David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Morris, Illinois (Mr. Weller), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman and say that we have just completed with our last speaker, just as she has. So, obviously, this could not have been planned any better than it has.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order H.R. 3736, the Workforce Improvement and Protection Act under a modified closed rule providing one hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order against consideration in the House. At the close of the debate on the rule, I will be offering an amendment to the rule to consider as adopted in lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill the amendment printed in the Congressional Record that is numbered 3. This amendment consists of the text of the compromise agreed to last night by the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Abraham) who has worked tirelessly on this issue, the Clinton administration, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration who has been a great friend and a very sincere champion of immigration reform. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in order the amendment printed in the Congressional Record numbered 2 to be offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) which will be in order without the intervention of any point of order and will be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Mr. Speaker, America's high tech explosion has been one of the truly inspiring stories of the last 2 decades. Brand names that were barely heard of 2 decades ago are now recognized not only here in the United States but all around the globe. Whole new private sector industries have expanded to the point where millions of American families enjoy their standard of living because of the jobs that they create. In my State of California, Mr. Speaker, cutting edge industries that develop technology and sell it in every major world market have transformed a depressed, defense-based economy to a vibrant technology- and export-based economy. The driving force behind these cutting edge industries and job- creating technologies is simple. It is the energy, brain power and perseverance of skilled people. Mr. Speaker, the fundamental concept behind this bill is that skilled people create jobs, they do not take up jobs. California wins when talented, energetic people come to the State to build companies and create jobs. It does not matter whether those skilled people come from New York, Missouri or Montreal; California wins. This bill will help create more jobs in California and the rest of the country by insuring that more skilled workers can come here to help strong private sector businesses prosper. Mr. Speaker, the companies that take advantage of skilled workers that temporarily enter the country from abroad do more than just create more good jobs here. The technological advances that they pioneer are felt throughout the country as better and less expensive consumer products, reduced production costs, increased efficiency, better wages and a higher standard of living for all Americans. Everyone loses when the private sector is denied access to skilled people. Mr. Speaker, the compromise crafted through intense bipartisan negotiations over the past 2 weeks addresses the very legitimate concerns raised about the actions of a tiny minority of companies that abuse the H1B program, using it in a way that was never intended by the proponents of this valuable program. In addition to the current requirement that H1B workers be paid the same as American employees in similar positions, and I underscore that once again, Mr. Speaker, the requirement that H1B workers be paid the same as American employees in similar positions and previously agreed-to changes that would allow the Department of Labor to audit many companies which use H1B workers to ensure that they are recruiting American workers and not replacing them with foreign workers, today's compromise inserts additional requirements as well. Companies that hire a significant number of H1B workers will be subjected to unprecedented scrutiny by the Department of Labor to ensure that they are making efforts to recruit American workers and that H1Bs are not taking jobs from Americans. Mr. Speaker, a fee of $500 per application will also be charged companies that seek to use H1B workers, with the revenues being used to fund math and science scholarships, to retrain displaced workers and to permit the Department of Labor to police the program. Now it is an unfortunate reality, Mr. Speaker, but a reality all the same, that our education system is not producing enough skilled workers to meet the needs of many industries. Half of the students graduating from American universities with doctorates in science, math and computer programing are foreign-born students. It is a sad fact that 70 percent of American high tech companies claim a shortage of skilled workers as the leading barrier to their growth. This is a long-term national problem, and nothing we do here reduces the importance of dramatically improving education and training. We have much work to do on that account. Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to present the House an opportunity to enact bipartisan legislation that will benefit our economy and create jobs. The Workforce Improvement and Protection Act highlights the very best of the role immigration plays in our national economy, injecting the vibrancy of skilled and energetic people. Not only do the vast majority of immigrants work hard, support their families and pay taxes, but some turn out to be like one named Andy Grove. He came to this country and, using his brain and his heart, made the Intel Corporation what it is today, a world leader in technology that has created thousands of jobs for Americans and thousands of products for American families. Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very good compromise worked out among all the parties, including both the Senate, the House and the administration. I urge adoption of both the rule and the bill. 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 my very dear friend, the gentelwoman from Fairport, NY, star of MS-NBC (Ms. Slaughter) 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. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would close by simply saying that I believe that this is an extraordinarily good compromise for a very, very important issue to address a telling need to ensure that we do not see companies that have been thriving forced to leave the United States of America for their survival, so that we can remain on the competitive edge. I urge support of it. Amendment Offered by Mr. Dreier

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Del Mar, California (Mr. Cunningham), who has a great understanding and grasp of this issue. We are all very, very happy to see him back, healthy and raring to go.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is in the Congressional Record. I have a copy of it right here. I am more than happy to provide it to my friend. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Huntington Beach, California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who is very well guided in his strong support of the rule, but slightly misguided in his opposition to the compromise.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my very good friend from Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline the details of the changes that have been made and say, first of all, in the area of education, 10,000 scholarships are going to be provided under this plan. There were very minor changes made in the compromise bill itself. Let me just go through those, if I may. First of all, the amendment I am going to be offering, which is the compromise, extends the H-1B program three years, not four years. Companies will pay a $500 fee, as I said in my opening statement, to fund education, training and oversight. The fee had been half that in the original measure. Violators of H-1B rules will be banned for three years from the program, anyone who is violating it. The compromise tightens up the small business exemption that is in the bill. The Department of Labor is authorized to do spot checks on companies which face any credible charges that have been leveled, and, along with the equivalent pay, which I mentioned again in my opening remarks, H-1B workers must get equivalent benefits. So those are the changes made in the compromise.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Roanoke, Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is strongly supportive of the bipartisan compromise that has been worked out by the House, the Senate, and the administration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding me this time. Some might say that they had heard enough from me during the debate on the rule which I just managed, but I did feel compelled to state that I believe that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) has been very courageous and hard working in pursuing this compromise. My friend from North Carolina is correct that it is an unusual procedure, but guess what? This H-1B visa bill is not going to become public law until a majority of the House of Representatives casts its vote, until the United States Senate has its compromise, until it goes through the conference process and it gets to the desk of the President of the United States for signing. So guess what? A majority of the Members here will have to direct how this process is going to go ahead. I happen to think that it is a very reasonable and positive compromise. It is one which does address concerns that have been raised by virtually everyone on this. Some of my colleagues talk about the problem in the area of education, saying, we need to have a better educated citizenry so that they can, in fact, fulfill these jobs that are out there. I agree, and this bill addresses that, with 10,000 scholarships that go to those lower income individuals. It is done with a $500 fee that is going to be charged that should raise $75 million so that this can annually be funded to address those concerns. It also tightens up the small business area, the exemption there. I remember having a discussion in the Republican conference with my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) who was concerned, I think he offered an amendment in the committee which talked about shortening the time frame for the program itself. Well, in fact, in the compromise, the time frame of the program has been reduced. It was going to be ultimately at first, I guess, 5 years, if we included this year, but we have gone so late now we are not doing that, so it has gone from 4 years down to a 3-year program. I hope that within that 3-year time frame we are able as a Nation to educate the best qualified people so that, as we create new technologies, we will have qualified individuals out there to address them. It is going to be a 3-year program, not a 4- or a 5-year program. Then, obviously, we will have to look at it again. Those who are violators of this program can be debarred for 3 years, and so there clearly is an incentive to comply with the strictures of the program itself. The Department of Labor is going to be able to participate in spot checks for those companies that have knowingly violated in the past. I think that is a decent provision that was put in there. And we have had so many people who have stood up and said, oh, there is nothing that has been made available and no one has been able to see it. I am going through this explanation, and I think the modifications that are made are, frankly, quite, quite modest. But one of the things that I think is important to note is that, while U.S. companies are required to pay the so-called prevailing wage, the same wage, they cannot all of a sudden say we are going to fire an American worker so that we can instead go and start hiring someone from another part of the world at a lower rate. We not only are requiring equivalent pay but equivalent benefits in this compromise. So as I listen to the criticism that will be leveled by some on both sides of the aisle, it seems to me that it is a very, very balanced measure. It is worthy of our support. It is worthy of our support for a very, very important reason. While we address the concern of American workers, Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the ability of the industries of the United States of America to remain competitive. Virtually everyone has acknowledged that we are, today, living with a global economic crisis. I have been in a number of meetings today in which I have heard things, in fact, that are very, very troubling about the potential future. Tomorrow, we will be voting on fast track negotiating authority. There is a debate raging on the replenishment of the International Monetary Fund. The question of interest rates, all of these economic questions are out there as far as the future of the global economy, and I believe we need to be very concerned about the U.S. economy, which, obviously, is the world's leader. Mr. Speaker, if we turn down an attempt to increase the H-1B visas, guess what will happen? We have businesses that are being lured out of the United States by spots like Singapore and Ireland trying to create tax incentives and other incentives to draw our businesses out. Why? They will be able to have the best-qualified, skilled expertise there. Now, for every one of these H-1B visas that will come in creating jobs, there will be four U.S. jobs that are created as a by-product of that. So this is a win-win. It will help keep U.S. businesses here in the U.S., ensuring that they have an incentive to stay here. And this is a compromise which is positive. It has been one that has, again, been worked out by the Clinton administration, Democrats and Republicans in the United States Congress, in both Houses, the House and the Senate, and it is one that I believe is worthy of bipartisan support here in the House of Representatives. So, with that, I would again like to congratulate my friend from San Antonio, the very distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, for working long and hard on this. It was a pleasure to work with him on this issue, and we look forward to a spectacular victory in the not- too-distant future.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will briefly take a moment to explain this amendment. Mr. Speaker, this amendment simply provides that, upon the adoption of the resolution, the text of the administration-endorsed compromise that we have come to with the House and the Senate and the administration shall be considered as adopted. I urge support of the resolution as well as the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding this time to me, and I would like to extend the congratulations that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) did to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) also to Mr. Buyer, because I believe that carrying that message of Reservists is a very, very important one, and he has done it very well. So congratulations to both Messrs. Buyer and McHale, although I know Mr. Buyer will be returning here next year, unlike the unfortunate decision that Mr. McHale made. Mr. Speaker, a week ago today we marked the 211th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, Constitution Day, and I had the thrill of going, one of my constituents had this nationwide program, and I left the Committee on Rules, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) knows, to recite the preamble of the Constitution on a nationwide hookup. And from my perspective those key words right in the middle of the preamble are so important, and they cannot be forgotten: Provide for the common defense. To me, as we look at the many things that the Federal Government involves itself in, there really is only one that can only be done by the Federal Government, and that is providing for the common defense. And that is why this measure is so important. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) has done a spectacular job in his position, and I will never, never forget the speech that he gave to our Republican conference several months ago about the importance of our national security. Now I hope and pray that this $1 billion request that the President has made and his recognition that we need to enhance our defense capability will not, in fact, be too little too late. But the world now knows that the threat that exists is much different than it was during the Cold War, but it is, in many ways, more dangerous because of the disparate uncertainty that exists. If we look at, as my friend from California (Mr. Hunter) said, the North Korean situation, if we look at the Middle East, if we look at Kosovo, it is very serious. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this rule and strongly support the conference report, and, if the chairman wants me to, I will move the previous question.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 128, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1999. It is a closed rule providing for 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides that the joint resolution be considered as read for amendment and one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, the reality of divided government is that it takes a lot of hard work, tough decisions and sometimes uncomfortable confrontations to enact major legislation. Certainly, funding the trillion dollar Federal Government falls into that category. Honest disagreements exist between the congressional majority and the President, the House and the Senate, the Democrats and the Republicans, and even within the two party caucuses in both the House and the Senate. Every family that is forced to live on a budget, and that is most of the working people I know, understand that it is a lot harder to make spending decisions when they cannot just buy everything they want. That is the reality for working moms and dads who sit around the kitchen table and try to find the money for new school clothes, a short family vacation or finally replacing that beat-up old television set. Last year's historic balanced budget agreement was a great victory for American families because it finally forced the President and Congress to make their own hard spending decisions. Imposing a real budget on the voracious Federal bureaucracy makes the appropriations job a lot tougher. While I am sure most compassionate Americans would feel badly for the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and his counterpart, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) who is not here on the floor, and the subcommittee chairman and ranking Democrats who have been asked to craft the 13 spending bills, I am also confident that they prefer those headaches to the rampant spending and deficits of not too many years ago. I am equally confident, Mr. Speaker, that we will overcome the hurdles in the way of the appropriation process and will keep the Federal Government open and functioning into and through the new fiscal year. I certainly know of the commitment of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and our entire Republican leadership team to do just that. This continuing resolution funds ongoing projects and activities of the Federal Government at current rates except in instances that the Congress and administration agree on lower levels. This spending authority expires on October 9 of this year or when the regular appropriations bills are enacted. Mr. Speaker, this is a clean continuing resolution without extraneous provisions, new projects or new spending initiatives. Recognizing the very real importance of focusing greater attention on making sure our government's mission-critical computer systems are able to handle the transition to the year 2000, this CR permits a funding increase for necessary computer conversions. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that nearly unprecedented political and budgetary challenges face this Congress at this time. However, I know we will rise above them and get the people's work done. This fair, clean, continuing resolution will give us the time we need to finish the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bills within the spending levels set out by the balanced budget agreement. It is incumbent upon every Member, Democrat and Republican, to join together to support this rule and the joint resolution so that we can get that hard work done without any interference in government operations. 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 541 and ask for immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from South Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded will be for the purposes of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the magnanimity of my friend from South Boston, and I would like to follow suit and urge support of this rule. 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, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this resolution. I will say that I am a little concerned about the prospect of our engaging in the idea of singling out one country, but I will say that in light of that, it is important for us to recognize that this has happened in other instances in other countries, and it is a problem, it is a very serious problem. As has been said by several of my colleagues, I just heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) say that this is not an isolated case; there are several instances. I know that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), with whom I have been privileged to work on this issue for quite a while, did raise the southern California incident of David Spooky Alvarez where we had small children murdered, and again, he fled across the border, and it has been a long and very difficult, painful struggle for many people in southern California. So we have had instances, as was said in Florida and Texas and other places, and there are other countries too that have been difficult to work with on this. But I would just like to say that I believe that this resolution is in order, and it is a very appropriate thing for us to pursue.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to insert into the Record information compiled by the Congressional Research Service illustrating that many of the United States' bilateral prisoner extradition treaties include this same exception for fugitives who face the death penalty in the United States. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, March 19, 1998. To: Honorable David Dreier; Attention: Brian Faughnan. From: Larry M. Eig, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division. Subject: Capital Punishment Provisions in Extradition Treaties. We are sending this memorandum in response to a March 12, 1998, telephone conversation with Brian Faughnan of your staff. The United States is party to over 100 bilateral extradition treaties.\1\ Except for our extradition treaty with Venezuela, those extradition treaties that were signed before 1960 were silent on capital punishment. However, as more countries have barred capital punishment,\2\ there has been a concomitant trend toward including capital punishment restrictions in new extradition agreements.\3\ Except for recently negotiated agreements with certain eastern Carribean nations \4\--none of which appears to have barred the death penalty under its domestic law--the inclusion of capital punishment restrictions has become standard. We have yet to find a restricted treaty that has been replaced by an unrestricted agreement. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3181 note. \2\ Amnesty International, The Death Penalty: List of Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries (August 1997), retrieved March 17, 1998, through <www.amnesty.org>. \3\ Not all treaties with death penalty restrictions are with countries that bar capital punishment. For example, our recent treaty with Malaysia has a death penalty restriction even though both Malaysia and the United States retain the death penalty. \4\ These countries include Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominica, and Antigua and Barbuda. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Treaties that include death penalty restrictions \5\ include agreements with the following: Argentina; Australia; Bahamas; Belgium; Bolivia; Brazil; Canada; Colombia; Denmark; Finland; Hong Kong; Hungary; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Malaysia; Mexico; Netherlands; New Zealand; Norway; Paraguay; Philippines; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; United Kingdom; and Uruguay. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Capital punishment provisions in extradition treaties do not outright bar extradition for capital offenses from countries without the death penalty. Instead, the provisions generally authorize the requested State to withhold extradition for an offense that is not punishable by death under its domestic law until the requesting State gives adequate assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed and executed if extradition proceeds. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have not exhaustively examined each of our extradition treaties, and the foregoing list is illustrative only. Other extradition treaties also may contain death penalty restrictions. Also, the authorities of a requested State potentially may refuse extradition on humanitarian or similar grounds even absent any specific treaty provision. Finally, there are many countries with which we have no extradition treaty, and those countries are not under any obligation to extradite an individual to the U.S. under any circumstances.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his stellar leadership. As has been said by most of my colleagues, this is a very solemn time and a very difficult time for Democrats and Republicans alike. Obviously, for the American people as well. It is very important that we be fair, and I am troubled by some of the statements that I have heard that are challenging this issue of fairness. Mr. Speaker, let me say that in 1978 a Democratic Congress passed the independent counsel statute. That made major changes since the Watergate hearings of 1974. Three times since 1978 that independent counsel statute has been passed. Most recently it was reauthorized by a Democratic Congress, and it was done when President Clinton was in office. I think it is important to note that we are complying with the rule of law under the independent counsel statute. It says, ``An independent counsel shall advise the House of Representatives of any substantial and credible information which such independent counsel receives that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.'' That is exactly what is happening here. We are complying with the rule of law. We very much want to deal with this in the most bipartisan way possible. Last night in the testimony the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said we want to have a bias for openness. And it is very clear, based on the number of hits that we had when the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), gave me the privilege of announcing the web site of the resolution that we are considering today and his opening statement from last night. The gentleman from New York has just informed me that we had over 25,000 hits on that. We have had Democrats and Republicans say we want this information out now. I think many of us are having the phones, I know I am, ring and ring and ring saying get this information out now. But, at the same time, we are doing our darnedest to ensure that no one is hurt by this process. And that is why in executive session, in executive session, the full Committee on the Judiciary, based on the request by many Democrats and Republicans, will have the opportunity to go through the appendices and the supporting information. Mr. Speaker, it is very apparent to me that while there is not total agreement, there is, in fact, strong bipartisan agreement for what it is that we are proceeding to do here during this very difficult and challenging time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by now most Americans know about the Year 2000 computer problem and understand that if preventive steps aren't taken, computer failures may cause serious problems. To mitigate the severity of the problem, Congress must not only act to ensure that the Federal Government's mission critical computers can function on January 1, 2000, but that the private sector can use all of the tools at its disposal to prevent unnecessary Year 2000 computer failures. Today I've joined with a number of colleagues from both sides of the aisle to introduce a modest, targeted measure to do just that. I want to commend the President for calling attention to an important part of the Year 2000 problem for private sector firms. Many companies are afraid that the information they share about their Year 2000 readiness and their efforts to become Year 2000-compliant will later be used against them in civil suits. While the President submitted a bill intended to encourage information-sharing by preventing some of this information from being used in subsequent suits, his proposal is crafted so narrowly that it really won't make any difference. The bipartisan ``Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure Act,'' which I introduced today, gives companies the liability protection they need to make statements about Year 2000 compliance efforts, knowing that they're not just pouring gasoline onto some litigation bonfire. The Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure Act is by no means the last word on the subject. I look forward to working with the administration and committees of jurisdiction to make it better. In particular, I would support language to clarify that firms working together to minimize Year 2000 problems and promote Y2K compliance are not in violation of antitrust laws. Furthermore, starting this fall and moving into next year, it's critical that Congress address the problem of liability for Year 2000 failures themselves. Legal analysts are already anticipating that the total litigation burden for Year 2000 failure suits will climb into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Congress and the President need to work together to make sure that companies are concentrating on preventing Year 2000 failures, not protecting themselves from wasteful suits after they've occurred. While I'm not an alarmist, Year 2000 failures have the potential to have a significant impact on the economy of the United States and the world. Just as a stitch in time saves nine, Congress can prevent a lot of headaches down the road by passing legislation that's carefully crafted to encourage companies to share information now.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding this time to me, and I have been told by my dear colleague from Cincinnati that the issue of South Africa has been raised throughout this debate. We need to realize that every bit of action that was taken from the United States on the issue of South Africa was taken by the United States Government, as it was outlined very clearly in the arguments provided by my friend from California (Mr. Thomas). Mr. Chairman, it is very important to recognize what it is that the authors of this amendment hate. They hate the international economy. They hate the rules-based trading system, which has a very simple and basic goal. Why was it back in 1947 that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was established and expanded to the World Trade Organization today? Why? It was designed to diminish tariff barriers. That is the very simple goal of the WTO. And while we hear people argue this time and time again, it is important for us to recognize that the WTO cannot change a single law here in the United States. So what we need to do, Mr. Chairman, is we need to realize that our goals are simple: They are to break down barriers, to find new opportunities for U.S. products and services around the world and, very importantly, to maintain and expand the standard of living that we enjoy in the United States, which is as great as any country on the face of the earth. Why? Because the world has access to our consumer market. Defeat the Kucinich amendment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me, and I will, as we have amendments that conceivably could come forward from the gentleman from Massachusetts next year, consider them. I very much appreciate his acknowledging that I will be chairman next year. Madam Speaker, let me rise in very strong support of this agreement. One of the most troubling aspects to this issue of global trade which is very important to the survival of our economy has been the issue of piracy. When we look at the impact that this has had on the entertainment industry and the biotechnology industry in my State of California, it is very, very troubling. When we have ideas that emanate from individuals, the right to make sure that that is their property must be ensured. This WIPO agreement is in fact the best hope that we have to ensure that it will be acknowledged. I simply rise to congratulate my friends who have been involved in this, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and of course, the Committee on Commerce, under the able leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and a wide range of individuals in other industries, and of course, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). This is a very important agreement, and I urge my colleagues to strongly support it.

Mr. DREIER

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