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
Both the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. TANNER) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. JEFFERSON) are members of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, that subcommittee that deals on an ongoing, everyday basis with this issue. They are among the most knowledgeable in the House. But because some of my friends on the other side are so driven to deny the President the use of this legislative tool, that somehow the fact that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), working with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. BEREUTER), someone who is not on the Committee on Ways and Means, is to be held up as
[Page: H8994] GPO's PDF
I took this time at the beginning, regardless of what the vote is at the end, to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. DOOLEY), to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. JEFFERSON), to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. TANNER), and to thank their staffs. For almost 5 months we have worked on what was said to be an impossible project, to resolve the differences that drove us not to provide this power to the President previously. I voted for that. I will vote it for any President, but to trash my colleagues who are powerful enough in terms of their belief that something needed to be done, for my colleagues to carry the day by defeating this is unworthy of any Member.
Attack me, I understand it. I am one of the targets and the symbols; but do not, do not, do not derogate the contribution of those Democrats who were strong enough and who believed enough in this to work together in an intellectually honest way, to produce a product that ironically is better than any product that has ever been brought to this floor in a number of ways, which we will talk about.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. JEFFERSON) to allocate as he sees fit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. MATSUI), a senior member, one who has worked so hard on the alternative to the majority bill.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. RANGEL), the ranking Democrat member of the committee, for yielding me the time.
Let me just say this. I am holding in my hands two volumes. These are pieces of legislation that was passed in 1994. It was to implement the Uruguay Rounds and basically put in place the World Trade Organization. I do not say this as somebody who actually produced this legislation along with my colleague the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. CRANE).
I have been a free trader for the last 23 years, since I have been in the United States Congress. I show my colleagues these documents, mainly because we took an up or down vote in 1994, after about 5 hours of debate, and passed this legislation, 5,000 pages.
The Uruguay Round, which passed 7 years ago, was basically about reducing tariffs and eliminating quotas. We had a little about intellectual property, but it was basically about tariffs and quotas.
This next round, the round that we just witnessed in Doha, the beginning of, will be a round in which we not only talk about tariffs and quotas, which will be a small part of it, but it will be about antitrust laws. It will be about food safety laws. It will be about changes in hundreds of government regulations in the United States.
The United States Trade Representative will be able to go through the back door, through the World Trade Organization, and make major changes in domestic regulations and domestic laws; and if my colleagues think these volumes are big, wait till we see 4 or 5 years from now when these negotiations are continued. We will see a volume four or five times larger than this, and we will have 4 hours of debate on the floor of the House, and we have to vote yes or no; and I will guarantee my colleagues they will not know for 2 or 3 years what will be in this legislation.
We might find that there will be a situation where basically we will be making major changes in antitrust laws, and we will not even know whether the consumer will be protected. This is why the legislation should go down, and we should review it again.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What we will hear from the other side all day is would have, could have, should have. Would have, could have, should have; would have, could have, should have; would have, could have, should have; would have, could have, should have.
At some point my colleagues have to decide whether or not the President needs this power. It is going to have to be done in a bipartisan way, and we have a bipartisan product in front of us.
Mr. Speaker, I place in the RECORD the ``Statement of Administration Policy,'' which begins: ``The Administration strongly supports H.R. 3005.''
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC, December 5, 2001.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 3005--BIPARTISAN TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY ACT OF 2001
(REP. THOMAS (R) CA AND 5 COSPONSORS)
The Administration strongly supports H.R. 3005 and looks forward to working with the Congress to provide the President with the authority and flexibility to secure the greatest possible trade opportunities for America's farmers, workers, producers, and consumers. H.R. 3005 would provide Trade Promotion Authority for the President and would establish special procedures for the consideration of legislation to implement trade agreements.
Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is about asserting American leadership, strengthening the American economy, and creating American jobs.
A congressional grant of TPA takes on renewed importance with the launch of new global trade negotiations. These negotiations can open markets and provide job creating opportunities for every sector of the American economy. But the President can strike the best deal for American workers and families only with approval of TPA. TPA's enactment will send a powerful signal to our trading partners that the United States is committed to free and open trade.
TPA is also essential to put the United States back at the table to help set the rules of the trading game. Our global influence diminished in recent years as other countries moved ahead while we have been stalled. There are currently more than 130 free trade agreements in the world. The United States is party to only three.
The Bush Administration is committed to consultations with Congress to help ensure that the Administration's negotiating objectives reflect the views of our elected representatives, and that they will have regular opportunities to provide advice throughout the negotiating process. H.R. 3005 deepens the traditional partnership between the Executive branch and the Congress through the creation of a joint Congressional Oversight Group with broad bipartisan representation from all the Committees that have jurisdiction over a part of a trade negotiation.
Without TPA, the United States will fall behind in shaping the rules of globalization, our new momentum for trade will be undercut, and the confidence and growth necessary for economic recovery will be weakened.
Passage of H.R. 3005 will send a strong signal of U.S. leadership in trade liberalization.
What does this package do? Obviously it creates the power to negotiate specific agreements, which will come to us later, without ability to equivocate or disagree. This legislation is the best in terms of agricultural objectives we have ever seen. It is the best in foreign investment we have ever seen. It is the best in electronic commerce we have ever seen. It is the best in intellectual property. It is the best in foreign relations, and for the first time treated equally with trade is labor and the environment. It is the best we have ever seen in a dispute resolution, and it is the most comprehensive oversight and scrutiny ever presented to the Congress. It is more bipartisan, more representative, and more effective in terms of expanding the number of Members who are able to deal with these issues.
In addition to that, after we took the product, put together by my friends that I had mentioned earlier, we then went and talked to additional Members. Through this process of talking to Members, what do they think of this work product, and from their perspective how can it be improved, they said we want to make sure there is not a race to the bottom on the labor and the environmental standards. We did that.
They said we want to make sure that no foreign investors when we go to court have greater rights than any U.S. citizen. Okay. We did that.
They said they want to make sure that if there is foreign currency changes, that it is not foreign currency manipulation for the purpose of getting a trade advantage. We said that is a good idea. It is in the bill.
Members asked for special consideration in terms of import-sensitive products. They have gotten it in three
[Page: H8995] GPO's PDF
Members asked that the administration not reduce textile tariffs when they are negotiating with another country that, as the gentleman from California (Mr. MATSUI) held up in terms of the Uruguay Round, where other countries said they would reduce their tariff and they have not. We said they are right. We are going to make sure that our negotiators do not lower our tariffs when the other country they are negotiating with have higher tariffs.
Members asked for an improved consultation and opportunity to actually withdraw trade promotion authority if the administration failed to consult. In a number of ways, we said, they are right; we will enhance it.
Finally, on the oversight, not just the committee's of jurisdiction, but every committee whose jurisdiction would be affected by the potential legislation, the administration has to come to us at the beginning of the process, during the process, and at the end of the process. They have to satisfy the Members of Congress on transparency and information transfer.
The administration does not determine when they are through. The administration does not determine how much information is to be made available. For the first time in any agreement, it is the Congress that controls how much information the administration has to provide.
In every aspect, this is a better negotiating tool than we have ever seen in the past. It is bipartisan. It is something that the President has said he desperately needs for a number of reasons; and there is no solid, substantial reason that this should not pass today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we extend the time for debate for 1 hour in view of the fact that the Committee on Rules did not see fit to give the Democrats a substitute, in view of the fact that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) put this bill together in the middle of the night without a hearing, and we are now finding sometimes for the first time what is in it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do plan to object, I am very proud of the way the Committee on Rules has put together this package, and I do not believe that this was done in the middle of the night.
I believe, as I said in my statement during the debate on the rule, we are faced with an up or down vote on whether or not we are going to grant the President this very important Trade Promotion Authority, and I happen to believe that we have been talking about this for a long period of time.
During debate of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. HALL) said let us move ahead and let us vote.
So, Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, with deep disappointment, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. GEORGE MILLER).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Trade Promotion Authority is being sold to Americans as a few different things. The Bush Administration has called today's vote an act of patriotism, now more necessary than ever. House Republican leaders, in a suspicious midnight conversion, are now feverishly promising gifts to its critics in return for their support. Well folks, you can wrap this vote up in red, white and blue. You can tie it with a bow and put it under the tree. But either way, this trade bill is neither patriotic nor a gift. It is a dagger into our basic rights and our standard of living.
Americans are being asked to make three sacrifices in exchange for President Bush's trade policy. They are being asked to give up their middle-class lifestyle, their environmental concerns, and their public health. For all those Americans who think that sounds like a raw deal--and they are right--I urge my colleagues to vote a resounding ``no'' on this very bad trade deal.
When NAFTA was passed in 1993, its supporters promised nothing but blue skies for hard-working Americans. Using fast-track authority. President Clinton hurdled the bill through Congress without a truly meaningful debate in Congress on the effects of such a trade agreement. Millions of Americans have paid a high price for that lack of candor eight years ago. A recent report shows that 3 million actual and potential jobs disappeared from the American economy between 1994 and 2000 due to NAFTA and the accelerated trade deficits it caused. In my home State of California, over 300,000 manufacturing jobs--good jobs, well-paying jobs--crossed the border during the last 6 years. The economic surge and booming stock market of the 1990s masked a harsh reality for millions of American workers--for them, NAFTA has meant nothing more than a pink slip.
Despite this, President Bush and others in Congress would expand NAFTA further. If this bill passes, it would allow the Administration to eventually spread NAFTA's misery to over 30 other nations in our hemisphere and further exacerbate job losses in our own country. America's workers had hoped for a different kind of generosity from the American government. After losing their jobs to NAFTA a few years ago, they waited for training programs. In the wake of September 11 , they waited for help that instead went to corporations. And they are waiting still, listening to empty promises that TPA will help bring back their jobs.
In the last day, realizing that they are perilously close to losing this vote on fast track, Republican leaders have suddenly become concerned about the needs of America's working men and women. They are now promising more trade adjustment assistance, for example. That would be nice. But their bill does not guarantee more trade adjustment assistance, it just authorizes it. We've been there before. Their bill continue to fail to address the deeper pitfalls that fast track poses for working families.
Fast Track also poses a serious threat to the environment. Frankly, it is insulting to my colleagues and all Americans when fast track proponents claim that their bill includes strong language that adequately addresses environmental concerns.
One look at NAFTA shows why we should be terrified at extending current trade rules to future agreements.
Chapter 11 , a provision intended to protect multinational corporations from their host states, has been abused by corporations that refuse to be bound by lawfully decided and publicly supported environmental regulations. California was one of the first states to run into the chapter 11 problem when it tried to protect its environment from the harmful effects of MTBE. When California halted the use of the gasoline additive, a Canadian corporation called Methanex sued the United States under NAFTA's chapter 11 for almost one billion dollars because of lost revenue it said it would incur from California's decision to protect its environment. Luckily, however, America remains a democracy where important environmental decisions are reached in a fair, open manner.
Consider this frightening, fast track reality: If foreign companies operating in the U.S. don't want to play by our rules, they get their cases decided before a secret tribunal accountable to no one. This lack of democracy doesn't bother the administration. The environment has become a defendant without rights. Rights are reserved for multi-national corporations.
Like pharmaceutical companies, for example. According to the Bush administration, demanding higher labor standards in our trade agreements is an imposition of values. On the other hand, when we force other countries to rigidly adhere to our own intellectual property laws, this is sound policy. A principal negotiating objective in this bill is to achieve the elimination of, ``price controls and reference pricing which deny full market access for United States products''. I don't think such a narrow-minded, market-driven approach is justifiable in the face of an HIV/AIDS pandemic that has decimated much of Africa.
Since the horrible events of September 11 , public health experts have warned that our country must reduce its vulnerability to potential biological and chemical terrorism. The American Public Health Association doesn't support this bill because it represents a risk to the safety of America's food supply.
Let me quote Dr. Mohammad Akhter, Executive Director of the American Public Health Association:
With our system of imported food safety so flimsy, the last thing we need is an executive mandate for more porous borders.
Executive mandate is exactly what this bill is. It stomps on the constitutional authority granted to Congress over international commerce. On these grounds alone, this bill is unconstitutional. But add to that criticism the hostility that this bill shows toward labor rights, environmental protection and public health, and you have a bill that is indefensible and should be voted down here today. A vote against fast track is a vote to defend the rights
[Page: H8996] GPO's PDF
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