Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest, I know that Mr. Stokes and everyone else on this side of the aisle would like to be cooperative in working this out. I want to see the gentleman's request approved. I think there is an impediment to that right now. If the gentleman could withhold that for a few moments and if we could get a unanimous consent for the next amendment only, while it is worked out, I think we might save a lot of time.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, July 6 is recognized around the world as International Cooperative Day. This 74-year old tradition presents an opportunity to people from all corners of the Earth to recognize the important difference that cooperatives make in their lives. The potential role of cooperative enterprises in promoting economic development in areas of most critical need, in many cases businesses, has been recognized by the United Nations. Last year, the UN declared that the International Day of Cooperatives should be celebrated every year by governments in collaboration with their national cooperative movements. Next Monday, July 1, cooperative leaders from the United States and from around the world will meet at UN Headquarters in New York to celebrate in International Day of Cooperatives at an event organized by the UN, International Day of Cooperative Alliance, and the Committee for the Promotion and Advancement of Cooperatives. This event will provide an opportunity to discuss and to demonstrate the actual and potential contribution of cooperative business enterprise to the achievement of economic goals, including: The potential of the cooperative movement to participate as a distinct stakeholder and full partner with the United Nations and institutional procedures and structures hereby such participation may be most effective. The contribution of cooperative business enterprise to the achievement of the goals of the International Year and Decade for the Eradication of Poverty and the realization of the goals of the World Food Summit. The potential of the cooperative movement to develop human resources and institutional capabilities. The cooperative movement as a means for the economic, social and political empowerment of women. The contribution of cooperative businesses to the provision of appropriate and affordable social services. The capacity of the cooperative movement to undertake appropriate technical assistance as a complement to governmental multilateral and bilateral assistance. The ways and means whereby partnerships may be strengthened between cooperatively organized business enterprises and the United Nations development system. I have believed for many years that cooperatives provide people with an economic alternative that empowers them economically to help themselves. Throughout this century, this body has passed legislation that created the spark for cooperative development and opened the door for cooperatives in this country. The result has been the creation of our rural electric and telephone cooperative systems, the farm credit banking system, the National Cooperative Bank, and credit unions and community development credit unions. All of those have been tools that allow people to accomplish together things they could not accomplish alone. All are owned by the members who benefit from them, and are controlled through the election of boards of directors by that membership. It is fitting that the international community should recognize that power and the possibilities that cooperatives represent in developing countries. Today, over 760 million people around the world are members of cooperatives. And that fact has made all of their lives a little brighter. I encourage my colleagues to look to their own districts and recognize the existence of cooperatives there that meet their constituents needs. What you will find is over 100 million Americans and 45,000 businesses ranging in size from small buying clubs to businesses included in the Fortune 500. Today, we have cooperative businesses in the fields of housing, health care, finance, insurance, child care, agricultural marketing and supply, rural utilities and consumer goods and services. Cooperatives have helped to make this country the economic powerhouse of the world. It's a legacy we should share with the rest of the world.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 of those minutes. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to repeat again, there is no violation of law and there is no violation of our trade agreements by the action taken by the committee. NCAR is not an agency of the Government. Article 3 of the Government Procurement Agreement does not apply to the proposed legislation because article 1 of the agreement states that the agreement covers procurements only by those entities listed in the agreement's appendices. Neither ENCAR nor UCAR are among those listed entities. But having put that technical argument aside, I simply want to make this point. The only argument that is being made by the folks who are opposed to the committee action is that it is one of process. As the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] has pointed out, we have lawyers on both sides of the argument making opposite arguments, and they will continue to do so. Our job is to cut through that and recognize that tonight what is important is that we defend the national interest of the United States. I repeat, we are not making a judgment that this supercomputer cannot be bought and we are not making a judgment that it is being dumped, although it is pretty hard to see why it is not when they are offering to provide a supercomputer worth $90 to $110 million for a $35 million price because they want so badly to bust into the United States market. But I simply want to repeat, despite that fact, we are not determining that this computer at this point is being dumped. All we are saying is that if the Commerce Department reaches that conclusion, then, because this industry is so crucial, not only to the defense capability of this country but to the long-term economic viability of this country, it is important that we not allow legalisms to bind us to a requirement that if the Japanese corporation is willing to eat another $70 or $100 million tariff, that they would be allowed to use trade agreements to destroy our economy. That is all we are saying. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, then I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if I could reserve the right to object, I would be happy to give the gentleman 2 minutes to speak if I could be assured that we will still have the right to close.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully object. I was asked to agree to a time limit. I have the right to close. Now we are being asked to violate that process. I really do not think that is fair.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me say I respect the arguments being made by both sides. This is legitimate debate. I simply want to make a few points to refute what has been alleged by the amendment's sponsors. I want to repeat, this bill does not say that we cannot buy this computer. What it says is that if there is either a preliminary or a final determination by the Commerce Department that this constitutes dumping by the Japanese, that then that computer cannot be purchased. The reason it is worded that way is very simple: It can take up to a year to reach a final determination, whereas a preliminary determination, which has not yet been made, if a preliminary determination is reached it usually takes about 4 months. The problem with waiting over a year and the problem of doing what the gentleman from Arizona wants us to do, and simply rely on the post- fact additional tariff if there is found to be dumping, is that that suits the situation if we are talking about consumables. But if we are talking about an industry such as the supercomputer industry, which is so integral to the defense of this country and to the national welfare, if we simply allow a Japanese company which has already demonstrated it is willing to sell every supercomputer they sell at a loss, then they are certainly willing to eat the additional tariff that would be imposed upon them in order to break the supercomputer market in this country and to eventually drive American supercomputer producers out of business. We used to have 15 American supercomputer producers. We were down to 5. Two of them got out of business. There are really only three companies left in this country who produce anything that can be called close to the supercomputer and only one, Cray, which is still left fully standing. They will not be standing for very long if we allow the Japanese to continue this predatory pricing of theirs. I want to make the point: we have signed no agreement that requires us to buy dumped products. We have signed an agreement to require open and transparent trading, but that was never meant to serve as a cover for predatory pricing of products. We could have done, as I said, as has already been done on the defense bill, simply say these computers cannot be bought, period. I did not hear anybody object to that. But we took the more modest approach of simply saying if a determination is reached by the Commerce Department, then that supercomputer shall not be purchased with American tax dollars, because these dollars are appropriated to expand and to maintain the American preeminence in this field, and yet they are ironically being used to undercut that preeminence. All we are saying is if they reach that determination, then we cannot buy this supercomputer. That is all we are asking to do. I would make the point that it ought to be obvious that if those Japanese corporations have never made a profit on the sale of a supercomputer, it is obvious that they are not after profit. They are looking at their long-term ability to bust the U.S. lead, break into our market and eventually drive our short-pocket companies out of business. I do not think that is in the interest of the United States. I appreciate the bipartisan support for the action taken by the committee, and I would urge that the committee uphold the judgment of the committee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have only one remaining speaker and I understand we have the right to close. The KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute simply to say that I think the gentleman ought to consider what is happening today, not in the deep, dark, distant past. My colleague talks about the wonderful performance of the Japanese in purchasing American supercomputers. If we read Foreign Trade Barriers, 1996 national trade estimate report on foreign trade barriers put out by the U.S. Trade Representative, we will see the following: The positive trend in Japanese government supercomputer procurement witnessed in fiscal year 1993 and 1994 was reversed in 1995 during which U.S. firms won only 1 of 11 Japanese government procurements. Moreover, the United States has serious concerns about the conduct of the procurement process in two specific procurements. I would suggest that hardly suggests to me that the Japanese are about to turn over a new leaf.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton]. (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].

Mr. OBEY. Now, the authors of this amendment or the author of this amendment is saying that it violates trade laws. It most certainly does not. There is no trade law, there is no trade pact which we have joined which requires us to accept dumped goods. The authors say, ``Well, why don't you follow the process normally used for consumable items? That's what you ought to do.'' The problem is it is very different if one is dealing with an automobile versus a supercomputer because if one simply waits and allows for a final determination down the line, the only penalty is to assess an additional tariff. Japan has already indicated they will gladly accept that additional tariff in order to bust the U.S. market and compete successfully because of their deep pockets. We are told that the Congress is violating the law if they do what the committee is suggesting. They do not. The Congress does not violate the law. If my colleagues take a look at Footnote 24 to the antidumping agreement to which America subscribes, there is a recognition that other actions can be taken. It is suggested that we are violating the procurement law. That is not correct, because the procurement law only applies directly to American agencies, and what we are discussing here is the action of a grantee of a U.S. agency. So there is in no way a violation of either U.S. law or violation of trade agreements to which we have become a party. There is a reason why the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], why the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], why myself, why the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], Ross Perot and a wide variety of people in both parties support the committee action: because they recognize that it is critical to the security interests of this country, they recognize that it is critical to the long-term economic needs of the country. All we are saying is, if in the end this computer is determined to be purchased at a dumped price, do not buy it. That is all it says. We could have gone much further, as has been done in the defense bill, and simply say, ``You can't sell any foreign computer.'' We did not say that. We preferred to allow the Commerce Department to make a rational determination. That is what one would do if they are interested in protecting the national security interests of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the issue here is very clear. The issue is whether we are going to stand up for America and stand up for fair trade under the rule of law or not. What are the facts? This Congress is being asked to appropriate $277 million, and the purpose for that, I quote, is ``to promote fundamental research in education and computer and information sciences and engineering and to maintain the Nation's preeminence in these fields.'' Despite that, a grantee of the National Science Foundation wants to purchase a supercomputer. They have put out a bid to buy it for a fixed price of $35 million. Three companies bid, one American company and two Japanese companies. The United States machine on a pound-for-pound and chip-for-chip basis ran at a faster clock speed than did their Japanese competitors. But one Japanese company, NEC, proposed to sell three times the machine at an estimated cost to manufacture of somewhere between $90 million and $110 million. So they proceeded to try to sell a machine which cost three times as much as the price at which they were willing to provide it to the NSF grantee. The NFS was warned by the Commerce Department that this appeared to be a case of dumping, and it appeared to be a violation of our trade rules. But before the Commerce Department could get a written document to the NSF, NSF decided to proceed anyway because they wanted to have that computer at a cut-rate price. Now the question is why would the Japanese sell a $110 million computer for 35 million bucks? It is very simple. The supercomputer industry is critical to the future economic strength of this country and to our national security. The supercomputer industry is very small, but it is a cornerstone of U.S. competition and of our competitive posture. It is crucial to the design of aircraft, it is crucial to the design of jet engines. In World War II, one of the reasons we won is that we broke the Japanese and German codes. The Nation with the best supercomputer capacity can decode another Nation's secrets, it can predict weather better, it can unravel the mysteries of genetics. It is absolutely key in the design and simulation testing for new automobiles, for new weapons, for new aircraft, for new items of virtually every kind in the economy, for new drugs. A supercomputer, for instance, is key to the design of the new Boeing 777. And yet financial analysts who look at what is happening in this field worry about the long-term survivability of the U.S. supercomputer industry. Now, they do not worry about it because they think we do not produce products of quality. They worry about it because of the huge deep pockets that Japanese corporations have in comparison to American corporations who produce these supercomputers. U.S. companies have to finance their R&D, their development of new products out of profits from current sales. But in Japan, Fijitsu and NEC are backed by virtually limitless credit from their huge mega banks. I would point out that neither Japanese supercomputer company has ever made a profit selling supercomputers. They are willing to sell at a loss simply because they want to break the U.S. market, they want to drive the U.S. industry right off the face of the globe, and then they will have an absolute and total monopoly on supercomputer capacity and capability in this world. So now what this bill says is something I suppose some people see as very shocking. It says simply that none of the funds can be used for this agency to purchase a supercomputer if the Commerce Department determines that it has been dumped on the U.S. market. Now, the Commerce Department has not yet made a preliminary nor a final determination. They have made an initial guess about it, and they tried to stop the agency and slow them down until this could be evaluated, but the agency was hell-bent to go ahead because they were putting their own narrow interests, in my view, ahead of the broader interests of the country.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, all the language says is that, if it is determined that this supercomputer has been dumped on to the U.S. market, that it cannot be bought.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. I did not have a point to make on the procurement code, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] suggested we were in violation of procurement laws. I said that we were not, because the argument that has been made about that relates to the action of government agencies, not grantees.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I also simply want to extend my appreciation to the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Wolf], the chairman of the committee, for the manner in which he has proceeded to produce a bill which I think will meet a bipartisan test. I would also simply note the absence of the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Coleman], who could not be here today due to an illness in his family in Texas, that this will be the last transportation bill that Mr. Coleman would be serving this House on in the capacity of ranking member. We appreciate the very effective work that he has done. I rise in support of this bill. Mr. Chairman, last year, the Transportation appropriations bill was one of the appropriations bills where we were able, for the most part, to bridge partisan differences and reach agreement on a bill that could be signed into law. I believe that we should be able to accomplish that same goal on the bill we consider today providing fiscal year 1997 funding for priority transportation programs. I want to extend my appreciation to the gentleman from Virginia , [Mr. Wolf] for his efforts to work out reasonable compromises on the bill and to address transportation spending priorities under a 602(b) allocation that provides $650 million less in budget authority and $1.3 billion less in outlays than was allocated to the conference version of the 1996 transportation appropriations bill last year. I also want to note the fine work of the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Coleman,] on this bill. Unfortunately, Mr. Coleman could not be here today due to illness in his family in Texas. This bill will be the last transportation bill that Mr. Coleman will shepherd through this body as the ranking minority member of the transportation appropriations subcommittee. I know we will all miss the good humor and great ability with which he carries out his responsibilities. The bill has several positive elements which I want to note. I am pleased that the bill provides a stable funding level for the Federal- Aid Highways program at $17.55 billion--the 1996 funding level. I would note that the conference agreement on the budget resolution which provided $4 billion more for nondefense discretionary spending over the House budget resolution allowed the subcommittee to receive an additional $325 million in outlays which helped to avoid a cut in funding for the highway program. I would have strongly supported an increased in highway funding to get closer to the full ISTEA authorization had additional funds been allocated to the subcommittee. The bill also provides funding for transit infrastructure and operating assistance to the current level of $2.0 billion, including $400 million for transit operating assistance. These funds are essential for the mobility of the elderly, the poor and disabled, and those in rural America, who are dependent on bus and mass transportation to work, shop and live. Mr. Chairman, at my initiative, the committee report on the bill requests the Federal Aviation Administration to review the safety and airworthiness of the ATR-47 and ATR-72 aircraft to make certain that they are safe to fly in the conditions in which they are being flown. The ART 72 is the airplane involved in the 1994 tragic crash in Roselawn, Indiana which killed 68 people. The National Transportation Safety Board will be issuing its report next month on the causes of this accident. My language will help ensure that the FAA undertakes the necessary reviews so that we can be confident that the FAA has taken all steps possible to ensure the safety of those who travel aboard these airplanes. Mr. Chairman, these are some very positive aspects of the bill. I do, however, believe that the bill falls short in two areas about which I have some concerns. A small, but significant item in the bill relates to the deletion of $550,000 requested by the administration for the implementation of the domestic content labeling law. This law requires new passenger vehicles sold in the United States to be labeled to show their domestic content. Without these funds, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will be unable to conduct the necessary audits to evaluate industry compliance with the requirements of the law. The deletion of these funds amounts to a de facto repeal of a law that is needed to monitor the implementation of the June 28, 1995 United States-Japan Agreement on Autos and Auto Parts. This agreement, its implementation and its enforcement is a central part of the administration's trade policy toward Japan and its plans for opening the Japanese market. For approximately 10 years, the United States government has been pressuring the Japanese automobile companies to increase their purchases from United States auto parts suppliers, particularly for those vehicles assembled in the United States. The domestic content labeling law provides the United States Government a recognized and credible methods for benchmarking the United States parts content of Japanese cars and light trucks. The $500,000 reduction in the bill in penny-wise, but pound foolish in terms of our ability to monitor and enforce this agreement to ensure that the Japanese live up to their commitments. Mr. Chairman, I also disagree with the $500,000 cut in funds requested by the FAA for the contract tower program. The reduction in the bill assumes additional savings will be realized if contract air traffic controllers are paid less than locally prevailing wages. The $500,000 in assumed saving will result in a real cut in the program, since the Department of Labor has already determined that there insufficient justification for the waiver assumed in the bill. I do not agree with the suggestion implicit in the bill that we should not pay these contract air traffic controllers a decent wage. I will also support the amendment by Mr. Collins relating to changing the age 60 rule for commercial pilots. Mr. Chairman, the basic elements of this bill are sound. It contains several flaws that I believe we can correct as the bill moves through floor, Senate, and conference action. I urge the adoption of the bill.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. All Members with amendments to title II should be aware of the need to stay here tonight if their rights are to be protected to offer those amendments.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, July 6 is recognized around the world as International Cooperative Day. This 74-year-old tradition presents an opportunity to people from all corners of the earth to recognize the important difference that cooperatives make in their lives. The potential role of cooperative enterprises in promoting economic development in areas of most critical need, in many cases businesses, has been recognized by the United Nations. Last year, the U.N. declared that the International Day of Cooperatives should be celebrated every year by governments in collaboration with their national cooperative movements. Next Monday, July 1, cooperative leaders from the United States and from around the world will meet at U.N. Headquarters in New York to celebrate in International Day of Cooperatives at an event organized by the United Nations, International Day of Cooperative Alliance, and the Committee for the Promotion and Advancement of Cooperatives. This event will provide an opportunity to discuss and to demonstrate the actual and potential contribution of cooperative business enterprise to the achievement of economic goals, including: The potential of the cooperative movement to participate as a distinct stakeholder and full partner with the United Nations and institutional procedures and structures hereby such participation may be most effective. The contribution of cooperative business enterprise to the achievement of the goals of the International Year and Decade for the Eradication of Poverty and the realization of the goals of the World Food Summit. The potential of the cooperative movement to develop human resources and institutional capabilities. The cooperative movement as a means for the economic, social, and political empowerment of women. The contribution of cooperative business to the provision of appropriate and affordable social services. The capacity of the cooperative movement to undertake appropriate technical assistance as a complement to governmental multilateral and bilateral assistance. The ways and mean whereby partnerships may be strengthened between cooperatively organized business enterprises and the U.N. development system. I have believed for many years that cooperatives provide people with an economic alternative that empowers them economically to help themselves. Throughout this century, this body has passed legislation that created the spark for cooperative development and opened the door for cooperatives in this country. The result has been the creation of our rural electric and telephone cooperative systems, the farm credit banking system, the National Cooperative Bank, and credit unions and community development credit unions. All of those have been tools that allow people to accomplish together things they could not accomplish alone. All are owned by the members who benefit from them, and are controlled through the election of boards of directors by that membership. It is fitting that the international community should recognize that power and the possibilities that cooperatives represent in developing countries. Today, over 760 million people around the world are members of cooperatives. And that fact has made all of their lives a little brighter. I encourage my colleagues to look to their own districts and recognize the existence of cooperatives there that meet their constituents needs. What you will find is over 100 million Americans and 45,000 businesses ranging in size from small buying clubs to businesses included in the Fortune 500. Today, we have cooperative businesses in the fields of housing, health care, finance, insurance, child care, agricultural marketing and supply, rural utilities and consumer goods and services. Cooperatives have helped to make this country the economic powerhouse of the world. It's a legacy we should share with the rest of the world.