[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.
____________________