[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 142 (Saturday, October 10, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10365-H10374]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4761, URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS 
                         COMPLIANCE ACT OF 1998

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 588 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 588

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4761) to require the 
     United States Trade Representative to take certain actions in 
     response to the failure of the European Union to comply with 
     the rulings of the World Trade Organization. The bill shall 
     be considered as read for amendment. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on 
     the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from South Boston, Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley), as we continue our fun Saturday morning together, 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time 
yielded will be for debate purposes only.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration in the House of 
H.R. 4761, the Uruguay Round Agreements Compliance Act of 1998, without 
amendment or any intervention of any point of order.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, divided equally between the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, and one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, reducing trade barriers and expanding international 
commerce

[[Page H10366]]

have been the key to the dynamic growth of American jobs, wealth, and 
trade over the past 7 years. One of the pillars of that massive 
economic expansion has been the worldwide rules-based trading system.
  The rules-based trading system is a very simple concept. It basically 
means that countries sit down and negotiate fair trading rules and then 
they live by them. Countries agree to follow the rules.
  Now, to support free and fair trade is not to ignore human nature. 
Everyone knows that some people try to get an edge. In the 
international trading system, the same is true. Some countries always 
try to get an edge. They will not follow the rules. And what happens? 
People get hurt.
  Mr. Speaker, the expansion of free trade has been one of the most 
important global developments of the past half century. However, it 
became increasingly clear in the 1980s, especially here in the United 
States, that we needed a better system to enforce international trade 
rules. Countries were cheating and Americans were being hurt. The 
result was the arduously negotiated Uruguay Round agreement.
  The Uruguay Round was enacted by a strong bipartisan vote of the 
103rd Congress when Democrats were in the majority. The agreement was 
negotiated by two Republican Presidents, signed by a Democratic 
President, and supported by 65 percent of congressional Democrats and 
68 percent of congressional Republicans. One of the core features of 
that bipartisan agreement was that it would permit countries to enforce 
trade rules.
  Today's bill is very important, but not because bananas or beef 
exports are critical to this country, although both industries provide 
good jobs to working families. The bill is important because we are 
approaching a critical crossroads of the World Trade Organization 
created by the Uruguay Round agreements.
  Since the inception of the World Trade Organization in 1995, many 
cases have tested the rules-based trading system.

                              {time}  1120

  The United States has challenged unfair trade barriers in other 
countries, and we have had some of our own trade policies challenged. 
Not surprising, we have won some cases and we have lost some cases.
  When a country loses a case because they are violating the rules, 
that country can choose how to respond. We here in this House of 
Representatives insisted that the WTO not have any sovereignty over our 
laws, so the WTO cannot force this country or any other country to do 
anything. Governments, not the WTO, decide what they will do. They can 
either eliminate the trade barrier that is ruled in violation of the 
trade agreement, or they can accept the fact that the countries that 
are aggrieved by the trade barrier can impose equivalent trade 
sanctions on the offending country.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the rules-based system we signed up with. That 
is the rules-based system nearly all of our trading partners, including 
the European Union, signed up with. Those are the rules.
  We are approaching a crossroads because in two major agricultural 
cases, one involving an unfair European banana cartel and another 
involving unfair restrictions on American beef exports, the European 
Union is threatening to undermine the rules-based trading system. They 
are threatening to trash the Uruguay Round and the WTO. They have lost 
two major cases fair and square, but they are refusing to eliminate 
their trade barriers and they are refusing to accept that we can 
retaliate in kind. This is a major problem. Mr. Speaker, if they ignore 
the rules, the system does not work.
  It is purely chance that dictates the first of these major cases 
involving bananas. That case, which was brought to the WTO by the 
Clinton administration, was resolved in our favor, and the Europeans 
have until January 2 of 1999 to comply with the decision. If they do 
not, we are regrettably, and I do mean regrettably, heading down the 
road to a potential trade retaliation, a trade war. This bill simply 
says that the United States Congress, which approved the rules of the 
WTO, is committed to making sure that those rules are enforced.
  I sincerely hope that the European Union recognizes the self-
destructive folly of their unfair trading regimes. I sincerely hope 
that they recognize the clear and unquestionable benefits of the rules-
based trading system. I sincerely hope that they comply with the WTO 
decisions on their banana cartel and their restrictions on beef 
imports. But if they will not, I am quite certain that the Congress is 
committed to supporting the trade rules.
  Mr. Speaker, it takes little more than a quick scan of the daily 
newspapers to see that the international economy is an uncertain place. 
Danger is afoot and we as a people have much to lose if things go 
badly. While nobody has all the answers, I certainly believe that 
supporting and enforcing a good and fair rules-based trading system 
like the WTO is one of the answers to the questions we face today. We 
cannot afford to have the system fall apart.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. To open this type of bill to 
amendment would open the tariff code to all kinds of destructive 
propositions in the name of retaliation. That is the road to a Smoot-
Hawley tariff bill, and that would be bad for American families and the 
world.
  Instead, the bill simply establishes a completely WTO-consistent 
schedule for the administration, through the United States Trade 
Representative, to protect U.S. rights in these landmark cases. I urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support a free and fair 
trading system. Support this rule and the bill itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very dear friend from California 
for yielding me the customary half-hour, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, why on earth are we doing this bill today? Why on earth 
are we doing the World Trade Organization's business when we have not 
even finished our own business? This Congress has more than its share 
of unfinished business. For the first time in history, Congress has not 
produced a budget, but we are going to act as quickly as we can because 
the United States Trade Representative has not produced a letter as 
quickly as we wanted.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not Chiquita banana, but I am here to say we should 
not be debating this bill today. I do not know why we are debating this 
bill dealing with the World Trade Organization's treatment of bananas 
which this country does not even grow. Where is the bill to reform 
managed care? Where is the bill to protect Social Security recipients? 
Where is the bill to reduce class sizes? This Congress has no business 
enforcing the World Trade Organization's decisions. They have their own 
enforcement process.
  We certainly should not be getting involved in trade issues over 
commodities that we do not even produce here in the United States. This 
is ridiculous. With all the unfinished business that we have just 
talked about, and we are here on martial law to finish our business, 
now we are going to force the World Trade Organization's decisions.
  I think when Congress gets into the business of micromanaging trade 
agreements, we head towards a very, very slippery slope, bananas or 
not.
  I want to urge my Republican colleagues to forget about this bill and 
get down to much more pressing issues that are facing this country. 
Pass a bill to protect the Social Security surplus instead of raiding 
it for tax breaks. Pass a bill to reduce class sizes and repair 
schools. Pass a bill to make managed care plans lift their limits on 
health care services and allow their doctors to make decisions based on 
how much it will improve people's health and not how much it will cost.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to my friend and say, basically, under the guidelines the 
United States Congress established as we embarked on entry into the 
World Trade Organization, we made it clear that only this Congress can 
enforce these laws. We are the ones who are here today protecting the 
rights of workers

[[Page H10367]]

in two very important industries in this country, and that is exactly 
what we should be doing. It is a priority, and it must be addressed now 
as Congress gets ready to complete its work in the coming days and 
weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Terrace Park, Ohio, (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished vice chairman of 
the committee for yielding me this time, and I want to support the fair 
rule that the Committee on Rules has come up with today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to back up for a minute, if I could, and 
focus on why we are here today and why this is, I think, such a 
critical vote for the future of the international trading system and 
for our economy.
  This is about whether the World Trade Organization, the WTO that was 
talked about previously, which is the international organization 
charged with resolving trade disputes between nations, will work as we 
have promised it would. If Members will recall, this is the highly 
touted WTO agreement that this Congress approved just 4 years ago, 
calling it, among other things, ``A vital tool for eliminating the 
remaining trade barriers facing U.S. farmers and ranchers,'' which is 
at stake here.
  I voted for the WTO, and I sold it to my constituents on the basis it 
would resolve these disputes, as did most Members of this House on both 
sides of the aisle. A majority on both sides of the aisle stood up here 
and said we are finally going to get to the point, finally, where we 
are resolving these trade disputes and forcing our trading partners, 
almost all of whom are more protectionist than us, to comply with 
international dispute resolution panels.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our competitors in Europe have threatened 
to turn this highly touted WTO into a paper tiger, and in doing so they 
have threatened the world economy. After several years of litigation, 
the European Union has lost two important WTO disputes, one involving 
bananas, the other involving beef hormones.
  When the U.S. has lost, incidentally, we have complied. When the 
Japanese have lost, they have complied. But the EU has consistently 
refused to abandon their protectionist regimes and come into compliance 
with these international rulings, and has engaged in a calculated and 
deliberate foot-dragging strategy for years.
  In fact, it is even worse than that. They have proposed new regimes 
that all objective observers have agreed are even more inconsistent 
with international trading rules and, thus, the WTO. Indeed, our own 
able U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky, has 
said that the EU's proposed solution is, ``Even more WTO-inconsistent 
than their original WTO-inconsistent regime.''

                              {time}  1130

  Remember, we are here because that more inconsistent regime with 
regard to the banana case goes into effect on January 1; with regard to 
beef hormones, it is in May.
  With so much hazy economic news in the headlines these days, Mr. 
Speaker, the last thing the world economy needs is a provocative and 
destabilizing protectionist strategy by the European Union that 
threatens to undermine the WTO, the only things that stands between 
orderly international trade and the economic disaster of protectionism 
worldwide, the law of the jungle.
  U.S. farmers, companies and workers, who depend on international 
trade, are counting on us to ensure that the world marketplace has a 
level playing field for U.S. products and for U.S. services.
  As the gentleman from California noted earlier, the WTO system can 
only work if there is a threat of punishment for violations, because of 
the sovereignty clauses.
  These two first cases will set the precedent. Unfortunately, they are 
the first two cases. We have no choice in that. They are going to set 
the precedent to determine whether the United States will have the 
tools and will have the willpower to be able to respond when other 
nations willfully exclude American products from their marketplaces. 
That is where we are.
  The legislation is very simple. It is a clear, straightforward bill, 
carefully crafted to be consistent with section 301 of the U.S. trade 
laws, and designed to get the European Union to do the right thing and 
follow international law.
  It simply requires the U.S. Trade Representative to take the very 
actions authorized by international agreement, if the EU does not come 
into full compliance with the WTO, by the authorized specified 
deadlines.
  In fact, these are the very actions that the U.S. Trade 
Representative has indicated she wants to take anyway, but she can't 
guarantee to this Congress.
  By voting for this measure, we can send a clear message to our 
international competitors. We will not stand idly by while they exclude 
our products and violate the international trading rules they have 
agreed to. We will not sit on our hands while they hurt U.S. jobs, U.S. 
businesses, U.S. farmers. We will not jeopardize the health of the 
world economy and the world trading system by their attempts to 
undermine the multilateral trading system under the WTO.
  Mr. Speaker, whether we are free traders, whether we are fair 
traders, whether we are self-proclaimed protectionists, we must be for 
enforcing international trade agreements we have signed. We have to be.
  Vote yes today for American workers, American farmers and American 
businesses.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the strongest possible 
opposition to this politically motivated sneak attack on the small 
Caribbean banana farmers on behalf of the massive Chiquita Banana 
Corporation and its CEO Carl Lindner.
  The Republican leadership, led by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrich), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Archer) in the House, are trying to move this punitive 
attack on the small banana farmers from the former island colonies in 
the Caribbean.
  This bill would force punitive, harsh measures on thousands of small 
farmers and their families throughout the Windward Islands of the 
eastern Caribbean. The small island nations of the Caribbean, which 
depend on the banana trade for their economic survival, are at great 
risk if this bill passes.
  Let me just tell you what the real deal is. First of all, we have to 
ask ourselves, why at the eleventh hour do we get this sneak attack, 
with all of these Members tied to Carl Lindner lined up on the floor 
talking about unfair trade practices? I will tell the Members why.
  Chiquita Bananas and Mr. Lindner lost $356.9 million and now they 
have got their representatives running to this floor to help him make 
more money. He is worth $13 billion. That is not enough.
  I tell my colleagues what he is trying to do. He is trying to get rid 
of the competition that comes from these small Caribbean islands.
  Yes, there was a relationship between the European Union and the 
former colonies. It was a relationship that allowed them to sell their 
bananas on the European Union market, because they had been colonies 
depending on that relationship.
  Now, with them having their independence, this is what they do to 
earn a living. These are small family farms. I have gone down through 
all of these countries, countries like Dominica depend on this banana. 
It is 70 percent of its economy.
  We took them to the WTO. It was my friend, Mickey Kantor, who was 
working for Carl Lindner. Mickey Kantor was with this administration, 
and I do not back up from Democrats or Republicans on this one. Mr. 
Lindner has bought his way through this House and through this 
administration. Mickey Kantor took the message from Carl Lindner. We 
went to the WTO, even though we do not grow any bananas here. This is 
not about American workers.
  Mr. Lindner's farms are all down through Central and South America, 
with slave labor, unfair practices. These people are at risk in these 
farms because they are at risk from the pesticides, with no help, limbs 
falling off. They make less than minimum wages, but Mr. Lindner wants 
to keep those farms going, wants to make more money, so he comes in 
here and gets all of you to act on his behalf, including Mickey Kantor, 
and the WTO made a decision.

[[Page H10368]]

  The WTO ruled against these small farms, but they recognized it was 
wrong, so now the United States and the WTO and these small-farm 
islands are involved in negotiations and working so that they can help 
these little countries diversify their economies so they will not 
starve to death.
  The drug dealers are just waiting to pounce on these little countries 
because they know, without the banana, they have nothing else.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. No, I will not yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not yield because this is a shame, and I want the 
press to get this scandal about to happen. I want them to know what you 
are doing. As a matter of fact, this is the kind of legislating the 
American public hates, sneak attacks for billionaires who use their 
power to come to the floor of this Congress and get something like this 
at the last minute.
  Get out of the WTO's business. Let them work this out in the way that 
they are doing. Stop being lackeys for Carl Lindner. It is outrageous 
that you would do this today.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was just asking my very good friend from Los Angeles 
to yield. The reason being that when we as a Congress in a bipartisan 
way tried to really throw a life raft to those struggling nations in 
the eastern Caribbean by passing the Caribbean-based initiative, it is 
my understanding that my friend from Los Angeles voted actually against 
that initiative.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman 
from Bakersfield, California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on House Oversight.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, I began meeting with European 
parliamentarians in a joint meeting between Members of Congress and the 
European parliament. It was over the discussion of the Europeans' 
failure to open their markets to agricultural products from the United 
States and, frankly, from other countries around the world.
  They had what they called a common agricultural policy, but it was 
really a social policy. They wanted to make sure they subsidized their 
agriculture products to keep their people down on the farm.

                              {time}  1140

  Over those 20 years, the European Parliament and the European Union 
has grown and the United States has continued to grow, but there has 
been virtually no movement in opening European markets. The gentlewoman 
from California's desire to focus the debate on bananas frankly misses 
the mark completely. I would have wished it would have been the raisin 
issue that would have been the first issue in front of WTO. We could 
have used that. It could have been the pasta issue. It could have been 
the canned peaches issue. It is in fact the beef hormone issue, along 
with bananas. The argument that this is being done for some individual 
for some nefarious reason really misses the mark of world economics.
  The entire world got behind the United States when we said the old 
trading order would not work. Agricultural products were not even part 
of the agreement in the old world structure. Under the WTO, the 
commitment was agriculture would be covered and when you won a case, 
you could get it resolved.
  The Europeans have no intention of changing. The, I am sure, well-
intentioned although totally naive assumption that this is over one 
individual or one product fails to understand the real issue. We have 
an international agreement. The Europeans are once again failing to 
live up to it and, will do everything they can not to live up to it. It 
is our responsibility to get them to do so, not just for us but for the 
rest of the trading world. If this administration will not go forward 
with appropriate steps in a timely fashion, it is incumbent upon the 
Congress to move. This is the vehicle.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, this trading system that we have developed 
recently, is it not wonderful? Is it not just, if you will excuse the 
expression, peaches? Is it not just the top banana? Is it not just a 
great system we have now?
  All you have to do is pick the paper up every morning, turn on the 
news every evening, to understand that it is falling apart. It is a 
disaster. In case my friends have not noticed, in Asia people have no 
money to buy the products we are trying to sell them. They have no 
money in Russia to do the same thing. They have no money in Brazil, 
they have no money in Canada, and now we are going to pick on farmers, 
family farmers in the Caribbean who are trying to make a living for 
themselves and say, ``The WTO knows what's best for you.''
  The WTO, that secret organization that meets in secret, we cannot 
find out when they meet. We just went through a week in this town where 
the leaders of the economic community in the world came here from the 
IMF and the World Bank in their limousines and their stretch limousines 
to try to get this mess in order.
  But they will not get it in order because they miss the central 
point, and the central point is, when people do not have money or the 
wherewithal to buy the products, the system will break down and will 
fail. And that is what is happening in Asia, it is what is happening in 
Russia, it is what is happening in Latin America, and we are right 
behind them.
  So the question is on this bill not just a few farmers in the 
Caribbean, and God knows we ought to be looking out for them, because 
when we look out for their interests we look out after the interests of 
our own workers here and our own farmers. It is really a broader debate 
here. It is about if we are going to continue with a system of 
unfettered markets.
  I know there are people who worship at the altar of unfettered 
markets. But unfettered markets means that people like Mr. Lindner and 
the big corporate multinationals will dictate policy in every aspect of 
this world economy, to the detriment of working men and women and 
working men and women farmers. That is what this is about. That is what 
this bill is all about.
  We say, well, why are you here on the floor talking about these poor 
farmers in the Caribbean? Because it is the farmers in Florida who have 
suffered under this same type of discrimination. We used to sell 
tomatoes in Florida. That whole crop is disappearing because of WTO, 
NAFTA-related ideas.
  What do you mean by that? I will tell you what I mean by that. They 
send the tomatoes from Mexico into the United States. Those tomatoes 
are picked by kids who are 10 and 11 years of age, who do not go to 
school. They are sprayed by pesticides that are illegal here and are 
dangerous here. We have determined that.
  Because of those standards on labor and environmental standards, they 
have put our farmers out of business in the tomato industry in Florida 
and on the Eastern Shore in Maryland. If you talk to the farmers in the 
Central Valley in California, they will tell you that because of these 
policies that we have, their products being shipped into Mexico are 
down between 50 and 85 percent, vegetables, fruit, olives, almonds.
  This is a great system we have here. When are we going to wake up? 
When are we going to start protecting the people who need the money to 
buy the products? Because without any money, the system collapses, and 
we are watching it collapse today.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Apparently my good friend has missed the past 7 years of dynamic 
economic growth which has taken place because of exports and imports to 
this country which have dramatically improved our standard of living. 
They are going down this road towards very, very intense class warfare 
once again. But let us look at the class warfare that they have 
embarked upon.
  They are trying to penalize the people of Central America, in 
countries like Honduras where the per capita buying power is $2,000, or 
Guatemala where the per capita buying power is $3,460; actually against 
those who are in very, very sad shape in Jamaica, their per capita 
buying power is $3,260, and in Belize it is $2,960. So the fact of

[[Page H10369]]

the matter is the people of Central America, who support us in this 
decision, believe that we are doing the right thing, are supportive of 
the WTO, they are being hurt and they are worse off than the ones we 
are supposedly helping.
  All we are saying is that we need to have at least a modicum of 
fairness. I think that as we have heard now from the distinguished 
minority whip, it is important to look at the words of the minority 
leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), who just this week 
in a letter said, ``We have no reason to believe that the EU will 
comply with the WTO rulings on the banana case before the December 31, 
1998 deadline set by the WTO. Failure to do so by the EU would set a 
terrible precedent for the WTO's ability to open global markets, 
particularly in the agriculture sectors.''
  We are talking about beef, we are talking about bananas in this case, 
but it could be anything. I look at my friend from South Boston. I 
remember when he had a big opening of a Gillette plant. Back before we 
enacted the gift ban, he even sent a razor around to a few of us. Tell 
me, what is going to happen when the goal of exporting razors, when 
they are impacted negatively?
  These are two instances that are very, very key and important, and 
they are I think going to be addressed effectively by someone who is a 
rancher and understands the needs of ranchers, the gentleman who serves 
on the Committee on Ways and Means who is from Stillwater, OK (Mr. 
Watkins).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Watkins).
  (Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, this is quite an interesting debate. I was 
seated on this side of the aisle for 14 years. I made a lot of friends 
on the Democratic side. I am now on the majority side, the Republican 
side.
  I have been interested in this debate. It is part of the things that 
affect me as I try to serve my constituency, because I serve a great 
deal of cattle people, and this debate seems like it doesn't even 
appear on this side of the aisle to be concerned about the United 
States cattle people. They are going through the lowest prices they 
have seen in years, the droughts. It seems like there is no concern 
about that.
  I think the men and women on our side of the aisle have a concern. We 
cannot ignore the fact that we are in a global, competitive economy. I 
do not think anyone out there will deny that fact. We are not going to 
go back to an isolated country. Let me say if we are going to be a 
leader in the world, in the world economy, and I want to, I want our 
country to use the initiatives, the free enterprise system, and be that 
leader out there in the economy, because we owe it to our children and 
we owe it to our grandchildren not to shirk our duty, but let us go out 
and lead.
  I come to the floor to express my strong support for H.R. 4761 
because today we have a blatant abuse and we have a sham, and yes, the 
sneak attacks we have heard, but it is being conducted by the European 
Union. Those are where we have got problems. Let me share with my 
colleagues why.
  Since 1989, nearly 10 years ago, the European Union has imposed a ban 
on beef treated with growth-producing hormones. Since 98 percent of all 
of our beef produced in the United States uses growth hormones, even 
though all our scientists say we have got the greatest quality beef in 
the world, even the European Union says we have the greatest quality of 
beef, we cannot sell our beef to the European Union because they have 
blocked us with that little clause.

                              {time}  1150

  Now both the WTO, the dispute settlement panel and the payment bodies 
have ruled that the EU is in violation of its WTO obligations and have 
ordered the EU to drop its ban by May 1999 through the appeal process, 
but now they are changing courses. They are going to just change and 
say we are not going to buy it for that, we will do something 
different. If we do not put some teeth in the WTO, then we are just 
flaunting the situation and we are not carrying out and providing the 
needs of our American farmers and ranchers and working people. We have 
got to make sure they live up to it.
  Many of my colleagues may ask why this matter should be of concern to 
them. In a parochial sense, yes, it is important to many of us because 
the toll demand has taken on our cattlemen and ranchers is causing them 
to go bankrupt.
  In a larger sense though the beef case is important because it will 
test whether or not the WTO framework can endure.
  The United States helped create the WTO because it offered the first 
real opportunity to force other Nations to drop their unfair 
restrictions and open their markets to U.S. products.
  The key difference between the new WTO and the old GATT framework is 
that under the WTO parties in disputes agree that the WTO findings will 
be binding. If the EU refuses to abide by WTO's ruling and fails to 
change its misguided policies, it will forever undermine the legitimacy 
of WTO. It will fail. If the EU refuses to comply, why should any other 
Nation be forced, why should the United States be forced to alter its 
policies and abide by WTO rulings?
  We are talking about a major significant policy that is going to 
affect the future of this country, our economic position in the world 
and the future for our children and our grandchildren. I ask for my 
colleagues' support for H.R. 4761.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote no on this rule out of 
protest, protest of America's trade policies.
  It started in 1909 when we moved off on a sophisticated cerebral 
process of continuing to reduce and eliminate tariffs, and it sounded 
so progressive.
  Let my colleagues label me what they want, Mr. Speaker. We replace 
tariffs in America with the income tax, my colleagues, the 16th 
amendment, and if we want to debate tariffs, let us debate the income 
tax which has, in my opinion, destroyed the potential of economic gain 
on a perpetual basis.
  The top Republican in our history, Teddy Roosevelt, once said:
  We must always equal, equal, the advantages of foreign industry 
versus American industry.
  We have not done that.
  Now we have a World Trade Organization. I voted against NAFTA, GATT 
and the WTO. The WTO is another international organization we have to 
go to to remedy our problems. Beam me up.
  Check out Venezuelan oil disputes. They voted with Venezuela, just 
like the United Nations. How much more money do we give them? They vote 
against Uncle Sam almost every time.
  We may be talking about bananas today and beef hormone; what about 
steel? They are dumping steel in America at record levels, and Congress 
cannot act. We have to wait for someone in the steel industry to spend 
their money to take a shot with the WTO. This is sad.
  Why manufacture in America, my colleagues? With this trade policy?
  Here is exactly the way it is, America:
  If someone manufactures in America, they have got IRS and Social 
Security, Workman's Comp and Unemployment Comp, OSHA, EPA, banking 
regulations, security regulation, pension law, health insurance, local 
tax, State tax, local law, State law and a $20-an-hour average 
manufacturing cost. If someone moves to Mexico, there is no IRS, no 
Social Security, no OSHA, no EPA, no pensions, no health insurance, no 
minimum wage, and they hire people at 50 cents an hour.
  Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues do not think it is happening, they now 
have a $16 billion surplus. When we passed NAFTA, we had a $2 billion 
surplus.
  We are screwed up here.
  Now I want to talk about steel because we are about to give $18 
billion to an International Monetary Fund that will bail out Brazil, 
that is dumping steel in the United States of America, and the rational 
is: give Brazil money so they could buy our products.
  How dumb are we?
  We do not have to be protectionists, but, by God, we need a 
reciprocal trade

[[Page H10370]]

agreement. When a country is screwing us, we should not have to go to 
some international group and ask them to help us. That is our job here.
  I am voting no on the rule out of stone-cold protest to an economic 
policy that is taking us down an inexorable path to another depression.
  Now, no one has said this on the floor, and they could call me what 
they want, but I am going to make this prediction:
  If we do not deal with illegal trade, if we do not deal with 
reciprocal trade agreements that are fair to give Uncle Sam a fighting 
chance in this global economy, my colleagues, we are down an inexorable 
path for failure and bankruptcy as a Nation. We are subsidizing the 
world, and the world is denying us.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not demean the efforts of my friend from Ohio. He 
has done a great job here, and bananas and beef hormones, I am sure, 
need attention. But, my colleagues, we do not build skyscrapers, we do 
not build homes, we do not build industry with just bananas. Steel is a 
big part of it, too. Steel is a big part of it, too.
  Later today there will be a move to try and help our steel industry. 
I am going to ask for my colleague's support. And with that I will vote 
no on the rule out of protest.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just for an example, Mr. Speaker, as we are debating this very 
important bill, a copy of the bill is not present here at the desk. 
Again, we are dealing in never-never land.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will give a copy of the bill to my friend. 
We had it in the Committee on Rules last night.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I know I have seen it, but I said it is not 
at the desk for other people who want to know what the bill is all 
about.
  Mr. DREIER. There it is right there.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California very 
much.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that 
this day should go down in congressional history as a congressional 
sneak attack day.

                              {time}  1200

  First, we have the marshal law, and that is a sneak attack against 
America. This is a law which will allow Speaker Newt Gingrich to make 
the laws for America, thereby denying a school modernization bill, 
denying the protection and reservation of Social Security, and denying 
the Patients' Bill of Rights.
  We have a sneak attack against some of our very best neighbors, some 
of the individuals and nations that we are trying to do trade with, who 
buy our consumer goods, who create job opportunities in America, our 
Caribbean nations, and our Caribbean neighbors.
  Mr. Speaker, I voted for the CBI. I voted for the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act. I did not vote for the fast track when it was 
politicized and it was determined that Americans would lose jobs. But I 
did vote for us to be friendly to our Caribbean neighbors because they 
represent an economic market for us.
  We have a bill that was not even on the Floor, that Members have not 
even read, that frankly is a sneak attack against our Caribbean 
neighbors like Jamaica and countries where they are struggling to 
maintain an economy, where their economy is dependent upon bananas, on 
plantations, yes, with depressed salaries and compensation, but all 
that they have, where they are trying to bolster up their economy, 
where they have a trading relationship with the European nations. And 
now America in a sneak attack wants to break those relationships so, 
therefore, we will not have the kind of economic stability in our 
Caribbean nations.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE from Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do not have the time to 
yield. I appreciate the gentleman's interest in this matter.
  Mr. Speaker, what a disgrace. It frankly is a disgrace that we come 
to the floor of the House and violate the sacred relationships with 
those who are on our border who are seeking, Mr. Speaker, to maintain 
their economic base.
  This is a sneak attack against our trade representatives, because 
there are many of us who believe that they need to do a better job in 
working with the relationship that the Caribbean nations have with the 
European countries which give them their economic base. If we want to 
break that relationship, Mr. Speaker, then what is America doing to 
help bolster up the economy of the Caribbean nations?
  We are already at a fragile international monetary crisis. The Asian 
nations are trembling. Do we now want to have those on our very border 
trembling and then collapse? Is this what we want to do with this sneak 
attack trade bill, break the very economic backs of these countries 
whose only sole income is the marketing and producing of bananas?
  Are we so small, Mr. Speaker, this giant of a nation, that we cannot 
share the international economy so that small countries, barely 
surviving, can provide some kind of safety net for their own citizens?
  This is a great day in America's history. The big and ominous America 
crushing down on small countries, breaking their economic system, 
throwing people who are making pennies out into the streets because we 
are jealous, if you will, of the relationship they have with the 
Europeans.
  I would be willing to find some solution to this problem, Mr. 
Speaker, if we could sit around the trade table fairly with the 
Caribbean nations, with America, with our European friends, maybe with 
the banana folk that we are trying to build up over here. I do not 
think that our banana industry is on the collapse. They are doing quite 
well. I like bananas.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we need to get out of the business of a sneak 
attack and crashing down on our neighbors. I think we need to defeat 
this rule and defeat this agreement.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was asking my friend the gentlewoman from Houston, 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to yield just to make a couple of quick points. 
First of all, I would say that the countries of Central America, where 
the per capita buying power is in fact lower than it is in the 
countries to which the gentlewoman is referring, are simply working for 
fairness.
  The people of Honduras, with a $2,000 per capita buying power, versus 
those in Belize and Jamaica who have roughly $3,000 per capita buying 
power, are the ones we are talking about who are seeking fairness. They 
support us in this effort.
  I think it is also very, very important to note this is not a sneak 
attack. We have been, for 7 years, trying to resolve this, and we have 
finally got to the point where action needs to be taken before the 
Congress adjourns.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, 
the gentleman from West Chester, Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised today that the Members are not 
really at all interested in moving forward on this bill. Whether we are 
from a protectionist background or whether we believe in free and fair 
and open trade, everyone ought to be for this bill because what this 
bill says, very simply, is we are going to force the other countries in 
the world to live by an agreement that we all signed.
  The Congress of the United States signed onto the GATT agreement. We 
signed onto the World Trade Organization. What we are saying today is 
we want the rest of the world to live up to the agreements that they 
signed onto with us.
  We can talk about bananas. This fight has been going on for a long 
time. It is an issue that will probably continue. But the World Trade 
Organization needs to make a decision and needs to follow through on 
it.
  But I have found it rather interesting that Members that have come 
down here to support the interests of Caribbean farmers, small family 
farmers, let

[[Page H10371]]

us not forget the other issue in this bill. The other issue here is for 
cattle producers in America who over the last several years have dealt 
with the lowest prices they have had.
  Why do they have low prices? Because we are unable to export our beef 
to some countries and some nations and areas of the world, including 
the European Union. The European Union has oversubsidized their farmers 
for years and flooded the markets and depressed prices for our farmers. 
We have heard earlier the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins), and I 
am sure we will hear from several of our other colleagues about what 
the European Union is doing in terms of blocking our ability to export 
beef grown by U.S. farmers, U.S. family farmers, to the European Union.
  What this bill does today is force the WTO to do what they should be 
doing, and that is to enforce GATT and to enforce an agreement that we 
all agreed to. This is about keeping your word. We want to keep our 
word in this deal, and we want to keep our word to U.S. farm producers 
and cattlemen who deserve this effort today.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui).
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed that we are bringing this bill 
to the floor at this particular time. I am going to oppose the rule. I 
am going to oppose the bill as well.
  I want to bring a little light on this. First of all, this bill never 
went through the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and 
Means that had jurisdiction over this issue, and it had not come 
through the Committee on Ways and Means. This bill was introduced on 
the 9th of this month, and it was brought to the floor so quickly. We 
wonder why this was all happening, particularly in view of the fact the 
USTR, the U.S. Government cannot even act at this time.
  It has not even been 15 months since the WTO had made its ruling. 
Under the WTO ruling, which the United States has agreed to, 15 months 
must transpire so the Europeans can become in compliance, and that date 
is January 7. If we were talking about this on the 3rd or 4th or 5th of 
January, I would say that is very timely. We should be making these 
statements and taking these actions. But the fact of the matter is we 
are bringing it up in the waning days of the session.
  The administration has told Members informally they are going to take 
action, but they cannot take formal action yet because it is not 
January 2, 1999.
  Why are we doing this? We have never taken 301 action, the House of 
Representatives, never in the history of this institution. Why is this 
Congress doing this? We did not do it on semiconductors in the early 
1980s against the Japanese. We did not do it for the movie industry. We 
have not done it for pharmaceuticals. We have not done it for aircraft. 
We have not done it for steel. We have not done it for autos and auto 
parts. But we are going to do it for bananas. We are going to do it for 
bananas.
  Do my colleagues know what? I have checked. The only place in the 50 
States where they produce bananas is in Hawaii. In Hawaii. We are not 
even going to create jobs by taking this action. Hawaii only produces a 
very small number. They do not even export out of their State. So all 
of a sudden we are taking this monumental, unprecedented action for 
bananas. Not one job will be created by this.
  I have to believe that, again, just as we took a vote 2 weeks ago on 
fast track, which we all knew was going to be defeated, this Congress 
has destroyed trade policy. I hope every lobbyist that watches this 
debate understands what is happening with the Republican rule of trade 
policy.

                              {time}  1210

  They have destroyed the bipartisan consensus we have had, because 
they want to take action to help people, lobbyists, because we know, we 
know because bananas are not produced in the United States, it is only 
to help multinational corporations.
  I have to tell my colleagues that again, again, the United States is 
going to be isolated on a little island. We only represent a small part 
of the trading world, we only represent a small part of the consumers 
of the world; and this decision and decisions like it are going to be 
regretted by this body.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
very briefly to say that this action does not go into effect for 15 
months, and I think it is very important to note, I would say to my 
friend, that this is the first, these are the first two items under the 
WTO structure. Bananas and beef are the first issues that have been 
addressed by the WTO. The other issues which my friend raised were long 
before the World Trade Organization even existed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui).
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, just responding to my good friend from 
California, I have to say, why not allow the administration to take its 
action. The administration will take action; the gentleman knows it, I 
know it. But what we want to do is do a little political game here. 
That is why we are doing that.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say to my friend that we asked the administration to do a letter and 
they flat out refused in response to our request.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with the comments of 
my colleague and friend from California.
  He knows as well as I do this legislation does not go into effect 
until after the 15-month period. He knows as well as I do that the 
applications under this particular WTO consistent regime go into effect 
November 15. He knows as well as I do we are going out of session this 
week. He knows as well as I do we have to do it before we go out. He 
knows as well as I do that we asked for a letter from the 
administration, a very straightforward letter saying that they will 
enforce the international trading rules. He knows as well as I do that 
under WTO, this case is pending under WTO. We have a right to do that.
  He knows as well as I do that the legislation is consistent with WTO. 
He knows as well as I do that all of those other products he listed, if 
he get through the WTO process, if they got to the point where they 
make a decision, it may win an appeal.
  Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that I have worked with the gentleman 
on this for the last week. We just need to stick to the facts. We need 
to stick to the facts. If we stick to the facts, we will determine that 
it is time for this Congress to have the United States follow its 
international obligations.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley).
  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
rule and in opposition to the underlying bill. Not so much because of 
the substance and some of the suggestions that are going to be made, 
but primarily because of the process.
  We have a piece of legislation that was introduced just a couple of 
days ago that has critical and far-ranging impacts, and also has the 
potential to set a precedent that will come back to haunt us on future 
trade negotiations.
  I also oppose this legislation because I think, quite frankly, that 
it undermines the integrity of the WTO. We, in the case of bananas and 
beef hormones, as a country, have won against the European Union in the 
WTO. What we are doing now, instead of allowing that process to 
continue, allowing USTR to take the actions which they think are in the 
best interests of the country, we are having Congress step in and 
prematurely set the terms of what those negotiations and what those 
efforts in retaliation should be, and that is not right. That is 
something that is going to set a precedent that will come back to haunt 
us on a lot of other different commodities and different trade issues 
that we might, we might find disagreements on.
  I think clearly this is a case where we are micromanaging the efforts 
of the USTR, and that is wrong. I think by having us identify these 
retaliatory

[[Page H10372]]

actions prematurely we are, in fact, limiting the leverage of the 
administration and limiting the leverage of USTR, and that is clearly 
not in our interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that this legislation is ill-advised, and that 
we need to have USTR be able to run their course, taking actions which 
are consistent with the Uruguay Round and the WTO; and if we do so, I 
think we are going to be much better served.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the balance of my 
time so that we can hear another member of the minority talk about not 
protecting the rights of American workers.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) controls 4\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) controls 4 minutes.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The last statement was extraordinary. It is the Republican perception 
when they talk about American workers, they are talking about the CEO 
of a multinational company. That, to them, is the embodiment of the 
average American worker. When they talk about protecting American 
workers, they are talking also about the CEO of a giant agribusiness 
pharmaceutical company which produces bovine growth hormones.
  They think it is great that the American people have to eat meat 
laced with bovine growth hormone and they will not even allow labeling 
of that so an American can know whether it is in the milk or in the 
meat, because there is a very wealthy guy running that company and they 
give lots of money to the Republican Party.
  So we cannot even have labeling in this country, and now, what are we 
going to do? We are going to force the Europeans who have wisely said, 
we are not quite sure whether this stuff is safe, and we are not quite 
sure that we want our babies and our children to be ingesting beef and 
milk from cattle which have been laced with this experimental drug.
  Now, they have passed a law to say that. We are saying, no, you 
cannot have those kinds of laws. Where did we go to get their law 
overturned? The same place where they are going to get our consumer 
protection laws overturned, our laws to protect American workers: the 
WTO, a secret tribunal which meets in secret, gives decisions in 
secret, produces no case, no law, no documents. They just make rulings, 
no conflict of interest rules at all.
  Now, is this the American way? When I asked the past American Trade 
Representative, how can we bind ourselves to that kind of process? He 
said, well, you have got to understand, these other countries in this 
organization, they do not believe in our system of jurisprudence, they 
do not believe in open courts, they do not believe in open arguments, 
any of that.
  So, now we have set up a system where the multinationals are always 
going to win, and sometimes it will be U.S.-based multinational: 
Chiquita, Monsanto, any other times they will be European-based 
multinationals. But the losers will always be the consumers and the 
workers.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say to my friend, who thought it was sort of an extraordinary statement 
that I made, when I talked about protecting U.S. jobs and they do not 
have an interest in doing it, I was talking about jobs in marketing, in 
shipping, in accounting, and all of the other areas that are impacted 
by the banana industry; and as we talked about some of these other 
areas in ranching, look at all the people who work there.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from 
Delmar, California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, it is every individual's right whether 
to support trade or not to support trade. I personally feel that during 
GATT, during NAFTA, during fast track, I think each and every one of us 
had pluses and minuses in those agreements. Why? I think our worst fear 
is not for the trade itself, but because under either a Republican or 
Democrat White House, I think you have to eat pabulum to be a member of 
the State Department. Because when it comes to the protection of our 
rights as Americans and our workers as Americans, we back off every 
time.
  Let me give my colleagues a classic example. In China over 200 years 
ago, when we first had ships going into the China ports, there was a 
sailing ship, they tossed a bucket with a line over and it actually hit 
a Chinese worker. It killed the young lady. Well, the Chinese stormed 
the ship, and the Americans repelled boarders, and they would not let 
the sailor, would not give him up.
  Well, then they said that if we did not turn over this worker, then 
they would cut all trade off from the United States. Well, what 
happened? With that, the United States gave in. They took the sailor 
and they executed him.
  So it seems, every time. An example with avocados in NAFTA: We begged 
the administration not to let Mexico import avocados, for the farmers.

                              {time}  1220

  But yet the White House insisted that they did, against all of the 
Members from the States that raised avocados. And right now, 
California's crops are at risk.
  I do not berate my friends on the other side for being concerned. We 
need to focus on implementing these trade agreements in the White House 
under Republicans as well. But in this case, just like in the fast 
track, the words that I listened to from our farmers and our ranchers 
and many of my colleagues who represent agriculture districts is that 
this was the most important vote of the decade for our farmers and 
ranchers. For one reason or not, some chose not to vote or to vote for 
it.
  But I think in agreements like this, we need to focus on what is good 
for our American workers, and then focus on the White House and the 
State Department to carry those through. That is my concern for any 
trade agreement, not that the Republicans are doing this and the 
Democrats are doing that.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to read the last statement of the 
administration policy on this bill: ``H.R. 4761 will undermine our 
ability to achieve a meaningful solution for U.S. interests and weaken 
our hand in these trade disputes.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley) for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by recognizing the hard work and 
the persistence of our Trade Representative and the Department of 
Agriculture in pursuing the European compliance with WTO decisions on 
both beef hormones and bananas. Ambassadors Barshefsky and Scher, 
Secretary Glickman and his team, including Paul Drazek, who has just 
left the Department and will be sorely missed, have tirelessly raised 
the beef hormone and banana issues at every opportunity and every level 
of the European Parliament.
  Unfortunately, there is no way to make Europe play by the rules. Even 
this effort today will not force the Europeans to do anything to remove 
the barriers to free and fair trade. But it will provide them with a 
strong incentive to adhere to agreed-upon rules.
  Listening to the debate today, I think we can see the difficulties 
that we have. There are those among us who honestly differ regarding 
what we should and should not do. I speak today not about bananas. I 
would just say this on bananas; I agree that we should encourage the 
Europeans to meet their obligation to provide aid to their former 
colonies. That aid, however, should not come at the expense of U.S. and 
Latin American trade interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak today on behalf of beef. When we say that no one 
has been hurt in this country, they have been hurt. Tens of millions, 
if not hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost in income to 
cattle producers all over this country; have been lost because of the 
refusal of the European Union to adhere to the rules that all of us who 
believe in free and fair trade should adhere to. That is the problem.
  By expediting the established process for retaliation against unfair 
trade

[[Page H10373]]

practices, this bill will provide the European Union with an advance 
list of which of their products will lose favorable tariffs. This list 
will likely be of great interest to Europeans whose jobs depend on 
exports of the products listed, just as the WTO cases on beef hormones 
and bananas of are interest to American ranchers and the thousands of 
Americans whose jobs depend on fair trade in bananas and in beef.
  I would like to express my thanks to the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Archer) for including consultation for the Committee on 
Agriculture in the formulation of the list, which I believe is very 
appropriate, given that both of these cases, and many of the cases 
coming down the pike, involved agriculture.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying this to those who 
speak on this floor and suggest that there is something unsafe about 
the American food supply. They do no good, no benefit to the producers. 
We have the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the 
safest food supply at the lowest cost to our people. It does no good to 
suggest otherwise to the people of America.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First, I would like to say that I believe that support of this rule 
is the right thing for us to do. Why? Because an overwhelming majority 
of Democrats and Republicans a few Congresses ago voted to establish a 
rules-based trading system. We did so in the pursuit of reduced tariff 
barriers so that we could improve opportunities for our manufacturers 
and producers to export, and also to improve the quality of life, 
equally important, here in the United States by allowing imports to 
come in.
  Free trade is, in fact, the wave of the future and it is something 
that we need to recognize. Under this rules-based trading system, we 
have unfortunately run into a problem. Seven years ago, 7 years ago, 
this case was filed on bananas. We also have seen, following, the 
hormone case in beef. We are trying to resolve that. We have tried to 
get a letter, and I hope very much that we still will be able to get a 
strong letter from the administration raising concerns with the 
European Union about this.
  But, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this is potentially 
just the beginning. There are many other industries in this country 
that could be detrimentally impacted by those kinds of negative actions 
by others of our trading partners who are not playing fairly.
  Mr. Speaker, we have got to do the fair thing for American workers. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, today marks a historic moment in U.S. 
economic history. Over fifty years ago, this nation embraced a 
multilateral, rule-based approach to our international trade policy 
with the creation of the GATT. Our acceptance of the role of 
multilateral institutions in international trade did not occur in a 
vacuum. It arose out of the ashes of the great depression and World War 
II. For two decades we witnessed the human damage which unilateral 
protectionism, nationalism and economic stagnation could bring, and we 
vowed never to let it happen again.
  During the Bretton Woods conference in 1948 the United States helped 
establish the framework for the creation of GATT. The objectives of the 
GATT system were simple: to promote trade liberalization and to 
guarantee stable conditions for market access on a nondiscriminatory 
basis by creating a set of transparent rules and dispute-settlement 
procedures. World leaders of that time believed--as I do today--that 
increased economic integration through trade would strengthen world 
stability and provide a bulwark of democracy in the emerging Cold War.
  And the system, although far from perfect, worked. Nations opened 
their markets and began to view other nations as trading partners, 
rather than antagonists. The results have been dramatic. For the past 
fifty years the world has experienced a degree of economic growth and 
stability which was unimaginable to our forefathers. In my view, this 
stability and prosperity are in no small part due to the growth of 
international commerce among nations.
  Since the adoption of the GATT we have been working to perfect the 
multilateral trading system. A great steep forward was taken when this 
Congress adopted the Uruguay Round Agreements Act in 1995. With the 
adoption of this act, the GATT and its successor organization the World 
Trade Organization--moved from its inception as a forum for discussing 
tariff reductions for trade in goods to cover such diverse and 
important areas as intellectual property, services and agriculture. 
Most important, the GATT moved away from a slow and ineffective dispute 
resolution forum to one based on clear, objective criteria, enforced 
through a multilateral system of debate, consultation, negotiation, 
adjudication and consensus.
  Clearly one of the most important benefits of the WTO is the enhanced 
dispute settlement process. Under the old system, U.S. exporters with 
legitimate grievances against foreign trade barriers had to wait years 
before cases were resolved. The system was excruciatingly slow and--in 
the end--largely ineffectual. In contrast, the new dispute settlement 
procedures provide U.S. exporters with a relatively quick and effective 
system for resolving trade grievances. And it has worked largely to our 
advantage. The United States won far more cases than any other nation 
and the WTO has become an effective tool in our trade arsenal to open 
foreign markets and level the playing field for U.S. exporters.

  This brings us to where we are today. We have a rule based system 
that works to our advantage and a dispute settlement process that 
enables us to bring multilateral legitimacy to our international trade 
complaints. Today, when we win a case in the WTO, our position is 
clearly strengthened vis-a-vis our trading partners. But we must have 
compliance.
  The United States won two significant cases against the European 
Union. The first ruling determined that the EU banana import licensing 
and quota scheme was designed to favor European importers over U.S. 
suppliers. The second determined that the EU ban against U.S. beef was 
not based upon sound science but served as a non-tariff trade barrier 
to U.S. beef imports. But, rather than comply with these rulings and 
open their markets to U.S. products the EU is seeking to take advantage 
of a loop-hole in the system, a loop-hole which, if allowed to be 
exploited, will result in endless meeting and meaningless negotiations. 
It will also establish a precedent for compliance with WTO decisions 
which would seriously damage the effectiveness of the dispute 
settlement mechanism. What we are saying here today is no. We will not 
accept endless negotiations over true market access. When the WTO makes 
a ruling, we expect compliance within a reasonable period. If not, we 
will take actions consistent with the WTO to enforce our rights.
  That is what this historic legislation does. It sets out a clear 
framework for compliance, a framework which is completely consistent 
with our international commitments under the WTO. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of this bill and I urge my colleagues to show their support 
for American exporters and to protect our rights under the multilateral 
system. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule for H.R. 4761.
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition 
to H. Res. 588 the closed rule which blocks all amendments to H.R. 
4761, a very punitive bill which would destroy small Caribbean family 
farmers and their banana industry.
  Why are my colleagues on the Majority side of the aisle in such a 
hurry to seek the destruction--in the dead of the night--of vulnerable 
Caribbean banana farmers especially in light of the recent devastation 
wrought against these islands by the recent killer hurricane Georges? 
This last minute sneak attack against our Caribbean friends and in 
favor of the Chiquita Banana Corporation must not be allowed to stand.
  We must not let our tiny neighbors in the Caribbean be the victims of 
our fight with the European Union and the WTO. I urge my colleagues to 
reject this last minute ``cover of darkness trick''. Say no to this 
unconscionable action and support our friends in the Caribbean. Vote 
against the rule and against H.R. 4761.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague, the gentlelady from 
California, in voicing my adamant opposition to this bill.
  Last year, the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued an interim 
ruling against the European Union's (EU) banana program for the 
Caribbean. This ruling was in response to a U.S. claim of trade 
protections, on behalf of the Chiquita Banana Company, who wants to 
sell to European countries. The WTO ruling, if implemented, will 
destabilize the economic and social infrastructure of Caribbean 
countries. This ruling is particularly problematic given the fact that 
we have been unable to enact a Caribbean trade bill to assist this 
region with economic development.
  This situation would be particularly harmful to eastern Caribbean 
countries, like Dominica, where banana exports account for 70 percent 
of the income and employment. We should not underestimate the impact 
this action will have on the enhancement of drug trafficking as an 
economic replacement for the banana industry. The WTO has demonstrated 
neither understanding of, nor concern for the problems of these small 
developing countries. I have repeatedly called on the Administration to 
ensure that the thousands of small Caribbean

[[Page H10374]]

banana farmers, and the economies of so many Caribbean nations, not be 
damaged in any way.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4761. It is a bill that rewards 
one special interest at the expense of many of our Caribbean allies and 
more importantly it will consign Caribbean peoples to further economic 
devastation beyond that experienced by the recent hurricane. This bill 
deserves to be defeated.
  Mr. DREIER. 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. Calvert). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further 
proceedings on this resolution will be postponed.

                          ____________________