John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, does the current Shays-Meehan bill require the signature or the identification of the sponsor?

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I believe we have just heard a defense of soft money, if it is used for purposes that the Democrats agree with: do not use it for issue ads, but use it for turning out minority voters, I think I heard him say. As a member of the Committee on Rules, I must admit that I would not traditionally propose or support using the discharge process to bring this kind of bill to the House floor. However, I do support bringing this measure to the floor for debate, and if that means that we would have to agree to the major tenants of the rule proposed by the discharge petition for H.R. 2356, then so be it. It is time that we considered this measure. It is time that we laid to rest allegations of unfairness and obstruction, and it is time that we address the fanciful claims that Shays-Meehan bans soft money. It does not. As my colleagues well know, soft money is defined as money that is raised and spent outside the Federal regulatory framework. Because of this broad definition, there are numerous types of soft money and a significant number of avenues through which soft money can be used to influence Federal elections, thus making it all the more baffling that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) claim to have eliminated soft money with their sole elimination of national party soft money. Let me state clearly and unequivocally: Shays-Meehan does not ban soft money. During the 2000 Presidential campaign, the Republican Party and the Democrat Party raised, in national party soft money, roughly $250 million each. However, even totaled, this number pales to the amount of money that corporations and unions spend on electionary activities. If Congress wishes to ban the use of all soft money to influence political decisions, such a ban would affect or should affect everyone and every organization involved in political activity. It hardly seems appropriate to deny political parties a role in campaigns while allowing corporate conglomerates the opportunity to shape the political debate. In fact, by eliminating the role of parties, corporations and labor unions could become increasingly reliant on loopholes allowing them to spend funds from their general treasuries to influence elections, activities that would be undertaken without Federal regulation. Truth be told, however, unions are the single biggest spenders of unregulated soft money, expenditures that will not be affected by Shays-Meehan. Dr. Leo Troy, professor of economics at Rutgers University, has been studying unions for more than 2 decades. He estimates that during the 1995-1996 election cycle alone, unions spent more than $300 million just on voter education and get-out-the-vote efforts. This hardly seems like leveling the playing field, as unions can and will continue to influence the political process. If we give individuals, corporations, and unions a legal avenue to funnel soft money into the political process into State and local parties, they will continue to do so. They will continue to do so. This Shays-Meehan does not ban soft money, nor will it stop other people from engaging in it. This is only logical. This is not reform. This does not even begin to address the concept of reform. Shays-Meehan is merely diverting and channeling soft money into an ever-growing number of parties, while allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited and unregulated dollars on electioneering. This does not and will not change the amount or type of money in the system, and it certainly does not alter the ability of outside groups to influence elections.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, on yesterday over 100,000 Americans representing nearly every State in the Nation marched in opposition to one of our Nation's most notorious and, I think, tragic Supreme Court rulings, the decisions to legalize abortion in the United States. Twenty-nine years ago yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled seven to two that the U.S. Constitution affords a woman the right to obtain an abortion. But what was not known at the time was that the case of Roe v. Wade would only add another fissure in the societal fabric. In addition yesterday to voicing his admiration for those who seek to protect the right to life, President Bush proclaimed last Sunday to be National Sanctity of Life Day. I too support the efforts of these Americans, and I am grateful that America may follow President Bush's leadership as he works to mend this fissure by truly recognizing this noble cause and valuing the culture of life. What we have learned from the events of September 11 is that life, every life is sacred. Now, more than ever, we must reaffirm our commitment to the sanctity of life. And I am hopeful that life, our most sacred of gifts, can be preserved and protected for all humans, born and unborn.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 323 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 323 is a closed rule providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 79, which is a continuing resolution that makes further appropriations for fiscal year 2002. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration and provides for one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of this year's session, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule so that we may proceed to consideration on the underlying continuing resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this is a remarkable feat to move a piece of legislation so important so fast and so well done, and I congratulate the gentlemen. I particularly thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) who headed up the task force to ensure that my bill, H.R. 3219, wound up in this bill. My bill reauthorized the rebuilding of the CDC $300 million for 2 years in a row and multiyear contracting. Let me tell Members about the CDC. It is a 55-year-old institution, the largest institution of the Federal Government not located in the metro area here. It is a world class intellectual community in a third world facility. Many Members have visited it. The CDC facility needs to be upgraded, particularly the security around it. We have dangerous bugs and viruses there that are being stored three stories above the loading dock. We need to do this. I am grateful for Members' response, and I am sure that the Senate will respond equally. The Secretary of HHS is in favor of this bill. It is not common in my 27 years in public life that we can introduce a bill on November 1 and have it voted on December 11. I am grateful for this bill.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2944) making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes; that all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration be waived; that the conference report be considered as read when called up; and that H. Res. 307 be laid on the table.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a whole raft of information from my staff talking about the benefits of trade and the economy, on jobs; and I will submit that for the Record. But let me just raise a confusing question. Why in the world does this House want to take itself out of the picture? Absent TPA, we have no voice. The President negotiates with any nation in the world a trade agreement and brings it to the Senate as a treaty for their approval or disapproval, amendment or no amendment. If it is amended, it goes back to the other nation, and they have to negotiate a second time. I would not blame any executive of another nation to not want to deal with us, to have to go through two negotiations. This House claims to be concerned about such things as labor and environment and human rights. Failing to pass TPA takes us out of the picture. We are silent. We have no voice. Under TPA, the President can go to any nation, negotiate any agreement, and bring it back to the House and the Senate for an up or down vote. If we do not like the agreement, we can vote it down. If we do not like the lack of consultation, defeat it. But at least keep us in the game. Absent TPA, this House is silent. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how we are going to shape any future agreement, have any consultative effect, if the President just chooses to go to treaties and deals with the Senate. We need to get in the ballgame. We have the lowest tariffs in the world. Reaching trade agreements with other nations simply serves to lower their tariffs and open markets for our companies to sell into the global economy. We need to be in the global economy, where 95 percent of the citizens of the world live, not here. I cannot understand why some would want to take us out of the picture. Mr. Speaker, the only voice the House has on any trade agreement is if we pass authority for the President to reach agreements and bring them back to us for up or down votes. I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose this. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Today we have a tremendous opportunity to stimulate the economy, secure jobs, uplift the poor, improve wages, and prove our global competitiveness. With a single vote, we can change the course of millions of lives. America produces many of the highest quality services, the most bountiful crops, and the most advanced technologies in the world. Today, we have the opportunity to ensure that all of these are shared with foreign nations. Trade is also vital to our own national well-being and our economic recovery. Nationwide, one in ten American jobs depends on exports. These jobs are in a range of industries and service fields, and yet the one consistency among them is that they pay more than jobs in non- trading industries. According to the Department of Commerce, trade- oriented industries pay one-third more--approximately $15,000 more per employee--than non-trading industries. Recent studies have further shown that if global trade barriers were cut by one-third, the world economy would increase by more than $600 billion a year. Eliminating trade barriers altogether would increase the global economy by nearly $2 trillion. The infusion of this much capital into the world market would serve as an engine of economic growth and improve the standard of living for all Americans. Given the significance of trade to our economic future, it is imperative that Congress pass trade promotion authority. TPA requires a collaborative partnership between Congress and the President, and both must actively participate in order to properly frame treaty negotiations. In fact, TPA statutorily requires that the President engage in frequent and substantive consultations with Congress before, during, and throughout negotiations on a free trade agreement. These consultations allow Congress to make clear its priorities and concerns, and the President then incorporates such mandates into negotiations. In return, Congress commits to an up or down vote on the treaty without amendments. While some members will argue that our opportunity for debate is stifled because of our inability to offer amendment, it is worth noting that without TPA members of the House of Representatives could neither vote on nor offer amendments to the treaty at all. Clearly, TPA is justified, it is responsible, and it is needed--and the time for TPA is now. Tariffs in the United States are among the lowest in the world. However, we face severe restrictions when we ship our goods overseas. In fact, while the average U.S. tariff is 4.8 percent, American goods are subject to tariffs of 11 percent in Chile, 13.5 percent in Argentina, 14.6 percent in Brazil, and a staggering 45.6 percent in Thailand. To give you one example of the anti-competitiveness of foreign tariffs, we can look at a Caterpillar tractor. If that tractor is made in the U.S. and it shipped to Chile, it faces nearly $15,000 in tariffs and duties. If that tractor is made in Canada and is then shipped to Chile, the tariff and duties are zero. Clearly, reducing foreign tariffs is critical to ensuring that companies continue to build their factories in the U.S. And TPA is the greatest tool at our disposal for leveling the playing field to provide U.S. businesses access to the world's populations. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the rule and H.R. 3005. This bill will help American regain its competitiveness, enabling the rebirth of prosperity and economic security.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, more than 95 percent of the world's population lives outside of the United States. For most American businesses this means that, in order to remain competitive, they must be allowed to market their goods and services across borders. This is particularly true for small business. There are more than 25 million small businesses in America, and they employ more than half the country's private workforce. Small businesses create three out of four new jobs and account for half of the America's annual economic production. Undoubtedly, small businesses are vital to the United States, and trade in turn is vital to them. Mr. Speaker, nearly 97 percent of U.S. merchandise exporters are small- and medium-sized businesses. Companies with less than 20 employees account for more than two-thirds of all U.S. exporting firms. Further, the number of American small businesses that export grew by more than 200 percent between 1987 and 1997. The United States is the single most competitive nation in the world. Tomorrow, Congress will have an opportunity to enable America's small businesses to prove their global competitiveness. We must pass Trade Promotion Authority and allow our small businesses to compete.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. If the gentleman would yield further, all of those numbers are the numbers I have. The 15,000 is the tariff on the Caterpillar tractor. We have the lowest tariffs in the world. We would like to be able to have our President negotiate with every nation in the world to lower their tariffs to our levels. We ought to be in favor of that. Then we ought to be able to look at that agreement when it comes back to the House and vote it up or down. But this bill we are talking about tomorrow only enables the President to bring us a measure. It only enables him to go out and negotiate a measure and come back to the House and the Senate for an up or down vote. This is a 25-year-old process. I do not blame the President of Chile if he does not want to negotiate with the United States twice, once when they sign the treaty and another time when the Senate alters it. It is a sensible approach that just brings the House into the game. For our colleagues that oppose this, I am always surprised at the variety of reasons I hear for the opposition, because my answer is always then, why do you not want to have a say? This is the only way this House will have a voice in any trade agreement in the future. I, of course, have been actively involved in trying to pass this. I hope it will pass tomorrow. The President deserves this. I was in favor of this when President Clinton was in office. I worked hard for it when he wanted it passed. I will work just as hard for it tomorrow.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point. Absent Trade Promotion Authority this House sits silent. The President can go to any nation in the world and negotiate a treaty and take it to the Senate, have the Senate debate it, amend it, and take it back to the country with whom we have reached an agreement and ask them to negotiate for a second time. We sit silent with no role. This is not a trade agreement we are talking about. This is a process to allow the President to negotiate with any country in the world some trade agreement that then we will be in judgment on. It will come back to us, and we can vote yes or no. But this House will have a role. Absent this, we have no role. There are 130 trade agreements in the world. We are party to three of them. After NAFTA, Mexico has agreements with 28 or 29 different countries. The European Union, 27. We are not a party. We sit silent. I am astonished by my colleagues that do not want to have a role. This President understands that free trade is necessary for freedom. It is a moral value. He will reach agreements. If he has to go some day by treaty to Chile, Argentina, Brazil, he will go there. He will negotiate with the Senate, and we will sit silent. So if we vote for Trade Promotion Authority tomorrow, which I intend to do, we are saying that the House has a role, there is something we can do. He can bring back an agreement that we can defeat. Whoever does not like the provisions of the agreement that comes back can vote no. We can kill it. But, absent this agreement, we sit silent.

Mr. LINDER. We have the lowest tariffs in the world. We have thousands of Georgia companies selling goods and services into a global economy. We want to lower the tariffs of other nations so that we can be competitive. Our ability for the President to negotiate with other nations and lower their tariffs will only improve our sales. It will only help us. More than half of the Georgia companies that sell goods and services into the global economy are small and medium-sized businesses. That is our growth rate. Twenty-five percent of our economic growth over the last 10 years has been due to export. We simply cannot throw up a wall around us. Chris Patten said when we were talking about NAFTA in 1993, I believe it was, Chris Patten was the last British Governor of Hong Kong, and he gave a speech in which he said if a space ship had come to the Planet Earth in the 16th century, the 15th and 16th centuries, and landed in the teepee huts of North America, to the typhoid-ridden streets of London and the warring streets of Paris, and wound up in the Ming Dynasty, they would have concluded within a minisecond that China would rule the world for centuries. She had just invented gunpowder and a printing press and had a huge cultural growth rate; the people were happy and well fed and economic growth rates were rapidly climbing. And then he said this: and then she built a wall around herself, and history told a different tale. The future is for knocking down walls, whether they are tariff or non-tariff barriers. My grandchildren deserve the privilege of buying the best product at the lowest rate, and you do that by knocking down the walls to trade.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, free and fair trade is the foundation of our capitalist society. It creates jobs and improves wages. It contributes to economic growth and improves standards of living. It promotes freedom, opportunity and openness. One in ten Americans work in export-related jobs. Typically, those jobs pay 18 percent more than the national average. In addition to rising wages, trade has resulted in lower prices, resulting in a benefit of between $1,300 and $2,000 per year for the average family of four. Clearly, American workers benefit from expanded trade. The benefits of trade reaped by American workers and their families extend to the entire U.S. economy, as trade facilitates our global competitiveness. Exports have accounted for nearly one-quarter of U.S. economic growth during the past decade. In fact, NAFTA and the Uruguay Round combined have increased U.S. income by nearly $60 billion per year. Further, U.S. industrial production is 48 percent higher today than in 1990, prior to the enactment of NAFTA and the Uruguay Round. The passage of Trade Promotion Authority is imperative. Free trade will stimulate our economic recovery and preserve the very core of capitalism. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3005.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, as Americans struggle with economic uncertainty, Congress seeks to stimulate our stalled economy and create new jobs. However, I daresay that many of my colleagues have overlooked one of the most consistent and dependable solutions available, one that Congress has the ability to foster: Trade. Recent studies have found that if global trade barriers were cut by one-third, the world economy would increase by more than $600 billion a year. Eliminating trade barriers altogether would increase the global economy by nearly $2 trillion. The infusion of this much capital into the world market would serve as an engine of economic growth and improve the standard of living for all Americans. Also, it would be unwise to ignore the fact that, since 1990, more than 20 million new jobs have been created in the United States. It is not merely coincidental that this increase corresponds to the enactment of trade agreements such as NAFTA and GATT. In fact, trade has stimulated job creation, resulting not only in new jobs, but in higher wages in those jobs supported by exports. As we seek to alleviate economic hardship, the U.S. must look beyond our borders to increase interaction with our trading partners, and Congress can facilitate this by supporting trade promotion authority.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 286 is a rule providing for the consideration of the conference report for H.R. 2500, the fiscal year 2002 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report, and against its consideration. It also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. The underlying bill, H.R. 2500, provides a total of roughly $42 billion in funding for a variety of various departments and agencies, about $1 billion more than the current fiscal year and $700 million more than President Bush's budget request. This bill represents the eighth appropriations conference report that we have been able to bring to the floor, as the Congress works with the Bush administration to put into place a fiscal year 2002 budget. As the Congress continues to make progress on moving appropriations bills through the legislative process, we can hopefully make progress toward completing our legislative agenda for this year as quickly as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we may proceed with general debate and consideration of this bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 286 ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, in today's increasingly global world, we have two choices: We can lead, or we can follow. Historically, the United States has led the race for global competitiveness, and free and fair trade has been a significant factor in our economic growth. However, as we stand by and watch other nations learn from and then surpass our example, we are quickly falling behind and jeopardizing our economic prosperity. While America sits on the sidelines of international trade negotiations, the European Union has completed 27 free trade agreements and is negotiating another 15. While America has watched, Mexico has completed trade agreements with 25 countries. While President Bush has been without Trade Promotion Authority, other countries have assumed the lead in setting international standards and practices. In fact, there are more than 130 preferential trade agreements globally, and the United States is party to only two. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to squelch this new American timidity with regard to trade. We must return to our tradition of leadership, and not endless pursuit of protectionism. We must work to open markets, eliminate tariffs and barriers, and ensure that our Nation remains at the forefront of economic success. We must pass Trade Promotion Authority.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, we are told that silence is golden. However, what happens when the body being silenced is the House of Representatives? Most certainly my colleagues would object to the suppression of our voice and our role in the debate in consideration of legislative matters. Yet, without trade promotion authority, our voices are silenced regarding trade. Trade promotion authority allows trade agreements to be considered as congressional executive agreements. These agreements represent procedural compromises. The President forgoes his ability to single- handedly negotiate treaties and, instead, agrees to consult closely with the Congress to ensure that congressional priorities are heard. Congress, in turn, commits to an up or down vote, but waives the right to offer amendments. Some of my colleagues seem to think that our inability to offer amendments is too great a sacrifice. What then is the alternative? Without TPA, the President would unilaterally negotiate a treaty which would then be presented solely to the Senate for ratification. This obviously begs the question where is the House. The answer, absent. Without TPA we have no role, no authority, and no voice in trade agreements. This is the people's House. Do not let our voice be silenced. Support TPA.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. H. Res. 270 is a modified closed rule, waiving all points of order against consideration of H.R. 3090, the Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the ranking minority member and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. It also provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 270 provides for the consideration of only the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules' report accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Finally, it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in approving this resolution so the House can move on to consideration of this stimulus package, arguably one of the most important legislative measures we will debate this year. In light of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, along with more recent developments here in Washington, D.C., New York, New Jersey and Florida, observers are increasingly concerned about our Nation's economy going into a recession. Indeed, President Bush has called upon the Congress to quickly send him legislation that he can sign into law to avoid such a scenario. With all of these events in mind, it is imperative for the House of Representatives to take prompt action on legislation that will provide our economy with a jump-start, and H.R. 3090 does just that. I wanted to commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), for bringing this package to the floor and doing so in a fiscally responsible fashion. As approved by the committee, H.R. 3090 provides hard-working American workers and businesses with roughly $99 billion in tax relief to help stimulate the economy in the first year, and only $159 billion over the next 10 years. Constructing the bill in this fashion will hopefully maximize its stimulative impact, while minimizing its long-term budgetary impact. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the rule on this important stimulus package to ensure the economic security of our country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.