[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15516-15524]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  CUSTOMS BORDER SECURITY AND TRADE AGENCIES AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2004

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4418) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2005 and 
2006 for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of 
Immigration and

[[Page 15517]]

Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security, for the 
Office of the United States Trade Representative, for the United States 
International Trade Commission, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4418

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Customs 
     Border Security and Trade Agencies Authorization Act of 
     2004''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

    TITLE I--BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION AND BUREAU OF 
                  IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

    Subtitle A--Authorization of appropriations; related provisions

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Establishment and implementation of cost accounting system; 
              reports.
Sec. 103. Study and report relating to customs user fees.
Sec. 104. Report relating to One Face at the Border Initiative.

     Subtitle B--Technical amendments relating to entry and protest

Sec. 111. Entry of merchandise.
Sec. 112. Limitation on liquidations.
Sec. 113. Protests.
Sec. 114. Review of protests.
Sec. 115. Refunds and errors.
Sec. 116. Definitions and miscellaneous provisions.
Sec. 117. Voluntary reliquidations.
Sec. 118. Effective date.

                  Subtitle C--Miscellaneous provisions

Sec. 121. Designation of San Antonio International Airport for Customs 
              processing of certain private aircraft arriving in the 
              United States.
Sec. 122. Authority for the establishment of Integrated Border 
              Inspection Areas at the United States-Canada border.
Sec. 123. Designation of foreign law enforcement officers.
Sec. 124. Customs services.
Sec. 125. Sense of Congress on interpretation of textile and apparel 
              provisions.
Sec. 126. Technical amendments.

       TITLE II--OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.

        TITLE III--UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Sec. 301. Authorization of appropriations.

    TITLE I--BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION AND BUREAU OF 
                  IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations; Related Provisions

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 301 of the 
     Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 
     U.S.C. 2075) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), to read as follows:
     ``(1) For the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2004, and each 
     fiscal year thereafter, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security for the 
     Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement only such sums as may 
     hereafter be authorized by law.'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2);
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
       (4) in paragraph (2) (as redesignated)--
       (A) by inserting ``and the Assistant Secretary for United 
     States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, respectively,'' 
     after ``Commissioner of Customs''; and
       (B) by striking ``Customs Service'' and inserting ``Bureau 
     of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement''.
       (b) Salaries and Expenses.--Subsection (b) of such section 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) Bureau of customs and border protection.--
       ``(A) There are authorized to be appropriated for the 
     salaries and expenses of the Bureau of Customs and Border 
     Protection not to exceed the following:
       ``(i) $6,203,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
       ``(ii) $6,469,729,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       ``(B)(i) The monies authorized to be appropriated under 
     subparagraph (A) with respect to customs revenue functions 
     for any fiscal year, except for such sums as may be necessary 
     for the salaries and expenses of the Bureau of Customs and 
     Border Protection that are incurred in connection with the 
     processing of merchandise that is exempt from the fees 
     imposed under paragraphs (9) and (10) of section 13031(a) of 
     the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 
     (19 U.S.C. 58c(a)), shall be appropriated from the Customs 
     User Fee Account.
       ``(ii) In clause (i), the term `customs revenue function' 
     means the following:
       ``(I) Assessing and collecting customs duties (including 
     antidumping and countervailing duties and duties imposed 
     under safeguard provisions), excise taxes, fees, and 
     penalties due on imported merchandise, including classifying 
     and valuing merchandise for the purposes of such assessment.
       ``(II) Processing and denial of entry of persons, baggage, 
     cargo, and mail, with respect to the assessment and 
     collection of import duties.
       ``(III) Detecting and apprehending persons engaged in 
     fraudulent practices designed to circumvent the customs laws 
     of the United States.
       ``(IV) Enforcing section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and 
     provisions relating to import quotas and the marking of 
     imported merchandise, and providing Customs Recordations for 
     copyrights, patents, and trademarks.
       ``(V) Collecting accurate import data for compilation of 
     international trade statistics.
       ``(VI) Enforcing reciprocal trade agreements.
       ``(VII) Functions performed by the following personnel, and 
     associated support staff, of the United States Customs 
     Service prior to the establishment of the Bureau of Customs 
     and Border Protection: Import Specialists, Entry Specialists, 
     Drawback Specialists, National Import Specialists, Fines and 
     Penalties Specialists, attorneys of the Office of Regulations 
     and Rulings, Customs Auditors, International Trade 
     Specialists, and Financial System Specialists.
       ``(VIII) Functions performed by the following offices, with 
     respect to any function described in any of subclauses (I) 
     through (VII), and associated support staff, of the United 
     States Customs Service prior to the establishment of the 
     Bureau of Customs and Border Protection: the Office of 
     Information and Technology, the Office of Laboratory 
     Services, the Office of the Chief Counsel, the Office of 
     Congressional Affairs, the Office of International Affairs, 
     and the Office of Training and Development.
       ``(2) Bureau of immigration and customs enforcement.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated for the salaries and 
     expenses of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     not to exceed the following:
       ``(A) $4,011,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
       ``(B) $4,335,891,000 for fiscal year 2006.''.

     SEC. 102. ESTABLISHMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF COST ACCOUNTING 
                   SYSTEM; REPORTS.

       Section 334 of the Customs and Border Security Act of 2002 
     (19 U.S.C. 2082 note) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 334. ESTABLISHMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF COST 
                   ACCOUNTING SYSTEM; REPORTS.

       ``(a) Establishment and Implementation; Customs and Border 
     Protection.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2005, the 
     Commissioner of Customs shall, in accordance with the audit 
     of the Customs Service's fiscal years 2000 and 1999 financial 
     statements (as contained in the report of the Office of 
     Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury issued on 
     February 23, 2001), establish and implement a cost accounting 
     system--
       ``(A) for expenses incurred in both commercial and 
     noncommercial operations of the Bureau of Customs and Border 
     Protection of the Department of Homeland Security, which 
     system should specifically identify and distinguish expenses 
     incurred in commercial operations and expenses incurred in 
     noncommercial operations; and
       ``(B) for expenses incurred both in administering and 
     enforcing the customs laws of the United States and the 
     Federal immigration laws, which system should specifically 
     identify and distinguish expenses incurred in administering 
     and enforcing the customs laws of the United States and the 
     expenses incurred in administering and enforcing the Federal 
     immigration laws.
       ``(2) Additional requirement.--The cost accounting system 
     described in paragraph (1) shall provide for an 
     identification of expenses based on the type of operation, 
     the port at which the operation took place, the amount of 
     time spent on the operation by personnel of the Bureau of 
     Customs and Border Protection, and an identification of 
     expenses based on any other appropriate classification 
     necessary to provide for an accurate and complete accounting 
     of expenses.
       ``(b) Establishment and Implementation; Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2005, the 
     Assistant Secretary for United States Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement shall, in accordance with the audit of the 
     Customs Service's fiscal years 2000 and 1999 financial 
     statements (as contained in the report of the Office of 
     Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury issued on 
     February 23, 2001), establish and implement a cost accounting 
     system--
       ``(A) for expenses incurred in both commercial and 
     noncommercial operations of the Bureau of Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security, 
     which system should specifically identify and distinguish 
     expenses incurred in commercial operations and expenses 
     incurred in noncommercial operations;
       ``(B) for expenses incurred both in administering and 
     enforcing the customs laws of the United States and the 
     Federal immigration laws, which system should specifically 
     identify and distinguish expenses incurred in administering 
     and enforcing the customs laws of the United States and the 
     expenses incurred in administering and enforcing the Federal 
     immigration laws.
       ``(2) Additional requirement.--The cost accounting system 
     described in paragraph (1) shall provide for an 
     identification of expenses based on the type of operation, 
     the amount of time spent on the operation by personnel of the 
     Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,

[[Page 15518]]

     and an identification of expenses based on any other 
     appropriate classification necessary to provide for an 
     accurate and complete accounting of expenses.
       ``(c) Reports.--
       ``(1) Development of the cost accounting systems.--
     Beginning on the date of the enactment of the Customs Border 
     Security and Trade Agencies Authorization Act of 2004 and 
     ending on the date on which the cost accounting systems 
     described in subsections (a) and (b) are fully implemented, 
     the Commissioner of Customs and the Assistant Secretary for 
     United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 
     respectively, shall prepare and submit to Congress on a 
     quarterly basis a report on the progress of implementing the 
     cost accounting systems pursuant to subsections (a) and (b).
       ``(2) Annual reports.--Beginning one year after the date on 
     which the cost accounting systems described in subsections 
     (a) and (b) are fully implemented, the Commissioner of 
     Customs and the Assistant Secretary for United States 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement, respectively, shall 
     prepare and submit to Congress on an annual basis a report 
     itemizing the expenses identified in subsections (a) and (b).
       ``(3) Office of the inspector general.--Not later than 
     March 31, 2006, the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Homeland Security shall prepare and submit to Congress a 
     report analyzing the level of compliance with this section 
     and detailing any additional steps that should be taken to 
     improve compliance with this section.''.

     SEC. 103. STUDY AND REPORT RELATING TO CUSTOMS USER FEES.

       (a) Study.--Beginning 180 days after the date on which the 
     cost accounting systems described in section 334 of the 
     Customs and Border Security Act of 2002 (as amended by 
     section 102 of this Act) are fully implemented, the 
     Comptroller General shall conduct a study on the extent to 
     which the amount of each customs user fee imposed under 
     section 13031(a) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(a)) approximates 
     the cost of services provided by the Bureau of Customs and 
     Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security 
     relating to the fee so imposed. The study shall include an 
     analysis of the use of each such customs user fee by the 
     Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.
       (b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date on 
     which the cost accounting systems described in section 334 of 
     the Customs and Border Security Act of 2002 are fully 
     implemented, the Comptroller General shall submit to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a report in 
     classified form containing--
       (1) the results of the study conducted under subsection 
     (a); and
       (2) recommendations for the appropriate amount of the 
     customs user fees if such results indicate that the fees are 
     not commensurate with the level of services provided by the 
     Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.

     SEC. 104. REPORT RELATING TO ONE FACE AT THE BORDER 
                   INITIATIVE.

       Not later than September 30 of each of the calendar years 
     2005 and 2006, the Commissioner of Customs shall prepare and 
     submit to Congress a report--
       (1) analyzing the effectiveness of the One Face at the 
     Border Initiative at enhancing security and facilitating 
     trade;
       (2) providing a breakdown of the number of personnel of the 
     Bureau of Customs and Border Protection that were personnel 
     of the United States Customs Service prior to the 
     establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, that 
     were personnel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     prior to the establishment of the Department of Homeland 
     Security, and that were hired after the establishment of the 
     Department of Homeland Security;
       (3) describing the training time provided to each employee 
     on an annual basis for the various training components of the 
     One Face at the Border Initiative; and
       (4) outlining the steps taken by the Bureau of Customs and 
     Border Protection to ensure that expertise is retained with 
     respect to customs, immigration, and agriculture inspection 
     functions under the One Face at the Border Initiative.

     Subtitle B--Technical Amendments Relating to Entry and Protest

     SEC. 111. ENTRY OF MERCHANDISE.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 484 of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1484) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting after ``entry'' the 
     following: ``, or substitute 1 or more reconfigured entries 
     on an import activity summary statement,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A)--
       (A) in the second sentence, by inserting after 
     ``statements,'' the following: ``and permit the filing of 
     reconfigured entries,''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``Entries filed 
     under paragraph (1)(A) shall not be liquidated if covered by 
     an import activity summary statement, but instead each 
     reconfigured entry in the import activity summary statement 
     shall be subject to liquidation or reliquidation pursuant to 
     section 500, 501, or 504.''.
       (b) Reconciliation.--Subsection (b)(1) of such section is 
     amended in the fourth sentence by striking ``15 months'' and 
     inserting ``21 months''.

     SEC. 112. LIMITATION ON LIQUIDATIONS.

       Section 504 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1504) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``filed;'' and inserting 
     ``filed, whichever is earlier; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) if a reconfigured entry is filed under an import 
     activity summary statement, the date the import activity 
     summary statement is filed or should have been filed, 
     whichever is earlier;''; and
       (2) by striking ``at the time of entry'' each place it 
     appears.

     SEC. 113. PROTESTS.

       Section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``(relating to refunds and errors) of this Act'' and 
     inserting ``(relating to refunds), any clerical error, 
     mistake of fact, or other inadvertence, whether or not 
     resulting from or contained in an electronic transmission, 
     adverse to the importer, in any entry, liquidation, or 
     reliquidation, and'';
       (B) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``, including the 
     liquidation of an entry, pursuant to either section 500 or 
     section 504'' after ``thereof''; and
       (C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``(c) or''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), in the sixth sentence, by striking 
     ``A protest may be amended,'' and inserting ``Unless a 
     request for accelerated disposition is filed under section 
     515(b), a protest may be amended,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``ninety days'' and inserting ``180 days'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``notice of'' and 
     inserting ``date of''; and
       (iii) in the second sentence, by striking ``90 days'' and 
     inserting ``180 days''.

     SEC. 114. REVIEW OF PROTESTS.

       Section 515(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1515(b)) is amended in the first sentence by striking ``after 
     ninety days'' and inserting ``concurrent with or''.

     SEC. 115. REFUNDS AND ERRORS.

       Section 520(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1520(c)) is repealed.

     SEC. 116. DEFINITIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

       Section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(t) Reconfigured Entry.--The term `reconfigured entry' 
     means an entry filed on an import activity summary statement 
     which substitutes for all or part of 1 or more entries filed 
     under section 484(a)(1)(A) or filed on a reconciliation entry 
     that aggregates the entry elements to be reconciled under 
     section 484(b) for purposes of liquidation, reliquidation, or 
     protest.''.

     SEC. 117. VOLUNTARY RELIQUIDATIONS.

       Section 501 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1501) is 
     amended in the first sentence by inserting ``or 504'' after 
     ``section 500''.

     SEC. 118. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this subtitle shall apply to 
     merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
     consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

                  Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

     SEC. 121. DESIGNATION OF SAN ANTONIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
                   FOR CUSTOMS PROCESSING OF CERTAIN PRIVATE 
                   AIRCRAFT ARRIVING IN THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1453(a) of the Tariff Suspension 
     and Trade Act of 2000 is amended by striking ``2-year 
     period'' and inserting ``6-year period''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall be effective as of November 9, 2002.

     SEC. 122. AUTHORITY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INTEGRATED 
                   BORDER INSPECTION AREAS AT THE UNITED STATES-
                   CANADA BORDER.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The increased security and safety concerns that 
     developed in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the 
     United States on September 11, 2001, need to be addressed.
       (2) One concern that has come to light is the vulnerability 
     of the international bridges and tunnels along the United 
     States borders.
       (3) It is necessary to ensure that potentially dangerous 
     vehicles are inspected prior to crossing these bridges and 
     tunnels; however, currently these vehicles are not inspected 
     until after they have crossed into the United States.
       (4) Establishing Integrated Border Inspection Areas (IBIAs) 
     would address these concerns by inspecting vehicles before 
     they gained access to the infrastructure of international 
     bridges and tunnels joining the United States and Canada.
       (b) Creation of Integrated Border Inspection Areas.--
       (1) In general.--The Commissioner of the Customs Service, 
     in consultation with the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency 
     (CCRA), shall seek to establish Integrated Border Inspection 
     Areas (IBIAs), such as areas on either side of the United 
     States-Canada border, in which United States Customs officers 
     can inspect vehicles entering the United States from Canada 
     before they enter the United States, or Canadian Customs 
     officers can inspect vehicles entering Canada from the United 
     States before they enter Canada. Such inspections may 
     include, where

[[Page 15519]]

     appropriate, employment of reverse inspection techniques.
       (2) Additional requirement.--The Commissioner of Customs, 
     in consultation with the Administrator of the General 
     Services Administration when appropriate, shall seek to carry 
     out paragraph (1) in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts 
     on the surrounding community.
       (3) Elements of the program.--Using the authority granted 
     by this section and under section 629 of the Tariff Act of 
     1930, the Commissioner of Customs, in consultation with the 
     Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency, shall seek to--
       (A) locate Integrated Border Inspection Areas in areas with 
     bridges or tunnels with high traffic volume, significant 
     commercial activity, and that have experienced backups and 
     delays since September 11, 2001;
       (B) ensure that United States Customs officers stationed in 
     any such IBIA on the Canadian side of the border are vested 
     with the maximum authority to carry out their duties and 
     enforce United States law;
       (C) ensure that United States Customs officers stationed in 
     any such IBIA on the Canadian side of the border shall 
     possess the same immunity that they would possess if they 
     were stationed in the United States; and
       (D) encourage appropriate officials of the United States to 
     enter into an agreement with Canada permitting Canadian 
     Customs officers stationed in any such IBIA on the United 
     States side of the border to enjoy such immunities as 
     permitted in Canada.

     SEC. 123. DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       (a) Miscellaneous Provisions.--Section 401(i) of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401(i)) is amended by inserting ``, 
     including foreign law enforcement officers,'' after ``or 
     other person''.
       (b) Inspections and Preclearance in Foreign Countries.--
     Section 629 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1629) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or subsequent to 
     their exit from,'' after ``prior to their arrival in'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by inserting ``or exportation'' after ``relating to the 
     importation''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or exit'' after ``port of entry'';
       (3) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
       ``(e) Stationing of Foreign Customs and Agriculture 
     Inspection Officers in the United States.--The Secretary of 
     State, in coordination with the Secretary and the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, may enter into agreements with any foreign 
     country authorizing the stationing in the United States of 
     customs and agriculture inspection officials of that country 
     (if similar privileges are extended by that country to United 
     States officials) for the purpose of insuring that persons 
     and merchandise going directly to that country from the 
     United States, or that have gone directly from that country 
     to the United States, comply with the customs and other laws 
     of that country governing the importation or exportation of 
     merchandise. Any foreign customs or agriculture inspection 
     official stationed in the United States under this subsection 
     may exercise such functions, perform such duties, and enjoy 
     such privileges and immunities as United States officials may 
     be authorized to perform or are afforded in that foreign 
     country by treaty, agreement, or law.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Privileges and Immunities.--Any person designated to 
     perform the duties of an officer of the Customs Service 
     pursuant to section 401(i) of this Act shall be entitled to 
     the same privileges and immunities as an officer of the 
     Customs Service with respect to any actions taken by the 
     designated person in the performance of such duties.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 127 of the Treasury 
     Department Appropriations Act, 2003, is hereby repealed.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section, and the amendments made 
     by this section, take effect on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 124. CUSTOMS SERVICES.

       Section 13031(e)(1) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(e)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(1) Notwithstanding section 451 of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1451) or any other provision of 
     law (other than paragraph (2)),'' and inserting:
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Scheduled flights.--Notwithstanding section 451 of 
     the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1451) or any other 
     provision of law (other than subparagraph (B) and paragraph 
     (2)),''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Charter flights.--If a charter air carrier (as 
     defined in section 40102(13) of title 49, United States Code) 
     specifically requests that customs border patrol services for 
     passengers and their baggage be provided for a charter flight 
     arriving after normal operating hours at a customs border 
     patrol serviced airport and overtime funds for those services 
     are not available, the appropriate customs border patrol 
     officer may assign sufficient customs employees (if 
     available) to perform any such services, which could lawfully 
     be performed during regular hours of operation, and any 
     overtime fees incurred in connection with such service shall 
     be paid by the charter air carrier.''.

     SEC. 125. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INTERPRETATION OF TEXTILE AND 
                   APPAREL PROVISIONS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Bureau of Customs and 
     Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security 
     should interpret, implement, and enforce the provisions of 
     section 112 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3721), section 204 of the Andean Trade Preference Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 3203), and section 213 of the Caribbean Basin 
     Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703), relating to 
     preferential treatment of textile and apparel articles, 
     broadly in order to expand trade by maximizing opportunities 
     for imports of such articles from eligible beneficiary 
     countries.

     SEC. 126. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Tariff Act of 1930.--Section 505(a) of the Tariff Act 
     of 1930 is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence--
       (A) by inserting ``referred to in this subsection'' after 
     ``periodic payment''; and
       (B) by striking ``10 working days'' and inserting ``12 
     working days''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``a participating'' 
     and all that follows through the end of the sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations, after testing the module, permitting a 
     participating importer of record to deposit estimated duties 
     and fees for entries of merchandise, other than merchandise 
     entered for warehouse, transportation, or under bond, no 
     later than the 15 working days following the month in which 
     the merchandise is entered or released, whichever comes 
     first.''.
       (b) Customs User Fees.--(1) Section 13031(b)(9)(A) of the 
     Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 
     U.S.C. 58c(b)(9)(A)) is amended by striking ``less than 
     $2,000'' and inserting ``$2,000 or less''.
       (2) Section 13031(b)(9)(A)(ii) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 
     58c(b)(9)(A)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) Notwithstanding subsection (e)(6) and subject to the 
     provisions of subparagraph (B), in the case of an express 
     consignment carrier facility or centralized hub facility--
       ``(I) $.66 per individual airway bill or bill of lading; 
     and
       ``(II) if the merchandise is formally entered, the fee 
     provided for in subsection (a)(9), if applicable.''.
       (3) Section 13031(b)(9)(B) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(9)(B)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by moving the margins for subparagraph (B) 4 ems to the 
     left; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking ``subparagraph (A)(ii)'' 
     and inserting ``subparagraph (A)(ii) (I) or (II)''.
       (4) Section 13031(f)(1)(B) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(1)(B)) is 
     amended by moving the subparagraph 2 ems to the left.

       TITLE II--OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

     SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--Section 141(g)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(g)(1)(A)) is amended by striking clauses 
     (i) and (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) $39,552,000 for fiscal year 2005.
       ``(ii) $39,552,000 for fiscal year 2006.''.
       (2) Rule of construction.--The amendment made by paragraph 
     (1) shall not be construed to affect the availability of 
     funds appropriated pursuant to section 141(g)(1)(A) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations for the Office of the 
     General Counsel and the Office of Monitoring and 
     Enforcement.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Office of the United States Trade Representative for the 
     appointment of additional staff in the Office of the General 
     Counsel and the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement--
       (1) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       (2) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.

        TITLE III--UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

     SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 330(e)(2)(A) 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(e)(2)(A)) is 
     amended by striking clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) $61,700,000 for fiscal year 2005.
       ``(ii) $65,278,000 for fiscal year 2006.''.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a) shall not be construed to affect the availability of 
     funds appropriated pursuant to section 330(e)(2)(A) of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4418. I am particularly 
pleased by the strong bipartisan work that has been done on this 
legislation. The bill was introduced by the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and its 
original cosponsors include the ranking member of the full committee, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel); the ranking member of the

[[Page 15520]]

Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin); and on 
our side of the aisle, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).

                              {time}  1230

  The bill was reported unanimously out of the committee on a rollcall 
vote of 33 to 0.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4418, the Customs 
Border Security and Trade Agencies Authorization Act of 2004. I am 
particularly pleased by the strong bipartisan work that has been done 
on this legislation. The bill was introduced by Congressman Crane, 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, and original cosponsors included 
Congressmen Rangel, Shaw, Levin, and Ramstad. The bill was then 
reported unanimously out of the Committee on a vote of 33 yeas to 0 
nays.
  Our customs and trade agencies authorization bill is part of our two-
year authorization process to provide guidance and exercise oversight 
of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (or CBP), U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (or ICE), the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative (or USTR), and the U.S. International Trade Commission 
(or ITC).
  This week the House will focus on trade legislation as a means to 
enhance our economic well-being, including legislation to implement the 
U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. While free trade agreements bring 
obvious economic benefits, the provisions in the customs sections of 
this legislation are the nuts and bolts of trade facilitation. This 
legislation provides the critical resources that CBP and ICE need to 
safeguard our borders while still facilitating the flow of legitimate 
trade.
  The legislation provides resources for USTR, which has done a 
tremendous job in recent years of negotiating trade agreements and 
enforcing the obligations in those agreements to ensure that our 
business, farmers, workers, and consumers reap the benefits of these 
agreements. This legislation will provide an additional $2 million in 
funding above the President's budget request for staff in the Office of 
the General Counsel and the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement to 
ensure that USTR can continue to perform its vital functions. This 
earmark will allow USTR to address a variety of needs that will best 
enable U.S. companies, farmers, and workers to benefit from the trade 
agreements to which the United States is party.
  Finally, the bill ensures adequate resources for the ITC, which has 
provided valuable advice on the probable economic effects of U.S. trade 
agreements and other trade legislation considered by the Congress.
  In conclusion, this legislation provides the resources and the 
administrative flexibility that allows legitimate trade to flow freely 
across our borders. I urge the support of my colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and join our chairman in support of this legislation.
  I do want to point out that it also provides for the authorization of 
our United States Trade Representative and gives our USTR some 
additional resources, $2 million of additional funding, in order to be 
able to more aggressively represent our interests, particularly in the 
World Trade Organization.
  We have been involved in numerous litigations within the WTO, and we 
have found in the last couple of years that we have been on the losing 
side of some very important cases. I think the importance of this 
legislation to provide the additional resources is so that the USTR can 
more aggressively represent U.S. interests in the World Trade 
Organization on cases which are consistent, particularly with our anti-
dumping and countervailing duty laws. We have found over and over again 
that we have not been successful in defending our rights under these 
domestic laws in the WTO. We also, of course, found on the tax issues 
we were unsuccessful.
  So we are hopeful that these additional funds will, in fact, be used 
by the United States Trade Representative to fight for U.S. interests 
in the World Trade Organization that is consistent with our domestic 
law to prevent our market from being flooded by illegally subsidized 
products that we have seen over and over again, particularly in steel.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I just 
wanted to point out to our membership the additional resources that are 
being made available, and certainly our intentions are that they are to 
be used by the USTR to defend the right of American producers and 
manufacturers, particularly when they are facing unfair competition 
from foreign markets.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Trade.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, on May 20, 2004, I introduced legislation 
along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) authorizing appropriations for 
fiscal year 2005 and 2006 for the Customs and Border Protection, or 
CBP; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE; the Office of 
the United States Trade Representative, or USTR; and the International 
Trade Commission, ITC.
  This legislation is necessitated by the expiration at the end of this 
fiscal year of the existing authorization for the former U.S. Customs 
Service. It is also a part of our ongoing process of exercising 
oversight and focusing on the critical importance of the efficient flow 
of trade across our borders.
  The Customs Service has a long and distinguished history. It was the 
first agency of the Federal Government to be created over 220 years ago 
to collect revenue and to ensure that imports flow smoothly across the 
border. Today, Customs collects more than $20 billion in revenue each 
year.
  With international trade comprising nearly 25 percent of our gross 
domestic product, CBP's mission to move goods across the border in a 
smooth, efficient, and predictable manner is a vital part of our 
economic strength and viability.
  In addition to this, over the years, Customs has taken on many other 
functions because of its unique border presence. Fighting against 
illegal drugs, transshiped t-shirts, and Rolex knock-offs are just a 
few of these other functions.
  In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States, the role 
of Customs in guarding our borders against chemical, biological, and 
conventional weapons has become more prominent.
  This legislation authorizes sufficient funding for CBP and ICE to 
satisfy all of their various responsibilities.
  This legislation also authorizes appropriations for fiscal years 2005 
and 2006 for the Office of the United States Trade Representative of 
$39.6 million per year. In order to ensure that we benefit from free 
and fair trade, it authorizes an additional $2 million per year for the 
appointment of additional staff in the Office of the General Counsel 
and the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this legislation passed the Committee 
on Ways and Means by a bipartisan 33 to nothing vote, and I look 
forward to its passage by the House today.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is on suspension today. There has been on each 
occasion on these trade bills references to bipartisanship, and I 
simply want to express my regret to the chairman that this bill was 
placed on suspension. I do not think that it is a useful way to proceed 
on a bill of this nature. I am not sure that it has been done 
traditionally on this bill.
  I am going to support it.
  But we did raise in the committee several amendments. They were 
discussed, they were voted on, they were voted down, but we should have 
had the opportunity to raise these issues, or at least try, with the 
Committee on Rules to obtain a rule that allowed us to bring up these 
amendments.
  One was an amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) 
that related to penalties from fines that were being levied against 
China, anti-dumping countervailing duty levies. We have a serious 
problem, and

[[Page 15521]]

that is we have these orders, we have fines, but they are not being 
collected. The amount involved is over $100 million, perhaps as high as 
$130 million. What has been happening is, as the government has tried 
to implement the anti-dumping countervailing duties, was to allow 
people to post bonds instead of some amount of cash. These bonds, I 
guess in most cases, turned out to be worthless. So essentially, we are 
left holding an empty bag. And it is really our manufacturers who are 
left without redress, because under legislation passed by this 
Congress, there would be redress directly for the injured party.
  Well, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) raised this issue; 
and, actually, I guess in full committee, there was a decision to 
postpone action on it, with the hope that there could be something 
worked out. But when it is put on suspension, it essentially snuffs out 
any chance for us to raise the issue through an amendment.
  But, secondly, there is the issue of the additional $2 million for 
USTR. And the reason we had discussion within the committee and before 
that in the subcommittee was this: In our judgment, the judgment of 
many of us, there has not been vigorous enforcement of our laws. We 
pass trade laws, we enter into trade agreements, but they require, as 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has pointed out, active, 
vigorous enforcement by the executive. And that has not been true. It 
has been lacking, though there has been a spurt these last 5 or 6 or 7 
months.
  So there was offered in the subcommittee, and then again in the 
committee, an amendment to be sure that part of the $2 million that we 
were adding to USTR in this authorization would be spent for 
enforcement. The $2 million, the way it is written in the bill, goes to 
the General Counsel and the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement. None 
of this has to go to the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement, the way 
it is written. That is true. None of it has to. All of it could go to 
the General Counsel, at least as I read it, or maybe $1 could go to the 
Office of Monitoring and Enforcement.
  Anyway, we proposed an amendment to be sure that some of the funds 
would be used for various purposes of enforcement. That was called an 
earmark. I am not sure that is an appropriate term. Why money, extra 
money going to two offices is not an earmark, but including how they 
might spend it is one, I do not quite get that, especially in view of 
the fact that there has been such a need for the enforcement of our 
laws.
  I referred earlier to China. We have a huge deficit with China, and 
enforcement has been a major problem. We need to do better, and what 
our amendment proposed was to be certain that some of the monies, and 
we did not specify for each of the purposes, but that some of the 
monies would be used for the purposes of enforcement. That was voted 
down.
  Now the problem with putting this on suspension is that we do not 
even have a chance to go to the Committee on Rules and ask for a rule 
that would allow us to raise this amendment on the floor. There has 
been a lot of talk about bipartisanship here, and I admired the 
majority for sticking to a message and repeating it time and time 
again, but the test is not in the words but in the actions. And the 
test is whether you let us raise issues on the floor of the House if 
you disagree with our position so we can have a full airing of these 
issues and, if we want to, vote, and maybe even win.
  We objected to this being placed on suspension, but here we are with 
the alternative of voting it down or passing it when it is for a 
purpose that is an important one.
  I also understand that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) is 
going to raise an issue regarding the new provisions regarding boats 
that apply to fishing boats, and I think he will speak regarding that.
  So in a word, I am going to vote for this. I hope my colleagues will 
vote for it. However, it is important, I think, that we realize that 
placing a bill on suspension of this nature does limit our ability to 
try to have a debate and action in a vote on important amendments, and 
I hope very much that this will not be repeated. One thing I can assure 
my colleagues of, if we take back the House, this bill will not be put 
on suspension.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the House has a series of procedures which determine 
whether or not a bill is a candidate to be placed on suspension. One of 
the first things that one would look at, obviously, is the way in which 
the bill was dealt with in committee. I said in my opening statement 
that this bill passed 33 to 0. One cannot get any more unanimous than 
that.
  I would ask my friend, because he is my friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), while he is recounting the amendments that were 
offered, which were presented, arguments examined, decision made by the 
committee, and it just so happens that each of the amendments were not 
accepted. They had every right at that time to vote against the 
measure. Not being able to completely divine the reason for why they do 
such things, but they came to the conclusion that the bill, 
notwithstanding not being amended, was perfectly acceptable.
  I do, however, have to ask my colleague, when an argument is made in 
committee and absolutely and completely refuted, it does not lend 
itself to a continued positive working relationship to then come to the 
floor and repeat the same argument, which was absolutely refuted in 
committee, as though he had no knowledge that what he was saying was 
not accurate.

                              {time}  1245

  The gentleman said that the $2 billion the gentleman from Maryland 
was kind enough to indicate we all agreed would be appropriate could 
not go at all for enforcement. The language in the bill is ``and 
between general counsel and enforcement,'' not ``and/or.'' It is 
``and.'' And the gentleman's argument that no money can go there is 
simply not accurate. It was not accurate when he made it in committee, 
and it was refuted. It is not accurate on the floor when he makes it.
  And so after all is said and done with all of the concerns and all of 
the arguments which end with ``and we will support the bill,'' the only 
conclusion one can reasonably come to is that the problem is we are the 
majority and they are not.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), a very distinguished, active 
gentleman from Washington; and then I will respond to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas) a bit later.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding 
me this time, and I understand that the chairman of the committee would 
be willing to engage in a brief colloquy.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to engage the gentleman in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. BAIRD. I thank him for that, as this is an issue of great 
importance to fish processors and the economy of my region.
  Mr. Speaker, my concern is that small fishing ships are now required 
to transmit electronically information about the contents of their 
cargo 24 hours before docking in a U.S. port. This requirement and 
several others are causing a great hardship for small, independently 
operated fishing vessels.
  As a result, the vessels are docking in Canada and processing fish 
there, thereby costing jobs in an area where we greatly need those 
jobs.
  As a result, Washington State is losing more jobs, and fish 
processing jobs; and I would ask and hope that we can work together to 
address this issue immediately.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; and as the gentleman 
knows, this is an issue that was just

[[Page 15522]]

presented to us now, and in trying to do some immediate research, we 
could not determine whether it is amenable to an administrative 
resolution or a legislative resolution; but certainly the chairman is 
willing to work with the gentleman from Washington, as our staffs 
confer, to try to address those concerns.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to that, and there is some 
urgency to this, so I look forward to working with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) on this; and I thank him for his indulgence.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, and I thank the gentleman for his rapid 
response to a problem in his district.
  Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield as much time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), a cosponsor of 
the legislation.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong 
supporter of this important legislation. Today's passage of the Customs 
Border Security and Trade Agencies Authorization Act is absolutely 
vital because it authorizes funding for four agencies that play 
critical roles in formulating and implementing American trade policy:
  The U.S. Trade Representative, the International Trade Commission, 
and the newly formed agencies of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
  I want to especially thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman 
Crane) of our Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade for 
including a provision I offered in the bill to allow, but not mandate, 
customs officials to work overtime if smaller air carriers arrive at an 
airport after normal customs hours.
  This legislation is necessary because charter air carriers often use 
smaller feeder airports, providing needed relief to air traffic at 
larger international airports; and, unfortunately, this means that 
chartered carriers are often unfairly restricted in the hours in which 
they can land, as smaller airports do not have extended hours for 
customs officials like larger international airports.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4418 will change current law by allowing customs 
officials to work overtime, with the overtime costs paid for by the 
arriving carrier. This is good policy for the carrier, as they have 
more flexibility in their flight schedules. It is good policy for the 
taxpayer, as there is no additional cost to them. And it is good policy 
for customs employees, as they have the option to work overtime if they 
so desire.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, international trade is absolutely 
critical to our economy; and we must do all we can to open foreign 
markets and increase the efficiency of our ports. No issues are more 
important to the American people today than homeland security and 
economic security, and I am pleased this legislation helps improve both 
by securing our borders and improving the flow of goods across our 
borders.
  I urge my colleagues to continue to support H.R. 4418, and I want to 
thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the Committee on 
Ways and Means for their unanimous vote to approve this important 
legislation. And I hope that spirit of bipartisan pragmatism continues 
here in the House vote today.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
have made my points. I will not repeat them. In terms of a vote that is 
unanimous in committee, I hope that is not the precedent for putting 
bills on suspension, especially bills of major import. This relates to 
the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Bureau of Customs 
Enforcement of the Department, and customs enforcement of the 
Department of Homeland Security, the office of USTR and for ITC.
  So we did, I think, clearly say to the majority we did not want this 
bill on suspension, and it was placed on suspension anyway. I do not 
think that is a bipartisan way to proceed, and there has been use of 
much of the term ``bipartisanship'' here today, and I want to make it 
clear the test is not in rhetoric but in actual performance.
  And let me just say a word to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas), and I want to repeat this because I hope USTR gets the message 
about enforcement. I do not know if all the money went to General 
Counsel, whether it would be considered a violation of this language. I 
think maybe so, but maybe not; but as I said in my remarks, if they 
gave a dollar to the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement and the rest 
to General Counsel, I think it will meet the terms of this provision.
  And the reason we have raised it is not to be picky or not to fly-
speck, but because the issue of enforcement of our trade laws is a 
vital one. We have worked to pass trade laws. We worked to place some 
major provisions in the China PNTR. We have worked to try to maintain 
our antidumping and countervailing duty laws. We have worked to have 
some strong trade laws; but if they are not vigorously enforced, it 
does not do much good.
  And so we wanted to be sure the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) 
addressed this, and we raised it in committee. We wanted to make sure 
that if there were going to be adequate or additional funding, that 
some portion of it in a meaningful way would go for enforcement of our 
laws. And we named three areas in which we needed more vigorous 
enforcement. That is what this is all about. Those of us who favor 
expanded trade want to do so first of all so that the terms of trade 
are shaped so that there is widespread benefit; and, number two, we 
want to make sure that the laws that we support and help to shape are 
implemented, are enforced. And the record of this administration, in my 
judgment, has been unsatisfactory, to put it mildly.
  And that is why we raised the issue, and that is why it would have 
been better to have this bill not on suspension, but in the normal 
course. That is what this is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I see that another gentleman is here to speak, but I 
will reserve the balance of my time, with the understanding I probably 
will not speak again if the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is 
ready to wrap up.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding me 
this time, and I have two comments I wanted to make in particular on 
this bill. I was particularly happy to see that the bill is requiring 
the commissioner of the Customs and Border Protection Agency to work to 
establish integrated border inspections areas on the U.S.-Canada 
border.
  As we have worked through the last few years in homeland security and 
the narcotics areas, as well as with the U.S.-Canada Parliamentary 
Group, Canada is our most important trading partner. We have one 
example up in Montana where we have an integrated customs border 
station. When we developed that, we had some problems in developing it, 
because at that point we were still having questions of whether our 
customs agents could carry their guns to the restrooms. So the 
restrooms all had to be on the American side.
  We were trying to get integrated immigration laws, because if they 
got a foot on Canadian soil, they could claim the full rights of the 
Canadian citizenship. We had to put barriers up in the middle of that 
building and angle it down a hill, and so two-thirds of the immigration 
station wound up on the American side with all sorts of problematic 
issues involved with that.
  But the Canadian leadership has shown much more willingness to try to 
accommodate some of the concerns we have. This is critically important 
in Detroit, where there is not enough room on the American side to 
expand trunk clearance facilities; and we need to work with the city of 
Windsor, as well as up at Port Heron and the tunnel at Windsor. It is 
critical in Buffalo, where we have had huge concerns about whether we 
need additional bridges and how we handle the American side there, and 
at Niagara Falls.

[[Page 15523]]

  And if we can work out integrated systems at these major border 
crossings where we do not have to have it on both sides, we do not have 
to have the truck traffic and car traffic backing up the bridges, it is 
very important, where we have, in many cases, land on the Canadian side 
but not on the U.S. side. And I am really pleased to see that this was 
raised in the bill.
  There is a second issue that is not in the bill that may come up in 
our Committee on Homeland Security markup later this week. The 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has been a leader in this, and I 
have been supportive, and that is what to do with the air and marine 
division of ICE, because the air and marine division of the Legacy 
customs division, the focus was narcotics, and it does not purely fit 
either being on the border or doing investigatory follow-up. And it is 
probably the most critical area, as far as air interdiction, marine 
interdiction and the follow-up of illegal narcotics, that we need some 
flexibility so that that air and marine has a unique mission separate 
from the Coast Guard and the air division of the Border Patrol. And 
that is in flux right now, and we are trying to address that in the 
Select Committee on Homeland Security.
  And if so, I hope we can work with the authorizers as they go to 
conference on this important bill so that we can match the authorizing 
committee with the Committee on Homeland Security and the narcotics 
subcommittee that I chair, and I look forward to working with the 
chairman on that.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will tell the gentleman that as we are moving forward with the 
integration at the border, this committee and its responsibilities, 
especially in the area of customs, will always work with the other 
authorizing committees to make sure that not only is it more seamless 
in terms of security, but, frankly, we need to be much more efficient 
in the movement of economic goods across international lines, 
especially in the areas that you mentioned, especially in the area of 
Detroit and Windsor where unbeknownst to a lot of people, when you 
travel south, you go to Canada.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, but I will tell the 
gentleman from Michigan I have no other speakers, and I am prepared to 
close.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To make sure that everyone is perfectly clear, I think we may need to 
recount what occurred in committee in the discussion of this bill in 
front of the full Committee on Ways and Means.
  There were three Members on the minority side that had indicated that 
they either wanted to offer amendments or they wanted to discuss points 
at which they may or may not be prepared to offer amendments. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) raised a point, there was a 
discussion between staff and Members, and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Becerra) terminated his discussion.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) indicated that he was 
going to offer amendments. There was a colloquy between the chairman 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and he withdrew his 
amendment.
  The gentleman from Michigan then offered an amendment and had the 
clarification, which the Chair is grateful for, which was the subject 
of his amendment and that is that no money could go to enforcement. The 
gentleman corrected his statement, although he still believes that 
perhaps the United States Trade Representative is engaged in 
gamesmanship and perhaps they would send a dollar to enforcement but 
that would be all.
  That was precisely the basis of the discussion that occurred in 
committee.
  The Chair offered to work with the maker of the amendment, the 
gentleman from Michigan, to put report language that would clarify the 
concerns that all of us have that this is not an issue over which games 
should be played.
  But what was not mentioned was the fact that an amendment was offered 
with a specific reference to one country in terms of enforcement. That 
is, the Chair believes and apparently a majority of the committee 
believed, because the amendment was put to a vote, there were 11 ayes 
and 21 noes, that perhaps that degree of direction and specificity is 
not appropriate; and that had the gentleman not attempted to 
micromanage, he would have found far more support. Notwithstanding 
that, he decided to move his amendment.
  The offer was made, let us work together to reconcile the concerns, 
and we can put report language in that shows the concern of the 
committee that we need money both to general counsel and to 
enforcement. That offer was rejected.
  The gentleman from Michigan instead chose to move his amendment. That 
amendment was defeated, not for the basic concept of wanting to make 
sure that the United States Trade Representative work in the 
enforcement area as general counsel, because of the way the amendment 
was written. The degree of specificity and the desire to micromanage 
and control was the reason the amendment was rejected.
  So once the attempt to micromanage failed, then a vote was requested. 
At any point any Member could have voted no. The vote was 33 to zero, 
and I think that indicates the true depth of support for this 
provision.
  There truly is no real controversy; and, frankly, there should be no 
real opposition. I would ask Members to vote for H.R. 4418 with the 
intent and purpose of its content supported unanimously out of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                    Washington, DC, July 13, 2004.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: Thank you for your letter 
     regarding H.R. 4418, the ``Customs Border Security and Trade 
     Agencies Authorization Act of 2004.'' The Committee of Ways 
     and Means ordered favorably reported, as amended, H.R. 4418 
     on Thursday, July 8, 2004 by a 33-0 vote. I appreciate your 
     agreement to expedite the passage of this legislation 
     although it contains several immigration provisions that are 
     within your Committee's jurisdiction. I acknowledge your 
     decision to forego further action on the bill is based on the 
     understanding that it will not prejudice the Committee on the 
     Judiciary with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on 
     this or similar legislation.
       Our committees have long collaborated on these important 
     initiatives, and I am very pleased we are continuing that 
     cooperation. Your leadership on immigration issues is 
     critical to the success of this bill. I appreciate your 
     helping us to move this legislation quickly to the floor.
       Finally, I will include in both the Committee report and 
     the Congressional Record a copy of our exchange of letters on 
     this matter. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. I 
     look forward to working with you in the future.
           Best regards,
                                                      Bill Thomas,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee of the Judiciary,

                                    Washington, DC, July 13, 2004.
     Hon. Bill Thomas,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thomas: In recognition of the desire to 
     expedite floor consideration of H.R. 4418, the ``Customs 
     Border Security Act of 12004,'' the Committee on the 
     Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the bill.
       Certain sections of H.R. 4418 contain matters within the 
     Committee on the Judiciary's Rule X jurisdiction: Section 101 
     (insofar as it authorizes funding for immigration matters); 
     Section 102 (insofar as it requires cost accounting systems 
     for immigration matters); and Section 122 (insofar as the 
     Integrated Border Inspection Areas include immigration 
     matters). Because of the need to expedite this legislation, I 
     will not seek to mark up the bill under the Committee on the 
     Judiciary's secondary referral.
       The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the 
     understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over these 
     provisions is in no way diminished or altered. I would 
     appreciate your including this letter in your Committee's 
     report on H.R. 4418 and the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House Floor.
           Sincerely,
                                      F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
                                                         Chairman.


[[Page 15524]]

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4418, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. THOMAS. 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. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________