Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson). (Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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 gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).

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, 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, 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, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

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, it is a real pleasure for me to yield 1 minute to my colleague and friend from California (Mr. Hunter) to speak on this issue since some of you have known his history.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I hope the folks who are listening and watching appreciate that someone who is listening and watching happens to be named Stephen L. Basha. Stephen L. Basha just called and said he could not believe what was occurring on the floor of the House. Stephen L. Basha just happens to be the Associate Chief Counsel of the Office of Chief Counsel of the U.S. Customs Service. He was the gentleman who was at a hearing. You have heard representations that we have had no hearings. The testimony from the committee will show we had hearings, and one of the principal witnesses was the very same Stephen L. Basha, who indicated that there are hundreds of Customs workers following the law who are, nevertheless, sued. They are sued up to and including their homes being attached. They are put through years of meat-grinder court cases by money-grubbing attorneys looking for cheap settlement, and, after years, they are vindicated. There is no question that in any situation when you are dealing with sensitive things like trying to make sure that terrorists do not come into this country, that drug dealers do not walk right past honest citizens, that there may be a mistake or two being made. The key there is in education, to make sure that these very useful profile techniques are constantly improved; that the people who are utilizing these are required to have sensitivity training; that they are required to know clearly the law; and that in the course of the testimony you will find, and I am not allowed to read from it under the Rules of the House, but it is here, a clear understanding and a commitment upon the recommendation of the Democrats that we require the information that is the lawful structure of that profiling to be prominently displayed to make sure that the workers are sensitized. Now, I have heard several times that this is a power grab by the Committee on Ways and Means; that we are going around the jurisdiction of other committees. Seated just to the right and behind the Speaker is the Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian is a nonpartisan professional job. Their job is to analyze legislation and determine where it should go based upon the content of the legislation and the jurisdiction of the committees. Had this had an involvement with the Committee on the Judiciary, under the Rules of the House, the nonpartisan Parliamentarian would have said that the Committee on the Judiciary must be involved, either through primary jurisdiction, through concurrent jurisdiction, or through sequential jurisdiction. None of those jurisdictional provisions were called for. Power grab? It is interesting that the gentleman from Texas lays upon this small and modest bill what he perceives to be the sins of the Bush administration through the Attorney General to try to protect the American people from further terrorist acts. This bill contains money not only to help in protecting against terrorism, but against drug addiction and against child pornography. If folks believe that this one, small provision requested by Customs to protect Customs officers in the lawful carrying out of their job is just too much for them, then vote against increasing our ability to protect Americans against terrorism, vote against a better, more efficient drug addiction structure, and vote against all of the new technological capabilities in going after those who prey on our youth. Now, the other thing that really amazes me, but sometimes my threshold for amazement is not as high as it probably should be; the gentlewoman from Texas in her remarks said this bill came out of committee on a party-line vote. Again, if my colleagues will check the records of the committee, she is absolutely, flat out, factually wrong. How can I say that? Because this did not come out of the committee with a vote recorded at all. Not only was it not a party-line vote, there was no vote. The record will show that there was no vote requested by the minority on ordering this bill from the committee to the floor. It was ordered from the committee to the floor on a voice vote. And yet, at the eleventh hour, all of these indignations are surfacing on a provision that was there, requested by the Customs officials, so that the hard-working, frontline soldiers at our border are not unnecessarily harassed in trying to carry out the law and in protecting Americans from drugs, from terrorism, and from child pornography. So in terms of the criticism that how come it has taken so long to bring this to the floor, which we heard, and then how come we are rushing it through; once again, if we take every side of the argument to stop a piece of legislation, the assumption is we may not necessarily be arguing about what is in the legislation, we just want the world to stop. Because in stopping the world, then the things that need to be done will not go forward and maybe, just maybe, somebody might be fooled into thinking that this would be a reason to vote for one person over another. If that is, in fact, the reason that we are opposing this piece of legislation, that is probably the worst possible reason that anyone could offer. What this is is a modest Customs reauthorization, and what it does is extend Customs' ability to deal with problems that are manifest, including the failure of the Customs Department to focus on areas that people who are concerned about illegal textiles, like transshipment, need to be focused on. We not only say more agents need to be involved, we say more money ought to be placed on the table. We do both in this bill. Is it enough? Probably not. Is it more than what we are doing now? Yes. Will it be better than yesterday? Yes. The gentleman from Washington said that we placed a study in the bill; again, he is factually flat out wrong. I said at the beginning that we were removing provisions of the bill. We did not add a study; we removed a provision. So when someone stands up and exhorts all of the problems and arrows of the world that have been inflicted on them by everyone else and says, all of it is manifest in this particular bill, I would ask that they actually take a look at what it is that we are placing before the House of Representatives in this bill. It is Customs reauthorization. It deals with those frontline soldiers who have an extremely difficult job; it provides them with a few more resources; it provides them with a few more technological tools in doing the job that they do, on the whole, very well, and that, hopefully, with this particular piece of legislation, they will be able to do it even better.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.J. Res. 60 and to pay tribute to my friend Maureen Reagan, a loving wife and mother, a dedicated member of the Republican Party, and a crusader for Alzheimer's Disease sufferers. I also extend my deepest condolences to her husband, my friend and former constituent, Dennis Revell, and their daughter Rita. I had the privilege of knowing Maureen for over two decades. In 1980, she was a tireless volunteer in her father's campaign for the White House. Following his election, she became a vigorous activist for female Republicans, raising funds for over 100 candidates. She also served in an appointed position in the California Republican Party, and later ran to be a Member of this House. After President Reagan poignantly shared with the world his Alzheimer's diagnosis, Maureen continued to dedicate her life to another worthy cause: educating the American public about this debilitating and degenerative disease. Even as Maureen was personally battling cancer, her resolve in making Americans more aware of Alzheimer's disease was remarkable; her passion unyielding. Testifying in front of congressional committees, Ms. Reagan added her voice in promoting the worthy work of our federal medical research agencies. Until the very end, Maureen continually reminded all of us how public advocacy can be vibrant and how public service can be courageous. She will be missed by her family and friends, by the Alzheimer's patients for whom she worked so tirelessly, by the Republican party, and indeed by all Americans.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Having been around here when my party was in the minority, I tend to scrutinize rules very carefully, because when we were in the minority, the minority had no automatic privilege under the rules to provide motions to recommit with or without instructions. That is now in the rules; something that was never available when we were in the minority. So I assumed this was some kind of a closed rule, which normally gets the blood pressure up because you have to swallow hard and take what has been given to you. And then I found out this was an open rule. So, then, the reason why people are voting against an open rule is because certain amendments were not made in order. And when we examine what the amendments requested to be made in order were, there were people on the Committee on Rules and others which wanted to move defense money from one area to the other, notwithstanding the fact that people charged with that responsibility have spent months negotiating the package. Then I discovered that someone said that New Jersey, for example, our colleague from New Jersey, put out a ``Dear Colleague'' saying protect unemployment, job training, and health benefits for New Jerseyans, vote ``no'' on the rule; which is kind of an interesting argument. So I examined what he said New Jersey was not going to get. For example, it said New Jersey is not going to get $52 million. I would remind my friends on this side of the aisle that we just recently passed an economic stimulus bill. And had my colleagues voted for it, they would have been voting for $368 million for New Jersey for unemployment and health care. Had my colleagues voted for that bill, they would have provided New York with $766 million for unemployment and health care. And, for example, Pennsylvania would have been $531 million, and so on, because there was more than $12 billion in that pot which is being distributed. So if my colleagues are worried about voting no on a rule because New Jersey is not getting $52 million, why in the world did my colleagues vote ``no'' on a bill which would have provided $368 million to New Jersey? I fail to understand the desire to stick New Jersey in the eye on the one hand but then scream vote ``no'' on the rule to protect some kind of money that maybe was supposed to have been there. By the way, we are not through helping New York. The victims' bill that we passed on the Thursday, that has been over in the Senate all these weeks, is now back. We are attaching to that bill the New York delegation's desires on tax adjustments to enhance New York. For example, in the bill that most of my colleagues did not vote for, an opportunity was created for leaseholders to build out, in a new structure for a restaurant or a dry cleaners, a 15-year period, reduced from a third of a century. What we have said in the recovery zone of Manhattan is that that 15 years is reduced to 5. Those kinds of real incentives to rebuild in the recovery zone will be part of the victims' bill, which, after all, was a response to what happened on September 11. So to argue that Members should vote ``no'' on this rule to deny New Jersey something is really a pretty bizarre argument. Vote ``yes'' on this rule. And by the way, vote ``yes'' on the stimulus package when it comes back from conference.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2722), to implement a system of requirements on the importation of diamonds and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to tell my colleagues that the process of accommodation and compromise is alive and well. The legislation we have in front of us is supported by the administration, and I have for the Record and, when appropriate, I will place in the Record the letter from the United States Department of State which indicates that the administration supports H.R. 2722. It does so as a means to sever the link, the letter says, between the rough and conflict diamonds, while preserving the trade in legitimate diamonds. The letter goes on to say: ``The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this letter.'' Mr. Speaker, I will insert the letter for the Record at this time. Department of State, Washington, DC, November 27, 2001. Hon. William M. Thomas, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Administration supports H.R. 2722, the Clean Diamond Trade Act, as amended. Funds derived from the sale of rough diamonds are being used to fund rebel conflicts and commit atrocities against unarmed civilians. Passage of H.R. 2722 would further the objectives of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions on these conflict diamonds by giving the President the discretion to prohibit imports of rough diamonds into the United States from any country that does not take effective measures to stop trade in conflict diamonds. The Administration supports this amended bill as a means to sever the link between rough and conflict diamonds while preserving the trade in legitimate diamonds. The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this letter. I hope this information is useful to you. Please do not hesitate to call if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Paul V. Kelly, Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and especially on the committee, the chairman and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). I know also that the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) was involved, as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) was involved, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) was involved in producing a piece of legislation in which we meet the basic objectives, but which no one is now in opposition to, and that includes the administration. That is the way we are supposed to resolve the legislation in areas that are so sensitive, and the question of whether or not we try to regulate the movement of every diamond on Earth, or we set up a process in which people who are utilizing the sale of diamonds to carry out acts of terrorism and other heinous acts are unable to do so. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and following that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), and I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Houghton control the remainder of the time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I will tell my friend who said that the solution is to simply extend the Andean Pact, it means the African provisions are out, the Caribbean provisions are out and all of the help, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) said, in replacing the drug costs will be out as well. That does not sound exactly like a good deal.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman, as I said both privately and publicly, we are currently analyzing the situation. We have been provided by our friend from American Samoa an amendment something other than simply banning. That is a significant step in the right direction. We are willing to look at limitations on volume, quota or consumption, whichever is the most appropriate structure. I understand and appreciate the gentleman's concern because he is dealing with only a canning operation in which the processing comes from the very country that is the subject of the tuna expansion in Andean and Ecuador. And the pressures are significant. The facts are there. We will make adjustments so that the gentleman will have at least a minimal comfort level.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, when the world changes, it is always difficult and sometimes painful, but the fact of the matter is, the world will change. In this area of economic relationships, it is becoming extremely dynamic. First of all, people need to understand that the people who primarily take the floor are those who are opposed to what is going to occur. We do not ordinarily get an enormous number of people who are in support. So when we listen to the arguments that people are making as to why we should be opposed to this bill, which allows for modest importations from sub-Saharan Africa, modest adjustments for the Caribbean region, and the opportunity, for the first time, for the Andean region, which has taken significant responsibility for reducing the production of coca and, therefore, cocaine, taking away literally a cash crop and not getting anything in return, that what we are doing is reaching out to them in this bill. Mr. Speaker, T-shirts, if you will, are going to be produced somewhere in the world. I understand my friends from the former textile-producing areas, because quite frankly, in the latter part of the last century it was New England that was the textile center of the U.S. What we saw was movement regionally to the Atlantic States and then to the South because it was following cheap labor. And what has happened is, it has begun to jump off the North American continent and continues to find cheap labor. Cheap labor is all over the world. The T-shirt, if it is not made in the U.S., is going to be made somewhere: Madagascar, Bangladesh, India. It is not going to be made in the U.S. And the idea that if we simply stop the world, we are going to keep the jobs, that is just not reality. What we have to do is rethink our relationships. What the U.S. can do and do well is to continue to supply fabric, cotton, primarily yarn, and also raw material. Now, where do we have a better chance of sustaining the U.S.'s future role in textiles coming into the U.S.? Making sure that the people who send that T-shirt, either in Madagascar or in Bangladesh or somewhere else 10,000, 15,000 miles away from the U.S., or building a win-win relationship with our friends in the Western Hemisphere? We have to start with the idea that that T-shirt is not going to stay here. People have said, one of the major mills, Brunk, is now in bankruptcy; 60,000 jobs were lost. This legislation is not in effect, so it must have been for some other reason. Time marches on. What we are trying to do is to create a relationship that will produce a lasting, beneficial, harmonious balance in which our friends in our own hemisphere, which also provides us with shortened logistics for our own products to assist, and a little bit of help and recognition, that they have made significant advances on the supply side of the drug problem. We obviously need to work on the demand side, but they are working on the supply side. So when we listen to the arguments, including the gentleman from American Samoa, about the potential displacement of jobs, that is a real concern for American Samoa because they have a significant number of people who are employed in this industry. What has not been presented yet is clear evidence of the facts that a direct result of what we do will diminish jobs. Will there be readjustment? Will companies go into business and go out of business? Will other companies expand to absorb the loss of the jobs from that other business? That is what we have to analyze; not say, change will take place and, therefore, do not move forward. What is the impact of the change? What is the dynamic of the change, and how can we make sure that any downside is diminished? My friend came to the floor and mentioned my name a number of times and said that certain bills have not passed and that this should not be in front of trade promotion authority. I will tell my colleagues, I did everything in my power to make sure that trade promotion authority came first. I had a letter from the Speaker saying that it was going to be voted on prior to today. I do not control scheduling on the floor. We do know that this particular provision will expire December 4. The Andean bill has been where the Andean bill has been; the trade promotion authority has been changed. This bill has not been changed. Trade promotion authority has been changed. I do not have control over that. So what we have in front of us today is the possibility to build a stronger lasting relationship with every commitment on the part of the sponsors of this bill; and by the way, there has been a lot of comment about the fact that we have not been bipartisan. I support the bill, the ranking member supports the bill, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Trade supports the bill, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade supports the bill. The bill came out of committee on a voice vote. Mr. Speaker, we can just go so far. It is not perfect. Trade involves relocation. I will commit to anyone, lay the facts in front of me, clear evidence of the downside, and we will work on making that adjustment. But to say that we have to stop now and not move forward in this process because frankly the Senate has to take the bill up, I am quite sure that the Members over there will effect change in the bill. We will have a conference and we will move forward. Our job today is to not send a signal to our friends around the world that the answer is no and nothing.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I do so to announce that the next speaker is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins). He is a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and obviously, given the geographic location of his State, he is significantly involved with and concerned with textiles, from raw fiber to the production of the final product. He, along with most of the other people in the textile belt, has suffered significantly. The reason I took this extra time is that I wanted to make sure in the introduction that everyone understands the role that he has been playing, that is, he has looked at the way the world is and wants to work to make sure that we have a viable and useful relationship and that we do not just try to stop the world. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

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, the sponsor of the bill and someone who has worked long and hard in this area and frankly very fruitfully in the last few years.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When we were younger and engaged in various activities, I was involved in sports, and I know on those long workouts during the summer we would be doing jumping jacks. One of the things we repeated constantly was, ``Every day in every way we're getting better and better,'' probably in the hopes that mind would overcome matter because we were not very good in terms of the team. But the belief that you can do better, I think, is important. We never said, ``Every day we're perfect.'' We were getting better. There have been a number of discussions on this floor about the procedure, about the substance and about the way in which the House has been operating. I am here to tell you that today in every way, we are getting better and better. Are we perfect? No. What you have in front of you is a piece of legislation sponsored by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, cosponsored by the ranking member, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade. In addition to that, I want to thank our colleagues on the committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn). I especially want to underscore the contribution that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) made not just on this bill, but on the Caribbean Basin bill in terms of labor rights, which we adopted to place into the Andean portion of this bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) in terms of their assistance and support on the African portion of this bill. The fundamental premise of this bill is that we ought to trade commercial products, not drugs. To the degree that is going to be possible, we can affect the supply side of the supply-demand problem with drugs. We included the Caribbean Basin Initiative and Africa in this bill because I think it is extremely important that when we offer these regions marginal benefits under our laws that they do not think that it is taken from one area to be given to another, that in fact a rising tide can float all boats. And so today we are pleased to bring to the floor a bipartisan bill that passed the committee on a voice vote; that although there are some concerns by some areas because whenever you talk about trade, you are talking about change and change is not only painful, but difficult. We will commit to those who believe they are disadvantaged that when the facts are presented and the case is made, we will do everything in our power to adjust the arrangement so that it contains and will be what we believe this bill is, a win-win relationship. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.