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
Mr. Speaker, Fast Track trade authority is an extraordinary concession of congressional authority in four critical areas to regulate and oversee the
[Page: H8978] GPO's PDF
Now, if the United States had a successful trade policy giving this President, or any President, a blank check to perpetuate and expand NAFTA into the FTAA and enhance the powers of WTO, well, that might make some sense. But the current system is failing miserably. We are not talking about that here on the floor today, are we?
Last year a record $435 billion trade deficit, 4.5 percent of our GDP. Many economists say that is unsustainable. 1994 to 2000, accelerated job loss due to trade. The current system discriminates against American labor, reduces living wages, safe working conditions, eviscerates environmental protections and consumer protections. But the gentleman from New York would somehow say it is necessary to compete in the world economy.
President Clinton negotiated 300 separate trade agreements: two under Fast Track trade authority, 298 without it. And, unlike my colleague from the other side who preceded me and said he opposed this under the last President but will vote for it now, I am going to vote on policy and principle, not politics and personalities. It was a bad idea for President Clinton; it is a bad idea for George Bush.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. KIRK).
(Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and Trade Promotion Authority. I wish that opponents of free trade had as much faith in our workers as our military. As our forces fight and win in Afghanistan, opponents of free trade say Americans cannot win in business. Americans are not losers. We are winners, and we need only a chance to compete to win.
TPA will also lower international import taxes on Americans. As we start holiday shopping, we pay import taxes on backpacks, shoes and other clothes for the kids. TPA lowers these taxes, and, in sum, will put $1,300 in the pockets of American families.
If you like paying import taxes to other countries, vote against free trade. If you think Americans can compete and win, support Trade Promotion Authority for our President.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my very good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. BROWN), the former Secretary of State of the State of Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago Republican leadership and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) promised us if we voted for money for New York City, then they would help unemployed workers. They never did.
Then Republican leadership and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) promised us if we bailed out the airlines, then they would help unemployed workers. But they never did.
Then Republican leadership and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) promised if we passed the stimulus package and gave huge tax cuts to the biggest corporations in America, then they would help unemployed workers. But they never did.
Now the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and Republican leadership are promising us if we vote for Trade Promotion Authority, then they will help unemployed workers.
Mr. Speaker, when will we ever learn?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. CHAMBLISS).
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and in support of the underlying bill, but I do so only after a couple of concerns that I have had with respect to our trade policy in this country have been addressed. Those two concerns are trade issues dealing with agriculture and trade issues dealing with the textile industry.
American agriculture and the American textile industry have been the whipping boys of previous trade agreements. We have been in difficult times in agriculture all across this country, but I am very satisfied with the language that has been put into this bill with respect to American agriculture and how our farmers are going to be treated. That language says that the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture are going to be direct participants in the discussions about issues relating to agriculture with respect to future trade agreements under this Trade Promotion Authority. That is the first step in the right direction that we have seen for American agriculture when it comes to trade in decades.
With respect to the textile industry, again, we have seen jobs moved to the south, jobs that cannot be replaced in the American workplace. We have never had the issue of textiles addressed in our trade agreements in a positive manner, but yesterday at a meeting at the White House, the President made a personal commitment that he is going to be sure that the textile industry does get fair treatment in any negotiated agreements from a trade perspective under this authority that he is asking for.
That is all we can ask. If we do not have that, if we do not have that, where is the American textile industry going today? It is going to continue to go south, and we do not need that to happen.
We have had thousands of jobs in my great State lost, particularly in my district, that have been lost over the last 7 to 10 years in the textile industry. We cannot afford any more of that. The way we ensure that does not continue to happen is that we have positive trade agreements and provisions in those trade agreements that are positive with respect to textiles and agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of the rule and I urge support of the underlying bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very thoughtful new Member of Congress, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. MCCOLLUM).
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule. Fast Track trade authority affects every single American, and they probably do not even know it. We import millions of tons of food into this country. That is a lot of food. In 1993, 8 percent of imported fruits and vegetables were inspected.
[Time: 13:00]
Since NAFTA , the number is now .7 percent. That is a 91 percent decrease in the inspections of fruits and vegetables that our children consume every day.
Minnesota families believe that meats, fruits and vegetables that they buy comply with our food standards. In these trade agreements there are no food standards; there are none. We buy strawberries and grapes tainted with pesticides that are illegal to use in this country. Congress passes food safety standards and the President's negotiators trade those standards away because, in their eyes, food safety is a barrier to free trade.
Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order an up or down vote on Fast Track legislation that would forfeit all of the authority of Congress to directly participate in international trade agreements. Congress needs careful, deliberate negotiations on future agreements, not a fast track.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN).
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and of this bill.
Just to give my colleagues an idea of how driven and dependent our national economy is on international trade, one need not look any further than my home State of New Jersey. Last year, New Jersey posted the eighth largest export total of any State in the Nation with a total of $28.8 billion being sold in export merchandise. This is up more than 38 percent since 1997. Those exports are shipped globally to 204 countries around the world. Most importantly, out of New Jersey's 4.1 million member workforce, over 600,000 people statewide, from Main Street to Fortune 500 companies, are employed because of exports, imports, and because of foreign direct investment.
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.
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