[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.

                          ____________________