[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 173 (Thursday, November 8, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H13305-H13311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1030
UNITED STATES-PERU TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 801,
proceedings will now resume on the bill (H.R. 3688) to implement the
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on
Wednesday, November 7, 2007, 20 minutes remained in debate.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 5 minutes remaining; the
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has 10 minutes remaining; and
the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) has 5 minutes remaining.
Without objection, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) may
resume control of time from the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger)
and, without objection, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) may
resume control of time from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
There was no objection.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I want to thank my friend and colleague for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I would
like to thank Chairman Rangel, Chairman Levin and the minority Members
for all of their hard work on this effort. This is not a perfect bill,
but it is a good bill. I have always believed that our trade policy
must be a reflection of our values.
This legislation moves us a step forward in building a bipartisan
trade policy. In this bill, we seek to protect the rights of workers to
organize. We look out for the environment. When it comes to trade, we
all live in the same House, call it the House of Peru, call it the
House of America. What we do today with this resolution is in the best
interests of all of us who live on this little planet, this little
piece of real estate that we call Earth.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the passage of this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, as I understand it, Mr. McCrery is going to
use their time. Mr. Michaud is going to use his 5 minutes. Mr. Rangel
on our side is going to do the closing. I now have 4 minutes remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Speaker, I am from Michigan. I have seen firsthand the
dislocation from globalization. That's why we have been fighting for a
new trade policy, a trade policy that shapes globalization. It shapes
trade to expand the benefits and to address the down sides.
Enforceable worker rights and environmental standards have been at
the core of this struggle. Worker rights in the trade equation
fundamentally alters the power dynamics in developing countries, just
as it has in our own. This is important for those workers, for Peru,
who needs a middle class, for our workers who should not compete with
workers who are suppressed, and our businesses and their workers who
need more middle classes to sell to.
Let me close by saying a word about enforcement. The core labor
standards and the environmental obligations are on a par with every
other provision in this bill, every other. Any person can file a
petition if there is a failure to enforce. We have the power of
oversight, including subpoena power, if this administration fails to
enforce.
We have worked with Peru to bring their legal structure into
compliance with ILO standards. There has been reference to a recent
mining strike, and we worked with the Peru Government to change their
rules regarding what it takes to have a strike. Also, they are working
now to determine who is, within ILO rules, the proper authority to
declare a strike legal or not.
This Peru FTA is a victory. It's a breakthrough. It's a first step in
a new trade policy. Our job is to lead, to build on that history, not
to retreat from it.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allow Mr.
Levin to control 1 minute of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEVIN. I would yield 2 minutes to our very, very distinguished
leader, Mr. Clyburn.
Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the chairman for yielding to me, and I thank the
other side for allowing me this minute.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Peru Free Trade
Agreement. This may come as a surprise to many of my colleagues,
because I have seldom supported our previous trade agreements that have
come before this body.
My reasons have been quite simple. I have considered most of the
trade deals that have been offered to this body to be unfair to my
constituents and many communities in my region of the country. But I
want to thank the drafters of this legislation for bringing a bill to
the floor that I consider to be fair. This bill addresses critical
environmental and labor concerns that are very important to me and my
constituents. This bill will help farmers in my district and all across
this country compete in the global marketplace.
Because of the size and the diversity of this body, it is not an easy
task to bring legislation to the floor that pleases everyone. Trade
bills are almost certain to engender disagreements among our Members.
As I mentioned earlier, I have found many shortcomings with previous
trade initiatives that have come before this floor. This bill, however,
charts a new direction in trade legislation and should serve as a
template for those of us to use in moving our trade policies in a more
worker friendly and environmentally protective direction.
We have come a long ways with our trade policies in recent years, and
we may still have a long ways to go before we are able to consistently
get trade bills that are as good as I would like.
But it is important that this new Congress continue working to bring
trade bills to the floor that are fair. This bill is a fair bill, and I
encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Rangel
control the rest of our time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allow Mr.
Rangel, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, to
allocate 2 minutes of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Maine.
Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I am asking Members who are committed to
a fair trade deal to vote against the Peru FTA. While I have been a
Member of Congress for only 5 years, I have been a mill worker all my
life. The mill I worked at in Maine shut down 3 days after I was sworn
in as a Member of Congress. The culprit? Badly flawed trade deals.
This lunch bucket sits proudly in my office. It symbolizes who I am,
what I stand for. It also symbolizes what has been lost.
Since the passage of NAFTA, our country has lost over 3 million jobs.
When the vote on NAFTA happened, Members of Congress were promised
NAFTA would raise the standard of living for all. They were sold a
dream, but the dream is now a nightmare of millions of workers all
across this country.
The American people get it. Polling indicates that an overwhelming
number of Americans, Republicans and Democrats, are concerned about
exporting our jobs. They worry whether or not they will have a paycheck
in the years to come. We have all seen the ugly face of trade
agreements that don't live up to the promises. The debate here today is
not whether Peru is a small country and the trade impact is small
compared to China. The debate is when will we truly change the course
of trade policy.
If this was truly a good trade policy, I would be the first to
support it. The bill's supporters claim that enhanced environmental
standards in the FTA will preserve our natural resources.
[[Page H13306]]
Where is the strong support from Sierra Club, Greenpeace or Friends of
the Earth?
The new labor provisions supposedly will improve conditions for
workers in Peru and create jobs here at home. So why is no single labor
union actively supporting this trade agreement? That's right, not one,
not one labor union.
If this so-called new model is so great, then why aren't we hearing
from all sides of the trade debate asking us to support it? If you
stand with the multinational corporations that seek to offshore jobs,
then vote for it. If you stand with the Chamber of Commerce who says
that these labor standards are unenforceable, then vote for this trade
deal. If you stand by President Bush, who has a track record of
listening to corporations instead of the men and women of this country,
by all means vote for this trade deal.
But if you stand by the working men and women of this country, I
would encourage you, you must vote ``no.'' A ``no'' vote calls for a
new model and a new direction on trade. A ``no'' vote means you stand
up with the workers of northern Maine; Lorain, Ohio; Flint, Michigan;
Galesburg, Illinois, and men and women all across this country who are
asking, no, who are begging this Congress for a new direction on trade.
These workers don't want more trade adjustment assistance; they want
their job back.
It's time to send a message that we embrace globalization so long as
it lifts us all up. I will never forget who I am or why I am here. I
hope my colleagues will do the same.
I ask my colleagues today to vote ``no'' on this bad trade deal.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this free trade
agreement.
Madam Speaker, I would like to close by making several points about
the value of our free trade agreements and the value of this agreement
with Peru in particular.
First, free trade agreements implemented under Trade Promotion
Authority have been a tremendous success story in expanding U.S.
exports and reducing the U.S. trade deficit. Let me point to a very
telling statistic: the U.S. trade balance with the 12 countries for
which FTAs have been implemented under TPA improved by an overwhelming
162 percent between 2001 and 2006, going from a trade deficit to a
trade surplus of $13.9 billion with these countries. Our free trade
agreements work.
Second, our free trade agreements create jobs. Let me give you an
example. Whirlpool, a company responsible for thousands of jobs in
places like Iowa and Ohio, estimates that once the Peru agreement is
implemented, its sales to Peru will increase by 400 percent. Current
high Peruvian tariffs hamstring Whirlpool's ability to supply its
stores in Peru with U.S.-made goods. Instead, Whirlpool primarily
supplies stores in Peru with goods made in its manufacturing facility
in Brazil to escape those high duties. This agreement will eliminate
Peruvian tariffs for U.S. products and will allow Whirlpool to increase
exports of its U.S.-made products at the expense of Brazilian goods.
That means more jobs in the United States, not Brazil.
Here's another example: Our FTAs, including the Peru agreement,
increase opportunities for express delivery services, both because
there are more packages to ship and also because such U.S. services
providers will enjoy liberalized access to their markets. UPS reports
that for every 40 new packages that it ships per day, it must hire a
new U.S. worker. That new worker will almost certainly be a union
employee, as UPS is the largest employer of Teamsters.
Third, our free trade agreements support small and medium sized
businesses. There are over 19,000 small and medium sized U.S.
businesses currently exporting to the three Latin countries with whom
we have pending FTAs. Nearly 81 percent of the U.S. companies that
exported merchandise to Peru in 2005 were small and medium-sized
businesses. These companies, which will see reduced tariffs when they
export goods under these agreements, are the engine of our economy and
are powerful job creators.
Finally, the Peru agreement will end one-way trade and will finally
give U.S. companies equal access. Today, without agreement, Peru has
almost complete duty-free access to the U.S. market, as it has since
1991, when Congress gave such access through Andean preferences--and
which this Congress extended last June with 365 Members voting in
favor.
For all of these reasons, in my view, if you are concerned about
trade deficits or american jobs, you must support this agreement.
Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate my comments from last night: I am
delighted that Chairman Rangel and I are able to stand together today
as partners in strong support of this agreement. If it weren't for his
leadership, we would not be here today. I urge my colleagues to vote
``aye.''
At this time, Madam Speaker, for closing for our side, I would
recognize the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding and thank him and
the chairman of the committee and the subcommittee chairman and the
ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee for their work on this Peru
trade bill and the other trade bills that I hope that we will see on
the floor soon.
When you look at America's economy today, I think we have to
recognize that 95 percent of the consumers in the world live outside of
the United States.
{time} 1045
And as the U.S. economy, and certainly in certain sectors, is
softening, the one area where our economy is doing very well are on our
exports around the world.
And if you look at what's happened in some recent trade agreements,
let's point out the facts. In Jordan, since 2001, our exports have
risen some 92 percent. If you look at Chile, a trade agreement that was
passed, but since 2004, we've had a 151 percent increase in our exports
to Chile. Australia, since 2005, we've had a 25 percent increase in our
exports.
If I look at my home State of Ohio, Ohio's export shipments in 2006
were $37.8 billion, up 36 percent, up 36 percent since 2002, thanks in
part to many of the trade agreements that have been signed. And what
this means, in terms of these increased exports, to consumers around
the world are more jobs here in the United States.
In my own part of Ohio, Proctor and Gamble is a major employer. Right
near my home are a number of their research and development facilities
which have continued to expand employment, doing basic research, doing
product research, doing marketing and doing sales efforts that support
their sales and their development of new products all around the world,
which means new jobs for people who live in my part of Ohio.
I understand that there's displacement in our economy; and we ought
to be doing everything we can to retrain and train workers for the new
economy. But that's going to happen regardless of whether we pass this.
When you look at this Peru Trade Agreement, in particular, we have,
or they have open access to our market today. What this trade agreement
does is allow us freer access to their economy, increasing our exports
to Peru and to the rest of South America.
I'm a big believer that trade has benefited our country in a very
significant way. And when you look at the fact that two out of five
jobs in America, two out of five jobs are dependent on our ability to
export products and services elsewhere in the world, you can begin to
understand why opening markets for our companies around the world is so
critically important to America's future.
So I want to congratulate my colleagues for their work on this bill
and urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield myself such time
that remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, this is a very exciting, historic day for
me. It was an opportunity to break a deadlock of lack of civility on
the Ways and Means Committee, which I really, deeply appreciate being a
member, as well as being Chair; to get to know Jim McCrery, not as a
Republican, but as someone that we can have serious philosophical and
political differences, at the same time want to do what's best for our
constituents and our country; for Sandy Levin who is more than a Member
of Congress, but in the marrow of his bones he understands what it is
for working people to have opportunity
[[Page H13307]]
to have self-esteem and to want to do for themselves, their community
and their children; and to have a Speaker like Nancy Pelosi, who's
prepared to think as to what's not best for Democrats or even the
Congress, but what's best for the country and to encourage people who
have different views to come together, so that nobody from any country
could say that we have a trade policy that's Republican or Democrat,
but we have in the United States of America a United States trade
policy.
This is a very historic vote. It breaks the ice and opens an
opportunity. But also it brings about a lot of candid discussion. And I
would suggest, for any Member that has campaigned against trade, that
said it over and over that trade is bad, or any person who's campaigned
against NAFTA or CAFTA, or all of those things which this is not, then
you owe it to yourself and you owe it to your constituents to vote
against this bill, because if, in your conscience, you believe that
things are so bad in your district, people have lost jobs, lost homes,
lost hope, and this country has let them down and the multinationals
have let them down and trade agreements have let them down, then your
conscience demands that you vote ``no'' because this is what you
believe in and this is what you should do.
But for those people who truly believe that they come from
communities that God has blessed them with the opportunity to grow more
food than this Nation needs, to make more equipment than this Nation
needs, and to know that in their towns and villages and congressional
districts, they cannot eat and they cannot use, for those people who
understand that exporting things means not that we're trying to help
other countries, but we need the talents, we need the productivity, we
need the competition, we need the workers for the Nation to survive,
for those people like the State of New York, there are patches there
that people have no hope for the future, and they would want to vote
against it.
But they'd better not talk with my mayor, because services are going
to be a boon directly for all the people in our city.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York has
expired.
(On request of Mr. McCRERY, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Rangel was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. RANGEL. For those people on our farms that want to get rid of
their surplus and sell it, for those people who really believe that
we've got a long way to go to get the hopes of Americans up and to have
our U.S. trade Representative, our multinationals to understand that
it's not just a good agreement for the shareholders, but it is a good
agreement for America, for those that believe in the Speaker and the
minorities, that we're doing what's best, not for labor and not just
for fund raising, but we're doing what we think is best, don't
challenge our integrity. Vote your conscience.
But this is a heck of a time to make certain that we're not known to
be against trade. We're for trade. We're for trade that makes sense in
terms of honesty, job creation, and what's good for each and every
American.
Do we have a long way to go? Yes.
Is this a beginning? You bet your life.
Anytime we're taking down trade barriers and countries are open to
buy what we make in the U.S.A., it's almost unpatriotic not to let them
do what we do best.
But don't you challenge my integrity, and don't do it for the
Speaker, because I won't challenge your ``no'' because you're doing
what you think is the right thing.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the work of my
colleagues, Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin, on the U.S.-Peru Free
Trade Agreement.
I applaud them, as well as Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer
for achieving a new trade policy for America, workers, and the
environment.
This groundbreaking agreement is the first FTA to include fully-
enforceable rights for workers--an achievement that my Democratic
colleagues and I have long sought.
Bolstering workers' rights in Peru is not just the moral thing to do;
it also helps to build a stable, more prosperous middle class--creating
a larger market for U.S. goods.
This agreement also requires Peru to abide by multilateral
environmental accords--such as protecting Peru's rainforests from
illegal logging.
Most importantly, Peru may not waver from these commitments to
workers or the environment in any way.
Madam Speaker, I chair the New Democrats, a group of 60 pro-growth
Members.
We are dedicated to keeping America competitive--through lowering
trade barriers and opening foreign markets to U.S. goods and services.
I also come from California, where more than one in five jobs is tied
to trade.
I am proud to be a pro-trade Democrat in Congress, and I am proud of
this landmark trade agreement the new Democratic majority has achieved.
America will not remain the world's economic and innovation leader if
we refuse to do business with the rest of the world.
Likewise, we must equip U.S. workers with the tools to compete and
win in a global economy, and help them through the transition, as we
have with the expansion of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Finally Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to examine the strategic
implications of this agreement.
Deepening ties with our pro-growth allies in Latin America is key to
security in the Western Hemisphere.
Passage of the Peru FTA is a first step in a twenty-first century
trade policy: It is an expansion of trade in a way that is solidly
consistent with Democratic values.
Again, I applaud Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin for their
success, and I urge my colleagues to support implementation of the Peru
FTA.
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the United
States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (H.R. 3688),
which would implement a trade agreement reached last year between Peru
and the Bush Administration.
The Peru free trade agreement (FTA) will not protect American workers
nor will it protect workers in Peru. The Peruvian National Convention
on Agriculture (CONVEAGRO) has estimated that approximately 1.7 million
Peruvian farmers will be negatively affected by the agreement. Although
efforts were made to incorporate international labor standards in the
Peru FTA, it is unclear whether the Bush Administration will enforce
this provision. The International Labor Organization (ILO) has stated
that the Peruvian government needs to change labor laws to be in
compliance with international treaties.
Serious concerns also remain about language in the Peru FTA that does
not eliminate the excessive North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
Chapter 11 foreign investor privileges. These investor privileges
create incentives for U.S. firms to move offshore. These investor
privileges have also been used to undermine efforts to protect the
environment and public health. The provisions also allow foreign
investors to bring suits before tribunals to challenge the government's
implementation of natural resource contracts or leases, which have the
potential to continue threatening the resources in Peru. For that
reason, environmental organizations have expressed significant concerns
about this trade agreement even though improvements were made to help
stop the flow of illegally logged timber in Peru.
The United States trade policy has resulted in a loss of at least
three million manufacturing jobs since 1999 and a loss of nearly one
million textile and apparel industries jobs in the last 13 years. A
recent study by the Economic Policy Institute showed that a typical
American working household lost more than $2,000 in wages because of
foreign trade. Further expansion of this policy could worsen conditions
for workers in America that is why this legislation is opposed by
groups such as the American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Change to Win, Service Employees International Union, UNITE HERE, the
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Friends
of the Earth, and the Sierra Club. I cannot vote for this legislation
when our trade policy does not protect American workers and American
jobs. In this new age of globalization, Congress must restore the
economic security of working- and middle-class Americans.
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.
According to the International Trade Administration, approximately 91
percent of U.S. exports to Peru are manufactured products. Currently,
all of these goods are assessed high tariffs--in some instances at
double-digit rates. Peruvian manufacturers are not assessed any tariffs
when selling to the U.S. market. This market-opening trade agreement
levels the playing field for America's manufacturers by eliminating
high tariffs on all U.S. manufactured goods within 10 years. Eighty
percent of Peruvian tariffs on consumer and industrial goods would be
eliminated immediately upon this agreement coming into force.
[[Page H13308]]
To put the cost of these tariffs into perspective, a Caterpillar off-
highway truck made in Illinois used for mining exported to Peru costs
the end-user an additional $100,000 because of the tariffs. This
agreement eliminates this duty immediately. Because Peru does not have
a free trade agreement with Japan, H.R. 3688 gives a competitive
advantage to Caterpillar over its global competitors such as Komatsu of
Japan. The northern Illinois district I am proud to represent has many
suppliers to Caterpillar, many of them small manufacturers, selling
about $150 million worth of product each year. Having an agreement like
this insures the long-term viability of the manufacturing jobs at these
firms that may not even know that their product they make eventually
finds its way to export markets like Peru.
Madam Speaker, this agreement will greatly benefit other
manufacturers of Illinois as well. In 2001, Illinois machinery
manufacturers exported $65.8 million worth of goods to Peru. In 2006,
that number more than tripled to $198.2 million. Our manufacturers were
able to do this in spite of the high tariffs. Imagine what they will be
able to do when these tariffs are removed! The independent
International Trade Commission estimates that U.S. exports to Peru will
increase by $1.1 billion once this agreement is fully implemented. We
have seen examples of other market opening agreements that resulted in
increasing U.S. exports. Since the adoption of the market-opening
agreement with Chile in 2004, U.S. exports to Chile leapt by 33 percent
in 2004, 43 percent in 2005, and 38 percent in 2006! Our trade
agreement with Australia also helped boost U.S. exports ``down under''
by 25 percent in just two years.
I urge my colleagues to support America's manufacturers by voting
``yes'' for this agreement.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today, I rise against H.R. 3688, the
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act.
Southeast Michigan has lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs due
to unfair free trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA. Unfortunately,
H.R. 3688 follows in the steps of these lopsided trade deals.
Advocates of today's legislation will insist that there are strong
labor and environmental standards. However, members of the Peruvian
Congress were working to pass a robust General Labor Law and now it
will be tabled for a substantially weaker labor law issued by President
Garcia. Furthermore, given President Bush's track record on lack of
enforcement of current U.S. law, I cannot be persuaded that many of the
labor provisions will be enforced. Unbalanced trade has led to a race
to the bottom which has lowered job quality and wages for U.S. workers
and H.R. 3688 will further encourage this push for cheap labor.
This bill is also bad for Peruvians. More than three million
Peruvians may lose their jobs from U.S. exports and may drive many
rural farmers into the illegal cocoa trade. H.R. 3688 will limit
Peruvian access to health care. Specifically, by approving this free
trade agreement, drug companies will obtain five years of data
exclusivity, or monopoly rights for pharmaceutical manufacturers in
both countries, which will increase the price of medicine, delay the
entry of new drugs, and restrict competition in this market. As a
result, millions of Peruvians will be at risk of losing life saving
drugs. Furthermore, if Peru chooses to replace its current private
Social Security system with its previous public system, then this bill
may open the door to allow private foreign investors to file suit at
international tribunals.
Madam Speaker, a recent poll indicated that the majority of Americans
oppose the concept of free trade. It is no surprise that dozens of
labor, environment, human rights, and religious organizations have
opposed this bill because it is bad for both the United States and
Peru. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise in
opposition to the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement.
I oppose this bill because I come from a part of our country that has
seen all the drawbacks of free trade without any of the supposed
benefits. I oppose this bill on behalf of the countless Americans who
spent years of their lives working in a steel mill or manufacturing
plant whose lives were uprooted in the wake of NAFTA and CAFTA.
I represent the 8th District of Pennsylvania. My State has been one
of the hardest hit by free trade agreements and the unfair trade
practices of nations, such as China, that don't play by the rules.
Bucks County was hit hard. Manufacturing jobs used to number in the
tens of thousands, but by 2005, they had fallen nearly 35 percent. This
devastation included major employers like US Steel, Jones Apparel, and
Rohm and Haas--companies that now employ a fraction of what they once
did. Each one of those lost jobs represents a worker and his or her
family whose lives were turned upside down by so called ``free trade.''
Madam Speaker, free trade is not free if it costs American workers
their jobs.
I believe that when everyone plays by the rules, American workers
will beat out foreign competition every time. Unfortunately, not every
nation plays by the rules and even worse, the Bush administration has
done nothing to protect American workers from unfair competition. In
fact, the President has gone out of his way to sign free trade
agreements, like CAFTA, that harm American working men and women.
Madam Speaker, it is for that reason that I must oppose this bill.
While this agreement paid heed to labor, health and environmental
concerns for the first time in years, we need to back up words with
action. Supporters of this bill are saying all of the right things and
I am glad that these concerns were taken into account. However, when
the livelihoods of American families are at stake, words simply aren't
good enough. We need concrete action and this bill offers us no
guarantees.
We are debating this bill under ``fast-track'' rules. That means that
the Congress gets no say in the details of the agreement and that we
simply must trust that the President is going to do right by American
workers. This President has broken his word over and over again
throughout his time in office and we cannot trust him again. We have
seen the Bush administration repeatedly putting the interests of the
few ahead of the needs of the many.
For example, if we had the ability to amend this trade agreement, I
would fight to include the provisions of a bill I have introduced that
would require national security reviews of trade deals before we agree
to them. My bill, The Trade-Related American National Security
Enhancement and Accountability, TRANSEA, Act also would allow for the
suspension of existing trade agreements if the safety, health, and
welfare of Americans are in doubt. I think these provisions would have
made a vast improvement to the Peru Free Trade Agreement, but
unfortunately because of fast track rules, we are prohibited from even
trying to offer changes to make the bill better for American workers.
Madam Speaker, I am not an anti-trade crusader. Certainly, if trade
is done the right way, with attention paid to labor, environmental and
health standards, then it can benefit everybody from workers to
business owners, both in the United States and other parts of the
world. Unfortunately, with President Bush's disastrous record, we
cannot trust him, to enforce the agreement in a way that will be fair
to American working men and women. It is for these reasons, Madam
Speaker, that I oppose this trade agreement.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, it is time that America work for
America's workers, farmers and families. The Peru Free Trade Agreement
is a step in the right direction. It marks the first time in history
that a FTA has incorporated labor and environmental provisions.
This is a major step forward because it signals that the pursuit of
trade is not an end, but a means to help raise living standards and
provide opportunity. I represent a trade dependent city and yet my
constituents are leery of FTAs because they fear that American workers
have been left behind.
Today, we are at a crossroads. We can continue down the path we have
been on and keep pursing freer trade knowing that many Americans are
falling through a domestic safety net built 70 years ago, or we can
pursue policies that respond to a new century.
Last week the House made a good start by adopting legislation to
reform the Unemployment Insurance program and update the Trade
Adjustment Assistance program. We must do more. Health care that is
tied to employment is insecure.
Education benefits that aren't available to working adults do not
meet the needs of the modern workforce. Our trade agreements need to be
smarter, too. We know that supporting core worker rights--human
rights--is central to enabling workers to benefit fully from their
labor.
We know that the tools of public policy need flexibility to ensure
access in areas like affordable prescription drugs. We know that the
Earth's environment isn't yours or mine, it's ours.
Chief Si'ahl, the inspired leader of the Duwamish and Suquamish
Tribes, for whom my City of Seattle is named, said it best.
A century ago, this great tribal chief said: ``We did not weave the
web of life. We are merely a strand in it. Whatever we do to the web,
we do to ourselves.''
My support for the Peru Free Trade Agreement is for this particular
FTA, in part because of the progress we've achieved in incorporating
labor and environmental standards, and health concerns.
I will continue to consider each FTA on its merits, and in its own
context.
I will be paying close attention to the Administration and its
commitment to Americans through TAA and healthcare for the children of
working families.
[[Page H13309]]
In the end trade is about people and the jargon--FTA and TAA--had
better produce SBA--Standing by Americans.
The research is clear; this FTA will increase American exports in key
goods that come from my State, including: IT products, wheat, apples,
pears, peaches and cherries. And this agreement will be good for Peru,
too. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't vote for it.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
Peru Free Trade Agreement.
While I applaud the efforts to improve worker rights in the Peru FTA,
the protections in the agreement fall short of addressing the concerns
of workers that have been adversely affected by the passage of the
North American Free Trade Agreement, the Central American Free Trade
Agreement, and other recent FTAs.
The absence of clear, enforceable labor standards as detailed by the
International Labor Organization, ILO, in the Peru FTA make this an
agreement I cannot support. These include prohibitions of child labor
and guaranteeing the right of workers in Peru to form independent labor
unions.
The Peru FTA and the passage of Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA,
last week does not represent the kind of comprehensive policy that
workers need to ensure that our globalization policies not only benefit
multinational corporations, but workers as well.
I am not opposed to free trade agreements as long as they are fair
trade agreements that benefit and protect workers in both countries,
however, I have long opposed free trade agreements with countries with
significantly lower standards of living, and fewer labor protections
than we have here in the U.S.
I am proud to represent one of the most blue-collar districts in the
country. The workers in our district benefit from the labor laws on the
books in the U.S, and while our labor laws could certainly be
strengthened, they ensure that our blue-collar workers receive a living
wage and make up a thriving middle class in this country.
I have no doubts whatsoever about the skills and productivity of
American workers, but the significant differences in the standard of
living puts the American worker--and American products--at a
competitive disadvantage, one that this country should not allow to be
exploited through a free trade agreement.
U.S. trade policy over the last decade has resulted in the loss of
millions of jobs and has led to 5 consecutive years with record setting
trade deficits.
I am concerned this trade agreement does not go far enough to address
the issues that caused these problems, and I urge my colleagues to join
me in opposing H.R. 3688.
Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Peru
Trade Promotion Agreement. We must continue to open markets to
encourage American companies to innovate and compete with their global
counterparts. This grows our economy and creates jobs.
I am proud to represent a district in Washington State that
integrates our Nation's leading technology innovators with a vibrant
and highly productive small business community. Opening new global
markets gives them incentives to improve their products, produce more
goods, and employ more American workers. I have seen these job-creating
effects firsthand, with trade accounting for 1 out of every 3 jobs in
my State.
The Peru Trade Promotion Agreement will level the playing field and
increase market access for American and Peruvian companies. It will
grow our Nation's economy by more than $2 billion.
I hope that the passage of this agreement finally advances our
broader trade agenda in Congress. I am disappointed that it has taken
more than 5 months since the bipartisan deal reached in May--and over 1
year since the Peru Free Trade Agreement was signed--for this measure
to finally come to the floor.
We cannot allow important pending agreements with Colombia, Panama,
and Korea to languish as the Peru measure did. I urge my colleagues in
the majority to stop the delays and pass these free trade agreements.
Let's advance the trade measures needed to grow our economy, create
jobs, and improve our relations with global partners.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, as Americans we do not live
in isolation. We live in a world that has been transformed over the
past half century through America's political, security and economic
leadership. Globalization is a reality that has created both
opportunities and challenges, but overall more people on this planet
are living better, healthier and more secure lives today than at
anytime in human history.
Global economic engagement is a reality that every American
encounters every day in our offices or when we shop in any department
or grocery store. Trade is essential for a strong, vibrant American
economy and to sustain and create the jobs that keep America working.
Yet, not all trade agreements are the same or beneficial in my opinion.
In fact, most trade agreements that have come before this House in my 7
years in Congress, such as CAFTA, have been harmful because they have
ignored key provisions for workers' rights, the environment and
necessary safeguards for American workers.
Peru is a nation of 28 million people--one-tenth the size of the
United States. It is a South American nation that faces the challenges
of extreme poverty, narco-trafficking and an inequitable distribution
of income. Peru is searching for economic opportunities that will lift
its people and keep its citizens working. It is my hope that the United
States will partner with Peru in this effort.
The cost of entering into a trade agreement with the United States is
no longer about limitless access to our market without regard for
workers' rights or the environment in the exporting nation. That
premise has vanished with the new Democratic majority. With new
Democratic leadership in Congress priorities have changed and the U.S.-
Peru Free Trade Agreement is a positive example of how Democrats are
shaping the trade debate to address real concerns. I support this
agreement because we need strong, positive political and economic
relations with partners like Peru. We also need trade agreements that
reflect the priorities of the American people, such as a respect for
workers' rights and the environment.
This agreement, because of the determination of Democratic
leadership, especially Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin, delivers a
fully enforceable commitment that Peru will adopt, maintain and enforce
core labor laws and practice the five basic international labor
standards, as set forth by the International Labor Organization's (ILO)
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. These
principals include: the freedom of association; the effective
recognition of the right to collective bargaining; eliminating all
forms of forced or compulsory labor; the effective abolition of child
labor; and, the elimination of discrimination in employment.
Furthermore, there is a binding, fully enforceable commitment
prohibiting the lowering of labor standards. As a result, the
Government of Peru has taken clear action to implement ILO standards
which must be recognized as a significant step forward and a direct
consequence of a Democratic agenda that values workers' rights. The
labor situation in Peru is far from perfect, but these positive steps
would not be taking place without Democrats demanding change in order
for this FTA to move forward.
On the environment, for the first time in a U.S. free trade
agreement, we will have recourse to enforce the environmental
commitments our trading partner has made. Beyond merely preventing Peru
from scaling back their environmental protections, this agreement
contains enforceable provisions that will require significant
improvements in their environmental policies. For instance, it requires
that they crack down on the illegal logging of endangered species that
we know is going on today. Without this trade agreement's provisions,
this illegal logging will only continue unabated.
Since 1991, we have granted 98 percent of Peruvian exports free
access to United States markets. In 2006, Peru's exports to the United
States totaled $5.8 billion, mostly gold, copper, copper ore and
petroleum products. The U.S. exports to Peru totaled $2.9 billion. To
put the United States-Peru trade relationship into perspective: our
neighbor to the north, Canada, has a population of 32 million people,
four million more than Peru, and they exported $302 billion worth of
goods to the United States in 2006.
Since Peru already has almost unlimited access to the U.S. market,
this agreement largely grants U.S. interests, manufacturers and
agricultural products expanded access to the Peruvian market. Under the
agreement, 80 percent of United States exports of consumer and
industrial goods will immediately enter Peru duty-free. The duties on
an additional 7 percent of products would be phased out within 5 years
and the remainder eliminated in 10 years. Furthermore, two-thirds of
our agricultural exports would immediately receive duty free access,
including products like high quality beef, wheat, soybeans and
processed food products.
What we have before us today is an opportunity to set a new standard
for America's trade policy. An opportunity to change the template we
will use for future trade agreements away from the flawed policies of
the past and towards fair trade, labor protections for all workers, and
responsible environmental practices around the globe.
I want to commend the leadership of the House for their determination
to demand high standards and a solid trade agreement unlike any we have
seen during the previous 6 years of the Bush administration.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the United
States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act.
[[Page H13310]]
I support this agreement because it's a good deal for American
businesses. Most Peruvian goods and services already enter the United
States duty-free, yet American businesses face significant barriers to
Peruvian markets. This agreement creates a two-way street.
This agreement is important economically, but it is equally important
from a foreign policy perspective. This agreement means a great deal to
the Peruvian people and government, and will be an important tool to
blunt the anti-American rhetoric of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Mr. Chavez envisions himself the heir to Fidel Castro, and has tried to
turn all of Central and South America against the United States.
Fortunately, his recent efforts to influence Peruvian elections were
rejected.
Moreover, this agreement sends a clear signal we appreciate the
friendship of the Peruvian people and look forward to a long,
prosperous relationship with them.
Although I am pleased we are considering this free trade agreement,
it is regrettable it will not soon be followed by FTAs for South Korea,
Colombia, and Panama. Our annual trade with Peru currently stands at $5
billion. We do $11 billion per year in trade with Colombia and $55
billion per year with South Korea. Failure to enact FTAs with them
would represent lost opportunities.
Colombia is our staunchest ally in South America. In Colombian
President Uribe, we have a friend willing to stand up not only to
Chavez but to the narco-terrorists, corrupt army officers, right-wing
paramilitaries, and left-wing guerillas. In short, he's done what we've
asked him to do, yet we continue to contrive reasons to keep a free
trade agreement for Colombia off the floor. Certain members of this
body are all too ready to point out the lack of friends the United
States has in the world today. In Colombia, we have one, but the
Democratic leadership insists on poking them in the eye.
Global trade is blamed for a great many ills. As my colleague Mr.
Flake noted earlier in the debate, it is far easier to focus on the
shuttered storefront than on the benefits of a given trade agreement.
Indeed, it takes courage to overcome the inclination to insulate
ourselves, and it may seem counterintuitive to many Americans who pride
themselves on self-reliance. But it is the right thing to do.
We live in a global economy. We in Washington should embrace this
reality. Businesses of all sizes, not just giant corporations, already
do so. In a column last year, author Thomas Friedman told of a small
business owner in Nebraska who makes insulated concrete forms for
buildings. With the help of machinery imported from South Korea, he now
can make the forms at construction sites, which removes the need to
ship them to end users. His main customer is in Kuwait.
Madam Speaker, these are the multinationals of the future. Without
aggressive trade promotion by our government, these stories will
continue to unfold, but American businesses won't be part of the tale.
Remember, the United States accounts for only 4 percent of the
world's customers. Information technology, the cornerstone of my
district's economy, accounts for more than $250 billion in exports per
year, or 25 percent of U.S. exports. Workers in this industry have
suffered as certain jobs have moved overseas, yet it would be a mistake
to base our trade policies on that half of the equation. To reject free
trade agreements and embrace protectionist policies is to invite other
countries to do the same.
Madam Speaker, to remain strong is to open our doors to trade and
competition. We can build walls, but they won't make the problem go
away. They'll only hide it, allow it to fester and ultimately weaken
all of us.
I urge my colleagues to engage the global economy. Pass free trade
agreements--for Peru, Panama, Colombia, South Korea, and rise to the
challenge ahead of us.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition
to H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
Implementation Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague from
Maryland, Representative Hoyer. This piece of legislation amends the
antiquated Trade Agreements Act of 1979, and while it represents an
attempt to incorporate workers' rights and environmental concerns into
trade legislation, I believe that it does not contain strong enough
guarantees against labor violations and other human rights abuses.
Madam Speaker, we cannot ignore the gross violations of labor rights
allowed to persist by the Peruvian government or the loss of American
jobs this legislation might entail.
The nation of Peru has made many strides forward in recent history.
It has begun to move down the path of democracy, fighting off state-
sponsored socialism, seen some government accountability to the
judiciary, and entered into the global economy.
However, Peru has a long way still to come. Peru has yet to adopt and
apply the 1998 International Labor Organization's Declaration of
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, an obligation that serves as
a condition for the current legislation. While this is a step in the
right direction, it is more advisory than binding, requiring FTA
nations to ``refer only'' to ILO Declarations, and will be incredibly
difficult to enforce.
The Free Trade Agreement we are considering today calls on the
Peruvian government to apply greater labor rights and environmental
standards in order for the agreement to persist. Peru must adopt,
maintain, and enforce laws relating to labor rights that meet ILO
standards as stated in the ILO 1998 Declaration. This is a step
forward, but to make it truly significant, the United States must adopt
some sort of accountability mechanism in order to ensure compliance on
the part of the Peruvian government. Until such accountability exists,
I do not believe we should be approving this agreement.
The Peru FTA agreement further obligates the government of Peru to
implement and enforce various environmental multilateral agreements to
which Peru is already a part. This too has the potential to lead to a
precarious situation. Peru is already a party to the mentioned
multilateral environmental agreements and has failed to apply or
enforce their obligations outlined therein, why would they change now?
We must create incentives for our trade partners to comply with
international labor and environmental standards, and I fear there is
much more to do in the case of Peru.
The United States-Peru trade agreement as it stands today allows
Peruvian products tariff free entry into the United States while
products from the United States are taxed upon their entry to Peru.
This trade practice has been deeply detrimental to American workers who
are consistently undercut by cheaper, tax-free, foreign labor,
services, and products. Under the proposed the Peru FTA, products and
services from the United States will no longer be muddled by the
protections policies of the past, with 80 percent of goods being
allowed tax-free entry into the Peruvian market immediately, with the
remaining 20 percent gaining free entry over time. While this may prove
beneficial to corporations within the United States, we must be careful
that this trade policy does not benefit the wealthy few at the cost of
both American and Peruvian workers.
A great deal of Americans worry about the effect this legislation
will have on their job security. It is important to note that the Peru
FTA does not pose a significant threat to American jobs, with trade
from Peru not consisting of a heavy intensity and consequently not
having any significant impact on the American economy. I acknowledge
that we are engaged in a global economy and am eager to move forward in
free trade agreements with nations throughout the world, however, I
cannot overlook the threats this legislation poses. Since the era that
began with the NAFTA agreement, over 3 million manufacturing jobs have
been lost and while the Peruvian economy may not be large enough to
have a ``significant'' impact upon the United States, I fear that the
impact it will have will be enough to further harm the American worker
who has already suffered a decrease in job security and wages. The
American people elected this Congress to change the trajectory that the
United States was on, and this legislation is more of the same foreign
investment and procurement policy that the majority of American
rejected after the inception of NAFTA and CAFTA.
This bill provides security in the sense that it gives United States
the authority to administrate dispute settlement proceedings, arbitrate
certain claims made against the United States, and enact specific
tariff modifications. This bill does not hold the Peruvian government
accountable, the United States' authority to arbitrate disputes and
claims made against the United States will not be sufficient to ensure
the protection of the Peruvian and American workers that this
legislation will harm. The ability to protect American companies does
not equate to meaningful security to the parties involved.
I applaud the efforts made by this legislation in ensuring worker
rights within Peru, however, I believe it falls short of being
comprehensive in a number of areas. Issues of worker rights abroad have
been endemic within the United States since the signing of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as reports emerge of the horrific
conditions of workers within the countries with whom we engage in
trade. Urging Peru to ``refer'' to ILO standards will not ensure that
American trade policy is not meant merely to benefit the few
multinational corporations and rather protects all our partners in
today's globalized economy, including foreign laborers. The Peruvian
people have been working hard to restore social justice and labor
rights after the ruthless dictatorship of Former President Fujimori. We
must be cautious not to undermine any organic social justice movements
within Peru that has spent the last 6 years trying to get their
Congress to pass the General Labor Law.
[[Page H13311]]
Beyond my concerns with this piece of legislation itself is a further
concern about the intentions of this Administration. I do not believe
we can trust the Bush Administration to enforce the labor and
environmental provisions of this or any other FTA. We are not in a
position to enter into any new FTA's at this time, I believe we must
ensure the security of American economic lives before we rush into any
new agreements. Furthermore, only yesterday, Peru's Labor Ministry
declared a national mining sector strike as illegal.
This strike, headed by Peru's National Federation of Mining,
Metallurgy, and Steel Workers, began Monday and was aimed at 7
pressuring the government to pass legislation ensuring increase rights
and benefits of miners. Peru's Labor Ministry responded by ``ordering
them back to work'' and declaring their strike illegal. No concessions
have been made by the government and miners face being fired should
they not return to work by the end of the week. This is not a
government we can trust to uphold labor rights.
The world is now immersed in a globalized economy. We cannot go back
in time, nor do we want to. We must work with what we are given now.
The U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement is an important first attempt,
however, we must continue to work to ensure that labor rights are
universally acknowledged and environmental standards systemically
upheld on a larger scale than this legislation entails. I urge my
colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation, and to call for
still more to be done.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 801, the bill is considered read and the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the 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 the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MICHAUD. Madam 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 285,
nays 132, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 1060]
YEAS--285
Ackerman
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastert
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Keller
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Ortiz
Pascrell
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--132
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Berkley
Bishop (UT)
Boucher
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Burgess
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Chandler
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Donnelly
Doyle
Duncan
Ellison
Filner
Goode
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (NC)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Langevin
LaTourette
Lee
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Markey
Marshall
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Nadler
Napolitano
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Taylor
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watson
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Boren
Braley (IA)
Buyer
Carson
Cubin
Giffords
Hunter
Jindal
LaHood
Lantos
Lungren, Daniel E.
Miller (FL)
Moore (WI)
Oberstar
Poe
Rothman
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1119
Mr. PALLONE and Mr. CONYERS changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. MARCHANT and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1060 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I narrowly missed
the vote on rollcall No. 1060. Had my vote been recorded, I would have
voted ``nay.''
____________________