[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[House]
[Page 24231]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             DEMOCRATIC PROCESS DISHONORED IN TRADE DEBATE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, through the tenure that I have 
had here in this body, I have had the opportunity to discuss and to 
engage in a vigorous debate on trade. On many instances I saw fit to 
vote for some forms of international trade. But, at that time, Mr. 
Speaker, there was engagement, bipartisan engagement. Under the 
leadership of President Clinton, every issue that was expressed by a 
Democrat or a Republican or an Independent was given full airing 
throughout the process.
  Today, I believe we dishonored the democratic process in this House. 
There was no open discussion. There was simply an attempt to get 
someone's way, and it was evidenced by a vote of 215 to 214.
  This is because in the Committee on Rules they would not allow a full 
debate and allow a very full and adequate substitute, which many 
business persons supported, authored by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel); one that expanded trade, opened new markets for U.S. 
workers, farmers and businesses; that had effective worker protections; 
that protected realistically the environment; and then held to the 
constitutional premise that when it comes to protecting the American 
people as to whether or not we would lose thousands of jobs, there must 
be Congressional oversight, which the Constitution mandates.
  That is what the Rangel substitute had, and, Mr. Speaker, the 
Committee on Rules denied us the opportunity to have a full debate on 
that substitute, a substitute that would protect the American people. 
Instead, what we did is bring forth the Thomas bill, that had no sense 
of commitment to some of these very important issues.
  I believe in what Democratic President John F. Kennedy said, ``a 
rising tide lifts all boats,'' and that we in the United States 
Congress have a responsibility to work on behalf of the Nation.
  My district, in fact, is a district that has in some instances 
advocated trade because of the business community. But I have many 
constituents, Mr. Speaker, and right now I am shocked that anybody in 
the business community is focusing on anything but the thousands of 
people who have lost their jobs over these last couple of weeks, maybe 
10,000 in and around the 18th Congressional District. I believe Houston 
will come back. But I would think that this White House, with a 
president from Texas, would have more concern about passing an economic 
stimulus package that would in fact have extended relief for those 
individuals who tragically, through no fault of their own, have lost 
their jobs.
  This trade bill could have been a trade bill that would have included 
everyone, but, yet, no one was involved who had a different 
perspective. No one was involved who wanted to see more labor 
protections, wanted to see the protocols that include protection of 
human rights, the environment, making sure that there were labor 
standards.
  We realize when you have international trade that some jobs will be 
lost, but more jobs are lost because the labor standards are 
diminished, and many corporations will rush to those places overseas in 
order to pay those unbelievably diminishing and demeaning hourly wages. 
So we do lose good American jobs.
  But I do believe trade can be a boost to the economy. How can it be a 
boost to the economy? Only when we sit down and negotiate together.
  We now face a declining economy, and we also are in jeopardy with our 
own environment. We still have issues dealing with clean water and 
clean air. Do we not hold to the premise that what is good for the 
goose is good for the gander? If we are fighting for clean air and 
clean water and the protection of our water, in light of what we are 
going through, would it not be appropriate for those countries to do 
the same where those corporations that carry our name rush to set up 
their institutions?
  I am very saddened that the debate went to the level it did, that we 
are all fighting international terrorism. We are doing that. So many of 
us gave the authority to our President in unity because our soil was 
violated, our people lost their lives. I claim and will not in any way 
take a back seat to my patriotism.
  But this bill had nothing to do with patriotism or fighting 
terrorism. In fact, I am more fearful of this bill than I am supportive 
of this bill as having anything to do with helping us fight terrorists 
around the world. I would much rather shore up this declining economy 
and provide the opportunities for constituents to have a bridge, so 
that they can find work.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe we did not do what was right today on behalf 
of all of the American people. I say to my business community in an 
open letter, we have worked together, and I will not again take a back 
seat to my concern about the economy and boosting opportunities for 
trade. But we cannot do it by denying our own constituency, those who 
work hard, who labor, those who want a cleaner environment, and those 
who promote the Constitution, requiring Congressional oversight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, hoping we will be 
able to fix this very unseemly bill.

                          ____________________
                              {time}  1814