David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it's no secret that air quality has long been a major problem in Los Angeles. We've attempted to fight the problem in a variety of ways, including construction of a metrorail system, improvements in bus transportation through the region, reduction in pollutants emitted by cars and business, and other methods. While we have made progress, there is no question that it remains a challenge in need of innovative, market-based solutions. One such approach is to encourage the increased use of cleaner- burning fuels like biodiesel, as Congress sought to do when it passed the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT). As compared to conventional fuels, biodiesel can cut emissions of particulate matter and hydrocarbons in half. But while the Act prompted fleet managers to purchase alternative-fuel vehicles, it did not provide meaningful incentives to actually use cleaner fuels, such as biodiesel. As a result, fleet managers currently must purchase vehicles that are designed to run on alternative fuels, but have no reason to actually use alternative fuels in them. H.R. 4017, the Energy Conservation Reauthorization Act, addresses that problem, providing that the purchase and consumption of biodiesel fuel counts toward fulfilling EPACT requirements. By making it sensible to actually use clean-burning fuels, this legislation will make it possible to realize the most important goal of EPACT--cleaner air. Besides its value as a relatively clean-burning fuel, an important advantage of biodiesel fuel is that it is renewable. It can be made from agricultural feedstock, such as soybean and canola, and even from used deep-fryer fat from fast-food restaurants. As a substitute for gasoline or petroleum-based diesel fuel, the increased use of this type of renewable fuel not only contributes to cleaner air, it also reduces U.S. dependence on imported oil. As an early cosponsor of Mr. Shimkus' legislation to amend the Energy Policy Act, I want to commend both him and Ms. McCarthy, the original authors of the legislation, as well as Mr. Schaefer, the Chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, for bringing this commonsense bipartisan legislation to the House floor. I encourage all Members to support its adoption.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, few of our former colleagues can claim, upon retirement, to have had a profoundly positive impact on the House of Representatives, but Lee Hamilton is clearly one of them. His fairness and professionalism as a committee chairman, his leadership on trade and foreign policy issues, and his respect for the institutions of government are attributes that I strive to emulate in my day-to-day work as a Member of Congress. Serving with Lee on the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress in 1993 was a particularly rewarding experience, and I value our resulting friendship. Although our reform efforts did not meet with immediate success, Lee's leadership was instrumental to our later success in adopting a number of significant institutional reforms with strong bipartisan support. Commentators regulatory highlight the partisanship that so often prevails on Capitol Hill these days. Lee is certainly a good Democrat, but he understands the value and importance of listening to other people's ideas, even if they come from Republicans. Our Joint Committee was evenly balanced between Democrats and Republicans and I can attest that Lee gave everybody a chance to be heard. He found friends and allies on both sides of the aisle. I know I speak for many of our colleagues in saying that Lee's decision to retire at the end of this Congress is more than a personal loss. The institution will be losing one of its most respected Members and effective advocates. At a time when citizens generally view Congress skeptically and many of our colleagues feed their skepticism and even cynicism by blaming Congress for things that go wrong, no one has stood up more for the institution than Lee Hamilton. Fortunately, when Lee retires from Congress at the end of this year, he will remain close by as a result of his new career as director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. There, he will undertake a project to combat public cynicism toward and distrust of Congress. I am confident that he will do an outstanding job, I look forward to playing a role in making the project an enormous success.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, there is never a good time for a good trade bill. There is always a filing date or an election or the prospect of some other political development taking place. There is always an excuse not to proceed with a good trade bill. I had the great privilege last fall to travel with the President throughout South America. The President stood up in country after country and talked about the fact that one of his top priorities was to get fast track negotiating authority through so that we could, in fact, embark on these very important trade agreements. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. It was reported out of the Committee on Ways and Means with a very strong bipartisan vote. It was worked on long and hard by the President of the United States last fall as we moved towards that November 13 vote. And as has been said time and time again, the President, in his State of the Union message, talked about it being a priority this year and, on July 23, said that he believed that the Congress should vote on fast track when we can get the votes for the bill. Now, with that strong bipartisan spirit here, I am convinced that there is a very strong will to implement fast track negotiating authority and to pass this measure. But what are our priorities? We continually hear Members talk about the fact that it is a top priority, Democrats and Republicans alike, many Democrats with whom I have been privileged to work over the past several years on this issue. But what are the priorities? There are political priorities. There are political interests with which we are having to contend. There are partisan interests, and there are special interests. Quite frankly, we have special interests on our side, too. This is not an easy vote. We have got the Buchananites, Ross Perot. There are people who are opposed to this. But we have a responsibility to place the national interest ahead of those political interests, ahead of those partisan interests and ahead of those special interests. Mr. Speaker, it is very, very important that we move ahead, because we are having this vote as we look at the serious problem that exists in the Pacific Rim. We are not going to find a perfect time to do it, but it seems to me that this is the right time because the right time is today. Cast a vote in favor of fast track so that we can do this for American workers and American consumers and the global economy.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 553 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Frost), and pending that 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. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the global economy is a reality. One of the facts of American life in 1998 is that those of us who are here are all impacted by economic conditions that are out there, out in the big wide world. Singapore and Moscow may seem a long way from a kitchen table in Temple City, California, but when the couple sitting around it see their retirement savings hurt, when stock markets start falling in Asia, it hits very close to home. Sao Paulo or South Africa may be on the other side of the world from Peoria, Illinois, but when we cannot ship tractors from here to there cheaper then they can be built over there, workers in America's heartland get hurt. Geneva, Switzerland, may seem a long way from Topeka, Kansas, but if the United States is not able to lead the World Trade Organization negotiations on agriculture when they start next year because the U.S. Trade Representative is not armed with fast track, family farmers are going to see their livelihood damaged. Finally, working families in every town in America enjoy the best selection of products at the very best prices giving them the highest standard of living possible because we trade freely with people across the globe. That fact is at the heart of why the American economy works. This rule makes in order H.R. 2621, fast track legislation reported last year by the Committee on Ways and Means with very strong bipartisan support. As has been the case in past years, this is a closed rule. It provides for 2 hours of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill modified by the amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The rule waives all points of order against the bill, as amended, and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Now, Mr. Speaker, American families cannot afford for the President and the Congress to hide from trade policy. This debate is about the future. Will America lead the global economy into the 21st century, or will we sit and wait to see what kind of rules, trade rules, that the French, Australian, Brazilian and Indian negotiators think up? Debating trade policy is never easy in this House, the greatest institution of democracy the world has ever known. Election day is always too close. Divisions between interest groups are always too deep. Emotions from people who believe trade has done them wrong are always running too high. Well, today, Mr. Speaker, is the day to step up to the plate. I believe that when America leads Americans win. If we continue to lead the international economy, we have the best chance to control our destiny and bring about a future of hope and prosperity. The alternatives, whether in the form of the stagnant pleas for protectionism or the siren calls that next week, next month or next year are really the right time to debate this issue really appeal only to fear, fear of foreign workers, fear of foreign products, fear of losing, but most of all, Mr. Speaker, fear of the future. International markets are watching how the United States will respond to the challenges confronting the world economy. Eyes and ears are following this debate in every capital city in every financial market around the world. But they are not the audience that I care most about. Instead I hope that working families including the rank and file union members in cities and towns across America understand what is at stake here. Every mother needs to know that her ability to shop for the best products at the best prices from food and clothes to toys and televisions will be directly impacted by the outcome of this debate. Every American worker needs to understand that the ability to compete in export markets and sell American products abroad will be directly impacted by the fate of this fast track bill. Mr. Speaker, the 21st Century demands some things from us. We need to educate and train our students and workers to be the best; we need to invest in tomorrow's technologies today; we need a Federal Government that is effective and efficient; we need private sector companies to create good jobs at good wages; and we need to make sure that international trade rules are written with American interests at heart. Mr. Speaker, the President called fast track one of his top legislative priorities when he stood right here in this chamber and delivered his State of the Union address. Today is the day to do the right thing for America, and to enact what it is the President asked for. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to my friend the gentleman from Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, (Mr. Knollenberg), I would simply like to say the politicization on this issue is taking place by Members who are for fast track and have made a decision to vote against fast track. I think that itself is a real tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from Bellevue, Washington (Ms. Dunn), a very valued member of the Subcommittee on Trade,

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to quote President Clinton on July 23, just a few weeks ago, when he said, ``I would support voting on fast track whenever we think we can pass it.'' Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that if a majority of the Members of this House were to do the right thing, we could pass it today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Terrace Park, Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Morristown, New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), one of the great champions of the cause of free trade.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pontiac, Illinois (Mr. Ewing), a great champion of our Nation's farmers,

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alpine, California (Mr. Hunter), my very good friend, my classmate who came with us in the class of 1980, and we both agree strongly on the importance of passage of this rule.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Huntington Beach, California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I first would like to inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella), my dynamic and eloquent friend.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions), a champion of free trade.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Woodlands, Texas (Mr. Brady), another champion of free trade.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ocala, Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Stillwater, Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins), a hard-working member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tucson, Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), a great champion of trade, one of our hardest workers and one of the most thoughtful Members of the House.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, no matter what you think about the President, no matter what you think about the U.S.-Canada trade agreement and its impact on Northern Plains farmers and ranchers, no matter what you think about the North American Free Trade Agreement and its impact on Florida's tomato farmers, no matter what you think about the impact of economic development on farmers in Mexico, dolphins, sea turtles or the Amazon rain forest, there is just one question that we must ask ourselves today: Are the American people better off if America is at the table when countries make new trade deals? Should we be at the table when the nations of the world sit down at the WTO to negotiate new trade rules for agriculture, services and intellectual property? Or when the countries of Latin America entertain offers for preferential access to their growing markets? Or when the countries of Asia talk about ways to rebound from their economic crisis? Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we are much better off if we, the world's only complete superpower, are at the table for trade negotiations. The world will not stop to wait for us if we simply miss the bus. We will be the losers, Mr. Speaker. We have got to pass this rule and pass fast track so, as President Clinton said on July 23, we can have these votes and put it together. We can have bipartisan support for a very important policy. 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 513 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Glendale, California (Mr. Rogan), my very good friend who is a hard- working member of both the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary.

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