[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15501-15510]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4759, UNITED STATES-AUSTRALIA FREE 
                   TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 712 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 712

       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. 4759) to implement 
     the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The bill 
     shall be considered as read for amendment. The bill shall be 
     debatable for two hours equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means. Pursuant to section 151(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 
     1974, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the bill to final passage without intervening motion.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 4759 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman

[[Page 15502]]

from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my very good friend and Committee on 
Rules colleague, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very exciting day. We are about to embark on 
the debate for a very important bipartisan issue. Let me at the outset 
say that there is so often attention, in fact, almost all of the 
attention that is focused on this institution, the United States 
Congress, both Houses of Congress, is on disagreements that take place, 
and of course those are very important. But very little attention is 
focused on the fact that we are able to craft major bipartisan 
agreements on a wide range of issues, and at this moment we are 
beginning debate on a measure which will enjoy very strong bipartisan 
support.
  It is going to create an opportunity for us to expand one of the most 
important bilateral relationships that exists, and it is the U.S.-
Australia Free Trade Agreement that will build upon the long-standing 
commercial ties that we have with Australia by eliminating terrorists, 
removing nontariff barriers, and providing better market opening 
opportunities for U.S. goods, services, and investment. It is a first-
rate, state-of-the-art agreement that will spur growth and create jobs 
for Americans and Australians alike.
  But the vote that we have before us today is bigger than just this 
one agreement. The Free Trade Agreement we have negotiated with 
Australia is a significant piece of our overall economic growth and 
trade liberalization agenda.
  I want to begin by congratulating our great U.S. trade 
representative, Ambassador Bob Zoellick, for his tremendous work in 
negotiating agreements not only with Australia but with the Central 
American countries, with Morocco, with Bahrain, as well as his ongoing 
work in Thailand and the Andean countries, in Southern Africa, and in 
the Middle East.
  Mr. Zoellick, with the support of this Congress, has made great 
strides in our fight to open the global marketplace to the free flow of 
goods, services, and capital; a marketplace where American producers, 
workers, consumers, and investors can freely compete; a marketplace 
where the U.S. is the clear global leader based on the power of our 
ability to innovate, adapt, and grow.
  The Australia Free Trade Agreement is a significant part of moving 
this agenda forward. This agreement will create significant new 
opportunities for producers and consumers both here at home and in 
Australia. Under the Free Trade Agreement, tariffs on 99 percent of all 
U.S.-manufactured products will immediately drop to zero. Let me say 
that again. The tariffs on 99 percent of the products that we will be 
exporting, the manufacturing sector, to Australia will immediately go 
to zero, achieving the greatest immediate reduction ever attained in 
any U.S. Free Trade Agreement. This kind of comprehensive reduction 
would be significant in any agreement, but it is particularly 
significant and particularly beneficial in trade with Australia in 
which manufacturing actually makes up 93 percent of all U.S. exported 
goods.
  This is also good news for States like California, which I am very 
honored to be able to represent here in the Congress. Our State exports 
almost $2 billion in goods every year. Australia is a huge market for 
California's high-valued manufactured goods, with computers, 
transportation equipment, chemicals, and machinery topping the list of 
major exports.
  Huge gains will also be achieved in terms of market access for 
services, which is the fastest-growing sector both here at home and in 
Australia. Thousands of Americans are already employed by Australian 
service providers here in the United States. This Free Trade Agreement 
makes enormous progress in opening up service sectors in Australia to 
U.S. companies and investors. Market access gains were negotiated 
across virtually all sectors, from telecommunications to financial 
services to energy.
  The Free Trade Agreement also contains unprecedented gains in access 
for U.S. entertainment products and services, something else that is 
very important to me as a representative from Southern California.
  Protection of intellectual property rights in general represents 
another important achievement in the Australia Free Trade Agreement. 
The agreement guarantees strong protection for American innovations and 
encourages robust trade in cultural, scientific, and high-tech 
products. Patents, trademarks, content, test data, and trade secrets 
will be protected as well as governed by a transparent and fair 
regulatory process. And perhaps most important, Mr. Speaker, the Free 
Trade Agreement provides for strict, effective enforcement measures to 
protect U.S. innovators from pirates and counterfeiters.
  The FTA will also expand the markets for U.S. farmers. I know that 
some agriculture sectors have opposed provisions in this agreement, but 
the fact is that this FTA will significantly increase market access in 
Australia for U.S. agricultural products. Our agricultural exports will 
immediately gain duty-free access.
  Furthermore, significant progress has been gained on the large 
nontariff barrier to agricultural trade, that is, Australia's sanitary 
and phytosanitary standards. Nontransparent and often nonscientific-
based rulings on the safety of U.S. agricultural goods have been a 
major barrier to the Australian market. But through the FTA 
negotiations, communication and cooperation between United States and 
Australia have been significantly improved. Strong commitments were 
also obtained to ensure that the review process is entirely science-
based.
  Even before passage and implementation of the Free Trade Agreement, 
we are seeing the effects of this greater cooperation in Australia's 
recent decision on pork products. U.S. pork exports have long faced a 
de facto ban because of Australia's animal health standards process. 
But through the leverage of the FTA negotiating process, U.S. trade and 
agricultural officials have succeeded in opening up the Australian 
market to processed as well as certain types of unprocessed pork. While 
this will no doubt be an ongoing battle as other products seek full 
access, there is no question that without the fuller engagement brought 
about by the Free Trade Agreement, U.S. farmers would still be facing 
formidable barriers for many of their products.
  Similarly, the Free Trade Agreement makes great strides in increasing 
market access for our highly innovative pharmaceutical and biotech 
industries. The Australians made strong commitments on transparency and 
accountability as well as recognized the value of innovation.
  In recent weeks there have been misleading assertions made that this 
Free Trade Agreement would permit Australia to levy sanctions against 
the United States if we were to enact a drug reimportation bill. I do 
not happen to be a supporter of the issue of drug reimportation, but I 
think it is important to make clear the disagreement in no way prevents 
the United States from enacting drug reimportation legislation. It is 
existing Australian law, existing Australian law, that prohibits the 
export of drugs purchased within their national health care system, the 
PBS, which constitutes over 90 percent of the market. In addition, it 
prohibits the export of drugs purchased outside of their system except 
by the original manufacturer or their licensed Australian distributor. 
Unlike Canadian law, Australian law prohibits pharmacies from selling 
drugs outside of Australia.
  Again, Australian domestic law prohibits reimportation, not the Free 
Trade Agreement. Therefore, any future reimportation law implemented in 
the United States would have no bearing whatsoever on the Australian 
system and would not be actionable as a trade dispute.
  Clearly, the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a win-win for 
producers, consumers, and workers in the United States and Australia. 
It will create new opportunities, spur investment, create good jobs, 
and increase

[[Page 15503]]

access to high-quality consumer goods. It will also strengthen our 
relationship. This is one of the very important aspects of this, Mr. 
Speaker. This will strengthen our relationship with one of our most 
important and significant allies in the global war on terror.
  Since the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade 
Center, we have seen Australia provide over 1,500 troops in addition to 
military equipment to support the U.S.-led coalition to combat global 
terrorism. Specifically, Australia has provided significant support for 
our mission in Iraq, an integral part of the war on terrorism, by 
contributing everything from fighter jets to reconnaissance forces.
  While our partnership has been strong for many decades and we have 
clearly seen it most evident in this global war on terror and we all 
remember very vividly the brilliant address that was given to a joint 
session of Congress by Prime Minister Howard here in this body, we have 
seen the relationship with Australia grow even more, and they are one 
of our closest friends.
  With this Free Trade Agreement we have an opportunity to strengthen 
even further our ties with that key ally of ours. It allows us to 
advance our agenda to improve American competitiveness, enhance our 
position as the global economic leader, and create thousands of new job 
opportunities for Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I look across the other side of the aisle, and I see the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who has worked very hard in 
working to bring about bipartisan support for this effort, and I do 
believe, again, that this is further evidence of our quest to work in a 
bipartisan way to bring about trade liberalization.
  With that, I urge strong support of both the rule and the agreement 
itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement is the third 
Free Trade Agreement the Bush administration has sent to Congress under 
the Fast Track Authority granted in 2002, and it is the first trade 
agreement made between two affluent industrialized nations.
  The United States and Australia have many similarities in terms of 
our economic development. This is particularly true in the 
manufacturing sector, and this agreement lifts 99 percent of the 
manufacturing tariffs between our two nations, which should provide 
many mutual benefits and comparable advantages.
  The U.S. currently has an $8 billion trade surplus with Australia in 
the area of manufactured goods and also in several key agricultural 
exports. In these areas this agreement should continue to promote our 
economic interest, contribute to job creation here at home, and further 
strengthen our long-standing alliance in economic partnerships. These 
are all hallmarks of a Free Trade Agreement made among equals.
  In the area of internationally recognized labor standards and rights, 
this trade agreement adopts the standard for each nation to effectively 
enforce its own laws. I want to be clear that I do not support this 
model, and I am disappointed that the Bush administration chose not to 
build on the model established in the U.S.-Jordan agreement and include 
enforceable labor standards in the core of the agreement.
  Australia has very strong labor rights, an effective enforcement 
regime, and a strong independent judiciary. So I am not concerned that 
the labor provisions will prove detrimental to Australian or U.S. 
workers, but I do believe that, once again, we have squandered an 
opportunity to set a higher benchmark for future trade agreements, one 
that commits our trading partners to achieving the five core 
international labor standards and not just the mere enforcement of 
existing domestic labor laws, which can change at any time and are 
subject to the political whims of whatever government is in power.

                              {time}  1045

  We cannot and should not continue to pursue this one-size-fits-all 
approach to trade agreements, particularly in the area of labor 
standards, environmental standards, and the settlement of disputes and 
especially as we pursue trade agreements with countries in very 
different stages of economic development from our own.
  I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that in general I have heard nothing but 
good things about the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. So imagine 
my surprise when I woke up Monday morning to read on the front page of 
the New York Times that this trade agreement may undercut the importing 
of inexpensive drugs.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include this article in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The article referred to is as follows:

                [From the New York Times, July 12, 2004]

            Trade Pact May Undercut Inexpensive Drug Imports

                 (By Elizabeth Becker and Robert Pear)

       Washington, July 11.--Congress is poised to approve an 
     international trade agreement that could have the effect of 
     thwarting a goal pursued by many lawmakers of both parties: 
     the import of inexpensive prescription drugs to help millions 
     of Americans without health insurance.
       The agreement, negotiated with Australia by the Bush 
     administration, would allow pharmaceutical companies to 
     prevent imports of drugs to the United States and also to 
     challenge decisions by Australia about what drugs should be 
     covered by the country's health plan, the prices paid for 
     them and how they can be used.
       It represents the administration's model for strengthening 
     the protection of expensive brand-name drugs in wealthy 
     countries, where the biggest profits can be made.
       In negotiating the pact, the United States, for the first 
     time, challenged how a foreign industrialized country 
     operates its national health program to provide inexpensive 
     drugs to its own citizens. Americans without insurance pay 
     some of the world's highest prices for brand-name 
     prescription drugs, in part because the United States does 
     not have such a plan.
       Only in the last few weeks have lawmakers realized that the 
     proposed Australia trade agreement--the Bush administration's 
     first free trade agreement with a developed country--could 
     have major implications for health policy and programs in the 
     United States.
       The debate over drug imports, an issue with immense 
     political appeal, has been raging for four years, with little 
     reference to the arcane details of trade policy. Most trade 
     agreements are so complex that lawmakers rarely investigate 
     all the provisions, which typically cover such diverse areas 
     as manufacturing, tourism, insurance, agriculture and, 
     increasingly, pharmaceuticals.
       Bush administration officials oppose legalizing imports of 
     inexpensive prescription drugs, citing safety concerns. 
     Instead, with strong backing from the pharmaceutical 
     industry, they have said they want to raise the price of 
     drugs overseas to spread the burden of research and 
     development that is borne disproportionately by the United 
     States.
       Many Democrats, with the support of AARP, consumer groups 
     and a substantial number of Republicans, are promoting 
     legislation to lower drug costs by importing less expensive 
     medicines from Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan and other 
     countries where prices are regulated through public health 
     programs.
       These two competing approaches represent very different 
     ways of helping Americans who typically pay much more for 
     brand-name prescription drugs than people in the rest of the 
     industrialized world.
       Leaders in both houses of Congress hope to approve the free 
     trade agreement in the next week or two. Last Thursday, the 
     House Ways and Means Committee endorsed the pact, which 
     promises to increase American manufacturing exports by as 
     much as $2 billion a year and preserve jobs here.
       Health advocates and officials in developing countries have 
     intensely debated the effects of trade deals on the ability 
     of poor nations to provide inexpensive generic drugs to their 
     citizens, especially those with AIDS.
       But in Congress, the significance of the agreement for 
     health policy has generally been lost in the trade debate.
       The chief sponsor of the Senate bill, Senator Byron L. 
     Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, said: ``This administration 
     opposes re-importation even to the extent of writing barriers 
     to it into its trade agreements. I don't understand why our 
     trade ambassador is inserting this prohibition into trade 
     agreements before Congress settles the issue.''

[[Page 15504]]

       Senator John McCain, an author of the drug-import bill, 
     sees the agreement with Australia as hampering consumers' 
     access to drugs from other countries. His spokesman said the 
     senator worried that ``it only protects powerful special 
     interests.''
       Gary C. Hufbauer, a senior analyst at the Institute for 
     International Economics, said ``the Australia free trade 
     agreement is a skirmish in a larger war'' over how to reduce 
     the huge difference in prices paid for drugs in the United 
     States and the rest of the industrialized world.
       Kevin Outterson, an associate law professor at West 
     Virginia University, agreed.
       ``The United States has put a marker down and is now using 
     trade agreements to tell countries how they can reimburse 
     their own citizens for prescription drugs,'' he said.
       The United States does not import any significant amount of 
     low-cost prescription drugs from Australia, in part because 
     federal laws effectively prohibit such imports. But a number 
     of states are considering imports from Australia and Canada, 
     as a way to save money, and American officials have made 
     clear that the Australia agreement sets a precedent they hope 
     to follow in negotiations with other countries.
       Trade experts and the pharmaceutical industry offer no 
     assurance that drug prices will fall in the United States if 
     they rise abroad.
       Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the senior 
     Democrat on the panel's trade subcommittee, voted for the 
     agreement, which could help industries in his state. But Mr. 
     Levin said the trade pact would give a potent weapon to 
     opponents of the drug-import bill, who could argue that 
     ``passing it would violate our international obligations.''
       Such violations could lead to trade sanctions costing the 
     United States and its exporters millions of dollars.
       One provision of the trade agreement with Australia 
     protects the right of patent owners, like drug companies, to 
     ``prevent importation'' of products on which they own the 
     patents. Mr. Dorgan's bill would eliminate this right.
       The trade pact is ``almost completely inconsistent with 
     drug-import bills'' that have broad support in Congress, Mr. 
     Levin said.
       But Representative Bill Thomas, the California Republican 
     who is chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said, ``The 
     only workable procedure is to write trade agreements 
     according to current law.''
       For years, drug companies have objected to Australia's 
     Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, under which government 
     officials decide which drugs to cover and how much to pay for 
     them. Before the government decides whether to cover a drug, 
     experts analyze its clinical benefits, safety and ``cost-
     effectiveness,'' compared with other treatments.
       The trade pact would allow drug companies to challenge 
     decisions on coverage and payment.
       Joseph M. Damond, an associate vice president of the 
     Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said 
     Australia's drug benefit system amounted to an unfair trade 
     practice.
       ``The solution is to get rid of these artificial price 
     controls in other developed countries and create real 
     marketplace incentives for innovation,'' Mr. Damond said.
       While the trade pack has barely been noticed here, it has 
     touched off an impassioned national debate in Australia, 
     where the Parliament is also close to approving it.
       The Australian trade minister, Mark Vaile, promised that 
     ``there is nothing in the free trade agreement that would 
     increase drug prices in Australia.''
       But a recent report from a committee of the Australian 
     Parliament saw a serious possibility that ``Australians would 
     pay more for certain medicines,'' and that drug companies 
     would gain more leverage over government decisions there.
       Bush administration officials noted that the Trade Act of 
     2002 said its negotiators should try to eliminate price 
     controls and other regulations that limit access to foreign 
     markets.
       Dr. Mark B. McClellan, the former commissioner of food and 
     drugs now in charge of Medicare and Medicaid, said last year 
     that foreign price controls left American consumers paying 
     most of the cost of pharmaceutical research and development, 
     and that, he said, was unacceptable.

  Mr. McGOVERN. At the last minute at the bidding of U.S. 
pharmaceutical companies, but without consultation with Congress, the 
USTR attempted to persuade Australia, which provides a universal 
prescription drug benefit to all Australian residents, to change its 
national health care system for pricing drugs. These changes would have 
resulted in Australians having to pay higher prices for their 
prescription drugs.
  In other words, according to the administration, because we have high 
drug prices here in the United States, the solution to our problem is 
to make every other country feel our pain and force them to raise their 
drug prices. The Republican leadership in this House calls this 
leveling the international playing field for prescription drug prices. 
I call it bad precedent and bad policy.
  Not surprisingly, Australia rejected this proposal; but in a move to 
appease U.S. negotiators, Australia did agree to language calling for 
greater transparency in how it prices drugs and for recognizing the 
need for competitive pharmaceutical markets.
  Drug industry officials have hailed this language as a big victory 
and the first step in raising the issue of prescription drug pricing to 
a higher level in trade negotiations.
  Even more controversial is the prescription drug provision in chapter 
17 of this agreement, the chapter dealing with intellectual property. 
This provision protects the exclusive right of drug patent owners, 
usually the large drug companies, to prevent the importation of their 
patented drugs. In short, Mr. Speaker, the drug companies get to set 
national policy on the reimportation of drugs.
  The USTR argues that this is consistent with current U.S. law, which 
bans prescription drug reimportation. However, as every Member of this 
House well knows, current law is the subject of vigorous debate. In 
fact, both Houses of Congress have recently passed bills that would 
change current law. While this debate has focused on reimporting drugs 
from Canada, it does not mean that the debate might not broaden to 
include other modern industrialized nations such as the European Union, 
Australia, and Japan.
  So if Congress changes U.S. law and allows the import of patented 
drugs, then that revised law will be inconsistent with U.S. obligations 
under this agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, when the Congress is in serious discussions and has 
taken votes to change a current law, it is highly inappropriate, in my 
view, for the USTR to negotiate a specific provision in a free trade 
agreement that could create a potential conflict or a violation of that 
law in the near future. The fact that this provision is in the trade 
agreement is even more baffling when there is absolutely no mandate by 
Congress in trade negotiating authority to include such provisions in 
the FTA.
  Mr. Speaker, these proposals on prescription drugs were brought to 
the negotiating table by the USTR at the last minute without 
congressional consultation. When Congress renewed fast track trade 
authority for the Bush administration in 2002, it established what it 
called the Congressional Oversight Group to foster communications 
between the USTR and the congressional leaders whose committees have 
jurisdiction over trade matters. In fact, our Committee on Rules 
chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and our ranking 
member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), are members of that 
oversight group. The goal of the oversight group was to make it easier 
for the administration to keep Congress informed about what was going 
on at the negotiating table.
  The administration does not appear to have checked in with Congress 
before it offered its last-minute idea to dismantle the Australian 
health care system. If the administration had asked us about this idea, 
we would have told them what the Australian Government told them during 
the actual negotiations, no way. The Trade Act of 2002 requires the 
administration to consult with Congress as it negotiates trade 
agreements, not with the pharmaceutical industry.
  With all due respect, the Bush administration could avoid future 
embarrassments of this kind by consulting more with the congressional 
oversight group and paying less attention to the bad ideas of the drug 
industry lobbyists.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude my remarks with one final and very 
personal observation on a related matter. I have the greatest respect 
for the government and the people of Australia. I have every reason to 
believe this free trade agreement will be approved, further cementing 
the economic and political ties between our two nations. I am, however, 
deeply concerned by its ruthless treatment and disregard of East 
Timor's rights to oil and natural gas deposits in the Timor Sea. We all 
remember how Australia led the international force to protect East 
Timor in

[[Page 15505]]

1999 from the bloody and devastating attacks by Indonesia-supported 
militias when the Timorese people first voted for their independence.
  However, ever since 1999, Australia has taken in an average $1 
million every day from petroleum extraction that may rightfully belong 
to East Timor.
  At the root of this problem is Australia's refusal to negotiate and 
resolve maritime boundaries with East Timor. The U.S. and Australia 
scarcely took 1 year to negotiate a free trade agreement. Australia has 
been dragging its heels since 1999 to resolve this dispute with East 
Timor. Australia even unilaterally withdrew from the dispute mechanisms 
established under international law to avoid having to act in good 
faith on this issue.
  Meanwhile, Australia keeps pumping out the oil from undersea deposits 
and even selling the rights to exploit even more of these deposits to 
foreign companies.
  Australia is the wealthiest nation in its region and one of the 
wealthiest nations in the world. East Timor, the world's newest 
democracy, is also the world's poorest nation. Currently, 41 percent of 
East Timorese live on less than 55 cents a day. East Timor's elected 
President, Xanana Gusmao, has said the boundary dispute is a question 
of life or death. The people of East Timor do not want to be poor. They 
do not want to be begging for charity from wealthy countries. They do 
not want to end up as a failed state. They want to be self-sufficient.
  Australia needs to do the right thing by East Timor: rejoin the 
international dispute resolution mechanism for maritime boundaries, 
refrain from offering disputed areas for new petroleum contracts, and 
expeditiously negotiate in good faith a permanent maritime boundary in 
the Timor Sea.
  The U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement was negotiated between two 
sovereign nations for their mutual benefit and respecting each other's 
rights and interests. It exemplifies good relationships between 
nations. Australia needs to show the same respect for the rights and 
interest of its newest democratic neighbor, East Timor.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me point out for the record that although 
the House has generally adopted special rules to debate trade 
agreements submitted to Congress under fast track trade procedures, 
they are technically not necessary. Under the Trade Act of 1974, which 
Congress renewed two years ago, our standing House rules limit debate 
on trade agreements to a total of 20 hours and impose a number of 
limitations on our usual rules of debate. Under these special fast 
track rules, Members cannot offer motions to recommit the bill or 
reconsider a vote.
  Now, keep in mind that these restrictions on Members' rights to 
debate come at the end of a process that severely restricts our right 
to participate in trade negotiations and prevents us from amending the 
terms of the trade agreement once the administration sends implementing 
legislation to Congress.
  While both Democrats and Republicans appear to agree that 2 hours is 
enough time to debate this Australia legislation today, we should all 
recognize that 2 hours may not be enough time to debate other 
legislation the House may bring up in the future under fast track 
procedures.
  For example, when the House debated the NAFTA agreement in 1993, the 
Committee on Rules granted a rule allowing for 8 hours of debate. Who 
knows, it is quite possible that we will have a trade debate that lasts 
the full 20 hours allowed under the rules of the House. This body and 
the American people would probably benefit from such an exhaustive 
debate over a country's trade policies. I hope that providing 2 hours 
for debate does not become the standard for these critical issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
state once again that I am very gratified to see the strong and 
overwhelming bipartisan support for this important agreement, 
demonstrating that Democrats and Republicans alike can come together 
and address such a critical issue.
  I would like to just take one moment before yielding to my friend, 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), to say what I did in my 
opening statement, and that is the issue of reimportation is one that 
exists not in this free trade agreement at all, but instead under the 
PBS, which is the Prescription Benefit System, the structure that 
exists in Australia today.
  Now, I will say that there was a consultative process that was 
ongoing in a bipartisan way with this administration, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, and members of the subcommittees of Congress. In fact, 
we are in the process right now of getting the dates of those meetings 
and the consultation process as it took place, and I am going to be 
entering those into the Record, because I think it is important to note 
that there has been a very, very important discussion which has taken 
place between this administration and Democrats and Republicans in both 
Houses of Congress on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder), one of the most thoughtful advocates of trade liberalization, 
the chairman of the Committee on Rules Subcommittee on Technology, in 
the House.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier), for yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of H. Res. 712, the rule that provides for 
the consideration of H.R. 4759, the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act. I urge all my colleagues in the House to join me in 
supporting this rule, as well as the underlying legislation.
  The full House will be debating H.R. 4759 under a closed rule which 
is called for under the expedited procedures by which Congress 
considers legislation implementing free trade agreements. To the credit 
of all parties concerned, this bill has broad bipartisan support within 
the Committee on Ways and Means and across the aisle within the full 
House.
  With regard to the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation 
Act, it has been an honor for me to work with the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Dreier) and the House leadership in generating the 
needed support for this important trade agreement, and I am pleased 
that it is being considered on the House floor today.
  Over the past century and through various wars, one of America's most 
important and dependent allies has been Australia. After September 11, 
2001, Australia again showed its support and solidarity with the United 
States by being one of the first nations to commit troops to 
Afghanistan. Australia has continued its support for the war against 
terrorism by committing troops to Iraq as well.
  With approximately $28 billion annually in two-way trade of goods and 
services, Australia is also a major trading partner of the United 
States. Of this $28 billion, the U.S. enjoys a significant surplus, $8 
to $9 billion. Australia is America's ninth largest goods export 
market.
  In addition to trade benefits on a national scale, Georgia, the State 
that I am proud to represent, has benefited from trade with Australia. 
In fact, in 2003 Georgia had the 13th largest number of exports to 
Australia in the United States, with total exports valued at almost 
$288 million. These exports have provided, and continue to provide, 
high-paying jobs, jobs to the citizens of my State.
  With the enactment of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, U.S. 
farmers, investors, workers, and companies will further benefit from 
our current relationship.
  Under the FTA, U.S. workers and companies will receive the most 
significant immediate reduction of industrial tariffs ever achieved in 
a free trade agreement, as more than 99 percent of U.S.-manufactured 
products will immediately become duty free upon entry into Australia.
  Some of the particular manufacturing sectors and Georgia goods that 
will benefit include transportation equipment, paper products, computer

[[Page 15506]]

and electronic products and machinery manufacturers. All U.S. 
agricultural exports to Australia, totaling more than $400 million, 
will also receive immediate duty-free access. The FTA also removes 
foreign investment screening for a range of U.S. foreign investment 
activities, including the establishment of all new businesses in 
Australia.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, Australia is a strategic ally and an 
important trading partner. Now is the time to strengthen the ties that 
bind our two countries. America must continue to strive toward expanded 
free trade and not retreat into the mistaken protectionism of the past. 
We must work to open markets, eliminate tariffs and barriers and ensure 
that our Nation remains at the forefront of global economic success. 
The freedom to trade is a basic human liberty, and its exercise across 
political borders unites people in peaceful cooperation and mutual 
prosperity.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed to 
debate and adopt the underlying measure.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade 
Agreement, but with strong reservations about its pharmaceutical 
provisions. On balance, the agreement will benefit consumers and 
businesses in both countries by lowering barriers to trade in goods and 
services. However, the administration has included provisions sought by 
the drug industry that could raise barriers to free trade in 
pharmaceuticals.
  My concerns are as follows: first, one provision gives drug companies 
the right to block reimportation of their products into the United 
States. Since Australian law already prohibits this practice, the 
provision is not necessary. So why is it here? To set a precedent. If 
applied to trade relations with Canada, this provision would allow 
legal challenges under trade law to the reimportation bill that many of 
us favor as a source of affordable medicines for our constituents.

                              {time}  1100

  The intent of the Bush administration is clear. USTR has testified 
that the pharmaceutical provisions in the Australia FTA ``lay the 
groundwork for future FTAs'' and will be applied to ``upcoming FTA 
negotiations with Canada and other major trading partners.''
  Second, the FTA opens up Medicare for potential changes. While USTR 
says no changes to existing Medicare law are needed under this 
agreement, we should all be concerned about the precedent of subjecting 
our domestic health laws to modification through trade negotiations 
where Congress has less say and the pharmaceutical industry has more 
influence.
  Lastly, it is not appropriate to use trade policy to interfere in 
other nations' health systems. The administration is working to use 
trade pacts to raise drug prices overseas under the illusion, the grand 
illusion, that that will reduce prices here at home. The U.S. will win 
no friends if our trade policy becomes a heavy-handed tool to raise 
drug prices on the citizens of our trading partners.
  I support the Australia FTA. This agreement by itself will have 
little or no impact on U.S. health care laws, but I want to make clear 
that similar provisions must be kept out of future trade agreements.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I rise in support of this rule and in support of the agreement. This 
will, in fact, enhance an important relationship with Australia, a 
country where we already do enjoy, the record is clear, a trade 
surplus. It is important nationally. It is important to the State that 
I represent, not just for the technology industry, our number one 
source of export from our economy. It is going to make a difference of 
$4,000 per truck that is manufactured in my hometown by union 
machinists, painters, and Teamsters and exported to Australia.
  I note that Australia has strong labor protections. One would only 
wish that the United States labor provisions were enforced and would 
provide the same level of protection to American workers to be able to 
organize as they see fit.
  I appreciate the comment of my friend, the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules, referencing the importance to build a bipartisan consensus on 
trade in the global economy. This is a very important discussion, one 
that we have already enjoyed here today. I think it is making us move 
down a path where future and more contentious issues can be dealt with 
in a thoughtful fashion.
  I appreciate the warning that was issued by my good friend, the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), about the needless addition in this 
trade agreement of an unfortunate precedent dealing with our health 
policy. It is not going to affect drug reimportation now because of 
restrictions in Australian law, but it is not a good precedent in terms 
of what the majority of the House is seeking to do with prescription 
drugs in this country.
  But I must also mention another precedent that I find equally 
troubling, which deals with the treatment of sugar.
  It is still the policy of the United States government to penalize 
United States consumers, forcing them to pay far more than the world 
price. It discriminates against sugar-based industries in the United 
States, driving confectionery factories from Illinois across the border 
to Canada. It is troubling that we see agreements take the sugar issue 
off the table in a concession to that powerful interest.
  This is bad for our ultimate posture on trade, because it shows us to 
be hypocritical. It is bad for United States consumers. It is bad for 
the environment. It is bad for poor people around the world who could 
work their way out of poverty.
  I will support the rule and the agreement, but I certainly hope that 
this is the last provision we have that enshrines protectionist 
treatment for the sugar interests in this country.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) for yielding me time.
  I rise in strong support of this rule as well as in strong support of 
the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
  This agreement, as was mentioned before, has strong bipartisan 
support, and I have been pleased to work across the aisle with not only 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), but the Whip, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Cantor), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce); on our side of the 
aisle and in particular the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) and others.
  We have seen the strong bipartisan support because we both believe 
that this is the right thing for the United States, and it comes at the 
right time. Australia has been a strong friend and ally of the United 
States, and they have fought by our side in all the past century's 
major wars, as well as in Afghanistan, and they now stand with our 
troops in supporting our efforts in Iraq. Being our ally is not the 
only reason to support this deal but also because Australia has a 
strong economy, with labor and environmental standards comparable to 
our Nation and, quite frankly, comparable, if not stronger, in some 
cases.
  Australia's minimum wage for their workers exceeds our own, and they 
provide universal health coverage and pension plans for their workers. 
Australia

[[Page 15507]]

is our fifth-largest trading partner, worth $38 billion, which makes 
this FTA the most significant bilateral deal since the U.S.-Canada 
agreement.
  American manufacturers will see immediate benefits because this FTA 
will eliminate 99 percent of Australian tariffs on U.S.-manufactured 
exports on day one of this agreement; and 93 percent of the United 
States trade with Australia is from manufacturing, which is estimated 
to boost U.S. manufacturing exports by $1.8 billion, protecting and 
creating a conservative estimate of some 270,000 jobs here in the U.S.
  When we talk about agriculture, I am pleased to see that over $400 
million of our agriculture exports will see immediate duty free access.
  Mr. Speaker, this Free Trade Agreement with Australia makes sense. 
This Free Trade Agreement with Australia makes sense for all the 
reasons I have just stated. I urge my colleagues to support the passage 
of this bill, and I also ask them to support this rule.
  There is no Free Trade Agreement that is absolutely perfect, but if 
any Free Trade Agreement comes close to a no brainer, this is the one. 
I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to compliment my friend, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his very thoughtful statement.
  I, too, want to join in extending congratulations not only to those 
on our side of the aisle who have worked in a strong bipartisan way on 
this issue, including the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the 
Chief Deputy Whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), an 
organization that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and I have 
had in place working on trade issues for a long period of time, 
reaching out to my friends, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), 
and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who has worked with us 
on trade issues for a long period of time. I would like to say how 
important this bipartisan effort has been.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and 
in opposition to the bill.
  The drug industry has had a pretty darn good year in this Congress. 
The drug industry and the Bush administration, which is kind of hard to 
tell them apart when you look at what the drug industry and the Bush 
administration fight for in this Congress, have had it their way on 
every single issue in front of this Congress. The drug industry comes 
to the Congress, goes to the administration. The administration comes 
to the Congress asking for whatever the drug industry asks the 
administration to do.
  The Medicare bill, we all know by now, was, line and verse, written 
by the drug industry. That is why seniors are so generally unhappy with 
that prescription drug bill. That legislation, if you recall, had 
provisions to prohibit our government from negotiating lower prices for 
prescription drugs. That is what the drug industry wanted.
  The Food and Drug Administration, once one of the best agencies of 
our Federal Government, has become almost an arm of the drug industry. 
It debates for the drug industry. It tries to educate the public on 
behalf of the drug industry. We see it over and over again.
  Now the drug industry has its fingers in the U.S. Trade Rep's Office. 
You can look at what my Republican friend, the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Gutknecht), and Democratic friend, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Emanuel), sent a letter out to Members of Congress saying 15 of 
the 25 panel members on the industry sector advisory committee for this 
trade agreement, appointed by the United States Trade Rep, are from the 
drug industry. Fifteen of the 25 panel members are from the drug 
industry. Not one senior group or reimportation advocate was included 
in the panel. The drug industry has its tentacles in the Medicare bill, 
in the FTA, and in the U.S. Trade Rep's office.
  Now, the question is why.
  First of all, I think the obvious answer is the tens of millions of 
dollars that the drug industry gives to my friends on the Republican 
side of the aisle, especially the Republican leadership and to 
President Bush's reelection, the millions of dollars in campaign money. 
So we have really should not be surprised.
  But I ask my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, do we trust 
President Bush and the Republican leadership to do the right thing ever 
on an issue that affects the drug industry?
  What this legislation has, the Australian Free Trade Agreement has, 
is provisions written by the drug industry, for the drug industry, 
which ultimately could potentially handcuff the U.S. to get our drug 
prices down. That is what the drug industry wants. That is what 
President Bush wants. I do not think my friends on the Democratic side 
of the aisle would want that.
  Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear. I know this Australia Free Trade 
Agreement is going to pass this Congress, but what is important is that 
we send a strong message that we do not like the drug industry 
influence in this Australia Free Trade Agreement bill. I am asking my 
friends who support reimportation, who support lower prescription drug 
prices, and there are many of them on both sides of the aisle, 
certainly not the Republican leadership, but many rank and file 
Republicans, almost all of the Democrats who support lower prescription 
drugs prices, it is important to vote no on this, to send that message 
that we will not allow the drug industry to infiltrate every part of 
our lawmaking process.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is great to see such extraordinary bipartisan support for this 
very important agreement.
  Let me take just a few minutes to respond to the comments of my good 
friend from Ohio. As I said in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, the 
Australia Free Trade Agreement does not prevent Congress from passing 
legislation on drug reimportation. Under the U.S. Constitution, we all 
know that no trade agreement could do this.
  We also need to know that there has been ongoing consultation between 
this administration, the U.S. Trade Representative and a bipartisan 
group here in the United States House of Representatives, as well as in 
the United States Senate.
  We know that any law that is passed by the Congress will always trump 
any kind of Free Trade Agreement. There is nothing in the Australia 
Free Trade Agreement or in the implementing legislation, H.R. 4759, 
that changes U.S. patent law or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic 
Act, FDCA.
  We also think it is very important for our colleagues to understand 
that the patent provision in the Free Trade Agreement restates U.S. law 
and applies to all patents. It restates U.S. law and applies to all 
patents, Mr. Speaker, not just pharmaceuticals. Not including this 
provision would be devastating to U.S. intellectual property rights 
holders in every single sector of our economy.
  It is one of the things I was talking about in my opening remarks. 
The issue of piracy, counterfeiting, intellectual property violations, 
those are violating property rights, and we clearly feel strong about 
the need to maintain those private property rights.
  Australian law already bans the exportation of drugs dispensed under 
its pharmaceutical benefit scheme, the PBS. Unlike Canada, the law in 
Australia explicitly prohibits other parties, such as wholesalers or 
pharmacists, from exporting non-PBS dispensed drugs.
  Therefore, I think that, as I listen to my friend from Ohio talking, 
he could not be more inaccurate in his assessment of how this came out 
or in his assessment of his relationship between those of who do truly 
want to do everything that we possibly can to lower the cost to 
consumers of pharmaceutical drugs, of basically any kind of consumer 
product.
  We are here to do what we can to improve the standard of living and 
quality of life for our consumers.

[[Page 15508]]



                              {time}  1115

  We happen to believe in bringing about an agreement like this, and so 
I think it is important to note that any change in U.S. law would have 
no practical effect on reimportation from Australia due to Australian 
domestic law that exists, regardless of the free trade agreement; and, 
therefore, Australia would have no plausible basis to claim harm or to 
pursue any kind of sanctions.
  I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, for our colleagues to 
understand the fact that this is an agreement which is focused on 
ensuring the very important intellectual property rights, but at the 
same time, working to ensure that consumers have access to the best 
quality product at the lowest possible price, whether it is a 
pharmaceutical drug or whether it is a product coming from my great 
entertainment industry in Hollywood.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to put in perspective why I support 
the rule and why I will vote for this agreement. It is a somewhat 
different perspective than the gentleman from California's (Mr. 
Dreier).
  There are some very strong provisions in this legislation, and we 
will talk about it more during the 2 hours, on manufactured goods, on 
agriculture, on services. These are solid provisions that work to the 
advantage of American workers and businesses.
  As to prescription medicines, USTR did try to get Australia, through 
these negotiations, to consider changes within their structure. We sent 
a letter, a number of us, to USTR saying we did not consider that to be 
a legitimate effort, and they dropped it.
  What is left here are two provisions, one regarding transparency, 
which will not affect U.S. law, and the other relates to reimportation. 
The fact is, in this agreement there is incorporated the general law 
protecting U.S. patent holders. It is put in this agreement; and I 
suppose theoretically, it could lead to someone saying that if we pass 
the reimportation law it would violate that agreement.
  It does not become operational. As mentioned here, the laws of 
Australia prohibit exports to the United States. So, in essence, we 
have a provision here that can have no operational effect on the effort 
here, and I totally support it, to allow reimportation of medicines.
  So what do we do as a result? We have the same dilemma when it comes 
to a nation enforcing its own laws when it comes to labor standards. I 
very much object to the use of that standard in general. In Australia, 
it does not matter because their labor laws are essentially the same as 
ours. So we have two provisions here, and how do we send a message?
  My own judgment is, where the agreement is otherwise strong in terms 
of expanded trade for the benefit of our workers and businesses, for 
the American public, the consumers, to say, okay, but two things, do 
not dare put this provision relating to patents in any agreement which 
would affect reimportation of drugs, do not dare do it, and if they 
did, it would bring down the bill. As to the core labor standards, do 
not dare try it in an agreement where the conditions are the opposite 
of or very different from Australia.
  Well, CAFTA is exactly what they did with labor standards, and that 
is why we very much oppose CAFTA. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) talks about bipartisanship. There has been zero real 
bipartisanship when it comes to the negotiation of CAFTA, and that is 
why it is going to fail. That is why it will not be brought up on this 
floor because it would lose. Bipartisanship has to be more than 
consulting with us when they think we will agree but not when there is 
a legitimate disagreement between the parties in an effort to work it 
out.
  So my suggestion is to vote for this FTA; but in our debate make it 
very clear, when it comes to prescription medicines, do not put this 
kind of a provision in a bill with a country that does not prohibit 
exportation, and number two, when it comes to using the standard for 
labor and the environment, do not put it in agreements with different 
nations or we will fight it to the end, and that is what we are doing.
  I favor a CAFTA, not this one. So I say to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the effort to consult, the effort for a 
bipartisan approach to trade, that has failed under this administration 
mainly. We do not have the same bipartisan base that we once had. With 
Australia, all right; but in other cases, no.
  So I think we need to send a signal to this administration as to our 
disagreements in terms of our opposition to CAFTA, their failure to 
actively enforce the laws that we have, their approach to China; but I 
do not think these differences should force us to vote against an 
expansion of trade that is basically positive; and for that reason, I 
urge support for the rule, support for this bill, but with those 
strong, strong caveats and messages that I have just enunciated.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me once again thank my friend from 
Michigan for his strong and committed bipartisan support to this 
effort.
  I do not have any further speakers. I plan to just make some closing 
remarks myself. If the gentleman has no further speakers and would like 
to yield back the balance of his time or make remarks, I look forward 
to them.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) indicated earlier, a 
number of Democrats support the Australia trade agreement and feel it 
is fine as far as it goes, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) 
made the same comments as well.
  However, I think it is important to note that this agreement covers 
less than 1 percent of U.S. trade, and it cannot make up for the Bush 
administration record of failing to vigorously enforce trade laws and 
trade agreements. It cannot make up for a failure to invest in research 
and development and in training American workers in cutting-edge skills 
and technologies to improve America's ability to compete in the global 
economy.
  Our trading partners consistently violate the terms of their trade 
agreements with us; and the administration has failed to stop China, 
Japan, and other nations from manipulating their currencies. The 
administration has failed to break down barriers for American workers 
and American companies in key export markets such as Japan and Korea.
  The Bush administration has failed to invest in the innovative 
technologies of the 21st century. The Bush budget has tried to 
eliminate the Advanced Technology Program and slashed the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership and proposed cutting job-training programs by 
more than $1.5 billion over the past 3 years.
  Republican policies have led to the loss of 1.8 million private 
sector jobs, and the average length of unemployment is at its highest 
level in 20 years, and the overall job picture is the worst in almost 
40 years.
  So as we take up consideration of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade 
Agreement, we also need to change direction and pursue policies in tax 
policy and job training and supporting our small and medium-sized 
manufacturers and R&D that will create jobs right here at home right 
now.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to say for the record once again that I 
regret very much the prescription drug provisions that are in this 
agreement. It is bad precedent. To my knowledge, this is the first time 
a prescription drug provision has been included in a trade agreement, 
and hopefully it will be the last time. I know that the big drug 
companies want to view this as what will be the norm in future trade 
agreements, but I will point out to my colleagues that there are 
millions and millions of Americans who deserve and who expect more from 
this administration or whatever administration is in power and from 
this Congress.

[[Page 15509]]

  To the extent that there is bipartisanship on this agreement, let the 
record reflect that that bipartisanship will not be there. If in the 
future there are these prescription drug provisions included in future 
trade agreements, that is unacceptable.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my very good friend from 
Massachusetts, I have no idea whatsoever he is talking about when he 
talks about the economy that we are in today. Since January 1 of this 
year, 1.26 million new jobs have been created right here in the United 
States. We have seen the largest surge in 45 months of manufacturing 
jobs. We are seeing unanticipated revenues coming into the Federal 
Treasury because of the tax package that this Congress, in a bipartisan 
way, passed and this President signed.
  We are, I believe, poised to move towards a balanced budget earlier 
than had been anticipated, and we have undergone some of the most 
serious challenges that our Nation has ever felt during the past few 
years.
  We all know that when President Bush came into office he inherited an 
economy that was already slowing. Within just a couple of months, we 
went into recession. That was two quarters of negative economic growth.
  Mr. Speaker, since that period of time, we saw 7\1/2\ months after 
President Bush took office the worse attack in our Nation's history on 
American soil when 3,000 Americans were killed on September 11 of 2001.
  We saw the tremendous problem of corporate abuse, corporate scandals; 
and we know the challenges that that created for our economy. We saw 
the global war on terror proceed; and we, of course, are still 
struggling as we work to liberate the people of Iraq and move towards 
political pluralism and the rule of law and free and fair elections.
  With all of those challenges, we have seen tremendous economic 
growth. A very important aspect of that has been trade liberalization, 
a policy that has enjoyed bipartisan support. Usually it is Republican-
led, I will acknowledge, and there are not many Democrats who do join; 
but in the past, there have been Democrats who have joined in, trying 
to bring about the very important market-opening opportunities that we 
see worldwide.
  This agreement is going to enjoy tremendous bipartisan support; and, 
again, I will say that it has been great to work with our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle. My colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley), is going to be retiring; but he is a Democrat 
who has been very thoughtful and consistently pushing trade 
liberalization. He helped us with the passage of Trade Promotion 
Authority, and he has just done a terrific job, and I will miss him 
when he retires from this body at the end of this year.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who stood up and spoke 
very eloquently on the need to pass the U.S.-Australia Free Trade 
Agreement, has been a leader within the whip organization on the other 
side of the aisle, and I mentioned my colleague, the distinguished 
whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt); the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the chief deputy whip; and a wide range of 
members; the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) providing the 
leadership that he has on the Committee on Ways and Means.
  We have gotten to this point, Mr. Speaker, and this point is one 
which will allow us, Democrats and Republicans alike, to come together 
and underscore how trade liberalization is helping our economy. It is 
helping to create jobs.
  Now, we have heard this argument raised about prescription drugs, and 
I will say what I have said throughout the debate. It is current law. 
It is current law in Australia, not part of the free trade agreement, 
that, in fact, ensures that reimportation will not take place. Nothing 
in this agreement whatsoever, nothing in this agreement will in any way 
impact the debate which has been ongoing in this body on the issue of 
drug reimportation; and if any change is made, the free trade agreement 
cannot in any way override that.
  This issue of the administration and the consultation process, as the 
pharmaceutical drug question was addressed, taking place, there was 
broad consultation that took place, in a bipartisan way, Democrats and 
Republicans in both Houses of Congress, with this administration, with 
our U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Zoellick.

                              {time}  1130

  So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to recognize that, on 
the specifics of this, it has been very, very well handled and, I 
think, is in many ways a model.
  I will say to my friend from Massachusetts that in the U.S.-Singapore 
Free Trade Agreement that we put together, very similar language as we 
have in the Australia agreement on the pharmaceutical question. We feel 
strongly about the issue of intellectual property, we feel strongly 
about property rights, we do not like piracy, we do not like 
counterfeiting, and this agreement is designed to strengthen our 
ability to deal with that question.
  Mr. Speaker, September 11 of 2001 was one of the most difficult days 
in our Nation's history. We were poised to hear an address before a 
joint session of Congress by Prime Minister John Howard, the great 
Prime Minister of Australia. Obviously, we were unable to do that, but 
Prime Minister Howard was, as I recall very vividly, here when 
President Bush came and addressed a joint session of Congress.
  I am very proud, and I think I am the only Member who has a place in 
the U.S. Capitol where I have a quote from an Australian. I have a very 
important quote, which I would commend to my colleagues, and I will 
enter that into the record and not read through it right now, but I 
actually saw it when I visited the Australian parliament at Canberra 
several years ago, actually in December of 1998. I was struck by this 
quote by R.G. Menzies, who was one of the great, strong anti-Communist 
prime ministers of Australia. He talks about the importance of public 
service and the sacrifice that public service entails, and I have that 
quote hanging in the Committee on Rules upstairs, just above this 
Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to realize that Australia 
has been an important ally of ours in every single way. They have been 
unrelenting in their commitment to the global war on terror. They have 
been victimized themselves. Our September 11 was at one point an 
October 11, or October 6, it was an October date, that saw many 
Australians tragically become the victims of the challenge of 
international terrorism with the bombings that took place at Bali, 
killing many Australians. So they have suffered as well. They 
understand what it is like. So they have stood with us in Iraq, in 
Afghanistan, and in international fora in trying to deal with these 
challenges.
  Our relationship is already, as I said, an extraordinarily strong 
relationship. But with the passage of this measure today, Mr. Speaker, 
we are going to strengthen even more that very important tie that 
exists between the United States of America and the wonderful people of 
Australia. So I urge strong support of this rule and strong support of 
the measure as we address it.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the quote by R.G. Menzies which 
I earlier referred to:

       I believe that politics is the most important and 
     responsible civil activity to which a man may devote his 
     character, his talents, and his energy. We must, in our 
     interests, elevate politics into statesmanship and 
     statecraft. We must aim at a condition of affairs in which we 
     shall no longer reserve the dignified name of statesman for a 
     Churchill or Roosevelt, but extend it to lesser men who give 
     honourable and patriotic service in public affairs. In its 
     true that most men of ability prefer the objective work of 
     science, the law, literature, scholarship, or the immediately 
     stimulating and profitable work of manufacturing, commerce, 
     or finance.
       The result is that our legislative assemblies are a fair 
     popular cross-section, not a corp d'elite. The first-class 
     mind is comparatively rare. We discourage young men of parts 
     by confronting them with poor material rewards, 
     precariousness of tenure, an open public cynicism about their 
     motives, and cheap sneers about their real or supposed search 
     for publicity. The reason for

[[Page 15510]]

     this wrong-headedness, so damaging to ourselves, is that we 
     have treated democracy as an end and not as a means. It is 
     almost as if we had said, when legislatures freely elected by 
     the votes of all citizens came into being, ``Well, thank 
     heaven we have achieved democracy. Let us now devote our 
     attention to something new.'' Yet the true task of the 
     democrat only begins when he is put in possession of the 
     instruments by which the popular will may be translated into 
     authoritative action. In brief, we cannot sensibly devote 
     only one per cent of our time to something which affects 
     ninety-nine per cent of our living.--R. G. Menzies, New York 
     Times Magazine, November 28, 1948.

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives 
considers the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement (USAFTA). I 
support this trade initiative, because it's good for America and good 
for the people of Washington State in a number of important ways.
  First, Australia is an important ally of the U.S. in an increasingly 
unstable world. Many Australian troops fought side-by-side American 
soldiers in the Vietnam War, in Afghanistan, and are providing 
resources to Americans in a part of the world where we increasingly 
need them.
  Second, Australia has a long history of importing many American 
products--from agricultural goods grown in Washington, like apples and 
wheat, to products manufactured in Washington, like electronics and 
airplanes. We enjoy a sizable trade surplus with Australia and since 
this agreement commits Australia to immediately remove tariffs on 
nearly every U.S. export to Australia, it will instantly provide 
further market access for products that come from the United States. In 
addition, Australia invests significantly in the United States, 
directly employing thousands and thousands of American jobs.
  Third, Australia exports many products that Americans enjoy--like 
fine wines and many agricultural products. Since this agreement 
requires the U.S. to remove many of our tariffs on Australian goods, 
they immediately become more affordable to American consumers.
  Although I support this agreement, I remain deeply concerned about 
the direction that the Bush Administration is taking this country, 
particularly with regard to our economy and our trade policy, which 
profoundly affects the ability of our country to maintain and create 
good paying jobs.
  America's best export has always been the democratic values that we 
hold dear. While capitalism and open markets may boost trade flows, 
democratic values must also be a centerpiece of U.S. trade policy. 
Regretfully, this agreement continues to embody a short-sighted 
approach toward international trade that the Bush Administration has 
employed for the last 4 years. The USAFTA fails to lock in 
international labor and environment standards. It only requires the 
United States and Australia to continue to enforce their own labor and 
environment laws. This approach, if employed in future trade agreements 
with less developed countries, would do little to raise living 
standards in countries whose labor and environmental laws do not meet 
international standards. Furthermore, this approach would force 
American workers to compete on an uneven playing field. I do not think 
that is a direction that our country should go.
  Today, however, the Congress considered liberalizing trade with 
Australia, a country that has well-developed labor and environmental 
laws, and a good track record for enforcing these laws, so I will not 
let Perfect be the enemy of Good. Our international assistance and 
trade programs should aim to raise living conditions here and abroad. 
Ultimately, I believe that the USAFTA advances these interests.
  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. Miller of Florida). The question is on 
the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________