David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my very good friend from Massachusetts, I have no idea whatsoever he is talking about when he talks about the economy that we are in today. Since January 1 of this year, 1.26 million new jobs have been created right here in the United States. We have seen the largest surge in 45 months of manufacturing jobs. We are seeing unanticipated revenues coming into the Federal Treasury because of the tax package that this Congress, in a bipartisan way, passed and this President signed. We are, I believe, poised to move towards a balanced budget earlier than had been anticipated, and we have undergone some of the most serious challenges that our Nation has ever felt during the past few years. We all know that when President Bush came into office he inherited an economy that was already slowing. Within just a couple of months, we went into recession. That was two quarters of negative economic growth. Mr. Speaker, since that period of time, we saw 7\1/2\ months after President Bush took office the worse attack in our Nation's history on American soil when 3,000 Americans were killed on September 11 of 2001. We saw the tremendous problem of corporate abuse, corporate scandals; and we know the challenges that that created for our economy. We saw the global war on terror proceed; and we, of course, are still struggling as we work to liberate the people of Iraq and move towards political pluralism and the rule of law and free and fair elections. With all of those challenges, we have seen tremendous economic growth. A very important aspect of that has been trade liberalization, a policy that has enjoyed bipartisan support. Usually it is Republican- led, I will acknowledge, and there are not many Democrats who do join; but in the past, there have been Democrats who have joined in, trying to bring about the very important market-opening opportunities that we see worldwide. This agreement is going to enjoy tremendous bipartisan support; and, again, I will say that it has been great to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), is going to be retiring; but he is a Democrat who has been very thoughtful and consistently pushing trade liberalization. He helped us with the passage of Trade Promotion Authority, and he has just done a terrific job, and I will miss him when he retires from this body at the end of this year. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who stood up and spoke very eloquently on the need to pass the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, has been a leader within the whip organization on the other side of the aisle, and I mentioned my colleague, the distinguished whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the chief deputy whip; and a wide range of members; the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) providing the leadership that he has on the Committee on Ways and Means. We have gotten to this point, Mr. Speaker, and this point is one which will allow us, Democrats and Republicans alike, to come together and underscore how trade liberalization is helping our economy. It is helping to create jobs. Now, we have heard this argument raised about prescription drugs, and I will say what I have said throughout the debate. It is current law. It is current law in Australia, not part of the free trade agreement, that, in fact, ensures that reimportation will not take place. Nothing in this agreement whatsoever, nothing in this agreement will in any way impact the debate which has been ongoing in this body on the issue of drug reimportation; and if any change is made, the free trade agreement cannot in any way override that. This issue of the administration and the consultation process, as the pharmaceutical drug question was addressed, taking place, there was broad consultation that took place, in a bipartisan way, Democrats and Republicans in both Houses of Congress, with this administration, with our U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Zoellick. So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to recognize that, on the specifics of this, it has been very, very well handled and, I think, is in many ways a model. I will say to my friend from Massachusetts that in the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement that we put together, very similar language as we have in the Australia agreement on the pharmaceutical question. We feel strongly about the issue of intellectual property, we feel strongly about property rights, we do not like piracy, we do not like counterfeiting, and this agreement is designed to strengthen our ability to deal with that question. Mr. Speaker, September 11 of 2001 was one of the most difficult days in our Nation's history. We were poised to hear an address before a joint session of Congress by Prime Minister John Howard, the great Prime Minister of Australia. Obviously, we were unable to do that, but Prime Minister Howard was, as I recall very vividly, here when President Bush came and addressed a joint session of Congress. I am very proud, and I think I am the only Member who has a place in the U.S. Capitol where I have a quote from an Australian. I have a very important quote, which I would commend to my colleagues, and I will enter that into the record and not read through it right now, but I actually saw it when I visited the Australian parliament at Canberra several years ago, actually in December of 1998. I was struck by this quote by R.G. Menzies, who was one of the great, strong anti-Communist prime ministers of Australia. He talks about the importance of public service and the sacrifice that public service entails, and I have that quote hanging in the Committee on Rules upstairs, just above this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to realize that Australia has been an important ally of ours in every single way. They have been unrelenting in their commitment to the global war on terror. They have been victimized themselves. Our September 11 was at one point an October 11, or October 6, it was an October date, that saw many Australians tragically become the victims of the challenge of international terrorism with the bombings that took place at Bali, killing many Australians. So they have suffered as well. They understand what it is like. So they have stood with us in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in international fora in trying to deal with these challenges. Our relationship is already, as I said, an extraordinarily strong relationship. But with the passage of this measure today, Mr. Speaker, we are going to strengthen even more that very important tie that exists between the United States of America and the wonderful people of Australia. So I urge strong support of this rule and strong support of the measure as we address it. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the quote by R.G. Menzies which I earlier referred to: I believe that politics is the most important and responsible civil activity to which a man may devote his character, his talents, and his energy. We must, in our interests, elevate politics into statesmanship and statecraft. We must aim at a condition of affairs in which we shall no longer reserve the dignified name of statesman for a Churchill or Roosevelt, but extend it to lesser men who give honourable and patriotic service in public affairs. In its true that most men of ability prefer the objective work of science, the law, literature, scholarship, or the immediately stimulating and profitable work of manufacturing, commerce, or finance. The result is that our legislative assemblies are a fair popular cross-section, not a corp d'elite. The first-class mind is comparatively rare. We discourage young men of parts by confronting them with poor material rewards, precariousness of tenure, an open public cynicism about their motives, and cheap sneers about their real or supposed search for publicity. The reason for this wrong-headedness, so damaging to ourselves, is that we have treated democracy as an end and not as a means. It is almost as if we had said, when legislatures freely elected by the votes of all citizens came into being, ``Well, thank heaven we have achieved democracy. Let us now devote our attention to something new.'' Yet the true task of the democrat only begins when he is put in possession of the instruments by which the popular will may be translated into authoritative action. In brief, we cannot sensibly devote only one per cent of our time to something which affects ninety-nine per cent of our living.-- R. G. Menzies, New York Times Magazine, November 28, 1948.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me once again thank my friend from Michigan for his strong and committed bipartisan support to this effort. I do not have any further speakers. I plan to just make some closing remarks myself. If the gentleman has no further speakers and would like to yield back the balance of his time or make remarks, I look forward to them.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is great to see such extraordinary bipartisan support for this very important agreement. Let me take just a few minutes to respond to the comments of my good friend from Ohio. As I said in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, the Australia Free Trade Agreement does not prevent Congress from passing legislation on drug reimportation. Under the U.S. Constitution, we all know that no trade agreement could do this. We also need to know that there has been ongoing consultation between this administration, the U.S. Trade Representative and a bipartisan group here in the United States House of Representatives, as well as in the United States Senate. We know that any law that is passed by the Congress will always trump any kind of Free Trade Agreement. There is nothing in the Australia Free Trade Agreement or in the implementing legislation, H.R. 4759, that changes U.S. patent law or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, FDCA. We also think it is very important for our colleagues to understand that the patent provision in the Free Trade Agreement restates U.S. law and applies to all patents. It restates U.S. law and applies to all patents, Mr. Speaker, not just pharmaceuticals. Not including this provision would be devastating to U.S. intellectual property rights holders in every single sector of our economy. It is one of the things I was talking about in my opening remarks. The issue of piracy, counterfeiting, intellectual property violations, those are violating property rights, and we clearly feel strong about the need to maintain those private property rights. Australian law already bans the exportation of drugs dispensed under its pharmaceutical benefit scheme, the PBS. Unlike Canada, the law in Australia explicitly prohibits other parties, such as wholesalers or pharmacists, from exporting non-PBS dispensed drugs. Therefore, I think that, as I listen to my friend from Ohio talking, he could not be more inaccurate in his assessment of how this came out or in his assessment of his relationship between those of who do truly want to do everything that we possibly can to lower the cost to consumers of pharmaceutical drugs, of basically any kind of consumer product. We are here to do what we can to improve the standard of living and quality of life for our consumers. We happen to believe in bringing about an agreement like this, and so I think it is important to note that any change in U.S. law would have no practical effect on reimportation from Australia due to Australian domestic law that exists, regardless of the free trade agreement; and, therefore, Australia would have no plausible basis to claim harm or to pursue any kind of sanctions. I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, for our colleagues to understand the fact that this is an agreement which is focused on ensuring the very important intellectual property rights, but at the same time, working to ensure that consumers have access to the best quality product at the lowest possible price, whether it is a pharmaceutical drug or whether it is a product coming from my great entertainment industry in Hollywood. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to compliment my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his very thoughtful statement. I, too, want to join in extending congratulations not only to those on our side of the aisle who have worked in a strong bipartisan way on this issue, including the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Chief Deputy Whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), an organization that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and I have had in place working on trade issues for a long period of time, reaching out to my friends, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who has worked with us on trade issues for a long period of time. I would like to say how important this bipartisan effort has been. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to state once again that I am very gratified to see the strong and overwhelming bipartisan support for this important agreement, demonstrating that Democrats and Republicans alike can come together and address such a critical issue. I would like to just take one moment before yielding to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), to say what I did in my opening statement, and that is the issue of reimportation is one that exists not in this free trade agreement at all, but instead under the PBS, which is the Prescription Benefit System, the structure that exists in Australia today. Now, I will say that there was a consultative process that was ongoing in a bipartisan way with this administration, the U.S. Trade Representative, and members of the subcommittees of Congress. In fact, we are in the process right now of getting the dates of those meetings and the consultation process as it took place, and I am going to be entering those into the Record, because I think it is important to note that there has been a very, very important discussion which has taken place between this administration and Democrats and Republicans in both Houses of Congress on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), one of the most thoughtful advocates of trade liberalization, the chairman of the Committee on Rules Subcommittee on Technology, in the House.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my very good friend and Committee on Rules colleague, 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, this is a very exciting day. We are about to embark on the debate for a very important bipartisan issue. Let me at the outset say that there is so often attention, in fact, almost all of the attention that is focused on this institution, the United States Congress, both Houses of Congress, is on disagreements that take place, and of course those are very important. But very little attention is focused on the fact that we are able to craft major bipartisan agreements on a wide range of issues, and at this moment we are beginning debate on a measure which will enjoy very strong bipartisan support. It is going to create an opportunity for us to expand one of the most important bilateral relationships that exists, and it is the U.S.- Australia Free Trade Agreement that will build upon the long-standing commercial ties that we have with Australia by eliminating terrorists, removing nontariff barriers, and providing better market opening opportunities for U.S. goods, services, and investment. It is a first- rate, state-of-the-art agreement that will spur growth and create jobs for Americans and Australians alike. But the vote that we have before us today is bigger than just this one agreement. The Free Trade Agreement we have negotiated with Australia is a significant piece of our overall economic growth and trade liberalization agenda. I want to begin by congratulating our great U.S. trade representative, Ambassador Bob Zoellick, for his tremendous work in negotiating agreements not only with Australia but with the Central American countries, with Morocco, with Bahrain, as well as his ongoing work in Thailand and the Andean countries, in Southern Africa, and in the Middle East. Mr. Zoellick, with the support of this Congress, has made great strides in our fight to open the global marketplace to the free flow of goods, services, and capital; a marketplace where American producers, workers, consumers, and investors can freely compete; a marketplace where the U.S. is the clear global leader based on the power of our ability to innovate, adapt, and grow. The Australia Free Trade Agreement is a significant part of moving this agenda forward. This agreement will create significant new opportunities for producers and consumers both here at home and in Australia. Under the Free Trade Agreement, tariffs on 99 percent of all U.S.-manufactured products will immediately drop to zero. Let me say that again. The tariffs on 99 percent of the products that we will be exporting, the manufacturing sector, to Australia will immediately go to zero, achieving the greatest immediate reduction ever attained in any U.S. Free Trade Agreement. This kind of comprehensive reduction would be significant in any agreement, but it is particularly significant and particularly beneficial in trade with Australia in which manufacturing actually makes up 93 percent of all U.S. exported goods. This is also good news for States like California, which I am very honored to be able to represent here in the Congress. Our State exports almost $2 billion in goods every year. Australia is a huge market for California's high-valued manufactured goods, with computers, transportation equipment, chemicals, and machinery topping the list of major exports. Huge gains will also be achieved in terms of market access for services, which is the fastest-growing sector both here at home and in Australia. Thousands of Americans are already employed by Australian service providers here in the United States. This Free Trade Agreement makes enormous progress in opening up service sectors in Australia to U.S. companies and investors. Market access gains were negotiated across virtually all sectors, from telecommunications to financial services to energy. The Free Trade Agreement also contains unprecedented gains in access for U.S. entertainment products and services, something else that is very important to me as a representative from Southern California. Protection of intellectual property rights in general represents another important achievement in the Australia Free Trade Agreement. The agreement guarantees strong protection for American innovations and encourages robust trade in cultural, scientific, and high-tech products. Patents, trademarks, content, test data, and trade secrets will be protected as well as governed by a transparent and fair regulatory process. And perhaps most important, Mr. Speaker, the Free Trade Agreement provides for strict, effective enforcement measures to protect U.S. innovators from pirates and counterfeiters. The FTA will also expand the markets for U.S. farmers. I know that some agriculture sectors have opposed provisions in this agreement, but the fact is that this FTA will significantly increase market access in Australia for U.S. agricultural products. Our agricultural exports will immediately gain duty-free access. Furthermore, significant progress has been gained on the large nontariff barrier to agricultural trade, that is, Australia's sanitary and phytosanitary standards. Nontransparent and often nonscientific- based rulings on the safety of U.S. agricultural goods have been a major barrier to the Australian market. But through the FTA negotiations, communication and cooperation between United States and Australia have been significantly improved. Strong commitments were also obtained to ensure that the review process is entirely science- based. Even before passage and implementation of the Free Trade Agreement, we are seeing the effects of this greater cooperation in Australia's recent decision on pork products. U.S. pork exports have long faced a de facto ban because of Australia's animal health standards process. But through the leverage of the FTA negotiating process, U.S. trade and agricultural officials have succeeded in opening up the Australian market to processed as well as certain types of unprocessed pork. While this will no doubt be an ongoing battle as other products seek full access, there is no question that without the fuller engagement brought about by the Free Trade Agreement, U.S. farmers would still be facing formidable barriers for many of their products. Similarly, the Free Trade Agreement makes great strides in increasing market access for our highly innovative pharmaceutical and biotech industries. The Australians made strong commitments on transparency and accountability as well as recognized the value of innovation. In recent weeks there have been misleading assertions made that this Free Trade Agreement would permit Australia to levy sanctions against the United States if we were to enact a drug reimportation bill. I do not happen to be a supporter of the issue of drug reimportation, but I think it is important to make clear the disagreement in no way prevents the United States from enacting drug reimportation legislation. It is existing Australian law, existing Australian law, that prohibits the export of drugs purchased within their national health care system, the PBS, which constitutes over 90 percent of the market. In addition, it prohibits the export of drugs purchased outside of their system except by the original manufacturer or their licensed Australian distributor. Unlike Canadian law, Australian law prohibits pharmacies from selling drugs outside of Australia. Again, Australian domestic law prohibits reimportation, not the Free Trade Agreement. Therefore, any future reimportation law implemented in the United States would have no bearing whatsoever on the Australian system and would not be actionable as a trade dispute. Clearly, the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a win-win for producers, consumers, and workers in the United States and Australia. It will create new opportunities, spur investment, create good jobs, and increase access to high-quality consumer goods. It will also strengthen our relationship. This is one of the very important aspects of this, Mr. Speaker. This will strengthen our relationship with one of our most important and significant allies in the global war on terror. Since the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, we have seen Australia provide over 1,500 troops in addition to military equipment to support the U.S.-led coalition to combat global terrorism. Specifically, Australia has provided significant support for our mission in Iraq, an integral part of the war on terrorism, by contributing everything from fighter jets to reconnaissance forces. While our partnership has been strong for many decades and we have clearly seen it most evident in this global war on terror and we all remember very vividly the brilliant address that was given to a joint session of Congress by Prime Minister Howard here in this body, we have seen the relationship with Australia grow even more, and they are one of our closest friends. With this Free Trade Agreement we have an opportunity to strengthen even further our ties with that key ally of ours. It allows us to advance our agenda to improve American competitiveness, enhance our position as the global economic leader, and create thousands of new job opportunities for Americans. Mr. Speaker, I look across the other side of the aisle, and I see the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who has worked very hard in working to bring about bipartisan support for this effort, and I do believe, again, that this is further evidence of our quest to work in a bipartisan way to bring about trade liberalization. With that, I urge strong support of both the rule and the agreement itself. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 712 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. The gentleman is correct, although I recall testifying on this issue before the Committee on House Administration this year as we dealt with this issue.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the last Congress did hold a hearing on that legislation, and when the request was made to deal with the proposals of the constitutional amendment, they were not even offered by Members of the Committee on the Judiciary when they did proceed with the markup in that committee.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield on that point, I would just remind the gentleman when we were debating an issue which is very important to this institution, that is the continuity of Congress, we had a recommittal motion offered by the gentleman from North Carolina. And as the gentleman knows, that was accepted on this side as we were moving ahead with that very important quest to try to bring about a bipartisan solution to the challenge of dealing with a potential catastrophe to this institution.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I am happy that in that litany of issues raised, the gentleman raised the issue of motions to recommit. As the gentleman knows very well, when we were in the minority, we were often denied motions to recommit. Yet when we won the majority in 1994, because of the expertise that so many of us had had serving in the minority for so many years, we made a determination at that time that we would change the rules to in fact provide the minority with at least one bite at the apple, meaning an opportunity to vote on that motion to recommit; and in most instances, not every, I will acknowledge, but in most instances, two opportunities for the minority to have a chance to modify and change a piece of legislation by providing a substitute at the end of a bill itself. I will acknowledge when it came to the issue of the amendment process itself, we are here Friday afternoon having gone through a long and drawn out appropriations process, which we are in the midst of right now, most of these bills are being considered under an open amendment process. We have a very narrow majority in the House. When the gentleman's party was in the majority, they had a 70-vote margin. We have a responsibility to move our agenda, so we have often done it under a structured amendment process. But at the end of the day, we still have provided something that did not exist when we were in the minority, that being the right to offer a recommittal motion.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to characterize rightness or wrongness. What I am saying is when we on this side of the aisle have extended the invitation to Members to consider changing a vote, we saw that done many times on the other side of the aisle. I can only speak for myself, but I am a Member who has learned that process is a very important part of the legislative process itself, and the process of democratic governance.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, what I will say is there was no one in the minority at that time who had the experience that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had up to that point in 1994 when we won the majority.

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

Mr. DREIER. Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I think he raises a very good point. I have said on a number of occasions that the year I was born was the last time that my party was elected to serve in the majority here in the House of Representatives, until we won our majority in 1994. In fact, the gentleman referenced the now Vice President of the United States, the former minority whip, Mr. Cheney. And Mr. Cheney never served as a member of the majority here in the House of Representatives. I have admitted that there are a number of things that we have learned, with not a single Member having served in the majority once we emerged to that status following the election of 1994. So it is true we understand that leadership does entail making tough decisions, and, occasionally, as I said in my closing remarks on the rule earlier today, involve extending an invitation to Members to deliberate and, in fact, on occasion, change their mind. That is part of the democratic process. So I will admit that the process which we observed on numerous occasions when the gentleman's party was in the majority is something which did provide an opportunity for us to learn from. One thing I will say, when we look at the issue of slowing up a process or creating challenges, I think about the other body which as we all know has this very unique ability to allow one Member to hold up an entire process and delay the opportunity to move forward on a number of issues, including confirmations. So I think we, having a 38-minute vote here, it is not unprecedented. I will say we did in fact see the democratic process work.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would simply say that it is our intention, as is always the case, to have the majority comply with rule XX, clause 2(a), which states that all votes should be held within a minimum of 15 minutes. And then, if my friend would further yield, I would say it is also quite possible that some Members, either still coming to the chamber or who are in the Chamber, who might either have not voted if they are coming to the Chamber or if they are here, may want to consider changing their votes. As has often been the case, as I said in my closing remarks on the rule today, when I served in the minority, during those wonderful 14 years that my friend was in the majority before 1994, and also since we have been in the majority, we have clearly done that. So I thank my friend for yielding, and it is our intention to simply comply with clause 2(a), rule XX, when it comes to dealing with votes.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Yes, if the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, we have already addressed the issue of the rule for the legislative branch appropriation bill, and that is in fact a structured rule. It is our intention on the other measures that are before us to consider them under the standard open amendment process, just as we have this week on the appropriation issues that we have addressed.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I said, along with the BioShield Act on Wednesday we also anticipate considering the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. DREIER. No, our plan is to, on Wednesday, deal with both the BioShield Act as well as the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement.