Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Any bill of this magnitude that comes to the floor will always have a history of would have, could have, should have; but what is more difficult about this bill than most is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been forced to diminish the contribution from my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), the very brave and knowledgeable members of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson). Both the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) are members of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, that subcommittee that deals on an ongoing, everyday basis with this issue. They are among the most knowledgeable in the House. But because some of my friends on the other side are so driven to deny the President the use of this legislative tool, that somehow the fact that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), working with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), someone who is not on the Committee on Ways and Means, is to be held up as an example of the way we should operate, but when members of the Committee on Ways and Means get together to work on this problem, that is a model to blast, to argue it is not bipartisan, to argue the product is not any good and whether they mean to or not. I took this time at the beginning, regardless of what the vote is at the end, to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Jefferson), to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tanner), and to thank their staffs. For almost 5 months we have worked on what was said to be an impossible project, to resolve the differences that drove us not to provide this power to the President previously. I voted for that. I will vote it for any President, but to trash my colleagues who are powerful enough in terms of their belief that something needed to be done, for my colleagues to carry the day by defeating this is unworthy of any Member. Attack me, I understand it. I am one of the targets and the symbols; but do not, do not, do not derogate the contribution of those Democrats who were strong enough and who believed enough in this to work together in an intellectually honest way, to produce a product that ironically is better than any product that has ever been brought to this floor in a number of ways, which we will talk about. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What we will hear from the other side all day is would have, could have, should have. Would have, could have, should have; would have, could have, should have; would have, could have, should have; would have, could have, should have. At some point my colleagues have to decide whether or not the President needs this power. It is going to have to be done in a bipartisan way, and we have a bipartisan product in front of us. Mr. Speaker, I place in the Record the ``Statement of Administration Policy,'' which begins: ``The Administration strongly supports H.R. 3005.'' Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, December 5, 2001. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 3005--Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001 (Rep. Thomas (R) CA and 5 cosponsors) The Administration strongly supports H.R. 3005 and looks forward to working with the Congress to provide the President with the authority and flexibility to secure the greatest possible trade opportunities for America's farmers, workers, producers, and consumers. H.R. 3005 would provide Trade Promotion Authority for the President and would establish special procedures for the consideration of legislation to implement trade agreements. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is about asserting American leadership, strengthening the American economy, and creating American jobs. A congressional grant of TPA takes on renewed importance with the launch of new global trade negotiations. These negotiations can open markets and provide job creating opportunities for every sector of the American economy. But the President can strike the best deal for American workers and families only with approval of TPA. TPA's enactment will send a powerful signal to our trading partners that the United States is committed to free and open trade. TPA is also essential to put the United States back at the table to help set the rules of the trading game. Our global influence diminished in recent years as other countries moved ahead while we have been stalled. There are currently more than 130 free trade agreements in the world. The United States is party to only three. The Bush Administration is committed to consultations with Congress to help ensure that the Administration's negotiating objectives reflect the views of our elected representatives, and that they will have regular opportunities to provide advice throughout the negotiating process. H.R. 3005 deepens the traditional partnership between the Executive branch and the Congress through the creation of a joint Congressional Oversight Group with broad bipartisan representation from all the Committees that have jurisdiction over a part of a trade negotiation. Without TPA, the United States will fall behind in shaping the rules of globalization, our new momentum for trade will be undercut, and the confidence and growth necessary for economic recovery will be weakened. Passage of H.R. 3005 will send a strong signal of U.S. leadership in trade liberalization. What does this package do? Obviously it creates the power to negotiate specific agreements, which will come to us later, without ability to equivocate or disagree. This legislation is the best in terms of agricultural objectives we have ever seen. It is the best in foreign investment we have ever seen. It is the best in electronic commerce we have ever seen. It is the best in intellectual property. It is the best in foreign relations, and for the first time treated equally with trade is labor and the environment. It is the best we have ever seen in a dispute resolution, and it is the most comprehensive oversight and scrutiny ever presented to the Congress. It is more bipartisan, more representative, and more effective in terms of expanding the number of Members who are able to deal with these issues. In addition to that, after we took the product, put together by my friends that I had mentioned earlier, we then went and talked to additional Members. Through this process of talking to Members, what do they think of this work product, and from their perspective how can it be improved, they said we want to make sure there is not a race to the bottom on the labor and the environmental standards. We did that. They said we want to make sure that no foreign investors when we go to court have greater rights than any U.S. citizen. Okay. We did that. They said they want to make sure that if there is foreign currency changes, that it is not foreign currency manipulation for the purpose of getting a trade advantage. We said that is a good idea. It is in the bill. Members asked for special consideration in terms of import-sensitive products. They have gotten it in three different locations because clearly they are threatened if they are import sensitive. Members asked that the administration not reduce textile tariffs when they are negotiating with another country that, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) held up in terms of the Uruguay Round, where other countries said they would reduce their tariff and they have not. We said they are right. We are going to make sure that our negotiators do not lower our tariffs when the other country they are negotiating with have higher tariffs. Members asked for an improved consultation and opportunity to actually withdraw trade promotion authority if the administration failed to consult. In a number of ways, we said, they are right; we will enhance it. Finally, on the oversight, not just the committee's of jurisdiction, but every committee whose jurisdiction would be affected by the potential legislation, the administration has to come to us at the beginning of the process, during the process, and at the end of the process. They have to satisfy the Members of Congress on transparency and information transfer. The administration does not determine when they are through. The administration does not determine how much information is to be made available. For the first time in any agreement, it is the Congress that controls how much information the administration has to provide. In every aspect, this is a better negotiating tool than we have ever seen in the past. It is bipartisan. It is something that the President has said he desperately needs for a number of reasons; and there is no solid, substantial reason that this should not pass today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, most others would oppose this if they had told us what was in it during their 5 minutes; but that usually is my job, to tell people what is in the motion to recommit. First of all, that is the motion to recommit, and I do have to compliment the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) in which he utilized patriotism by condemning others using patriotism to urge that my colleagues support his motion to recommit. Nicely done. What the minority leader said was that this position contains all the right issues. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who is the author of this, says that it moves in the right direction; and in fact, the key phrase from the gentleman from Michigan is it says it is how we should shape our world. I want my colleagues to think about a document which the minority asks us to vote for, which more than 75 pages consists of mandates, of requirements that others must meet. To give my colleagues the flavor of the 75 pages of mandates, we only have to get to page 6 when it says any agreement that comes back must maintain bona fide food aid programs. Now, what is a bona fide food aid program? Whatever it is, the agreement between whoever country works with us must maintain a bona fide food aid program. My colleagues can imagine 75 pages of maintaining, to preserve, to promote, to eliminate, to achieve, to explore, to develop, to identify, to clarify and on and on, that an agreement has to meet these because they are mandates, and if they do not meet them, guess what? There is a structure that will judge whether or not those mandates have been met. First of all, to get an agreement through Congress in this package, requires that my colleagues vote not once, remember, normally, this is called Fast Track, that we do not vote once, that we do not have to vote twice, but we have to vote three times; and every time we have to achieve a majority. On those 75 pages of mandates, this is the structure to determine whether or not the agreement has met the particular mandate. It takes nine Members of the House and nine Members of the Senate, and it constructs them so that the nine and the nine just happen to be nine Democrats and nine Republicans, and if they hold their party line, if the AFL-CIO is able to hold the party line, any agreement goes down because to get an agreement not only requires us to go through those three separate votes, but we then have to on any one of these 75 pages of mandates, have to get a majority of that structure to go forward. I know that sometimes bringing countries together over the negotiating table is difficult to do; and that is why, in committee, when this was offered as a substitute, with 17 Democrats on the committee, the leadership of the Committee on Ways and Means, laying this in front of their Democratic colleagues, did not get 17 vote, did not get 16 votes, did not get 14 vote, did not get 13 votes. They were able to muster 12 of the 17 in support of this; and once my colleagues know what is inside of it, we begin to wonder about the 12 that voted for it. That is why they would not spend one minute of their time telling us what is in this document; but if my colleagues examine it, what it is is a guarantee that unless and until one or two people's vision over there of how we shape our world is in each and every document, we will not have a trade agreement. That is not the way a trade agreement arrangement should work. I want to compliment the Democrats that voted against it in Ways and Means. I want to compliment the Democrats who will vote down the motion to recommit, and I want to compliment all of those who will support Trade Promotion Authority for the President.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairman of the Committee on the Budget in the House of Representatives. (Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley). (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 306, I call up the bill (H.R. 3005) to extend trade authorities procedures with respect to reciprocal trade agreements, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, which shares jurisdiction over trade packages, including this one. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time, the assumption being we have no further speakers.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. THOMAS

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

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

Mr. THOMAS. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The name of this legislation is trade adjustment assistance. It is not undifferentiated unemployment compensation. There is another whole set of statutes, procedures, and funding to deal with unemployment in general. This measure's title is Trade Adjustment Assistance. What we have done is to expand this bill to cover those individuals who, through no fault of their own, in a way in which they can show a nexus, and the gentleman from Michigan is entirely correct, that the loss of their job was a result of a contribution importantly tied to the September 11 event. The gentleman then went on to complain about a number of other factors in which people are not eligible for unemployment in general. Not that it is tied to trade or the September 11 event, but that he is concerned about, in general, the failure of the unemployment insurance program to reach out to more people. We are going to have ample opportunity to deal with that in a larger context. The President has spoken to that issue. We have voted on that issue in this body in the stimulus package, and we have said we are willing to go far beyond what had been offered previously. That is not what is in front of us. And I will repeat my understanding of the question of the gentleman from Washington. Because of the way in which the tragedy on September 11 occurred, the government ordered all planes grounded. The airlines suffered significant financial losses that resulted in the release of employees that otherwise would not have been released, and it resulted in the cancellation of airplane purchase contracts that otherwise would not have occurred. What we are expected to believe is that the Secretary of Labor would have great difficulty in associating those two events, the two events that the gentleman from Washington is concerned would not be covered by this legislation; that the Secretary of Labor would say neither of those qualify under this legislation. I will tell the gentleman from Washington, I believe they do, and I will do everything in my power to make sure that the Secretary of labor says that those who lost their jobs because airplane contracts were canceled by airlines who had a shrinking in revenue because the government said they could not fly, and they released employees because of that same circumstance, certainly would be able to say that the loss of their jobs and the events associated with September 11 contributed importantly to the loss of those jobs. Those hurdles are not difficult ones to overcome. Beyond that, we need to continue to work together, quit haranguing, and make sure that people who are currently unemployed, and who will become unemployed because the House has acted and the Senate has not on the larger questions, need to be preserved for another day. On this measure, I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.'' It is better than it has ever been before.

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

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