THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
Agilent Technologies, a company in my congressional district, recently wrote me in support of Trade Promotion Authority. They said, ``Multilateral trade initiatives important to
[Page: H8979] GPO's PDF
Mr. Speaker, we need to participate. We need to support the rule, and we need to support the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KUCINICH).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
I rise to oppose this rule and to oppose Fast Track. I come from Cleveland, a steel -producing community which is fighting valiantly to save 3,200 steelworkers' jobs and to protect the benefits of tens of thousands of retirees. But Fast Track is a barrier. Fast Track brought us NAFTA. It prohibits amending trade agreements. We could not amend NAFTA chapter 11, which grants corporate investors in all-NAFTA countries the right to challenge any local, State, or Federal regulations which those corporations say hurt their profits; and then they are able to get penalty money from the taxpayers of this country.
The sovereign authority of all governments is at stake. Taxpayer dollars are at stake, even when we stand up for our own rights.
A NAFTA case brought by a foreign-owned steel fabricator company is trying to overturn. Get this, they are trying to overturn ``Buy America'' laws that require using American steel in highway projects. NAFTA allows foreign-owned companies to challenge our Constitution, our Congress, our right to enact American laws. This would have a catastrophic impact on steel workers, causing loss of U.S. jobs. American taxpayers are financing the fight for democracy all over the world, while our trade laws undermine our democracy here at home.
Vote against this rule and vote against Fast Track. Protect democracy. Protect American jobs.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE).
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule for Fast Track consideration of Trade Promotion Authority. Mr. Speaker, this is not about citrus, it is not about steel , it is not about food inspection or any other product or any other service. It is about whether or not we believe we should have enough confidence in the President of the United States to go on the world stage with other negotiators to implement the trade agenda that was launched at Doha.
Now, in Doha where they set the agenda for the next round of talks, we got a set of negotiating issues that was extraordinarily favorable for the United States. It is everything that we could hope for in terms of what we want to accomplish in the next round of talks. Now we have to move to the next step. We cannot complete that unless the President has trade negotiating authority. We can never complete the talks, and yet, we are on a fast track with this round of talks. No organization, no country is going to put their best deals on the line if they think they are going to be changed by the United States Congress. Management and labor do not go into negotiations and then go back to their board of directors and their membership to amend the agreement; they submit it to them for a vote.
That is what we are talking about doing here with Fast Track. It is not about whether or not we like the agreement, because we do not have an agreement. The opportunity to consider that will come later.
One prominent Democrat from the Clinton administration, who would be known to every Member of this body, just 2 nights ago at a dinner told me that the framework legislation that is proposed here today goes much further than President Clinton or President Gore would ever have been able to offer. It goes a long way. It makes the environment and it makes labor rights principal negotiating objectives to support those. We need to have the confidence in our President to get this job done, and we do not compromise our ability to say yes or to say no to any agreement that is negotiated.
With the crisis that we face in the world, this is not the time to say that our President should not be able to move forward to protect American interests abroad, American economic interests. Agree to this. Say yes to Trade Promotion Authority.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. WATERS), my very good friend.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time.
I rise to oppose this rule and this bill. H.R. 3005 supports the expansion of trade rules that allow pharmaceutical companies to challenge countries that distribute essential medicines to people who desperately need them. This bill would make it more difficult for developing countries to make HIV-AIDS medicines available to people with AIDS. Twenty-five million people are living with AIDS in Africa. Our trade policy should not cost them their lives.
This bill would also make it more difficult for the United States to respond to bioterrorist attacks. When the United States needed to acquire a large supply of the antibiotic Cipro to respond to the recent anthrax attacks, we knew that the health of the American people was more important than the profits of pharmaceutical companies. We had to get tough. The WTO could have ruled against us. Our trade policies should preserve our ability to respond to bioterrorist attacks in the future.
I offered an amendment to restore the rights of all countries to protect public health and ensure access to essential medicines, but my amendment was not made in order.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the bill.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. RANGEL), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues that we still have an opportunity to do what the President would have us to do. Sure, he wants Trade Promotion Authority, but he also wants bipartisanship. I think it is good for the Congress. I think it is good for the country. All of my colleagues know that we have not enjoyed this within the Committee on Ways and Means. That is what the Committee on Rules is all about.
The Committee on Rules is the legislative traffic cops. They can set us straight. They can shatter the wounds of partisanship that have been built up.
Since the attack on the United States of America, we have worked together, not as Democrats and Republicans, but as a united Congress. They can reject this rule and send us back to the table. They can tell the Committee on Ways and Means to have open negotiations. They can say that the Democratic ideas are just as patriotic, just as sincere, and that we support the war against terrorism the same as Republicans. If they do not do that, if they do not give us an opportunity to be heard. What they are saying is, it is our way or it is the highway.
I do not think it is fair. We have a stimulation package that we are working on, and we are trying to give the President what he wants in order to spur the economy. We are not supposed to do it as Republicans and Democrats; we are supposed to come together as responsible Members of Congress.
So I ask my colleagues to vote against this rule. It is not well thought out. It should not be just one-sided. Give us an opportunity to work together and to bring a product to our colleagues; and if we cannot do it, then at the very least, let there be an alternative for Members to vote for.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. LINDER), a member of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a whole raft of information from my staff talking about the benefits of trade and the economy, on jobs; and I will submit that for the RECORD. But let me just raise a confusing question. Why in the world does this House want to take itself out of the picture?
Absent TPA, we have no voice. The President negotiates with any nation
[Page: H8980] GPO's PDF
This House claims to be concerned about such things as labor and environment and human rights. Failing to pass TPA takes us out of the picture. We are silent. We have no voice.
Under TPA, the President can go to any nation, negotiate any agreement, and bring it back to the House and the Senate for an up or down vote. If we do not like the agreement, we can vote it down. If we do not like the lack of consultation, defeat it. But at least keep us in the game. Absent TPA, this House is silent.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how we are going to shape any future agreement, have any consultative effect, if the President just chooses to go to treaties and deals with the Senate. We need to get in the ballgame. We have the lowest tariffs in the world. Reaching trade agreements with other nations simply serves to lower their tariffs and open markets for our companies to sell into the global economy. We need to be in the global economy, where 95 percent of the citizens of the world live, not here. I cannot understand why some would want to take us out of the picture.
Mr. Speaker, the only voice the House has on any trade agreement is if we pass authority for the President to reach agreements and bring them back to us for up or down votes. I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose this.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Today we have a tremendous opportunity to stimulate the economy, secure jobs, uplift the poor, improve wages, and prove our global competitiveness. With a single vote, we can change the course of millions of lives.
America produces many of the highest quality services, the most bountiful crops, and the most advanced technologies in the world. Today, we have the opportunity to ensure that all of these are shared with foreign nations.
Trade is also vital to our own national well-being and our economic recovery. Nationwide, one in ten American jobs depends on exports. These jobs are in a range of industries and service fields, and yet the one consistency among them is that they pay more than jobs in non-trading industries. According to the Department of Commerce, trade-oriented industries pay one-third more--approximately $15,000 more per employee--than non-trading industries.
Recent studies have further shown that if global trade barriers were cut by one-third, the world economy would increase by more than $600 billion a year. Eliminating trade barriers altogether would increase the global economy by nearly $2 trillion. The infusion of this much capital into the world market would serve as an engine of economic growth and improve the standard of living for all Americans.
Given the significance of trade to our economic future, it is imperative that Congress pass trade promotion authority. TPA requires a collaborative partnership between Congress and the President, and both must actively participate in order to properly frame treaty negotiations. In fact, TPA statutorily requires that the President engage in frequent and substantive consultations with Congress before, during, and throughout negotiations on a free trade agreement. These consultations allow Congress to make clear its priorities and concerns, and the President then incorporates such mandates into negotiations. In return, Congress commits to an up or down vote on the treaty without amendments. While some members will argue that our opportunity for debate is stifled because of our inability to offer amendment, it is worth noting that without TPA members of the House of Representatives could neither vote on nor offer amendments to the treaty at all.
Clearly, TPA is justified, it is responsible, and it is needed--and the time for TPA is now. Tariffs in the United States are among the lowest in the world. However, we face severe restrictions when we ship our goods overseas. In fact, while the average U.S. tariff is 4.8 percent, American goods are subject to tariffs of 11 percent in Chile, 13.5 percent in Argentina, 14.6 percent in Brazil, and a staggering 45.6 percent in Thailand.
To give you one example of the anti-competitiveness of foreign tariffs, we can look at a Caterpillar tractor. If that tractor is made in the U.S. and it shipped to Chile, it faces nearly $15,000 in tariffs and duties. If that tractor is made in Canada and is then shipped to Chile, the tariff and duties are zero. Clearly, reducing foreign tariffs is critical to ensuring that companies continue to build their factories in the U.S. And TPA is the greatest tool at our disposal for leveling the playing field to provide U.S. businesses access to the world's populations.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the rule and H.R. 3005. This bill will help American regain its competitiveness, enabling the rebirth of prosperity and economic security.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. GREEN), my very good friend.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to both the rule and H.R. 3005, the legislation granting the President Fast Track Authority.
This is not the time to allow more countries greater access to our domestic markets. We need much tighter controls at our borders, and we need to let the global economy recover before we even begin considering opening our doors to even further trade expansion.
Foreign countries experiencing an economic slowdown always view the United States as a place to dump their excess goods. Japan, Russia, and South American countries have devastated our domestic steel industry through dumping. This illegal trade practice eliminates the thousands of high-paying American jobs tied directly to the steel industry and the thousands who support it.
In addition, the House of Representatives has done nothing to help the thousands of displaced travel, tourism, and hospitality workers who lost their jobs as a result of September 11. Increased foreign trade automatically means a loss in good blue collar jobs which means our constituents' jobs will be on the line today.
The House of Representatives has a spotty record in protecting displaced workers, especially from the textile, agriculture, and auto industries as a result of NAFTA; and that is why I oppose both the rule and the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing my colleagues talk about, come back and have an up or down vote. What part of procedural versus substantive consultation do they not understand? As a matter of fact, what part of ``deficit'' do they not understand as it pertains to our trade policy? We have not had time, because they did not give us time; and last night I asked for an additional 2 hours and was denied that time. We have not had time to talk about the fact that antitrust laws are going to change without any consultation and without any input from Members of this body.
[Time: 13:15]
We have not had time to talk about the sovereignty issues, and I hope the gentleman from New York (Mr. RANGEL) and his committee can get to that issue because it is critical.
It is clear from this bill, the underlying bill, that foreign investors have an advantage over domestic persons in the United States, and the tribunals are held in secret. As a former judge, I cannot abide that. I must have my colleagues understand that it would be inappropriate to take American property in a secret forum, and that is what this measure permits. It does not permit that the United States Trade Representative come before us.
I ask my colleagues, please, vote against this rule and vote against the underlying bill.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard today we should continue debating the bill, stall, or put it off; what is fair, unfair; water it down, pick it apart, and confuse the facts.
Mr. Speaker, the world is not waiting while the United States putters along. Trade Promotion Authority offers the best chance for the United States to reclaim its leadership in opening foreign markets, expanding global economic opportunities for American producers and workers, and developing the virtues of democracy around the world.
The prosperity and integrity of global democracies is at stake, and it is incumbent upon us to pull into the fast lane in order to reap the benefits of fair trade.
What we ask today is nothing new. Until its expiration in 1994, every President from Richard Nixon through Bill Clinton has enjoyed the right of Trade Promotion Authority. This President deserves that same right.
[Page: H8981] GPO's PDF
I strongly urge my colleagues to do the right thing for America: Support this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SIMPSON). The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, nays 202, not voting 7, as follows:
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
| <<< | >>> |
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display