[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 12066]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3009, ANDEAN 
                TRADE PROMOTION AND DRUG ERADICATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. MAXINE WATERS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 26, 2002

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H. Res. 450, an 
unprecedented and undemocratic ``bill-in-a-rule'' on our nation's trade 
policy.
  Normally, the House passes a ``rule'' to specify the procedures for 
consideration of a bill. A ``rule'' for the consideration of a trade 
bill would determine how many amendments will be allowed and how long 
the debate will last before a final vote on the bill. H. Res. 450, 
however, is a ``rule'' that actually provides for the automatic passage 
of a 191-page trade bill. The Republican leadership is trying to force 
the Congress to pass a 191-page trade bill with no opportunity for 
amendments, no final vote on the bill and virtually no time for debate.
  This 191-page ``bill-in-a-rule'' includes the text of H.R. 3005, the 
Republican Fast Track trade bill that was passed by the House on 
December 6, 2001, by a one-vote margin. H.R. 3005 is a trade bill that 
would sacrifice labor and environmental protection in the name of free 
trade.
  H.R. 3005 would not require our trade negotiators to promote labor 
rights or protect the environment. It would not even require our 
trading partners to prohibit sweatshops, forced labor, child labor or 
slavery. Instead, it would allow our trading partners to weaken their 
environmental standards in order to gain a competitive advantage over 
the United States. It would also require our trade negotiators to 
expand the rights of foreign investors to sue governments and demand 
compensation for the impacts of public interest, food safety and 
environmental regulations. Clearly, H.R. 3005 would do more to promote 
corporate power than trade.
  The Republican leadership's ``bill-in-a-rule'' also includes several 
trade provisions that have never been considered by Members of the 
House of Representatives. This ``bill-in-a-rule'' cannot be amended and 
has never been considered by any House committee with jurisdiction over 
any aspect of our nation's trade policy.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this ``bill-in-a-rule'' that attempts 
to expand corporate power without committee hearings, markups or 
amendments and only one hour of debate on the Floor of the people's 
House.

                          ____________________