David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Well, I just wondered if you wanted to give us some of your time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of that, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kiron, Iowa (Mr. King) who came before the Rules Committee offering a very thoughtful amendment last night, our good friend.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules how many speakers she has remaining.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Iowa quoting Governor Schwarzenneger. He can do it any time. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished former Governor of the State of Delaware, the gentleman from Wilmington (Mr. Castle), who is back.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say, we are all concerned about global warming. At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my very distinguished friend from Miami (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Dallas (Mr. Sessions), a hardworking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, the former chairman of the Committee on Standards, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules how many speakers she has remaining.

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentlewoman like to yield me some of the time because we have got loads of people here who want to talk?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, obviously there has been a great deal of thought and talk, and it has been understandable about the issue of ethics and lobbying reform. Last year, Speaker Hastert and I initiated a package that we passed through the House but, unfortunately, we were not able to come to an agreement in the Senate. On the opening day, 430 Members voted to put into place unprecedented ethics reform, unprecedented ethics reform. Why? Because the American people know we should be held to the highest possible standards. Now, there is an expression that I think is a very important one, and that is ``put your money where your mouth is.'' Now the very distinguished Chair of the committee on ethics, my good friend Mrs. Jones, talked about the fact that she wants to address this as concerns come forward. Mr. Speaker, this is the committee funding measure that we are bringing to the floor. We are doing some other things to it, self- executing establishment of a committee, but we are providing for that committee that will have no legislative authority whatsoever, $3.7 million. All we are asking, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a chance, a chance to debate the issue of funding for the Ethics Committee here on the floor. That is why I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Why? Because while this new committee that will have no legislative authority whatsoever will receive $3.7 million, we are simply asking for what is being denied, and that is a chance for $1 million to be provided so that our Members will not be facing the weekend situation that Mr. Lungren just described where he sent a letter to the Ethics Committee, asked for a response about going on a trip, and he didn't receive approval until a week after the trip was to take place. Mrs. Jones and Mr. Hastings came before the House Administration Committee and made this request for additional funding; and Mr. Hastings, representing Mrs. Jones before the Rules Committee, asked that this amendment be made in order. Mr. Speaker, any Member who votes for the previous question is denying this institution the opportunity to consider implementing the resources that are necessary to hold us to the highest possible ethical standards. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Amendment to H. Res. 219 Offered by Rep. Dreier of California At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, after conclusion of the time for debate on the resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider the amendment in section 3, if offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington or his designee. The amendment shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment or demand for division of the question. Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as follows: In section l(b), strike ``Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $4,994,181;'' and insert ``Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $6,119,301;''. In section 2(b), strike ``Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $2,460,915;'' and insert ``Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $2,996,561;''. In section 3(b), strike ``Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $2,533,266;'' and insert ``Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $3,122,740;''. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. I would just like to say that I do look forward, Mr. Speaker, to working with my friend from Vermont on this very, very important issue. And we are at this moment, in fact, going through his legislative initiative. I hope to work closely with him on it. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my great appreciation to my very distinguished friend from Rochester, New York, the Chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in strongest opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation, House Resolution 202, which provides for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the 110th Congress. While I consider the funding of the committees of the House a very, very important priority, I, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, oppose this rule since the resolution goes far beyond, far beyond the very important task in one respect, and, unfortunately, it falls extraordinarily short in another task. Mr. Speaker, on March 1, the Committee on House Administration ordered reported House Resolution 202, a clean committee funding resolution. If passed by the full House, the resolution will provide approximately a 2.6 percent across-the-board increase in House committee budgets between the last session of the 109th Congress and the first session of the 110th Congress. While most committees can make do with that very modest increase, we have one committee that absolutely cannot. It is called the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Mr. Speaker, on the opening day of the 110th Congress, Ms. Slaughter and I both stood here as we debated and then ended up supporting a very important part of the opening day rules package. On that day, we asked the Ethics Committee to take on substantial new responsibilities. They are now responsible, Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Committee, based on what the passage of the opening days rules package imposed on them, they are now required to pre-approve all trips. They are required to issue guidance on rules that they were not involved in drafting at all. As I said, we imposed that on them. They are required to provide training for every employee of the House on the new ethics rules that we have just put into place and forced them to implement. And they are still in a position where they have to now provide timely advice to every single Member who makes a request for the application of this rule. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, they have the responsibility of investigating allegations of wrongdoing whenever they do occur. Now already, I understand, the Committee on Ethics, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, is falling behind. Appropriation season is well under way, and we have absolutely no guidance whatsoever about the new ethics standards for earmarks. We have new travel and gift rules, but those regulations created as many questions as they answered; and the Ethics Committee is already months behind in its correspondence with Members. We are going to hear from a number of our colleagues who have been dealing with this very difficult situation. The chairman and the ranking member, the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Ethics appeared before the Committee on House Administration. In fact, Ms. Slaughter and I were both there because our testimony followed them. Mr. Hastings and Mrs. Tubbs Jones, Republican and Democrat in a bipartisan way, they came to plead their case to provide an increase beyond that 2.6 percent so they can deal with this massive new mandate imposed upon them. It was a large request, but the members of the Ethics Committee need it because they want to do their job and they need the resources to do it. What the House Administration Committee did, and we were there during that testimony, they expressed great sympathy with their plight. And at the end, they felt they could do a little more. That decision leaves every single Member of this House in jeopardy, and it is one that we cannot let stand. That is why, as I said, Mr. Hastings, the former chairman of the Ethics Committee and Mrs. Tubbs Jones, the new chairman of the Ethics Committee, took the very unusual step of just yesterday appealing to us up in the Rules Committee to correct this problem. Now my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Hastings, has the dual responsibility of serving not only as the distinguished ranking member of the Ethics Committee, but also he serves on the Rules Committee, and he sat before us and asked that we simply allow the House to debate this issue. He didn't argue that we have to do it. I happen to believe we do have to do it, but he simply was making the request that the Rules Committee make in order a chance for this House to discuss this very important ethics issue, one with which we are all very familiar. He was joined in this request by the distinguished Chair of the committee. She wasn't there, but I know she has supported his request for us to have an opportunity to debate this issue, and I know she strongly supports the effort, as she did in her testimony before the Administration Committee asking for the additional resources so the Ethics Committee, Mr. Speaker, can in fact do their job. This is particularly important given the other aspect of this rule. This rule self-executes an amendment establishing the new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, about which the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee was just speaking. Without impugning the necessity or desire to establish that select committee, my colleagues got to hear me explain at the Rules Committee yesterday exactly why this process was so outrageous and why this is the wrong way to go about establishing a select committee. Mr. Speaker, never mind that the minority was never given the language creating this select committee until we literally walked into the room yesterday at 2 p.m., and never mind the fact the Democratic majority is denying us a motion to recommit with instructions which would have been made in order if the privileged resolution came to the floor, never mind that the Rules Committee never held a hearing or produced an original jurisdiction committee report on the establishment of this select committee, something I believe is totally unprecedented. With all of the committees established in the history of this institution, I am convinced that never before has this process been used, and never mind that the House is completely side-stepping regular order by self-executing this amendment. Mr. Speaker, never mind all of those horrible procedural outrages that have been imposed. I am not going to talk about those. The most troubling part of this whole episode is that this self-executing amendment grants the new select committee some $3.7 million over the course of this Congress. So if we can find an additional $3.7 million to fund this new select committee that will have no legislative power whatsoever, I don't understand why we can't fund a mere $1 million to fully fund the bipartisan request that was made before the Rules Committee to provide the necessary funding for our very hardworking colleagues, Mr. Hastings, Mrs. Tubbs Jones and their colleagues on the Ethics Committee. Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate on this rule, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so I may amend the rule to make in order the bipartisan Tubbs Jones-Hastings amendment so that the 430 Members that supported the new ethics rules may live up to the commitment that they made right here on opening day. Mr. Speaker, if you think we needed new ethics standards, if you believe that the Ethics Committee should do its job, then you have a moral obligation to defeat the previous question and allow the House to work its will by at least considering the chance to make sure that Mrs. Tubbs Jones, the distinguished Chair of the Ethics Committee, and Mr. Hastings, the ranking member, have the resources they need to do what we, 430 Members, told them they had to do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. And I want to thank my very distinguished colleague Anna Eshoo for authoring this, and I want to congratulate my California colleagues on both sides of the aisle for once again coming together to recognize public service. Mr. Speaker, I never had the opportunity to serve in Sacramento, but I did know Leo McCarthy to be an extraordinary public servant. And one of the things that is very moving, as I listened to the remarks of my colleague from Highland, Mr. Lewis, who was elected with Governor McCarthy in 1968 to the California State legislature and as I listened to Anna Eshoo, who I had no idea she was his district office representative, I was reminded of the fact that public service is a very important calling. And as I listened to Ms. Foxx outline the service record, although I suspect she never met Leo McCarthy, she went through his extraordinary accomplishments. As a legislator, I am reminded of the fact that we need to recognize that we are here to do the people's business. Yes, we need to have that clash of ideas. Yes, it is important that we engage in vigorous debate. But at the end of the day, we are here to accomplish very important things for the people whom we are honored to represent. It was in 1963, as has been pointed out, that he first ran for the County Board of Supervisors, and I will say I learned not only that Anna Eshoo was his district representative, I had heard that he was from New Zealand originally, but then when I heard he was from Auckland, I was of course reminded of the old story about the guy who got on an airplane to go to Oakland, California, and ended up in Auckland, New Zealand. And it sounded like Leo McCarthy actually took the reverse route, and I wondered how many times he was headed to Oakland that people might have thought that he was going home to Auckland. But the fact is I had great regard for Leo McCarthy, and I wondered why anyone would leave New Zealand, because it is a spectacular spot. In fact, I have said on more than a few occasions if I didn't have the opportunity to live in the United States of America, New Zealand would be the spot that I would live in. But having said that, I will simply say that my colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, had great regard for Leo McCarthy and his extraordinary public service to the people of California. May God rest his soul, and our thoughts and prayers are with his wonderful family members. And I know that one of the things Leo McCarthy said when asked the question what his greatest accomplishments would be, he said it was his family, and so our thoughts and prayers are with them.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we clearly saw last week with the sharp decline in our stock market following a major drop in the Chinese market, the increasingly global nature of our economy is one of the most defining issues of our time. The growing connectedness of the world's consumers, producers, workers, and investors is having an impact on virtually every aspect of our lives. And with all the rapid change that globalization is bringing about, it is very natural for us to ask ourselves the question: Have these changes been for the better? We want to know if globalization is improving our lives or making them worse. Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest concerns that we have when we look at this question is the issue of income inequality, something that many people are talking about. We read reports of massive executive salaries, and compare them to the circumstances of America's middle class and the concerns that working families have, and we inevitably wonder if the system is in fact fair. I recently spoke here on this issue, on this very question. The critical issue is not, Mr. Speaker, whether those at the top are becoming more prosperous; the critical issue is whether everyone is becoming more prosperous, particularly those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder. We looked at the issue of wages and saw that they are growing for all workers. But when we looked even deeper, we saw that the outlook is even more positive. The purchasing power of working families is increased by lower taxes and greater access to low-cost goods through international trade. This growing purchasing power, along with rising wages, is increasing the standard of living for all Americans, with the greatest positive impact for those who are just beginning to move up the economic ladder. Today, I want to look at another issue that helps to answer the question of whether quality of life is improving for everyone; that is, the issue of jobs, Mr. Speaker. More specifically, new job creation, and the quality of those new jobs. Jobs are perhaps the most critical issue in determining standards of living. Does everyone who wants a job have a job? Does that job provide the opportunity to prosper and improve one's quality of life? Just as we saw with wages, the numbers demonstrate a very positive outlook for workers. Unemployment is at 4.6 percent, a rate that is exceptionally low. Mr. Speaker, in fact, we have had 16 straight months of unemployment at 5 percent or less. At the same time, the workforce has been rapidly expanding. Our economy has created nearly 7\1/2\ million new jobs in the last 3\1/2\ years. There are 146 million Americans working today, more than at any time in our Nation's history. The jobs outlook in the United States continues to be very, very good. But just like with wages, we see an even fuller picture, a better picture when we dig just a little deeper. Average monthly hires last year were nearly 5 million, the highest rate ever since data have been collected. Of those 5 million, the share of workers who left their old job voluntarily for new work was also at the highest level. 58.3 percent made that move. This means that workers are not just finding jobs, they are finding better jobs, better opportunities. Anyone who has been stuck in a dead-end job knows that this is a huge quality of life issue. Having a job is essential to providing for a family, and any job can serve as a starting point to success. But having a good job that offers new opportunities to prosper is essential to a growing standard of living. The fact that we are seeing 5 million new hires every month demonstrates a great deal of churn and dynamism in our workforce, and we know that that change is not always easy. But the rapidly growing number of workers who are voluntarily leaving their old jobs demonstrates that new and better opportunities are being created. It demonstrates, Mr. Speaker, the increased confidence in our workforce that comes with growing prosperity and the prospect of a better life. And it also helps to answer the question of whether the standard of living is improving for everyone, not just those who are at the top of the economic lead ladder. New jobs and new opportunities are helping to make all of us more prosperous. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to pursue pro-growth economic policies, including an embrace of America's global leadership role. Those policies have brought about this dynamic work force, where everyone is upwardly mobile.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. As I was just told by a distinguished member of the committee staff, we hope that the third time is a charm here. We have been pursuing this for quite a while, and I hope very much that we will be able to see final implementation of this. I would like to recognize the leadership again on both sides of the aisle; the Committee on Natural Resources, of course, Mr. Bishop, who served with great distinction on the Committee on Rules. And I will say that we miss him upstairs in the Rules Committee. I especially miss the fact that we are no longer in the majority up in the Rules Committee, but he is serving very ably now as an important member of the Natural Resources Committee and the Water and Power Subcommittee. And I want to thank, of course, on the majority side the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Mr. Rahall, my very good friend from California (Mrs. Napolitano) with whom I worked closely on this, and of course the ranking member on the subcommittee, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and of course the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Young. I want to really underscore the great commitment and support that was provided in this effort by my California colleague, Mrs. Napolitano, who was an original cosponsor of this bill and has long been a great champion for many, many years of regional water solutions. I am also very pleased to have had the continued support and cosponsorship of other Southern California colleagues in a bipartisan way, Ken Calvert, Gary Miller, and of course I am pleased to see that we have just been joined on the floor here by my good friend, who represents the Inland Empire, Mr. Baca. And I should say, Mr. Speaker, that I just signed one of those cosponsor sheets and turned it in at the desk that will now include Mr. Baca's name as one of the cosponsors of this important legislation. As many of you will recall, this bill was passed, as I said, by the last Congress; but it was held up in the other body over issues that were much larger regarding overall reform of the Bureau of Reclamation's title 16 program. And I do share the concern that the program, while hugely popular, successful and competitive, is oversubscribed and underfunded. That being said, Mr. Speaker, the need to reform the program shouldn't hold back good projects like this one. The Inland Empire Water Recycling Initiative authorizes $30 million for the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the Cucamonga Valley Water District to assist in constructing two water recycling projects. The projects will produce nearly 100,000 acre-feet of new water annually to the area's water supply. This initiative has the support of all member agencies of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, which encompasses 240 square miles in Southern California. It also serves a number of cities that I am very honored to be able to represent, the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Upland and Montclair, some of the fastest growing cities in our Nation. These water agencies are using high-quality recycled water in many water intensive applications like landscape and agricultural irrigation, construction and industrial cooling. This allows fresh water to be conserved or used for drinking, which reduces our dependence on expensive imported water. In addition, by recycling water which would otherwise be wasted and unavailable, these agencies ensure that we wring the last drop of use out of water before it is ultimately returned to the environment. It is imperative that we continue to approve measures preventing water supply shortages in the western United States. And, Mr. Speaker, this recycling initiative will help meet the water needs of the Inland Empire and begin a strategic Federal-local partnership to bring a significant amount of new water supply to this very important region in Southern California. This project has already been recognized nationally as one of the most cost-effective water reuse projects that we have. The Inland Empire Utility Agency and the Cucamonga Valley Water District are innovative leaders in using high-quality recycled water in environmentally sensitive and creative ways. This allows fresh water to be conserved for drinking, reducing our dependence on expensive imported water. The hard work of these two local water agencies should be recognized. Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically recognize the tireless efforts of Rich Atwater, the CEO of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, and Robert DeLoach, the CEO of the Cucamonga Valley Water District. I would also like to commend the boards of these agencies for their leadership in providing our region with safe, clean, and affordable water. And I will say, Mr. Speaker, that at a time when we are focusing constantly on the need to look at ways to recycle and focusing on the issue of environmentally sound planning for our future, meeting our needs, this measure is, again, a model that can be used for the rest of the country. At this juncture, I would be happy to yield to my very good friend, with whom I am privileged to share representing part of the Inland Empire, Mr. Baca. (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend for his very able contribution. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, in closing that I think that this legislation underscores once again how the California congressional delegation continues, as it has in the past, to work in a bipartisan way addressing priority concerns that we have, whether it be transportation, dealing with the whole issue of base closure, dealing with the challenge of illegal immigration, dealing with this very important water resources issue, health care issues. California's delegation is working together in a bipartisan way to address them, and this legislation today is evidence of our great success at implementing the shared vision that we have for the constituents whom we are honored to represent in California. And I again thank both Democrats and Republicans on the Natural Resources Committee for their strong support of this important legislation. And, again, as Mr. Baca said, I hope very much that the committee and others will utilize this very successful program as a model for future water recycling.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Dallas for his very able handling of this rule, and I congratulate my friend from Ohio as well. Madam Speaker, I have to rise in strong opposition to this rule. We were yesterday on the House floor listening to the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services argue passionately in support of the need for an open amendment process and how great it is. And yet today we are given a rule that denies 12 of the 15 amendments that were submitted to us. It is interesting, the bill yesterday that was controversial enough that we had an open rule for it passed by a vote of, I think 423 to zip, 423-0. There was no controversy whatsoever. We had three amendments that we voted on here. But it was an open rule. Now we have a bill that is slightly controversial. In fact, it is extremely controversial. And yet we have closed down the amendment process, preventing Democrats and Republicans from having an opportunity to participate in this process, as they should. We, Madam Speaker, when we proceeded with the Rules Committee meeting last night, my very good friend from Martinez, California, the distinguished chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Miller, proceeded as he was sitting with the distinguished ranking Republican, Mr. McKeon, at the table, to tell me that I hadn't read the bill and I knew nothing about labor law. Well, I will tell you this: I admitted at that moment that I had not read the bill. But I have read the bill since that time, Madam Speaker. And I have not become a labor lawyer overnight, but I will say that I have talked to a lot of people who are expert on this issue, and I have come to the conclusion that the sanctity of the secret ballot is something very, very important and very, very precious. We in the Rules Committee spent a lot of time on the issue of institutional reform and, as we all know, for the first time ever, we got the Federal Government involved in providing Federal resources for local elections. Why? In the wake of the 2000 election, there was clearly a lot of controversy. Especially our friends from Florida raised a lot of understandable concerns. So the Federal Government got involved and we have put literally billions of dollars into our quest to ensure the sanctity of that secret ballot. Yet at this moment, for this institution, we are embarking on legislation which will take a retrograde step on the very important secret ballot for the American worker. Obviously, in the last half century we have seen a great diminution in the numbers of people who are in unions today. In the 1950s, roughly 35 percent of the American workers were members of unions. Today, it is something like 7.5 percent. It has dropped dramatically. And that is due to the choice that exists that people have made. We have a strong economy, a 4.5 percent unemployment rate, growing increasing incomes that are taking place right now, and as we look at the challenge that many union organizations have with the auto industry and other industries, I believe that union control has really played a role in jeopardizing their potential for even greater success. We got the report yesterday that Tupelo, Mississippi, is going to be the site of a new Toyota plant, 2,000 employees, who will be earning $20 an hour, substantially higher than the wage rates that are paid in other parts of that region, high wage rates for virtually anyone around the country. It is very, very impressive that we are looking at this growth. And there is a sadness that many people have over the fact that the big three auto makers here in the United States are faced with real difficulty. Well, Madam Speaker, I argue that part of that challenge has been the overwhelming control that unions have had and the union leadership has really jeopardized the opportunity for individual choice for members. I don't stand alone. Mr. McKeon just handed me a copy of this morning's Los Angeles Times. I do not always agree with the editorial policy of my friends of what I call my hometown paper, the L.A. Times, but I know them well and try to find areas of agreement. As I say, I don't always agree with them. But today, they have provided an editorial and I think it is very enlightening. The close of this editorial said: ``Unions once supported the secret ballot for organization elections. They were right then and are wrong now. Unions have every right to a fair hearing, and the National Labor Relations Board should be more vigilant about attempts by employers to game the system. In the end, however, whether to unionize is up to the workers. A secret ballot ensures that their choice will be a free one.'' Madam Speaker, we are undermining that with this legislation that we are about to embark upon here today. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply argue that the need for us to consider measures under an open amendment process is something I support. I am standing here in support of this open rule. I also would like to say that the argument for us to come forward and debate issues here on the floor is very important. The issue of Iraq was considered under an open rule.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I have to say, as I listen to my good friend from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who has worked long and hard on this, it didn't take a year for us to pass this measure through the House of Representatives; it passed, as the gentlewoman said, by a vote of 421-0 in the last Congress, and that was in response to the DPW deal, which obviously raised a number of concerns from a number of people in this institution. Mr. Speaker, this is a Republican bill, which, as the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services pointed out in the Rules Committee last night, enjoys strong bipartisan support, and it enjoys the kind of support that motherhood and apple pie enjoy. There is no controversy to this bill whatsoever. And I am very proud of the fact, as the gentlewoman from New York said, that we are now, by passing an open rule for the second time in the 110th Congress, doubling the record that we had in the 109th Congress when it came to open rules. But the true test will come when we are dealing with a controversial issue that does not enjoy strong bipartisan support. That is where this Madisonian vision of a clash of ideas is very important, Mr. Speaker. And so I hope very much that as we bring measures, both of which in the 110th Congress were passed by unanimous votes in the 109th Congress, to the floor, and we are very proud of the fact that they are being considered on an open rule, I hope very much that we will do everything that we possibly can to ensure that debates like the one that we had 2 weeks ago on the issue of Iraq are considered under a process that will allow maybe a chance for the minority to consider a substitute, or a process that would, again, bring that clash of ideas, because it is very clear there was complete agreement on the fuels bill that we dealt with 2 weeks ago under an open rule, extraordinarily strong bipartisan support. There is complete agreement on the goal of CFIUS reform. Yes, we know that 12 amendments were filed by seven Members last night that will be considered here on the House floor under this open amendment process, but at the end of the day, Republicans and Democrats will come together in support of this. The true test, Mr. Speaker, will be whether or not we take up a measure where there is strong, vigorous disagreement on the part of our Members. But I will say that we need to recognize that the two most important issues that we face as Members of this institution are the issues of, first and foremost, our national security; and, second, ensuring that we create economic opportunity for all Americans and maintain the strong, bold, dynamic growth that we have in our economy. This measure that we are addressing today actually addresses both issues, Mr. Speaker. It will strengthen the process by which our national security stakeholders in the administration, from the Defense Department to the National Security Agency, review and investigate foreign investors in the U.S. economy. It focuses in particular on those companies that are controlled by foreign governments or are based in countries that support terrorism. These are commonsense reforms that again enjoy strong bipartisan support that will provide an adequate level of scrutiny to ensure that no investment poses a national security threat to our interests. However, it also ensures a process that, while thorough, is not prohibitive. This legislation is a reflection of the need for a review process that does not close us off to the vital foreign investment that is a major source of our economic strength. I again praise the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Financial Services who last night in the Rules Committee talked about the importance of foreign direct investment. FDI is very important to us, and if we look at our economic growth, there is a strong, strong reliance that we have had. Because economic security underpins national security, it is absolutely imperative that we work to ensure that our economy remains the world's best place to invest and do business. Mr. Speaker, let me provide some numbers that not everyone is familiar with. Foreign companies currently employ 5.3 million Americans here in the United States. We just got the report of this Toyota plant that is going to be opening in Tupelo, Mississippi. It is important to note that those foreign investors who employ 5.3 million Americans actually pay wage rates that are 50 percent higher than the average wage paid here in the United States. Companies like Toyota, Siemens, Novartis come to the United States in order to tap into our powerful market, innovative environment and superior workforce. In the process, they generate greater economic activity, create high-paying jobs and improve our standard of living. And we have enjoyed these benefits, Mr. Speaker, because of the openness, strength and dynamism of the U.S. economy. As we debate the need for national security reforms to our review process, we must recognize that to close off our economy to the world's investors would be to close ourselves off to the prosperity and opportunities that we have long enjoyed as the world's best investment. We cannot lose sight of the fact that we have prospered not in spite of, but because of our Nation's openness. I believe that this bill charts a smart path that preserves both national security and our ability to attract investment and grow our economy. My colleagues, as I said, all agree with me. We have been through this process before, as I said, in the 109th Congress. The bill that was passed in the last Congress was sponsored by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished minority whip, and this legislation which is virtually identical to the bill we are considering today, was considered by an overwhelming unanimous bipartisan vote. Personally, I would very much like to see these good, well-crafted utterly noncontroversial bills where they belong, and that is on the suspension calendar where we passed it quickly and expeditiously in the last Congress. But the fact of the matter is we are where we are, Mr. Speaker. It is important for us to recognize our priorities of national security, number one; and, number two, our economic strength and making sure that we expand that economic growth. I urge support of this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on January 9, 2007, Armando Garcia, the primary suspect in the murder of Los Angeles County Sheriffs Deputy David March, was extradited to the United States. It was four years, eight months, and ten days that the family and colleagues of Deputy March were forced to wait for his killer to face extradition. We know that when our public safety officers perform their duties every day, whether patrolling their neighborhoods, protecting the courts, riding in an ambulance, or fighting a fire, they are working to ensure the protection of all of us. Because they are constantly putting their lives on the line, we must do everything we can to ensure that criminals who harm or threaten those who protect the public receive a punishment that matches the seriousness of the crimes they commit. Madam Speaker, it is with these dedicated public safety officers in mind that I am proud to introduce the Justice for Public Safety Officers Act with my friend from Pasadena, Congressman Adam Schiff. This bill, which is based upon legislation that Mr. Schiff and I introduced in the last Congress, sends a clear message that justice will no longer be abused by fleeing murderers. As we know, under Federal law, it is a crime to kill a Federal, State, or local public safety officer if they are engaged in a Federal investigation. It is also a Federal crime to flee to another country to avoid prosecution. However, the crime of fleeing is punishable by no more than five years in prison, and as little as merely paying a fine. The Justice for Public Safety Officers Act takes an important step toward establishing stiffer penalties by imposing a mandatory minimum of 30 years in prison for murdering a public safety officer and an additional mandatory minimum of 10 years for traveling between States or countries with the intent to avoid prosecution. When Deputy March was brutally slain execution-style during a routine traffic stop, Armando Garcia, an illegal immigrant, fled to Mexico within hours of Deputy March's murder to avoid prosecution by U.S. authorities. At the time of the murder, Mexico refused to extradite individuals who may face the death penalty or life imprisonment, therefore hindering efforts to bring Armando Garcia back to the United States to face prosecution for his crime. The same border that Garcia illegally crossed to enter our country served as a wall of protection for almost 5 years. I joined many of my colleagues and Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca in efforts to see that Armando Garcia and other fugitives accused in killings on our soil are returned to the United States to face justice. We met with officials from the Department of Justice and the State Department. We urged President Bush to call for aggressive action to change Mexico's extradition policy. I met with then President Vicente Fox and other high officials of the Mexican government, including their Supreme Court, in an effort to impress upon our neighbor that its extradition policy is intolerable. We reached a critical turning point in 2005 when the Mexican Supreme Court issued a decision that allowed consecutive prison terms for certain murders. This decision ultimately paved the way for Armando Garcia's arrest in Tonala, Jalisco, Mexico, on February 23, 2006 and his extradition to the United States on January 9. For those of us who were involved with this case, January 9 will always have conflicting emotions. On the one hand, we know that this day marked a victory for the rule of law, sending a clear message that no one should be allowed to commit an act of murder and flee to another country to avoid prosecution. And yet, it also stands as a painful reminder of the loss of Deputy March and the danger that all public safety officers face on a daily basis. Madam Speaker, the handcuffs that hung from Deputy March's belt the day he was killed were shackled to Armando Garcia as he was brought into U.S. custody last month. I am encouraged that Deputy March's killer has finally been extradited to the United States. But we must continue to work to ensure that the service performed by this Nation's public safety officers is honored by making certain that those who wish to do them harm face stiff penalties for their actions. Passage of this bill will guarantee that perpetrators of heinous crimes against public safety officers will be brought to justice.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I would like to close the debate on our side just before you close the debate on your side.