David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding and thank him for his fine management of this very important rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule which provides for an open amendment process. Any germane amendment that any Member chooses to offer will in fact be debated and voted upon here in the House. So understand that Members under the rules of the House will have an opportunity to amend this legislation as they see fit. I was very happy to hear praise for the bill from my good friend from Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Mr. Hastings) as well as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) and an understanding that at the end of the day there will be bipartisan support for this legislation. We know full well that this is a piece of legislation that is often misunderstood by many Americans. There is a belief that somehow we expend 10 to 15 percent of the Federal budget on foreign assistance, on foreign aid; and there is a belief that we are taking our hard-earned tax dollars and sending them down a rat hole when, in fact, there needs to be an understanding that the foreign operations bill is comprised of less than 1 percent of the entire Federal budget. I believe that the chairman and ranking member have done a great job in putting together a bill, and I will do exactly what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) said and say correctly that with the resources that are limited, we frankly have done, I believe, extraordinarily well. There is a reason that resources are limited when it comes to the Federal budget. It is not, as my friend from Florida said, because of reckless and irresponsible policies that President Bush and the Republicans have put forward. It is the fact that both Democrats and Republicans are regularly saying that we need to bring about a reduction in the Federal deficit. We cannot continue to have deficit spending. Now, the so-called reckless and irresponsible policies that have been categorized as that by my good friend are policies that have actually brought the Federal deficit to a level that is $73 billion lower than had been anticipated and projected in February. First, we saw in April a reduction of $50 billion; and then just 2 weeks ago, we got the report of an additional $23 billion reduction in the Federal deficit. Why? Because of the fact that we have seen strong, bold economic growth. We have a 3.5 percent GDP growth rate taking place in this country, and we also have seen the unemployment rate at 5.1 percent, lower than the average unemployment rate through the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. And so this view, somehow, that we have created more problems when it comes to the deficit, we not only have not created more problems; we have got the deficit on a downward slope, we are still fighting the war on terror, and we are meeting these very important obligations. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) was absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, when he talked about the great trip that we took in traveling throughout the Middle East, going to Israel and the Palestinian territories. We were also in Egypt. I believe that the aid package that we have here for both Israel and Egypt is very important, and I would like to compliment my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, for his effort to focus resources on the democratization that is taking place in Egypt. We know that for the first time ever, we in September are going to see multicandidate elections take place in Egypt. I believe that that is a clear sign that the policies that we have been pursuing under President Bush in creating a chance for 8.5 million Iraqis to vote has been a very positive thing. We know that today marks the first anniversary of the transition from the Coalition Provisional Authority to Iraqi sovereignty, which is a very, very important thing to mark. Obviously, we have tragically seen terrorist activities take place throughout the past year which have been designed to bring about destabilization. But because of what we have done, because of the resolve, and the President will be talking about this tonight in his nationally televised address from Fort Bragg, we as a Nation are determined to see political pluralism, the rule of law and the building of democratic institutions; and the effort that the gentleman from Wisconsin has put into that when it comes to Egypt is, I think, a very, very important one. I also want to talk about the issue that was raised by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), that being the concern that we all have over this issue of a shortfall in funding for our veterans. Mr. Speaker, we all know, Democrats and Republicans alike, that there is a great responsibility that we have to our veterans. Our veterans have shed their blood and shared their courage for the good of our country. They have given us our enduring freedom, and it is our duty to honor our country's commitment to them. It is our duty to do that. Now, just this morning at 9 o'clock, we have seen the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the very, very distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that deals with this issue, the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, hold a hearing focusing on the need to address this issue. We did, unfortunately, get this report of the shortfall, but it is important to note what it is that we have done for our Nation's veterans. We passed by a vote of 425-1 the military quality of life appropriations bill. That legislation includes over $28 billion for the Veterans Health Administration, including $21 billion for medical services. Medical services are actually funded in the legislation at $1.6 billion above the current fiscal year. Over the last 2 years, funding for medical care for veterans has increased by 18 percent. That does not in any way diminish the fact that we have unfortunately gotten this report of the $1 billion shortfall; but, Mr. Speaker, it makes it very clear that we as an institution have a responsibility to encourage the Veterans Administration to have a degree of accountability. When you provide $28 billion in resources, $21 billion for medical services, an increase of 18 percent over the last 2 years, it seems to me that steps need to be taken to ensure that we, in fact, look at and understand this problem of the $1 billion shortfall. We should not continue to subsidize what obviously is a problem. That is why there is a strong commitment. The White House is committed to dealing with this issue. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the chairman of the authorizing committee, is very determined to deal with this issue. And I believe that we have done the correct thing by saying the funds will be available through using surpluses that the Veterans Administration has and other operational funds while we try to deal with the challenge of this $1 billion shortfall. There will be some who will try to claim that we are ignoring the problem of the $1 billion shortfall that has been announced if we do not defeat the previous question and turn back this rule. Nothing could be further from the truth. We face the problem head-on. We are going to responsibly deal with it working together in a bipartisan way with the executive branch and the legislative branch to ensure that we can address this issue. I urge support of this rule. I thank my friend for his leadership that he has shown on this and a wide range of very important foreign policy issues. I will close with one point that I raised with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) when he testified and, that is, I am very proud that Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi have come together to establish a task force, a commission that is geared towards seeing the United States House of Representatives directly provide technical assistance and other expertise to emerging parliaments in these new democracies that are taking place around the world, and there are very important resources for that that are included in this bill. I would like to thank my colleagues who have been involved in that. I urge support of both the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest opposition to the Miller amendment. Five unions have been involved in the negotiation process here to ensure that over 60,000 people are able to keep their jobs and a very, very important company continues to remain alive. There is one union that has chosen not to be supportive of this. The fact that one union is not supportive of this agreement working between United Airlines and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has now created a scenario where we want to take the entire package down, and I believe that it would undermine a very important part of the commerce of the United States of America. We all know how important the airline is to the very vibrant economy that we have today. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Miller amendment and let us proceed to ensure that we do not see 62,000 people lose their jobs.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time and thank him for his very strong commitment to this institution and our country. That is really what this legislation is all about. The legislative branch appropriations bill is about the funding for the first branch of government. People often do not focus attention on the realization that article 1 of the U.S. Constitution is in fact the first branch, and we have a very important constitutional responsibility, and that is what this legislation is all about. As we looked at addressing this rule, it is a very fair and balanced rule which makes in order five amendments, makes in order amendments that will allow for the opportunity to address a wide range of issues that we obviously have a responsibility to address institutionally. One of the amendments that we chose to make in order is an amendment that was offered by our friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). I believe it important that he again have an opportunity to address an issue that, frankly, has already been addressed by this institution. It has to do with the question of the continuity of Congress. As we sit here, I was just in a meeting with the Attorney General a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, and we were talking about September 11 and the PATRIOT Act and the challenges with which we contend on a regular basis, and one of the great tragic challenges that we do not even like to ponder is what would happen if there were to be an attack that would hit this building and that would see the loss of large numbers of Members of the people's House, the United States House of Representatives. We passed, with nearly every Republican and 122 Democrats supporting, legislation that we call the Continuity of Congress legislation. It calls for special elections to be held on an expedited basis in the districts, where, when we have seen in excess of 100 Members of the United States House of Representatives killed, it would kick into place the structure that would allow for those special elections to take place in those States across the country that have been impacted. Again, we do not like to think about this, we do not like to think about the possibility of this kind of attack, but we have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to this institution, to the Constitution, and to the American people to do just that. So what we have done is we have said, hold these elections, plan for these elections, and then the United States House of Representatives will remain exactly what it was envisaged as by James Madison, the Father of our Constitution. He is the author, wrote the Constitution, and spent a great deal of time thinking about these issues. And one of the things that he was very careful about was in realizing that every single Federal office that exists can see someone attain that office by appointment. We all know that in the other body, the United States Senate, the body of the States, if a vacancy occurs, if someone resigns, if they are killed, pass away, whatever, if there is a vacancy, the Governors of States make those appointments. We all learned in 1973 with the resignation of Spiro Agnew as Vice President that the then-minority leader in the House of Representatives, Gerald Ford, was, by appointment, made Vice President, and then when the resignation of President Nixon took place in 1974, Gerald Ford became President of the United States, having never had a single vote cast for him by the American people other than confirmation in the United States Senate. The House of Representatives is the only Federal office where you must be elected by the people to serve. That is why this Madisonian vision of making sure that this is the body of the people was maintained. That is what the legislation that we have passed again with a very strong bipartisan vote here is designed to accomplish. Unfortunately, since March, we have seen this legislation languish in the Senate, and we have not been able to have the kind of success that we believe is important to get what is a House issue addressed. It is not even a Senate issue. It is an issue for the House of Representatives. So what we have done is we have decided that the Appropriations Committee in its great wisdom include this continuity of Congress legislation with the legislative branch appropriations bill. I believe that in so doing, when we pass this bill to the Senate, we will have a chance to put into place very, very important continuity legislation for this institution. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) sees it differently. He would like to amend the U.S. Constitution, an amendment to the Constitution that would call for Members of the House of Representatives to serve here in a way that is other than an elective capacity. They would be appointed to serve here. I just think that that goes clearly against James Madison's vision for this institution, and I hope very much that we are able to maintain the language that has passed again with strong bipartisan support and is included in this. But there will be an amendment that is offered by the gentleman from Washington to strike that, and I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose that amendment that he will be offering. Again, if you look at the level of funding that we have for the legislative branch appropriations bill, it is actually lower than was requested by the President in his budget. So this is a very fiscally responsible bill. I believe that it is a correct measure for us to take. I urge support of this rule, it makes a number of amendments in order, and support of the bill itself.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by yielding 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, with whom I have been very pleased to work on this issue really since September 11, 2001.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for yielding me this time; and I want to congratulate him on the fine work that he has done, not only on this legislation, but on all of the appropriations bills. We have debated this issue, Mr. Chairman. We debated this issue in the 108th Congress. We have had three markups on this issue, two in the Committee on House Administration, one in the Committee on the Judiciary, and we had 122 Democrats who joined with us in support of a responsible piece of legislation which, in fact, encourages the Madisonian vision of an elected people's House. Now, I heard my friend from Wisconsin talk about the fact that if we are going to pass this legislation, he would support it if we went ahead with a constitutional amendment. It was the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations who just said we had that debate. Sixty-three Members of this House chose to support a constitutional amendment. The only reason that we are here at this moment having this debate is that the other body has refused, last year and since March of this year, to proceed with acting on this House's housekeeping matter. It is a housekeeping matter for the House of Representatives to maintain the process of elections. Now, I think that if we look at the debate that we have had, if we look at the fact that we have continued since September 11 of 2001 to focus on a wide range of matters that impact this institution and the challenge that we never faced in our history, I believe that having this very important legislation that was passed by a margin of 329 in this Congress, 329 to 68, that including it now in the legislative appropriations bill is the most appropriate way to deal with it. We chose in the Committee on Rules to allow the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) to have an opportunity to strike this measure; and in just a few minutes, we are going to, once again, have a vote on whether or not we allow the process of elections to go ahead. Now, it is very true, it is very true that it would be difficult, it would be messy, it would be ugly; but Walter Dellinger, the former Solicitor General, a great constitutional scholar from Duke University, made it very clear in his testimony before the Committee on Rules, when we talked about this issue, that he would prefer to see a House of Representatives that is comprised of fewer Members that are actually elected by the people than would be appointed. Now, my friend from Washington State talks about the fact that these appointed people would be running our country and we would not have elected people. Under the constitutional amendment that my friend supports, we could see this institution, the people's House, consist of individuals who are appointed making decisions over those who are elected; and I think that is counter to the entire intention that was put forward by the Framers of our Constitution. So when this comes up, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the Baird amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, James Madison said the problems of democracy are solved with more democracy. Now, we regularly talk about the fact that the worst, the worst attack on our soil, was what took place on September 11, 2001. And it is very true that that is the case for what has happened in modern times. But I would like to remind my colleagues that the Civil War was a very tough time for the United States of America. In fact, the Battle of Antietam saw Southern troops get within miles of this Capitol. The President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, made a very firm decision at that point: Proceed with elections. He felt it very important that the American people have an opportunity to participate through elections. Now, when we think of the unthinkable, a tragic attack which would be launched against the United States of America, what is it that the people would do? Well, obviously, one would think about feeding and clothing their family, ensuring that they have a roof over their head. And, Mr. Chairman, a very important part of coming together following a tragedy is the important role of choosing one's leaders. Now, I do not believe that appointed Members should be making the decision in the people's House. Yes, they can do that as Members of the other body. Yes, that can even happen for the Chief Executive of the country. But in the people's House, no one has ever served here in our more than 200-year history without having first been elected. And this notion of creating a scenario whereby people could serve in the people's House without having first been elected is anathema to the entire basis on which the United States of America was founded. We would have to deal with a crisis, but we would come up with a compromise. Forty-nine days is the amount of time during which people could come together and hold elections and have their representative, that is why we are called representatives, their representative could come here and have the chance to serve. It is very clear to me that the House of Representatives has, as has been said, spoken. Sixty-three Members of 435 voted in favor of our proceeding with a constitutional amendment. Sixty-three Members for a constitutional amendment. We know that it takes a two-thirds vote. We found that out earlier today. And obviously that is not what the people's House wants. And so, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the Baird amendment, and create an opportunity for us to let the other body act on a House provision which is so vitally important to the deliberative nature of this great body.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the Private Calendar be dispensed with on Tuesday next.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee may meet next week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and 1 copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 3 p.m. next Tuesday, June 21, 2005. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as reported by the Appropriations Committee on Thursday, June 16, 2005, which is expected to be filed with the House on Monday, June 20, 2005. Members are also advised that the text should be available for their review on the Web sites of the Appropriations and Rules Committees by Monday, June 20, 2005. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format, and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that it appears that my very good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), is going to oppose this amendment, and I share the concern that has been raised about the issue of the funding for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. I think that oceans continue to be a high priority. We need to look at the funding level that we have at this point. As I was saying in my exchange with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), if you look at the $5.7 billion request that has been made for the Department of Commerce budget, 63 percent of that budget goes towards NOAA. It seems to me that as we look at a responsible area where we can take funds and deal with this critical priority of having the Federal Government step up to the plate and secure its border, this $50 million from administrative expenses is a minuscule amount juxtaposed to the impact that it could have on this priority. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and I have had the privilege of cochairing the California congressional delegation. I am very happy to say that since 1994, when the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding was put into place, we have been able to come together. Every single Democrat in the House and Senate from California has joined every single Republican in this House to support increased levels of funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. In fact, just last year when we had a request for $750 million, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle requested an additional $100 million. It would be nice if we could provide that support, but as the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) pointed out, we in this bill, very well crafted by the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), have $355 million, and our sole request is that we increase that from $355 million to $405 million. So I urge strong support of this measure. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), another coauthor of this amendment.

Mr. DREIER. I began with 5 minutes, and now I have 7 minutes. That sounds like a pretty good arrangement from my perspective. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the coauthor of this amendment and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair, I was a little confused by this unanimous consent request propounded by the ranking minority member, and I do not know how much time I have remaining.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to close on our side, but I yield 10 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, let me compliment the gentleman on his statement. I totally concur with those goals. The gentleman has never let me forget the importance of keeping oceans as a priority. The fact of the matter is, as we look at the $5.7 billion budget request for the Department of Commerce, 63 percent of that budget request is for NOAA, which we know is critically important. I do not in any way undermine the importance of it. I do believe, though, if you look at this $50 million in administrative expenses, this is something that clearly could be handled very, very easily within that massive budget of NOAA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis)

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to express my appreciation to the distinguished subcommittee chairman and congratulate him on his fine work, not only on this issue but the very important NASA programs about which we spoke earlier. I think this $50 million amount, which enjoys the support, I know, of the distinguished chairman of the full committee, is the right thing to do. In bringing about this reduction from NOAA, we have seen a 53 percent increase in NOAA's administrative expenses over the last 3 years, and we have seen a constant reduction in the SCAAP funding. So I believe this is the appropriate thing to do.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, securing our borders is clearly the responsibility of the Federal Government. We have had a program that was initiated in 1994 called the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP. It has done a very good job of reimbursing the States for the appropriate incarceration of illegal immigrant criminals, people who have come into this country illegally and committed crimes. We have, unfortunately, seen not the kind of increase in that level of reimbursement that we should, so this amendment proposes that we transfer an additional $50 million from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration to the SCAAP program. I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the committee for putting into place funding at the level of $355 million. I do not believe that that is adequate. I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), in support of this very important effort to have the Federal Government step up to the plate and ensure that we meet our responsibility. In my County of Los Angeles alone, it costs $150 million a year for the incarceration of these criminals, and I believe that we need to provide more resources. I hope very much that my colleagues join in support of this important amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, it is very clear, if you take my State of California, the annual cost for the incarceration of those who are here illegally and who have committed crimes is about $750 million. That is for one State alone. This is a nationwide problem, as we all know. All we are proposing is that we increase from $355 million to $405 million the effort to bring about reimbursement so that the resources at the State level, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) said, can be expended on the very important problems of dealing with the crime in the streets. We need to make sure the Federal Government secures our borders. I thank my friends, the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for joining me as cosponsors of this. Oceans are a priority, but I believe we can take this minuscule amount and deal with this very, very important societal need. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of our amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. The gentleman from West Virginia has the right to close?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in very, very strong opposition to what this resolution is attempting to do. The great economist Milton Friedman once said, ``Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, if we listen carefully to the reasons we commonly hear for abandoning our open trade agenda, it becomes very clear that Milton Friedman was absolutely right. We hear these claims all the time: Free trade agreements will leave working families without good jobs. Trade liberalization will weaken worker rights in developing countries. Lowering barriers to open trade will devastate the environment. The underlying claim is that greater economic freedom will harm Americans and our trading partners alike, but this fear of freedom is not based in fact. Following World War II, the world's major trading partners came together, the global leaders, and established the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the GATT. This agreement was designed to establish an international system of fair trade rules, pursuing that goal of the complete elimination of tariff and nontariff barriers, providing a forum for trading partners to settle any disputes that existed. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was the predecessor to what is now known as the World Trade Organization. Through trade liberalization that the GATT and the WTO have enabled, with the existence of those, have seen average tariffs in industrialized countries go from 40 percent down to 4 percent, spurring a six-fold increase in global GDP. And, of course, remember, a tariff is a tax, so by reducing that tariff burden, through the goal of the GATT and now the WTO, we have been able to reduce the tax burden on consumers throughout the world. So we have seen, by virtue of that 40 percent to 4 percent reduction, a six-fold increase in gross domestic product growth. Since the creation of the World Trade Organization 11 years ago, U.S. exports have increased by $300 billion. We have seen our exports since the establishment of the WTO increase by $300 billion. Over this time period, exports have come to support over 25 percent of the economic growth that we enjoy in the United States. Remember, we have a, virtually, almost $11 trillion economy here in the United States. 25 percent of the growth in that economy is due to exports. Open trade and investment has netted an extra $1 trillion in U.S. income every year, or about $10,000 per household, as a result of those reductions that we have seen in tariff and nontariff barriers. As the world's largest exporter and importer, the United States has the most to gain from the lower trade barriers and fairer global trade rules that the WTO brings. By reducing tariffs, strengthening intellectual property protection, and increasing transparency in all of the 148 member countries, the WTO is our largest, most comprehensive, and most effective forum for expanding markets and creating new opportunities for Americans. The WTO has also been an important tool for the United States in ensuring that international trade commitments are honored. Of the 47 WTO cases brought by the United States that have been concluded, 44 have been resolved in our favor. That is a 94 percent success rate for the United States of America within the structure of the World Trade Organization. Our WTO membership has been absolutely critical in maintaining our global economic leadership. With 80 percent of the world's economy and 95 percent of the world's consumers outside of the United States, our role in the WTO remains essential to opening new markets and expanding existing ones for U.S. producers, service providers, and investors. But the WTO is not our only forum for liberalizing trade rules and expanding foreign markets for American goods and services. The Free Trade Agreement negotiating process has long been highly successful in opening up new opportunities for Americans. We are on the forefront of I hope passing the Dominican Republic Central American Free Trade Agreement, which is critical to continuing on that path of prosperity that began with the GATT back in 1947 and has continued through the WTO, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and a wide range of bilateral agreements that we have put together over the past several years with Israel, Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Australia and Morocco, among others. DR-CAFTA will make our trading relationship with the region reciprocal by granting U.S. producers the same access to their markets that the Dominican Republic-Central American producers have long enjoyed in ours. It will boost the competitiveness and productivity of American companies and workers by providing an export and investment destination that fully respects the rule of law and protects intellectual property rights. But even more important, Mr. Speaker, it will empower the Dominican Republic-Central American countries to experience the economic growth, increased prosperity, and rising living standards that Americans have long enjoyed. All of the benefits of trade that I have described, greater family incomes, export-supported growth, transparent and fair trading rules for U.S. companies that participate in the global marketplace, these are all benefits, these are all benefits that our neighbors in Latin America deserve to enjoy along with us. Again, there are many who will argue against greater economic freedom. They will say that it will cost American jobs. They will say that workers and the environment and the DR-CAFTA bill will be devastating. They will in effect argue that the region is too poor to trade with us. But we cannot let this unfounded fear of economic freedom cause us to abandon our very important open trade agenda. We are very fortunate to have our former colleague, Rob Portman, now serving as our ambassador, as the representative, the head of focusing on the whole issue of trade, the U.S. Trade Representative for us. We have to work closely with him, through the World Trade Organization, to tear down tariff and nontariff barriers to trade. We must continue to utilize this very important forum to ensure that our trading partners stick with their commitment. Living with a rules-based trading system is the only way that we are going to be able to vigorously pursue the diminution of those barriers to the free flow of goods and services throughout the world. So, for the sake of the American people, for the sake of those throughout the world who are seeking to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder, it is absolutely imperative that the United States of America maintain its leadership role in the World Trade Organization.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the annual rush to complete action on budget, authorization and appropriations bills not only results in a poor budget process, but also reduces the amount of time available for careful oversight and management of existing Federal programs. During the 31-year history of the Budget Act, Congress has met the deadline for completion of a budget resolution only five times. Since 1953, Congress has been forced to enact continuing resolutions to fund government activities past the end of the fiscal year in every year but four (FY1953, FY1989, FY1995 and FY1997). And according to the Congressional Budget Office, Congress provided $170 billion in fiscal year 2005 appropriations for 167 statutes whose authorizations had expired. That is why I introduced the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act of 2005, which streamlines the budget process and improves the fiscal management and oversight of government programs by instituting a biennial budget system. Under the bill, the President would submit a two-year budget and Congress would consider a two-year budget resolution and 11 two-year appropriations bills during the first session. The second session would be devoted to consideration of authorization bills, programmatic oversight of government agencies and emergency spending bills. Mr. Speaker, this is a proposal we've entertained in the past, and I believe it deserves another look. By eliminating repetitive and time-consuming appropriations work, the Congress as a whole and even the appropriations subcommittees would be better able to focus on oversight. This would also contribute to more appropriate funding decisions in biennial appropriation bills and any necessary supplemental/recision legislation. As with oversight, biennial budgeting would allow more time for needed authorization legislation. In addition, the overwhelming appropriations workload every year has upset the intended balance in the role of authorizations and appropriations. Biennial budgeting would help restore the importance of the authorization process. Preparing for annual appropriations is as much or more of a drain on time and resources for Federal agencies as it is for Congress. It takes nearly three years for the Administration and Congress to produce and implement one annual budget. As a result, a great deal of time and manpower are diverted from managing existing programs, leading to delays in reform implementation and creating a slower and more bureaucratic government. Biennial budgeting would provide Federal agencies more time for program oversight, increasing agency efficiency and providing them with more stable and predictable budgets. In addition, Congress would be able to exercise better oversight over them. As recently as World War II, all but four States had biennial budgeting. The growing dependence on annually appropriated big- government programs, however, helped move many to change to annual cycles. Although this trend has reversed in recent years (today, 21 States have biennial budgets), biennial budgeting at the Federal level would help States return to this commonsense process. Even if States retain annual cycles, they will benefit from more stable and predictable Federal funding. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act of 2005. It will provide a starting point for discussions on how to improve the budget process and foster improved governance for the American people.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very fair and balanced rule that will allow us to deal with what is clearly the single most important issue that we address as a Federal Government and as a Congress. I want to begin by complimenting my very good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for his great service to the United States of America, his superb management of this rule, and his commitment to our Nation's security. I also want to compliment the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for their fine work and the fact that they have worked together so well on a wide range of very important issues. Madam Speaker, I also want to extend my congratulations to our commander in chief, George W. Bush, and our great Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. It is very clear that the United States of America over the past few years has gone through challenges the likes of which we have never in our Nation's history seen. Frankly, I believe that we are doing extraordinarily well. The Defense Authorization bill that we are going to be considering today will create an opportunity for a free-flowing debate, a wide- ranging discussion on important issues that we face. Eighty-nine amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules for consideration by 10 o'clock yesterday morning, and I am happy to say that of those 89 amendments, we have been able to take 29 of them and make them in order. Of those 29, 16 amendments were offered by Democrats that will be made in order, 13 will be offered by Republicans, and they will deal with the tough issues that we have faced. Now, the issue that my friend, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), just raised is one which has been contentious, and I believe we have been able to come to a consensus on the issue. There was a great deal of stir over this question of women in combat and what exactly we were going to do. The manager's amendment, Madam Speaker, throws out the provisions that the committee had, and it put into place a requirement that over a 60 legislative day period, the United States Congress will be involved in any kind of change in the policy of women in combat that will be on the horizon. Secretary Rumsfeld has made it very clear publicly that he does not support any kind of change, and I believe that the action that we will see in the passage of the manager's amendment will help to ensure that that will take place. I also have to say, Madam Speaker, that we are in a position today where we have just gotten the report issued from the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, and we know that there are concerns that have come to the forefront from a number of our Members on the recommendations of the BRAC Commission. As we begin debate on this bill, we will allow for a wide-ranging discussion on the issue of base realignment and closure. The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), have a BRAC amendment that is made in order, so that we will be able to discuss that here. Madam Speaker, the five most important words in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution are ``provide for the common defense.'' There is nothing that we do that is more important than providing for the common defense. Virtually every issue that we address can be handled by some other level of government, but local governments and State governments cannot provide for the common defense. That is why it is so important that we step up to the plate, have bipartisan support for this rule which will allow for free-flowing debate, and do everything that we can to ensure that we get a great Defense Authorization bill to the President of the United States.