workers as well.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

{time} 1615

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of this
agreement. First of all, many folks in the military that have traveled
around the world, no matter where I have gone, where we needed allies,
Australia has been beside us. Through all the world wars, through
Desert Storm, through the continuing evolutions we are going through
right now, they have been a strong ally. They deserve this.
I hear many Members talking about manufacturing jobs and the loss of
manufacturing jobs. For California, this benefits our manufacturers, in
biotech and electronics, machinery and a whole host of others, which
creates jobs. That is good for us on a fair trade measure.
I also want to tell you that if you have ever been on an aircraft
carrier and go into Australia, it is not much different than going into
a city in the United States. Those people are friendly, they are
allies, and they love the United States.
I heard when I was watching on television, though, about the issue on
reimportation of prescription drugs. Many nations subsidize their
drugs, like Australia, like Canada, like the Netherlands; and in those
cases they will not reimport them because their own government
subsidizes them for low cost. They have government control of their
prescription drug programs.
We are working on a program to make sure that those imported drugs
are safe. The Secretary has said that and is working diligently on it,
and I think before long we will have a safe program where we can
reimport drugs into this country and make them cheaper.
But I also remind my colleagues there are a lot of other things we
can do locally to make sure that happens. The FDA, we threatened to
privatize them at one time because they were so slow, and they sped up.
If you look at the patent laws that we have, quite often a biotech
company will produce a drug, and they have got still people working in
their businesses, and they do not know if they are going to be able to
realize the benefits from that or not. It may take 2, 3, 4, sometimes 5
years to get through the process; and at the end of that, the patent
law runs out, so they have to get an exorbitant price of that
particular drug just to recoup their benefits.
These are things that I think we can do locally, besides the
reimportation, and make it safe. There is no one that does not support
it, if it is safe for the American population.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support. I thank the chairman for the
time and for bringing forth this bill.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who perhaps knows more than anybody in
this body about international trade.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio, and I doubt
anyone can hold a candle to him relative to trade.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this trade proposal, in a way
reluctantly. I had held such hope that this particular proposal could
be the template for trade agreements that could be negotiated between
the developed democracies of the world, and that following on the
Jordan Free Trade Agreement, we could actually produce the first trade
agreement between developed democracies that would provide the gold
standard for the world, that we could really use proactively. This one
falls far short of doing that.
You might ask the question, Would we have this agreement before us if
Australia did not have troops in Iraq? It is kind of interesting that
this is coming up at this particular moment.
One of my concerns about this agreement is that Australia may become
another back door trade route to the U.S., sort of the new Hong Kong,
because of all the current difficulties in Hong Kong NOW. This
agreement is imperfect. It does not really provide a comprehensive set
of provisions to really deal with trade between nations that want
higher standards of living, but that in fact you will get more Chinese
goods and Chinese investment going into Australia and then coming here
under this so-called ``free trade'' agreement because of all the
economic and commerical difficulties that Hong Kong is having since the
handover to the Chinese.
We know that this particular agreement would allow drug companies to
challenge decisions on coverage and payment, so we further weaken the
abilities of developed democracies to try to provide affordable health
care for all their people.
The agreement is absolutely inadequate in terms of comprehensive
labor and environmental standards. We should accept no less. In fact,
my dream would be that we would learn how to strike trade agreements
between developed countries, and then ask third world nations to join
that consortium in order to raise standards of living around the world,
rather than force all nations in this race to the bottom, including our
own, where wages among the majority have fallen.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article from the Wall Street
Journal, ``Trade Agreement May Undercut Importing of Inexpensive
Drugs,'' and also a set of standards we should use in any trade
agreement based on a review of some of our other trade agreements.
There standards should be expected from any trade agreement this Nation
negotiates.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.'' This agreement is too incomplete
and imperfect.

[From the New York Times, July 12, 2004]

Trade Agreement May Undercut Importing of Inexpensive Drugs

(By Elizabeth Becker and Robert Pear)

Washington, July 11.--Congress is poised to approve an
international trade agreement that could have the effect of
thwarting a goal pursued by many lawmakers of both

[[Page H5710]]

parties: the import of inexpensive prescription drugs to help
millions of Americans without health insurance.
The agreement, negotiated with Australia by the Bush
administration, would allow pharmaceutical companies to
prevent imports of drugs to the United States and also to
challenge decisions by Australia about what drugs should be
covered by the country's health plan, the prices paid for
them and how they can be used.
It represents the administration's model for strengthening
the protection of expensive brand-name drugs in wealthy
countries, where the biggest profits can be made.
In negotiating the pact, the United States, for the first
time, challenged how a foreign industrialized country
operates its national health program to provide inexpensive
drugs to its own citizens. Americans without insurance pay
some of the world's highest prices for brand-name
prescription drugs, in part because the United States does
not have such a plan.
Only in the last few weeks have lawmakers realized that the
proposed Australia trade agreement--the Bush administration's
first free trade agreement with a developed country--could
have major implications for health policy and programs in the
United States.
The debate over the drug imports, an issue with immense
political appeal, has been raging for 4 years, with little
reference to the arcane details of trade policy. Most trade
agreements are so complex that lawmakers rarely investigate
all the provisions, which typically cover such diverse areas
as manufacturing, tourism, insurance, agriculture, and
increasingly, pharmaceuticals.
Bush administration officials oppose legalizing imports of
inexpensive prescription drugs, citing safety concerns.
Instead, with strong backing from the pharmaceutical
industry, they have said they want to raise the price of
drugs overseas to spread the burden of research and
development that is borne disproportionately by the United
States.
Many Democrats, with the support of AARP, consumer groups
and a substantial number of Republicans, are promoting
legislation to lower drug costs by importing less expensive
medicines from Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan and other
countries where prices are regulated through public health
programs.
These two competing approaches represent very different
ways of helping Americans who typically pay much more for
brand-name prescription drugs than people in the rest of the
industrialized world.
Leaders in both houses of Congress hope to approve the free
trade agreement in the next week or two. Last Thursday, the
House Ways and Means Committee endorsed the pact, which
promises to increase American manufacturing exports by as
much as $2 billion a year and preserve jobs here.
Health advocates and officials in developing countries have
intensely debated the effects of trade deals on the ability
of poor nations to provide inexpensive generic drugs to their
citizens, especially those with AIDS.
But in Congress, the significance of the agreement for
health policy has generally been lost in the trade debate.
The chief sponsor of the Senate bill, Senator Byron L.
Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, said: ``This administration
opposes re-importation even to the extent of writing barriers
to it into its trade agreements. I don't understand why our
trade ambassador is inserting this prohibition into trade
agreements before Congress settles the issue.''
Senator John McCain, an author of the drug-import bill,
sees the agreement with Australia as hampering consumers'
access to drugs from other countries. His spokesman said the
senator worried that ``it only protects powerful special
interests.''
Gary C. Hufbauer, a senior analyst at the Institute for
International Economics, said ``the Australia free trade
agreement is a skirmish in a larger war'' over how to reduce
the huge difference in prices paid for drugs in the United
States and the rest of the industrialized world.
Kevin Outterson, an associate law professor at West
Virginia University, agreed.
``The United States has put a marker down and is now using
trade agreements to tell countries how they can reimburse
their own citizens for prescription drugs,'' he said.
The United States does not import any significant amount of
low-cost prescription drugs from Australia, in part because
federal laws effectively prohibit such imports. But a number
of states are considering imports from Australia and Canada,
as a way to save money, and American officials have made
clear that the Australia agreement sets a precedent they hope
to follow in negotiations with other countries.
Trade experts and the pharmaceutical industry offer no
assurance that drug prices will fall in the United States if
they rise abroad.
Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the senior
Democrat on the panel's trade subcommittee, voted for the
agreement, which could help industries in his state. But Mr.
Levin said the trade pact would give a potent weapon to
opponents of the drug-import bill, who could argue that
``passing it would violate our international obligations.''
Such violations could lead to trade sanctions costing the
United States and its exporters millions of dollars.
One provision of the trade agreement with Australia
protects the right of patent owners, like drug companies, to
``prevent importation'' of products on which they own the
patents. Mr. Dorgan's bill would eliminate this right.
The trade pact is ``almost completely inconsistent with
drug-import bills'' that have broad support in Congress, Mr.
Levin said.
But Representative Bill Thomas, the California Republican
who is chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said, ``The
only workable procedure is to write trade agreements
according to current law.''
For years, drug companies have objected to Australia's
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, under which government
officials decide which drugs to cover and how much to pay for
them. Before the government decides whether to cover a drug,
experts analyze its clinical benefits, safety and ``cost-
effectiveness,'' compared with other treatments.
Joseph M. Damond, and associate vice president of the
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said
Australia's drug benefit system amounted to an unfair trade
practice.
``The solution is to get rid of these artificial price
controls in other developed countries and create real
marketplace incentives for innovation,'' Mr. Damond said.
While the trade pact has barely been noticed here, it has
touched off an impassioned national debate in Australia,
where the Parliament is also close to approving it.
The Australian trade minister, Mark Vaile, promised that
``there is nothing in the free trade agreement that would
increase drug prices in Australia.''
But a recent report from a committee of the Australian
Parliament saw a serious possibility that ``Australians would
pay more for certain medicines,'' and that drug companies
would gain more leverage over government decisions there.
Bush administration officials noted that the Trade Act of
2002 said its negotiators should try to eliminate price
controls and other regulations that limit access to foreign
markets.
Dr. Mark B. McClellan, the former commissioner of food and
drugs now in charge of Medicare and Medicaid, said last year
that foreign price controls left American consumers paying
most of the cost for pharmaceutical research and development,
and that, he said, was unacceptable.

Executive Summary

NAFTA and The Future of Global Trade

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is now ten
years old. At its heart, it embodies the new heroic struggle
of working men and women to gain a foothold in the rough and
tumble global economy dominated by multinational corporate
giants. Unfortunately, it pits local workers and farmers
against global investors. It pits Neustro Maiz, a peasant
tortilla co-op in southern Mexico, against ADM, the US grain
trade giant. It pits Norma McFadden of Sandusky, Ohio, who
lost her middle class job with benefits at Dixon Ticonderoga,
against Ana Luisa Cruz of Cuidad Juarez, who earns $7 a day
with no benefits. For NAFTA to be credible as a model for
future trade agreements, it must be amended. People should be
more important than goods. A human face to trade must be
negotiated. Without it, the global divide between poverty and
wealth will exacerbate. More popular unrest will result from
unfair trade, and the social compact so necessary for global
cooperation will be shattered.
NAFTA is important because it serves as the major template
for a new global economic order integrating rich and poor
nations through trade and investment. Mexico, Canada and the
U.S. were to integrate their economies and, as a result, be
better positioned to compete globally. It was touted as the
neo-liberal model that would lift the economic condition of
all people. All ships, no matter how small, were to be
brought forward. But NAFTA worked exactly in the reverse.
Affected workers in all three nations saw their wages and
working conditions lowered. As capital moved across borders
with no social policies in place, NAFTA has triggered an
international race to the bottom as even Mexico has lost
218,000 jobs to China, a lower wage environment with a
notorious record of human rights abuses.
Capital and wealth have become more concentrated in all
three nations. The middle class in the U.S. is experiencing a
growing squeeze on benefits and job quality. In Mexico, an
endless supply of ``starvation wage'' workers was unleashed.
Now the Bush Administration is trying to spread the same
model to Central America using Central American Free Trade
Agreement (CAFTA), and throughout the rest of the Western
Hemisphere with the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
If these agreements are passed, it is clear that only the
same can be expected, that is, expanding job washout,
underemployment, and trade deficits in the U.S. without
improved living standards in the poor countries with whom it
trades.
A reformed trade model among trading nations is needed that
yields rising standards of living for workers and farmers.
This must be based on transparent and enforceable rules of
law concerning labor, environment and business. Continental
sustainable wage and labor standards should be adopted. Trade
accords must also incorporate industrial and agricultural
adjustment provisions, and currency alignment. An
infrastructure investment plan should be negotiated as a core
provision of any trade agreement. Along with complementary
systems for education and safe, reliable medical care for all
of their citizens, including the over 9 million immigrants
traveling as itinerant labor to the U.S. every year.

[[Page H5711]]

recommendations

Policy reforms are essential to amending NAFTA and other
trade agreements that have yielded such huge U.S. trade
deficits, job washout, and lowered standards of living.

a continental assessment of nafta should be launched to address its
shortcomings

An intracontinental parliamentary Working Group on Trade
and Working Life in America, comprised of U.S., Mexican, and
Canadian members, should be established with the goal of
amending NAFTA to address its shortcomings. Such a working
group should analyze the results of NAFTA and its impact on
workers, farmers and communities. The Working Group should
define a sustainable wage standard for workers in each
country and a continental labor registration system along
with enforceable labor and environmental standards. It would
identify the massive continental labor displacements that are
occurring, often with no social safety net in place. It would
explore options to deal with divergence in education and
health as well as currency fluctuations and impact of trade
on infrastructure, investment, and migration. It would
harmonize inequitable tax systems and augment credit systems
for the safe and non-usurious continental transfer of
remittances by mobile workers. It would also propose funds in
the form of adjustment assistance to cushion continental
economic integration. The organization would include as a key
component an intracontinental Agricultural Working Committee
to address the hardships faced by farmers and farm labor in
all three countries.

trade agreements should yield trade balances

If NAFTA were working in the interests of the U.S., there
would be a trade surplus with Canada and Mexico, as the U.S.
exported more than it imported. Exactly the reverse is true.
In 2003, the NAFTA trade gap equaled $100 billion--$42
billion with Mexico and $85 billion with Canada. This
represents a serious drag on U.S. gross domestic product and
a loss of wealth. Indeed the U.S.-NAFTA trade balance with
low-wage Mexico as well as Canada has turned decidedly more
negative, and worsened each year, contrary to NAFTA's stated
aims. When a trade agreement yields major and growing
deficits for more than three years, it ought to be
renegotiated.

develop an alternative trade block paradigm

Trade agreements must be structured to achieve rising
standards of living for a broad middle class, not just the
capital class. The current NAFTA model fails to address the
root causes of market dysfunction and growing U.S. trade
deficits i.e., the managed market and regulated trade
approaches being employed by its European and Asian
competitors. With NAFTA, the U.S. chose a low wage strategy
to meet this real competition from trading counterparts that
were gaining global edge. The U.S. must counter the managed
market and regulated trade approaches of its major
competitors.

harmonize quality of life up, not down

Rather than allowing transnational companies to set the
rules of engagement, democratic nations first should forge
international trade agreements with the world's developed
democracies and then invite in developing nations to
participate in this ``free world'' Global Trade Organization.
Such an effort holds the potential to transition these
nations upward to the same democratic, legal, and
environmental systems of the free world. Instead, the trade
relationships that have been forged link the economic systems
of first world democratic nations to Third World,
undemocratic, non-transparent systems. Social concerns like
education, environment, infrastructure, labor conditions, and
health have been ignored. The downward ``race to the bottom''
push of NAFTA continues to be felt in the U.S. as well as
Mexico and Canada.

trade accords should produce living wage jobs, less poverty and an
improved environment

If NAFTA were working, more good U.S. jobs would be
created, outnumbering job losses. In Mexico, workers would
experience a rising standard of living. Exactly the opposite
is true. Conservative estimates indicate the U.S. has lost
880,000 jobs due to NAFTA. These jobs are largely in U.S.
companies that merely relocate to Mexico paying ``hunger
wages.'' Wages in Mexico have been cut by a third. If NAFTA
were working in the interest of Mexicans, there would be a
reduction in poverty, a growing middle class, and
environmental improvement. Instead there is a rollback in
wages, deplorable working conditions, and growing economic
concentration of wealth in a few hands, forcing huge social
dislocation.
As U.S. jobs are sucked into Mexico, not only do more
people vanish from the middle class but also U.S. schools
lose property taxes. In a state like Ohio that has lost
nearly 200,000 jobs to Mexico, the economic decline is
visible. Ohio's income growth is declining. In 1999,
according to Ohio Department of Development statistics,
citizens in Ohio lost $30.7 billion in total income compared
to the past year. The state itself lost $15 billion. As a
result, college tuition has increased, with average student
undergraduate debt rising to record levels of $18,900.
Nursing homes are understaffed with low paid workers, and the
ranks of uninsured Ohioans has risen to 1.3 million. The
State is raising taxes on everything from sales, to gas
and to property to try to fill the gap of a fleeing
private sector. Quality of life is sliding backwards.
NAFTA-related environmental enforcement remains largely
nonexistent. If NAFTA were working, environmental
improvement in Mexico would be upgrading; it is sliding
backward.
Transition U.S./Canadian displaced workers to comparable
employment and Mexico's workers and peasants to land holding
and living wage standard.
NAFTA--displaced workers in the U.S. largely have been
abandoned in their efforts to reposition to new employment.
Unemployment benefits expire, training is inadequate, and
health benefits expire or are unaffordable. Experienced
workers rarely find jobs with comparable pay or benefits.
Mexico's vast underclass, underpaid, and exploited, lacks a
living wage, affordable elementary education, basic health
care, and systems to gain property ownership and affordable
credit even for basic purchases. In order to move forward
with any future trade agreements, NAFTA must acknowledge its
human toll and respond accordingly. NAFTA provisions have led
to the displacement of thousands of small business,
industrial and agricultural workers throughout the U.S.,
Mexico and Canada. Little provision has been made to assist
these workers, farmers, and communities with any transitional
adjustment assistance. In Mexico, this has caused masses of
people to stream toward the border and the maquiladora zones
in search for jobs.
The North American Development Bank, which was established
to help local communities build their human and physical
infrastructures, has been an abject failure. It should
promote economic investment in those regions of Mexico and
the United States where jobs have been hollowed out due to
NAFTA, or infrastructure is needed. Bank assets could be
enhanced by financial contributions that flow from trade-
related transactions.
Create new continental law enforcement body to combat
growing crime along U.S.-Mexico border region related to
border workers, drugs, and unsolved murders of hundreds of
Mexican women.
The United States Departments of Labor and Homeland
Security should be tasked not only with stopping the
trafficking of bonded laborers but devising a continental
labor identification card. Along with mass migration, the
border has seen an explosion in the illicit drug trade. Law
enforcement officers on both sides of the border must battle
smuggling in narcotics and persons. A continental working
group should be directed to recommend a new solution for
combating crimes that result from the illegal drug and bonded
worker trade that spans the border.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Let me begin by saying to the gentleman from Illinois that I want to
congratulate him and thank him for his leadership in the area of trade.
Through the years, there has been no one in this House that has been a
more stalwart proponent of opening markets abroad and in the U.S. to
trade, and I think that his leadership has done a great deal to improve
the lives of Americans. So I congratulate him on bringing this
agreement to the floor.
I do rise in strong support of this agreement with Australia. I think
it is worth noting that this is the first free trade agreement we have
had with an industrialized nation in 17 years. It is an important trade
agreement. It is one that demonstrates how U.S. leadership in
international economic policy is continuing to expand free trade on a
worldwide basis.
The amount of trade between the United States and Australia is
substantial--$29 billion--which makes it the ninth largest trading
partner of the United States: $19 billion of that amount reflects trade
in agricultural and industrial production, and $9 billion, the fastest
growing part, is the trade in services. Our exports to Australia
include transportation equipment, notably aircraft and engine parts,
telecommunications equipment, measuring instruments, internal
combustion engines, and computers and all the components that go into
those computers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this agreement. It is an
agreement that is critically important for consumers here, for our
families, and for workers here in the United States. Free trade with
Australia helps to keep inflation rates low. It provides opportunities
for a better quality of life for the U.S. worker and families through
lower prices of imported goods.
We are pursuing this agreement in our national economic interests.
But, without doubt, it also serves our national security and our
foreign policy interests as well.

[[Page H5712]]

Let us make no mistake about it, and the gentlewoman from Ohio
alluded to this: Australia has been a friend; it has been an ally in
this war against terrorism. In the aftermath of the September 11
terrorist attacks, this ally has provided some 1,550 soldiers and
military equipment to support the U.S.-led coalition to combat
terrorism. Australia has contributed generously to the coalition effort
to disarm Iraq by sending to Iraq fighter jets, transport aircraft and
ships, reconnaissance forces, and dive team members.
So I want to commend Ambassador Zoellick and the team at USTR and the
administration for successfully negotiating what I think is an
important free trade agreement. It is not perfect. Members like myself
would have wished to have increased market access for Australian
exports of sugar. But, nonetheless, this is a good agreement and a
significant accomplishment, and I urge my fellow Members to vote
``yes'' on this agreement.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to mention right at the beginning that the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) wished to be here. We share a very
similar approach to this issue. But he had to leave to go to New York
for a funeral, so he could not be with us.
This administration's economic policy, in a few words, has been a
miserable failure. I have joined with others in opposing key parts of
their approach to trade. I helped lead the fight against their Trade
Promotion Authority and for our own alternative, and we have helped to
point out time after time their lackluster record on enforcement.
In a word, we have opposed the administration for using a one-size-
fits-all, a blind, a cookie-cutter approach to trade policy. I do not
think it works for us to respond with our own cookie-cutter approach to
trade.
So we have before us a specific agreement. It has some very
important, positive features to it. For manufacturing, right now, 93
percent of the total value of goods that we send over to Australia are
in manufacturing, and duties on more than 99 percent on these goods
will be eliminated. This has real implications for autos and auto
parts, for construction equipment, for electrical equipment, for
appliances, for furniture, for information technology, for medical and
scientific equipment. Also, there are important provisions here for
agriculture. Australia will eliminate immediately all of their tariffs
on food and on agriculture.
Let me say, though, despite these provisions, and there are some
important provisions regarding services, I would vote against this bill
if I thought it either undermined our position, our efforts, our
commitment on core labor standards, or our firm commitment on the
reimportation of drugs.
As to labor standards, Australia uses the standard ``enforce your own
laws.'' That can work for countries that have solid laws that meet ILO
standards and enforce them. That was the standard, ``enforce your own
laws,'' in Jordan; and it worked because those standards are in their
laws and they enforce them. It is the case in Australia.
I think the best approach is to say what will work for Australia will
not work for nations with very different conditions. We will never
agree to one-size-fits-all, to a blind application of provisions; and
that is clearly true in terms of labor standards in Central American
nations.
We on this side overwhelmingly, and I hope the same is true of many
over there, will not vote for a CAFTA with a standard that would ratify
very unsatisfactory conditions for their workers, for their nations,
for our workers and our Nation, and can only lead to a race to the
bottom.
As to prescription medicines, we were very concerned about this
issue. A number of us, led by the leader, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Stark), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and others, as I
look at the letter, opened up this question with our USTR in our letter
of January 15.
Here is what we said: ``We are writing as members of the Democratic
leadership of the House and senior members of the Committee on Ways and
Means to express serious concerns about the administration's effort to
modify Australia's National Pharmaceutical Reimbursement Program as
part of the negotiations of a free trade agreement with Australia.''
We said in conclusion, ``Given these concerns, we urge you,'' this
was a letter to the President, to the USTR, to Mr. Zoellick, ``to
withdraw the proposal that would, in essence, interfere with their
structure and would replace it with one that is derived after a
meaningful dialogue with Congress.''
Australia resisted this effort by USTR. We supported Australia's
resistance. That approach was, in essence, withdrawn; and it is not in
this agreement.
Then as to prescription medicines, there is the issue of whether it
forces changes in the law of Australia. We asked the ambassador from
Australia to tell it straight, and here is what he said. We wrote it
down. It reiterated today what he said earlier: ``In neither case with
respect to listing or pricing decisions will we be changing Australian
legislation. We are not changing the methodology for evaluating the
effectiveness and the pricing of drugs. We are making changes to the
process to allow greater consultation and transparency, to make the
process more timely and to allow an independent review of the decision
by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The final decision
to list a drug, including the price, remains with the Minister for
Health. Let me also refer briefly to the issue of whether it will force
any other changes, and I think the answer is basically no.
Mr. Speaker, let me address the issue of reimportation for just a
minute.

{time} 1630

Australian law, as has been mentioned, prohibits the export of any
drug that is subsidized by their system. That is 90 percent of their
drugs. What was placed in this FTA was the laws of this country that
relate to patents, including pharmaceutical drugs, but all other
patents. I think it was a mistake to include it in this FTA. However,
it has no practical effect in terms of reimportation because of the
Australian system and their prohibition on the export of any drug that
is subsidized. They do not want their subsidization to benefit us here
in the United States.
So if we follow the principle that we will look at each agreement on
its own, if we follow that principle, I think we will then approve
Australia, we will approve this FTA, but we will make it very clear
that if that provision is placed in another FTA where the conditions
are very different and it could affect, practically speaking,
reimportation of drugs to the U.S., we will do the same vis-a-vis such
effort as we are going to do as to CAFTA, strongly oppose it, because
we do not want provisions in one agreement placed in another where the
conditions are very, very different and where there would be injury to
the interests of the United States.
So, in a word, I do think, because of the positive provisions in this
FTA relating to manufacturing, agriculture services, that we should
approve this agreement. However, in doing so, it has to be absolutely
clear: Do not use the standard as to core labor standards elsewhere
where the conditions are different, and do not dare for a minute use
this in any fair trade agreement which would actually inhibit our
changes in law on reimportation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this agreement.
Over the years, Australia has been a terrific friend of the United
States of America in every way. Over the years, I have restated my
commitment to free trade between free people, and I can think of no
better example of two free nations establishing open commerce between
themselves than this suggestion that we have free trade with the people
of Australia.
Moreover, Australia has been a stalwart ally in the war on terror,
and they have been with us all the way when much of the rest of the
world was against us.
Unfortunately, the authors of this bill decided to construct it in a
fashion that will restrict the right of the

[[Page H5713]]

American people to purchase reimported, American-made prescription
drugs in this bill and in future trade agreements.
Well, I happen to be a strong supporter of America's access to
reimported, American-made prescription drugs, but I am also supportive
of free trade between free people, and I am also a grateful American
for the friendship that has been shown us and demonstrated by the
people of Australia. I would like to express my frustration with the
administration and with our leadership for making what would have been
an effortless vote on my part into a much more difficult decision. They
cannot count on me in the future for votes on free trade agreements
that include this provision.
But, in terms of this vote today, we owe it to our Australian
friends. They have been with us through thick and thin, and this vote
today and this free trade agreement is our way of saying to our
Australian friends, thanks, mates.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time
waiting, I believe, for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) to
close if he would like.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to our distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation.
I would like to take a few minutes to first follow up on the
discussion that we had at the opening of the rules debate this morning
on the House floor.
One of our colleagues, I do not remember exactly who it was, I think
it may have been my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin),
talked about the fact that there had been no consultation on the issue
of this pharmaceutical drug reimportation issue; and I said at the time
that I was going to get some information on the consultative process
which took place as it relates to the free trade agreement, and it does
include a great deal of discussion on the issue of the pharmaceutical
question.
The administration, as I said this morning, held extensive, extensive
consultations with Congress on the Australia Free Trade Agreement.
There were, in fact, 29 briefings that were held with the Committee on
the Judiciary and members of the Committee on Ways and Means on the
FTA. There were actually eight briefings that were held specifically on
the pharmaceutical question in a bipartisan way, and they related
directly to the intellectual property rights issue, which is an
important question.
So this argument that somehow there was no consultation with the
Congress on the issue of the pharmaceutical question is a specious one.
Actually, Members and staff who have clearances received the text on
the intellectual property rights issue, which included patent
provisions, in March of 2003, 16 months ago. So I think it is important
for us to note that there has been an important process that took
place.
My good friend and fellow Californian (Mr. Rohrabacher) was just here
in the well, and I know that there has been, again, some confusion on
this issue of whether or not the free trade agreement itself somehow
includes a provision that would prevent the United States Congress from
dealing with the reimportation issue. I will say right now what I said
this morning when we were debating the rule: There is absolutely
nothing whatsoever in this legislation that regards the issue of drug
reimportation.
What I would like to do is say that the free trade agreement has
nothing in it, the implementing language has nothing in it at all. Any
law that the United States Congress passes always will trump the free
trade agreement. So the very important thing that we need to realize is
that our Constitution grants us that authority. So the patent provision
in the free trade agreement restates U.S. law and applies to all
patents, not just pharmaceuticals. Not including this provision would
be devastating to the U.S. intellectual property rights holders in
every sector of our economy, including pharmaceuticals.
I know my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), is
a great screenwriter. It would include, obviously, intellectual
property when it comes to our very important entertainment industry as
well.
Australian law states, already states that there is a ban on the
exportation of drugs dispensed under the PBS, the Pharmaceutical
Benefits Scheme that exists. Unlike Canada, Australian law explicitly
prohibits other parties such as a wholesaler or a pharmacist from
exporting nonPBS-dispensed drugs. That is Australian law. It has
nothing whatsoever to do with the free trade agreement itself.
So I think we need, and I am happy that my friend is going to be
supportive of this legislation and was going to be supportive earlier,
but now what I want him to know is that he can be an even greater
enthusiast in support of this now that we realize that there is nothing
in this free trade agreement that deals with the issue of drug
reimportation.
Now, let me just make a couple of comments on some things that had
troubled me.
First, and this does not trouble me at all, it is simply praise for
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Trade. He educated me and a lot of others over the
years on the importance of trade liberalization. Trade liberalization,
breaking down barriers, does enhance opportunities for the free flow of
goods, services, and capital and how that improves the quality of life
worldwide. I learned so much of that from the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Crane). He has been a great teacher on it.
The thing that has concerned me about this debate today is that some
are trying to use the U.S.-Australia free trade agreement as an
argument in opposition to other agreements. It is true that with
Australia we have a very similar economy, and that is something that is
important for us to recognize. It is also true, as my friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and others have said, and
I said when I was standing here this morning, that the alliance between
Australia and the United States of America is an extraordinarily
important one.

Prime Minister Howard was here on September 11 of 2001. He was going
to be addressing a joint session of Congress, and he was here when
President Bush addressed the Congress, and he stood with us
consistently. In fact, he actually has used this term, he describes
Australia as the sheriff for the United States of America. And it does
underscore the importance of this agreement, how it will go even
further in strengthening this critically important tie.
But as we look at the Australia agreement, how we can all of a sudden
say the trade liberalization with countries that are trying to claw
themselves onto the first rung of the economic ladder, how we did
oppose those based on the fact that we have one structure with the
U.S.-Australia agreement, is to me something that is very, very
troubling.
I happen to be a strong proponent of the Central American Free Trade
Agreement. I believe that it is critical for us, as the trade
ministers, all the trade ministers said to me upstairs in the Committee
on Rules just several weeks ago from five Central American countries,
that to lock in democracy in Central America, to make sure that we
improve the standard of living for the people of Central America, we
must have the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
Now, many of us were in Seattle. I know I was there with my friend,
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), in December of 1999, the first
week of December, 1999. We all know how that meeting fell apart. And I
will never forget the cover of The Economist magazine, that great
publication which, for a century and a half, has focused on the issue
of trade liberalization as its priority. The cover of that magazine the
week after the ministerial meeting broke down in Seattle had a picture
of a starving baby in Bangladesh with the caption: ``Who was the real
loser in Seattle?''
The reason is that it is important for us, if we are committed to
making sure that these developing nations do, in fact, have an
opportunity to succeed and, as I said, get onto the first rung of

[[Page H5714]]

the economic ladder, we need to work on trade liberalization with them.
We need to help them find new opportunities to participate in the
global economy. So that is why this is a very good agreement; and,
similarly, other free trade agreements that we are going to be putting
together that will break down barriers and encourage that free flow of
goods and services and capital is something that we absolutely must
continue with.
So, yes, we are going to have strong bipartisan support for this
measure, but equally important and, in some ways, maybe even more
important, Mr. Speaker, we need to have strong bipartisan support when
it comes to these further agreements. Why? Because there are countries
in this hemisphere and in other parts of the world that would love to
have economies like Australia's or like the United States of America,
and I happen to believe that the only way that we are going to create
an opportunity for them to enjoy the wonderful standard of living that
exists in both Australia and the United States of America is for us to
have them enjoy the opportunity to participate in our global economy.

{time} 1645

So I herald my colleagues who are going to be supporting this. I hope
that everyone plays a role in understanding that this is part of our
being on the cutting edge of the 21st century global economy. I
congratulate President Bush for the leadership that he and Ambassador
Zoellick have provided on this issue and my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle for doing it. I look forward to a very, very strong vote in
just a few minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is a short time to talk
about a trade bill, but I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Michigan for his hard work, all of the Members that are on the floor.
Let me speak very quickly. I look forward to a Congress, hopefully
Democratic-controlled, that will have the kind of oversight that will
allow us to write the trade bills that answer all of the concerns of
Americans, but let me just say this. The work that has been done on
this bill leads me to believe that we can at least get started in
support of this legislation.
One, I am sure that the indigenous population in Australia is one
that is going to be addressed, that they are looking to enhance their
educational opportunities, and I am going to be monitoring it myself. I
do believe that it is important to state that the present status of
reimportation is not precedent; and even if we vote on this
legislation, it will not be used against us in the whole concept of
providing cheaper drugs for Americans.
I am very glad to say that there are no immigration provisions on
there, because no treaty should allow back-door immigration policies
like the Chilean trade bill and the Singapore trade bill.
And then I would say although it is not perfect, and I want to say to
my labor friends, you are absolutely right, and when we get the kind of
Congress that ensures that we have strong labor laws, we will be able
to write these good bills; but I am glad to say that Australia does
have its own worker-protection legislation. With that, I would say that
this bill provides us an opportunity to make a positive statement, and
in Texas we have got $749 million in trade in Texas.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade
Agreement, H.R. 4759 because of the economic benefits that it will
bring for both signatories of the agreement. During insecure economic
times it is vital that we give free trade agreements such as this close
scrutiny. While I have certain reservations about this Agreement,
specifically the fact that workers rights protections are not as
extensive as those given for intellectual property, I am giving my
support to Australian Free Trade Agreement in the hopes that more
Americans jobs can be created as a result.
My support for this bill of implementation goes with the hope that it
will not bring with it some of the negative implications that the Chile
and Singapore agreements brought. I voted against the U.S.-Chile Free
Trade Agreement, H.R. 2738 and the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement,
H.R. 2739 in July of last year partially based on the impacts that will
be made on employment in the United States.
My support for the Australian Free Trade Agreement is largely based
on the fact that there are no back-door immigration provisions included
in the bill. The Chile and Singapore agreements however, will create a
new class of temporary entry visa for ``professional'' workers. As
Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims, this substantial change to the current immigration laws
concerns me. Certain classes of workers--some 5,400 Singaporean and
1,800 Chilean immigrants would be eligible for this visa which would be
indefinitely renewable. The H1-B rules that limit the duration and
renewability needed to be applied to these agreements in order to
preserve the consistency of our immigration policy. Additionally it is
important to note that Texas does over $740 million dollars in export
business with Australia thereby creating JOBS in Texas!
I also found the lack of parity between the enforcement of labor laws
in the U.S. and in Chile and Singapore to be troubling because it would
leave our workers vulnerable to harsh and inhumane labor standards.
Fast Track legislation has not required the president to include
enforceable protections for the environment and workers' rights in our
trade agreements, lacks adequate procedures for consultation with
Congress and the public, harms independent farmers and limits
democratic debate about trade policy.
The U.S.-Australia FTA is between industrialized nations; two
countries with many similarities in terms of their stage of economic
development. This is true of the important manufacturing sector, and
therefore the reductions in tariff levels should provide many mutual
benefits. Australia has also made important commitments in the area of
copyright and trademark protections which will safeguard digital
content and promote Internet technologies.
In the area of internationally-recognized core labor standards, the
FTA adopts a standard for each nation to effectively enforce its own
laws. While I do not support this model, I believe the structures in
Australia, and importantly, the history and experience in this area,
including a substantial percentage of Australian workers in unions and
covered by collective bargaining agreements, are strong enough to
ensure fair competition and a substantial middle class for the benefit
of Australia and as a market for U.S. goods and services.
History has invariable shown that the status of internationally-
recognized labor standards is a critical factor in a nation's economic
development, in the spread of benefits to a broad spectrum of its
citizens and in reducing serious income disparities which is essential
to the development of a middle class.
Unfortunately, the Administration continues to pursue trade
agreements with countries in very different stages of economic
development than ours using the same model for labor standards. Their
one-size-fits-all approach to trade agreements generally, and labor
standards specifically, is driven by their outdated view that more
trade is always better, no matter the terms and content of the trade,
ignoring the stark realities of globalization.
As long as the Bush Administration continues to ignore these
realities, they will find success only in smaller agreements such as
Australia and continue to fail U.S. workers and businesses in the
larger or more difficult FTAs (i.e., CAFTA, FTAA), in the multi-lateral
World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations, and in addressing the
skyrocketing trade deficit with China.
Lastly, I want to make it very, very clear, the prohibition of the
reimportation of prescription drugs is not supported by my vote--and
should not be taken as support for this precedent!
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself \1/2\ minute.
Two quick comments. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) says
that U.S. law will always trump a trade agreement, but it could create
a violation of the trade agreement. In this case a violation is
theoretical, but do not try the approach in a very different case.
Secondly, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), a race to
the bottom does not help the people in developing nations or this
Nation. That is why we want different agreements for different
situations.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has expired.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the

[[Page H5715]]

gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time,
and I would simply say that we all want to ensure that we do not see an
engagement in the race to the bottom. That is not a goal that we have
at all. What we want to do is we want to have in place policies, and
the so-called race-to-the-bottom argument is one which was used as we
were looking at the passage of fast track several years ago.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) enforcing your own laws in a situation where the laws are
inferior and unenforced will lead to a race to the bottom.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say that we all
want to do everything that we can to ensure that we do not engage in a
race to the bottom. What we want to do is we want to make sure that we
engage in a race to the top; and to get to the top, there are many
countries that today may not be able to comply with every single
standard that developed nations like Australia and the United States of
America enjoy, and it is for that reason that we need to ensure and
recognize that the best way for them to be able to qualify for that
status is to see the economies of those countries grow.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my final 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy hearing the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) talk about a world of trade that never quite ends up the way
that we promise in this institution.
For 3 years in this Congress with this President, we have turned our
government over to special interest groups. The Medicare bill was
written by the insurance industry, the drug industry. Social security
privatization legislation was written by Wall Street. Energy
legislation has been written by Enron and Halliburton. Environmental
legislation has been drafted by the chemical companies. And now trade
legislation again has been written, in these provisions that we have
talked about, by the drug companies.
If you think that the prescription drug industry has too much
influence in this Congress, if you think the prescription drug industry
has too much influence on the Medicare bill, too much influence with
FDA, too much influence on trade policy, then vote ``no'' on this U.S.-
Australia FTA.
If you do not trust the Bush administration to stand up to the drug
companies and you do not trust the Bush administration to work for
lower prices, then vote ``no'' on this U.S.-Australia FTA. If you care
about reimportation and close to 300 Members on both sides of the
aisle, 300 Members of this body do care about reimportation, if you in
fact do, then vote ``no'' on U.S.-Australia FTA.
And if you want to send a message to this Congress, if you want to
send a message to the President and to the USTR that we should not
allow the drug industry to write trade law in this country, then vote
``no.''
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to just reiterate in closing that this is an important
agreement, and Australia is a close ally and friend of the United
States. As the Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile has said, this FTA
is the commercial equivalent of the ANZUS treaty on security issues
signed in 1951. This agreement represents the best FTA ever negotiated
regarding industrial products, over 99 percent of which will become
duty free immediately. And it is estimated that U.S. exports to
Australia support more than 150,000 jobs currently. And in addition,
Australian farms in the U.S. employ over 85,000 Americans. The U.S.
already enjoys a $9 billion trade surplus with Australia, and this
agreement is clearly in our national interest; and I strongly urge my
colleagues to support this agreement. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4759.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
Australia Free Trade Agreement but also to express reservations about
the precedent it may set for future trade agreements. Australia has
been a strong ally for decades and it is appropriate that the United
States enjoy an open and fruitful trading relationship with Australia.
Locally, this trade agreement will give a strong boost to trade and
investments. My state of Missouri sent $137 million dollars worth of
goods and services in 2003 to Australia, an increase of 9 percent over
the previous year, in a variety of sectors. For example, chemical
manufacturers export $46.4 million worth of goods to Australia and
machinery manufacturers send $28.1 million worth of their products to
the Australian market.
This trade agreement has received strong support from a variety of
interests. The agreement contains many positive provisions such as
strong protections for copyright owners and it provides exporters with
a sound legal environment for the export of goods to the United States.
Our country enjoys a trade surplus with Australia and has a long
standing economic relationship with the United States that this
agreement will continue. Passage of this agreement is a positive step
for our relationship with one of our closest allies.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the
hard work and leadership of the Chairman and Ranking Member in
producing this Australian Free Trade Agreement.
It is a credit to the diligence and dedication of the Australian
government that this complex Free Trade Agreement was completed in
under a year.
That is why I'm hopeful that the Australian government will employ
that same diligence and dedication in resolving a dispute over maritime
boundaries with its neighbor, East Timor.
Fifty-three of my colleagues have already joined in supporting East
Timor's call for a fair and expeditious resolution to this dispute.
These disputed boundaries are a reminder of the invalid agreements
made between Indonesia and Australia during the Indonesian military
occupation of East Timor.
The East Timorese struggle for independence will not be complete
until East Timor, a fully sovereign country, no longer has to bear that
lingering reminder of subjugation.
To be sure, there is tremendous enormous financial benefit dependent
upon how these maritime boundaries are drawn.
Rich with oil and natural gas reserves, these critical areas are an
economic resource for a struggling country of very little economic
activity.
A country struggling with high maternal mortality, widespread malaria
and tuberculosis, rampant poverty, and desperately needed education.
The Australian government was a leader in assisting East Timor's
transition to democracy. It provided peacekeepers and foreign aid. But
since 1999, Australia has acquired an average of $1 million a day in
petroleum from the disputed areas, exceeding the amount of assistance
it provided to East Timor.
The Free Trade Agreement today between our two countries are a mark
of respect we have for each other. A fair and equitable resolution of
this boundary dispute with East Timor honors Australia's leadership and
commitment to fostering a strong and enduring democracy.
As a friend of Australia, I respectfully urge its government to
rejoin the international dispute resolution mechanisms and
expeditiously negotiate a permanent maritime boundary in the Timor Sea
in good faith, according to the established principles of international
law.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure,
which demonstrates, once again, the unmatched value of trade
liberalization and the shared benefits of free trade agreements.
Over the last year, many of my colleagues here in the House have
sought to address the plight of domestic manufacturers who have trimmed
payrolls as they adapt to a new economy driven by the productivity
gains of new technology. In the quest for political points trade has
been wrongfully vilified and talk has centered on erecting new barriers
to trade. Today members have an opportunity to set aside this
counterproductive rhetoric and put into action a manufacturing trade
agreement--an agreement that will benefit all sectors of our economy.
Two-way trade between the two countries exceeds $25 billion and the
U.S. enjoys a $6 billion dollar trade surplus. More importantly, upon
entry into force, 99 percent of exported U.S. manufactured goods to
Australia will become duty-free. Manufactured goods now account for
nearly 93 percent of U.S. exports to Australia. For automakers, a
cornerstone industry for Ohio, this agreement will sweeten an export
market that is already dominated by U.S. cars and light trucks and
presents an opportunity for even more growth.
Lower tariffs on American goods will mean job creation, job security,
and money in the pockets of America's workforce. Last year Ohio joined
Washington, California, Illinois, Texas, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
Kentucky, New York and Florida in the top 10 of exporting states to
Australia. For my colleagues looking for even more reasons to vote in
support of this agreement, you will discover some 19,000 companies that
export to Australia

[[Page H5716]]

waiting for the opportunity to grow their business through lower
tariffs and the removal of non-tariff trade barriers.
Those who search for any reason to be anti-trade are at a loss with
this agreement because Australia maintains some of the highest labor
standards and wage rates in the world. Sensitive agriculture products
such as dairy and beef are protected with permanent safeguards and
microscopic increases in tariff rate quotas. One commodity, sugar, is
entirely exempted from the agreement. In short, those looking for
reasons to oppose won't be able to find any.
Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement gives members
that are concerned about job creation and manufacturing a chance to
match their rhetoric with their vote. I urge members to support this
agreement and vote yes.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this free trade
agreement.
A free trade agreement with Australia is a one-way street going in
the wrong direction for U.S. jobs.
I am not opposed to free trade, but support it only when I believe
the gains outweigh the losses.
Each year, Australia imports only 338 million dollars of American
agriculture. Meanwhile, the United States imports about 2 billion
dollars of agriculture from Australia.
Most of these imports, especially wine, milk, and wool, will hurt
California's agriculture economy.
Competition is good for business, but only when all teams are playing
by the same rules.
Over the past decade, exports of U.S. specialty crops have remained
flat because of trade barriers and subsidized competition in many
foreign countries.
Unfortunately, the Uruguay Round and other trade agreements have not
provided the access to foreign markets that U.S. specialty crops were
promised.
We need to remove these barriers before we sign new FTAs, and even
then we should only sign those agreements that will result in
beneficial trade for the United States--more exports than import.
I am especially concerned about FTAs with countries that export milk
protein concentrates, which are used for the illegal substitution of
milk in cheese. This robs our children of nutrition in the name of
profit.
Warning Mr. and Mrs. America, one cup of milk in every slice is
actually one cup of MPC in every slice.
As a representative of California, our Nation's beacon of
agriculture, I have to think about jobs and the rural economy as much
as lower prices at the consumer end.
We need to choose between buying moderately priced, high-quality
products grown in the United States, or saving at the checkout counter
on lower-quality foreign goods at the cost of sending our jobs abroad.
Will the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs to trade feel
that it was worth it when they save a few dollars at the grocery store?
I don't think they will.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Australian Free Trade
Agreement and other FTAs until the administration can focus on economic
policies that protect American jobs.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
The Australian Free Trade Agreement has been crafted in a way that
repeats the flaws and weaknesses of previous agreements such as NAFTA.
However, this agreement is particularly bad for Wisconsin dairy farmers
and Wisconsin seniors.
This agreement puts Wisconsin dairy producers at a disadvantage. It
reduces and ultimately eliminates tariffs on a variety of Australian
dairy products, including cheese, which is what most Wisconsin milk is
used to produce. While the agreement does eliminate tariffs on U.S.
dairy exports to Australia, this will not provide significant new
export markets for American dairy producers. The Australian dairy
industry is mature and stable, and Australia is a net exporter of dairy
goods--they already export more than they import.
Another serious concern I have is how the agreement treats
importation of Milk Protein Concentrate (MPC). MPC has been entering
our country at an increasing rate since the mid-1990s. One of the
biggest exporters of MPC is Australia. MPC can be imported in the U.S.
under a very low tariff rate. This makes it an inexpensive substitute
for domestically produced milk in American cheese vats and other dairy
products. Simply put, MPC takes the place of U.S. milk in a variety of
products, thereby reducing the demand for domestic milk, and lowering
the price Wisconsin dairy producers receive for their high-quality
product. Unfortunately, the agreement did not close the MPC import
loophole--the tariff on MPC remains artificially low, and so imports of
MPC will continue to displace U.S. milk in the domestic production of
dairy products.
Further, I have serious concerns about provisions included in the
agreement that relate to prescription drugs. The agreement allows
pharmaceutical companies to prevent the importation of drugs to the
United States. While this will have a very small practical impact on
the importation of prescription drugs from Australia, it does hamper
efforts of this Congress to provide our Nation's seniors with access to
affordable prescription drugs. We simply cannot stand idly by while
American seniors pay 30 percent-300 percent more for the exact same
prescription drugs available in other countries. Allowing drug
companies to prevent the importation of prescription drugs from
Australia sets a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements. We
should be expanding seniors' access to affordable drugs, not limiting
it.
In addition, this agreement allows drug companies to challenge
decisions made by Australia about what drugs should be covered under
that country's health plan. This marks the first time that the United
States has challenged how a foreign industrialized nation operates its
national health program to provide inexpensive drugs to its own
citizens. Instead of interfering with the Australian health program, we
should learn from it. While our seniors continue to pay exorbitant
prices for prescription drugs and lack comprehensive, reliable
prescription drug coverage, Australia has developed a program that
guarantees its citizens coverage for affordable prescription drugs. We
should not be hampering their success.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-Australia Free
Trade Agreement, but with strong reservations about the pharmaceutical
provisions.
Australia is the 12th largest foreign market for the State of Maine.
The State exported $29 million in goods and services to Australia last
year. That amount will likely grow with this agreement, which
eliminates 99 percent of all tariffs on manufactured goods, including
on paper and wood products, and reduces barriers to Maine agricultural
and services exporters.
Since Australia is a developed country with strong labor and
environmental laws, this FTA does not involve a significant debate over
the need to promote effective labor and environmental standards through
trade agreements.
On balance, the agreement will benefit consumers and businesses in
both countries by lowering barriers to trade in goods and services.
However, the administration has included provisions, sought by the drug
industry, that raise barriers to free trade in pharmaceuticals. This
represents the first trade agreement to force changes in a trading
partner's health regulations.
Australia is the first country to implement a comprehensive system
that evaluates the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of
drugs. Under their innovative Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, PBS, the
reimbursement rate for pharmaceuticals is based on the therapeutic
value of a drug, rather than on the price that the manufacturer wants
to charge. The system allows for higher reimbursements for truly
innovative drugs. Pharmaceutical manufacturers are given ample
opportunity to prove the value of their products, which results in a
negotiation over the price at which the government will reimburse the
manufacturer.
The U.S. pharmaceutical industry dislikes the Australian system
because it shifts decision-making power over drug prices from industry
executives to doctors and health professionals. Consequently, the Bush
administration signaled that it wanted to make changes to the PBS
through the U.S.-Australian Free Trade Agreement.
I am the sponsor, with Representative Jo Ann Emerson, of bipartisan
legislation (H.R. 2356) to provide Federal funding for comparative
effectiveness studies in the U.S. In October 2003, we sent a bipartisan
letter to U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, Robert Zoellick expressing
concerns that changes to the PBS could undermine our domestic efforts
to promote comparative effectiveness. An exchange of letters followed.
Last winter, USTR offered a proposal to the Australians which,
reportedly, would have undermined the pricing structure of the PBS.
Fortunately, following objections by Members of Congress, public health
groups, and the Government of Australia, that onerous provision was not
adopted.
The pharmaceutical provisions that ultimately were included in the
FTA were more limited, but not insignificant. My concerns are as
follows:
First, Article 17.9.4 grants a patent holder like a pharmaceutical
company the right to block re-importation of its patented product into
the U.S. by contract or other means. By contrast, S. 2328, the Dorgan-
McCain re-importation bill, contains provisions designed to prevent
drug companies from restricting the ability of pharmacists or
wholesalers to import drugs from approved countries (the bill lists
Australia). The Senate re-importation bill, if enacted, could thus be
challenged as inconsistent with trade law. The U.S. could be found to
be in violation of obligations under

[[Page H5717]]

the U.S.-Australia FTA, and subject to sanctions until the re-
importation law is repealed.
However, Australian law already prohibits this practice. Thus, the
provision is not necessary. So why is it here? To set a precedent.
Deputy USTR Josette Shiner testified before the Senate Finance
Committee on April 27 that the pharmaceutical provisions in the
Australia FTA ``lay the groundwork for future FTAs,'' which will
``steer us in ongoing and future global, regional and bilateral
negotiations--including upcoming FTA negotiations and consultations
with Canada and other major trading partners bilaterally and in
international fora like the OECD.''
The intent of the Bush Administration is clear. If the provision in
this FTA were applied to trade relations with Canada (where re-export
is legal), it would permit legal challenges, under trade law, to the
re-importation bill that many of us favor as a source of affordable
medicines for our constituents.
Second, the FTA opens up our Medicare program for potential changes,
a fact acknowledged by USTR. Annex 2-C of the FTA imposes transparency
obligations not only on Australia's PBS, but also on the pharmaceutical
reimbursement policies of the Medicare Part B program. While USTR
claims that these obligations do not require changes in U.S. law or
regulation, it does set a worrisome precedent for modifying domestic
health policies through trade agreements, where Congress has less say
and the pharmaceutical industry has more influence.
Third, there are questions about whether the Australian FTA will
affect the Department of Veterans Affairs' prescription drug benefit.
An analysis by the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health
concludes that the Government Procurement Chapter of the U.S.-Australia
FTA grants pharmaceutical companies standing to challenge VA
procurement decisions, including decisions about the coverage and
pricing of pharmaceuticals, as an unfair trade practice. USTR responds
that the FTA imposes no new obligations on the VA beyond those already
required by the World Trade Organization's Government Procurement
Agreement. This question bears further investigation.

I have met with USTR officials, and came away with the impression
that they went to great lengths to ensure that the pharmaceutical
provisions in the U.S.-Australia FTA did not force changes to current
U.S. health law or regulation. Even with the limited provision in the
FTA, which makes relatively minor changes to the Australian PBS, U.S.
negotiators couldn't avoid subjecting our Medicare program to the
Agreement's obligations. They treaded carefully, but still crossed the
line.
By the Administration's own admission, this FTA is part of a larger
policy designed to dismantle so-called drug price control/reference
pricing systems in other countries. Given the Australian experience, it
is inconceivable that more aggressive pharmaceutical provisions in
future FTAs won't have reciprocal, and likely adverse, effects on U.S.
federal health programs.
Basically, by the same definition that labels the Australian,
Canadian or German systems as ``price controls,'' our VA and DOD drug
programs are price controls. Those who would use trade policy to
dismantle price controls overseas will endanger the prescription drug
benefits we offer to American veterans and military personnel.
Regardless of one's position on re-importation, the Australia FTA in
general or the pharmaceutical provisions in particular, each of us
should question whether it is appropriate to subject U.S. health laws
to changes through trade negotiations. Under the Trade Promotion
Authority procedure, Congress does not have the ability to amend an
agreement once negotiated, and the principal House and Senate health
policy committees are given little if any role.
Lastly, I question whether it is appropriate to use trade policy to
interfere in other nations' health systems. We certainly wouldn't
accept such a demand from other countries. The United States will win
no friends if our trade agenda becomes a heavy handed tool to raise
drug prices on the citizens of our trading partners.
The Bush Administration's excuse for not insisting on strong labor
and environmental standards in trade agreements is that the U.S. has no
business dictating other nations' labor and environmental laws. It is
hypocritical for the Administration to take the opposite approach when
it comes to health laws.
Australians like their PBS and believe it is a balanced and
scientifically sound way of assessing value for money for
pharmaceuticals. Who are we to conclude otherwise? Australians can get
any drug they want that is approved by their equivalent of the Food and
Drug Administration. There is a viable private market for the few drugs
not listed on the PBS. In my opinion, USTR's cited justification under
the Trade Act for the pharmaceutical provisions is wrong. Australians
are not denied full market access to U.S. drug products.
The PBS section in the U.S.-Australian FTA has emerged as a major
point of contention in Australia. Allegations that it will raise prices
have forced a sensitive domestic political debate. This experience
leads me to believe that a sure way for the Administration to slow down
its trade agenda is to keep insisting on similar pharmaceutical
provisions.
To conclude, I support the Australian FTA. This agreement by itself
will have little or no impact on U.S. health care laws. But I want to
make clear that similar provisions must be kept out of future trade
agreements.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my support for
H.R. 4759, legislation implementing a free trade agreement with the
nation of Australia.
Australia represents the world's 15th largest economy and Asia's
fourth largest, and therefore offers great opportunities for U.S.
exports. Australia has consistently been a partner with the United
States in pushing for more open and freer trade throughout the world.
So it is only fitting to have a free trade agreement with nation that
shares our beliefs in freedom and free markets.
Under this FTA, more than 99 percent of U.S. manufactured goods will
be duty-free from the first day of implementation. North Carolina
exports to Australia in 2003, my state's 17th biggest export market,
were valued at almost $262 million. From computer equipment to textiles
to paper products to agriculture, North Carolina stands to gain much
from increased access to this new market.
I am particularly pleased about the benefits this agreement provides
with respect to agriculture. All Australian agricultural tariffs will
go to zero immediately, reducing costs for agricultural exporters by
$400 million.
Due to the hard work of the folks at USDA and USTR, Australia has
agreed to limit some of its unscientific restrictions against U.S. pork
exports. Consequently, the U.S. could ship $50 million worth of pork
annually to Australia.
Despite this progress, Australia must do a better job of eliminating
its unscientific sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions on
agricultural imports. I urge the Administration to keep the pressure on
Australia to meet with USDA and USTR to resolve many of the outstanding
sanitary issues affecting pork and poultry.
This is an acceptable agreement for a nation as economically advanced
and sophisticated as Australia. Its labor and environmental standards
match if not exceed those in the United States. However, I want to make
it perfectly clear to the Administration that the Australia Free Trade
Agreement is not a sufficient model for future trade agreements.
I support fair trade. However, on future FTAs, the Administration
will need to do a better job with regard to market access, sanitary and
phytosanitary issues, labor and environmental standards, and
intellectual property protection. I look forward to continuing to work
with the Administration and my colleagues in Congress on all of these
important issues.
I ask my colleagues to support this agreement.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his
support for the United States-Australia Free Trade Implementation Act
(H.R. 4759). This Member would like to thank the distinguished
gentleman from Texas, the Majority Leader of the House of
Representatives (Mr. DeLay) for introducing this legislation.
Additional appreciation is expressed to both the distinguished
gentleman from California, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee (Mr. Thomas) and the distinguished gentleman from California,
the Chairman of the House Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier) for their
successful efforts in helping move this legislation to the House Floor.
This Member is very supportive of this free trade agreement, FTA,
with Australia. To illustrate the importance of trade with Australia,
this Member believes it is necessary to cite relevant statistics. Trade
between the U.S. and Australia was over $28 billion in 2003. The U.S.
currently enjoys a trade surplus in goods and services with Australia
of $9 billion, which is the second largest with any U.S. trading
partner. Moreover, in 2003, Australia ranked 14th among all foreign
markets for U.S. If this FTA is enacted into law, our level of trade
with Australia will significantly increase.
This legislation is very important to Nebraska since our state's
economy is very export dependent. For instance, Australia is the eighth
largest market for Nebraska exports, with a total of over $62 million
in 2003. Specifically, Nebraska exports to Australia include combine
harvesters, agricultural spraying equipment, agricultural motor
vehicles and motor boats. This legislation is critical to help remove
existing trade barriers to exports of Nebraska goods and services to
Australia. If this FTA would have been in place in 2003, nearly 95
percent of Nebraska's exports would have been able to come into
Australia duty free.
This Member is supportive of this FTA with Australia for the
following three reasons, among others: 1. this FTA will create jobs in

[[Page H5718]]

the U.S.; 2. this FTA will give greater market access for U.S.
businesses and farmers; and 3. Through the twentieth century and in
this one, Australia has been a consistent and highly valued and
dependable ally of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, in advancing the support of this Member for this FTA
with Australia it should be noted that this FTA will create jobs in the
U.S. It is estimated that currently 270,000 jobs are either directly or
indirectly supported by U.S. trade with Australia. This number will
increase significantly if this FTA is enacted into law. Specifically,
the following industries nationwide will particularly benefit because
of the FTA with Australia: aircraft and parts; telecommunications
equipment, computers, and machine engines.
With respect to Nebraska, it is estimated that exports to Australia
already support approximately 300 jobs in Nebraska. It is important to
note also that Australian-owned companies in Nebraska employ
approximately 500 people. If this FTA is enacted into law, it is
expected that trade with Australia will continue to support high-paying
jobs in Nebraska in areas such as transportation, finance and
advertising.
Second, this FTA will give greater market access to Australian
markets for U.S. businesses and farmers. To illustrate this point, it
should be noted that almost 99 percent of U.S. manufactured exports to
Australia immediately become duty free, which is estimated to result in
an annual $2 billion increase in U.S. goods exports to Australia. Under
this FTA, all Australian agricultural tariffs are to be eliminated
immediately, which is to result in a projected $400 million benefit to
U.S. farmers. Currently, Australia maintains tariffs as high as 30
percent on certain dairy products and has tariffs of 4 to 5 percent on
fresh and processed fruits, vegetables, processed foods, grains,
oilseeds and other products. This FTA also contains important safeguard
measures to protect against surges on Australian beef imports into the
U.S.
Third, Australia has been an important ally of the U.S. in facing
threats to the U.S. and in mutual threats to our countries, including
the current war against terrorism. Since the September 11th terrorist
attacks, for example, Australia has provided 1,550 soldiers and
extensive military equipment to support the U.S.-led coalition against
terrorism. Furthermore, Australia has also contributed to the U.S.
efforts in Iraq. As another example, it should be noted that Australia
has contributed fighter jets, transport aircraft and ships,
reconnaissance forces and dive-team members. In light of this military
support for the United States, this Member believes that it is both
fitting and in the best interest of the U.S. to continue to enhance its
economic partnership with Australia.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this FTA with Australia provides
tremendous opportunities for businesses and farmers across the United
States, including in Nebraska. For the reasons stated above and many
others, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 4759, the
U.S.-Australia Free Trade Implementation Act.
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today unfortunately, I rise to
voice my opposition to this trade agreement. I do feel that trade is
essential to America's sustained economic vitality and I also feel that
we must make every effort to ensure that international markets are open
to U.S. goods. Exports have accounted for almost 30 percent of American
growth over the last decade. In fact, my state of Oklahoma sold more
than $3 billion worth of exports to more than 100 foreign markets last
year. With these statistics in mind, it pains me to vote against this
agreement.
When casting my vote, I must think of the many Oklahoma farmers and
ranchers that I have spoken with about this agreement and I must take
into consideration how this agreement will severely cripple their
ability to support themselves and their families. In particular, the
provisions of this agreement will unfairly disadvantage the beef and
wheat industries, which comprise two-thirds of Oklahoma's agricultural
exports. This agreement would allow increased quantities of Australian
beef to flood the U.S. market, which will result in unacceptably low
market prices for American cattlemen. In Oklahoma alone, more than
105,000 jobs associated with the cattle industry will be put in
jeopardy by the adverse effects of this agreement. In addition to the
beef industry, the continued existence of the Australian Wheat Board
under this agreement will force America's wheat farmers to continue
their export competition in the international markets against a state
run monopoly. A government backed monopoly, like the Australian Wheat
Board, which dictates the price of wheat rather than allowing the free
market to take its course, thereby allows Australian wheat to
consistently undercut the price of American wheat in international
markets. Once again, American farmers must be able to sell their
products if they are going to support themselves and their families.
This agreement does not afford them that opportunity.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address some of the important
provisions contained in H.R. 4759, United States-Australia Free Trade
Implementation Act. While I am unable to support this agreement due to
concerns over the impact it could have on dairy farmers and cattle
ranchers in my district, I am very supportive of some provisions of
this agreement and feel it is important to address those issues.
I am pleased the United States and Australia, through this Free Trade
Agreement, have each recognized and addressed the importance of
protecting private intellectual property. The entertainment industry in
the United States is a valuable part of our national economy and the
zero tariffs provisions addressing technology and entertainment
products will ultimately debit our Nation's import/export trade column.
By protecting creative works produced in the United States, we are
ensuring the long-term vitality of the American entertainment and
technology industries, as well as, reinforcing our Nation's recognition
of, and commitment to protecting private property.
The increases in criminal and civil protections against piracy
contained in this bill will certainly prove a valuable deterrent
against electronic pirates. These kinds of private property protections
are the only way to ensure creative genius is rewarded. In fact,
Abraham Lincoln said, ``The patent system added the fuel of interest to
the fire of genius,'' thus leading us to understand that the protection
of invention and creation, including private intellectual property, is
the only way to promote further artistic creation and innovation.
Again, while I am unable to support the agreement as a whole, I felt
strongly that the measures aimed at preventing creative and digital
piracy should be recognized and applauded.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for the protection of
intellectual property rights in America and around the world. The U.S.-
Australia Free Trade Agreement, of which I am a strong supporter,
serves as a great testament to our Nation's commitment in safeguarding
and strengthening the rights of intellectual property holders. I
strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Australia and the United States have long had a strong relationship,
be it economically, politically, and culturally. In addition to nearly
$60 billion invested in the United States by Australian companies, two-
way trade between the two countries is currently at over $28 billion
per year and growing. The U.S.-Australia agreement before us today
would further strengthen these economic ties by expanding market access
for the distribution of U.S. entertainment products and by setting the
highest standards of copyright protection for the modern digital age.
For example, among many of its outstanding provisions, the Agreement
would establish strong anti-circumvention provisions to prohibit
tampering with copyright protection technologies. It includes strong IP
enforcement language, which includes enhanced criminal standards for
copyright infringement and stronger remedies and penalties. It would
also eliminate tariffs on all U.S. movies, music, consumer products,
books and magazines exported into Australia, and broaden market access
for U.S. films and television programs over a variety of media, such as
cable, satellite, and the internet. Finally, the FTA provides
groundbreaking commitment to non-discriminatory treatment of digital
products, including DVDs and CDs, and an agreement not to impose
customs duties on such products.
The U. S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a giant step forward in
improving the protection of intellectual property rights and in
promoting the access of U.S. entertainment products around the world.
It is good for our economy and good for our entertainment workers, who
have witnessed drastic erosions in the values of their products due to
unprecedented global piracy. When a major trading partner such as
Australia makes these type of commitments to protect the products of
the American creative community, we need to embrace them.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the U.S.-Australia FTA.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4759, the
U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Once again the
administration has given the pharmaceutical industry open access to the
cookie jar. The result, to no one's surprise, is a free trade agreement
that ensures the continued profitability of pharmaceutical
manufacturers at the expense of average Americans who must buy drugs
from other countries just to afford the prescriptions they need.
This agreement is about trusting the administration on prescription
drugs. Unfortunately, the administration's recent record on this issue
shows they are less than willing to tell the truth. During the debate
on the Medicare prescription drug bill the administration hid the fact
that the prescription benefit would cost $534 billion instead of the
projected $400 billion.

[[Page H5719]]

Just today we learned that the administration has again missed the
mark on an important estimate. According to this morning's New York
Times 3.8 million people will lose retiree health coverage under the
new Medicare law. This CMS estimate is 1.4 million people higher than
the 2.4 million we were told during the Medicare debate.
The moral of the story is we can't trust the administration to make
domestic health policy without congressional guidance. I don't trust
USTR and the administration on prescription drugs, and you shouldn't
either.
Less than one year ago, this House passed a bipartisan bill directing
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations
allowing for reimportation of prescription drugs. There remain a number
of pending proposals in the Senate that would legalize reimportation,
as well. However, instead of fronting the reimportation issue in open
debate, the administration took a back door approach, slipping language
into the Australia agreement that effectively prohibits Congress from
passing reimportation legislation.
Last time I checked, reimportation was a domestic health policy issue
that should be debated in Congress. When the administration realized
they were losing the battle, however, they turned to trade negotiation
authority and their wealthy donor friends at the Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), to find another
alternative.
Last year the pharmaceutical industry spent $108 million on federal
lobbying, and it is now clear they have purchased the keys to the
kingdom. PhRMA used its power and influence during the FTA negotiations
to obtain language that effectively precludes Congress from passing
legislation allowing reimportation. As a result, U.S. citizens will
never have access to affordable prescription drugs and the
pharmaceutical manufacturers will continue to profit at the expense of
Americans' health.
A vote for this FTA sets a dangerous precedent for the future of
domestic pharmaceutical policy. Deputy U.S. Trade Representative
Josette Shiner has already explained what will happen next. Testifying
before the Senate Finance Committee, Ms. Shiner said the pharmaceutical
provisions in the Australia FTA ``lay the groundwork for future FTAs,''
which will ``steer us in ongoing and future global, regional, and
bilateral negotiations--including upcoming FTA negotiations and
consultations with Canada and other major trading partners bilaterally
and in international fora like the OECD.''
While I have no doubt the USTR knows how to negotiate a free trade
agreement, I question whether they have any idea how their negotiations
affect domestic health policy. During the negotiations with Australia,
USTR pushed for language that would have decimated how the Veterans
Administration and the Department of Defense buy drugs for our
soldiers, veterans and their families. Though this language was later
removed, the final agreement is so ambiguous, there are no guarantees
Australia will not challenge our domestic drug procurement procedures.
Besides the VA and Department of Defense, this could also affect
Medicaid, Medicare and other federal programs.

In a brief moment of honesty, the Administration admitted that the
transparency requirements in Annex 2-C of the FTA actually do apply to
Medicare Part B drugs. Though no changes are currently necessary to
comply with the FTA, there is no guarantee that we won't have to act in
the future to change Medicare drug policy because of the Australia FTA
and future agreements that share this transparency language. One
possible problem in the near future is the switch to average sales
price for Part B drugs in 2006. It is very clear that this payment
policy change does not meet the transparency requirements of Annex 2-C,
but as long as PhRMA is happy, I guess we should all rejoice and turn
our backs on policies designed to lower the cost of Part B drugs for
Medicare beneficiaries.
I urge all members today to think long and hard about what this vote
means for the future of domestic prescription drug policy. Don't let
anyone tell you that this vote is just about the U.S. and Australia and
therefore you have nothing to worry about. If you have been touting the
benefits of reimportation to constituents, but decide to vote for this
FTA, I suggest you be prepared to deal with the backlash. If you truly
care about reimportation and want to be able to use the issue on the
campaign trail, vote against the U.S. Australia Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4759,
to implement the United States--Australia Free Trade Agreement. The FTA
is a solid agreement that will benefit American workers, farmers,
consumers, businesses and the U.S. economy. The FTA also helps to
solidify the economic component of our strategic relationship with
Australia. While this bill has been proceeding through the legislative
process, I have emphasized the commercial benefits that this agreement
will bring. Today, I will focus on the broader picture because I think
it is important to also consider this FTA in that context.
Australia is a very close friend and important ally of the United
States. We share the belief in the power of freedom, democracy, and
liberty, and our two countries are examples to the world of how these
ideals can foster individual achievement. Australian troops have fought
with American soldiers in all of the major conflicts of the 20th and
21st centuries.
Like a healthy marriage, our alliance cannot be taken for granted,
and it must be continuously nurtured, assessed and adapted to
accommodate modern times. Both countries believe that dynamic, open and
efficient economies promote higher growth and better living standards
and create more jobs in our respective countries.
Consistent with those beliefs, this Agreement will provide real
benefits to the American and Australian peoples and our economies. This
FTA will do for our economic relationship during the next 50 years what
the ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, and United States) treaty has done
for the political and military relationship during the past 50 years.
The FTA will solidify a strong economic partnership in the World
Trade Organization, where the United States and Australia share many
goals. I encourage my colleagues to send an overwhelming message of
approval to our friends ``down under'' and vote ``yes'' for this
Agreement.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate that the U.S.
Trade Representative has addressed the important concerns related to
agriculture in this free trade agreement. Agriculture is important to
my district and the State of Minnesota. However, I cannot support the
United States-Australia Free Trade Implementation Act due to the
provisions related to pharmaceuticals that were included in this
agreement.
On July 25, 2003, 242 of my colleagues joined me in supporting my
legislation to implement a true, market-based system whereby consumers
could access safe and affordable prescription drugs. I find it
interesting that a free trade agreement would blatantly run counter to
legislation that would, in effect, establish a market-based arena for
prescription drugs.
Proponents of this language have said that it is practically
meaningless because Australian law already bans the export of
subsidized prescription drugs. Why then, do we feel the need to include
such a meaningless provision in the trade agreement?
Let me illustrate why this language is not meaningless. In fact, it
attempts to hamstring efforts to provide affordable prescription drugs
for seniors, the uninsured and consumers who continue to pay 30 to 300
percent more for prescription drugs than anyone else.
In 2000, the MEDS Act included a provision that prohibited
pharmaceutical manufacturers from entering into a contract or agreement
if they included any language that would prevent the sale or
distribution of prescription drugs. I have attached this language to be
included in the Record, because it no longer exists in U.S. law. I
discovered recently that the Medicare bill included a hidden provision
which stripped this important language. This is outrageous.
So while proponents of this agreement claim that this language simply
restates current law, current law is the result of hidden maneuvers
without the knowledge of the 242 Members who support open markets for
prescription drugs.
And who exactly provided the counsel to USTR while they drafted this
supposedly innocuous language? Twenty-five members of the advisory
committee advised the USTR on intellectual property rights regarding
prescription drugs. Of those 25 members, at least 15 have interests in
the pharmaceutical industry. There was not one senior, consumer or
market access advocate on the panel.
With this language, when prescription drug market access legislation
becomes law, and I believe it will, we will be in breach of the free
trade agreement. The Australian government can enter into a dispute
settlement case contending the law. Many have argued that this is not a
likely scenario. It seems equally unlikely that American taxpayers
would be forced to subsidize the research and development of
prescription drugs for consumers around the world and still pay the
world's highest prices, but we do.
I sat down with USTR representatives to give them a chance to tell
their side of the story. When I asked who requested the prescription
drug language, they had no answer. No one but the two negotiators were
in the room and no one was taking notes. That seems a poor way to
negotiate a free, fair and open agreement for trade. And it doesn't
pass the smell test to me.
The free trade agreement could set a dangerous precedent that FDA--or
other opponents of open markets for prescription drugs--will use to
prevent American consumers access to affordable prescription drugs. I
have always supported free and fair trade--this

[[Page H5720]]

agreement is neither free nor fair concerning prescription drugs.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, listening to today's dialogue on the floor, I
have been encouraged by the strong bipartisan support for the United
States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Passing this implementation bill
today will pave the way for an even deeper economic relationship with
one of our most important strategic allies.
The Australian Government has not only sided with us, but committed
valuable troops and resources to helping the United States in every
major conflict in the last century, including the global war on terror.
Notably, Prime Minister Howard has shown courage and dedication to the
cause of freedom over the past two years with his steadfast commitment
to the coalition in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, like our own economy, Australia's is a modern, well-
developed, transparent economic system. A deep trade relationship
already exists between the United States and Australia in the form of
$28 billion per year.
As with every well-negotiated trade agreement, both sides will
benefit immediately upon the enactment of this free trade agreement.
For the United States, this means that more than 99 percent of U.S.
exports of manufactured goods to Australia will become tariff-free on
day one, resulting in a possible $2 billion per year in increased
manufacturing exports; U.S. agricultural exports, currently totaling
$400 million, will receive immediate duty free access to the Australian
market; and American services providers, including the
telecommunications, financial services, energy, delivery, and
entertainment industries, will be accorded substantial new access to a
major developed market.
The reasons I just listed, and there are many others, help explain
why this agreement will receive such broad and deep support from the
House of Representatives.
I would like to thank my friend from New York, Mr. Crowley, for his
help in generating support for the agreement on the other side of the
aisle. I would also like to thank Ambassador Zoellick and his staff for
their hard work in negotiating this agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of
expanding trade and investment opportunities for U.S. firms, creating
jobs for American workers, and deepening an already strong relationship
with the Australian Government and the people of Australia.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment, and
the previous question is ordered.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 314,
nays 109, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 375]

YEAS--314

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Coble
Cole
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--109

Abercrombie
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass
Berry
Bishop (UT)
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Case
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Emanuel
Emerson
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Goode
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Jackson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lipinski
Lucas (OK)
Markey
Marshall
McCollum
McIntyre
McNulty
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Peterson (MN)
Pombo
Pomeroy
Quinn
Rahall
Rehberg
Rothman
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Waxman
Woolsey

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Nunes

NOT VOTING--9

Carson (IN)
Collins
Hoeffel
Isakson
Istook
Kind
Majette
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the
vote). Members are advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this
vote.

{time} 1719

Messrs. MARSHALL, THOMPSON of Mississippi and CLYBURN changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida and Mr. TOWNS
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

____________________