Doris Matsui

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to my good friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend this rule and allow the House to consider the Dingell-Rangel substitute. This substitute was offered in the Rules Committee last night, but was blocked on a straight party-line vote. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, my good friend (Ms. Eshoo).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I believe the Dingell-Rangel substitute offers Members a far better choice than the underlying bill. This substitute is based on the bipartisan bill that was introduced by Senators Frist, Enzi, Kennedy and Clinton and passed unanimously by the Senate last November. This substitute also contains important privacy protections necessary in this new electronic world. The Democratic substitute requires the Federal Government to take a leading role in the adoption of standards for technology and adopting technology that will permit providers and others to communicate to each other electronically. This substitute will provide $257 million in grants and loans for providers and regional collaboratives to buy and implement health information technology. This substitute also provides privacy protections beyond those in current law to ensure that patients' health information is secure. It requires that all individuals and entities with access to personal health information must comply with privacy protections to maintain patient confidentiality. The substitute also requires data encryption to prevent security breaches and the notification of patients in case of a security breach. Finally, it allows patients to seek redress when their privacy is breached. I want Members to be aware that a ``no'' vote will not stop us from considering H.R. 4157. A ``no'' vote will simply allow the Dingell- Rangel substitute to be considered by this House by an up-or-down vote. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can consider this important and responsible substitute. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make in order a critical amendment that was offered in the Rules Committee yesterday by Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Cardin, but unfortunately was rejected by a straight party-line vote. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, today we debate another free trade agreement. We all know well-crafted trade policy is capable of spreading benefits to a broad portion of the population while promoting innovation and solidifying partnerships between and among nations. As a leader in the global economy, the United States has the ability and the responsibility to use trade agreements to effect positive change here at home and abroad. Unfortunately, the Oman Free Trade Agreement, which we are considering, continues the recent trend toward divisive partnership on trade. Because of the majority's approach on trade policy, you have a lot of Democrats, who I believe are inclined to vote for free trade agreements, voting against this pact. I am disappointed the administration and the Republican leadership have missed another opportunity to return to a bipartisan consensus on trade. The majority once again cut Democrats out of the negotiations and produced another free trade agreement that fails to protect the basic rights of workers. Like the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, which I voted against a year ago, the labor provisions of the Oman Free Trade Agreement only require Oman to enforce its own labor laws. At this time Oman's laws do not come close to meeting International Labor Organization standards. This is a threshold that Ways and Means Democrats have set for labor provisions in trade agreements, and it is quite reasonable. The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement does not meet it. Of utmost concern, Oman's laws do not guarantee the freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively. It does not even prohibit human trafficking and forced labor. In Oman today unions do not exist. There are only labor management committees where management holds over 70 percent of the leadership positions. In no way is this even close to representation the workers here have achieved after decades of struggle. Ways and Means Committee Democrats tried to work with the Government of Oman to revise its labor laws, and they were very clear about what steps needed to be taken: Specifically, make sure Oman's laws conform to basic labor standards and begin to implement existing laws in a manner that complies with the principles established by the International Labor Organization. These are not radical requests. Yet the majority and Oman have not acceded to them. Just yesterday Representative Cardin offered a reasonable amendment that would have delayed implementation of this agreement until Oman came into compliance with these standards. That amendment was rejected. The Omani Government attempted to pacify our labor concerns with an 11th-hour royal decree. Unfortunately, it fully addressed only one of the 10 deficiencies outlined by Ways and Means Democrats. So this is not a valid argument. The situation I just described is quite a contrast to the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement negotiations. Bahrain made commitments to modify its laws to adhere to International Labor Organization standards and took steps to make sure those standards were being adhered to on the ground immediately. Oman has taken no such actions. As a result, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement fails workers in Oman and here in the United States. This sends a message to the world that the United States does not respect the hardworking men and women that fuel the global economy. That is extraordinarily unwise, particularly considering the challenges we are facing all around the globe today. I had hoped that the bipartisan opposition to CAFTA might make it clear to the Bush administration that a broad cross-section of this House would not accept trade agreements which fail to ensure fundamental rights for workers. That is apparently not the case because this agreement is another step backwards for workers. Further, it demonstrates this administration's refusal to use trade to better the lives of the broad portion of working families, not a select few. And yesterday at the Rules Committee, Representative Cardin highlighted a potentially serious concern about port security. The provision imposes a burdensome process should the United States Government choose to protect its citizens from potentially dangerous foreign control over United States port operations. Representative Cardin offered a second amendment yesterday in the Rules Committee that would have addressed this concern. However, like his other commonsense amendment on labor provisions, it was rejected. This scenario is another reason Members should reject this agreement as currently written. I know these amendments would interrupt the fast-track process. However, I believe the issues raised by Mr. Cardin's amendments warrant rejecting this agreement as currently written. By doing so, we can put together a framework that addresses these very serious concerns on port security and workers' rights. Congress needs to push the administration to step back and rethink its trade policy. The United States cannot afford to abandon its role as a leader in the global economy nor can we abandon our duty to working families both here and abroad. We need to embrace the benefits of trade while still respecting the fundamental rights of workers. I sincerely hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work together to achieve such a balance in considering future trade policy. When we debated CAFTA, I said, ``If we do not get CAFTA right, we risk undercutting support for all future trade agreements.'' Well, we did not get CAFTA right, and now we are doing it again on Oman. The majority is just digging us all into a deeper hole, making it that much more difficult to establish the trust required for balanced trade negotiations. I hope the scrutiny that this relatively small free trade agreement is receiving leads the majority to reconsider its approach. I hope it makes them ask: Is it worth rushing this agreement to passage with inadequate assurances on labor protections when we might be able to achieve them in a number of weeks? Is it really worth cutting the minority out of the negotiations? In my opinion, the answers to these questions are obvious. Partisanship tears this House apart every week we are in session. Look at the tone of the debate on the floor this week. It is time for a new direction; and trade, because it is such a critical issue, would be an ideal place to start. I continue to have hope that we can regain the spirit of cooperation on trade that has served this House so well in the past. It is a goal that is within reach. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to commit to achieving it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. MATSUI. The Cardin amendment would close a dangerous loophole in the current agreement, a loophole that could jeopardize our Nation's port security. In other words, in its present form, this agreement would allow a foreign company based in Oman to operate U.S. port facilities. The Cardin amendment provides that the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement cannot take effect until the U.S. withdraws its commitment to allow Omani companies to operate landside aspects of U.S. port activities. Unless we vote on the Cardin amendment today, we could once again be faced with a risk that the management of our vital ports might again be handed over to a foreign entity. The House must have the chance to weigh in on this matter of national security. It is time for this House to stop giving rubber-stamp approval to this administration at the expense of our national security. The Cardin amendment is the only way to ensure that this free trade agreement doesn't compromise our ports. Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues may argue that the adoption of this important amendment will shut off the fast-track process in the Senate for this bill. True, perhaps, but we should not allow any process to trump our national security and the duty of this Congress to protect its citizens from harm. If we have to send this agreement back to the drawing board, so be it. However Members of this House feel about this trade deal, I would hope that they would all realize the danger of leaving this loophole in place. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can protect our ports. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, ethical, embryonic stem cell research is a reality. The federal government has two options. We can engage, by participating in the research and influencing the ethical debate within the global community. Or, we ignore the issue and let others lead. America is the world leader in medical research and development. We cannot cede this ground. That is why we must be unyielding in our support for the embryonic stem cell research made possible under H.R. 810. And why I would caution my colleagues against accepting any of the weak alternatives being debated. Mr. Speaker, one of the great equalizers is disease. It ignores age, income and education level. Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to cure and maybe even prevent many debilitating conditions affecting the old and the young, the rich and the poor. Like Diabetes. Parkinson's disease. Alzheimer's. Spinal cord damage. And maybe even bone marrow failure. Families from all walks of life have first-hand experience with these tragedies. Make no mistake, these potential breakthroughs lie at the end of a long and difficult road. But the research community is committed to this task. Just last week in my hometown of Sacramento, the UC Davis Medical Center hired a top national expert in regenerative medicine to direct the Center's new stem cell research facility. But every stem cell researcher agrees that this research must use embryonic stem cells. These are the only cells with the flexibility and the potential to fix spinal cord injuries, or cure diabetes. And using the unused embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics gives us an ethical way to obtain them. Mr. Speaker, it is true that this is a debate about what science tells about stem cell research. And equally, it is about the ethical constraints our democracy rightly agrees to impose on that science. But there is broad consensus on these two points. That consensus is enshrined in H.R. 810. So the federal government must decide whether it will lend its tremendous weight to embryonic stem cell research. Or whether it will simply remain on the sidelines, pretending that ethical solutions don't exist. Earlier today, President Bush chose the sidelines. He chose to ignore the issue and allow others to lead. Worse still, he is stifling the hopes of millions of Americans. And fundamentally, this is a debate about hope. Hope is the light that keeps us going through a dark and torturous tunnel. I urge my colleagues to think very hard before denying that hope to millions of people across America by supporting anything less than federally-funded embryonic stem cell research. I hope my colleagues will vote to override the President's veto. It is time to go in a new direction.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the idea of one person, one vote, regardless of race, background, or gender, is a fundamental principle of this Nation. The practical application, however, is another matter. American history is a testament to this fact. Despite the 15th amendment to the Constitution, our history is filled with efforts to prevent people from voting. Literacy tests, poll taxes, threats, and even violence, as my colleague and dear friend Congressman John Lewis can attest. The hundreds of thousands of men and women of the civil rights movement also bear witness to the fact that through effort and sheer determination, we can close the gap between the principle as enshrined in the Constitution and the reality: the 1965 Voting Rights Act. As President Johnson once said: ``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.'' Now we are here for the renewal of the Voting Rights Act. Democrats and Republicans crafted a bipartisan bill. Supporters were prepared to pass it weeks ago. But the majority leadership was thwarted by opposition within their own party. Regrettably, the Voting Rights Act, despite its storied history, apparently remains controversial among a faction of the majority party. The members of my caucus support full consideration of issues and amendments. But it is disheartening that to permit a floor debate on the Voting Rights Act reauthorization, a number of my Republican colleagues demanded consideration of extremely inflammatory amendments, ones which would essentially eviscerate the Voting Rights Act. Most Members of this Chamber, Democrats and Republicans alike, believe the Voting Rights Act long ago proved itself to be a force for good in this country. It is disappointing that some still need convincing. I am particularly troubled by the amendment on the need for bilingual ballots, especially on the heels of the divisive House and Senate debates over immigration. That is why it is important to focus on one salient fact: three quarters of those who use the language assistance provision are native-born Americans and the rest are legally naturalized citizens. So this amendment aims to restrict the rights of fully law-abiding citizens of the United States. Since being signed into law four decades ago, this landmark legislation has successfully been used to confront discrimination at the voting booth. But we still need the tools and resources of the Voting Rights Act. It bridges the gap between the principle of one man, one vote and the reality and will relegate that gap to the history books.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the issue we are debating today may not be glamorous, but I want to emphasize for our constituents its importance. H.R. 2990 will significantly affect the guidance investors receive on the soundness of all kinds of investments. The type of debt rating that a company or municipality receives is an essential guidepost for investors, and the degree to which that rating is accurate has far reaching consequences. So by reforming the way that firms receive the stamp of legitimacy to offer these ratings, Congress is making a significant change. As we have seen during the past few years, financial investments can have a huge impact on our constituents. Just ask anyone who held stock in Enron or WorldCom. This is about protecting investors, whether you manage your own portfolio or you rely on a pension for your retirement. So we need to tread carefully as we consider how we determine which firms should be deemed nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations. Established in the 1970s, only credit agencies that receive this designation have the legitimacy to assess the likelihood of a company or a municipality to default on its debt. In other words, they tell investors whether they are likely to get paid back. Today, there are only five firms that are nationally recognized by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The purpose of H.R. 2990 is to add to that number, increasing competition in the credit ratings market. This is a worthy goal. I know the Financial Services Committee has been exploring the best way to achieve it. Unfortunately, in its pursuit of quantity, this bill will sacrifice quality. This is a risky proposal that I do not believe the House should accept. H.R. 2990 would allow virtually any firm to be considered a nationally recognized credit rating agency. The SEC would no longer be able to ensure that such firms are producing reliable and credible ratings. Under this new voluntary regime, any ratings agency that has been around for 3 years and discloses its performance data can become nationally recognized. That is a pretty low bar. I know the majority will argue that H.R. 2990 would allow market forces to sift the good credit rating agencies from the bad. While Democrats do not object to letting the market play a role in ensuring quality, why not let the experts at the SEC also evaluate the quality of the ratings firms? Congress needs to strike a balance between quantity and quality, but this bill falls short of that goal. Under this bill anyone can open up shop and 3 years later be nationally recognized. That means we may be allowing firms that will offer an investment grade rating to anyone willing to pay, regardless of whether that rating is based on sound facts. As long as a rating firm continues to provide certain disclosures, it will still be nationally recognized, even if it issues credit ratings of the lowest possible quality. Additionally, this bill could lead to a series of unintended consequences. Federal, State and local agencies, as well as many private sector entities, rely on the current definition of a nationally recognized credit rating agency. By undermining the credibility of this established benchmark, this bill could impose a significant burden on all of these groups, possibly increasing risks and imposing new costs for a wide swath of Americans. Certainly, the House can increase competition in a more responsible way. Representative Kanjorski, the ranking member on the Capital Markets Subcommittee, with the support of Ranking Member Frank, has offered a logical substitute. It will ensure quality while moving to increase competition in the credit ratings market. I am pleased that the rule will allow a vote on this commonsense proposal. The Kanjorski substitute would direct the SEC to expeditiously complete rulemaking on nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations. In doing so, the SEC would, for the first time, publicly define what constitutes a nationally recognized credit rating agency. It would also direct the SEC to design a process to identify new nationally recognized credit rating agencies. These steps would bring an unprecedented level of transparency and scrutiny to the selection process. The result will increase competition in the credit ratings market without the negative consequences associated with H.R. 2990. The Kanjorski substitute will also encourage the establishment of a voluntary framework for industry self-regulation. This will further protect investors from conflicts of interest and other abusive practices. To ensure that all of these reforms are effective, the Kanjorski amendment will require annual hearings on this topic for the next 5 years. So Members have two options today. Both will increase competition in the credit ratings market. However, only the Kanjorski substitute will ensure that investors continue to receive credible and reliable credit ratings from nationally recognized agencies. I urge my colleagues to support this wise approach. Mr. Speaker, another responsible policy that Members will have an opportunity to support today is an increase in the minimum wage. Just as the credit rating bill seeks to safeguard average Americans in the long term, so should Congress protect their immediate financial needs by increasing the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, my amendment to the rule provides that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring H.R. 2429 to the House floor for an up-or-down vote. This bill will gradually increase the minimum wage from the current level of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour after about 2 years. This bill has 136 cosponsors and a discharge petition to bring to the House, the bill to the floor, and has the signatures of 190 Members of the House. This bill is also identical to language as included in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that was blocked by the leadership just last month. Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that this Congress has refused to help America's low-income workers and their families by increasing the minimum wage. Somehow there is always time for another tax break for multimillionaires who don't need the money, but nothing to ease the financial struggle that low-income families face each day. The minimum wage is now at its lowest level in 50 years. A full-time, minimum-wage earner earns just $10,700 a year, an amount that is $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. It takes a full day's pay just to pay for a tank of gas. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can help millions and millions of American workers who would directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. I yield back the balance of my time.