[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 24059-24066]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flake). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the need for Trade Promotion 
Authority is clear. Approval of TPA, as it is called, is critical to 
the economic prosperity of our Nation, of Texas, and regions like mine, 
for the economic security of America, for the future. The President 
urgently needs this authority. He has made this one of his very few top 
priorities before Congress adjourns in the next few weeks. He needs it 
to level the playing field for U.S. companies by removing barriers 
abroad to American exports. In other words,

[[Page 24060]]

he wants to be a salesman for American companies, for American jobs, 
for American farmers.
  Every President until 1994 has had this authority. But we have been 
out of that game, we have been out of that playing field, and it has 
cost us literally tens of thousands of jobs. No successful business 
survives without a strong sales force. So why do we think America can 
succeed over the long haul without giving the President the tools he 
needs to promote American goods and services in the international 
marketplace.
  In the end, Congress, Members of Congress, will have the ultimate 
decision on whether any proposed agreement is free and fair, in 
America's interest. I want that authority. I want the responsibility to 
look at an agreement to open new markets with another country for our 
American products and goods. I can determine whether it is good for 
this Nation, for my district, or not.
  America is falling terribly behind. There are more than 130 trade and 
investment agreements in the world today. One hundred thirty. How many 
is America a party to? Three. That ranks the United States behind those 
free enterprise bastions of Cuba and Morocco, although I think we edge 
out Tunisia by one agreement. That is embarrassing.
  Congress has forced the United States to sit on the sidelines. By not 
granting our President the ability to promote trade, our international 
competitors are forging ahead. They are successfully completing their 
own trade agreements that puts U.S. companies at a competitive 
disadvantage. For example, the European Union has trade and customs 
agreements with 27 countries and another 15 accords in the pipeline to 
date.
  To explain it another way, and I am not much of a gambler or a 
golfer, but my friends who golf regularly and make a friendly wager 
will say that oftentimes that wager is won or lost on the first tee as 
people decide what the rules are going to be and when they give strokes 
to each of the competitors. Well, America is not on that first tee when 
it comes to laying out the rules for trade, so our companies are not 
getting fair rules and we are not getting fair strokes. We are, in 
fact, put at a terrible disadvantage.
  Everyone knows their own region better, but for Houston this is about 
jobs and our economic future. We have tens of thousands of new jobs at 
stake with this legislation. And as I have seen it, perhaps no State or 
region will benefit more or create more jobs from the passage of TPA 
than ours. Trade is already a large creator for America and a large 
creator for Texas. We are the second largest exporter in the country 
and the fastest growing. The Houston region is the largest and fastest 
growing export region in Texas, and now nearly two out of every three 
new jobs that are being created in our region come from international 
trade. That is good news for employees who have been laid off from 
Enron, from Continental, from Compaq, and from other very good 
companies. We need to get them back up on their feet and in new jobs, 
and trade is the way to do it.
  We sell or transfer what the world wants to buy, from agriculture to 
energy, petrochemicals to computers, construction services to new 
technologies and insurance. These are our competitive strengths. In 
fact, these are America's competitive strengths, and with the second 
largest port in America, great international air routes and airports, 
and a proximity to growing Latin American markets, Trade Promotion 
Authority is critical to our economic future. Truly, I do not 
understand how any Member of Congress who has constituents in the 
Houston region can justify not opening other countries' markets to 
America, to Texas, to Houston businesses and farmers, because it is our 
jobs locally that are at stake.
  When we look at what the opponents say about it, this legislation 
includes some of the strongest environmental and labor language in 
trade history in America. Each country must not only rigorously enforce 
its existing laws, environment and labor, but seek ways to further 
protect the environment and to further raise worker standards. Here is 
a good example in real life in the environment that I know of and have 
seen firsthand. Through NAFTA, the borders have been open between Texas 
and Mexico, America and Mexico. But because of that trade agreement, we 
now have, along our border, over 18 environmental projects that total 
more than $1 billion. That is $1 billion, new dollars, that are in 
projects to clean our air, to clean our water, to clean the wastewater 
and sewer in our area, and generally to create a much better 
environment in an area that desperately needed it that never would have 
happened without trade.
  When we talk about labor standards and worker raises, we can look at 
one of our trade agreements that we do have with the Andean countries 
that includes Bolivia and Colombia and other countries. When we listen 
to them, they say as a result of America trading with them, not only 
has America created jobs, but in terms of labor standards, Colombia, 
for example, in that region, has created more than 100,000 new jobs. 
They used to be into narco-trafficking, the drug trafficking trade, and 
now they are in legitimate business.
  They have, for example, the cut flower industry that is now a model 
industry that now has much higher wages for its workers, has child care 
and training and education for its women employees. It is helping these 
people buy homes and improve their homes that they never had a chance 
to do before. It has raised the worker standards for that region. And 
Colombia, in fact, has launched a ``cleaner Colombia'' effort that 
these businesses are part of to clean up the environment down there. So 
we are seeing higher labor standards, and we are seeing a greener world 
because of trade. And they could have more of these model companies if 
America would just simply let them.
  As I see it, and when I listen to them, they have watched the way 
America has pulled itself up by its bootstraps, and they do not want 
just aid, they want to trade. They want to compete. They want to try to 
build themselves as America has built itself, and they are right to do 
so.
  I am convinced when people say trade hurts the environment, common 
sense tells us they are wrong. For countries who are so poor or their 
children going hungry, where their families shiver through the night, 
protecting the rain forest, protecting the Monarch Butterfly is not 
high on their priority list. The fact of the matter is trade, raising 
worker standards, giving people a job, helping raise the environment, 
that is the best way to protect and preserve the environment around the 
real world. Not what we hear in Washington, but the way it works in the 
real world.
  The truth is, unfortunately, for opponents of Trade Promotion 
Authority, no language will ever be tough enough. Business has already 
made tremendous concessions. The reasonable objections of the 
environmental community and those really looking at labor from a 
reasonable standpoint have all been met. They have given up a great 
deal in order to try to work with our Members across the aisle who 
simply do not want free and fair trade, who are afraid, unfortunately, 
of competition. But they are simply not going to support this.
  We are fortunate that we did have some trade-oriented, fair trade-
oriented Democrats who helped craft this bill. It is the best 
compromise that can be reached, and I think they played a key role in 
making this the best trade legislation that Congress has ever crafted.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. Speaker, this surprises people. Because we talk about 
competition, but trade is very good for consumers. By the most recent 
estimate, American families save nearly $2,000 a year because of 
competition that trade brings about. What that means is that. For an 
average family like ours or yours, we can make one trip to a grocery 
store a month free due to the savings from international competition. 
Those are the savings we see because we have better and more affordable 
cars, clothing, toys and TV sets. What that means this

[[Page 24061]]

year is that parents will have one or more gifts under the tree for 
their children due to savings because of competition.
  The bottom line here is there is a principal attached to this 
legislation. And here it is. If Americans build a better mousetrap, we 
should be able to sell it without penalty anywhere in the world. If 
someone builds a better mousetrap, we should be able to buy it without 
penalty for our families and businesses. This legislation really 
provides us a very clear choice for voters to see. There is a choice 
between defeatists who believe that American products are not good 
enough to compete, or those of us who believe that enhanced trade is 
America's future.
  Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we should not retreat from fair 
trade competition. We should insist on it. Competition is America's 
strength, and it is the key to our high-tech, high-wage future, and 
truly tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for 
having this Special Order. I heard most of his remarks, and I want to 
echo them and add a little to it.
  This debate here on the floor tomorrow is really a test of this 
Congress and this Nation. Is our country going to move forward not just 
in trade but in liberalizing economies all around the world, or are we 
going to go back and pull back in a way that hurts not only our own 
economy but the global economy? That is the test we have tomorrow with 
Trade Promotion Authority which will be on the floor of the House.
  I heard some of the discussion earlier by some of our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, and their position confused me. This 
should not be a tough vote. All we are saying is that the President has 
the ability to go out and negotiate trade agreements. It is not a 
particular trade agreement. This Congress will always have the right to 
vote yes or no on a particular trade agreement.
  Are we sensitive to labor, environmental, and congressional 
consultation issues? Yes. This legislation is more sensitive to those 
issues, addresses those issues in a more direct way than any Fast Track 
legislation or trade promotion legislation before this House.
  In 1997 and 1998, we had a number of Members who were supportive of 
this legislation when it was called Fast Track but expressed some 
concern about labor and the environment. We have addressed many of 
those concerns, and this legislation moves in a way that should make it 
even more attractive to those Members who expressed those concerns 
before.
  I am concerned that some of those Members have now said that they can 
somehow cannot support a bill that is more sensitive on these issues, 
such as labor and the environment and the degree to which Congress 
plays a role.
  The benefits of trade should be obvious to everybody. Economists tell 
us that 30 percent of the growth that we have seen in our economy, the 
tremendous growth that we have seen over the last decade, is directly 
attributable to exports. Thirty percent is because of exports and 
enhanced trade.
  In Ohio, trade is extremely important. Ohio is now the seventh-
largest exporting State in the Nation, with nearly $30 billion in 
exports last year alone. This is going to help people in my district to 
get jobs, to retain their jobs, and to be able to allow our area to 
continue to grow.
  Because of jobs created by trade, we are not just increasing our 
exports, we are also getting better jobs. We know the jobs involved 
with trade pay, on average, 13, 14, 15, 16 percent higher than jobs not 
involved with trade. These are not just jobs. These are good jobs.
  Since we lost Trade Promotion Authority in the last administration, 
our Nation has fallen behind. The fact is that we now have 130 free 
trade agreements around the world. The United States is party to just 
three out of 130 trade agreements. During this period of time that the 
United States has not had trade negotiating authority, the ability for 
a President to negotiate, our competitors have continued to enter into 
agreements, helping jobs in their countries and taking away markets 
that should be ours, U.S. exports.
  For example, since 1990, our toughest competitor which is the 
European Union, has completed negotiations on 20 free trade agreements. 
Twenty. Currently, they are negotiating 15 more free trade agreements. 
In fact, in the last year they have entered into a free trade agreement 
with Mexico, which is the second largest market for American exports. 
While we sit back and talk about how we cannot give the President even 
the ability to go out and negotiate agreements, our competitors around 
the world are aggressively pursuing markets that should be ours, and it 
is hurting the United States' position in the global economy. This 
means American exporters encounter higher tariffs, if not closed 
markets altogether, in many countries around the world when other 
competitors of ours have a more open market to go into and have lower 
tariffs.
  Our lack of free trade means our government is sitting on the 
sidelines while other countries negotiate international rules in a 
multilateral way with a lot of countries that come together. They 
decide on international rules on everything from e-commerce to 
agriculture. This is hurting us, too. It is hurting our exports and 
economy.
  The question has come up earlier tonight from Members talking on the 
other side of the aisle primarily about why cannot we just have the 
United States enter into these agreements without Trade Promotion 
Authority. Why do we need Trade Promotion Authority?
  I would suggest tonight that the reason is simple. The President 
cannot go out and negotiate with other countries unless he has the 
ability to say, this is it. This is the agreement we have agreed on 
after a lot of tough bargaining and negotiations. We will now take it 
to our legislature for an up-or-down vote. That is what other countries 
can do.
  Without this trade negotiation authority, a President cannot do that. 
Congress can still vote yes or no. They just cannot amend it to death. 
Congress cannot nickel and dime an agreement that comes back to the 
Congress, and Congress has voted yes and has voted no in the past. We 
can simply do that.
  This kind of procedure where you come to an agreement and bring it 
back for a vote is common. Think about labor negotiations. If you are a 
member of a union out there, do you have an ability to amend an 
agreement that comes to you for ratification? Management and labor sit 
down. They hammer out an agreement. They come together with a fragile 
agreement where both parties have put their best offers on the table. 
The membership then decides yes or no.
  Think about a merger. What happens is, you come up with a decision. 
Once it is negotiated, it goes to the board of directors. The board of 
directors says yes or no. They do not renegotiate to death. If so, you 
could never come to an agreement. The other side would never be willing 
to put their best offer on the table thinking it could be amended to 
death. It is common sense. There are all kinds of analogies in the real 
world.
  Passing Trade Promotion Authority will help reestablish this Nation's 
global leadership in the area of the economy and of opening up markets 
around the world. This is important to our economic security in this 
country, to more jobs, but I would suggest that it is also important 
for our national security. In the wake of what happened on September 
11, let us not forget that those countries most closed to trade, the 
economies that are most closed are those economies that are most likely 
to be breeding grounds for terrorists. That is factual. If Members look 
around the world, whether it is Afghanistan or other countries where 
they have a closed society and a closed economy, those are the places 
where we tend to see the kind of terrorism and the breeding ground for 
terrorism and the sponsorship of terrorism around the world.
  This does relate to the kind of world my kids and grandkids are going 
to

[[Page 24062]]

have, not just in terms of their economic security, the kind of jobs 
that they will be able to access to achieve their dreams, but the world 
that they are going to live in in terms of national security.
  Our prosperity is not only threatened by terrorists, it is threatened 
by the worsening economic situation around the globe. So Trade 
Promotion Authority addresses not only national security but also the 
global economy that affects us here in the United States. Unless we can 
begin to improve the economic performance around the world, we are not 
going to be able to see our economy perform the way we would like it to 
be.
  By negotiating free trade agreements, opening up new markets for U.S. 
goods and services, we are taking an important step toward helping in 
that long-term economic picture. I think it is time, past time, for 
Congress to act. We have not had trade negotiating authority, Trade 
Promotion Authority, Fast Track authority, whatever one wants to call 
it, in the United States since 1994. Not since 1994. During that time, 
again, America has taken a back seat. American has not been in the 
driver's seat. America has fallen behind in relation to our global 
competitors.
  Now we need to get back in the front seat to drive this home for our 
economy, for the global economy, for helping to open up other countries 
around the world, reducing barriers, tariff and nontariff alike, and so 
we have a world safer for our kids and grandkids.
  I hope that Congress will act to stabilize our economy and to make 
sure that this Congress does not go on record saying that we are going 
to go back in terms of opening up trade and opening up markets, but 
rather this Congress is going to give the President the ability to go 
out and negotiate, be a tough negotiator, but negotiate agreements that 
are in our interest around the world.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is one of the leaders 
of the Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman is familiar with 
legislation that opens up markets to American farmers and businesses 
and jobs.
  One of the excuses we hear from people that do not support this is 
that Congress has no say in this legislation. The President negotiates 
it and usurps our constitutional power, that we have no say in shaping 
what an agreement will look like. My understanding is that the 
legislation provides more consultation than ever in history, but what 
are the gentleman's thoughts?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.
  First, Congress has the ultimate say. Congress can vote no on the 
agreement as it comes before us.
  Second, Congress has the ability to forge an agreement, and the 
administration knows that. In this case our U.S. Trade Representative, 
Ambassador Zoellick, who is a tough negotiator, is going to be mindful 
of the fact that what he brings to this Congress has to pass muster 
here.
  In this legislation we have unprecedented congressional consultation 
and involvement. Farmers, one thing that I think is an improvement in 
this bill, as compared to what we voted on in 1997 and 1998, the 
Committee on Agriculture has a specific role and has the ability to be 
in consultation with the administration to help shape that agreement.
  That is extremely important, because it is probably the most 
competitive industry in America, is the agriculture industry. Our 
ability to export our agricultural products around the world is not 
being maximized because there are barriers to our products. So we are 
going to have more consultation than we have ever had. The 
administration will be forced to deal with us to help forge the 
agreement; and, ultimately, we have the ability to say yes or no.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point. Absent Trade 
Promotion Authority this House sits silent. The President can go to any 
nation in the world and negotiate a treaty and take it to the Senate, 
have the Senate debate it, amend it, and take it back to the country 
with whom we have reached an agreement and ask them to negotiate for a 
second time. We sit silent with no role.
  This is not a trade agreement we are talking about. This is a process 
to allow the President to negotiate with any country in the world some 
trade agreement that then we will be in judgment on. It will come back 
to us, and we can vote yes or no. But this House will have a role. 
Absent this, we have no role.
  There are 130 trade agreements in the world. We are party to three of 
them. After NAFTA, Mexico has agreements with 28 or 29 different 
countries. The European Union, 27. We are not a party. We sit silent. I 
am astonished by my colleagues that do not want to have a role. This 
President understands that free trade is necessary for freedom. It is a 
moral value.

                              {time}  1915

  He will reach agreements. If he has to go some day by treaty to 
Chile, Argentina, Brazil, he will go there. He will negotiate with the 
Senate, and we will sit silent. So if we vote for Trade Promotion 
Authority tomorrow, which I intend to do, we are saying that the House 
has a role, there is something we can do. He can bring back an 
agreement that we can defeat. Whoever does not like the provisions of 
the agreement that comes back can vote no. We can kill it. But, absent 
this agreement, we sit silent.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I know the gentleman from Georgia has long played 
a leadership role in trade, and I know you listen very carefully to 
those who create jobs in Georgia. What do your farmers, your small 
businesses, your technology companies, your financial groups, those who 
are creating jobs in Georgia, what do they tell you about this 
legislation?
  Mr. LINDER. We have the lowest tariffs in the world. We have 
thousands of Georgia companies selling goods and services into a global 
economy. We want to lower the tariffs of other nations so that we can 
be competitive. Our ability for the President to negotiate with other 
nations and lower their tariffs will only improve our sales. It will 
only help us.
  More than half of the Georgia companies that sell goods and services 
into the global economy are small and medium-sized businesses. That is 
our growth rate. Twenty-five percent of our economic growth over the 
last 10 years has been due to export. We simply cannot throw up a wall 
around us.
  Chris Patten said when we were talking about NAFTA in 1993, I believe 
it was, Chris Patten was the last British Governor of Hong Kong, and he 
gave a speech in which he said if a space ship had come to the Planet 
Earth in the 16th century, the 15th and 16th centuries, and landed in 
the teepee huts of North America, to the typhoid-ridden streets of 
London and the warring streets of Paris, and wound up in the Ming 
Dynasty, they would have concluded within a minisecond that China would 
rule the world for centuries. She had just invented gunpowder and a 
printing press and had a huge cultural growth rate; the people were 
happy and well fed and economic growth rates were rapidly climbing. And 
then he said this: and then she built a wall around herself, and 
history told a different tale.
  The future is for knocking down walls, whether they are tariff or 
non-tariff barriers. My grandchildren deserve the privilege of buying 
the best product at the lowest rate, and you do that by knocking down 
the walls to trade.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just have a 
few moments here that I wanted to take, and I appreciate the gentleman 
from Texas yielding, and I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia here 
with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), obviously, and the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Portman). Your work on agriculture is one part of it.
  I want to talk a little bit about leadership, because I think one of 
the things lacking here is if the U.S. does not garner some agreements 
around the world, we are abdicating our role as a leader. We are a 
national leader, and tomorrow's vote on Trade Promotion

[[Page 24063]]

Authority is critical to the future of this country.
  It is important for Members and Americans to understand just what is 
at stake here. So I appreciate the opportunity to come here with you 
gentlemen and discuss why it is so important that we talk about this 
and reinforce TPA.
  Free trade is about a lot of things. It is about expanding the 
economy, new jobs, strengthening relations with our allies and lifting 
the developing world out of poverty. On this, one of the things that 
the U.S. does best is it leads. But in this arena, it seems to me that 
they are failing. They are dropping the role that they play in such a 
huge way and have played over the last several decades.
  It is only proven through action, whether you go back to World War 
II, whether you are talking about the rebuilding of Europe, fighting 
communism or protecting the environment, growing the economy or 
fighting terrorism, which we are doing now, that is the real essence of 
America, and I think we have to express ourselves. We do it best 
tomorrow by passing TPA; and we, frankly, risk our opportunity, we are 
abdicating our position of leadership, if we do not in fact promote 
international trade in a way that gives the President the authority 
that is so vital to America's well-being.
  Let me just give you some numbers in my own home State of Michigan. 
Last year 372,000 jobs were dependent upon manufactured exports. Last 
year we sold some $52 billion of goods to more than 200 foreign 
markets, which is the fourth most in the country.
  We need to begin to aggressively break down the barriers to American 
exports so that we can create these new jobs.
  I would just add a thing or two. This is the thing that bothers me 
the most. With more than 130 preferential trade agreements in effect in 
the world today, the U.S. is only a party to three; the NAFTA 
agreement, and, of course, the agreements with Israel and Jordan. In 
contrast, and this is the bothersome part, the European Union has 27 
agreements in effect, 20 negotiated in the 1990s, and right now is 
currently negotiating 15 more.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I would say to the gentleman, Europe is running 
circles around America and around American jobs.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. They are indeed. One of the problems with that, and 
to just give one example, Canada has a free trade agreement, obviously 
with us; but they also have one with Chile. I think the gentleman 
mentioned that a moment ago.
  Just to give one example, because Canada does have a free trade 
agreement with Chile, we do not, a farm tractor costs something like 
$15,000 more if purchased from the U.S. than its Canadian counterpart. 
If we had, obviously, an agreement with Chile, we would be selling 
tractors to Chile. But you know who they are going to buy them from? 
The Chileans are not going to buy them from us.
  The same thing could be expressed about potatoes. They buy potatoes 
from, guess who, Canada, because they have an agreement. Burger King is 
big in Chile, and that is another reason we should look at it.
  I might just say this, that I think it is a sorry state for the U.S., 
which is the most open society in the world, that we begin to close our 
doors to allowing our products to get into other countries.
  I think we have a great opportunity tomorrow, if we do not fumble it 
and pass this bill. I would just say that we can break down the 
barriers to U.S. goods and services and that Chilean situation would 
not occur and we would have a market for our products overseas.
  What I like to always say is the jobs stay here, the products go 
overseas, and the workers earn the money here and keep their job. We 
have to do more of that if we are going to be the leader and maintain 
our leadership in the world.
  So I particularly enjoy having an opportunity to spend a moment or 
two this evening on this. I would simply yield back to the gentleman 
from Texas.
  Mr. LINDER. If the gentleman would yield further, all of those 
numbers are the numbers I have. The 15,000 is the tariff on the 
Caterpillar tractor. We have the lowest tariffs in the world. We would 
like to be able to have our President negotiate with every nation in 
the world to lower their tariffs to our levels. We ought to be in favor 
of that. Then we ought to be able to look at that agreement when it 
comes back to the House and vote it up or down.
  But this bill we are talking about tomorrow only enables the 
President to bring us a measure. It only enables him to go out and 
negotiate a measure and come back to the House and the Senate for an up 
or down vote. This is a 25-year-old process.
  I do not blame the President of Chile if he does not want to 
negotiate with the United States twice, once when they sign the treaty 
and another time when the Senate alters it. It is a sensible approach 
that just brings the House into the game.
  For our colleagues that oppose this, I am always surprised at the 
variety of reasons I hear for the opposition, because my answer is 
always then, why do you not want to have a say? This is the only way 
this House will have a voice in any trade agreement in the future.
  I, of course, have been actively involved in trying to pass this. I 
hope it will pass tomorrow. The President deserves this. I was in favor 
of this when President Clinton was in office. I worked hard for it when 
he wanted it passed. I will work just as hard for it tomorrow.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Both of these gentlemen have been leaders in 
trade, because it means jobs for Georgians, it means jobs for people in 
Michigan, it means jobs for people in Illinois. As you mentioned, 
Chile, an average person, just one of our neighbors will ask, sure, I 
can see why a country like Chile would want to sell to America. They 
are going to get all the benefits from these agreements. What is in it 
for us in this country?
  I looked at a study the other day that showed if we had a free trade 
agreement with Chile, their economy would grow by some $700 million a 
year, a pretty big pop by Chilean standards. But America, our selling, 
we would sell 128 times more products to Chile as a result of the 
agreement.
  So, in fact, our economy is boosting. We are creating more jobs as a 
result of that trade between us and another country. Of course, that 
means jobs here in our local community.
  With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Shimkus), who is also very involved in labor issues, environmental 
issues and job creation.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague from Texas, and I am honored to 
join this group. Illinois is an exporting State, whether it be 
manufactured goods from Deere and Caterpillar or high-tech goods from 
Motorola.
  Of course, I represent a strong agricultural district, and no one can 
argue with the importance of agriculture to central and southern 
Illinois. It is the bulwark in keeping our small communities alive and 
vibrant.
  Rural America has fallen on tough times for the simple reason we 
produce more than we can consume. It comes down to this basic equation: 
we produce much more than we as a Nation can consume. So the prices, at 
times, in my time here in Congress, we have had prices at Depression-
era lows for some products. You cannot operate family farms on that 
return. There is no return. It is a negative return.
  So what occurs is the government, because we understand the 
importance of the agriculture section and understand the importance of 
the small family farms, is we end up coming in with some emergency aid.
  My producers, they really do not want the help. What they want to do 
is to sell their product. That is why this bill is so important, 
because we have missed out on 125-some-odd trade agreements, because 
this President and the past President did not have Trade Promotion 
Authority. So we are not at the table, so we cannot work diligently to 
lower tariffs, and we cannot get our foot in the door in some of these 
markets. So we continue to produce more

[[Page 24064]]

than we consume. Our local farmers then lose money producing food, and 
large corporate farms are developing to try to develop the efficiencies 
to make it profitable and get some return on investment.
  Illinois is the Nation's second largest soybean producer. We are the 
Nation's second largest feed corn producer. We rank sixth in all 50 
states with agriculture exports with an estimation of $3 billion; and 
you can understand how exports help the family income, the family farm.
  The demand for our agriculture products is growing. But we cannot 
negotiate if we are not in the room when these countries want to 
negotiate a deal to buy our products.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Does the gentleman not think it is a great source 
of frustration for America's heartland that they have answered the call 
to produce their food and their products more efficiently, cheaper, 
more affordably, more environmentally friendly ways, they have done all 
the right things, yet the prices get lower and lower because they are 
blocked?
  Literally, ``Americans need not apply'' signs are all around the 
world for our products, and all they want is the opportunity to 
compete. Because they know if they do, that American farmers and 
ranchers and producers, we could feed the world, at least we could if 
they would allow us to. Because other countries are out there on the 
playing field opening up their markets, but America is not even in the 
ball game. We do not even have a chance to stand up for our farmers and 
our ranchers and producers.
  Does the gentleman not think that is why the agriculture community in 
America is united behind this legislation, because this gives them a 
chance to compete?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. It goes back. The gentleman from Texas was not a Member 
during the last passage of the agriculture bill, and I was not a Member 
then, but there were promises made to the agriculture sector, and the 
promises said we want to ease the regulatory burden. It did not happen. 
They said we are going to open markets for you, so that they then 
planted for the market and did not plant based upon government 
intervention, a centralized control system. We have not kept those 
promises.
  A vote on this bill is a move forward in keeping the promises that 
were made in the last agriculture bill. And we are on the verge of a 
new agriculture bill. As the gentleman knows, the gentleman from Texas, 
the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, visited my producers at 
their annual meeting on Monday, and exports is the key for their 
survival. That is why it is so important.
  Again, I also mentioned other parts of the economy, whether it be 
heavy industrial equipment, it could be high-tech equipment.

                              {time}  1930

  It could be that even small businesses reap tremendous benefits. I 
have a statistic, and I am not one that likes to throw out statistics 
all the time, but from 1992 to 1998, the number of Illinois companies 
exporting increased 50 percent, and more than 86 percent of Illinois' 
14,231 companies that export are small- and medium-sized businesses.
  One of the things that I have talked about over my time as a Member 
of Congress and even before I was running is how small business has 
created the job growth over the past 10 years. If we look where the 
action is, the action is in small business. Even when we have a 
downturn, we find many people who are aggressive, and they leave their 
current large employer. They strike out on their own. How many stories 
of success have we heard in operating and starting a new business? 
Well, a lot of these new businesses that are successful are tied to the 
export community, and the job benefits are just notable.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I have 
sensed up here from some of the opponents that perhaps they are afraid 
for America to compete, that they are not so sure our products and our 
workers are good enough anymore around the world. But if we listen to 
those workers in our businesses, whether it is the farmers who are out 
there or small businesses, our technology companies, our software 
companies, computer makers, construction, energy, financial people, 
just people all around our neighborhood, the reason they are pushing 
for this legislation is they know that they can compete.
  They know that they can create jobs right here at home but, 
literally, 95 percent of the world that is the population outside of 
America that is growing by leaps and bounds, again, America need not 
apply to sell them and compete for their business, yet every other 
country is out there doing it. For them, they see it simply as this is 
a huge opportunity to create jobs and help families.
  What is interesting is these jobs from international trade pay a 
little more than domestic jobs, and they are more recession-proof, 
which I would think for those 700,000 or so employees that we have lost 
who have been laid off since September 11, jobs that hang tight in a 
tough economy would be good news, and jobs one can raise a family on 
would be very important, again, if Americans can apply for these jobs 
in these businesses.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman speaks to an issue that is 
pretty near and dear to my heart, because I have great friends across 
the aisle, I have great friends who are strong labor supporters, and I 
have somewhat of a pretty good record as a Member of Congress in an 
attempt to be very responsive and open and be there at times when I can 
really justify the position with organized labor.
  The concern I have always had is there is job loss going on always in 
this country, and it is sometimes part of a normal business cycle. 
These job losses and some of this movement of the industrial workforce 
is occurring without trade negotiating, Trade Promotion Authority. For 
the life of me, I find it hard to understand, how do they think the job 
loss will be any less? We lower tariffs, we make our manufactured goods 
more competitive.
  We had our other colleagues here who spoke of industrial 
manufacturers. Again, I can talk to Deere; I can talk to Caterpillar. 
Does my colleague know what? They want to be able to compete. They want 
Illinois workers and an Illinois company producing strong, durable 
goods that we can sell overseas. And lowering barriers to trade, i.e., 
tariffs, will do that.
  But we have to accept the premise that there is job loss and there is 
winners and losers. They addressed that issue in past bills, and we 
have been able to use successfully NAFTA transitional assistance to 
help provide a floor of support to help in retraining, reeducation, 
moving the displaced workers from the unemployment line to, many times, 
even some better jobs. And the NAFTA transitional assistance has been 
very beneficial. I am glad it was part of the last trade agreement.
  That is why I am very pleased with the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) and his additional push at the urging of many of us that 
understand that there are winners and losers, trade adjustment 
assistance and a push to help protect our workers and a push to help 
get them the training, the education, the experience to be able to move 
them quickly from one sector of the economy into another sector of the 
economy, whether they want to move and be another employee or whether 
they are going to venture out and be one of these small businesses that 
I have talked about that really have created all of the jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, when we cannot negotiate with a competitor or a country 
and we have problems, and in my area I have been a vigilant opponent of 
dumping of steel in this country. We know it goes on. We cannot stop 
it. We are not at the table. We cannot negotiate. And by the time this 
President, President Bush, enforces section 201, which is to go after 
and penalize these countries, guess what? We have already lost the 
jobs, because the past administration did nothing. So it is this 
Republican administration that is seeking to go after the countries 
that are abusing trade by using government subsidies to undercut the 
price of steel. How much better if we are negotiating

[[Page 24065]]

and at the table so that we can bring up those issues.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in Illinois, if we ask any neighbor 
who has a good, secure job that they like, that is paying good, decent 
benefits, I wonder how many of them work for a company or for a farm 
that does not have a salesman, that does not have someone out there 
selling and promoting their products. And yet we wonder how can America 
succeed against other countries when we lock our President here. We do 
not allow him to go out there and open up markets, tear down that 
``Americans need not apply sign,'' who pushes for us just to get a fair 
shake in this competition. I do not know how we succeed these days 
without a tough, aggressive sales force out there pushing for us. Does 
the gentleman?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. No, Mr. Speaker, I do not. The gentleman knows that I am 
involved with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which as legislative 
members we gather, and they are the NATO countries, and it is a kind of 
oversight what our folks do. And a lot of times we will visit the EU, 
and what is the EU doing? They are establishing, and a lot of these are 
our allies, they are establishing a common market and reducing trade 
barriers so that they can trade across country lines with no barriers. 
Does the gentleman know what else they are doing? A common currency.
  Talk about a competitive advantage: Knocking down the trade barriers 
is definitely having a common currency, and then we are in. That is why 
this administration is looking for a Western Hemisphere in trade in 
response to our western allies who want to get the benefits of 
efficiencies and lower taxes and a single monetary system. That is what 
we are up against in this world.
  Do we shy away? Do we go and cower in the corner? Or do we say, all 
right, if our allies are doing that to us, we will gather our allies in 
our Western Hemisphere, and, man, we will go show them, and dare they 
not come to our area, because we are going to strike some pretty good 
deals with these emerging countries that really want our assistance, 
and we can grow together.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is why the President I think 
has said that national security is his number one priority. Economic 
security comes right after that. This is all about jobs in competition.
  The gentleman and I, we both have young children. A lot of our 
neighbors have children in college or kids just getting out in the 
workforce. This is all about jobs. This is all about us competing and 
them having the kinds of jobs they can raise a family on.
  We hear a lot of excuses, but today, earlier tonight we heard another 
``I am for free trade, but,'' which seems to follow with anything, but 
one of them said, I am for free trade, but I do not want to give up our 
sovereign rights as a country.
  Earlier today Senator Phil Gramm, who is a constitutionalist beyond 
many in Congress; if someone asks him what time of the day it is, he 
would consult the Constitution first to see if that is allowed and 
permitted and what rights are there for Americans. This morning he 
stood here and told colleagues on Capitol Hill that he supports this 
bill. This protects the sovereign rights of America, of American 
workers, of American business, of the American Constitution. So I think 
that excuse just does not wash.
  The other thing I wonder about is if people understand the potential 
that is out there for us. The gentleman and I have talked about this. 
Ninety-five percent of the world that lives outside of America, they 
cannot all buy, those countries cannot all buy what the gentleman and I 
perhaps can afford today, but someday they will. All we need to do is 
look at Japan and Western Europe, nations that went from abject poverty 
to prosperity in one generation. I mean one generation, from father to 
son, from mother to daughter, as a Nation, went from the poorest of the 
poor to being strong competitors and economic powers in this world. 
That is what we are competing for.
  Last year I read a number, and I followed up and confirmed it. Half 
of the adults in the world today, one-half, have yet to make their 
first telephone call. Think about that. Half of the adults in the world 
have yet to make a telephone call. Common sense tells us, if it is 
American companies that land those contracts to sell those telephones 
and that service, they will create American jobs. If there are 
companies in Europe that land those contracts, they will create jobs in 
Europe and in Asia, in Asia.
  So it is sort of Lewis and Clark out there in the world, and every 
country is out there, every nation is out there staking lucrative 
claims to these markets except for us, because we do not allow our 
President to go out there and give us a fair shake and allow us to 
compete.
  The potential for jobs for our children, for our neighbors, for those 
who are unemployed is just huge. Would the gentleman not agree?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I do. I serve on the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications of the Committee on Commerce; and we deal with broad 
band, cellular, cell phones and all the like. A lot of these countries, 
Third World countries, they are not going to deploy telephone lines 
like we have all over the place. They are going to come in with the 
next generation and they are either going to have direct satellite 
broad band services provided by the United States or they are going to 
expand the cellular industry, hopefully provided by us. But if we are 
not there to negotiate, they will get it. But guess who will be 
providing it? Our competitors. Because we are just not at the table.
  I want at least mention one other thing in this environment, 
especially with the international arena that we are in today. We are 
asking our friends, some staunch allies, some good allies and some who 
have not been very good allies of ours in the last couple years, to 
come to the plate and help us fight international terrorism. They are 
making sacrifices. They are giving us intelligence, they are working 
with us on basing, they are providing us maybe soldiers, transport, and 
the like. How can we tell these people who are asking for help that we 
do not want to sit down and trade with them, we do not want to 
negotiate with them, we do not want to strike a deal with them, we do 
not want to be on a level playing field and work out and both benefit 
from increased trade?
  I just find it very, very sad that in this environment, when we are 
asking our international allies to be there for us, I am afraid we are 
not willing to be there for them in international trade.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would think this is about the 
worst possible time to isolate America. It could not come at a worse 
time, and yet the vote tomorrow will really be between those who 
embrace competition and new jobs and those who fear it and those who 
want to open America. What is our strongest export? Freedom. It will be 
between those who want to export our freedoms and those I think who 
want to build walls and isolate us. It is a very clear choice that 
really rarely happens here on Capitol Hill.
  But there are just tens of thousands of jobs at stake in my community 
and in the gentleman's as well.

                              {time}  1945

  I do not want to be self-promoting on my biography, but I was a 
former teacher, a history teacher.
  Major world conflicts: Why did many of them evolve? Trade barriers 
were increased and countries wanted to go after raw materials which 
they could not negotiate through low tariffs, so they built up armies 
and they went to get it.
  Whether it was the World War II experiences or the Japanese in 
Southeast Asia, Hitler going in to get the gas in the Soviet Union, you 
name it, a lot of things occurred and a lot of wars are fought because 
there are the haves and there are the have-nots.
  Trade will help everyone get a bite at the apple, and everyone will 
benefit through the growth and the experience.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Illinois will 
accept praise for his role in job creation for Illinois, for America, I 
would like to offer it.

[[Page 24066]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), 
the chairman of our Committee on Rules, but really, perhaps, the 
premier free trader in America, for his comments.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me, and I 
want to congratulate both the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for taking out this important 
time.
  Let me just say that I appreciate, as I said, the compliment; but I 
am one of a long line of people who really see this correctly. I do 
believe that we are on the verge of facing what clearly will be one of 
the most important votes certainly of the new millennium, and it is not 
that old, but the vote that we are going to be casting tomorrow will 
lay the groundwork for the extraordinary role that the United States of 
America will be playing in leading not only the issue of trade but the 
cause of freedom, political pluralism, and democracy worldwide.
  That is really what this has come down to in many ways, Mr. Speaker, 
is a vote of whether or not the United States will in fact step up to 
the plate and once again assume that rightful place which, 
unfortunately, has been greatly diminished since 1994 when we saw this 
very important, what we used to call Fast Track negotiating authority, 
which was really a misnomer, now correctly labeled Trade Promotion 
Authority.
  The reason is, and I am sure that we have heard this over and over 
again, with the signing of the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement just 
very recently, we now are a party to three of the 133 trade agreements 
that have been put together in the last several years.
  So we have observed, unfortunately, many countries that historically 
have not been strong supporters of free trade and the cause of it say 
that they are going to play this leadership role, and yet the United 
States of America is the most productive Nation on the face of the 
Earth; and our workers, our farmers, our businesses are prepared to 
compete.
  All we are going to be saying tomorrow when we have this debate and 
the vote is: Why do we not pry open new markets which have been limited 
to us because of tariffs? A tariff is a tax. We are talking about 
cutting the taxes for consumers so they can have access to U.S. goods 
and U.S. services.
  We have found the benefits of imports here in the United States. They 
have allowed us to keep inflation down, they have allowed people going 
to stores to have a decent holiday because they are able to buy 
products that have come into the United States; and because of imports, 
the United States of America has become even more productive because of 
competition that imports have provided here.
  Now let us give the President the authority to open up the world to 
us. As was said by the great Secretary of Commerce, Don Evans, at a 
news conference we held yesterday, 90 percent of the world's consumers 
are outside of our borders.
  The world economy is about $40 trillion, and $10 trillion, a quarter 
of that, is right here in the United States. But as we see these other 
countries improve their economies and develop new economic 
opportunities, they are going to have living standards improved to the 
point where they are going to be able to buy even more U.S. goods and 
services.
  So that is why we are simply saying the United States Congress, we 
hope, tomorrow afternoon we will say to the President of the United 
States that he should go out and negotiate the very best that he 
possibly can for the American worker, for the American farmer, for 
America's businesses, for America's consumers, and then come back to 
us, and we in the House and Senate will make a decision as to whether 
or not he has negotiated a good agreement. Then we will vote yes or no.
  I am here to say, I am proud to stand in this well to say that if the 
President brings back a bad agreement, I will be proud to lead the 
charge against that agreement. But if he comes back with a good 
agreement, an agreement which is going to break down tariff barriers, 
recognize the importance of environmental quality and worker rights, 
recognize the importance of enhancing opportunity for U.S. workers, 
farmers, and businesses, I believe that it will be the right thing for 
us to do.
  So I just would like to say that on the national security front this 
is the right vote because global leadership and what it is that the 
President is providing has been heralded by so many people. We have 
learned that Osama bin Laden has the ability to do one thing and one 
thing only, and that is to destroy. But I will say that we are the 
producers, we are the best producers on the face of the Earth, so let 
us have an opportunity to do that.
  I thank my friend for yielding, and I am sorry to have consumed so 
much of his time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say we should not 
retreat from fair trade competition, we should insist on it, because 
competition is America's strength and it is the key to our high-wage 
and our high-tech future.

                          ____________________