David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the cochair of the Chile coalition working group who has led the effort to ensure that we get this agreement to the floor today and has counted votes and worked very hard on it.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield on that point, I will tell him, they can be made in Argentina today and get in there tariff free because of the agreement that exists between Chile and Argentina. All we are saying with this agreement is, let us create the potential so Detroit autoworkers will have a chance to get into that market.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the point that I would like to make is a very clear one. We want to focus on middle-class jobs. We want to do everything that we can to enhance opportunities for U.S. workers in the manufacturing sector of our economy. That is why this Chile agreement will be very beneficial. Why? Under this agreement, Chile's government agrees to eliminate the auto luxury tax that exists there. What does that mean? It means that there will be enhanced opportunity for U.S. auto manufacturers and those middle-class workers that does not exist today.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield on that point, I think we have to realize that imports are very good and important for the United States of America. We have the standard of living that we do today because the world does have access to our consumer market.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me to respond quickly to one point he made. The gentleman said how can anyone talk about the benefits of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and I would say to my friend that in 1993 trade between Mexico and the United States was roughly $83 billion. Last year, trade between Mexico and the United States was $232 billion.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I would simply say one of the reasons we have not been able to have these job opportunities is the lack of this authority that has been put into place. We now for the first time are going to have markets opening up so that the four-letter word in Ohio that is so important, J-O-B-S, will, in fact, be enhanced; and I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 329 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair and balanced rule. As was said, 75 amendments were submitted to us; 42 of those 75 were made in order. We are going to be debating a wide range of issues. The question that was just raised by my friend from Massachusetts is one that will be very effectively addressed by the majority and the minority on our House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. To try to portray a concern about that other amendment is partisan. I will tell the Members that there are minority members on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who believe that we did the right thing here. There are concerns that exist with this legislation, but I do believe with we should allow for a full debate, and we are going to be doing that. The establishment of the International Leadership Act, very important; dealing responsibly with the issue of migration, very important; dealing with the millennium challenge issue which the President has put forward and enjoys bipartisan support; these are all important issues that we will be able to move forward with once we pass this rule and pass this legislation.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would say it is my intention to close the debate here single-handedly.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who chairs our Committee on Veterans Affairs' and has long worked on so many of these very important issues.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I congratulate my friend on his statement and I believe that we clearly do have the shared goal of trying to address that concern that was raised from the State of the Union message. The reason that we did not make the amendment in order was very simply that we do believe that the work that is being done by both the Intelligence Committee in the House and the Intelligence Committee in the Senate will effectively address this. I know that the ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, Senator Rockefeller, has already had a lengthy discussion as I heard on the radio this morning with the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet; and I know that this is an issue that will be addressed in their committee tomorrow. I believe that we will be seeing attention focused on it within our Intelligence Committee. I know that, in a bipartisan way, concern has been addressed from members of the Intelligence Committee that the establishment of this could in fact play a role in undermining them. That was the reason that we did not make the amendment in order. But I want to say to my friend that I do believe that since the ratio was 2 to 1, I hope that my friend will come down in support of the rule based on that. Two amendments he liked, one he did not; so I hope that he will join with us in supporting the rule.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I hope we bring about an expeditious conclusion to this. Obviously, that is our goal. Secretary Powell has indicated his support of our amendment, and we know full well that he wants to deal with this. I want to say this issue of immigration is something that we can address in a bipartisan way. I would urge my colleagues to realize that as we proceed to work to pass this rule and move ahead with this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has offered a very strong statement, much of which I agree with. I believe that it is very important for us to vigorously pursue our goal of putting into place a comprehensive migration accord, and I think it is the right thing to do. I will admit that I do not believe it was the correct thing for that Ballenger amendment to have been included in the legislation, and that is one of the reasons that in the role that I play on the Committee on Rules we chose to take and make the following amendment in order which I believe very responsibly deals with our shared goal and the goal that, as the gentleman pointed out, the President of the United States has on this. The amendment reads as follows, ``(1) that the United States and Mexico should as soon as is practicable commence negotiations in an attempt to reach a migration accord that is as comprehensive as possible and which addresses the key issues of concern for both nations; and (2) that as part of any migration agreement between the United States and Mexico, the issues of extradition of violent criminals and law enforcement cooperation between the two nations be addressed.'' Mr. Speaker, I have raised these issues of concern on the issue of extradition, and I have been working with my California colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), on this issue dealing with a particular case in California. I do believe, as the gentleman said, the President does want to responsibly move ahead with this. On the second issue of global warming, I have no doubt that this administration is very committed to dealing with that. We made a determination when 75 amendments had been submitted to us that we would include 42 of them, so there has been nothing secretive about this process. It is very open. We, in fact, are discussing it right now on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, let me say that there are a couple of other issues that are very, very important that need to be addressed here. One of them has to do with the challenge we have been dealing with in California, and it has to do with the issue of extradition. Very tragically, last year a constituent of my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), happened to be near the area that I represent, Irwindale, California. He was with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and he was, unfortunately, killed. His murder was reportedly by a Mexican national, who, after murdering Deputy Sheriff David March, shooting him point-blank, fled to Mexico. We have been dealing with the challenge of trying to extradite this man who we believe is responsible for this murder back to the United States so that he can face justice here. We know that there is a challenge within the Mexican constitution. They prevent extradition to countries that have a death penalty. And while I happen to personally be a proponent of the death penalty, we know that is a hotly debated issue here in the United States. But for that reason, because of the prospect of this individual facing the death penalty, he has not been extradited; and, in fact, the request has not formally been made for his extradition. But there is another decision the Mexican Government made, and it had to do with the Supreme Court in December of 2001. They came down with a ruling that said that life imprisonment is, in fact, cruel and unusual punishment, and that has played a role in hindering the opportunity for this individual to be extradited back to the United States to face justice. The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) has an amendment, which I will be strongly supporting, that basically calls on both countries to try and bring about a resolution to work this issue out. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been working closely with the very able Mexican ambassador to the United States on this issue; and I am convinced that within the leadership of Mexico, President Fox and other leaders obviously want justice. And so the McKeon amendment simply encourages a resolution to that which I hope will take place in the near future. Having spent time talking with family members of Sheriff March and others in Los Angeles who have spent a lot of time focusing on this issue, it is very clear that justice is a priority. And I want to say that I hope that with passage of the McKeon amendment it will help us in our attempt to deal with this question. I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to be offering an amendment here which will deal with the overall issue of migration. I know there was a lot of discussion in the Committee on International Relations on this. I know the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) worked on this, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), and others; and I am joining, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), with whom I am privileged to serve as cochairman of the U.S.-Mexico Caucus, which was established at the encouragement of Ambassador Bremer, and our goal has been to focus on the overall issue of trade between Mexico and the United States and the fact that we have seen tremendous benefits that have come about because of the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement. In fact, we have seen trade between our two countries move from 1993, prepassage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, at about $83 billion, to around $230 billion. So virtually a tripling of the trade between our two countries. So the U.S.-Mexico Caucus has been charged with looking at the real benefits and ways that we can actually enhance the relationship between our two countries. So the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I have joined as coauthors of an amendment which will deal with the overall issue of migration and encourage action on that, and I am hoping that we will be able to enhance the level of bipartisan support we have for this measure. It does, in fact, rectify something that I believe should not have been in the measure that was reported out of the Committee on International Relations with the United States basically calling on the Mexican Government to privatize Pemex, which is the oil company in Mexico. We all recognize that there are problems within the operations of Pemex. In fact, I have yet to talk to a Mexican who has said to me anything other than that there are problems with Pemex. But I do not believe it is correct for the United States Congress to basically provide as a contingency for dealing with our very important migration policy, which Secretary Powell and this administration obviously want to address in a very responsible way, I do not believe that that should in any way be contingent upon our seeing Mexico deal with their challenge with Pemex. We want them to do that, but we obviously are not going to tie our goal of dealing with migration to a resolution to that. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair rule. It is a balanced rule that, as I said, allows 42 of the 75 amendments that were submitted to us to be considered. This legislation has some problems with it. I will admit it is not perfect. And I know there are some in the administration who have raised understandable concerns about a number of issues. But I believe that we can work very positively towards dealing with a number of those with the amendment process that has been put into place. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), for his stellar management of it, as well as my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). The Committee on Rules, as was said by both gentlemen, worked into the night to fashion this rule, and it will allow for the consideration of a wide range of very important issues. As was further pointed out by both of my colleagues, 42 of the 75 amendments that were submitted to us were made in order. We have 23 Republican amendments, 13 Democratic amendments, and six bipartisan amendments in that package, which will, I believe, allow us to consider many, many different issues of this important piece of legislation. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), Mr. Speaker, raised a number of important issues on amendments that, quite frankly, have not been made in order; and, obviously, everyone understands that we have to have some kind of constraint on the amendment process as we proceed with 75 amendments, many of which are duplicative. And so we have to put some kind of structure in order. That is the raison d'etre for the Committee on Rules, in fact. So as he addressed those issues, I was thinking that many of those are important and need to be looked at, obviously focusing on environmental issues, focusing on the issue of the transfer of uranium. These are all questions that should be addressed. I agree with him that they should be addressed, but I would argue that this institution is effectively and very responsibly taking them on. Today, for example, on the issue of the Schiff amendment, we have the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence here in the House, very ably chaired by the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), and in the Senate our colleague Pat Roberts is working on this issue; and obviously that is going to be an issue of discussion there and I believe will be responsibly addressing that question. On other issues which the administration can very effectively address, I know that they are committed to improved environmental quality and other issues that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) brought forward as well. I want to, Mr. Speaker, talk about a number of very important measures in this legislation which I am particularly supportive of, and I want to talk about a couple of amendments that I am going to be dealing with. First, I had the privilege of cochairing, along with our former colleague Lee Hamilton, who was in fact the predecessor of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), having served as chairman of what was called then the Committee on Foreign Affairs and now the Committee on International Relations. Mr. Hamilton and I cochaired a task force that was put together by the Council on Foreign Relations and Freedom House, and the particular charge was to look at the U.S. leadership role in the United Nations. We obviously know, leading up to U.N. resolution 1441, before the war with Iraq, and the challenge of trying to put together a multinational coalition in dealing with the liberation of Iraq and the war on terrorism and a wide range of other international challenges that we face, that there has been a question out there about the U.S. leadership role. So this task force, I believe, came forward with some very, very first-rate recommendations, and I am happy that we have been able to include those recommendations as part of this bill. I introduced, along with the ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations, our very able colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the package that is basically described as the International Leadership Act; and it will, I believe, take us down the road towards improving the role of the United States in the United Nations. Now, many of the recommendations that are there are designed to deal with challenges like the fact, and this is unbelievable, the United States of America's being removed from the Human Rights Commission within the United Nations and one of the most repressive anti-human rights entities on the face of the Earth, Libya, being given the opportunity to preside over that structure looking at human rights. Well, obviously, there is something wrong with this picture, Mr. Speaker; and I think virtually everyone can acknowledge that. We need to do what we can to encourage self-determination, political pluralism, and the rule of law worldwide; and I believe that those are goals that the United States and most nations that are members of the United Nations share. But, unfortunately, we have not had the kind of success in doing that that we would like, so it is for that reason that we have in this legislation the U.S. International Leadership Act, which will do things like encourage the establishment of a democracy caucus. It will encourage the United States to engage even more actively than we already do under the very able leadership of our first-rate ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte. We will be involved in a lot of things that, frankly, are modeled after the work here in the United States Congress, which I hope can be utilized to enhance the U.S. leadership role in the United Nations. So I want to congratulate both my friends Lee Hamilton and the other great members who served on our task force, along with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and I want to say that this has enjoyed strong bipartisan support from our friends, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and others. And so I look forward to discussing this further. I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) will, but I wanted to raise that now at this juncture.