David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, when we look at the issue of globalization, inevitably the question of wealth and equity comes up. We see reports of massive payouts for executives, and the natural inclination is to question the fairness of this. But the acquisition of wealth, we need to remember, is not a zero-sum game. If one worker brings in a big new client and gets a bonus as a result of that, that does not mean that someone somewhere else has to take a pay cut. The question we must ask ourselves is not are some individuals getting wealthier at a faster rate than others. The question is whether everyone is becoming more prosperous; is everyone's standard of living going up. If all individuals who wish to climb the economic ladder have the opportunity to do so, we are then on the right track. And the economic data show that that is exactly, absolutely the case in America today. With a workforce of 146 million, there are more Americans working today than ever before. Unemployment is at an incredibly low 4.6 percent. Two million new jobs were created in the last year alone. Average weekly earnings grew by 4.8 percent over the same time period. And as we had reported last week, gross domestic product growth grew at an annualized rate of 3.5 percent last quarter, propelled by a dramatic rise in what? Exports. We have been exporting goods and services from the United States, and that has played a big role in the GDP growth. These are excellent numbers, Madam Speaker, and they demonstrate the strength and vitality of the U.S. economy. But to really understand what they mean for individuals and working families, we have to delve in a little deeper. We have to look at the broader context and the bigger picture. Let's focus on the issue of wages. As I have stated, earnings are on the rise. This is obviously extremely important to working families trying to make ends meet. But even more important than growing wages is growing purchasing power. A bigger paycheck is meaningless if the government increases taxes and takes a bigger portion of that paycheck. That is why Republicans have focused so heavily on the issue of tax relief. Because of the tax cuts we have passed in 2001 and 2003, after-tax income is up nearly 10 percent. That is extra disposable income that Americans have to pay college tuition, get their car fixed, or take a family vacation. It is extra income, Madam Speaker, that Americans would not have without the tax relief that Republicans provided. Now, the cost of consumer goods also plays a major role in a family's purchasing power. That is why keeping our economy open to imports is so important. A tariff on inexpensive clothes from Bangladesh, for example, is a tax on the American family. A tariff is a tax. A tariff on affordable furniture from China is a tax on the American family. What is more, tariffs and other protectionist barriers constitute a regressive tax because they hit and hurt working families the hardest. It is not Italian leather bags or antique Belgian furniture that gets slapped with tariffs. It is the low-cost everyday items that families need to buy. The more we open up our economy, the more we increase the purchasing power of Americans who need it most. Wages are rising, and that is essential. But we must remember that increased wages cannot be accompanied by a reduction in the purchasing power of those wages through greater protectionism and higher taxes. Republicans have pursued an agenda of economic liberalization and embrace the great benefits of globalization. As a result, we can look at the question of whether everyone is growing in prosperity. And we can answer the question with a definitive and decisive, yes, they are. Madam Speaker, I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue on this path. I call on them to reject any calls to reverse the course to saddle Americans with greater taxes and cut off their access to the goods they need at prices that they can afford; to reject any efforts to impose the regressive taxes of protectionism. Our economy cannot afford it, Madam Speaker, and we must recognize that those who are struggling most can afford it least.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say to the majority leader that I didn't bring up the issue of process, but since my very good friend and classmate from Maryland did bring up the issue of process, pointing to the fact that an amendment was made in order even when that Member did not want to have the amendment made in order, which was clearly stated in a letter that was submitted to the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, recognizing that that was an unprecedented move, because I will tell you, having served as chairman of the Rules Committee, time and time again, we would have Members testify before the Rules Committee, making a request that amendments be made in order, and then we would get a letter from that Member asking that that amendment be withdrawn, and every time we would immediately disseminate that. So the only reason that there was a great deal of consternation on the issue that my friend has raised is that the action that was taken by the Rules Committee was completely unprecedented. In fact, in all the research that we did, we were never able to find any instance that ever before, under either the Democratic majority or the Republican majority, had action like that been taken. So that led us to be concerned. Similarly, as we look at the prospect of moving ahead with very important legislation that passed unanimously without any amendment, I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that to simply use, as the distinguished minority whip has said, that as an argument to say we provided open rules is, I think, a little bit of a stretch.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I congratulate both the majority leader and the distinguished minority whip for recognizing especially those of us who are in California. I have a whole series of meetings that I am going to be holding in California in the next couple of days, and it has been virtually impossible to hold any kind of weekday meeting with constituents because of the challenges that we have faced over the past month. And I know that our 3-hour workdays and then the half hour on a Friday have made it important to note that we have been working here, but it has made it virtually impossible to be able to hold, as I said, any weekday meetings in California. I would like to just raise a question, Mr. Speaker, to the distinguished majority leader about the issue of the schedule for next week. Now, it is my understanding that the legislation that we are scheduled to consider in the Rules Committee may come up under an open amendment process, allowing us an opportunity to have amendments proposed on the floor. The thing that concerns me is that while we have had a wide range of measures brought to the floor under suspension of the rules, I have looked back at this legislation that we are going to be addressing next week, and while it will be wonderful to have an open amendment process, it will be great if that, in fact, is going to be decided by the Rules Committee, it will be a wonderful thing to be seeing, but the fact is when this legislation was last considered, it was considered under suspension of the rules and passed unanimously without a recorded vote. A voice vote, in fact, was all that was necessary. So I will, just for the record, Mr. Speaker, say to the distinguished majority leader, and I thank the distinguished minority whip for yielding to me, that I am concerned about the notion of utilizing an open amendment process on a matter that is noncontroversial and very easily could be considered under suspension of the rules if it is being done solely for the purpose of saying, aha, we have moved beyond closed rules and we are now considering issues under an open amendment process when, in fact, there may not even be any amendments proposed because when this last came before us, it was considered under suspension of the rules. I thank my friend for yielding, and if you would like to yield to the majority leader to respond.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I always yield.

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. We keep hearing that every time this has come before us it has been considered under a closed rule. A closed rule is the norm for this. The fact of the matter is, in 1987 is the last time that we considered a year-long CR that would have allowed for consideration of the entire budget. Guess what? It was under a Democratic Congress, and at that time they made eight amendments in order. Since that time, we considered short- term continuing resolutions, and they have been done under unanimous consent, they have been done under suspension of the rules. But it is a complete mischaracterization to say every time we consider something like this it has been done under a closed rule. Mr. Speaker, at some point, at some point, and I don't know when that will be, the Democratic leadership is going to run out of excuses as to why they deny both Democrats and Republicans, Democrats and Republicans, the opportunity to participate in the process. First, it was, we promised to get the Six for '06 done in 100 hours. We considered a lot of this stuff in the last Congress. Then it was, well, this is the same rule that was considered back in the 103rd Congress. Now it is, well, this is your mess, Republicans, and we have to clean it up. The fact of the matter is, the argument that our friends on the other side of the aisle have continued to make over and over and over again is shutting out more than half of the American people. As I say, it is shutting out the opportunity for both Democrats and Republicans to participate in the process. We offered 21 amendments, very thoughtful amendments, that would have taken $44.5 million, $44.5 million, that is utilized right now for rain forest education in Iowa and transfer that spending to help provide desperately needed assistance to the war wounded. These are the kinds of priorities that we have set forward, Mr. Speaker. Tragically, this process has denied us to help the war wounded over those who want to focus attention on rain forest education in Iowa. Oppose this rule and oppose this measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to my very good friend from Miami (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen); and of course my great pal from California (Mr. Lantos), my classmate and neighbor, who, as soon as I took the well, decided to walk off the floor, but he is still here for a moment. And I do appreciate the fact that in a bipartisan way we have taken on what is one of the most interesting and fulfilling challenges that I have faced in the many years that I have been privileged to serve here in the Congress. And, of course, as I look around the Chamber and see colleagues like Lois Capps and, of course, the man with whom I served as a partner in a bipartisan way on this, David Price from North Carolina; on our side of the aisle, Jeff Fortenberry and John Boozman, who are among the Members to serve on this commission, it is very, very important today that we reauthorize this effort. As we look at our quest to prosecute the global war on terror, it is obvious that many things need to be done. We obviously need to have the military wherewithal to do everything necessary to make sure that as we face terror attacks and other military conflicts that we are able to successfully take that on. But, similarly, it is important for us to look at other ways in which we can do everything possible to help people who are struggling. And I forgot to mention Ms. Schwartz, who I had not seen because my peripheral vision wasn't that great; so I am happy that she is here, another very able and hardworking member of our commission. But, Madam Speaker, as I was saying, as we look at this challenge not only dealing with the military challenge, it is important for us to work to build democracies and those institutions that relate to it and the rule of law and political pluralism and self-determination, as I like to always say, those things that we have a tendency to take for granted here in the United States but are so important. And this commission was specifically built on something that we did about 15 years ago following the crumbling of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union, that being our effort to let Eastern and Central Europe know that as they work to claw their way from totalitarianism that we would do all that we could to help build their parliaments. And, Madam Speaker, that is exactly what we have now been able to do so far in six countries and we have six other countries with which we are working very closely, assuming that we reauthorize this effort here. And we are going to be doing so, I know, under the very able leadership of my colleague Mr. Price, and I am going to be working on our Republican side with members. And, again, I was very privileged to serve as chairman that we did this as a partnership. It was not only a partnership in a bipartisan way between Democrats and Republicans here, but it also has been a very important partnership in working with nongovernment organizations, with the Department of State, with the National Endowment for Democracy, with the International Republic Institute, with the National Democratic Institute, and a wide range of other entities out there that recognize that building these parliaments that will have the ability to engage in oversight of their executive branch, to put into place a budget process to make sure that they have the kind of constituent service that is very important for them, these are the kinds of things that this commission has worked on so effectively. A couple of quick examples from the missions that we have been on so far: one of the things that we found in Kenya when we visited there was that it was essential for us to help them build up their budget process and their committee process there as well, and we were able to provide through our commission great benefits for them. And, frankly, when we were on our mission there in Nairobi, Kenya last July, we went to the site of the former U.S. embassy. And we all know back in 1998 that our embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya were attacked by al Qaeda, and now for us to see the role that we are playing in helping to build this democracy in and the fledgling parliament in Kenya has been a very important thing, especially in the light of the fact that most recently we have seen an effort supported by the Kenyan Government and the Ethiopian Government in liberating the Somalians from the hold of those Islamic extremists. So we are seeing a real tangible benefit in this war on terror from the work of this commission. Similarly, in the Balkans, in Macedonia, on our mission there most recently just over the Thanksgiving break, we were able to do a great deal in helping with the building of their committee process there, and our commission has worked long and hard on that. So, Madam Speaker, I am going to quote my friend David Price because my feeling is virtually identical to that. When we think about the important work that we do with the privilege that we have of serving as Members of the United States Congress, there is nothing that is more fulfilling and rewarding and tangible for us to see than the opportunity to participate in this very important work on the commission. So I express my appreciation again to Chairman Lantos and Ms. Ros- Lehtinen and all of the members of this commission, and we look forward to reporting back to our colleagues here in the House of Representatives, Madam Speaker, on the very important success that we are going to be having in the months and years to come.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if we take a look at the last half century, it is clear that there has been no greater force for positive economic and political change than globalization. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I said globalization. Greater integration of the world's economies has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the developing world, nearly doubled the middle class population in Mexico and expanded our economy into a $13 trillion global leader for greater economic and political freedom. The benefits of globalization can be seen every single time that a Chinese blogger gets past government censors or a U.S. company trains factory owners in Thailand in worker rights and protections. So how did the greatest engine of global prosperity become so maligned? How did this poverty fighting, democracy enhancing force get blamed for all of the world's evils, from job losses in Michigan to poor water quality in Guatemala? In part, Mr. Speaker, this can be explained by the fact that globalization has improved so many aspects of our lives, but it has done so in very subtle ways. As a result, we do not always recognize its benefits. When you go to the grocery store and find fresh grapes in the dead of winter, you might not know that the fact that they are there and fresh and reasonably priced is that they come from Chile. You just know that you get to enjoy those winter grapes. When you buy educational software for your second grader, you might not know that it was developed by a small business in Pennsylvania, assembled in Malaysia and serviced by a technical support firm in India. You just know that your daughter is starting to do a better job at reading. When you buy a new TV because Wal-Mart finally had it at a price you could afford, you might not know that they cut costs by developing and implementing a revolutionary operational structure. You may not know that they source, ship and track goods to and from every corner of the globe by using such innovative practices that they have transformed the entire retail industry. You just know that you get to watch this Sunday in the Super Bowl the Colts and the Bears play away on an amazing screen. Globalization has impacted us in countless ways, with improvements that range from a better MP3 player to a better job, and together they contribute to a better life. But, Mr. Speaker, while the improvements to our standard of living often go unnoticed, the challenges that come with change are painfully clear. When a factory closes down, the hardship is very real and very visible. For the individuals who face those tough times, winter grapes and flat-screen TVs seem absolutely meaningless. When confronted with the difficult challenges change can bring, it is very natural to condemn change itself. But like all hard things in life, it is just not that simple. While one company suffers from competition from China, several others thrive by utilizing low cost, high-quality Chinese goods. A tech company contracts with a call center in India; and as a result of the cost savings, they can afford to hire new programmers here in the United States. In fact, the numbers overwhelmingly show that globalization has been an enormous net positive for job creation right here at home: over 20 million new jobs since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, including more than 7 million new jobs in the last 3\1/2\ years. Unemployment, as we all know, is at a near historic low of 4\1/2\ percent. But, Mr. Speaker, while the benefits have been dispersed to all Americans, there is no denying that there are those who have faced great challenges. So do we try to halt the march of globalization? Let us set aside the question of whether we should deny the tremendous benefits for all in order to try to protect the few. Let us ask the question, Can we do that? Can we protect an industry from losing jobs? If so, do we protect textile workers or the workers who design, market, and sell apparel? Do we protect manufacturers that make steel products or the manufacturers that use steel products? Maybe we should all buy American. Does that mean that we buy Fords that are made in Canada and assembled with Mexican parts? Or do we buy Toyotas made in Kentucky with American and Japanese parts? Do we buy iPods designed in California, but assembled in China? The fact is, globalization has made old ideas about protectionism absolutely obsolete. Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we recognize the leading role that we as a country are facing. I urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way to join in support of this effort. But like all hard things in life, it's just not that simple. While one company suffers from competition with China, several others thrive by utilizing low-cost, high-quality Chinese goods. A tech company contracts with a call center in India, and as a result of the cost savings, they can afford to hire new programmers. In fact, the numbers overwhelmingly show that globalization has been an enormous net positive for job creation: Over 20 million new jobs since the implementation of NAFTA, including 7 million jobs in the last 3\1/2\ years. Unemployment has dropped to 4.5 percent, a near-historic low. But while the benefits have been dispersed to all Americans, there's no denying that there are those who have faced great challenges. So do we try to halt the march of globalization? Let's set aside the question of whether we should deny the tremendous benefits for all in order to try to protect the few. Let's ask the question of can we? Can we protect an industry from losing jobs? If so, do we protect textile workers, or the workers who design, market and sell apparel? Do we protect manufacturers that make steel products, or the manufacturers that use steel products? Maybe we should all ``Buy American.'' Does that mean we buy Fords, made in Canada and assembled with Mexican parts? Or do we buy Toyotas, made in Kentucky with American and Japanese parts? Do we buy iPods, designed in California, but assembled in China? The fact is, globalization has made old ideas about protectionism obsolete. Its impact is wide, pervasive and irreversible. We simply do not have the option anymore of withdrawing from the world and denying ourselves the benefits of a global marketplace. Our only option is to use the prosperity it has brought to help those who are struggling. It doesn't matter why a job is lost. Whether globalization played a part or not, what matters is that workers have the skills they need to find even better jobs than the ones that were lost. If we make a commitment to American competitiveness, including worker competitiveness, we can both enjoy the benefits and address the challenges of a global economy. What we can't afford to do is demonize the source of our unparalleled prosperity. There's no question individuals will face hardship at times, and that naturally breeds anxiety. But anti-globalization rhetoric that exploits and preys upon the anxieties of working families is cheap, dirty politics. And it is dangerous. It risks the growing standard of living that the world's economic liberalizers are enjoying. I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject the politics of isolationism and continue to pursue the path of greater economic integration in the worldwide marketplace.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as I do that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), a hardworking Member.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am going to ask unanimous consent to yield the management of the time to my colleague from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2\1/ 2\ minutes to my very hardworking friend from Grantville, Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to House Resolution 78, which will allow the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to vote on the House floor. My colleagues who support this measure will talk about how the vote granted under this change in the House rules is merely symbolic and the votes cast don't count. But, Madam Speaker, that analysis says that the value of a vote is worth little more than its ability to be used in a press release or a letter to a constituent. I value my vote. I consider it to be an extraordinary honor to serve here, and I believe that the Delegates and the Resident Commissioners should and would desire to value their votes as well. Those who advocate granting the right in the Committee of the Whole have apparently forgotten the full name of that committee. Madam Speaker, we are in the House right now, but when we are in the Committee of the Whole, it is called the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. I underscore the word ``Union.'' We need to remember that. The Union is made up of the several States, and only Representatives from those States may vote here on the House floor. That is what the U.S. Constitution says. Yes, the Committee of the Whole finds its roots in the British Parliament, but the modern House of Representatives and the 17th century British Parliament used the Committee of the Whole for two vastly different purposes. We use the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the purpose of allowing the House of Representatives to expedite the amendment process and to allow for a more free-flowing debate. We do not, and I underscore this, Madam Speaker, we do not use it to say that we are no longer the House of Representatives, and therefore allow us to close deliberations to emissaries of the Queen. That is not what going into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union is about. Madam Speaker, my colleagues from the territories and the District of Columbia feel disenfranchised, and I understand why. They enjoy many of the benefits granted to the citizens of the several States. However, with the exception of the District of Columbia, their representatives are different. For instance, some pay income taxes differently; some not at all. Some are subject to the recently increased minimum wage; others are not subjected to the recently increased minimum wage. This change in the House rules is an end run around the United States Constitution. The court said so when it upheld the rule. Because the Constitution limits who can wield legislative power, in order to pass muster the rule had to make it appear that Delegates and Resident Commissioners had none. It is the ultimate in illusions, Madam Speaker. When your vote counts, it doesn't count; and when it doesn't count, it counts. I will say that again. When your vote counts, it doesn't count; and when it doesn't count, it counts. That is really what we are doing here. But we all know that Member voting behavior is far more subtle than my colleagues have led on. A recent academic study of voting patterns in the 103rd Congress showed that while the Delegate voting rule was in place, there was a drastic increase in the number of votes retaken in the House. While there were only three automatic revotes pursuant to the Delegate voting rule, there were a total of 75 votes taken in the Committee of the Whole that were retaken in the House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, on those revotes, the study shows there was an average of 31 switches per vote, and that out of the 435 Members, 403 switched their vote at least once, and that there was an average of 3.9 switches per Member. While the Democrats will argue that the Delegate voting rule had no effect on the switching, there is no doubt that the rule change drastically increased the number of revotes here in the House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, if we want to grant the Delegates the right to vote, we have, I clearly believe, two options: Either they need to start the path towards statehood, or we need to change the United States Constitution. I know full well, Madam Speaker, that both of them are long, difficult paths, but they are clearly preferable to this parlor trick of a rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee knows I have the highest regard for him. I was simply quoting an academic study underscoring the fact that we very much need to have a greater opportunity for deliberation on this issue, rather than moving without any hearings whatsoever. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a very hardworking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Fort Yukon, Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote on the previous question. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Mc Govern

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I am very, very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, our good friend Mr. Fortuno. (Mr. FORTUNO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a former member of the Rules Committee, we miss him greatly upstairs, our good friend from Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Massachusetts how many speakers he has remaining.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.