David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And the case I would make is I think that Mr. Dobbs is wrong in coming to the conclusion that he has, but that is what the debate is all about.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the main reason is that those circumstances do not exist in Chile. It is not necessary. It is not necessary to address those issues.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and I welcome her to this body. I know she is a new Member here. I would say that the conclusions that have been drawn I believe are totally inaccurate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that my friend's statement is right on target. I would like to congratulate him on a couple of points that he made. First of all, realizing that 90 percent of the world's consumers are outside of U.S. borders. What that means is that as 150 countries have embarked on these free trade agreements and we have been a party to only three of them, we have been left behind the eight ball. I know my California colleague (Mr. George Miller) was talking about workers. I see my friend from Toledo here who is about to speak. We all are focused on jobs and workers. Obviously, the agriculture sector of our economy is a critically important job creator; and I believe that, as my friend has pointed out, creating a chance to get into Chile's market along with dealing with surge safeguards so that we are not seeing a disproportionate negative impact on the United States will in fact inure to the benefit of workers here. I thank my friend and appreciate his service as cochair along with me with the U.S.-Mexico caucus, underscoring the benefits of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. I look forward to that. And we want to work very closely on that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me, and I appreciate his engaging me on this issue. We did have a nice discussion upstairs in the Committee on Rules last night on this issue, and I was proud to underscore the fact that bringing about economic liberalizations through greater trade did in fact lead to political liberalization and to one-party rule. My friend has raised the issue of tomatoes, and I appreciate his acknowledging the freeze and the impact that that had on the tomato industry in Florida. One of the challenges I have found, Mr. Speaker, is that there are many people who like to blame every single ailment of society on the North American Free Trade Agreement. I would argue that while I know that there have been great challenges that the tomato industry has faced in Florida, it is important for us to realize that being able to compete in the global marketplace is a priority. And I am not here in this job, and I do not believe we as policymakers should have the protection of one industry over another as a priority. And so I believe that quite frankly it may not have been the mere existence of the North American Free Trade Agreement that created the challenges that have existed in that area. Many in agriculture have made this claim to us that it is NAFTA that created this, that NAFTA is responsible for that. It is clearly because of the fact that the world has had ready access to the U.S. consumer market.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I totally agree, I totally agree with the statement my friend has just made. I believe our number one priority should be U.S. workers, U.S. producers, U.S. manufacturers. That should be our top priority, recognizing the benefits of opening up new markets for them. Our goal here, as I mentioned earlier, is with the elimination of the luxury tax in Chile we will be able to export more U.S. manufactured automobiles into the Chile market and that is why this will be a win- win.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have the highest regard for my friend from Ohio, but I want to make a couple of brief comments about the statements he made. First, at the outset, he talked about this being a Republican leadership effort. Yes, Republicans have provided leadership, but I think it will be very clear that strong bipartisan support, Democrats and Republicans alike, will be embracing both the Chile and the Singapore Free Trade Agreements, realizing what opportunities they will create. At the close of the gentleman's remarks he talked about lifting standards, and I completely concur with that. I believe very passionately that the best way, the most effective way to lift standards, and I appreciate his acknowledging that those labor standards are already high in Chile, the best way to do that is for us to enhance the economic standing of those people who are seeking the opportunity to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder. So I just wanted to say that I disagree with some of the conclusions that my friend might have drawn, but I think we do share the exact same goal. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tucson, Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), my very able colleague who in 1987 asked me to join him as an original cosponsor of the legislation to obliterate tariffs among Canada, the United States, and Mexico so we could have a Free Trade Agreement. We have seen, with the NAFTA, a tripling of trade from 1993 to today, and he has been a great leader on trade issues and I enjoy working with him.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply thank my colleague for his very thoughtful statement and his willingness to be supportive of this effort here. This sort of buttresses a couple of arguments I was making earlier on this union issue, and I say it specifically with the gentleman in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, because I know this is an issue that was of concern to the Chair. One of the arguments that has been made has to do with the issue of exporting automobiles, automobiles manufactured right here in the United States of America. Under this agreement with Chile, we actually see Chile agree to an elimination of the luxury auto tax; and by eliminating that tax under this agreement in Chile, it will enhance the chance for us to see the exportation of more U.S.-manufactured automobiles into Chile's market which admittedly is a small one but is growing. Also, there are agreements to reduce foreign duties for trucks, computers, electrical equipment, paper and construction equipment as well; and so I think that this clearly is again a great opportunity for U.S. workers. There have been several great champions of trade on our side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle. One of them is the great chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and the House, my very good friend from Atlanta, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder). Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this moment, we begin debate on the first two measures that will propel our Nation's economy into the 21st century and secure America's economic future. The free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore that we will be debating today are important in and of themselves. But more important, they are the first steps in completing a global economic and trade agenda that seeks to grow our economy by opening up markets overseas and establishing the United States as the leader in the international trade arena. When Trade Promotion Authority lapsed back in 1994, the executive branch's ability to negotiate meaningful trade agreements was severely impaired. Our efforts to position the United States as the global leader in international trade were stalled. As recently as last year, there were nearly 150 regional free trade and customs agreements put into place worldwide and the United States, the greatest economic power on the face of the Earth, was party to only three of those agreements. Mr. Speaker, we were losing market share, we were losing tariff battles, and most important, we were losing opportunities for U.S. workers and U.S. producers, opportunity to grow our economy, opportunity to increase the incomes of millions of American families and the opportunity to lead once again in the global marketplace. All of this was being lost as we went through that nearly decade long period, Mr. Speaker, when we did not have that authority in place for the executive branch. So it was to my great satisfaction last year that we were able to enact into law a renewal of that Trade Promotion Authority. I am also pleased that the Bush administration has responded to Congressional reauthorization of the Trade Promotion Authority with great enthusiasm. Our terrific Ambassador, U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick, in particular, has been the driving force behind an ambitious and far- reaching trade agenda that will open up markets and raise standards of living both here and abroad, throughout the world. It is very clear that trade is a win-win. We will see benefits on both sides. So, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the free trade agreements that we consider here today are of great importance. But I am gratified to see that many more trade agreements are on the horizon. Once we get beyond the Singapore and Chile agreements we will have a wide range of other great opportunities for U.S. workers and U.S. producers. We will soon see those benefits come to us and we will see the multilateral agreements as we proceed with Central America, South America, Africa, the Middle East and Australia. Now, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that many in this body are opposed to some or possibly all of the free trade agreements that I have just mentioned. And I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that Congressional renewal of Trade Promotion Authority last year was very contentious and as we all know passed by the narrowest of margins on three occasions. But I sincerely hope that today we will demonstrate our bipartisan commitment to improving the economic standing of all American workers and families by strongly supporting the two implementing measures before us. In fact, we have just a few minutes ago had the minority leader stand in the well and talk about that commitment that the minority party has to the trade agenda, and so there will be a wonderful opportunity here to demonstrate that. The agreement, Mr. Speaker, with Singapore and Chile are perfect examples of what the benefits of free trades can and will deliver to the American people. Now, we all recognize that Singapore has been a critical ally in Southeast Asia in the war against terrorism. It has been more welcoming to our efforts to clamp down on regional instability and global terrorism than perhaps any other Southeast Asia nation. Singapore is also an extremely important economic ally of the United States. For example, Mr. Speaker, Singapore was the 12th largest trading partner with the United States last year in terms of total trade. Now, that is not bad for a country that has a population that is about the size of a county that I represent. Mr. Speaker, the Singapore agreement lowers barriers to trade in high technology products and services and establishes unprecedented intellectual properties protections. Intellectual properties protections are of paramount importance and very much need to be recognized. Mr. Speaker, this agreement pays particular attention to protecting copyrights, patents and trademarks for emerging technologies and digital products, sectors where American innovation has been, continues to be, and I believe will in the future be the global leader. Now, Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that by lowering and eliminating tariffs that Singapore places on American exports that we will increase job opportunities right here at home. Let me underscore that again. Mr. Speaker, I know there is so much talk about the union influence and the union opposition about what it is we are trying to do here, but Mr. Speaker, it stands to reason that if you are opening up new markets in other parts of the world, as will be the case in Singapore and so many of these service oriented areas, telecommunications for example, there will be more union jobs created right here in the United States as these markets open. Mr. Speaker, like the Singapore agreement, the Free Trade Agreement with Chile will increase trading opportunities abroad. Under the agreement negotiated by Ambassador Zoellick, Chile will immediately remove its 6 percent tariff that exists on more than 85 percent of American exports. I have to scratch my head once again, Mr. Speaker, and wonder why it is again that anyone would believe that this agreement would not create an opportunity for U.S. workers, union, nonunion members, workers all the way across the board if they are going to immediately reduce their 6 percent tariff that exists on 85 percent of the products that come from U.S. workers into Chile's market. Mr. Speaker, the remaining tariffs will phase out over the next 12 years. Conversely, most of Chile's exports to the United States are already duty free. So the fact is the world has access to the U.S. consumer markets. Chile can already get their products here. Doing anything other than supporting this measure will not help U.S. workers. The only benefit to U.S. workers will come from our breaking down those barriers that exist there. Recognizing Chile's relatively small trading relationship with the United States, some might question the need for a Free Trade Agreement at this time. In other words, people will say, why bother? Now, Mr. Speaker, it is well worth the bother. In 1997, California exported about $490 million worth of goods to Chile. By 2001, the number had decreased by $140 million largely due to Chile's implementation of trade agreements with Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Canada, getting into the MERCOSUR and other trading blocs. So the fact that other nations are embarking on these agreements, breaking down tariff barriers have unfortunately diminished the flow of U.S. goods into Chile. So it stands to reason now that we need to do everything we can to make sure we are part of that tariff tax reduction effort because a tariff is a tax, and we know that by cutting it we will be able to improve the opportunities for that flow of goods and services. Mr. Speaker, as we work to get our economy back on track and we all, Democrats and Republicans alike, are committed to enhancing our economy, to improving the plight of workers in this country and creating more and more opportunities, as we work to do that, clearly establishing trade rules within the Americas and the Doha negotiations, it is important that the United States of America be the leader and not the follower. Strong votes, strong bipartisan votes in favor of the Chile and Singapore agreements will mark the first steps in ensuring that the United States reaps the benefit of free trade. It is time for the United States to unleash our enterprising spirit and allow American entrepreneurs access to some of the fastest growing markets in the world. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong bipartisan support for this rule and the underlying measures in order to demonstrate the commitment of this body to long-term, bold and dynamic economic growth, the development of strong economies, good governments and the rule of law abroad, which will only help in dealing with the many challenges that we face for peace and stability throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very able colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am entitled to close the debate here, and then I will be moving the previous question. So if the gentleman will complete his statement.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to close the debate myself, and I hope my colleague from Toledo will stay here because I plan to close the debate and respond to some of the statements that were just made. So I have no further requests for time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the cochair of the Singapore effort to bring about success on the floor here, my very good friend and able colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of the Chair how much time we have remaining on each side?

Mr. DREIER. That is why they do not have to be there. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.