Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation. I had hoped to offer an alternative and speak and have not been allowed. Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleagues that Israel is the best friend of the United States in the Middle East. Israel is our most reliable ally in the Middle East. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. I consider myself a friend of Israel. However, the increasingly hard line stance being taken by the Israeli Government, and the current military offensive being conducted by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, will do nothing to bring about lasting peace in the region. I am also concerned that the totally one-sided resolution being considered on the House floor today does nothing to enhance US. leadership in the region, and, in fact, could actually harm our ability to broker a permanent peace. I offered a truly balanced resolution, H. Res. 394, which would help send the message that the United States is committed to a negotiated settlement. Unfortunately, we are not being allowed to debate alternatives today. I have been to Israel. I have seen first-hand how this emotional and complicated dispute manifests itself in the daily lives of Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides consider the actions of the other as illegal under international law. Both sides also consider the lands under dispute to be their ancestral home. And, both sides claim religious sites, particularly in and around Jerusalem, as their own. This conflict has no military solution. Peace will never come to the region until all parties are committed to working toward the goal. I had thought that teenagers blowing up other teenagers with suicide bombs might shake up the respective parties enough to stop the violence and begin permanent settlement negotiations. That is clearly not the case at this point. Under no definition can Mr. Sharon on Mr. Arafat be considered men of peace. Neither can credibly claim the moral high ground. Mr. Arafat has utterly failed in his multiple commitments to crack down on militants. He failed to seize an opportunity offered by President Clinton to create a Palestinian state. His leadership has been connected to terrorist organization. But, prior to his election, Mr. Sharon intentionally visited a disputed holy site in Jerusalem in order to provoke a violent response. He has always been a vocal opponent of the Oslo Peace Process. He has advocated continued expansion of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories. He ordered the Israeli military to reoccupy various Palestinian cities with weapons provided by United States taxpayers. What this conflict needs is mature leadership. I commend President Bush for his April 4, 2002, statement in which he gave voice to the legitimate grievances of both sides. I was also relieved when the President sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to the region. As President Bush noted in his April 4, 2002, speech, the parameters for a lasting resolution to this conflict are not really in dispute. What is lacking is the political will to reach a final settlement. As the President, the Mitchell Commission, Saudi Arabia and the Arab League, the European Union and others have noted in similar ways, peace could be achieved through Arab recognition of Israel's right to exist, guaranteeing Israeli security approximately within its 1967 borders, creation of a viable Palestinian state, halting Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories, and sincere negotiations to determine the final status of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees. Mr. Speaker, we are at a dangerous crossroads in the Middle East. Unfortunately, there is no Itzak Rabin with a vision for peace. Like all Americans, I unequivocally condemn acts of violence against both Israeli and Palestinian civilians. I urge all parties to recognize that continued military attacks and terrorist activities will only lead to persistent, escalating violence with the potential to destabilize the entire Middle East. I urge all parties to stop using state-controlled media or other means of propaganda to incite hatred and violence. The United States must maintain sustained, high-level diplomatic engagement. The United States must bring the Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table. It has become obvious to all but Sharon and Arafat and their most ardent followers that there is no military solution to this conflict. Hundreds of reservists in the Israeli Defense Forces are refusing to serve in the Palestinian terrorists because they understand there is no military solution. I again commend the President and Secretary Powell for their efforts to mediate a peace and for their balanced view of the conflict. I intend to vote against the unbalanced resolution on the floor today because it does nothing to advance peace.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support and his great work on the legislation to come up later today. I believe these are essential reforms and limitations that should be put into the law, and I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We will not use all of the time here. The amendment which I drafted is based substantially on language which will be included in legislation to come up later today, H.R. 2604, the Multinational Development Bank Reauthorization. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation which the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade introduced and was cosponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), ranking member, and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). I looked at that legislation, and although I will admit that the issue before us here, the Ex-Im Bank, is not normally the principal source of funding for potential privatization efforts, but there are instances where Ex-Im Bank has followed in acquisitions and has essentially been linked to privatization efforts. Oftentimes there may well be nothing wrong with the U.S. firm being involved in a privatization effort overseas, as long as there is a regulatory structure in place, as long as the government or the taxpayers of that country get full value in a process which is transparent in terms of the bidding, but unfortunately, there have been a number of cases, a couple of which involved the Enron corporation in Panama and the Dominican Republic, where that was not the case. In fact, a study after the fact in the Dominican Republic found that the assets were undervalued by $907 million, and the Panama case, there was a problem with basically some corruption within the government which had led to a low bid and an improper acquisition. I think putting in place some basic rules is needed to make sure that the Ex-Im Bank either in the first instance or in follow-on to U.S. acquisition, in supplying follow-on to that, does not become involved in improper privatization efforts. The standards are quite simple: That the assistance should only go to projects that are implemented in a transparent manner; that they are implemented in a manner that protects the interests of workers, small investors, vulnerable groups in society; or, if appropriate, the regulatory regimes have been established to ensure properly functioning competitive markets. It is further my understanding that the Chairman has some concerns about the capability of enforcing this and statutory language but would perhaps be willing to support this as a sense of Congress within the conference.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and to congratulate the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe of Indians on the twentieth anniversary of their federal restoration. Saturday, April 27, 2002, will be a day of joyous celebration of their renewal. In 1954, the Termination Act severed the trust relationship between the Federal Government and the small tribes and bands of western Oregon, Including the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe. If you can imagine losing your home and having your identity expunged by an action of Congress, you can begin to understand the consequences of termination for the Cow Creek Umpqua. The termination of the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe was only one of many catastrophic events in the history of their relationship with the United States Government. By 1954, they had been stripped of their homelands, survived relocation, and suffered the loss of their reservation lands. Yet, despite great tragedy and unimaginable loss, the Cow Creek Umpqua endured. In 1982, the Cow Creek Umpqua were restored as an Indian tribe and established formal relations with the Federal Government. The Recognition Law was a tribute to the indomitable spirit of countless tribal elders and tribal leaders, like Ellen Furlong Crispen and Sue Crispen Shaffer, who refused to let the Cow Creek Umpqua be extinguished. Recognition of the Cow Creek Umpqua enriched the lives of tribal members, and local communities gained a strong and active partner in their efforts to help youth and families. The Cow Creek Umpqua Foundation and the Tribal Council have given nearly three million dollars to the Special Olympics, local schools, community organizations, and civic projects. The history of the Cow Creek Umpqua is an impressive story of remarkable perseverance in the face of overwhelming challenges. I am pleased to offer my warmest congratulations on this historic anniversary and my good wishes for continued.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, President Bush and the Republicans in Congress proclaim that today's vote to make permanent last year's $2 trillion tax cut is merely to correct a quirk in the law that sunset the entire tax cut December 31, 2010. That was no quirk. The Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the White House. They wrote it into the law because they wanted to hide the implications of these massive tax cuts; the fact that they were going to put us back in deficit, that they were going to take money from the Social Security lock box, which they just voted for seven times, and they just wanted to pretend. Well, now the pretension is over. They are revealing their true side. Make these cuts permanent. If they are successful in doing that, another $400 billion of deficit in the next 10 years, every penny of it coming out of the Social Security trust fund, money raised with a regressive flat tax which is going to fund estate tax relief for people with estates over $5 million and people who earn over $373,000 a year. That is what this vote is all about, plain and simple. No quirk; it is highway robbery.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion within the Bush administration about where to take the military campaign against terrorism next. The President has already sent military advisers to the Philippines and the Republic of Georgia. His axis of evil comments lumped Iran, Iraq, and North Korea together as potential targets for future U.S. military action. He also indicated he wants to get the United States more deeply involved in Colombia's civil war by helping the government fight guerrilla armies rather than targeting the drug trafficking done by all parties in the war in Colombia. Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to declare war. As commander-in-chief, the President conducts or would conduct day-to-day operations of our U.S. military. The Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 grants Congress the prerogative to decide whether or not to send U.S. troops into hostility. The use of force resolution approved by Congress specifically safeguarded Congress' war powers by noting nothing in the resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. While Congress overwhelmingly authorized the President to use military force to respond to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Congressional authorization was limited in scope. Specifically, the joint resolution stated the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attack that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. Thus far, the United States intelligence agencies with their secret $32 billion a year budget could not predict the attacks and cannot uncover any links between Iraq and the attackers. Now, many in the administration are latching on to a magazine article written by Seymour Hirsch in the New Yorker who does not get $32 billion a year from the taxpayers, who has uncovered purported links between some Kurds and the al Qaeda as a potential excuse to attack Iraq. In December, I sent a letter along with a number of other Members of Congress to the President pointing out the limitations on the use of force authorization and reminding him that he would have to come, as his father did, to the United States Congress for authorization if he desired and felt there was a case to be made to attack Iraq. I have as yet to have a substantive response to that letter. We at this point, I believe, have sort of a budding imperial presidency, the likes of which we have not seen since Richard Nixon. There are other areas that are very troubling with this presidency. The nuclear posture review. According to a leaked version of the classified nuclear posture review, the Bush administration is contemplating using nuclear weapons as offensive weapons rather than merely to deter an attack against the United States. They now say they would target seven countries, Russia, China, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. This, in fact, includes countries who are not known to have nuclear weapons, an extraordinary change in U.S. policy. They want to develop small, more friendly nuclear weapons that could be used, they believe, in limited instances. Of course, this would blur the line between conventional nuclear arms, would undermine the nonproliferation treaty which 187 countries have signed, including the United States of America, and that is a very disturbing trend. As Ronald Reagan once said, a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. We have the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the most successful treaty on arms limitations in the history of the world, which the President wishes to unilaterally abrogate, calling it a relic of the Cold War. The Constitution is more than 200 years old. I would hope that the President would not find that to be a relic. It is still very relevant today, as is the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. If it is scrapped as the President wishes, if he can legally do that, that is in question, it is likely that China, Russia and other countries would engage in a new crash program to expand nuclear weapons against our potential defenses which, of course, as we all know, the Star Wars fantasy does not work in any place, but it is a great place in which to dump two or three or $400 billion of hard-earned taxpayers' money. Finally, in the defense budget we have seen an extraordinary proposal that we should have a 1-year increase that far exceeds any increases at the height of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, anything since World War II, to build Cold War weapons against enemies that no longer exist. Hopefully this Congress will act soon to rein in this administration, reexert its authority and bring some sanity to these policies. {time} 2030

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has a new plan. Instead of taking on the extension of the $5.95 trillion debt ceiling, they are a little embarrassed to be increasing the debt of the United States when last year they predicted surpluses as far as the eye could see and paying the debt off within a few years. They are especially embarrassed that they are going to break open the Social Security lockbox, something they had us vote on seven times. They do not talk much about the lockbox anymore. But now the most disturbing proposal. They are not going to raise the debt ceiling; they are going to disappear the Social Security trust fund. Yes, that is right. They decided yesterday that they are going to say that these special depository instruments, the debt of the Federal Government of the United States, which is held by the Social Security trust fund, over $1 trillion, does not exist. Suddenly, they are wiping a couple of trillion dollars off the books, all because they do not want to take an embarrassing vote, or all because they do not want to roll back their obscene tax cuts or rein in their massive increases in military spending. They cannot do this to the Social Security trust fund. It is an irrefutable obligation of the Government of the United States of America. They cannot disappear it.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, remember the Social Security lockbox? Republican leadership had us vote on protecting Social Security with a lockbox eight times over 5 years. But now, of course, the lockbox has been ripped opened and plundered, and over the next 10 years it will finance tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans. Now there is a new gimmick. Hey, certificates. Certificates suitable for framing on the wall and hanging next to the Enron stock certificate. They will be just as valuable. That is their new gimmick. Mr. Speaker, why all of the gimmicks? Because they are proposing a privatization plan that will undermine the foundations of Social Security, cut benefits, increase the retirement age; or, phenomenally, increase the debt. They have yet to say how they are going to pay for their risky privatization plans, taking 2 percent, doubling the problem that Social Security has. Instead of Social Security running out of money in 2038 and only being able to pay 73 percent of benefits after that time, they have a plan that will run Social Security out of money in 2024. That is not a great plan.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, over the last 5 years in the House, initiated by the Republican majority, something which I supported, we took a series of votes on something called the Social Security lockbox. Originally, some of my colleagues on the Democratic side opposed this. They said it was a mere gimmick on the part of the Republican majority and an attempt to restrain the social spending of the Clinton administration, and the Republican majority had no intention of safeguarding those funds. I did not believe that, and I voted for it. I said, it makes sense to me, with the retirement of the baby boom near upon us, we should safeguard those funds and be certain they are used only to pay the benefits for which they are intended by law. Eight, ten times in the House of Representatives we voted for the lockbox, Social Security lockbox. Unfortunately, that was all superseded by a vote last March when tax cuts were voted on in the House, predicated on shaky economic assumptions that we would have huge and growing surpluses as far as the eye could see. So let us give the money back to the people. Of course, mostly to Americans who earn over $383,000 a year and have estates worth more than $5 million, but let us give it back. Over my objections and the objections of others, this rosy scenario was adopted. The Republican leadership said, do not worry, the Social Security lockbox will still be there. Here we are a year later. The lockbox is crushed, robbed, torn open, and the President has proposed in his budget to spend $1.5 trillion of the Social Security trust funds, those which were formerly intended to be placed in the lockbox, to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and other operations of the government over the next 10 years. There is no more talk about a lockbox on the other side of the aisle with a Republican President who wants to give big tax cuts and gifts to the largest corporations and his friends. No, now they have got a new gimmick. What is it? Certificates. At taxpayer expense, we will send out to every person receiving Social Security, and, by the way, we no longer send them checks in the mail anymore because that is too expensive, but now for this special, one-time only offer, we will send out certificates to everybody currently receiving Social Security and their survivors and others receiving Social Security benefits, saying the Social Security benefits which are being e-mailed to Americans' bank accounts, do not worry, they will keep coming. We will ensure that. These are the same people that gave us the lockbox. Now we are going to have certificates. Mr. Speaker, how about this certificate? This is a real certificate, and this is what the majority in the House, the Republicans, have to get serious about honoring. This is an irrefutable obligation of the United States of America. Look to this line. ``This bond is incontestable in the hands of the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund. Bond is supported by the full faith and credit of the United States.'' The United States has pledged the payment of the bond with respect to principal and interest. But in their rush to privatize Social Security and in their rush to give tax cuts to the most wealthy, they are questioning whether or not that will be honored. In fact, Secretary O'Neill, the Secretary of the Treasury, appointed by George Bush, the President, said that this is worthless. He said, starting in 2016, when we will have to draw on the interest on these bonds, that is worthless. That means he is questioning every investor in America and around the world who thinks that U.S. Treasury Bonds are the safest haven. I believe they are. I do not believe Secretary O'Neill when he says it is worthless. I believe he and the President and the Republican leadership here are trying to rush Congress into a hasty privatization plan which will actually accelerate the problems of Social Security in another thrust to help a few people to the disadvantage of the many. Social Security, if we honor these bonds, with the full faith and credit of the United States Government as it says right there, Social Security is totally 100 percent capable of paying 100 percent of the benefits through the year 2038. Starting in 2038, with conservative assumptions, not the rosy scenario that the Republican majority pushed through last year for the big tax cuts, but with conservative economic assumptions, it will have about a 25 to 27 percent problem. That is 73 percent of benefits could be paid forever after 2038. So we have to address that problem, that 25 to 27 percent problem starting in 36 years. But we do not address it by further reducing the trust fund, giving them to the wealthy in tax cuts, or privatizing the system in a way that reduces trust fund income for Social Security, because then we have created an even bigger problem. Mr. Speaker, that is the real agenda here. They want to go after Social Security. They have already broken open the lockbox; now watch for the crackerjack box top in the mail, the certificate that gives us a hollow promise.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, there will be a unique opportunity today to do more than pass a birthday resolution for President Reagan. Students of history will remember that massive tax cuts passed in the first year of President Ronald Reagan's term. Just 1 year later, as deficits began to grow, President Reagan showed his mettle by joining with a Republican Senate and a Democratic House to pass into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, raising taxes in the face of a deficit. And then he signed into law several other tax increases, including the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. But today the Republican President and the Republican House leaders do not have the vision and the gumption of the former President. The same day that they will pass his birthday resolution, they are going to also pass a resolution saying despite the huge and mounting deficits just like in the first term of President Reagan, they are going to hold steady to the huge tax increases tilted toward the wealthiest in this country. It would be more appropriate and more fitting to recognize the spirit and the leadership of Ronald Reagan by admitting you were wrong and rescinding or freezing further tax cuts and dealing with the deficit honestly in this House.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, we have gotten the President's glossified 2003 budget, complete with color photos, for the first time. What a difference a year makes, not only in the format but in the content. A year ago, the President and the Office of Management and Budget said, there are surpluses as far as the eye can see, at least for the next 10 years, huge and growing surpluses. A few of us were dubious about predicting the economy 10 years out and about this rosy scenario, but in any case they persisted. They went on to also say, ``We're going to create a lockbox for all of the Social Security surplus, $2.5 trillion. We're going to create a lockbox for all of the Medicare trust fund surplus.'' And they were concerned that we would retire the $6 trillion national debt too quickly. They were worried about that. Well, here we are a year later and rather than paying down the debt too quickly, as was projected last year, the Bush budget will create an additional $2 trillion of deficit by 2012, if you do not take the Social Security and Medicare trust funds and spend them, which, of course, he proposes to do. The President's budget would divert all of the Medicare surplus and 60 percent, or $1.5 trillion, that is $1,500 billion for those who cannot go to the Ts, of the Social Security surplus to pay for other government programs. What are the causes of this? We would be led to believe there is only one cause, the attacks on America. Let us look at the real underlying causes. Actually, the disappearance of the surplus is due to, and these are figures from the Congressional Budget Office which is headed by a Republican, 41 percent are due to the tax cut, 23 percent are due to the recession, 10 percent increased military spending, 8 percent increased spending for homeland security, and 16 percent technical adjustments. What is the reaction down at the White House? The reaction at the White House is, ``Let's make those tax cuts,'' which are contributing 41 percent of the increase in deficit, ``let's make them permanent. Let's in fact expand them.'' That is what the President's budget proposes. So that those who earn over $383,000 a year and those with estates over $5 million will be assured that the laughable assumption in last year's budget that their tax cuts will be sunseted after 10 years and everything, all the tax cuts, will be going away; let's make those permanent with the strange exception of one that would particularly benefit the middle class, which has to do with a complicated computation of an alternative tax for individuals, that one does not get made permanent. But the exemption of estates over $5 million does, and the huge reduction in rates for people who earn over $383,000. At what cost? At tremendous cost. The cost is a whole host of reductions in worthy domestic programs which the President has proposed in this year's budget hidden sort of in the appendices and the asterisks and some obfuscation here and there; but there are cuts in education, there are cuts in needed social programs. There is inadequate funding for a prescription drug benefit for people on Medicare, with no cost controls on the pharmaceutical industry. Basically, the program would tend to very, very few seniors' needs. But all this is being done so that the tax cuts can be made permanent. Usually, when a country is under attack, Presidents call for sacrifice; and many Americans and many in Congress agree with that, homeland security, necessary expenditures to arm our young men and women serving so valiantly in the military. There is tremendous agreement on those. But let us also make our economic future secure. Unfortunately, the only security in the President's budget goes to, again, those at the very top, those who earn over $383,000 a year, and those who have estates worth more than $5 million. If you just froze the benefits for those people, the elite of the elite, the richest of the rich, those who do not care about Social Security, do not care about a prescription drug benefit, do not care about education funding because their kids go to private schools, if you just froze those people in place so they contributed a little bit more in this time of sacrifice and attack on the United States of America, then you could reduce substantially the draw on the Social Security trust funds and the increase in the deficit. But the President and his advisers say, no, absolutely not, those people, those $5 million-plus estates, those people who earn over $383,000, they need every penny of that tax cut because they will spend the money in ways that might put some people to work at a minimum wage which could then pay taxes which would help defray the deficit and the economy will be growing into the future. I would hope that the Congress rejects these assumptions, these priorities, and substantially rewrites this budget.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this very late early hour, however anyone wants to look at it, that we are finally doing some real work on the floor of the House having spent the rest of the morning engaged in an extended fantasy partisan one-upmanship from the other side of the aisle where they jammed through a bill that will not do anything to stimulate the economy. It will never become law. But this will become law and this is necessary legislation. It should be part of a comprehensive Superfund reform. Unfortunately, we have been unable to move that legislation through this body. But that said, we do have here one key part of Superfund reform, and I just want to emphasize one point. Legislation will provide needed Federal funding for site assessments to determine whether or not those brownfields are, in fact, contaminated as well as provide funding for the remediation of contaminated property. The technical changes to the Senate bill which I referred to earlier in my prepared statement, involved integrating these funding operations as an amendments to section 104 of CERCLA, change that has been agreed to by all parties involved in negotiations on this bill. By amending section 104 of CERCLA we are hoping to expedite the implementation of this new program by modeling it after one already in operation by the Environmental Protection Agency in order that funds authorized by this legislation get to the cities and the communities that need them as expeditiously as possible and we move ahead with the necessary cleanup. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Coming from the State with the highest unemployment rate in the United States, I speak with a sense of urgency and all too much familiarity with the need to stimulate the economy and employment. But the corporations that have laid off thousands of Oregonians and millions of others across the United States, they do not lack cash in their coffers. Some have record amounts of cash on hand, according to the Wall Street Journal. There is no demand for their product. Now, the Republicans would shovel more cash into their treasuries that are already overflowing. Every problem should be solved by a tax cut on their side of the aisle. Surplus? Tax cuts. Terrorist attacks? Tax cuts. Deficits? Tax cuts. Recession with a lack of demand? Tax cuts. It will not solve this problem. The Democratic proposal, which will not be allowed a fair vote tonight as a true alternative, would put people back to work, would stimulate demand and would, in the interim, help people with unemployment and health care benefits. The Republicans say it is about jobs. But if you read the bill, you have got to wonder whose jobs where. Because billions of dollars, billions, would flow overseas for overseas tax shelters for interest income overseas. Whose jobs will that support here? No worker that I know in the United States will benefit from those loopholes. But they will pay for it out of their Social Security because that is what finances these tax cuts. $250 billion, that is what this bill costs. And it is not going to be paid for by Santa Claus. It will be paid for by that huge sucking sound, one massive withdrawal of the working people's retirement, Social Security trust fund shifted all at once to the wealthiest and largest corporations in this country. Silk stockings stuffed with cash for the patrons of the party on that side of the aisle. And for the working people of America, not even a lump of coal in their worn stocking because they will cut the LIHEAP program too. There will not even be energy assistance.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, responding to the gentleman that preceded me, I agree that there is a problem with Social Security, and it is something that this House and this administration should deal with. We do agree there. However, the problem is a little different than described. In the year 2016, Social Security will get to the point where the income, it is true, will not equal benefits; but it will begin only to draw on the interest on its accumulated trust funds. Now, we either have assets in Social Security, because we are paying much more in taxes today and accumulating trust funds, or we do not. There is some disagreement over whether Federal Treasury notes deposited for Social Security constitute real assets. In fact, the Secretary of the Treasury went so far as to say that there are no real economic assets in the trust fund, only obligations, the full faith and credit of the Federal Government of the United States of America, which the last time I checked was the safest investment in the world. So from 2016 to 2025, we will only spend down interest. In 2025, just like someone in retirement, then the government would begin to redeem the bonds, the investments, the principle. And yes, in 2038, there will be a real problem. In 2038, Social Security will only have income sufficient to pay 70 percent of promised benefits. So starting in 37 years, we have a 30 percent problem. Now, the question becomes, do we destroy the entire existing system, which benefits more than 40 million Americans today and many more millions in the future, or do we adjust it a little bit, especially with 37 years lead time? There are three ways to do it: First, we can increase the income, which either means some different kind of investments other than Federal debt; or we can increase taxes, which has been ruled out by this administration. Next, we can decrease expenditures, that is, lower benefits; or we can have deficits, as the gentleman alluded to under option three of this commission; or we can have a combination of those three things. Now, the President appointed a commission that was supposed to deal with this. Unfortunately, the commission's charge was not to stabilize the financing of the most successful social program in the history of the United States. The charge of this group, and every single member was hand-picked because of this, was to privatize the system, to begin to undermine that system for the future. That was their charge. And even there, they really kind of failed. Now, they are led by the CEO of Time Warner, of course, who has a vital interest in the future of Social Security. He had to divert part, part of his bonus last year to buy a winery in Tuscany. Imagine that, he had to spend part of last year's bonus for that, so he is vitally concerned. He knows some day he will need that Social Security, like tens of millions of working Americans. Then we have a former Democratic Senator who used to say that raising taxes was the answer, but late in his career he changed his mind and said privatization was the answer. So their pronouncements are sort of a mix here. Actually, all three of their solutions worsen the financial situation of Social Security. Is that not interesting, a commission to solve the problems of Social Security, but since they were charged only to privatize it, they did not even deal with the financing problems? In their first solution, they would bring us insolvency 5 years sooner than the current system. They would reduce benefits under the premise that people's benefits are being reduced but they will gain more with their diverted investments. But if the investments do not pan out, well, hey, that is the way it goes. Mr. Parsons will be living on his vineyard in Tuscany, and they will be down at the local Dumpster trying to find food. Now, we could go with the second option: a 4 percent diversion of trust funds. Then they would change the way they index future benefits, reducing the benefits for everybody in the program, even those who do not choose the option of the 4 percent diversion; and they would have to inject general funds, that is, subsidize Social Security, beginning in 2025. That means insolvency comes 30 years sooner than under the current system. Finally, in their last option, which no one can describe, the Wall Street Journal said, for option three, ``Suffice it to say, it is so complicated we are not even sure we understand it,'' but it does have a combination of a benefit reduction, of benefit reductions, increase in age of retirement, and huge trust fund transfers from the general fund. There is a much simpler solution; but this commission, this President, will never touch it, because it revolves around tax fairness. Americans only pay the regressive Social Security tax on the first $850,400 of income. So that means someone who earns $160,000 pays Social Security taxes at half the rate of someone who earns $80,000 or half the rate of someone who earns $10,000 a year on every dollar they earn. If they earn twice that, it goes down to a quarter. Now, one simple solution would solve the problem of Social Security forever: have every working American pay the same tax on every penny they earn; that is, Mr. Parsons, the CEO of Time Warner, would contribute the same percentage of his income in taxes as would the minimum wage worker. It is fair, and the Social Security trustees tell us that in fact that is more money than we need to assure the future of Social Security forever. Unfortunately, this commission and this President will never go there.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. Mr. Speaker, there are so many problems with the fast-track trade negotiating authority legislation under consideration today that it's hard to know where to begin. In short, H.R. 3005 will cede blanket authority to the President to negotiate future trade agreements that perpetuate and expand the failed U.S. trade policies of the most recent administrations with no meaningful checks and balances from Congress. These failed trade policies, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and most-favored nation status for China, all of which I opposed, have, to varying degrees, contributed to massive job loss and job dislocation, soaring trade deficits, eroding U.S. sovereignty, plummeting farm commodity prices, and degraded environmental conditions. I will speak more about these issues in a minute. But first, I'd like to address the more fundamental question of whether fast-track is an appropriate or necessary delegation of constitutional authority. Proponents of fast- track and H.R. 3005 would have you believe that if Congress fails to grant this special negotiating authority to the President that the U.S. economy and the global economy will come to a screeching halt and allies will refuse to negotiate new trade agreements with us. That is sheer nonsense. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority ``to regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' Fast-track negotiating authority, which allows the President to negotiate trade agreements with virtually no input from Congress and forces Congress to vote yes or no on the agreement without the opportunity for amendments, destroys the checks and balances built into the Constitution. This is not a partisan issue for me. I helped defeat legislation twice to grant former President Clinton fast-track trade negotiating authority. My opposition to fast-track is due to my desire to protect the constitutional prerogatives of Congress, as well as my belief that American workers and the U.S. economy have not been well- served by current U.S. trade policies. In essence, in one 62 page bill and one single vote, fast-track delegates four critical constitutional powers of Congress regarding trade. Under the fast-track process envisioned in H.R. 3005, Congress gives up: The authority to decide the terms for trade--any negotiating objectives set by Congress are not binding on the Administration or enforceable by Congress in any practical way; the ability to enter into trade pacts of its own design--the Administration will sign an agreement, thus locking in commitments, before Congress votes up or down, leaving no opportunity for amendment; the authority to draft laws--the administration will have the authority to write implementing legislation for trade agreements that can change federal laws to conform to the agreement without any additional congressional checks; and, the ability to set the congressional schedule--H.R. 3005 per-sets the floor procedures for final consideration of any trade agreements negotiated with fast-track. Given this wholesale delegation of our constitutional responsibilities, it stands to reason that fast-track proponents must be under the assumption that all wisdom on trade matters rests with those at the White House, the U.S. Trade Representative's office, and the Department of Commerce. I find that insulting, and given the pathetic record of previous trade agreements, absolutely incorrect. Mr. Speaker, it is useful to step back and look at the historical basis for fast-track. Fast-track was a Nixon-era presidential power grab. While proponents say that every president since Gerald Ford has had fast-track negotiating authority, what they don't say is that it has only been used a handful of times--to negotiate the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Tokyo Round and Uruguay Round, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the U.S.-Canada FTA, and the NAFTA. The Clinton administration alone claimed to have negotiated nearly 300 separate trade agreements. Of these, only the GATT Uruguay Round and NAFTA were done using fast-track. Further, it is not just minor trade agreements that have been negotiated without fast-track. Major agreements like the Jordan FTA, our bilateral agreement on China's accession to the WTO, the Information Technology Agreement, the Financial Services Agreement, and the Basic Telecommunications Agreement were all negotiated without fast-track. Rather than granting the executive branch carte blanche negotiating authority, it seems that Congress would be well-advised to reassert its constitutional prerogatives and rein in the freelance negotiating done by successive administrations without clear authorization from Congress. This is particularly true since trade agreements now deal with far more than just setting tariff and quota levels, which were primarily of interest to industry. Today's international commercial agreements impact much broader areas of public policy, including the environment, consumer and worker safety, and a vast array of domestic regulatory standards. The public and America's congressional representatives have a greater need to monitor negotiations and have meaningful input into the outcome. That is impossible under the legislation on the floor today. H.R. 3005 eviscerates Congress' constitutional role on trade. It includes essentially worthless provisions requiring ``consultation'' with Congress by the executive branch. This type of requirement has been routively ignored in recent trade negotiative, and no doubt will be disregarded under the current administration. Proponents of fast- track also claim that the President needs this authority to negotiate trade agreements that will be good for the U.S. economy. If that's what the President was actually going to do, it might make some sense to provide him some leeway. Unfortunately, the record of U.S. trade policy shows otherwise. For example, consider our runaway trade deficit. Last year, the U.S. trade deficit reached a record $435 billion, up from $271 billion in 1999. The trade deficit currently stands at an unprecedented 4.5 percent of the overall U.S. economy. Including interest payments, our net foreign debt is 22 percent of GDP and is on a trajectory to reach 40 percent of GDP in 5 years. Argentina's experience should serve as a warning. Argentina, whose economy is suffering a total collapse with the government threatening to default on its debt, has a net foreign debt of 50 percent of GDP. Why does the trade deficit matter? The U.S. trade deficit is financed by borrowing, often from foreign investors and foreign countries. This is money that future generations of people living in the U.S. will have to pay back to people living elsewhere, with interest. And when foreign creditors begin to call in their loans, it will be the American worker and the American family who pay the price caused by the indifference of policymakers in Washington. Just ask workers in Argentina. Is this really a problem? Yes. In December of 1999, well-known market-watcher Standard & Poor's put the U.S. financial system on its watch list of 20 countries that are ``vulnerable to a credit bust.'' Surprisingly, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is generally recognized as a tool of the U.S. Treasury Department, has acknowledged the teetering nature of the present U.S. financial condition. In a recent consultation with the U.S., the IMF noted, ``The sustainability of the large U.S. current account deficit hinges on the ability of the United States to continue to attract sizable capital inflows. Up to now, these inflows in large part have reflected the perceived attractiveness of the U.S. investment environment, but such perceptions are subject to continuous reappraisal.'' In other words, foreign investors could wake up tomorrow, look at the large U.S. current accounts deficit, question whether we'll be able to pay our bills, change their minds about the attractiveness of the U.S. investment environment, and plunge the U.S. into a financial and economic crisis. As an article in the Wall Street Journal on August 14, 2000, pointed out, ``Although he's often credited with omniscience, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted his uncertainty about the trade deficit in testimony before the House of Representatives last month.'' Greenspan testified ``At some point, something has got to give, and we don't know what it's going to be.'' The Chief Economist at Deutsche Bank Research was quoted in the Wall Street Journal saying, ``Confidence in the U.S.A. could abruptly collapse before the rest of the world is firmly back on its feet.'' Mr. Walter went on to say, ``It is, at any rate, not out of the question that capital flows into the U.S.A. will dry up, and that the dollar will take a rapid dive . . .'' Paul Krugman, a mainstream, establishment economist wrote in his column in the New York Times on March 26, 2000, that ``. . . even the most successful economy must sooner or later export enough to pay for its imports. Our current position, where we pay for many of our imports by attracting inflows of capital--in effect by selling the rest of the world claims on our future exports--cannot go on forever.'' Krugman went on to write something that could turn out to be prophetic, ``The trouble, you see, is that in economics, as in life, what you don't pay attention to can hurt you.'' It may not be so far in the future that foreign investors lose confidence in the U.S. economy and the dollar and flee to other currencies as has happened in England, Mexico, Southeast Asia, Brazil, and Russia in the past few years. Of course, then the IMF can come to the rescue, force a structural adjustment program on us, and demand export-led economic growth. Maybe then we can reduce our trade deficit. Catherine Mann of the Institute for International Economics (IIE) has done research to try to determine at what point deficits become unsustainable. The IIE is a respected, non-partisan research organization that generally supports unfettered globalization. Ms. Mann examined Canada, Australia, and Finland and seven other economically advanced nations with big trade deficits during the past 20 years. What she found should be a wake-up call to American policymakers. According to her research, 4.2 percent of GDP is the limit a current accounts deficit can research before the economy begins to implode. The U.S. deficit has already reached and surpassed this benchmark. It is also worth providing a bit of historical perspective. It the early 1970s, the deteriorating trade balance was considered so severe that in August 1971, the Nixon administration made the historic decision to abandon the dollar's gold convertibility and allowed it to float other currencies. What were these shockingly high deficits that led to this decision? A mere 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of GDP in 1971 and 1972, respectively, minuscule compared to today's deficits. Even the widely heralded ``new economy'', which sacrifices manufacturing in favor of high-technology products and the service sector, is unlikely to improve the trade deficit. So-called post-industrial businesses earn very little from exports and therefore will contribute little to improving our balance of payments problem. Microsoft's exports typically only account for one-quarter of its total sales revenue. Merrill Lynch is a classic service business. While the firm generates about one-quarter of its revenue outside the U.S., most of it doesn't count as U.S. exports since it generally serves foreign customers from offices in the markets concerned. According to an article in the American Prospect on August 14, 2000, `` . . . it is apparent, that even in a good year, less than 5 percent of the firm's revenues contribute to the American balance of payments.'' Ignoring U.S. trade deficits and continuing to pursue the same-old failed trade policies is not sound policy, and could lead to an economic catastrophe. For this reason, Congress must maintain its constitutional prerogatives on trade, and oppose fast track. Failed U.S. trade policies and subsequent trade deficits have also cost millions of high-paying jobs across the country. H.R. 3005 will help accelerate this job loss by continuing to force U.S. workers--who are the highest educated, best trained, most productive workers in the world--to compete with exploited workers in developing countries who often make only a few dollars a day in dangerous work environments. Various analysts have identified many negative consequences of massive, persistent trade deficits: a sharp rise in income inequality and stagnation of incomes for average workers; the shifting composition of employment away from high-paying manufacturing jobs with benefits to lower-wage service sector jobs; and decreased research and development spending, which hurts our long-term economic competitiveness; among other problems. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the U.S. has lost 3 million jobs from 1994-2000 due to the U.S. trade deficit. Job-loss associated with the trade deficit increased six times more rapidly between 1994-2000 than between 1989-1994. Every state and the District of Columbia has suffered significant losses. Ten states, led by California, lost over 100,000 jobs each. My home State of Oregon has lost more than 41,000 jobs. There are many parts of my district in Southwest Oregon that never benefitted from the so-called economic boom of the 1990's. So, while proponents of fast-track will argue that trade has led to a net increase in jobs that proclamation rings hollow to many communities in Southwest Oregon. We've seen our friends and neighbors lose high- paying, family-wage jobs with health care benefits. If they've been able to find work at all after being laid-off, it's for less pay, more hours, and fewer benefits. In addition to these sometimes abstract, macro-level impacts, U.S. trade policies that sacrifice U.S. jobs and industrial capacity have main street impacts. The micro-level impact of factories leaving small, often single company towns is devastating on families and communities. The domino effect of plant closures has been linked to: increased domestic violence and substance abuse, reduced purchasing power for other businesses in the area that used to depend on higher wage factory workers as their customer base, a reduced tax base that decreases the ability of the local government to provide necessary services, and eventually, population flight that exacerbates the latter two problems. Of course, it's not just workers who have lost as Congress delegated complete authority to negotiate trade agreements to the executive branch. Farmers and rural communities have been utterly devastated. NAFTA and other trade agreements were held out as a beacon of hope for America's farmers. New market openings were promised in which farmers could sell their surplus crops. All would become rich. This never happened. While giant agribusinesses exporters have certainly benefitted, the vast majority of family farmers have struggled against a flood of cheap imports from developing nations. In addition, U.S. farmers have, despite commitments to the contrary, been unable to open new markets for their products as other nations stubbornly maintain both tariff and non-tariff barriers to U.S. agriculture products. In addition, trade rules discourage country-of-origin labeling, which could allow consumers to pick U.S. grown produce, beef, or other commodities. The statistics pointing to the failure of U.S. trade policy for farmers are clear: The U.S. balance of trade in farm products has fallen 57 percent since 1996. Prices for major commodities have fallen nearly 50 percent. 72,000 family farms disappeared in the mid to late 1990s. U.S. farm income is projected to decline nine percent in the next year. Farmers should be wary of predictions that granting fast track will lead to new export markets. We've heard this all before, and farmers are falling further and further behind. Various forecasts by government agencies, private researchers, and lobbyists predicted steady growth in exports through the 1990s. These forecasts all proved to be backwards. U.S. farm exports dropped 22 percent between 1996-2000. At the same time, farm imports rose by nearly 10 percent. A series of articles in The Oregonian highlighted the plight of farmers in my state. One article detailed the unfair trade practices by Chilean fruit growers that is causing Oregon farmers to go out of business. U.S. imports of Chilean red raspberries more than doubled between 1998 and 2000. That increased Chile's share of the U.S. market to 36 percent, up from 27 percent in 1998. The U.S. International Trade Commission issued a preliminary ruling in favor of U.S. growers on the allegation of illegal dumping, but the ruling came too late for many family farmers. On the whole, Chile exports $900 million worth of agriculture products to the U.S. every year, around six times as much as it imports. The story is the same for many other commodities and many other trading partners. Oregon wheat farmers had asked me to support permanent most-favored-nation status for China because of the supposed huge market opportunities. However, China has a massive surplus of wheat and no need to buy U.S. wheat. Shipments by Oregon wheat growers have sat and rotted in Chinese ports. It is worth quoting Dr. Willard Cochrane, former chief economist at the Department of Agriculture, at length on the folly of U.S. trade policy as it relates to agriculture. He recently wrote: It does not make sense to pursue a strategy of pushing exports when the global demand is weak. To sell more of our farm commodities in that situation requires us to price them below the going market price, and thereby pull sales away from our competitors. This would, of course, invite retaliation in which those competitors (like Brazil and Argentina) came back at us by cutting their prices still further. This is not the way to profit from the export market--it is the formula for an expensive price war. For the U.S., this is a terrible solution. The world prices for products like soybeans and corn are already below the costs of production for most U.S. producers. To expand your sales by selling more at still lower price is no way to get well financially and to stay in business. This practice can only transfer the costs to the U.S. taxpayer, as we are continually forced to provide emergency payments to farmers because of extremely low prices. The global demand for American farm products cannot be manipulated at the beck and call of American policy makers. Foreign importers are not going to increase their purchase of American food products because U.S. policymakers want them to do so. Imports of American farm products will increase again only as those importing countries pull out of their economic slump and consumer incomes begin to rise. Fantisizing about solving the price and income problems of American farmers through instantaneous global demand expansion is life fantasizing over winning the Power-ball Lottery. The chances of success are about the same. Farmers generally, and family farmers in particular, would be better served by forgetting about fixing the broken export market for farm commodities, and concentrating their energies on enacting legislation designed to strengthen rural communities, reduce the pollution of America's farmland and rivers, and increase competition among suppliers of non-farm produced inputs on the production side, and among handlers and processors on the marketing side. I am also opposed to the fast-track legislation drafted by Chairman Thomas because it will help accelerate the destruction of the environment both here at home and around the world. Further, it will do nothing to ensure basic labor rights for workers around the world. Proponents of fast-track would have us believe that incorporating labor rights and environmental protections that are enforceable in the exact same manner as the commercial provisions in trade agreements is an inappropriate mixture of economic issues with so-called ``social'' issues. That is, at best, a shallow and disingenuous analysis. Representative Sander Levin, one of the leading Democratic supporters of previous trade agreements, put it best when he said labor and environmental issues ``are fundamentally economic issues that are directly relevant to the structure of international competition. In the domestic context, we don't hesitate to say that `right to work' laws or emissions standard, to pick two examples, are issues that affect economic competition. Indeed, it was the economic relevance of the right of workers to associate, organize and bargain that made it so central in early, decades-long struggles in our nation. Accordingly, it is illogical and inconsistent to suggest these issues are irrelevant with respect to international commerce and competition. Certainly, labor or environmental issues can have `social' aspects that may involve humanitarian or human rights considerations, or considerations about conservation of natural resources. But it is unrealistic to suggest that as the issues operate among nations, they are not in substantial measure economic in their nature. Indeed, the intensity of the controversy over them, especially between nations, is in good part because they are economic, and not just `social.' '' The Economic Strategy Institute (ESI), a pro-trade think-tank that includes former officials of the Reagan administration has also concluded that these are economic issues and that labor standards are appropriate. ESI economist Peter Morici wrote in his book Labor Standards and the Global System that, ``An international regime that permitted importing countries to embargo or impose tariffs on goods made with exploited labor would increase wages, speed development and increase growth in countries where labor is exploited if these measures caused governments or producers to take corrective actions. . . . Better enforcement of [core worker] rights would likely promote trade that increases incomes and growth, both in industrialized and developing countries.'' He went on to write, ``Permitting workers to bargain collectively reduces distortions in the economy and results in a more efficient allocation of resources, more exports, and higher GDP. In contrast, denying workers the right to bargain collectively perpetuates distortions in the labor market, and results in an inferior allocation of resources.'' That being the case, why do fast-track proponents who oppose guaranteed workers rights favor a lower GDP for developing countries, a distorted labor market, and an inferior allocation of resources? Free traders pride themselves on promoting economic efficiency. Yet, economic efficiency depends on workers having rights. The Thomas bill, H.R. 3005, does not even guarantee that trade agreements will recognize the five core International Labor Organization standards: the right to freely associate, the right to bargain collectively, and bans on child labor, compulsory labor, and discrimination. Environmental protection receives similarly shabby treatment under H.R. 3005. The bill includes no provisions that prevent countries from lowering their environmental standards to produce an economic advantage. The bill does not require the negotiation of trade agreements that improve environmental standards. Environmental protections negotiated via multilateral environmental agreements (MEA) are put at-risk. Citizens have few, if any, rights to protest when governments fail to enforce environmental laws, or labor laws for that matter. Even the language in H.R. 3005 that supposedly promotes environmental consideration is meaningless since it is non-binding on the administration's trade negotiators. I have visited the U.S.-Mexico border since the enactment of NAFTA. It is a virtual wasteland. Environmental protection is not a natural result of so-called free trade agreements. Environmental protection must be a mandatory objective, enforceable through the same dispute resolution process as commercial provision in trade agreements. H.R. 3005 falls far short of that standard. Finally, as if destroying American jobs, rural communities, and the environment weren't enough, the misguided U.S. trade policies that would be perpetuated by the fast-track bill before us today represent a frontal assault on U.S. sovereignty. H.R. 3005 proposes to expand NAFTA's notorious chapter 11 provision, for the first time, allows a private company to sue a sovereign foreign government in the event a country takes an action that is ``tantamount to expropriation.'' Unfortunately, the definition of ``tantamount to expropriation'' turned out to be extraordinarily broad. In other words, if federal, state, or local elected officials take action, such as through passing a law or regulation, that a company believes unfairly limits their ability to make a profit, that company can sue to get the law or regulation overturned or to get monetary compensation for ``lost profits'' resulting from the action. We have over seven years of experience with the radical investment deregulation included in chapter 11 of NAFTA. During the NAFTA debate, critics of the treaty, like myself, were told that fears about the forced overturning of consumer safety, health, or environmental laws or regulations were unfounded. Unfortunately, events have proven those fears to have been quite prophetic. A string of chapter 11 cases has forced the repeal of public health and environmental laws in Canada and Mexico, and, at least two cases have been filed against the United States. There may be more, but because of the secrecy surrounding these proceedings, it is hard to know. In Methanex v. U.S., a Canadian corporation is suing to overturn a California law enacted to protect its clean water supply, and thus the health of its citizens. In Loewen v. U.S., another Canadian company is essentially arguing that the U.S. tort system--whereby juries are able to send strong messages via large damage awards to businesses who abuse, defraud, or endanger their customers--is illegal. In other cases, Canada has been forced to overturn a ban on a suspected toxin, the United Parcel Service has sued challenging the existence of the Canadian postal service, and a Canadian steel company has sued over ``Buy American'' laws for highway construction projects in the United States. The investor protections included in NAFTA, and those envisioned by H.R. 3005, are much broader than previous investment provisions in international agreements. These investor rights are exercised in secretive tribunals that issue binding decisions without regard to consumer health and safety or the environment. And, these investor protections are increasingly being used by businesses as a first resort to influence the sovereign lawmaking and regulatory processes of individual countries rather than as a last resort for egregious conduct by governments. The end-result forces taxpayers to fork over their hard-earned dollars to compensate corporations for our sovereign right as citizens to protect our health and safety. I believe that federal, state, and local governments should be able to act to protect the public interest without being unnecessarily restrained by trade agreements. Unfortunately, H.R. 3005 says otherwise. Mr. Speaker, the American people are far ahead of their elected officials in understanding the need to halt and reverse the race to the bottom in labor, human rights, and environmental standards around the world. A recent study by the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland found 93 percent of Americans agree that ``countries that are part of international trade agreements should be required to maintain minimum standards for working conditions.'' Further, over 80 percent wanted to bar products made by children under the age of 15. Seventy-eight percent said the WTO should consider labor standards and the environment when it makes decisions on trade. Seventy-four percent said countries should be able to restrict the imports of products if they are produced in a way that damages the environment. Seventy-four percent also said we have a moral obligation to ensure foreign workers do not have to work in harsh or unsafe working conditions. Polls by other independent organizations have drawn similar conclusions. Our current trade policies allow multinational corporations to receive all the benefits of expanded trade with no corresponding obligations to workers, public health, or the environment. We must reject the claims of proponents of H.R. 3005 that the choice is between unfettered ``free'' trade or no trade at all. Let's be clear. Fast-track, and the agreements that would be negotiated with it, are not about ``free'' trade. No one will be arguing for the complete removal of tariffs, quotas, or other barriers to trade. No one will be arguing for the uninhibited movement of citizens. And, no one will propose doing away with patents, copyrights or other intellectual property protections which, while they have an economic rationale, are protectionist and violate the dictates of ``free'' trade. Rather, the debate today is about who will write the rules for trade and who those rules will benefit. I believe Congress must not abdicate our constitutional duty to write the rules, and to do so in a way that benefits average working families, public health and safety, the environment, and the U.S. economy. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3005.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, Fast Track trade authority is an extraordinary concession of congressional authority in four critical areas to regulate and oversee the terms of trade. One vote, 62 pages, no amendments, 2 hours of debate. 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. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated the debate in terms of the committee members and those most involved in this legislation, but I heard some remarks from a couple on the other side that I felt I had to respond to in the interest of the Record. We could have had an aviation security bill much, much, much sooner. Yes, the Senate bill was not a great product, but it was passed a month ago, and this body could have acted before that or soon thereafter. We have been working 2- and 3-day weeks, really been putting in tough duty here in Washington, D.C. I have been flying back and forth across the country more than I am spending time in Washington. We could have had a bill sooner, except for the impetus of one of the gentlemen who spoke in the well earlier about this, who was dead set against having competent, well-trained Federal employees doing the screening and security at airports. This bill provides that almost every airport in America will have those competent, well-trained Federal employees in place within 1 year, to replace the minimum wage, undertrained, and sometimes felonious employees used today to supposedly provide us with security. We should have done it sooner. It is great we are doing it today. It is a good bill.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me time. I thank him for his work over the decades on this issue and his tutelage in bringing me along on this issue and this conference. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois, the ranking member of the subcommittee, again for his extraordinary efforts on this bill, and also for helping to include my concerns and my efforts. I thank the chairmen of the full committee and the subcommittee. I think we have here an extraordinary product that will serve the American people well for decades to come. No longer are we going to try and buy security on the cheap, driven by the airlines who were fatally conflicted between keeping down costs, not overly concerning or inconveniencing passengers or their baggage, and then, as sort of an afterthought, trying to provide good security. Security in this bill comes first, and it will forever more come first without being driven by cost concerns. It will be cost-effective. It is fiscally responsible. It will be paid for in good part by a shared burden between the airlines and the flying public. But it will not be security on the cheap. It will be the best technology, it will be better-trained and -paid people who will be alert at the screening checkpoints. It will envelop the entire airport in a new security envelope. There are so many ways in which our airports are vulnerable today. We have been focused on the screening of passengers and baggage, and we are moving ahead dramatically and quickly with that. But there are a host of other ways that our airports are vulnerable, and this bill addresses them. It goes beyond that to address and put in place a framework for other transportation security measures; our ports, our railroads, our highways, bridges, water systems, all of those things we have seen and learned are extraordinarily vulnerable, and this will give us the means to deal with that. So I just want to thank all those who were involved in what I believe was an extraordinary effort, and I particularly want to thank the staff, my own personal staff and the committee staff, who did work many, many hours, including through a catastrophic computer crash early this morning, and still got the bill to the floor today. We are going to get the bill in place, and I am confident the President will sign it before the busiest travel weekend of the year so we can begin to implement measures to make flying safer for the American public.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Nobody could have foreseen the devastating drought that has besieged Oregon over the past year. The lack of water has adversely effected agriculture, energy generation, recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat. The Klamath Basin in Southern Oregon and Northem California has suffered particular hardship through this drought. The snowpack and rainfall that supply the Basin with life- sustaining water are critical to the economic viability of the Basin, and have been significantly below normal. Because the federal government, through the Bureau of Reclamation, has encouraged the Basin's dependence with nearly a century of promised federal water allocation, this Congress has an obligation to take further steps to provide further funding for relief and mitigation. This bill, H.R. 2828, will provide further assistance to the farmers of the Klamath Basin by reimbursing them for operations and maintenance costs. Farmers receiving federal water pay these fees to the government for upkeep of the infrastructure of the Klamath Project. Many of the farmers in the project did not receive federal water this year. Therefore, those farmers should not have to bear the cost of maintaining the federal infrastructure. Representative Walden has taken every precaution to ensure that this modest reimbursement is fair and equitable. Only irrigation districts receiving severely limited water supplies will be reimbursed, and districts who have already been reimbursed by California will not be eligible for the funds in this bill. I am pleased to be working with Mr. Walden, and many members of the Oregon and California delegations, to find reasonable short and long term solutions to the situation in the Basin. This bill will provide farmers in the Basin with much needed economic assistance by simply refunding their O&M costs. Passing this bill is fair, and the right thing to do for the farmers in the Klamath Basin. I urge adoption of H.R. 2828, the Klamath Basin Emergency Operation and Maintenance Refund Act of 2001.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to find out that the conferees on the House aviation security package have just canceled the conference at the behest of the House leadership for today. That is extraordinary to me. It has been more than 2 months since the terrorist attacks, nearly 1 month since the Senate passed a bill 100 to 0, and next week is Thanksgiving, the busiest travel weekend of the year, at least historically in terms of aviation, although concerns about the system might crimp that a bit this year. Yet, the conferees did not manage to work over the weekend. The conferees met yesterday for an hour and a half and did not manage to work late into the night. Today the conference is canceled. We hear that the Republicans are going to caucus with the White House but not include Democrats in the discussions. It sounds a little bit like a formula for disaster. What is the system that they are defending? Here is the system that the Republican leadership is defending. At Boston, part of a concourse, and this is yesterday, at Logan Airport was evacuated. Five hundred passengers were rescreened after an exit door was left unattended by the private security firm. Chicago: A gentleman who boarded a flight in Miami was just randomly rechecked boarding a flight to Hong Kong in Chicago, having gone through screening, private screening, in Miami, and was found to have large cutting implements in his luggage; apparently innocent, he is a chef, but these are not allowed on the plane. We cannot even take our cuticle scissors. Yesterday he had something that more resembled meat cleavers. Of course, there have been 24 major security violations prior to yesterday, and we are up to 26. Basically, they get about a 50 percent batting average; that is, every other day it seems like there are no known major security breaches in the screening system. However, before September 11, the private screening companies, over the last 5 years, averaged one security breach a day that was serious enough to be prosecuted or fined, one a day. This is the largest private security firm in the United States of America, Argenbright Security, owned by Securicor of Europe. They have some problems. They were found last year to have committed felony criminal offenses. They had hired and maintained known felons on staff and falsified documents to the Federal Government. Of course, they provide security at the largest airport in Texas, and they are being very ably defended by the majority whip and the majority leader: Let us keep these people in business, they are doing such a great job. Guess what: They were just found to have violated their probation which they were put on last year for their criminal violations, and their probation has been extended another 5 years. They are saying, well, we will more closely supervise people. What provides closer supervision than probation? I guess if we started putting the CEOs in jail maybe we would get their attention. But right now I think that is the closest supervision they can provide, yet we are delaying the conference, delaying the bill, to defend the right of these pathetically failing companies to stay in business. They say, well, we will have very strict Federal standards. We will set wages and benefits. The Federal Government will train the people, the Federal Government will supervise the people. They will be put in uniforms that look like Federal uniforms, but they will not be Federal uniforms. They will be made faux deputies; they will be deputized by the Federal Government but given no powers, and they will be given badges that look like Federal badges. They are going to do all of that. What is the role left for these failing private security companies except to collect their ill-gotten gains, their profits? We will end up with more supervisors under that system because of all the promises they have had to make. They say, we know it does not work very well, so we will put Federal supervisors at every screening point. We will put Federal supervisors at every conveyor belt. We will put Federal supervisors at every boarding gate. By the time the Republicans finish defending the failing private security firms, they have created a Rube Goldberg that is twice as big as the Federal system would be if the solution had been adopted as was adopted 100 to 0 by the United States Senate more than a month ago. But we cannot agree on that, and today we cannot even meet to discuss it. Last weekend they did not have time to stay in town and discuss it. Thanksgiving is looming very near in the future. They talk about not delivering a turkey bill. I will tell the Members what, the biggest turkey or the biggest bad April fool, out of date, will be if we do not give the American people a robust overhaul of this system before the busiest travel weekend of the year.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it has been 2 months since terrorists used our civilian airliners as weapons of mass destruction. Yet we have not made major changes in aviation security here in the United States Congress. A few steps have been taken by executive order, by the FAA administrator, by orders from the President and the Secretary of Transportation. Reinforcement of flight deck doors. We have got people looking over the shoulders of the private security firms, whatever good that does if you do not watch them every second of every day. But the major things that need to be done need to be done by statute, by change in the law. Yet it is not yet done. How could it take so long? Well, there is a major hang-up and the major hang-up is that the majority whip and the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), are adamantly and absolutely opposed to true federalization of aviation security at the airports, that is, taking the failing private security firms, putting them out of business, which is what they deserve, and bringing in Federal law enforcement just like we have outside the doors of this Chamber and at many other Federal installations to provide security around the country to make certain that people do not bring weapons on board airplanes and smuggle weapons or bombs into baggage and other critical areas of the airports. They say, well, we will more closely supervise those private firms. Well, the record is pretty miserable. Since September 11, there have been 24 incidents, major breaches of airport security by these same private firms. Twenty-four in 2 months. That is better than they usually do because actually over the last 5 years they have averaged one breach that was finable or prosecutable a day for the last 5 years. So they are doing better. About 50 percent of the days, they are doing a pretty good job, or at least as far as we know. But the failures are pretty notable: the guy with the seven knives, the stun gun and the mace in Chicago; the honest passenger on board Southwest Airlines who rang his call button and asked the flight attendant to come and take his loaded gun because he forgot it was in his briefcase and opened his briefcase on the plane; the concourses and planes that had to be returned to concourses because people were waved through security. At Logan, one of the Argenbright folks actually saw a weapon go through the screening device, but they were in the middle of their nap or their trance; and the person was long gone down the concourse before they said, oh, wait a minute, I saw a knife or a weapon about 5 minutes ago, and they had to empty out the concourse. They say they will do better. I do not believe that these firms will do better. They say they will be better supervised. What is better supervision than probation? Argenbright, the largest private security firm in the United States of America, owned by Securicor of Europe, was last year convicted, criminally convicted. Unfortunately, none of their executives went to jail. That might have gotten their attention. They did not. But they were criminally convicted of hiring known felons, maintaining known felons on staff, falsifying documents of the Federal Government regarding the training of employees and the background checks of employees. They were fined $1.5 million and put on probation. Well, guess what? About a month ago, they were found to be in violation of their probation. For doing what? Hiring and maintaining known felons on staff, falsifying Federal documents. They are going to be fined again, and their probation is going to be extended. This is closer supervision? What closer supervision can you provide, except, as I said, maybe to put some of these executives of these failing private firms in jail, you will get their attention. Maybe that would shape them up. But I think the cleaner way to deal with this is the way we deal with other Federal Government law enforcement functions, and, that is, to admit it is a law enforcement function and put qualified law enforcement personnel in all of the critical places, in all our airports to assure the safety of the flying public. Two months is way too long to delay. And it will be extraordinary if because of the opposition to Federal law enforcement by a few Members of the majority that this Congress before the busiest travel weekend of the year, Thanksgiving, does not act in the long-term interests of security and the flying public. We have an opportunity this week. The bill must get done.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, we know that Attorney General Ashcroft is very busy. His Department is attempting to track down the perpetrators of the anthrax attacks on our citizenry. And there are more than 1,000 Federal detainees who need to be interrogated and investigated for possible links to terrorism. There are other possible terrorist cells he tells us that are at work in the United States to be exposed and uprooted. He has recently warned us of other potential impending attacks. He is a very, very busy gentleman, obviously. But unfortunately not busy enough to keep him from making mischief. Today he took a day off from the war against terrorism in a detour to launch his own attack on the people of the State of Oregon. Oregon twice passed a law to provide death with dignity, assisted suicide. We built in extraordinary protections. People had to have a terminal diagnosis within 6 months. It had to be confirmed by more than one physician. They had to undergo psychological evaluation. No one could administer the prescription to them, but a physician could provide it if they so chose. He sees this as an assault on the American people and feels that it takes priority, I guess, even in these busy times for him, to undo. And unfortunately, the mischief of the work he is doing here goes far beyond the State of Oregon. Because what he is doing will chill the aggressive management of pain for people with terminal illnesses across the United States. This is an area in which we have made a little bit of progress in the last quarter of a century. It is no longer considered that someone has to die in extraordinary pain. More and more physicians will treat that aggressively, even at the risk of potentially shortening someone's life by a tiny bit just to make them more comfortable. But because of this decision and this action by Attorney General Ashcroft, that is not going to happen anymore. Because physicians across America and most assuredly in Oregon are going to have to worry that the Drug Enforcement Administration using the Controlled Substances Act, people totally unqualified in the practice of medicine, are going to be looking over their shoulder and wanting to know what was their intent in writing that prescription. Now, Mr. Ashcroft rather innocently says in his memorandum here that they will just probably prosecute people by looking for the required paperwork in the State of Oregon, but he does not limit the lengthy opinion here to that extent. There is lots more mischief to be done by this zealotry. Thirty people last year in Oregon, 30 people chose to use the Death With Dignity Act by their own hand, humanely ending their lives just a bit early to avoid horrible suffering. Now, what is wrong with that? What is so dangerous about that that the Attorney General has to take a full day off from the war on terrorism and divert some of his staff from the war on terrorism to an attack on the initiative of the State of Oregon, of the people of Oregon, and the idea of death with dignity? This is extraordinary to me. And doing it by manipulating the Controlled Substances Act and injecting the Drug Enforcement Administration into these extraordinarily sensitive end-of-life decisions which should involve an individual, their loved ones, their minister, pastor, priest, rabbi, a counselor, psychologist, friends. But why does the Drug Enforcement Administration have to be in that room? Why should they be involved and intervene in this sort of decision? They have no qualifications. They have no right. They have no place. Leave the people of Oregon alone. In fact, I would suggest that perhaps Attorney General Ashcroft would want to focus his efforts on defending the people of Oregon and the people of the United States against all unwarranted attacks and also protect our civil liberties and our states right at the same time, which he is certainly not doing with this decision.