David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I totally agree in strong enforcement of those but I believe that this kind of action is, in fact, counterproductive.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I would say once again that there are a litany of industries and there may be some people who believe that we should take on every single industry, go ahead and pull up the drawbridge, and while 96 percent of the world's consumers are outside of our borders and we are trying our darnedest to take advantage of that, we clearly would get into a major international trade war. That is why I believe that this is very bad policy. I would be happy to further yield to the gentleman, if he would like.

Mr. DREIER. I strongly support enforcement of those agreements and I believe it should be done by way of the WTO, which is an organization which an overwhelming majority of the United States Congress got us involved in. My view is that this resolution is counter to the structure that has been put into place to address this, and if the gentleman looks at those industries, as I said, in my State of California and in other parts of the country, that are being devastated because of the crisis that exists in the Pacific Rim and now in Latin America, it seems to me that moving in one single area is a real mistake for us and could have a devastating impact.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend. Madam Speaker, let me just take a moment to again express my appreciation of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for moving this legislation forward. This is a very important measure. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) had it incorporated in the Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, and we all know exactly what happened to that. Unfortunately, we have not been able to see that bill become public law. But last year, just into this Congress, we all heard, the world heard, about the horrible tragedy of the killing of Jovian Waldrich, a 16 year old girl who was run over by a drunken diplomat from the State of Georgia. It seems to me that when this problem came to the forefront, it focused attention on the issue of diplomatic immunity. We recognized that repeal of diplomatic immunity, obviously, could be devastating for our national interests. We cannot have in other countries people have their lives jeopardized and threatened by governments if we were to repeal diplomatic immunity. That conceivably could happen. So diplomatic immunity is a very important thing. But with the dramatic increase in the number of diplomats that we have seen in this country and throughout the world, there has been abuse, and when you have the tragic loss of life and some of the other horrendous instances that have been reported to me, of raping and other crimes that have been inflicted against our citizenry, and diplomatic immunity has been claimed, it seems to me we need to take some kind of action to bring about reform. This bill, which we have been working, as I said, for nearly two years on with our friends, is one which is designed to really make sure that, first, we have a reporting from the State Department on the instances of diplomatic immunity being used, and then it is our hope that we can see accountability come about, where we will have the nations involved actually take responsibility for the actions of their representatives who are here in this country. It is my hope that if crimes are perpetrated here in the United States or anywhere in the world, that these diplomats or their family members who use diplomatic immunity will be sent back to their home countries and face full responsibility for the actions that they have perpetrated here. So I am a supporter of diplomatic immunity. I believe it is a very important tool for us. But I believe also when you look at the tragic loss of Jovian Waldrich and the countless other victims of those who have been victims of those who have used diplomatic immunity to free themselves of responsibility, that this is a step towards addressing that. So I again thank my colleagues, and I believe this is a very important measure, and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Middletown, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and I appreciate his strong support and leadership on this issue in helping us shepherd it through. I would also like to say to my friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) that I have appreciated his understanding of the need to deal with what obviously is a very important issue and his support, as he just stated, of the legislation. Let me just take one moment, and I know that I had the privilege during the special order that we had the other evening to enter some very strong words in support of Lee Hamilton and making it clear he is going to be sorely missed when he retires at the end of this Congress, and we do not know exactly when that will be, so his service may be extending further than he anticipated. We already know, having gone for several days, that it has done that. But it has been a privilege for me to have worked closely with Lee Hamilton on a number of issues. This obviously is one of them, issues dealing with the committee which he used to Chair and now, I am happy to say, serves as ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations, formerly the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and I should say that actually is one of the issues we spent a great deal of time working on, trying our darnedest to bring about a modicum of reform of this institution. We had the privilege in 1993, I guess that was the 103d Congress, to work together on an overall reform of the institution. I was privileged to serve as his co-vice chairman of what was called the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Unfortunately, we were not able to get many, really none of those recommendations, that we had through in the 103d Congress. But when we did come to majority in 1995, we were able to take large parts of the work product which Lee Hamilton had overseen and were able to implement that. I also would like to say on the issue of global trade, there has been no one who has been more passionate and committed to what I think is the correct position than Lee Hamilton. He is a strong free-trader, and we worked long and hard on our goal of expanding western values through trade internationally, and he will be sorely missed in that effort as we continue to pursue fast track, normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China and a number of other issues in the years to come. I would like to say, what a great friend, and I wish Lee and Nancy well in their retirement. Lee showed his great brilliance by selecting a Californian as his wife, and I know that they will be here in Washington in this great spot at the Wilson Center and also at the Indiana University.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Greensboro for yielding me this time and for his great leadership, along with that of my friend from Richmond, who has worked long and hard on this, and the gentleman from Thibodaux, Louisiana, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have done a great job on this. Clearly, as we look at the problems that we face as a Nation, and as we move rapidly towards this global economy, it is difficult to imagine an issue that is much more important than theft of intellectual property. Property rights are an issue which we talk about regularly, and implementation of this WIPO treaty and our support of it is, I believe, going to go a long way towards ensuring that the property of individuals is not in any way jeopardized. If we look at figures, most recently in 1996, there are estimates that $7.6 billion in theft of film, books, music and software has taken place, and many of us believe that that figure has actually gotten higher in the past 2 years. It is a problem which obviously continues to be in the forefront and is going to be there unless we have full implementation of this. We have U.S. industries involved in a wide range of areas, and we are creating new ideas here in the United States and are in the forefront as the world's greatest information exporter and importer. And as such, these new ideas are creating opportunities for people who steal these proposals. So that is why implementation of WIPO is so important. I want to say that as we look at not only the film and entertainment industries, but the biotech industry and what I believe will be many new industries that are developing in this country in the coming years, WIPO is so important for that. I urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way to support this measure. I again congratulate my colleagues who played such a key role in working with us on it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned by the large number of near- elderly individuals who cannot afford insurance. According to a recent study by the General Accounting Office (GAO), those without health insurance face a nearly impossible task of obtaining affordable and adequate health care. For many, their age, health status and income force them to go without health care until they reach 65 when Medicare coverage begin. The GAO concluded that the problem will only worsen as more individuals retire early without health insurance coverage from their employer. In response to this growing problem, President Clinton proposed permitting the near-elderly to buy into the Medicare program by paying a large annual premium. To qualify for Medicare, elderly couples would have to pay nearly $10,000 a year which is too expensive for many retirees on fixed incomes. In a recent study, the National Coalition on Health Care concluded that the high annual premium means that the President's proposal would have ``little impact'' in providing coverage to the 3 million near-elderly individuals without health insurance. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 320,000 individuals, approximately 10% of the affected group, would buy into Medicare. In addition, the President's plan may also hasten Medicare's solvency crisis. The American Association of Retired Persons recently expressed their concern that the proposal could threaten the current Medicare program. I believe that Congress can expand access to affordable health care for the uninsured near-elderly without harming Medicare. Today, I have introduced H.R.--, which allows the near-elderly to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, which gives participants a wealth of health care choices at lower prices. To participate, a near- elderly individual would pay the total cost of the premium, the employees share and the federal subsidy, which is up to $2,000 less per year than the President's proposal. The lower premium could mean that more uninsured individuals would enroll in a health plan that provides services, like prescription drugs and dental care, not offered by Medicare. My bill also allows younger Americans to access Medical Savings Accounts to prevent a loss of health insurance before they qualify for Medicare. Mr. Speaker, this legislation addresses the need of three million uninsured near-elderly individuals who need an affordable health care option. I believe that this common-sense approach can help the vulnerable near-elderly without requiring them to sacrifice their entire pension for health care.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the American people, at least the massive numbers who tuned into C-SPAN this morning, have been lucky enough to see the vision of the real Democratic Party. Fifteen out-of-touch liberal extremists and one pretending to be a conservative. The Democratic vision is of a do-everything, big government, micromanaging, high taxes, big spending, deficit-creating, liberal, bureaucratic, getting-into-every-aspect-of-family-life Congress. The Republicans propose a limited Federal Government that cuts taxes, balances the budget, strengthens national defense, empowers local and State governments to solve local problems, and make sure government works. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the American people have rejected the liberal do-everything-badly vision of government. They support a Congress that is focused on doing some things well and helping families and communities solve local problems. We are trying to get things done here by passing this rule. I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we can get things done and do the work that this Congress wants to do. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following statement from the Committee on Rules which explains the previous question vote: The Previous Question Vote: What It Means House Rule XVII (``Previous Question'') provides in part that: ``There shall be a motion for the previous question, which, being ordered by a majority of the Members voting, if a quorum is present, shall have the effect to cut off all debate and bring the House to a direct vote upon the immediate question or questions on which it has been asked or ordered.'' In the case of a special rule or order of business resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the previous question is moved following the one hour of debate allowed for under House Rules. The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and amendment on the legislation it would make in order. Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 588 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my friend and say, basically, under the guidelines the United States Congress established as we embarked on entry into the World Trade Organization, we made it clear that only this Congress can enforce these laws. We are the ones who are here today protecting the rights of workers in two very important industries in this country, and that is exactly what we should be doing. It is a priority, and it must be addressed now as Congress gets ready to complete its work in the coming days and weeks. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Terrace Park, Ohio, (Mr. Portman).

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from South Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), as we continue our fun Saturday morning together, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded will be for debate purposes only. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration in the House of H.R. 4761, the Uruguay Round Agreements Compliance Act of 1998, without amendment or any intervention of any point of order. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, reducing trade barriers and expanding international commerce have been the key to the dynamic growth of American jobs, wealth, and trade over the past 7 years. One of the pillars of that massive economic expansion has been the worldwide rules-based trading system. The rules-based trading system is a very simple concept. It basically means that countries sit down and negotiate fair trading rules and then they live by them. Countries agree to follow the rules. Now, to support free and fair trade is not to ignore human nature. Everyone knows that some people try to get an edge. In the international trading system, the same is true. Some countries always try to get an edge. They will not follow the rules. And what happens? People get hurt. Mr. Speaker, the expansion of free trade has been one of the most important global developments of the past half century. However, it became increasingly clear in the 1980s, especially here in the United States, that we needed a better system to enforce international trade rules. Countries were cheating and Americans were being hurt. The result was the arduously negotiated Uruguay Round agreement. The Uruguay Round was enacted by a strong bipartisan vote of the 103rd Congress when Democrats were in the majority. The agreement was negotiated by two Republican Presidents, signed by a Democratic President, and supported by 65 percent of congressional Democrats and 68 percent of congressional Republicans. One of the core features of that bipartisan agreement was that it would permit countries to enforce trade rules. Today's bill is very important, but not because bananas or beef exports are critical to this country, although both industries provide good jobs to working families. The bill is important because we are approaching a critical crossroads of the World Trade Organization created by the Uruguay Round agreements. Since the inception of the World Trade Organization in 1995, many cases have tested the rules-based trading system. The United States has challenged unfair trade barriers in other countries, and we have had some of our own trade policies challenged. Not surprising, we have won some cases and we have lost some cases. When a country loses a case because they are violating the rules, that country can choose how to respond. We here in this House of Representatives insisted that the WTO not have any sovereignty over our laws, so the WTO cannot force this country or any other country to do anything. Governments, not the WTO, decide what they will do. They can either eliminate the trade barrier that is ruled in violation of the trade agreement, or they can accept the fact that the countries that are aggrieved by the trade barrier can impose equivalent trade sanctions on the offending country. Mr. Speaker, that is the rules-based system we signed up with. That is the rules-based system nearly all of our trading partners, including the European Union, signed up with. Those are the rules. We are approaching a crossroads because in two major agricultural cases, one involving an unfair European banana cartel and another involving unfair restrictions on American beef exports, the European Union is threatening to undermine the rules-based trading system. They are threatening to trash the Uruguay Round and the WTO. They have lost two major cases fair and square, but they are refusing to eliminate their trade barriers and they are refusing to accept that we can retaliate in kind. This is a major problem. Mr. Speaker, if they ignore the rules, the system does not work. It is purely chance that dictates the first of these major cases involving bananas. That case, which was brought to the WTO by the Clinton administration, was resolved in our favor, and the Europeans have until January 2 of 1999 to comply with the decision. If they do not, we are regrettably, and I do mean regrettably, heading down the road to a potential trade retaliation, a trade war. This bill simply says that the United States Congress, which approved the rules of the WTO, is committed to making sure that those rules are enforced. I sincerely hope that the European Union recognizes the self- destructive folly of their unfair trading regimes. I sincerely hope that they recognize the clear and unquestionable benefits of the rules- based trading system. I sincerely hope that they comply with the WTO decisions on their banana cartel and their restrictions on beef imports. But if they will not, I am quite certain that the Congress is committed to supporting the trade rules. Mr. Speaker, it takes little more than a quick scan of the daily newspapers to see that the international economy is an uncertain place. Danger is afoot and we as a people have much to lose if things go badly. While nobody has all the answers, I certainly believe that supporting and enforcing a good and fair rules-based trading system like the WTO is one of the answers to the questions we face today. We cannot afford to have the system fall apart. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. To open this type of bill to amendment would open the tariff code to all kinds of destructive propositions in the name of retaliation. That is the road to a Smoot- Hawley tariff bill, and that would be bad for American families and the world. Instead, the bill simply establishes a completely WTO-consistent schedule for the administration, through the United States Trade Representative, to protect U.S. rights in these landmark cases. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support a free and fair trading system. Support this rule and the bill itself. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was just asking my very good friend from Los Angeles to yield. The reason being that when we as a Congress in a bipartisan way tried to really throw a life raft to those struggling nations in the eastern Caribbean by passing the Caribbean-based initiative, it is my understanding that my friend from Los Angeles voted actually against that initiative. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Bakersfield, California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on House Oversight. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Apparently my good friend has missed the past 7 years of dynamic economic growth which has taken place because of exports and imports to this country which have dramatically improved our standard of living. They are going down this road towards very, very intense class warfare once again. But let us look at the class warfare that they have embarked upon. They are trying to penalize the people of Central America, in countries like Honduras where the per capita buying power is $2,000, or Guatemala where the per capita buying power is $3,460; actually against those who are in very, very sad shape in Jamaica, their per capita buying power is $3,260, and in Belize it is $2,960. So the fact of the matter is the people of Central America, who support us in this decision, believe that we are doing the right thing, are supportive of the WTO, they are being hurt and they are worse off than the ones we are supposedly helping. All we are saying is that we need to have at least a modicum of fairness. I think that as we have heard now from the distinguished minority whip, it is important to look at the words of the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), who just this week in a letter said, ``We have no reason to believe that the EU will comply with the WTO rulings on the banana case before the December 31, 1998 deadline set by the WTO. Failure to do so by the EU would set a terrible precedent for the WTO's ability to open global markets, particularly in the agriculture sectors.'' We are talking about beef, we are talking about bananas in this case, but it could be anything. I look at my friend from South Boston. I remember when he had a big opening of a Gillette plant. Back before we enacted the gift ban, he even sent a razor around to a few of us. Tell me, what is going to happen when the goal of exporting razors, when they are impacted negatively? These are two instances that are very, very key and important, and they are I think going to be addressed effectively by someone who is a rancher and understands the needs of ranchers, the gentleman who serves on the Committee on Ways and Means who is from Stillwater, OK (Mr. Watkins). Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins). (Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield? Ms. JACKSON-LEE from Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do not have the time to yield. I appreciate the gentleman's interest in this matter. Mr. Speaker, what a disgrace. It frankly is a disgrace that we come to the floor of the House and violate the sacred relationships with those who are on our border who are seeking, Mr. Speaker, to maintain their economic base. This is a sneak attack against our trade representatives, because there are many of us who believe that they need to do a better job in working with the relationship that the Caribbean nations have with the European countries which give them their economic base. If we want to break that relationship, Mr. Speaker, then what is America doing to help bolster up the economy of the Caribbean nations? We are already at a fragile international monetary crisis. The Asian nations are trembling. Do we now want to have those on our very border trembling and then collapse? Is this what we want to do with this sneak attack trade bill, break the very economic backs of these countries whose only sole income is the marketing and producing of bananas? Are we so small, Mr. Speaker, this giant of a nation, that we cannot share the international economy so that small countries, barely surviving, can provide some kind of safety net for their own citizens? This is a great day in America's history. The big and ominous America crushing down on small countries, breaking their economic system, throwing people who are making pennies out into the streets because we are jealous, if you will, of the relationship they have with the Europeans. I would be willing to find some solution to this problem, Mr. Speaker, if we could sit around the trade table fairly with the Caribbean nations, with America, with our European friends, maybe with the banana folk that we are trying to build up over here. I do not think that our banana industry is on the collapse. They are doing quite well. I like bananas. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we need to get out of the business of a sneak attack and crashing down on our neighbors. I think we need to defeat this rule and defeat this agreement.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was asking my friend the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to yield just to make a couple of quick points. First of all, I would say that the countries of Central America, where the per capita buying power is in fact lower than it is in the countries to which the gentlewoman is referring, are simply working for fairness. The people of Honduras, with a $2,000 per capita buying power, versus those in Belize and Jamaica who have roughly $3,000 per capita buying power, are the ones we are talking about who are seeking fairness. They support us in this effort. I think it is also very, very important to note this is not a sneak attack. We have been, for 7 years, trying to resolve this, and we have finally got to the point where action needs to be taken before the Congress adjourns. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from West Chester, Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume very briefly to say that this action does not go into effect for 15 months, and I think it is very important to note, I would say to my friend, that this is the first, these are the first two items under the WTO structure. Bananas and beef are the first issues that have been addressed by the WTO. The other issues which my friend raised were long before the World Trade Organization even existed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my friend that we asked the administration to do a letter and they flat out refused in response to our request. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my friend, who thought it was sort of an extraordinary statement that I made, when I talked about protecting U.S. jobs and they do not have an interest in doing it, I was talking about jobs in marketing, in shipping, in accounting, and all of the other areas that are impacted by the banana industry; and as we talked about some of these other areas in ranching, look at all the people who work there. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from Delmar, California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First, I would like to say that I believe that support of this rule is the right thing for us to do. Why? Because an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans a few Congresses ago voted to establish a rules-based trading system. We did so in the pursuit of reduced tariff barriers so that we could improve opportunities for our manufacturers and producers to export, and also to improve the quality of life, equally important, here in the United States by allowing imports to come in. Free trade is, in fact, the wave of the future and it is something that we need to recognize. Under this rules-based trading system, we have unfortunately run into a problem. Seven years ago, 7 years ago, this case was filed on bananas. We also have seen, following, the hormone case in beef. We are trying to resolve that. We have tried to get a letter, and I hope very much that we still will be able to get a strong letter from the administration raising concerns with the European Union about this. But, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this is potentially just the beginning. There are many other industries in this country that could be detrimentally impacted by those kinds of negative actions by others of our trading partners who are not playing fairly. Mr. Speaker, we have got to do the fair thing for American workers. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 575, I announce the following suspensions to be considered today: S. 1677, Reauthorization of North American Wetlands Conservation Act and Partnerships for Wildlife Act; H.R. 3046; and H.R. 3055, To Deem Activities of the Miccosukee Tribe on the Tamiami Indian Reservation Consistent with Purposes of Everglades National Park.