David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I first say to my friend from Texas (Mr. Doggett) that this notion that we are going to stay just as long as President Bush wants us to stay and not a day longer, well, actually, what President Bush has said is that we will stay as long as necessary and not a day longer. And that was part of the initial strategy that was launched on his speech on the 26th of February 2003. And it is very, very clear that the President of Iraq has said that any kind of artificial timetable would, in fact, jeopardize the prospect of democracy.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my friend. I will simply say that I believe we should do everything we can to pursue the deliberative process here. I believe that the Rules Committee does that. We have a management responsibility. We bring resolutions through the Rules Committee. If there is controversy, I believe that recognizing our strategy for victory in Iraq is the right thing to do. People in Iraq, our men and women on the ground, recognize that. I believe it is the right thing to do and I look forward to a strong and overwhelming bipartisan vote in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I will say that the President has said in that speech that we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not 1 day longer. That is very clear to me, and so it is obvious. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the very, very able fighter for freedom, our great friend from Springdale, South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my very good friend from California by saying, first and foremost, there is nothing ugly and divisive about the debate that we are about to undertake, that we are in the midst of right now, number one. Number two, I think it is important to note that while all of the recommendations that were made by the minority were rejected, I have just been given by the staff of the International Relations Committee an outline of those two recommendations that were made. They were to entirely delete the resolved No. 6 clause in the resolution, which was the language that I read which says that we cannot establish an artificial timetable for withdrawal, which is exactly what President Talabani said in his piece, number one. And, number two, it underscored the fact that there was a desire from the minority to change the goal of achieving victory to establishing stability in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for us to note that there should be, in fact, complete bipartisanship in our goal to not have an artificial timetable complying with the request of our men and women on the ground there along with President Talabani, as well as making sure that we achieve victory in Iraq. Nothing, nothing, has to be divisive about this debate. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of the day, an overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives will support this, because we want to do more than simply pat our men and women in uniform on the back and pat the Iraqi people on the back. We want to talk about the importance of sustaining what took place yesterday for the future of Iraq.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield a minute to my friend from California as well.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to these statements made about public opinion polls, I would like to point to my colleagues the ABC News poll about which my friend referred. Seventy-one percent of the Iraqis polled said that their lives were very good or quite good; 61 percent reported the security situation is very good or quite good in the area where they reside; 64 percent said they expect their lives to be much or somewhat better a year from now. I know that my friend from Ohio is introducing a resolution, he spoke about it earlier today, talking about the independence and the Iraqis making a choice as far as our presence. The Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, made it very clear in an editorial that he wrote in the Wall Street Journal. He said: ``A timetable will aid the terrorists and tell them that all they have to do is wait. Military plans must be flexible. We should have the suppleness to respond to the often-changing level of terrorist threat.'' That is not an American military leader making that statement. That is the President of Iraq. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished chairman of the Republican Study Committee, my friend from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield? I have yielded 2 minutes to the gentleman. I think he still has time. I just would like to say that I believe that the resolution that has been brought forward is one which recognizes the directive, the call from the President of Iraq. It recognizes the sense of the men and women in uniform who are on the ground there. And I believe that an overwhelming majority, and I will say to my friend, there may be some Republicans who choose to vote against this measure. I don't know that every Republican is going to vote in support of this resolution, but this resolution underscores the importance of victory in Iraq.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my friend. First of all, let me say that as a member of the Rules Committee, I am very proud of this democratic, small ``d,'' institution; and I am very proud of the work of the Rules Committee. I would like to say that in this session of Congress more amendments offered by Democrats have been made in order than amendments offered by Republicans. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that as my friend talks about ideas being shut out, that is a mischaracterization of what has happened here. We have come forward with a sense of the Congress resolution, a simple resolution is what it is. I would like to share with my colleagues, since we are talking about the process of democracy in Iraq and the process of democracy here in the United States of America and in the people's House, according to the Congressional Research Service, they state on simple resolutions, ``Simple resolutions express nonbinding opinions on policies or issues (the `sense' of the House or Senate) or deal with the internal affairs or prerogatives of the House. For example, they are used to establish select and special committees, appoint the members of standing committees, and amend the standing rules. In the House, the Rules Committee reports its special rules in the form of simple resolutions.'' This is a simple resolution which I believe is going to enjoy strong bipartisan support. Democrats and Republicans will, I believe, in overwhelming numbers support this resolution which simply says, Mr. Speaker, that we recognize the incredible sacrifice by our troops, we recognize the incredible sacrifice and suffering that the Iraqi people encountered under Saddam Hussein and the struggle that they have gone through over the past 3 years. And it recognizes what has been clearly stated by Iraq's President, by our men and women in uniform and by the people of Iraq, and that is establishing some artificial timetable would undermine the process of democracy. One must look at the letter which has gotten a great deal of attention that was sent from the number two operative in al Qaeda, Mr. Zawahari to the lead operative for al Qaeda in Iraq, the center of terrorism from Zarqawi. And he has said in that letter, Democracy is coming and there will be no excuse for violence thereafter. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that we do everything that we can for the stability of Iraq, the stability of the region, and the stability of the world, that we must maintain that path towards democracy. The coalition forces, the Iraqi security forces are making that happen.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I do so to simply focus on the issue that is constantly raised here, and that is, the notion that we somehow impose closed rules on every piece of legislation. There have been 113 rules considered on the House floor in the first session of the 109th Congress. With the exception of those rules which by statute or simple resolutions or appropriation continuing resolutions, 10 percent of those 113 rules have been closed rules. We allow for a free floor in debate. More Democratic amendments than Republican amendments have been made in order. So we are enjoying democracy right here in the people's House, and the people of Iraq are enjoying the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I have seen these buttons that my colleagues on the other side have been wearing, although I do not see them wearing it this morning, but they wore them last night, that says, debate Iraq. I just listened to a statement by my friend from Massachusetts, and I would say what is it that we are doing right now? We have just gone through a very rigorous debate on the Defense appropriations process. It was considered under an open amendment process. We have gone through the Defense authorization process, and we have had a full debate on that. Every single day on the House floor at least one Member stands up to outline his or her position on the issue of Iraq. We are debating it constantly here, and it is a very healthy and important debate for us to have. Mr. Speaker, as I have been listening to this debate, which has been taking place over the past hour, a name sticks in my mind. The name is J.P. Blecksmith. J.P. Blecksmith is a young marine who was tragically killed in one of the biggest battles in Iraq a year ago last month. It was the battle of Fallujah, and since he died, I have gotten to know his family, and his parents have repeatedly said to me personally, have gone on television and said this, that in the name of their courageous son who is a marine killed in the battle of Fallujah, it would be absolutely reprehensible for the United States of America to cut and run, for us to leave Iraq on some artificial timetable. So, Mr. Speaker, today is a day of celebration. I cannot understand why my colleagues would say that the following line is somehow contentious. It simply says, while congratulating the Iraqi people for this overwhelming success that they had yesterday, congratulating our men and women in uniform and the Iraqi security forces and the coalition forces, it says basically what President Talabani of Iraq has said in a Wall Street Journal editorial. The resolution says, Setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq. What is contentious about that? I cannot understand why anyone would believe, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot come together with a strong bipartisan vote, making sure that the success that we enjoyed on January 30 and October 15 and just yesterday in Iraq is sustained. We know that Mr. Zarqawi has made it very, very clear that, as democracy blossoms, terrorism will come to an end. So let us do everything within our power to support this resolution, to support our troops, to support the sustained victory of the people in Iraq. I urge support of this resolution.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 619 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. I look forward to it.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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, yesterday was an extraordinary day not only in the history of Iraq but the history of the world. We saw the third free and fair election take place in the country of Iraq, and for the first time in the history of that nation we saw the people of Iraq choose their own leaders. On January 30 of this year, there were many people who thought it could not happen, there were many terrorist attacks, and it actually was slow in coming. As you will recall, the pictures that we saw of voting stations where early on no one voted, but ultimately 8.5 million Iraqis voted to put into place a coalition government that was charged with the task of fashioning a constitution, a constitution that would work to bring together the very disparate factions that exist within Iraq, the three that we know of, the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurdish populations, and of course the other divisions that exist in the country. Mid-summer, we saw the work on that constitution proceed. We saw the August date approach. There were problems, difficulties. And then we saw the October 15 election rapidly approach, and people from all over the world, including leaders of the U.S. forces there, were uncertain as to whether or not the Iraqi people would in fact ratify their constitution. Mr. Speaker, we saw a 64 percent voter turnout, roughly 10 million Iraqis voting, and 78 percent of the people of Iraq from throughout the country among all of those three disparate factions within the country came together and overwhelmingly, with a 78 percent vote, ratified that constitution. The existence of that constitution called for parliamentary elections to take place, and for, as I said, the first time in the nation's history we yesterday saw the Iraqi people choose their own leaders, a 275-member parliamentary assembly. Mr. Speaker, we do not know yet the exact outcome of that election, but there are a number of very important things we do know about yesterday's election. We thought that there would be wide-ranging terrorist attacks, when in fact there were very few if any difficulties with the election at all when it came to attacks. We saw something that came as a great surprise to so many people, and that was a 70 percent voter turnout. Mr. Speaker, 11 million Iraqis voted in this election. If one looks at where it is that we are headed, it is an amazing testament to what the United States of America and our Coalition Forces have done. We, as a body, strongly support our troops; and we, as a body, strongly support the mission of our troops. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do, at this point, is share with my colleagues the resolution that, if we approve this rule, will be considered. It is a resolution introduced by the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. And I should say parenthetically that our thoughts and prayers are with Chairman Hyde right now as he is going through a very difficult situation in his family. But in his absence, I know that from the International Relations Committee our colleague from Miami (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) came before the Rules Committee last night and testified on behalf of this resolution; and she was joined by the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. DREIER. I will in just a moment. We have got a limited amount of time. I look forward to engaging my friend, but I promised the former Secretary of State of Michigan that I would yield 2\1/2\ minutes to her. At this point I would like to do that and then would look forward to any comments that my friend would offer.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding, and I thank him for the work he has done on this and a wide range of other very important issues. We have by virtue of calling up this rule begun the debate on what is clearly one of the most contentious, challenging, and difficult issues that we will face as an institution. We know that this is a volatile issue, but it is one that does need to be addressed. This has really come to the forefront since September 11 of 2001, a renewed focus on something that is critically important for any nation, and that is the security of its borders. But in light of what we went through on September 11 and in light of the fact that we are in the midst of the global war on terror, there is a renewed understanding of how great the threat is to us. We have just this week passed the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act which is an important step in dealing with that. We have been able to put into place by virtue of seeing our friend from New York (Mr. King) here, that he ably chairs the Committee on Homeland Security, a Department of Homeland Security. We have made major modifications in the way we deal with the security of our borders. And yet we continue to have a very serious problem with the security of our borders. The thing that is very, very troubling for many of us is the prospect of seeing this debate degenerate into something that it should not be. I believe that we need to have a full recognition of the rights of every human being. I believe that it is absolutely essential for us to realize that 98 percent of the people who enter this country illegally enter here with one goal and one goal only, and that is to feed their families, to make a better life for themselves, to see their economic standing improve. In light of that, Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we can deal with the issue of the demand side on this question of border security and immigration reform in an important way. Much of what we are going to be doing in considering this legislation is focused on the supply side, trying to put a fence at the areas that are most dangerous. I am joining my colleague from California, Mr. Hunter, and several others, Mr. Royce. I know Mr. Gingrey will be supportive of our amendment, to focus as we have along the 14-mile stretch from the Pacific Ocean to the Otay Mesa at San Diego. We will be having an amendment that will deal with that. It is important that we do other things to focus on the supply side, but it is also equally important for us to focus on the demand side, the magnet that draws people into this country illegally. And it is also important for us to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there is an economic demand that exists in the United States of America for a workforce. That is why as we proceed with this debate, I hope that we can recognize the dignity of everyone involved while doing all that we can to secure our borders and stem the flow of illegal immigration, in fact, bring an end to illegal immigration. That is our goal. Our goal is to see an end to this kind of illegal action that has taken place. It is my sense that beginning with border security, which is what this measure that we are going to be considering does, it starts with that process. I happen to think that as we look towards moving this legislation to the President's desk, it should include comprehensive reform. Sitting on the front row here is my very good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), who is in his last term here. He, unfortunately, has chosen to retire, but one of the issues that he has championed is the recognition that an economic demand that exists in the United States of America is addressed. That is why I happen to concur that a responsible, non-amnesty-granting, temporary worker program is the right thing to do. I believe it is in our national security interest. Why? We regularly hear, Mr. Speaker, about the 11 million people who are in this country illegally. We know that we have not seen a terrorist from Mexico in the United States, and that is something that I think is important for us to underscore again and again and again so the people do not engage in the demonization of Mexico and Mexicans, but I think it is important for us to realize that there is the threat that a terrorist could, in fact, be among the 11 million people who are in this country illegally. That is why a responsible, non-amnesty-granting, temporary worker program allows people to come from the shadows, and it allows them to become part of society without making them American citizens but, in fact, focusing on the need for their work and the need for our security. So, Mr. Speaker, as this debate proceeds, I hope very much that we are able to recognize the importance of security of our borders, recognize the importance of ending the problems of illegal immigration. We all have story after story, and I can tell my colleagues, coming from southern California, we have tremendous problems that have been inflicted, whether it is dealing with Mexican nationals who have reportedly killed law enforcement agents like Deputy Sheriff David March 3 months ago and fled into the country of Mexico, or dealing with the onerous responsibility of providing services to people who are here illegally and then, of course, other crime, and then, as I said a moment ago, the threat of terrorism. We need to deal with these issues. But let us do the first step by focusing on border security, and then as we move ahead with this legislation, look comprehensively at the need to address this very, very challenging question.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my friend from California (Mr. Farr). We look forward to when we can tear this down. We want to be able to tear this down when we see an end to illegal drug trafficking, when we see an end to illegal crossings of our border, when we see economies of scale because of trade. But until that time, because of the success that we have seen with the 14-mile border fence from the Pacific Ocean to the Otay Mesa, it is absolutely essential that we build on that success. We are in the midst of completing that 3\1/2\ mile gap, and Mr. Hunter has just referred to the diminution that we have seen in cars running across the border and people running across the border at that fence. This is a humanitarian issue as well. It is humanitarian because when we look at the 1,500 people, fellow human beings, who have died in the desert because of the fact that they have crossed illegally into our country, the existence of these fences at the most dangerous spots along our 2,000-mile border will go a long way toward saving the lives of our fellow human beings. It is absolutely essential that we do all that we can to strengthen our relationship in trade, to strengthen our relationship in working with the Mexican Government; but when we have a problem that is killing people, literally killing people, and costing the United States of America billions of dollars, the existence of this fence is the right thing to do. And I do anxiously look forward when we see things improved to our saying that we can completely tear down this wall.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Georgia for yielding me this time. I listened very, very closely to the remarks offered by my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and I have to say that every Member of this House is committed to the national security of the United States. That is our number one responsibility, our priority. But I will go so far as to say every single Member of this House is committed to recognizing the civil liberties of the American people. When this issue came to the forefront just a few weeks after September 11, 2001, the now Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and vice chairman of the Rules Committee, our very good friend, Mr. Goss, argued that he believed we should begin with permanence at that point, and I argued then that I thought it important that we focus on sunsetting provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act. Why? Because we were looking at this issue literally weeks after the worst attack on our soil. So, Mr. Speaker, as we moved ahead, we said we should have these sunset provisions, and we put them into place, and they were very important and helpful. One of the reasons we did it is we wanted to see what kinds of civil liberties were being violated as we focused on our number one priority, that being our national security. And I am very happy to report that, as we look at what has transpired since implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act, it is the following: we have provided every opportunity for any American to raise concern, talk about violations of their civil liberties by going on the Worldwide Web, filing any kind of complaint. And there has not been one instance, not one complaint has been leveled, against the provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act as evidence of violating civil liberties. I consider myself a small ``l'' libertarian Republican. I want to do everything in my power to ensure that we recognize the rights of our individuals. But we have to remember that this measure is exactly what Mr. McGovern said it should be. It is a delicate balancing act between our goal of recognizing the importance of our national security and at the same time focusing on civil liberties. That is why we see the 4- year sunset for the so-called Lone Wolf provision, for the roving wiretap provision, for the so-called library provision. These measures that are in there are designed to force us to look at them again. But, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to say that we cannot look at this again, as one of my staff members just said to me, next week if we so choose. Now, the United States Congress pursues oversight with great diligence. I was shocked last night when the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee said that there had been no oversight by the Judiciary Committee of the USA PATRIOT Act. And Chairman Sensenbrenner, who has done a phenomenal job on this, went through the litany of oversight hearings that have gone on between first implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and today and will continue, will continue as we see this measure pass. So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this does create that fine balancing act that we have recognized, and we do know that at the same time sacrifices have been made. Every single American who travels today has made a sacrifice, because of the fact that we are in the midst of a global war on terror, by virtue of going through the security to get on an airplane. We have had to make sacrifices. Professor Harvey Mansfield of Harvard wrote about the need to make those sacrifices when we are in the midst of war. And we know that this is an ongoing global war on terror; but we cannot, as we pursue that war, move to undermine the great liberties and rights of the American people. This measure strikes that balance, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the underlying bill.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I thank and congratulate my great friend from Florida, such a hardworking member of the Rules Committee, and I thank all those involved in this effort, which I hope at the end of the day will be bipartisan. Because we all know that of that proverbial saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. As I listened to the pathetic, and that is really the only way you can describe it, the pathetic old class warfare, us versus them argument, cleaning yachts and mowing lawns and all this stuff. The facts are 56.9 million American families, 56.9 million American families, nearly 60 percent of American families are members of the investor class. The investor class, people who have some kind of investment. And, Mr. Speaker, 30 percent, 30 percent of the members of the investor class earn less than $50,000 a year. Now, those are the ultra rich we continue to hear about who might benefit from job creations. I will tell you that if you look at the arguments that were made, and I listened to my good friend from Rochester, Ms. Slaughter, in her opening statement in which she talked about investing in all these important things, of course we all want to invest in the future. But she said, do not invest in the rich. Well, the fact of the matter is we are encouraging investment with this because we want to do everything we possibly can to make sure that those people who are out there creating jobs have the incentive to do that. And we also need to look at long-term planning. People can stand up and malign the dividend cuts and the capital gains cuts, but I actually believe we should have no tax on capital gains at all. It is a double tax and, frankly, it discourages growth. I will never forget a few years ago visiting New Zealand, which is certainly a left of center government. The prime minister there, Prime Minister Clark, well, let us just say she is not what you would call center right. But I met with a number of people in New Zealand, and I raised with them the prospect of establishing a capital gains. They have zero capital gains there. They said that they did a study in New Zealand and found that the mere establishment of a capital gains tax would be devastating to the economy of New Zealand. And all we are saying is we should allow people for another couple of years to plan at a 15 percent capital gains rate. Mr. Speaker, we know, as we look at the arguments that were provided in 2001, 2002, 2003, that our wonderful colleagues on the other side of the aisle regularly said the following things: Number one, if you put into place these tax cuts, the economy is going to head straight into the tank. And I listened to my friend from Oregon go through the Herbert Hoover argument, and I thought we had sort of beaten that one back in the 2004 campaign when in the last 3 years we have seen the creation of 4\1/2\ million jobs under the payroll survey guideline and 5 million jobs under the household survey guideline. I thought we had pretty much beaten that argument back, but obviously, they are continuing to try and dredge this up. They said that if we put into place this tax cut that the economy would go into the tank and the deficit would go sky high. We know the exact opposite has been the case. We, in fact, have had a reduction of $94 billion in the deficit simply because of economic growth, simply because of the enhanced flow of revenues to come into the Federal Treasury. Now, obviously, we are not going to see probably the best improvement in the deficit number next year because of Hurricane Katrina and other costs that we have faced, and we are doing everything we can, so many of us, to try to rein in mandatory spending with the reconciliation process we have gone through, and to try to do what we can on both discretionary as well as mandatory, as I said. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the single most important thing that we can do to deal with the challenges of investing in all those things that Ms. Slaughter mentioned, is to make sure that the economy continues to grow. I can think of nothing, nothing worse for the potential future growth of our economy than to not pass this measure. So if you believe in bringing unemployment down even further, if you believe in seeing the already record level of minority home ownership go even higher, if you believe in enhanced productivity and incentives for that, it is absolutely essential that this rule and this legislation be passed. So I commend it to my colleagues. The tired old arguments of the past are not carrying any weight at all with the American people, I am happy to say. They get it. They understand it. So that is why we should have Democrats join with Republicans in doing the right thing here.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, let me just say that it is fascinating to listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle who, when we were in the midst of our debate just a few minutes ago on the alternative minimum tax, they were very strong proponents of making sure we bring about reform so that people who are in that wage rate that goes all the way up to $342,000 a year get relief under the AMT. So I believe that if you look at the jobs that have been created, if you look at the wage rates that we have right now in the United States, if you look at the standard of living in the United States of America juxtaposed to other countries in the world, it is very clear that the United States of America is the single greatest Nation on the face of the Earth, and it is in large part due to the fact that we have over the last several years put together a wide range of trade agreements. And I would argue that building on the Central American Free Trade Agreement, this Bahrain trade agreement, which is what we are talking about at this moment, I believe is very, very critical to continuing that kind of growth. Now, let us look at the issue of the global war on terror. My friend from Wisconsin raised that. Now, one of the things that is essential as we seek our opportunity to try and turn the corner on the threat of terrorism, we need to focus on economic growth throughout the Middle East. A former Defense Department official said to me when we were talking about the aftermath of September 11, 2001, that if we had seen a percentage point or two more growth in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we might have been able to diminish the threat of September 11. Why? Because there is a sense that somehow those involved in international terrorism are simply doing this in the name of Allah. All one needs to do is look at what Mohammed Atta and his cronies were doing before perpetuating the most heinous act on our soil on September 11 of 2001. It is not as if they were worshipping Allah. I recall their being in south Florida and Las Vegas, Nevada, leading up to that; meaning the focus on economic opportunity is something that we need to realize can help diminish that kind of terrorist threat there. And that is a very important part of what this agreement is about. Now, I have to say that realizing that the rule of law, the expansion of parliamentary elections, all of those kinds of things which can help diminish that kind of threat are critical, and that is a very important part of this agreement. So as I listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle, and I am happy to say this agreement is enjoying strong bipartisan support, but as I listen to those on the other side of the aisle who are opposed to this agreement, it is very unfortunate that so many of them do not recognize the tremendous growth that my friend from Florida, the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, just went through: the 4.3 percent GDP growth, a 5 percent unemployment rate, 215,000 jobs created last month alone in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and all of the other challenges that we faced, that these have come about in large part due to the trade agreements that we have put into place. And why? Because we are opening up new markets around the world. And I thank my friend very much.

Mr. DREIER. The gentleman posed the question, and I am happy to respond to that question, and then I will continue with my statement. On average, jobs that are focused on exports into new markets, which is exactly what these agreements are all about, exactly what these agreements are all about, on average, these jobs focused on exports pay about 17 percent higher wage rates than those that are focused on jobs that are merely designed for domestic consumption here.