[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6268-H6275]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2754, SHIPBUILDING TRADE AGREEMENT
ACT
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 448 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 448
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2754) to approve and implement the OECD
Shipbuilding Trade Agreement. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided among and controlled by the chairmen and ranking
minority members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the
Committee on National Security. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the
amendment printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against that amendment in the nature of a
substitute are waived. No other amendment shall be in order
except the amendment printed in part 2 of the report of the
Committee on Rules. That amendment may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against that amendment are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in
order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from south Boston, MA, Mr.
Moakley, 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.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R.
2754, legislation to implement the multilateral trade agreement entered
into by the President to phase out shipbuilding subsidies and create an
international environment conducive to the restoration of a healthy
commercial shipbuilding industry in this country.
House Resolution 448 is a modified closed rule, providing 1 hour of
general debate divided equally among the chairmen and ranking minority
members of the Committees on Ways and Means and National Security. The
resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill.
The resolution makes in order the amendment in the nature of a
substitute as recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, as
modified by the amendment printed in part 1 of the report of the
Committee on Rules, as an original bill for purpose of amendment. The
amendment shall be considered as read. All points of order are waived
against the amendment in the nature of a substitute as modified.
The rule further provides for consideration of an amendment printed
in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules and waives all points
of order against the amendment. The amendment to be offered by the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or
the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 2230
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, for many years, some foreign governments have employed
subsidies to protect their commercial shipbuilders from international
competition. It was the policy of the United States not to respond in
kind, and I strongly support that policy. Manufacturing subsidies are a
wasteful drain on the economy and on taxpayers. We should not fall
victim to these insidious policies simply because other countries
employ them.
Seven years ago, rather than throw money away in a race to see who
could provide the largest subsidy to commercial shipbuilders, the
United States initiated multilateral negotiations with the major
shipbuilding nations to come to an agreement to end subsidies. Mr.
Speaker, this effort was supported by our commercial shipbuilders who
realized that the only long-term hope for
[[Page H6269]]
the industry in the United States was to reach an agreement.
In December 1994, after 5 years of negotiations, an agreement was
reached with the European Commission, Norway, South Korea, and Japan,
the world's major shipbuilding nations. The meticulously negotiated
agreement to end shipbuilding subsidies was scheduled to enter effect
on January 1, 1996 and the start date was extended to July 15 due to
delays in congressional approval.
In past years this trade agreement implementing bill would have been
considered by the Congress under what are known as fast-track
procedures. Congress would have a clean up-or-down vote on the
agreement reached by the administration. Regrettably, the Clinton
administration has refused for 3 years to compromise with those in
Congress who support trade agreements and support fast-track authority,
but who refuse to give the administration carte blanche to include any
social policy whim they desire in trade agreements. Clearly, this trade
agreement and this implementing bill is the type of trade legislation
envisioned when Congress established the fast track procedure.
Under fast track, Congress votes up-or-down on legislation, crafted
by congressional committees and the administration, to implement an
agreement. Amendments are not permitted because they can violate the
negotiated agreement, killing the deal by forcing all the tough issues
back onto the bargaining table.
This rule attempts to limit that possibility, while giving the House
a clear vote on the negotiated agreement. The bill reported by the
Committee on Ways and Means will implement the agreement negotiated by
the President. The provisions from the Committee on National Security,
which are consistent with the negotiated agreement, are included as
base text. However, the provisions of the Committee on National
Security which violates the agreement are offered to the House in one
amendment. The choice is very clear: Approve or reject the agreement.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, the vote on the Committee on National
Security amendment is the vote on the shipbuilding agreement. If the
amendment is approved, we will not be in compliance with the agreement,
and it is highly unlikely that negotiations on the agreement will be
reopened.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record letters from the Government of
Norway, the Government of Japan, and the European Commission, each of
which state the negotiations in this agreement will not be reopened.
I also include a letter in opposition to the national security
agreement which came up to us by Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky, our
U.S. Trade Representative.
The material referred to is as follows:
Royal Norwegian Embassy,
Washington, DC, June 5, 1996.
Hon. Charlene Barshefsky,
Acting U.S. Trade Representative,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ambassador Barshefsky, I am writing to you to express
the Norwegian Government's grave concern regarding the
amendments passed by the National Security Committee of the
House of Representatives in its mark-up last week of the
legislation for implementation of the OECD Shipbuilding
Agreement.
Several of the amendments, most notably the provisions for
extending the Title XI shipbuilding loan guarantee program
and the provisions for removing the applicability of the
Agreement with respect to the building of Jones Act vessels,
are clearly inconsistent with the terms of Agreement.
The OECD Shipbuilding Agreement is the result of many years
of complex negotiations and represents a carefully crafted
compromise between the parties to the Agreement. My
Government holds the view that the Agreement is of vital
importance for the return to normal competitive conditions in
the commercial shipbuilding industry.
Norway has ratified the OECD Agreement, and would find that
the introduction of amendments such as those proposed by the
National Security Committee would destroy the balance of
obligations and, thus, undermine the foundation upon which
the Agreement was built. On the Norwegian side, we do not
foresee circumstances whereby the signatories of the OECD
Agreement would be prepared to reopen negotiations.
Hoping that you will convey to Congress Norway's concern
that adoption of the aforementioned amendments would
seriously jeopardize the OECD Agreement, I remain,
Sincerely yours,
Karsten Klepsvik,
Charge d' Affaires a.i.
____
Delegation of the
European Commission,
Washington, DC, May 31, 1996.
Hon. Herbert H. Bateman,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman, I am writing on behalf of the European
Commission to express our considerable concern with respect
to the amendment passed by the House National Security
Committee in its mark-up of the OECD shipbuilding
implementing legislation. The amendment calls for an
extension of the terms of Title XI financing for ship
construction for thirty months. Furthermore the amendment
would clearly state that the agreement does not require
changes in the Jones Act and that certain Department of
Defence procurements are not covered.
This amendment clearly is inconsistent with the terms of
the agreement as negotiated between the parties.
The agreement is the result of five years of complex
negotiations which have led to the adoption of the basic
principles originally proposed by the United States (i.e. the
prohibition of virtually all forms of future government
subsidies). Therefore this significant amendment would not be
acceptable to the European Community since it would be
contrary to the basic objectives and balance of mutual
concessions contained in the agreement. I cannot envisage the
circumstances under which signatories of the OECD agreement
would be willing to reopen negotiations.
The adoption of the amendment would put the agreement in
serious jeopardy. Therefore, I should like to urge you to
take the above into account in future consideration of the
bill.
Sincerely yours,
Hugo Paemen,
Ambassador.
____
June 5, 1996.
Mr. Ronald Johnston,
Secretary-General, OECD.
Dear Mr. Johnston, As you know, the target date for the
ratification of the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement is fast
approaching. In this regard, I am pleased to report that
Japan is making steady progress towards ratification of the
Agreement, and we hope to have Diet approval by 15th June.
Despite this optimistic picture, recent developments in the
United States are clouding the horizon and are a source of
grave concern to us. On 29 May, the US House National
Security Committee passed an amendment to the OECD
Shipbuilding Agreement which would change the terms of the US
participation in the ban to subsidise global shipbuilding.
This amendment provides for the extension of the Title XI
Loan Guarantee Programme until January 1999. Title XI, which
provides subsidised financing for maritime vessels, is in
contradiction with the provisions of the Agreement, and its
prolongation by the House of Representatives would clearly
jeopardise the entry into force of the Agreement.
Let me make it very clear that Japan is opposed to this
amendment which goes against the spirit and letter of the
Agreement, and would be unwilling to reopen negotiations. The
Agreement, fruit of five long years of negotiations, was
initially proposed by the United States and had as objective
the elimination of all forms of government subsidies to
shipyards, a principle supported by the United States. It is
clear that the Agreement will bring long-term benefit to all
signatory countries whereas passage of the Bateman amendment
will open the door for a new round of subsidisation and
antidumping movements, actions that will hurt all countries.
Japan is using all available channels to directly convey
our concern to American lawmakers on this issue. As the OECD
as the home of the negotiations, we believe that you, as
Secretary-General of the OECD, share our displeasure. We
would therefore ask you to use all your influence to convey
our own concern to the United States.
Sincerely yours,
Masaji Takahashi,
Ambassador.
____
Executive Office of the President, Office of the United
States Trade Representative,
Washington, DC, June 5, 1996.
Herbert H. Bateman,
Chairman, Special Oversight Panel on the Merchant Marine,
Committee on National Security, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bateman: I want to thank you for the
opportunity for General Counsel Jennifer Hillman to appear as
an Administration witness before your Special Oversight Panel
regarding H.R. 2754 which would implement the OECD
Shipbuilding Agreement and for the House National Security
Committee taking timely action on the bill. I remain
optimistic that the United States will be able to ratify this
important agreement, which will eliminate large foreign
subsidies for shipbuilding and provide new sales and
employment opportunities for U.S. shipyards.
At the same time, however, I want to make clear that the
substitute amendment to H.R. 2754 approved by the National
Security Committee on May 30 modifies the legislation in ways
that are clearly incompatible with the
[[Page H6270]]
Agreement and unacceptable to the other Signatories.
The Agreement requires that its Members bring their
government support programs into compliance with the
provisions of the Agreement as of entry into force (now
scheduled for July 15, 1996). The National Security Committee
substitute amendment (Section 205) would delay the required
modification of our Title XI loan guarantee program until
January 1, 1999. The Agreement also provides for an exemption
for the home-build requirements of U.S. coastwise laws
(``Jones Act''), these requirements are allowed to continue
indefinitely while the home-build requirements of the other
members must be eliminated as of entry into force. To address
the concerns of the other Members, however, provisions were
painstakingly negotiated to provide a means of redress in the
unlikely event this exemption were determined to
significantly undermine the balance of rights and obligations
under the Agreement. Section 207 of the substitute amendment
would negate these provisions--which are the basis on which
we obtained an exemption for the Jones Act.
Other Signatories to the Agreement have been quick to
contact us in the wake of the May 30 action by the National
Security Committee. Their message has been uniform: the
substitute amendment is inconsistent with the Agreement,
fundamentally undermines the balance of mutual concessions
and commitments contained in the Agreement, and is therefore
unacceptable. It would require a complete renegotiation of
the Agreement--something that they are unwilling to consider
at this late stage. I would note in this regard that, with
the exception of Japan, all other Members of the Agreement
have completed their internal parliamentary process and
ratified the Agreement; final Japanese approval of the
Agreement and its implementing legislation is expected this
week. Thus, aside from policy objections, the substitute
amendment would invalidate time-consuming foreign
ratification efforts. You can readily imagine the legal
difficulties of seeking to reopen these parliamentary
processes.
In sum, I believe the substitute amendment approved by the
National Security Committee will, if adopted, end the United
States' chance to impose strong disciplines on foreign
subsidies and other unfair trading practices in the
shipbuilding sector. Aside from its adverse implications for
our shipbuilding industry itself, we need to secure passage
of unencumbered legislation to assure our trading partners of
our ability to implement tough agreements that the U.S.
initiated.
I appreciate your hard work on the bill and I look forward
to working with you to ensure that implementing legislation
that is consistent with the Agreement is passed prior to June
15.
Sincerely,
Charlene Barshefsky,
Acting United States Trade Representative.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear if you judge the agreement
as negotiated by the administration to be insufficient, then the
national security amendment offers a vehicle to kill it. However, I
support ending foreign subsidies. I believe this shipbuilding agreement
will achieve that goal. Approving this implementing bill is critical to
bringing this agreement into force, so I urge Members to reject the
amendment of the Committee on National Security.
Mr. Speaker, while the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee
on National Security hold very different views on the substance of this
agreement, they both support this fair floor procedure. It offers the
Members a clear and understandable choice: On one hand, the agreement,
and on the other hand, continue with U.S. loan guarantee subsidies,
which will require this agreement to be renegotiated.
I look forward to a good debate when we move to this issue, and I
urge all Members to support this rule so we can get to that debate.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following materials:
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of June 12, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-Open \2\.............. 46 44 73 59
Structured/Modified Closed \3\...... 49 47 33 27
Closed \4\.......................... 9 9 17 14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 104 100 123 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\ A structured or modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may
be offered only to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany
it, or which preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be
completely open to amendment.
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of June 10, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposition of
H. Res. No. (Date rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)........... O................ H.R. 5........... Unfunded Mandate A: 350-71 (1/19/
Reform. 95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)........... MC............... H. Con. Res. 17.. Social Security....... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1...... Balanced Budget Amdt.. 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 101......... Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/
Pueblo Indians. 1/95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 400......... Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/
Nat'l. Park and 1/95).
Preserve.
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 440......... Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/
County, Calif. 1/95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............ O................ H.R. 2........... Line Item Veto........ A: voice vote (2/
2/95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 665......... Victim Restitution.... A: voice vote (2/
7/95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 666......... Exclusionary Rule A: voice vote (2/
Reform. 7/95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............ MO............... H.R. 667......... Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/
Incarceration. 9/95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............ O................ H.R. 668......... Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/
Deportation. 10/95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)........... MO............... H.R. 728......... Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/
Grants. 13/95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)........... MO............... H.R. 7........... National Security PQ: 229-199; A:
Revitalization. 227-197 (2/15/
95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)........... MC............... H.R. 831......... Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A:
Deductibility. 229-188 (2/21/
95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)........... O................ H.R. 830......... Paperwork Reduction A: voice vote (2/
Act. 22/95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)........... MC............... H.R. 889......... Defense Supplemental.. A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)........... MO............... H.R. 450......... Regulatory Transition A: 252-175 (2/23/
Act. 95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1022........ Risk Assessment....... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95).......... O................ H.R. 926......... Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/
Relief Act. 28/95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95).......... MO............... H.R. 925......... Private Property A: 271-151 (3/2/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1058........ Securities Litigation .................
Reform.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 988......... Attorney A: voice vote (3/
Accountability Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)........... MO............... ................. ...................... A: 257-155 (3/7/
95).
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)........... Debate........... H.R. 956......... Product Liability A: voice vote (3/
Reform. 8/95).
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)........... MC............... ................. ...................... PQ: 234-191 A:
247-181 (3/9/
95).
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1159........ Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
Approps. 95).
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 73..... Term Limits Const. A: voice vote (3/
Amdt. 28/95).
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95).......... Debate........... H.R. 4........... Personal A: voice vote (3/
Responsibility Act of 21/95).
1995.
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95).......... MC............... ................. ...................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95).
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1271........ Family Privacy A: 423-1 (4/4/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 660......... Older Persons Housing A: voice vote (4/
Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1215........ Contract With America A: 228-204 (4/5/
Tax Relief Act of 95).
1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)........... MC............... H.R. 483......... Medicare Select A: 253-172 (4/6/
Expansion. 95).
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 655......... Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/
1995. 2/95).
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1361........ Coast Guard Auth. FY A: voice vote (5/
1996. 9/95).
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)........... O................ H.R. 961......... Clean Water Amendments A: 414-4 (5/10/
95).
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 535......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Arkansas. 15/95).
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 584......... Fish Hatchery--Iowa... A: voice vote (5/
15/95).
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 614......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Minnesota. 15/95).
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95).......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 67.. Budget Resolution FY PQ: 252-170 A:
1996. 255-168 (5/17/
95).
[[Page H6271]]
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1561........ American Overseas A: 233-176 (5/23/
Interests Act. 95).
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1530........ Nat. Defense Auth. FY PQ: 225-191 A:
1996. 233-183 (6/13/
95).
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95).......... O................ H.R. 1817........ MilCon Appropriations PQ: 223-180 A:
FY 1996. 245-155 (6/16/
95).
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1854........ Leg. Branch Approps. PQ: 232-196 A:
FY 1996. 236-191 (6/20/
95).
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95).......... O................ H.R. 1868........ For. Ops. Approps. FY PQ: 221-178 A:
1996. 217-175 (6/22/
95).
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95).......... O................ H.R. 1905........ Energy & Water A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 79..... Flag Constitutional PQ: 258-170 A:
Amendment. 271-152 (6/28/
95).
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1944........ Emer. Supp. Approps... PQ: 236-194 A:
234-192 (6/29/
95).
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 235-193 D:
1996. 192-238 (7/12/
95).
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 230-194 A:
1996 #2. 229-195 (7/13/
95).
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1976........ Agriculture Approps. PQ: 242-185 A:
FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95).......... O................ H.R. 2020........ Treasury/Postal PQ: 232-192 A:
Approps. FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 96..... Disapproval of MFN to A: voice vote (7/
China. 20/95).
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2002........ Transportation PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
Approps. FY 1996. 95).
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 70.......... Exports of Alaskan A: voice vote (7/
Crude Oil. 24/95).
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 2076........ Commerce, State A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 25/95).
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95).......... O................ H.R. 2099........ VA/HUD Approps. FY A: 230-189 (7/25/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95).......... MC............... S. 21............ Terminating U.S. Arms A: voice vote (8/
Embargo on Bosnia. 1/95).
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95).......... O................ H.R. 2126........ Defense Approps. FY A: 409-1 (7/31/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1555........ Communications Act of A: 255-156 (8/2/
1995. 95).
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 2127........ Labor, HHS Approps. FY A: 323-104 (8/2/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)........... O................ H.R. 1594........ Economically Targeted A: voice vote (9/
Investments. 12/95).
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1655........ Intelligence A: voice vote (9/
Authorization FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1162........ Deficit Reduction A: voice vote (9/
Lockbox. 13/95).
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1670........ Federal Acquisition A: 414-0 (9/13/
Reform Act. 95).
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95).......... O................ H.R. 1617........ CAREERS Act........... A: 388-2 (9/19/
95).
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2274........ Natl. Highway System.. PQ: 241-173 A:
375-39-1 (9/20/
95).
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 927......... Cuban Liberty & Dem. A: 304-118 (9/20/
Solidarity. 95).
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 743......... Team Act.............. A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
95).
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1170........ 3-Judge Court......... A: voice vote (9/
28/95).
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1601........ Internatl. Space A: voice vote (9/
Station. 27/95).
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 108.... Continuing Resolution A: voice vote (9/
FY 1996. 28/95).
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95).......... O................ H.R. 2405........ Omnibus Science Auth.. A: voice vote (10/
11/95).
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2259........ Disapprove Sentencing A: voice vote (10/
Guidelines. 18/95).
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2425........ Medicare Preservation PQ: 231-194 A:
Act. 227-192 (10/19/
95).
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95)......... C................ H.R. 2492........ Leg. Branch Approps... PQ: 235-184 A:
voice vote (10/
31/95).
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95)......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 109. Social Security PQ: 228-191 A:
H.R. 2491........ Earnings Reform. 235-185 (10/26/
Seven-Year Balanced 95).
Budget.
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95)......... C................ H.R. 1833........ Partial Birth Abortion A: 237-190 (11/1/
Ban. 95).
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95)......... MO............... H.R. 2546........ D.C. Approps.......... A: 241-181 (11/1/
95).
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 115.... Cont. Res. FY 1996.... A: 216-210 (11/8/
95).
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95).......... MC............... H.R. 2586........ Debt Limit............ A: 220-200 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95).......... O................ H.R. 2539........ ICC Termination Act... A: voice vote (11/
14/95).
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95).......... C................ H.R. 2586........ Increase Debt Limit... A: 220-185 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95)......... O................ H.R. 2564........ Lobbying Reform....... A: voice vote (11/
16/95).
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95)......... C................ H.J. Res. 122.... Further Cont. A: 249-176 (11/15/
Resolution. 95).
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2606........ Prohibition on Funds A: 239-181 (11/17/
for Bosnia. 95).
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95)......... O................ H.R. 1788........ Amtrak Reform......... A: voice vote (11/
30/95).
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95)......... O................ H.R. 1350........ Maritime Security Act. A: voice vote (12/
6/95).
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95).......... C................ H.R. 2621........ Protect Federal Trust PQ: 223-183 A:
Funds. 228-184 (12/14/
95).
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95)......... O................ H.R. 1745........ Utah Public Lands..... PQ: 221-197 A:
voice vote (5/15/
96).
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95)......... C................ H. Con. Res. 122. Budget Res. W/ PQ: 230-188 A:
President. 229-189 (12/19/
95).
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95)......... O................ H.R. 558......... Texas Low-Level A: voice vote (12/
Radioactive. 20/95).
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95)......... C................ H.R. 2677........ Natl. Parks & Wildlife Tabled (2/28/96).
Refuge.
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2854........ Farm Bill............. PQ: 228-182 A:
244-168 (2/28/
96).
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96).......... O................ H.R. 994......... Small Business Growth. Tabled (4/17/96).
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)........... C................ H.R. 3021........ Debt Limit Increase... A: voice vote (3/
7/96).
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3019........ Cont. Approps. FY 1996 PQ: voice vote A:
235-175 (3/7/
96).
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96).......... C................ H.R. 2703........ Effective Death A: 251-157 (3/13/
Penalty. 96).
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2202........ Immigration........... PQ: 233-152 A:
voice vote (3/19/
96).
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96).......... C................ H.J. Res. 165.... Further Cont. Approps. PQ: 234-187 A:
237-183 (3/21/
96).
H. Res. 388 (3/21/96).......... C................ H.R. 125......... Gun Crime Enforcement. A: 244-166 (3/22/
96).
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96).......... C................ H.R. 3136........ Contract w/America PQ: 232-180 A:
Advancement. 232-177, (3/28/
96).
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3103........ Health Coverage PQ: 229-186 A:
Affordability. Voice Vote (3/29/
96).
H. Res. 395 (3/29/96).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 159.... Tax Limitation Const. PQ: 232-168 A:
Amdmt.. 234-162 (4/15/
96).
H. Res. 396 (3/29/96).......... O................ H.R. 842......... Truth in Budgeting Act A: voice vote (4/
17/96).
H. Res. 409 (4/23/96).......... O................ H.R. 2715........ Paperwork Elimination A: voice vote (4/
Act. 24/96).
H. Res. 410 (4/23/96).......... O................ H.R. 1675........ Natl. Wildlife Refuge. A: voice vote (4/
24/96).
H. Res. 411 (4/23/96).......... C................ H.J. Res. 175.... Further Cont. Approps. A: voice vote (4/
FY 1996. 24/96).
H. Res. 418 (4/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 2641........ U.S. Marshals Service. PQ: 219-203 A:
voice vote (5/1/
96).
H. Res. 419 (4/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 2149........ Ocean Shipping Reform. A: 422-0 (5/1/
96).
H. Res. 421 (5/2/96)........... O................ H.R. 2974........ Crimes Against A: voice vote (5/
Children & Elderly. 7/96).
H. Res. 422 (5/2/96)........... O................ H.R. 3120........ Witness & Jury A: voice vote (5/
Tampering. 7/96).
H. Res. 426 (5/7/96)........... O................ H.R. 2406........ U.S. Housing Act of PQ: 218-208 A:
1996. voice vote (5/8/
96).
H. Res. 427 (5/7/96)........... O................ H.R. 3322........ Omnibus Civilian A: voice vote (5/
Science Auth. 9/96).
H. Res. 428 (5/7/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3286........ Adoption Promotion & A: voice vote (5/
Stability. 9/96).
H. Res. 430 (5/9/96)........... S................ H.R. 3230........ DoD Auth. FY 1997..... A: 235-149 (5/10/
96).
H. Res. 435 (5/15/96).......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 178. Con. Res. on the PQ: 227-196 A:
Budget, 1997. voice vote (5/16/
96).
H. Res. 436 (5/16/96).......... C................ H.R. 3415........ Repeal 4.3 cent fuel PQ: 221-181 A:
tax. voice vote (5/21/
96).
H. Res. 437 (5/16/96).......... MO............... H.R. 3259........ Intell. Auth. FY 1997. A: voice vote (5/
21/96).
H. Res. 438 (5/16/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3144........ Defend America Act.... .................
H. Res. 440 (5/21/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3448........ Small Bus. Job A: 219-211 (5/22/
Protection. 96).
MC............... H.R. 1227........ Employee Commuting .................
Flexibility.
H. Res. 442 (5/29/96).......... O................ H.R. 3517........ Mil. Const. Approps. A: voice vote (5/
FY 1997. 30/96).
H. Res. 445 (5/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 3540........ For. Ops. Approps. FY A: voice vote (6/
1997. 5/96).
H. Res. 446 (6/5/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3562........ WI Works Waiver A: 363-59 (6/6/
Approval. 96).
H. Res. 448 (6/6/96)........... MC............... H.R. 2754........ Shipbuilding Trade .................
Agreement.
H. Res. 450 (6/10/96).......... O................ H.R. 3603........ Agriculture A: voice vote (6/
Appropriations, FY 11/96).
1997.
H. Res. ------ (6/12/96)....... O................ H.R. 3610........ Defense .................
Appropriations, FY
1997.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; S/C-structured/closed rule; A-adoption vote;
D-defeated; PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say I support this rule, which gives
people on both sides of this issue a chance to be heard.
It will allow the supporters of this shipbuilding trade agreement a
chance to vote for the agreement and it will give others a chance to
make changes.
So, although I count myself as one of the people who would like to
make changes, I am happy to say I support this rule because it will
allow us to do so.
Mr. Speaker, this shipping agreement is a good start. It takes some
serious steps toward making the international business of shipbuilding
fair for all shipbuilders--regardless of their nationality. It seeks to
eventually eliminate shipbuilding subsidies; prevent dumping; and
settle disputes.
But, Mr. Speaker, this shipbuilding trade agreement is unbalanced. It
does not do enough to protect American shipbuilders from unfair
international shipbuilding subsidies.
Unless we change that aspect of the agreement, unless we adopt the
Bateman amendment, this agreement is unfair to American shipbuilders
and shouldn't go any further.
[[Page H6272]]
The Bateman amendment continues the title 11 loan guarantees at their
current levels. In other words it will even the playing field for
American shipbuilders in light of continued subsidies by foreign
governments.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement is the result of 5 years of negotiations
among the major shipbuilding countries of the world. The goal is a very
noble one, namely to end all shipbuilding subsidies in the year 1999.
But, unfortunately, it appears that we have given away nearly the whole
store and gotten just about nothing in return.
Mr. Speaker, the creation of the title 11 loan guarantee program has
jump started the American shipbuilding industry in recent years. It
enables qualified shipbuilders to receive substantial loan guarantees
from our Government for up to 87.5 percent of a loan over a 25-year
period.
Thanks to this program previously defunct shipyards, like the Quincy
Shipyard in Massachusetts, have been able to get back on their feet.
Mr. Speaker, this is the only government program designed to help
U.S. shipbuilders, and it carries a price tag of $50 million annually.
Other countries such as Japan, South Korea and Germany subsidize their
shipyards with nearly 200 times that amount--approximately $8 billion
annually. Instead of asking the other countries to stop their subsidies
now, this agreement slashes the title 11 loan guarantees by 7\1/2\
percent.
Meanwhile, several countries are using loopholes to continue using
government subsidies to modernize their shipyards.
Although these subsidies will end in 1999, Mr. Speaker, I worry that
1999 will be too late. By that time, our European competitors will have
used these subsidy loopholes to modernize their shipyards. The level
playing field envisioned by the creators of this agreement will have
evaporated because American shipyards won't be able to compete with
these fully modern yards.
If we aren't going to give our shipbuilders loan guarantees, Mr.
Speaker, then we shouldn't sign an agreement that leaves open loopholes
through which other countries can subsidize their shipbuilding.
Hard working Americans in places like the Quincy Shipyard deserve
their chance to compete in today's global economy--without having to
worry about competing against subsidized foreign shipbuilders.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule because it allows both
sides a chance to offer their proposals. I also urge my colleagues to
support the Bateman amendment to help even the playing field for
American shipbuilders.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I disagree with my dear friend,
the gentleman from South Boston, MA, when he says that President
Clinton sold out the store on this issue.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I did not say President Clinton, Mr. Speaker, if the
gentleman will yield.
Mr. DREIER. I think it was President Clinton who put this agreement
together.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Newport News, VA [Mr. Bateman], a distinguished member of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me, and I also want to commend him on the rule which he has brought for
consideration of this very, very important matter. It is a fair rule,
it is an appropriate rule. It does give to those who have concerns
about this agreement the opportunity to debate it and to address the
means by which the agreement can be improved to a point where it would
be worthy of the support of the representatives of the American people.
It is perhaps strange to many that a bill that started in the
Committee on Ways and Means and is, in essence, a trade agreement would
come to the floor with some input from the Committee on National
Security. But when we think of the basic subject matter of this
particular trade agreement, it is more than appropriate that the
Committee on National Security have a voice in whether or not that
treaty or that agreement should be implemented legislatively, for this
agreement deals with shipbuilding, and when we deal with shipbuilding,
we deal with something which is absolutely vital to the national
security interests of the United States of America.
When the United States of America is no longer a maritime power, the
United States of America is no longer a world power. It is just in the
nature of the world we live in and the geography that we deal with that
we must be a maritime power. We cannot be a maritime power if we do not
have the capability to build and maintain a merchant fleet and to have
the capability to build in our country naval combatant vessels.
I can say to the Members that their large shipyards in the United
States, the ones which do and can build naval combatant vessels, are
opposed to his agreement if implemented according to the terms of the
Committee on Ways and Means bill. They have sought and I have been
proud to author an amendment which would make this agreement more fair
and more protective of the legitimate interests of American
shipbuilding and of America's national security.
The amendments which I will be offering would include an extension
for 30 months of our existing title XI program, because it is a program
that is working, and because it is a program that is essential to a
transition period so our shipbuilding can play on an even playing field
when this agreement is fully implemented and all of the subsidies go
away, very appropriate in light of the fact that there are other
nations who are parties to this agreement who have special transition
provisions allowing them hundreds of millions of dollars in continued
subsidization of their shipyards.
The trade representatives have assured us, according to their
interpretation, that this agreement has nothing to do with, has no
effect upon, the Jones Act. Yet, the letter cited by the distinguished
gentleman from California, from various embassies who are parties to
this agreement, says that my amendment, because it makes it explicit
that the agreement shall not affect the Jones Act, is totally
unacceptable to them.
{time} 2245
I would say to you that that is a very, very strong reason why the
amendments which I will offer tomorrow ought to be enacted, because it
must be unequivocally clear that the Jones Act is not affected by this
agreement.
We also must make it perfectly clear that we reserve the right to
define ships that are built for a national defense purpose and that
someone else cannot say that our Marine and Army prepositioned vessels
and other ships which discharge a vital national security interest must
be regarded as commercial vessels and cannot be built in American
shipyards but must be made available for bid to the lowest bidder from
any Nation in the world. We cannot make our national defense
capabilities dependent upon that.
Mr. Speaker, when this debate is heard tomorrow, I would implore the
Members of the House to remember that they are representing the vital
interests of the United States of America and its capability to remain
a maritime power. In doing that, they must look upon this agreement as
what is fair and what serves the interest of the people whom we
represent. Based on that standing, I believe the Members of the House
will support the Bateman amendment when offered and with that amendment
we can go on to perfect this agreement if the parties are willing to do
so.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. I had not wanted to
use this much time to debate this rule but since we got into the merits
of the bill, I think it is appropriate that someone who is connected
with the bill since its inception explain the position of the Committee
on Ways and Means and the position adopted by the administration in
negotiating this agreement.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of shipbuilding business out there to be
had by Americans if we can just get the rest of the world to do away
with their subsidies. Here on this floor in 1981, the
[[Page H6273]]
Congress adopted the Gramm-Latta substitute to the budget
reconciliation bill and wiped out all U.S. subsidies. One tiny little
subsidy, almost insignificant subsidy, survived that onslaught. There
is a great obsolescence coming about on all the commercial ships that
have been built in the world. The amount of shipbuilding that will be
done by the rest of the world in the next few years is going to be
tremendous. It is important that America get its fair share. We are
very competitive in commercial shipbuilding, due largely to the value
of our dollar. And we can compete, so our shipbuilders tell us, on a
level playing field. That is what this agreement provides for.
I began this action about 7 or 8 years ago and for the last 5 years
we have been negotiating furiously with all the other shipbuilders. We
wore out 4 sets of negotiators and we finally reached an agreement. But
a minority of the shipbuilders in this country have decided that they
do not like the agreement, that they could do better. But I doubt that
they can. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] has put into the
Record responses from the other parties to this agreement that if this
agreement is amended by the Bateman amendment that they will walk away
from the agreement and will not further negotiate. These are not little
bitty insignificant nations, they are the 280 million people of the
European community, the nations of Japan and South Korea and other
countries that have said that if we tear up this agreement by amending
it with the Bateman amendment, it is all over, they will go back to
their subsidies. They are having trouble getting rid of their subsidies
in their countries. But all of those other countries have already
approved this agreement. Even though we pushed the agreement to
negotiation, we originated all of this, we are the last to ratify it.
The day to ratify it is this week. On the 15th of this month, the
extensions that we have gotten run out.
No agreement is perfect. No agreement is going to be 100 percent
agreed to by everyone. But this is a good agreement. It will put us
back in the shipbuilding business. And it will do away with foreign
subsidies.
Why will the Bateman amendment not work? The Bateman amendment is
presently law in the United States hanging by one thin thread, a thread
about as thick as a spider's thread. The only thing that saves what Mr.
Bateman would like to do today is a standstill agreement in this
agreement that we are ratifying. What is a standstill agreement? When
we finally sign an international agreement, all countries customarily
agree to stand still and not to escalate, in this case, the subsidies
that we have cut off. At the time that this agreement was signed, the
United States was slightly ahead in the subsidy race in ship purchasing
financing. In other words, we gave a better subsidy to ship purchasers
than did any other nation. But the only reason they have not matched or
beaten our subsidy is because they have agreed to stand still. That
agreement expires Friday.
Come Friday, all the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] is trying
to save will go up in thin air, because all the other countries on
Earth that are parties to this agreement can start the subsidy race
again. I do not see in the United States any desire to enter into
shipbuilding subsidies. We thought we were getting rid of all of them
in 1981.
It is just dreaming to say that we can go our own separate way on
this agreement, that we can continue our subsidies and everybody else
will fall in line. That is just pure imagination.
So the chance is here. We can get America back into the shipbuilding
industry, the commercial shipbuilding industry. This is a good
agreement. We ought to take this opportunity while we have got it.
Mr. Speaker, I have never been any more sincere about anything I have
said on this floor than I am about this agreement. I have followed it,
started it way back in the beginning. I know what is in it. We cannot
improve it at this stage of it. It is good for America to do this.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
simply rise and associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the
former chairman not only of the full committee but of the Trade
Subcommittee. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] has, as he said,
followed this issue very, very closely from its inception and he
understands that doing everything that we possibly can to push those
other countries that have been involved in subsidization will do
nothing but enhance the ability of shipbuilders here in the United
States, and I think that that is something that we all want to do. But
certainly there are differences of opinion on it and this rule will
allow a chance to bring that up.
I certainly concur with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] as a
fellow free-trader that doing everything that we possibly can to ensure
that the amendment of my very good friend from Virginia [Mr. Bateman]
does not carry, I think, will go a long way toward assisting a
shipbuilding industry in this country.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, the
gentleman from Portland, ME, former marine, Mr. Longley.
Mr. LONGLEY. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule that has been written on
this bill. Again I would echo a number of the comments that have been
made this evening but perhaps with a slightly different twist. I think
it is important to understand that the steps that led to this agreement
were begun in 1989 at the urging of the sixth largest U.S. shipyards,
including the Bath Iron Works located in my district. The negotiations
were initiated following the withdrawal of a section 301 trade
complaint that had been filed by these shipyards charging that foreign
shipbuilders had been engaging in unfair competitive practices.
As we know, many of the governments in Europe, Korea and Japan have
been subsidizing commercial shipyards for decades and these subsidies
have been running into the billions of dollars. Unfortunately in the
view of the six major yards, the agreement has not accomplished what it
set out to do and it has left major discrepancies in terms of the
interpretation and how the agreement might be interpreted and how that
might apply to American shipyards.
On that basis, I support the committee's conclusion to provide for a
rule that will allow a vote on the Bateman amendment. I will later be
speaking in support of the Bateman amendment and perhaps later even
questioning the other aspects of the agreement.
But I think the one note that I would want to urge in this debate as
we consider the rule and get ready for the debate on the measure itself
is that the United States which at one time was the greatest sea power
in the world has now reached the point where the number of workers
employed in industrial shipyards that make the major surface military
and commercial vessels for this great country have now reached a point
where their employment is at an all-time low of about 78,000 jobs, far
lower than it has ever been in our history.
Furthermore, our share of the international shipping market,
commercial shipbuilding market, is barely 1 to 2 percent. Clearly there
is an issue here as to an agreement and whether or not that agreement
has actually achieved the level playing field that our domestic
shipbuilders will need if they are going to compete equitably in the
world shipbuilding market.
On that basis, I would end what I have to say tonight. I want to
compliment the gentleman from California and the ranking member for
what I think is a good rule that will lead to a good debate. I look
forward to that tomorrow.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I thank the ranking member for yielding
time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule and following this rule it is a bad
bill. It is a bad rule because the greatest lawmaking body in the world
will start its day tomorrow waiving the rules that it lives by. One of
those rules would allow the 435 Members of this body to come forward to
try to perfect this bill. But under the rule as envisioned by the Rules
Committee, they cannot do so. They have to take it all or leave it all.
[[Page H6274]]
So what is it that we are being asked to take or leave? It is a
measure that affects our national sovereignty and it is a measure that
affects our national security.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley] touched on it but
I will take it a step further. On the day that I was born, this was the
undisputed greatest maritime power in the world. We had more ships than
anyone and we built more ships than anyone. That continued for a long
time. But the real decline started around 1981 when this Congress, for
whatever reason--it probably made sense at the time--decided to stop
helping our domestic shipbuilders. There was a wink to them, because
the Reagan defense buildup was coming along, that they would build a
lot of naval ships. But the 600-ship Navy that was spoken about by
President Reagan is now rapidly becoming a 150-ship Navy. The help that
was promised has rapidly evaporated and along with it the ability of
this Nation to protect itself.
Mr. Speaker, we are an island nation. This island Nation that was
defended by people like Sam Gibbons at Normandy had to build 16,000
ships during World War II, because when you go to war, one of the
things that happens is people sink your ships. As recently as Desert
Storm, our Nation had to go out and charter 85 foreign flagged vessels
to resupply our troops. We did not lose a single ship to a foreign
casualty, yet even in peacetime we did not have enough ships to
resupply our troops.
Now we are being told that we want to not only lose the fleet but
lose the ability to ever build that fleet again. Who is telling us
this? It is the same folks who brought us NAFTA.
You remember NAFTA. Back in November 1983 when we had a $6 billion
trade surplus with Mexico, they said, it would help our trade
situation. It has not. It has increased our deficit. We went from a
surplus to a deficit. You remember how they talked about the jobs that
would be created. Well, maybe they have been, but they have not been
created in this country. They were created in Mexico.
If anyone in this room needs any evidence, I will invite you to visit
Wiggins, MS; or Gulfwood, MS; or Poplarville, MS; or Neely, MS, and see
the empty garment plants. In places like Neely, MS, when they shut down
the garment plant, there is no place else to go. There is no reason for
worker retraining. It was the only business in town. Or, for that
matter, I would like to invite you to Lucedale or Poplarville or
Hattiesburg and go to the livestock auction. Before NAFTA an average
calf was selling for about $1.10 a pound. Right now when the farmers
can find a buyer, cattle is going for about 55 cents a pound. People's
entire lifetime investments cut in half since the passage of NAFTA and
the beef that has come up from Mexico. So the same folks who brought us
NAFTA now want to take it a step further, and they want to do away with
the ability of this Nation to defend itself.
{time} 2300
Something that we did in 1993, and I am very proud of, with broad
bipartisan support, recognizing that our Nation has to have
shipbuilders and that we are down to only six, is we passed the
National Shipbuilding Initiative. It is an expansion of the title XI
program which was begun under President Roosevelt when our Nation,
prior to World War II, found itself in the same situation, and that is
an island nation that did not have enough ships to support itself. They
started a program of loan guarantees to help our shipbuilders build
commercial ships, the kind of ships we need to move goods during time
of war.
We passed it again in 1993, and we went from building no ships a year
up to having 13 on order, and with an incredible market opportunity out
there. Because with the passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 2,000
tanker ships will have to be replaced in about the next 10 years. We
could be building those ships but, instead, this measure is going to
deprive the American shipyards of any help at all, even if it is a loan
guarantee, to try to go after that 2,000 ship market.
In effect, what we are saying is that just like our garments and just
like our beef, we are now going to import ships. We are going to be a
Third World country because we will lose our shipyards, and from now
on, when we need a destroyer or a carrier or a submarine, we will call
up someone else to sell them to us.
Now that might have worked in Desert Storm, but I would remind those
people who have lived a little longer, that many of those nations that
lined up with us during Desert Storm were on the other side during
Vietnam. They could be on the other side again.
It affects our sovereignty because for the first time in the history
of our Nation, if we want to do something to help our domestic
shipbuilders stay in business, and incidentally, every one of the major
shipbuilders is against this proposal, and they testified before the
Committee on National Security to that effect, so the people that the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] says he wants to help are all
against it, without exception. But it would require this Nation to go
seek the permission of about 20 other nations just to help our own
shipbuilders so that they can be in business when we need them, because
there is going to be another war.
Since the fall of the Iron Curtain we have had a war in Panama, we
have had a war in the desert, and we have had a situation in Bosnia. It
is going to happen again. I have kids, and I wish it would not happen
again, but the history of this Nation is that it is and it happens
whenever we let our guard down, and this is letting our guard down.
It affects our national security, because if we cannot build ships
this island Nation cannot defend itself. It is that simple.
So, Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, this is a bad agreement at
the wrong time in our Nation's history. The great nations of the world
have always been great manufacturers and been great maritime powers.
With NAFTA, we have murdered American manufacturing. There have been
10,000 new factories build on this continent in the past 10 years, but
they have all been built in Mexico, and now the people who brought us
NAFTA want to do away with what is left of American shipbuilding and
send it overseas.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of the rule and I would strongly urge
the defeat of the measure.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and
await my dear friend's closing argument.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. I
would like to close by simply responding to some of the remarks that
were made by my friend from Mississippi and to extend hardy
congratulations to my friend, the gentleman from Tampa, FL [Mr.
Gibbons].
Over the last three decades, in a bipartisan way, the United States
of America has stood for free trade. There has been no Member of
Congress who has been more diligent in the pursuit of those policies
than Sam Gibbons. The benefits to the consumer in the United States
have been overwhelming because of the fact that we have successfully
broken down barriers. And eliminating those barriers has improved the
standard of living and at the same time it has created jobs.
The gentleman from Florida has been intimately involved in just the
last few years with implementation of the North American Free-Trade
Agreement and with the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, that both of those
items have been job creators here in the United States.
I differ with my friend from Mississippi. I happen to believe that
the facts show that over 336,000 jobs here in the United States have
been saved because of the North American Free-Trade Agreement. I also
feel very strongly that if we look at the difficulties that existed in
Mexico, and we juxtaposed those to the peso crisis of 1982, we would
have seen a much different response if we had not had the North
American Free-Trade Agreement as Sam Gibbons and I and others fought on
behalf of.
I also believe that this may be the last trade agreement of the very
distinguished career of the gentleman from Florida, and so I think that
it is important for us as a nation, having benefited from his three
decades of work on this issue, to ensure that we move ahead and
realize, realize that for our consumer, for those who are trying to
find new markets by creating jobs with
[[Page H6275]]
exports, that we are doing the right thing by passing this agreement.
If we pass an amendment to it, it will kill it, and so I hope very much
that we will move ahead and do the right thing here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). The question
is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________