[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22841-22849]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 22841]]

 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3009, ANDEAN TRADE PROMOTION AND 
                          DRUG ERADICATION ACT

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 289 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 289

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3009) to extend the 
     Andean Trade Preference Act, to grant additional trade 
     benefits under that Act, and for other purposes. The bill 
     shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment 
     recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in 
     the bill shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 289 is a closed rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug 
Eradication Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, evenly 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means and one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  The Committee on Rules provided the opportunity for the minority, Mr. 
Speaker, to offer a substitute. However, they declined the opportunity. 
This is a fair rule, Mr. Speaker, that will allow consideration of this 
very important issue.
  The underlying legislation promotes and strengthens the U.S.-Andean 
trade relationship which will increase economic growth in the United 
States. This legislation will also work to bolster anti-corruption 
programs in South America.
  As originally passed by Congress in 1991, the Andean Trade Preference 
Act sought to provide assistance to countries that have been troubled 
in the recent past in the form of tariff-free American goods, while 
simultaneously opening American markets to certain exports from these 
Nations. The effect of offering strategic economic advantages to these 
countries was to help eliminate financial dependence on narco-
trafficking in the Andean region.
  Due to ATPA, the U.S. and the Andean nations have enjoyed an $18 
billion beneficial trade relationship for the past 10 years, but all of 
this is set to expire on December 4 if we do not act to extend the best 
elements of ATPA and continue the support of our allies in the Andean 
region.
  The extension of ATPA is not merely a matter of economic or trade 
policy but is, in fact, a decision with consequences for U.S. foreign 
and national policy in the western hemisphere.
  Bolivia, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador are nations that are good solid 
allies in the United States. They have repeatedly indicated over the 
past decade that they wish to be strong members of a free and 
democratic hemisphere, a hemisphere hopefully one day free of terrorism 
as well as free of tyranny.
  Continuing ATPA will help the Andean nations fight poverty, terrorism 
and drug production as well as further promote democracy and human 
rights.
  ATPA promotes job creation in a region where the alternative for many 
workers is easily a life devoted to drug production. ATPA provides 
these individuals an alternative and protects the rights of Andean 
workers. It also helps the economy in the United States and helps 
American workers. The bill contains the same worker protections 
contained in the Trade Development Act of 2000. Promoting development 
in the region, in the western hemisphere, is crucial to a U.S. foreign 
policy that seeks to support countries fighting against terrorism and 
drug trafficking.
  I urge my colleagues to consider the benefits of extending ATPA, not 
only to our South American neighbors but also to American consumers who 
enjoy a wide variety of product choice without artificial constraints 
and restrictions.
  Extending and improving ATPA is a decisive step toward improved 
relations with the western hemisphere. This legislation will foster the 
expression of mutually supportive and beneficial relationships between 
the United States and our neighbors in this hemisphere.
  This legislation will help in the effort to strengthen our economy 
and add to the stabilization of the Andean region. There have been 
numerous challenges to democracy in the Andean region in the past 
decade. Many of them have been overcome, but it is still an area that 
is very delicate; and we must help it, especially since all of the 
countries in the Andean region are solid allies in the United States.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and 
all of those who have worked very diligently on this important piece of 
legislation. This is a fair rule, providing for the consideration of 
very important legislation, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to 
support both the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  I rise in opposition to the closed rule. I oppose the process it 
represents and the indifference it signals for our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle with legitimate concern over this bill.
  No one in this body disputes the importance of U.S. efforts to 
counter drug production in South America, but the measure before us is 
simply not ready for floor consideration. In a hastily thrown together 
Rules hearing this morning, it became apparent that serious, 
substantive questions remained regarding the impact of this measure on 
many regions of this country.
  Our colleagues from California, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa 
expressed concern over how this measure would impact the domestic 
processing and fishing industry. They have profound concerns over this 
measure accelerating job losses in an already unstable economy.
  My friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick), expressed heartfelt reservations over the impact these trade 
measures have on the region of the country where the textile industry 
is struggling. I have no doubt that other Members would have similar 
concerns if they had only been afforded the opportunity to review the 
underlying bill.
  Moreover, why is the leadership prioritizing this measure when other, 
pressing needs affecting our constituents at a time of war are never 
allowed to see the light of day? I do not mean to disparage our friends 
to the south, but ensuring the duty-free treatment of 6,000 products 
from the Andean countries of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru 
surely should not take precedence over legislation impacting our 
homeland security and measures to help those who have lost jobs and 
loved ones in the wake of September 11.
  Finally, the leadership missed a golden opportunity with this measure 
to rebuild the bipartisanship that previously existed on trade matters. 
Had the chairman worked on a bipartisan basis with the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and 
Means, I have no doubt that the measure would enjoy broader support 
both in the Committee on Ways and Means and on the floor. That 
bipartisanship enabled measures like the African free trade bill to 
move forward last year and would have been welcomed by proponents of 
fair trade on both sides of the aisle.

[[Page 22842]]

  This process does not bode well for fast track advocates who are 
hoping to craft an agreement to move forward in the days ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, Members are fully aware that the Andean nations are 
struggling to combat the problems of illegal drugs, and while their 
economy is falling into recession and their governments confront civil 
unrest, the concerns of our colleagues certainly would have been better 
taken into account so this measure could move forward with less 
controversy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Before yielding to my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), I would simply point out that this 
legislation passed out of the Committee on Ways and Means on a voice 
vote. It has the cosponsorship of many people on both sides of the 
aisle, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking 
member, who was an original cosponsor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), for yielding me the time.
  I hate to be standing up here today and doing this; but very 
honestly, I cannot support the Andean trade bill, and I understand 
completely the importance of this bill to our neighbors to the south 
and what it means relative to trying to get stable businesses started 
in those countries.
  I serve on the Speaker's drug task force so I am very much aware of 
all of that, but I disagree with the timing in particular of this being 
brought up before the trade promotion authority vote is on the floor.
  I am not a protectionist. I am a free trader. I totally support free 
trade. I voted for it before many times; but quite frankly, it also 
needs to be fair trade, and we need to be able to export our products 
into those same countries freely, as well as them bringing theirs into 
ours.
  Never in my 7 years on Capitol Hill have I seen a bigger slap in the 
face to the textile industry and the workers because in the last year, 
just the last year alone, we have lost 60,000 jobs, 20,000 of them in 
my State of North Carolina and most of them in my district.
  As the New York Times reported on Tuesday, our Nation's economic 
slowdown has impacted the South more than any other region of the 
country, and how does Congress respond? On the very day after 
Burlington Industries, which is one of the largest textile companies in 
the world, the day after they file for bankruptcy, we have this bill on 
the floor that gives away our textile jobs. It is just unbelievable to 
me.
  Make no mistake about it, H.R. 3009, as reported by the Committee on 
Ways and Means, allows other nations to avoid our duties and quotas by 
shipping their yarn and fabric through South America.
  The only bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has 
shown to me, and every other textile State lawmaker, would smooth the 
way for Andean apparel made with fabric and yarn from anywhere in the 
world. It would create a giant loophole in our textile trade laws, and 
for weeks now the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has said this 
loophole will be fixed, but I have never seen a fix and neither has 
anybody else.
  There is a larger issue at stake here, and this is an issue that is 
very important to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my 
chairman of the Committee on Rules. He is on this floor practically 
every day speaking about it and that is trade promotion authority.
  The bill coming to the floor in just a few days is one that I would 
desperately like to support because I believe it is very important to 
give our President that authority to open foreign markets and to 
protect our jobs here at home. I am very afraid by having this bill on 
the floor at this time it is going to doom those efforts.
  I just think that the folks who scheduled this vote are making a 
very, very serious mistake. There are several textile State lawmakers 
who, like myself, want to support the President on TPA, and what are 
they asked to do? They are asked to vote on a bill today that is bad 
for textiles just a few days ahead of this other bill coming to the 
floor. Hard to understand.
  Some folks say this will not hurt the President's efforts on TPA 
because textile State lawmakers are not going to vote for this anyway. 
Well, that is a bunch of bull crap, excuse my French. Very simply, 
there are a lot of us who want to vote for it and have done everything 
we can to try and make that possible because we believe in it. We have 
been promised assistance for the textile industry, but no package has 
appeared yet.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has shown us language that 
would help crack down on transshipments, but the language has not 
reached the floor. I have heard plenty of talk and promises, but the 
promises have resulted in nothing; and quite frankly, until something 
is voted on on the floor it is just a promise.
  So while we wait, the leadership brings an antitextile bill to the 
floor. This could have been brought up later. It could have been an 
extension. There are many ways we could have dealt with this, to have 
the vote after the TPA vote; but that has not happened.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am very afraid that the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) is making it easy for those who are on the fence to vote 
no.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my remarks in 
associating myself also with the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) for her comments and certainly our total opposition to the 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to plainly state for the Record that I do support 
U.S. efforts to counter drug interdiction and production in trade among 
the Andean countries. I also want to note that I am a free trader but 
only ask that trade be fair. That is all we are asking for.
  For the information of my colleagues, the U.S. tuna industry has 
already provided under the current provisions of the Andean trade 
agreement explosive growth in opportunity for our Andean country 
neighbors.

                              {time}  0930

  Under the present ATPA rules, tuna loins are already exempt from any 
of the meaningful duties. As a result, the number of tuna loin 
factories in Andean countries have increased by 229 percent since the 
enactment of ATPA in 1991. Production capacity has increased by 400 
percent. Exports to the United States have increased by 56 percent. 
Sales of tuna from the Andean countries now total almost $100 million a 
year. Thanks to the present ATPA tuna rules, Andean countries are now 
the largest exporters of tuna to our country.
  In return for U.S. efforts, Ecuador currently imposes a 20 percent 
duty on canned tuna from the United States. Other Andean countries 
impose duties of 10 and 15 percent. To protect its own market from 
product dumping, Mexico imports a duty free of 24 percent on canned 
tuna imported from Ecuador. In the middle of all this, Mr. Speaker, is 
the U.S. Congress really now going to allow canned tuna to come to the 
United States duty free? Where is the fairness of all of this, Mr. 
Speaker?
  I believe it is important for my colleagues to understand that 
Ecuador and Colombia have the capacity now to process more than 540,000 
tons or 48.6 million cases of tuna per year. With U.S. consumption of 
45.3 million cases per year, Ecuador and Colombia have the production 
capacity to wipe out literally, Mr. Speaker, the entire U.S. tuna 
industry.
  In an effort to save approximately 10,000 American jobs and protect 
the fragile economy of my own district in my own territory, including 
workers in California and Puerto Rico, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means; the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), and

[[Page 22843]]

I have worked together to build, hopefully, a bipartisan coalition to 
object to this legislation.
  I want to note for the Record that Chicken of the Sea, Bumble Bee, 
the United Tuna Cooperative, the entire U.S. fishing fleet, and ConAgra 
are adamantly opposed to the inclusion of canned tuna in ATPA.
  With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I am also disappointed that no 
hearings were held in the House on this very bill. I would hope that 
Members whose districts would be potentially affected by pending 
legislation such as this will be given the courtesy at least of an 
input of Members of the House whose districts are definitely going to 
be affected as a result of this bill.
  The bottom line, in my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, is that my 
territory is more than 85 percent dependent, either directly or 
indirectly, on the U.S. tuna processing and fishing industries. As 
StarKist has repeatedly testified, ``A decrease in production or 
departure of one or both of the existing processors in American Samoa 
would devastate the local economy, resulting in massive unemployment 
and insurmountable financial problems.''
  This begs the question, Mr. Speaker: Why is only canned tuna up for 
discussion? What happened to the other industries doing their fair 
share to provide economic alternatives to drug production in the Andean 
countries? I am all for helping our Andean countries, but I want to 
ensure that the U.S. tuna industry, the U.S. tuna fishing fleet, and 
the workers in California, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa are also 
protected in the process.
  I want to quickly note that if canned tuna is not excluded, this 
country will see the end of the U.S. fishing fleet which is composed of 
50 vessels. Investments in these vessels are worth hundreds of millions 
of dollars. Our World War II veterans built this fleet and for almost 
100 years, the tuna industry has been with us. In times of national 
crisis, our tuna fishing fleet has been our eyes and ears on the high 
seas. Our fishing fleets report to the Coast Guard and other Federal 
agencies any suspicious movements of vessels that may also affect the 
security of our Nation.
  My colleagues need to understand that there are no fishing licenses 
left in the eastern Pacific. Our U.S. tuna fishing fleet cannot fish in 
the eastern region of the Pacific. What kind of justice is this, Mr. 
Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker, canned tuna represents the third fastest moving product 
category in the entire U.S. grocery business. Canned tuna provides a 
high-quality, affordable source of protein for 96 percent of U.S. 
families. If H.R. 3009 is not amended, if this legislation is not shut 
down, canned tuna will become a foreign-controlled commodity instead of 
a branded product that U.S. consumers have trusted with confidence for 
over 95 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote down on this proposed rule 
concerning this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to exclude canned 
tuna from this bill and vote against the rule which will not allow 
Members from both sides of the aisle to introduce appropriate 
amendments so that at least we can debate the merits of this bill.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, when the world changes, it is always 
difficult and sometimes painful, but the fact of the matter is, the 
world will change. In this area of economic relationships, it is 
becoming extremely dynamic.
  First of all, people need to understand that the people who primarily 
take the floor are those who are opposed to what is going to occur. We 
do not ordinarily get an enormous number of people who are in support. 
So when we listen to the arguments that people are making as to why we 
should be opposed to this bill, which allows for modest importations 
from sub-Saharan Africa, modest adjustments for the Caribbean region, 
and the opportunity, for the first time, for the Andean region, which 
has taken significant responsibility for reducing the production of 
coca and, therefore, cocaine, taking away literally a cash crop and not 
getting anything in return, that what we are doing is reaching out to 
them in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, T-shirts, if you will, are going to be produced 
somewhere in the world. I understand my friends from the former 
textile-producing areas, because quite frankly, in the latter part of 
the last century it was New England that was the textile center of the 
U.S. What we saw was movement regionally to the Atlantic States and 
then to the South because it was following cheap labor. And what has 
happened is, it has begun to jump off the North American continent and 
continues to find cheap labor.
  Cheap labor is all over the world. The T-shirt, if it is not made in 
the U.S., is going to be made somewhere: Madagascar, Bangladesh, India. 
It is not going to be made in the U.S. And the idea that if we simply 
stop the world, we are going to keep the jobs, that is just not 
reality.
  What we have to do is rethink our relationships. What the U.S. can do 
and do well is to continue to supply fabric, cotton, primarily yarn, 
and also raw material.
  Now, where do we have a better chance of sustaining the U.S.'s future 
role in textiles coming into the U.S.? Making sure that the people who 
send that T-shirt, either in Madagascar or in Bangladesh or somewhere 
else 10,000, 15,000 miles away from the U.S., or building a win-win 
relationship with our friends in the Western Hemisphere? We have to 
start with the idea that that T-shirt is not going to stay here. People 
have said, one of the major mills, Brunk, is now in bankruptcy; 60,000 
jobs were lost. This legislation is not in effect, so it must have been 
for some other reason. Time marches on.
  What we are trying to do is to create a relationship that will 
produce a lasting, beneficial, harmonious balance in which our friends 
in our own hemisphere, which also provides us with shortened logistics 
for our own products to assist, and a little bit of help and 
recognition, that they have made significant advances on the supply 
side of the drug problem. We obviously need to work on the demand side, 
but they are working on the supply side.
  So when we listen to the arguments, including the gentleman from 
American Samoa, about the potential displacement of jobs, that is a 
real concern for American Samoa because they have a significant number 
of people who are employed in this industry. What has not been 
presented yet is clear evidence of the facts that a direct result of 
what we do will diminish jobs. Will there be readjustment? Will 
companies go into business and go out of business? Will other companies 
expand to absorb the loss of the jobs from that other business? That is 
what we have to analyze; not say, change will take place and, 
therefore, do not move forward. What is the impact of the change? What 
is the dynamic of the change, and how can we make sure that any 
downside is diminished?
  My friend came to the floor and mentioned my name a number of times 
and said that certain bills have not passed and that this should not be 
in front of trade promotion authority. I will tell my colleagues, I did 
everything in my power to make sure that trade promotion authority came 
first.
  I had a letter from the Speaker saying that it was going to be voted 
on prior to today. I do not control scheduling on the floor. We do know 
that this particular provision will expire December 4. The Andean bill 
has been where the Andean bill has been; the trade promotion authority 
has been changed. This bill has not been changed. Trade promotion 
authority has been changed. I do not have control over that.
  So what we have in front of us today is the possibility to build a 
stronger lasting relationship with every commitment on the part of the 
sponsors of this bill; and by the way, there has been a lot of comment 
about the fact that we have not been bipartisan. I support the bill, 
the ranking member supports the bill, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Trade supports the 
bill, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Trade

[[Page 22844]]

supports the bill. The bill came out of committee on a voice vote.
  Mr. Speaker, we can just go so far. It is not perfect. Trade involves 
relocation. I will commit to anyone, lay the facts in front of me, 
clear evidence of the downside, and we will work on making that 
adjustment. But to say that we have to stop now and not move forward in 
this process because frankly the Senate has to take the bill up, I am 
quite sure that the Members over there will effect change in the bill. 
We will have a conference and we will move forward. Our job today is to 
not send a signal to our friends around the world that the answer is no 
and nothing.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and against 
the cockamamie idea that only people that are against trade or are 
against the bill can come to the floor to have something to say about 
it. I just do not believe that when we support a bill or we support a 
rule, that automatically means that it is bipartisan. Bipartisan means 
that Republicans and Democrats set aside their labels and try to find 
out what is best for the country, what is best for international trade, 
what is best for Members of Congress. Just because everything is not 
violently opposed does not mean that people support the concept of 
bringing bills to the floor based on the thoughts of the distinguished 
chairman from California.
  There is the old fashioned way to do it, and they call it hearings. 
We do not have to do it that way, but just because there is not a name-
throwing episode with everything that comes out of the committee, I do 
not think it raises this type of procedure to the level of being called 
bipartisan. And supporting trade, international trade, does not mean 
that one can be insensitive to the impact that it has on hard-working 
Americans.
  Of course, economic growth is going to be dependent on expansion of 
trade. Of course, expansion of trade means that there is going to be 
dislocation and pain. That comes from progress. But it does not mean 
that we should not be sensitive to the negative impact that it has on 
hard-working Americans and that we should not do all that we can to 
ease that pain. And we should discuss it; we should have hearings. 
Americans, whether in Puerto Rico or whether they are in American 
Samoa, should have an opportunity to share with us what will be the 
negative economic impact on our citizens in that part of the world.

                              {time}  0945

  The fact that I support the rule and support the legislation does not 
mean that I am not going to do all I can to make certain that equity is 
displayed not only for our textile workers and manufacturers, but for 
our people in American Samoa and people in Puerto Rico.
  It seems like if anyone has a complaint about anything, that they are 
depicted as being whining and screaming and un-American. Even when it 
gets to the trade promotion authority, one can be even unpatriotic 
because one disagrees with some unilateral proposal that came out of my 
committee. We have to get back to the idea that just because we all do 
not read from the same page does not mean that one is less patriotic 
than the next person.
  I want to say that we have a lot of things to work out here. We have 
assurances from the chairman that he has to see some negative evidence 
of what is happening in Samoa and Puerto Rico, and we have to do that. 
We have to work with our friends, Republicans and Democrats in the 
Senate. We have to try to perfect this. We have to try to do in 
conference what we did not do at hearings.
  So let us try to be a little more gentle with each other. The country 
is at war. We have a job to do. We have to have mutual respect for the 
intent of the Members that are trying to perfect our legislation, and 
not just be opposed to it.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue or these represented issues seem to have a 
way of polarizing Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, all 
over the field.
  My good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the very 
able chairman of the powerful Committee on Ways and Means, he and I are 
at odds on this.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), I am not sure where he is 
on this; but he is nonetheless my friend, whether he is for me or 
against me.
  Nevertheless, this has a way of separating people. The United States 
textile industry has already suffered its worst crisis since the Great 
Depression. We have lost nearly 60,000 jobs, nearly 10 percent of the 
entire workforce, in just the last 12 months.
  Our suppliers in the cotton, wool, man-made fiber, textile, 
machinery, and chemical industries have also been damaged by this 
crisis.
  H.R. 3009, Mr. Speaker, will be extremely damaging to the United 
States textile industry. It will cause even more U.S. job losses, and 
make our current crisis even worse. The bill would harm American 
textile manufacturers, including producers of fabric, yarn, and thread.
  Mr. Speaker, this week, two giants in my district came forward with 
distressing news. One announced that it is filing chapter 11. A second 
one announced it is laying off 13,000 workers.
  Mr. Speaker, my mom was a machine operator in a hosiery mill. I knew 
as a youngster in the rural south the significance of a textile check 
coming in every week as a result of a woman laboring arduously over 
that machine, before the days of air conditioning, I might add, Mr. 
Speaker. Now those textile checks are less frequent. They are being 
seen less and less frequently.
  The bill allows, Mr. Speaker, a huge amount of regional fabric made 
in the Andean countries, increasing to nearly 1 billion square meter 
equivalent annually by 2006, to be assembled as garments and enter the 
United States duty free, quota free.
  That is a slap in the face to our textile community, which is 
synonymously known as success in this country. When we mention success, 
we immediately think of the textile industry, the way it started, the 
jobs that were created. The bill also allows apparel assembled in the 
Andean countries of U.S. or Andean regional fabric to use yarn from 
anywhere in the world.
  Finally, unrelated to the basic Andean bill, this legislation would 
grant duty-free treatment to vast quantities of apparel imports 
assembled in sub-Saharan Africa from African or Third World countries, 
usually Asian fabric.
  Mr. Speaker, I am unwilling and/or incapable of turning a blind eye 
and a deaf ear to the textile community which has been so obviously 
significant in the success of this country. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that this bill is not 
just about drugs, and it is certainly not just about Colombia. It is 
about stability in the Andean region.
  As someone who serves on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere 
and who has traveled extensively in the region, I can tell my 
colleagues that this region, this region presently is on the verge of 
profound instability. Things are getting worse. Things are getting 
substantially worse.
  All of these countries are experiencing a level of civil unrest. I 
think that it is critical to understand. Colombia's economy is still 
stuck in the worst recession in 70 years. Ecuador's economy is a basket 
case. Peru and Bolivia remain desperately poor. The conditions in those 
nations continue to deteriorate.
  Now, this decline is partly a result of the extension of trade 
benefits to the Caribbean Basin, which I opposed. I opposed it because 
they lack the necessary safeguard in terms of workers, workers' rights, 
and environmental standards. I opposed it in part because

[[Page 22845]]

I feared exactly what is happening: workers in the Andean countries are 
not competing with American workers. They are now competing with 
workers in the Caribbean because of CBI, and they are losing that 
competition. The economic impact of September 11 has not even been felt 
yet, but we know it will.
  So it should not come as any surprise that the peasants in those four 
countries are back growing coca and opium again. The successes that 
have been achieved in Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia are eroding rapidly. 
They are at risk. The unemployment rates in these nations are 
escalating dramatically.
  That is why the economic opportunities provided in this bill are so 
critical, not just for ending drug cultivation and promoting stability, 
but they are essential for peace and harmony in the region.
  By the way, it is for the same reason that I have been urging the 
administration to accelerate the dollars that have been appropriated 
under Plan Colombia for alternative crop substitution and economic 
development.
  Now, I share the concern of my colleagues about labor rights in the 
region. I am not happy with the labor provisions in the bill. But if 
the state has failed, there is nobody to guarantee these labor rights, 
and state collapse may come sooner than we think in the Andean region. 
The region, believe me, has serious problems.
  We have seen what happens when states fail. We have the example 
currently of Afghanistan. We do not want to allow that to happen in the 
Andean region. I urge support for the bill.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, this is probably the most important 
antinarcotics vote that will be cast in Congress this year. There is 
just no way to avoid it.
  I do not support TPA. I am not exactly known as Mr. Free Trader. This 
is something where we have to look at the facts. As my friend, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, just pointed out, whether we like NAFTA 
or not, we have that; whether we like the Caribbean Basin Initiative or 
not, whether we like the Andean trade preference, that is what is there 
now.
  This vote is whether to repeal the trade advantage in the most 
critical cocaine and heroin region in the world at a time that the 
surrounding nations have these advantages because of the legislation in 
this United States Congress.
  Let us look at the facts of this situation: in Colombia, we once had 
a narcostate that has now elected a free government, that is helping us 
eliminate the cocaine and heroin. As they elect a government that now 
responds to our concerns, we are going to tell them they do not have 
anywhere to sell their products if the farmers stop growing poppy and 
coca?
  In Bolivia, which used to supply 30 percent of our cocaine and 
heroin, they now are down to less than 5 percent and going towards 
complete eradication. We have a president who succeeded President 
Banzer, President Quiroga, who is committed to providing trade 
opportunities so the campocinos have some way to feed their families 
other than feeding our children cocaine and heroin. And we are going to 
say, no, we are going to stop that trade?
  In Peru, we have a newly elected government, a country riven by 
tremendous crisis because of past illegal activities in security issues 
with President Fujimori. That president is trying to build and rebuild 
a coalition, and we want to yank his opportunity out from underneath 
him? Mind you, we already have an Andean trade preference. This is 
whether to repeal it. We are going to yank it out at a critical time in 
Peruvian history?
  In Ecuador, which has had five different governments in 5 years, that 
is teetering on instability. As we see the coca and heroin producers 
look at their region as a possible place to go in, we want to tell 
their government that is saying, we need to trade, we need to build our 
relations with the United States, we want to stiff-arm them and repeal 
their opportunities?
  For those who come here and say, we do not want to do eradication, we 
do not want to do fumigation, we do not want to shoot down airplanes, 
to do all the interdiction, we do not want to throw people in prisons, 
what do they propose to do to help these people?
  My friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, has said it well: in the 
Andean initiative, we are trying to do alternative development. We are 
trying to rebuild their legal systems. But we are going to stop and 
repeal the trade initiatives at the very time this Congress has put $1 
billion into Plan Colombia, we are putting another half a billion into 
the Andean initiative, and now we want to yank out the essential 
follow-through that gives something for these people to do to make a 
living to feed their families at a time when they most need it?
  I just do not understand it. My friends who supported the 
interdiction efforts, as we eradicate their crops, as we intercept 
their ships, as we shoot down their planes, what do we propose they do? 
That is a fundamental question Members are dealing with today.
  We cannot on the one hand, and look, this is a tough decision. I 
understand that this is not likely to help my district in the trade 
question, but it is certainly going to help the kids and families on 
the streets of Indiana if we can lower the amount of heroin and cocaine 
coming in and protect them.
  We have to make some tough decisions. I strongly support this act. It 
is essential. It is the centerpiece of the antidrug efforts. We cannot 
just tell these people: eat coke. We have to have an alternative.
  This is not an easy vote, but it is one of the most essential votes 
in this hemisphere in the antidrug efforts that Members will cast this 
year or next year.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules refused to 
allow an amendment that I made a request on which would require the 
certification by the President that Colombia is actively engaged in the 
investigation of the murder of labor activists in its country.
  The country, Colombia, has exported many products to the United 
States; but that is not what it will be remembered for. It will be 
remembered for the killings that are taking place.
  During the 1990s, more trade union activists were killed in Colombia 
than any other country. No other country is even close. The numbers are 
truly astonishing. Over 1,000 labor activists have been murdered since 
this trade agreement was enacted.
  It is not because of this trade agreement; but the fact is, during 
this 10-year relationship, that is what has happened. In this year 
alone, 131 labor activists have been killed. This cannot just be a 
coincidence of these people being killed in the firefight that is 
taking place.
  I do not diminish the complexity of the problems of violence in 
Colombia on both the right and the left, but the fact of the matter is 
that, according to the ILO, these murders have continued. They have not 
been investigated. People have not been identified. The core ILO 
agreements have not been dealt with.
  In fact, the ILO report of last year says that the cases where the 
instigators and perpetrators of the murders of trade union leader are 
identified are practically nonexistent, as is handing down guilty 
verdicts.

                              {time}  1000

  The point is this, the government is doing little or nothing to try 
to investigate and identify the people who are killing the labor 
activists across the country. When labor activists are asking for 
protection from the government the protection is not forthcoming and 
the assassinations continue. These people are assassinated at work. 
They are assassinated in the streets. They are assassinated in their 
own homes in front of their families. And they are all labor activists. 
That is what they have

[[Page 22846]]

in common. The time has come to stop that.
  We talk about the benefits of the trade agreements. One of the 
benefits, theoretically, is the labor will prosper, the people have the 
ability to organize. They will improve their working conditions. They 
will improve their pay, and they will be able to provide for their 
families. But that does not happen in and of itself. It happens because 
labor organizers talk to the workers. They talk to them about the 
benefits of joining a union.
  Colombia has a history of union involvement but it is now being 
eradicated. According to the ILO, it is being eradicated by the para-
military organizations on the right for the most part. And I think it 
is time to come where not only we will be investing in Plan Colombia, 
but we are extending trade agreements to Colombia that we understand 
the need to stop the assassination in this country of these labor 
activists, because it just takes away any ability to try and organize 
the working place so, in fact, people can have the benefits that 
supposedly free trade is supposed to bring to those countries in terms 
of the economic opportunity.
  Thirty members of the Congress joined me in sending a letter to the 
president of Colombia asking for these investigations, asking for an 
effort to bring these people to justice. And we have received no 
response from the president. And I was hoping that this amendment would 
have been accepted and we could have sent that message to the president 
requiring those actions to take place in the certification by the 
President of United States that those investigations were ongoing. 
Unfortunately, this trade agreement will probably pass. Those 
investigations will not take place. We are talking about a reign of 
terrorism in Colombia right under our noses in a country where we are 
financing a war supposedly to end that; and yet we cannot get the 
government to participate in the effort to investigate these 
assassinations and these crimes against labor activists. I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to H.R. 3009. I 
have had hundreds of letters from textile employees and the plant 
managers from my part of Virginia. They are very concerned that this 
legislation, if passed and signed into law, will cost more jobs in 
southside Virginia. This week VF. Knitwear announced the termination of 
2,300 persons in Martinsville and Henry County. This brings to a total 
of over 10,000 jobs lost in the past year and a half under the so-
called free-trade benefits.
  This bill is a turkey. It would be an awful Thanksgiving present for 
the persons in my district if this bill were to pass. We need to kill 
this turkey, and we need to relegate it to a place where hope is a 
stranger and where mercy will never reach.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the Andean Free Trade Preference Act expires 
in December; and if all we were talking about was the extension of the 
bill, it would be a simple matter. Most of us would vote for it. But 
this Andean Free Trade Pact extension is also an expansion. It goes far 
beyond simply expanding the free trade pact that has been in existence 
for the last 10 years.
  First of all, for the first time it extends duty-free, quota-free 
access to textile and apparel imports from four countries, the Andean 
countries. Secondly, it takes this bill which needs to pass in December 
and piggybacks on to it wholly gratuitous concessions to sub-Saharan 
African countries, 22 of them, who last year got substantial 
concessions in the African Growth and Opportunity Act. And then it 
extends a third time substantial concessions to the Caribbean 
countries, 24 of them.
  So we have really got three trade-expansion bills wrapped up in one. 
If it were just the Andean Pact we were talking about, it would be 
simple; but the problem is it goes much further.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last 15 years, we have liberalized trade and 
textiles and apparel again and again and again. First there was free 
trade for Israel. Then there was free trade or substantial concessions 
for the Caribbean countries. Then there was NAFTA. Then there were more 
concessions for the Caribbean countries so they would be treated like 
Mexico. Then there was the phase-out and elimination of quotas as a 
result of agreement on textile and clothing which was part of the WTO 
agreement in 1994.
  What is the result? What is the result of all of these free-trade 
concessions? Today, last year, textile and apparel imports into this 
country were $77.5 billion, $77.5 billion, up by 90 percent since 1994. 
Up by $35 billion since 1994.
  What is the result for the American textile worker? When I came here 
in 1983, there were 2.1, 2.2 million Americans engaged in textiles and 
apparel. Today there is barely over a million. And in the last 9 
months, 118,000 textile and apparel workers have lost their jobs in 
this country. In the last 3 months, 46,000 textile and apparel workers 
have lost their jobs. This bill, this triple package with the Andean 
countries and the Caribbean countries and the sub-Saharan African 
countries all benefiting, substantially gaining greater rights to duty-
free, quota-free access to our markets, this bill cannot help but 
continue the hemorrhage in job losses that we have experienced for the 
last 10 years.
  This struggling industry will be dealt a death blow by this 
particular bill. I am not exaggerating.
  There is a simpler, easier conclusion. We can have a clean bill, a 
mere expansion of the Andean Trade Preference Act, extend it for 5 
years, extend it for 10 years. It does not matter to me what you extend 
it for, but keep it clean. Keep it related to the purpose at hand. 
Simply extend the pact that we have got. I will give the House that 
opportunity when the time comes for a motion to recommit, if of course 
this motion is not defeated; and that is the most efficient solution, 
defeat the motion and send the bill back so that it conforms to simply 
the Andean Free Trade Pact.
  But if the rule passes, I will offer a motion to recommit which will 
give everybody in the House that option, the option simply of extending 
the Andean Trade Pact so it helps those countries that we purport to 
help; but it does not help them at the expense of the million textile 
workers who are still left.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), for a colloquy with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy 
with my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  The reason is the U.S. must continue to exempt canned tuna or they 
will destroy domestic processing and the entire fishing industry not 
only in California but Samoa, Puerto Rico, and other places. I have 
been working with my good friend, the gentleman from American Samoa 
(Mr. Faleomavaega), and others on this position.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) has committed if we can bring him the facts that in the 
conference report he will take into consideration and allow our 
amendment that will at least stop the loss of jobs. And we estimate 
right now just in San Diego over 10,000 jobs will be lost if they are 
able to dump this tuna. Do we have the gentleman's commitment to take a 
look at the facts and work this in conference, because the Senate 
supports our position?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman, as I said both 
privately and publicly, we are currently analyzing the situation. We 
have been provided by our friend from American Samoa an amendment 
something other than simply banning. That is a significant step in the 
right direction.
  We are willing to look at limitations on volume, quota or 
consumption, whichever is the most appropriate structure. I understand 
and appreciate the gentleman's concern because he is dealing with only 
a canning operation in which the processing comes from the

[[Page 22847]]

very country that is the subject of the tuna expansion in Andean and 
Ecuador. And the pressures are significant. The facts are there. We 
will make adjustments so that the gentleman will have at least a 
minimal comfort level.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank and I take the gentleman's words 
from California (Mr. Thomas) as a friend and I take his word as gospel. 
But I will say if the problem cannot be worked out, my friends from 
American Samoa, from Puerto Rico and from California, we will be forced 
in the conference report to vote against the rule, to vote against the 
conference report; and then I will support the motion to recommit in 
the conference report.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I will tell my friend who said that the 
solution is to simply extend the Andean Pact, it means the African 
provisions are out, the Caribbean provisions are out and all of the 
help, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) said, in replacing the 
drug costs will be out as well. That does not sound exactly like a good 
deal.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on either side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) has 6\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise on the debate on the rule to urge defeat of this 
rule. I ask defeat of this rule because of the situation at hand. The 
United States Congress has been asked to adopt, reapprove the Andean 
Trade Act, which was adopted over 10 years ago. It had a sunset in it 
so that there would be debate to be able to revise it and look at it 
and debate it.
  This bill comes to the floor without any public hearings, without any 
debate. In fact, it was rushed through the Committee on Rules just a 
few hours ago. And now we are asked to adopt one of the most important 
trade policies to affect the southern hemisphere. It affects all of 
Central America, the Caribbean, and the Andean region of Latin America.
  There are a lot of concerns that you hear from Members here, concerns 
that ought to be addressed and these trade agreements ought to be 
modernized and updated with the circumstances at hand. And we need to 
have a public process and a public hearing to do that. It did not occur 
here; and, therefore, the rule ought to be defeated and the bill ought 
to be defeated.
  Yes, there is pressure on us because the bill does sunset. But we can 
do a better job than what we have done with bringing this bill to the 
floor at this time, at this moment. So I urge a defeat of the rule.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman on the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, there is an expression that probably will 
only be understood by my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart), of those in the Chamber. I do not know how many bilingual 
people there are here. But I have struggled, as the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) knows, with my Spanish and this was a term 
that was taught to me by our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Napolitano). It is: ``Tapar el sol con un dedo.''
  It basically means you try to block the sun with your thumb, which 
obviously is not going to happen. We need to realize that there is 
overwhelming momentum worldwide to break down tariff barriers and to 
expand trade.
  Many people who traditionally have not been supportive of that in the 
past in Latin America are now strong proponents; and we know that, 
obviously, improved trade increases the standard of living for people. 
It allows them to focus on political repression and other challenges.
  This bill is designed to deal with a number of factors. Obviously, it 
is focused on challenges that exist in Africa and the Caribbean basin. 
One of key issues in focusing on Andean trade is that we have been able 
to do everything possible to try and wean those countries that have 
been reliant on the crops that provided drugs to move off of that.

                              {time}  1015

  Several weeks ago, I and a number of my colleagues had the 
opportunity to visit Bolivia, and there is no stronger example of a 
nation which has stood for that transfer away from coca, the drug crop, 
to legal, wonderful, productive crops than Bolivia. And there needs to 
be an even greater incentive as we try to diminish that flow of illicit 
drugs into the United States and other parts of the world. This measure 
is designed to do just that.
  There are, as has been pointed out in the debate, a wide range of 
other factors included in here, and there are concerns. But as I said 
with that expression, to try to block the sun with your thumb is 
something that we cannot do here. The world is changing, and I am happy 
to say that it is moving towards free trade because it does benefit the 
consumers. I do not want to see the tuna industry impacted negatively, 
I do not want to see the textile industry impacted negatively. And I 
know there are very understandable questions that have come forward, 
and I hope that we will be able to take steps to diminish the 
deleterious impact that this might have.
  I am convinced, I am convinced that as we deal with these shifts that 
have taken place domestically, as was pointed out earlier in the 
debate, that are now taking place globally, it is clearly the right 
thing for us to do to move in this direction. Our next step, then, Mr. 
Speaker, will be to grant trade promotion authority so that we can 
expand even further the very, very important message of freedom.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in support of the Andean Trade Preference Act.
  We are at a critical point in our ongoing relationship with our good 
friends in Central and South America. The expansion and extension of 
ATPA is a necessary component of a comprehensive strategy to improve 
our collective security in the Western Hemisphere.
  We have already established free trade agreements with Canada and 
Mexico, and now we must look to widen our horizon, expand our 
opportunities and share the good fortunes of trade with our Andean 
neighbors and then the rest of the democratic countries of South 
America.
  The ATPA has helped foster trade between the United States and the 
Andean region that has nearly doubled over the last decade to $18 
billion to the mutual benefit of the United States and Andean 
businesses. To date, we have made a bet that a $1.3 billion American 
assistance program can help solve this problem. If we truly want to 
shape the environment to ensure our success, we must protect our bet 
with a trade package that sets the conditions for economies that need 
to change their earnings from drug money to industries that are part of 
the 21st century economy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade 
Promotion and Drug Eradication Act.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again how much time there 
is?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, this rule prevents consideration of an 
amendment the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I would 
have

[[Page 22848]]

introduced to strike Colombia from this trade preference due to their 
horrendous record on labor rights.
  This bill allows Colombia to import numerous goods across our borders 
duty free. This preference costs us $262 million. This is a lot of lost 
revenue at the expense of a country that does nothing to ensure the 
basic security of trade unionists. Four thousand trade unionists have 
been gunned down in the last few years, and 133 trade unionists have 
been murdered this year alone. In Colombia, virtual immunity exists for 
the murderers of these trade unionists.
  The Miller-Evans amendment suspends Colombia from this trade 
preference until it begins to investigate the murders of these labor 
leaders. We are really not asking too much for several million dollars 
of duty free treatment.
  I think we should stand in solidarity with the families of the 4,000-
plus slain union leaders in Colombia that died for peace and human 
rights while their pleas for protection have been ignored by their own 
government. Their families have no consolation as the killers or these 
trade unionists remain free from prosecution.
  I urge my colleagues to remember that labor rights are human rights. 
Trade unionists risk their lives every day to ensure no person is 
subject to a wage that does not allow them to feed their family or 
works in a hazardous and dangerous workplace around the world. These 
are basic principles we must insist on if Colombia is ever to receive 
the benefits of trade with our Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up and fight for labor rights and human 
rights.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Baird).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, last weekend, I had the great privilege of 
visiting the Pendleton Woolen Mills in Washougal, Washington. I met 
with many of the hundreds of employees who work there, many of whom 
have been there for 20 or 30 years. Their whole life has been spent 
working in one of America's finest textile industries.
  The challenge we face today is that we are presented with legislation 
that possibly will cost these people their jobs, with very, very little 
time to discuss this, with little time to debate it, and with little 
time to explore the ways we can improve it and minimize the impact on 
the people who might be displaced.
  I have supported trade, proudly supported trade in this body: trade 
in the Caribbean, trade with Africa, and trade with China, and 
elsewhere in the world. But to bring a piece of legislation to this 
body with so little time, when it could affect so many of our American 
workers, is not the kind of procedure we should follow. It does a 
disservice to those workers, and frankly, it does a disservice to the 
principles of trade itself.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation and 
``no'' on the rule until we get this right. We need time, we owe the 
time to the people whose jobs could be lost, to do this right.
  I am a supporter of trade, but we need to return to a more 
deliberative, conceptual, thoughtful process here in this body; we are 
not doing it, and it is a darn shame. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, has the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) yielded back her time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I wish to thank all my colleagues who have spoken today 
and in the Committee on Rules, where we met at 7:00 this morning and 
had a hearing and a vote on this very important legislation before 
bringing it to the floor.
  We are dealing, with regard to the Andean region, with four 
democracies. I am a strong believer and always have been in free trade 
among free peoples. There are four democracies in this hemisphere, 
allies of the United States, facing tremendous challenges, not the 
least of which is narcotrafficking. The strongest signal we could send 
to them, that we appreciate their friendship, and that we look forward 
to working with them to mutually seek progress and prosperity in the 
United States and in our neighborhood in this hemisphere, is by passing 
this legislation today.
  With regard to the argument that there have been problems with labor 
leaders in Colombia, the same person that came to advocate for that 
today before the Committee on Rules to prevent free trade with 
Colombia, advocates for free trade, for example, with the only 
dictatorship in this hemisphere today where there are no labor rights. 
How can you be for free trade with the Cuban dictatorship, where there 
are absolutely no labor rights, and then come and advocate for the 
denial of free trade or a trade relationship with a democracy because 
there are some problems?
  So, anyway, this is important legislation, and I want to thank those 
who have worked so hard on it. It expires, the agreement with the 
Andean countries, December 4, so in talking about timeliness, it is so 
important, Mr. Speaker, that we pass this before we leave today or 
tomorrow for a few days, before we come back. And so I would urge my 
colleagues to support the underlying legislation and to support this 
rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because 
it did not allow an amendment submitted by Representative George Miller 
on violence against Colombian labor leaders.
  I strongly believe that Colombia should benefit from the Andean Trade 
Preferences Act.
  If we want Colombia to abandon illegal commerce, then we must provide 
Colombia with benefits and incentives to support of legal enterprises. 
This trade amendment is one such effort to do that.
  This bill might have a negative impact on some textile companies in 
my own congressional district, although that is not assured. It would 
be a lot easier for those business owners and the workers to accept 
this trade agreement if they knew that Colombia's workers were 
protected from human rights violence. At a minimum, the companies and 
workers in my district need to know that if the worst happens, and 
Colombian union leaders and workers are murdered, then Colombian 
justice will actively investigate, hunt down, prosecute, and imprison 
the murderers.
  Unfortunately, that is not the case. Earlier this year, I met with a 
very impressive delegation of Colombian business leaders, members of 
the Colombian Chamber of Commerce. They also believe that the Colombian 
government needs to do a great deal more to protect both business 
owners and union leaders from kidnapping and murder. More trade 
unionists are killed in Colombia than all other countries combined.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a horrible reality. I have been to Colombia. I 
know that everyone in every part of the country is threatened by 
violence. The sources of violence include the paramilitary groups, the 
guerrilla forces and official armed forces. I know that stopping the 
violence will take a long time.
  Congressman Mr. Miller was not asking for anything so grand in his 
amendment.
  We are only asking that the Colombian Government apprehend and try 
the parties responsible for the killings of trade union members. Not 
because they are more important than any other sector of Colombian 
society, but because such action will send a clear message that 
impunity is ended for those who target labor leaders for murder.
  I want to promote and expand legal commerce and markets for Colombia.
  All I ask for is that Colombia demonstrate the political will to 
demand justice for murdered labor leaders.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 22849]]


  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 225, 
nays 191, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 446]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bono
     Clay
     Cubin
     Flake
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lantos
     Largent
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Waxman
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1045

  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, Mrs. MALONEY of New York and Messrs. FORD, 
SKELTON, SNYDER, McDERMOTT, TOWNS and PAYNE changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ROHRABACHER and Mr. TANCREDO changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 446, had I been 
here I would have voted ``no'' on this bill; however, I was detained by 
a conference meeting with the White House and was unable to vote at the 
appropriate time.

                          ____________________