Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a distinguished member of the Michigan education community, Dr. James D. Edoff, upon his retirement as Superintendent from the Fitzgerald Public Schools in the City of Warren. He has served in this capacity for twelve of the thirty-five years he has been associated with the district. Dr. Edoff's exceptional career in education spans a broad range of positions, including teacher in the disciplines of science and mathematics at the elementary, middle and high school levels, high school debate coach, adult education instructor, computer coordinator, Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Assistant Superintendent, and Superintendent. Dr. Edoff's international experiences include studying, teaching and participating in seminars and symposiums in Wales, the Netherlands, Peoples Republic of China, Germany, Japan, England and Austria. His work has been recognized both locally by the City of Warren in the ``Exceptional Service to the Community'' award and internationally through the Fulbright Memorial Award to study the Japanese educational school system in Japan as a guest of the government of Japan, and the Netherlands Study Fellowship. His leadership involvement in the community has been extensive and is exemplified by his chairmanship of Creating a Healthier Macomb, an organization dedicated to the medical, economic and spiritual improvement of the community. His interest in career training for students within four public school districts is shown in the position he holds as Chairperson of the South Macomb Technical Education Consortium. Jim Edoff has been a forceful, persuasive advocate for an equal public education for all students. He has been instrumental in endeavors to meet that goal in a school district that does not possess the fiscal resources that make it easy to achieve. I have been pleased to join him at the numerous noteworthy events including the dedication of the Automotive and Pre-Engineering Technology Institute and the Communication Arts Wing of the High School. His achievements, as well as his leadership approach, have been an inspiration to parents and students, and to me personally. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this fine individual and thanking him for his dedication to our public education system. He has made a difference in the lives of numerous children and families, and we will miss his regular involvement in our local education community. I wish him good health and happiness in his retirement and much success as he sets out on his next path which I am confident will build on the good deeds of the one which draws to a close at Fitzgerald.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), another distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. When we discussed the rule, I went over some of the benefits of this agreement, those relating to manufacturing goods, and we have been deeply hurt in the manufacturing area in the United States these last 3 years. This agreement should open up Morocco to more goods made in America. I referred to the agricultural area. This agreement does open up the Moroccan market to agricultural goods produced in the United States of America. It will also liberalize the service areas that are important for our development. And there is reference to intellectual property safeguards. I want to spend a few minutes now talking about the broader perspective here, the perspective, I think, with which we must look at trade agreements and expanded trade. First, there has been some reference here to bipartisanship, and it is true that this will pass with bipartisan support. Not complete. But I want it clear that there has been these last 3 years no basic bipartisan consensus on trade. That has been true of the big issues. We fought out TPA here, and it passed narrowly. CAFTA was negotiated on a narrow basis without adequate bipartisan participation. The same has been true today of the FTAA. The failure of this administration to build a bipartisan consensus, a strong bipartisan foundation, to renew that foundation that once existed here, I think, has handicapped discussions within the WTO. We cannot make the tough decisions relating to negotiations in the WTO that affect American workers, businesses, farmers and others except on the basis of a strong bipartisan foundation. We do not have it. Secondly, we on the Democratic side together, all of us, reject the use of one agreement as a model for others. For example, we have discussed core labor standards. Where labor laws in a country are essentially adequate, as was true of Jordan, the standard enforce-your- own-laws, which was the basic standard in Jordan, can work; but it will not work in cases where laws are very inadequate. So that is why we Dems essentially in unison reject the CAFTA that was negotiated. We support a Central American Free Trade Agreement, but one that is different than was negotiated. So the basic issue, therefore, is not, as some in the majority have stated, whether one is for or against free trade, for or against expanded trade. It is whether the terms of expanded trade will be shaped to benefit all and not just a few. We do not assume that expanded trade is automatically positive all around. That is why when this agreement came up, we raised two issues. One of them related to core labor standards. There was reform. We wanted to know the facts about those reforms. We wanted to know the realities within Morocco. We wanted to know whether it was more or less like Jordan and not more or less like Central America. And so we dug into the facts. We made it clear to the Moroccan government that we cared, and I must say I think it is because Democrats have been raising these issues perhaps more than any other factor that the Moroccan government undertook some reforms, and we received back a communication from the government of Morocco. I submit for printing in the Record the letter that was sent to us and the three other letters referred to during the debate on the rule.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a colleague and friend from the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. However, I want to make it clear that we do not want this as a precedent that on trade agreements only 2 hours of debate always are allowed. In this case I think 2 hours will be satisfactory. That will not always be true. There are good reasons to support this FTA, and I do so. There is the historical relationship between our two countries, as mentioned. There are the present realities in our relationship, Morocco's important role in its area and beyond that. Also, there are some important provisions in this agreement; for example, relating to manufacturing goods outside of the textile area. Ninety-five percent of them will become duty-free. There are strong services commitments, strong IPR commitments. So there are good reasons to be supportive of this. I do want to put in perspective, though, several issues that have come up in our discussion, and these issues really were raised by us on the minority side. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) likes to talk about raising issues as if it is a reflection of economic isolationism. That is the rubric, the mantra, the propaganda of the majority. They try to pin it on Democrats, including John Kerry. It is absurd. We raised several issues because they were legitimate ones, not because we opposed expanded trade, but because we want expanded trade to work for everybody. We want expanded trade to be shaped. We do not think it is some magic bullet that we simply have to shoot and everything will work out. We do not think trade policy should be on automatic pilot. We do not think that what is necessarily appropriate in one trade agreement is appropriate in another. These cookie cutter approaches of this administration are wrong, and surely we do not support this agreement because we think that the economic record of this administration is worthy of support by anybody in this country. So we raised a couple of issues. And the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) referred to the prescription medicine provision, and I want to talk about it. Before I do that, a brief word and we will have more discussion during the 2 hours about the core labor standard provisions. The gentleman from California said we should not impose U.S. wages, identical laws on other countries. That is not what we are talking about. That again is propaganda from the majority side. What we are talking about are basic core international standards, and countries, including ours, have signed on to a declaration that says that people should have the right to associate, to bargain, to be free from discrimination, there should be no child or forced labor. That is what we are talking about when we say they should be incorporated into free trade agreements. We asked the question, an important one, where is Morocco? Where is Morocco today in terms of their laws and their enforcement of these core labor standards? And the majority, because of their view that trade always works out for the best, it is always win-win, did not raise any questions about that. In fact, as to the reforms of 2003 in Morocco, there was not even within our government an English translation of these laws. And we asked for one and we looked at them. We talked to the Moroccan government about these laws, and I am pleased to say that we had a very useful discussion, which we initiated and the Moroccan government responded to, regarding the status of these core labor standards in Moroccan law and in Moroccan practice. The reforms that were inaugurated last year were a major step forward. The Moroccan society has some history of some freedom for workers, and the independent union in Morocco supports this agreement, I think, as a result. But there were issues raised as to the ability of people to associate, to bargain, and to strike, and so we asked the Moroccan government to give us in writing the status, and I want to quote from their letter and I will place that letter in the Record. The letter read this way: ``The government of Morocco is committed to protecting the right to strike in conformance with ILO, International Labor Organization's core principles. In particular, the government will not use Article 288 of our penal code against lawful strikers.'' So I very much disagree with the administration's approach in general. They have in the agreements enforce their own laws. They put these in the agreements regardless of whether the laws incorporate the standards and whether there is implementation of them. And when we have a chance, when we take over, that will change. But in the meanwhile, the question is, is there conformance, is there conformance basically in Morocco with the core labor standards? And I think the realities as we were able to dig them out indicate that they are basically in conformance with the core labor standards. Now a few words about prescription medicines. Why did we inquire? First of all, there is the same provision here as there is in the previous agreement, including Australia, the general patent provision that could be applied to reimportation of prescription medicines. It turns out in the case of Morocco that that provision is not going to have any potential effect. All of the legislation that has been introduced regarding reimportation does not include Morocco. They have a very small pharmaceutical industry. So I do not think, though I do not like this provision as a general rule, that we should vote against Morocco because of it, but we should make clear that we do not believe these provisions or this provision should be in trade agreements. Now what about the impact of these provisions not on our important health needs but the important health needs of the people of Morocco? And we were concerned about that. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) talked about AIDS. Look, if we are really concerned, and I think we all are, we need to look at these agreements to see what is the potential impact on the availability of medicines to people in Morocco who are suffering from AIDS and where there is in other cases as well some kind of a health emergency? And there were several provisions in this agreement that raised questions about the accessibility of the people of Morocco in these cases to necessary pharmaceuticals and the ability of the government of Morocco to take the steps necessary to make these drugs available. And these are fairly technical provisions, but they relate to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. One relates to so-called parallel imports and the other to test data protections. So I will make a long story short, and, if necessary, we can talk more about this when we have the debate of 2 hours. We entered into discussions with USTR. We on the Democratic side sent a letter to USTR, and they responded. And I include those two letters in the Record. And we said, in a few words, would the provisions in these two cases prevent accessibility to necessary drugs in a real case of emergency or necessity? And essentially what USTR has said: The agreement in the side letters, when read together, would not prohibit action by the Moroccan government to provide access to these drugs. And these side letters do have effect. The USTR has told us the following, and I want to read them so there is clarity. This is from page 8 of the mentioned letter to me: ``As stated in the side letter, the letter constitutes a formal agreement between the parties. It is thus a significant part of the interpretive context for this agreement and not merely rhetorical.'' And they also then earlier have said: ``Therefore, if circumstances ever arise in which a drug is produced under compulsory license,'' meaning the government of Morocco has given that license to make these drugs available, ``and it is necessary to approve that drug to protect public health or effectively utilize the TRIPS/health solution, the data protection provisions in the FTA would not stand in the way.'' And they say the same as to the parallel import issue. So I just finish by saying this to make it very clear: We were concerned. There is an AIDS epidemic. There are other health issues of serious import for the lives of children and other citizens of Morocco, and we took the initiative to be sure that this agreement would not prevent the availability of medicines in these circumstances. The Declaration, the language that was worked out in Doha, made it clear as to WTO that countries could protect themselves and their citizens when there was an overriding health need, and we wanted to make sure that nothing in this FTA would override that ability. And I am satisfied because of the exchange of letters. I am satisfied because of what was written to us by USTR. I am now satisfied by their categorical statement at our hearing just a few days ago that there would be nothing that would prevent access to these medicines in the circumstances I mentioned because of the FTA. For all of those reasons, I believe that the issue for Morocco has been addressed. But I want to make it very clear that when we negotiate these agreements in the first place, as is true for core labor standards, as is true for health needs, as is true for anything else, we should be sensitive to what the possible impact would be. We should not be using cookie cutter approaches when the lives and the livelihoods of people in our country and in other countries are involved. So I support this agreement. I urge passage of the rule. But I think this has been a healthy process, and I think we have both clarified the meaning of this agreement, and also I think what we have done is to serve notice as to how these agreements should be negotiated in the future. Embassy of the Kingdom of Morocco, Washington, DC, July 14, 2004. Hon. Sandy Levin, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Levin: I have deeply appreciated the continuing opportunity to work with you on the U.S. Morocco Free Trade Agreement. In particular, I welcome your interest in our nation's labor law, specifically the comprehensive reforms, passed last year. I want to address through this letter some of the issues that have been highlighted in conversations with you and your staff. Under Moroccan law, it is illegal to fire an individual because they are a member of a labor organization or have engaged in labor organizing. To fire someone on these grounds would be arbitrary under the 2003 law and would make available the full remedies provided under that law. Under Moroccan law, it is illegal to refuse to hire an individual because they are a member of a labor organization or have engaged in labor organizing. It is also illegal to refuse to rehire or extend the contract of an individual for these reasons. Section 473 is a provision in the 2003 Labor Law and the provision's intent is to ensure that labor representatives do not undermine the traditional labor organizations. The government intends to implement this provision to achieve that goal, consistent with the core provisions of the ILO. The right to strike is protected in the Moroccan constitution. Further clarification of these rights is underway. The government of Morocco is committed to protecting the right to strike in conformance with the International Labor Organization's core principles. In particular, the government of Morocco will not use Article 288 of our penal code against lawful strikers. Concerning the questions regarding Labor Representatives, employers have the obligation to organize the elections for the labor representatives. Employers cannot vote in these elections and are not able to choose labor representatives. Only employees can vote and elect freely the labor representatives. Employees can join freely the Union of their own choice. Unions designate their representatives within the companies. On the ILO involvement, Morocco has always worked with ILO. For instance, ILO assisted Morocco to write the Labor Code of 2003 and the new law on child labor. Morocco, as in the past, will continue to ask the support of ILO and work with this organization in all labor issues such as new laws and will ask its help in providing assistance for the implementation of the current rules. I look forward to continuing to work with you on these issues and any others of potential concern. Nevertheless, I wanted to get back to you in a timely manner on the key issues addressed in this letter. Sincerely, Aziz Mekouar, Ambassador.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding me this time. To the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), and others who have worked on this, I am pleased to join them in supporting this legislation to end a form of tax fraud called SUTA. I think everybody should understand it is State Unemployment Tax Account dumping. I am proud that a company in my home State of Michigan, Kelly Services, was one of the first to blow the whistle on this abusive practice. Really, Kelly Services and their leadership played an indispensable role, and I think it is good for the free enterprise system of this country when people within the business community step up and say, Something is wrong; some others are not playing by the rules. One of the fundamental principles of the unemployment compensation system is that each employer pays their fair share based on their company's layoff patterns. Employers who frequently lay off workers pay higher taxes. This ensures, first of all, fairness; and also it creates a financial incentive for employers to avoid layoffs whenever possible. But in recent years, some companies, aided by unscrupulous accounting firms, used loopholes in the law to make it appear that their layoff rates were much lower than they actually were. We are told that these practices are not technically illegal, but they should be; and this bill will ensure that they are. In Michigan alone, SUTA dumping costs the trust fund 50 to $100 million a year at a time when pressure on our trust fund is already great. Employers who dump make it more difficult for Michigan to increase benefits or help the long-term unemployed, and they drive up the tax rate for honest employers, making it difficult for them to hire new workers. There is never a good time for employers to avoid paying their fair share, but this is a particularly bad time to cheat the unemployment trust fund. Unemployment is 5.6, nearly double the unemployment rate at the end of 2000. The economy has 1.8 million fewer private sector jobs and 2.7 million fewer manufacturing jobs than it had in 2000. The number of job openings in the Midwest is down by 44 percent since the end of 2000. People in Michigan and across the country are out of work through no fault of their own and have nowhere else to turn except State unemployment programs. State unemployment trust funds have taken a beating. Thirty-one State unemployment trust funds do not currently have enough funds to withstand another recession. Four States, Minnesota, New York, Missouri and North Carolina, currently do not have enough funds in their State trust funds and have borrowed from the Federal trust fund. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to strengthen our State unemployment trust funds, help workers, and maintain fairness in the system. I want to say one other thing. On an earlier bill, there was much talk about bipartisanship, and we have heard it again today on this bill. There was bipartisanship on this bill. It is sad there was not when it came to extension of Federal unemployment benefits. There was none. The Republicans, this majority, in essence, they collaborate with us when they think we will agree with them; but if they think we will disagree, there is no bipartisanship in a meaningful sense. The extended program, the failure to continue it, has had a major impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of families in the United States of America. I salute the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for his tireless efforts over these months to try to get the Republicans to work with us on this. The highest number of people have exhausted all of their benefits on record in this country. I got this figure, and I want everybody to understand it, the number who have exhausted their benefits without finding work since December of last year, 1.7 million people. My plea is, if we are going to be bipartisan on SUTA, and it is good that we are going to do so and, I hope, pass this overwhelmingly, I urge that the majority here take another look and think about some bipartisanship, about the lives of millions of people in this country who are unemployed through no fault of their own and cannot find a job.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to put in perspective why I support the rule and why I will vote for this agreement. It is a somewhat different perspective than the gentleman from California's (Mr. Dreier). There are some very strong provisions in this legislation, and we will talk about it more during the 2 hours, on manufactured goods, on agriculture, on services. These are solid provisions that work to the advantage of American workers and businesses. As to prescription medicines, USTR did try to get Australia, through these negotiations, to consider changes within their structure. We sent a letter, a number of us, to USTR saying we did not consider that to be a legitimate effort, and they dropped it. What is left here are two provisions, one regarding transparency, which will not affect U.S. law, and the other relates to reimportation. The fact is, in this agreement there is incorporated the general law protecting U.S. patent holders. It is put in this agreement; and I suppose theoretically, it could lead to someone saying that if we pass the reimportation law it would violate that agreement. It does not become operational. As mentioned here, the laws of Australia prohibit exports to the United States. So, in essence, we have a provision here that can have no operational effect on the effort here, and I totally support it, to allow reimportation of medicines. So what do we do as a result? We have the same dilemma when it comes to a nation enforcing its own laws when it comes to labor standards. I very much object to the use of that standard in general. In Australia, it does not matter because their labor laws are essentially the same as ours. So we have two provisions here, and how do we send a message? My own judgment is, where the agreement is otherwise strong in terms of expanded trade for the benefit of our workers and businesses, for the American public, the consumers, to say, okay, but two things, do not dare put this provision relating to patents in any agreement which would affect reimportation of drugs, do not dare do it, and if they did, it would bring down the bill. As to the core labor standards, do not dare try it in an agreement where the conditions are the opposite of or very different from Australia. Well, CAFTA is exactly what they did with labor standards, and that is why we very much oppose CAFTA. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) talks about bipartisanship. There has been zero real bipartisanship when it comes to the negotiation of CAFTA, and that is why it is going to fail. That is why it will not be brought up on this floor because it would lose. Bipartisanship has to be more than consulting with us when they think we will agree but not when there is a legitimate disagreement between the parties in an effort to work it out. So my suggestion is to vote for this FTA; but in our debate make it very clear, when it comes to prescription medicines, do not put this kind of a provision in a bill with a country that does not prohibit exportation, and number two, when it comes to using the standard for labor and the environment, do not put it in agreements with different nations or we will fight it to the end, and that is what we are doing. I favor a CAFTA, not this one. So I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the effort to consult, the effort for a bipartisan approach to trade, that has failed under this administration mainly. We do not have the same bipartisan base that we once had. With Australia, all right; but in other cases, no. So I think we need to send a signal to this administration as to our disagreements in terms of our opposition to CAFTA, their failure to actively enforce the laws that we have, their approach to China; but I do not think these differences should force us to vote against an expansion of trade that is basically positive; and for that reason, I urge support for the rule, support for this bill, but with those strong, strong caveats and messages that I have just enunciated.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself \1/2\ minute. Two quick comments. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) says that U.S. law will always trump a trade agreement, but it could create a violation of the trade agreement. In this case a violation is theoretical, but do not try the approach in a very different case. Secondly, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), a race to the bottom does not help the people in developing nations or this Nation. That is why we want different agreements for different situations.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention right at the beginning that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) wished to be here. We share a very similar approach to this issue. But he had to leave to go to New York for a funeral, so he could not be with us. This administration's economic policy, in a few words, has been a miserable failure. I have joined with others in opposing key parts of their approach to trade. I helped lead the fight against their Trade Promotion Authority and for our own alternative, and we have helped to point out time after time their lackluster record on enforcement. In a word, we have opposed the administration for using a one-size- fits-all, a blind, a cookie-cutter approach to trade policy. I do not think it works for us to respond with our own cookie-cutter approach to trade. So we have before us a specific agreement. It has some very important, positive features to it. For manufacturing, right now, 93 percent of the total value of goods that we send over to Australia are in manufacturing, and duties on more than 99 percent on these goods will be eliminated. This has real implications for autos and auto parts, for construction equipment, for electrical equipment, for appliances, for furniture, for information technology, for medical and scientific equipment. Also, there are important provisions here for agriculture. Australia will eliminate immediately all of their tariffs on food and on agriculture. Let me say, though, despite these provisions, and there are some important provisions regarding services, I would vote against this bill if I thought it either undermined our position, our efforts, our commitment on core labor standards, or our firm commitment on the reimportation of drugs. As to labor standards, Australia uses the standard ``enforce your own laws.'' That can work for countries that have solid laws that meet ILO standards and enforce them. That was the standard, ``enforce your own laws,'' in Jordan; and it worked because those standards are in their laws and they enforce them. It is the case in Australia. I think the best approach is to say what will work for Australia will not work for nations with very different conditions. We will never agree to one-size-fits-all, to a blind application of provisions; and that is clearly true in terms of labor standards in Central American nations. We on this side overwhelmingly, and I hope the same is true of many over there, will not vote for a CAFTA with a standard that would ratify very unsatisfactory conditions for their workers, for their nations, for our workers and our Nation, and can only lead to a race to the bottom. As to prescription medicines, we were very concerned about this issue. A number of us, led by the leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and others, as I look at the letter, opened up this question with our USTR in our letter of January 15. Here is what we said: ``We are writing as members of the Democratic leadership of the House and senior members of the Committee on Ways and Means to express serious concerns about the administration's effort to modify Australia's National Pharmaceutical Reimbursement Program as part of the negotiations of a free trade agreement with Australia.'' We said in conclusion, ``Given these concerns, we urge you,'' this was a letter to the President, to the USTR, to Mr. Zoellick, ``to withdraw the proposal that would, in essence, interfere with their structure and would replace it with one that is derived after a meaningful dialogue with Congress.'' Australia resisted this effort by USTR. We supported Australia's resistance. That approach was, in essence, withdrawn; and it is not in this agreement. Then as to prescription medicines, there is the issue of whether it forces changes in the law of Australia. We asked the ambassador from Australia to tell it straight, and here is what he said. We wrote it down. It reiterated today what he said earlier: ``In neither case with respect to listing or pricing decisions will we be changing Australian legislation. We are not changing the methodology for evaluating the effectiveness and the pricing of drugs. We are making changes to the process to allow greater consultation and transparency, to make the process more timely and to allow an independent review of the decision by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The final decision to list a drug, including the price, remains with the Minister for Health. Let me also refer briefly to the issue of whether it will force any other changes, and I think the answer is basically no. Mr. Speaker, let me address the issue of reimportation for just a minute. Australian law, as has been mentioned, prohibits the export of any drug that is subsidized by their system. That is 90 percent of their drugs. What was placed in this FTA was the laws of this country that relate to patents, including pharmaceutical drugs, but all other patents. I think it was a mistake to include it in this FTA. However, it has no practical effect in terms of reimportation because of the Australian system and their prohibition on the export of any drug that is subsidized. They do not want their subsidization to benefit us here in the United States. So if we follow the principle that we will look at each agreement on its own, if we follow that principle, I think we will then approve Australia, we will approve this FTA, but we will make it very clear that if that provision is placed in another FTA where the conditions are very different and it could affect, practically speaking, reimportation of drugs to the U.S., we will do the same vis-a-vis such effort as we are going to do as to CAFTA, strongly oppose it, because we do not want provisions in one agreement placed in another where the conditions are very, very different and where there would be injury to the interests of the United States. So, in a word, I do think, because of the positive provisions in this FTA relating to manufacturing, agriculture services, that we should approve this agreement. However, in doing so, it has to be absolutely clear: Do not use the standard as to core labor standards elsewhere where the conditions are different, and do not dare for a minute use this in any fair trade agreement which would actually inhibit our changes in law on reimportation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) enforcing your own laws in a situation where the laws are inferior and unenforced will lead to a race to the bottom.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished colleague of mine, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Mr. Bordallo), a very capable Congresswoman.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have made my points. I will not repeat them. In terms of a vote that is unanimous in committee, I hope that is not the precedent for putting bills on suspension, especially bills of major import. This relates to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Bureau of Customs Enforcement of the Department, and customs enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security, the office of USTR and for ITC. So we did, I think, clearly say to the majority we did not want this bill on suspension, and it was placed on suspension anyway. I do not think that is a bipartisan way to proceed, and there has been use of much of the term ``bipartisanship'' here today, and I want to make it clear the test is not in rhetoric but in actual performance. And let me just say a word to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and I want to repeat this because I hope USTR gets the message about enforcement. I do not know if all the money went to General Counsel, whether it would be considered a violation of this language. I think maybe so, but maybe not; but as I said in my remarks, if they gave a dollar to the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement and the rest to General Counsel, I think it will meet the terms of this provision. And the reason we have raised it is not to be picky or not to fly- speck, but because the issue of enforcement of our trade laws is a vital one. We have worked to pass trade laws. We worked to place some major provisions in the China PNTR. We have worked to try to maintain our antidumping and countervailing duty laws. We have worked to have some strong trade laws; but if they are not vigorously enforced, it does not do much good. And so we wanted to be sure the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) addressed this, and we raised it in committee. We wanted to make sure that if there were going to be adequate or additional funding, that some portion of it in a meaningful way would go for enforcement of our laws. And we named three areas in which we needed more vigorous enforcement. That is what this is all about. Those of us who favor expanded trade want to do so first of all so that the terms of trade are shaped so that there is widespread benefit; and, number two, we want to make sure that the laws that we support and help to shape are implemented, are enforced. And the record of this administration, in my judgment, has been unsatisfactory, to put it mildly. And that is why we raised the issue, and that is why it would have been better to have this bill not on suspension, but in the normal course. That is what this is all about. Mr. Speaker, I see that another gentleman is here to speak, but I will reserve the balance of my time, with the understanding I probably will not speak again if the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is ready to wrap up.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.