David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. It all depends on the definition. But I will tell you that I clearly do believe that there are a wide range of opportunities out there for voices from any side of the issue in this country.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding. I would like to listen attentively to my friend from Vermont for just a couple of minutes, and then I would like to briefly, if the gentleman has time, respond to the question that the gentleman just posed.

Mr. DREIER. I suspect the gentleman from Illinois wants the gentleman from Vermont to continue.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. I am very impressed with the letter that my colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), just placed before us. And I would commend it to my colleagues. He is absolutely right. The President said that by the end of the year he did want a package that would address the unemployment issue. But notice the next line in there. The President also insisted on having a health benefits package. Guess what? The measure we are going to be voting on right here will help meet the demand that the President has put forward. It seems to me that we need to realize that if we were to wait on the other body for every action that we have taken, we would not have passed Trade Promotion Authority. We would not have passed an energy bill to help us attain domestic energy self-sufficiency. We would not have passed the faith-based legislation. We would not, as I was reminded last night, have passed the very important bipartisan election reform measure that came out of this institution. It seems to me that we need to realize that the important thing for us to do right now is to focus not only on this very important issue of providing benefits to those who are suffering, those who are hurting, unemployment benefits and health benefits; but also we needs to focus on what it is that will address this issue. And that is what the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the members of his committee have done, and that is job creation and economic growth. We know full well that the President wants that because he understands that the only way that you are going to effectively deal with those who are hurting today is to create an opportunity for a job for them. And so tying the two together is something that is absolutely essential if we are going to address this in a long-run way. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and vote for the package that will allow us to provide unemployment benefits and health benefits for the American people along with the very important job-creation vehicle necessary.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, we are strong proponents of campaign finance reform. Do not let anybody say we are not. We want to dramatically enhance the opportunity for voters to be empowered so they can make the right decision. But I think it is important for us to go back to the founding. In 1787, we saw three of our framers, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, write under a nom de plum, in fact, not full disclosure, under the name of Publius, the Federalist Papers, and they had a very interesting debate about what it is that generates the interests of people. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison talked about political faction, how the opportunity for people to come together and demonstrate their interests is something that is a fact of life. In fact, he said in Federalist No. 10, ``Faction is to governing like air is to fire.'' So we have these attempts being made by some to impose extraordinarily onerous regulations on the American people, jeopardizing their opportunity to come together and pursue a political interest that they have, that a shared group has; and I believe that it is wrong. I believe it is wrong to impose those kinds of regulations. I do believe also, Mr. Chairman, that we need to realize that we have a very important constitutional responsibility here, and that is to go through the process of lawmaking. The way it works is the United States House of Representatives passes a bill, the United States Senate passes a bill; they go to a House- Senate conference to make sure that they can reconcile those differences. We have a bicameral legislature. The Senate has already passed this measure. The House should work its will, not marching in lockstep. People have talked about how a conference would jeopardize this fragile coalition for reform. Well, what it does is if they try to simply go without a conference, they are jeopardizing the opportunity for the White House, the President of the United States, who wants to bring about meaningful reforms, to have his say; and it is jeopardizing the opportunity for us to work our legislative will. Mr. Chairman, we need to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that we bring about true reform.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, everyone likes to say that they are for reform, and it is very unfortunate that there are some people who are supportive of the Shays-Meehan bill who argue that those of us who are not necessarily supporting their version of what they call reform are somehow opposed to the process of campaign finance reform. Well, I am proud to stand here and, Mr. Speaker, say that I will take a back seat to no one when it comes to the very important issue of reform. I have been very proud to internally bring about some reforms of this institution. We were able to, in the last Congress, reduce the number of rules in this place from 52 down to 28 rules. We brought about sweeping reforms when we became the majority. One of the things that I am very proud of, Mr. Speaker, is that when we became the majority we said that we were not going to put in place the kind of rule that we are considering right now for this legislation. It has all of these sort of inside baseball things, like a ``king of the hill'' procedure. I am not going to get into the details of it, but I will tell you it is unfair and it is wrong. But having said that, I am going to support the rule. I am going to support the rule simply because 218 members of House of Representatives signed the discharge petition, and for that reason I think it is important that we move ahead. When it comes to the issue of campaign finance reform, I am for it. I am for it, Mr. Speaker. I am a proponent of reform, and I do not want anyone to say that I am not pro- reform. I happen to believe that what we need to do is we need to empower the American people with as much information as possible. In fact, in the last couple of Congresses I have introduced legislation called the Voter Empowerment Act, and basically what we say, as President Bush has said, we need to instantly make available information on who is supporting whom so the voters can make a decision as to whether or not a Member of Congress is somehow beholden to their contributors. I also believe that if we are going to ban soft money, we should ban it all the way across the board. And I think we should make this package effective immediately, as my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), said on television on Sunday. I think we should do it now. I believe we should also realize that the proposal before us, which is called reform, we have not actually seen it yet. We will see it somewhere around midnight tonight. So much for a fair and open process. But we will see it very, very late tonight, and then we will proceed. Based on what I have heard about it, it does impose more regulations on the American people. And I came here to deregulate, and I did not come here to jeopardize the ability of Americans to exercise their first amendment rights. I happen to believe that another issue needs to be addressed here, Mr. Speaker. I happen to be a strong proponent of the two-party system. I am proud to have worked around the world encouraging the development of political parties. Let us take that historic election which took place in 2000 in Mexico. For 71 year we saw one political party, the PRI Party, the Institution and Revolutionary Party, control Mexico. And with the encouragement of the National Election Party and support from around the world for a degree of political pluralism in Mexico, we saw a political party, when it came to getting support from all over, in a position where they were able to win the election. Well, we also encouraged it in eastern and central Europe; in Nicaragua we encouraged it. What is it we brought about? We brought about a degree of fairness. We brought about a great contrast. And that is what exists here in the United States today, an interesting clash between the two political parties and then we allow the American people to make a decision. Well, the measure we are going to be considering, the Shays-Meehan bill, basically undermines the two-party system. If you look at countries where the party systems are really in a state of disarray, they have had real difficulty. I do not want the United States of America to follow that route. I want both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to remain strong. And I do not like the idea of us empowering the media when it comes to determining who is going to win these elections. I think that is wrong. I think the parties should be able to stand strongly for the ideals on which they were founded. So I believe that we have a package of reforms that are the right thing to do. I think that we should say that union members should with their dues be able to decide which candidates they support without having a few people here in Washington, D.C. decide how those dollars are expended. I think we should do everything we can to let the American people know that we want them to have choices and we do not want to jeopardize the great system that we have. We live with reforms today. They were put into place following Watergate, 1974. I was privileged, I wrote my senior thesis at Claremont-McKenna College on the campaign finance reform of 1974. We live with it today. And while some people talk about the fact that we have some horribly corrupt system here in our Nation's capital, well, I argue that we have a great degree of transparency and we can have even more. And, again, as my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), said, those who will try to draw this allusion between the bankruptcy of Enron and the political process, obviously, there is no correlation. We need to encourage people to get involved in the political process, rather than making it unattractive to be involved in the political process. And you make it unattractive when you impose an onerous level of burdens on the American people; and that is exactly what this legislation will do. I believe also, if we look at this question of a conference, and, again, I am getting back to inside baseball here, if we all want openness, we want to follow the legislative process, those who argue by going to a joint House-Senate conference we are killing the prospect for any kind of reform, I do not believe that for one second. Sure, if given the choice of imposing onerous regulations on the American people undermining their first amendment rights or seeing nothing done, I choose to have nothing done. But I believe the thoughtful reforms that we have in the Ney-Wynn proposal, the disclosure issue that I mentioned, the other kinds of proposals, those can be addressed in a joint House-Senate conference, and we can come back with improved legislation. So those who say they do not want us to go to conference are in fact saying, let us not follow the constitutional guidelines, the process which was put into place by our framers for making laws. I do not believe that is an open process. I do not believe that is a fair process. So let us do what we are paid to do here. Let us legislate. Let us work. Let us try to come to a package which will be beneficial for the American people. That should be our number one priority.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today, a ``Dear Colleague'' letter was sent to all Members notifying them of an amendment filing deadline of 4:00 p.m., Monday, February 25, for Members wishing to offer amendments to H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001, which the distinguished majority leader just mentioned. Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment by 4 p.m. on Monday, February 25, to the Committee on Rules upstairs in room H-312 in the Capitol. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is available on the Web sites of both the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Rules. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with Rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I really cannot believe this. Today is Ronald Reagan's 91st birthday. He is one of the most revered individuals to have ever lived. He is the person who brought down the Soviet Union, brought back this amazing sense of patriotism which we once again are enjoying here in the United States, and he focused on what was very important, and that was getting the economy going. And we have people who now want to re-debate and completely rewrite the history of what took place during the 1980s. Let us look at what happened. When President Reagan came into office, taking over for Jimmy Carter, this country was, according to Jimmy Carter, in a state of malaise; and Ronald Reagan almost single-handedly turned it around. Until 1994, when we won the Republican majority in the United States Congress, we had not had control of this place since 1981. You can say in 1981 the Democrats still controlled this institution, but the fact of the matter is Ronald Reagan was able to maintain working control of the United States Congress and put into place the Economic Recovery Tax Act. I am very proud to have voted for that measure, which nearly tripled the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. Our friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is absolutely right. We saw a dramatic increase in social spending take place. And, yes, we did see the military buildup; and we all know how essential that was following the demise of our military during the Carter years. And what did it bring us? It brought us, again, the demise of the Evil Empire, and I am pleased to see George Bush using that Reaganistic term once again; and we were able to sustain the economic recovery for now literally decades. And it all started with Ronald Reagan's vision of reducing that tax burden on working Americans, realizing that marginal tax rate reduction in fact increases the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. Happy birthday, Mr. President. We are very, very privileged to be standing on your shoulders as we try to pursue the policies which you successfully implemented.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. I rise to compliment our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), for moving forward with this very important measure. It was 4 years ago this month that I had the opportunity to meet Jack Shea; and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) have all talked about the fact that 7 decades ago, exactly 7 decades ago Jack Shea became the first American to win two gold medals. I had known of him and had the chance to meet him, as I said, 4 years ago this month. He had a tremendous impact on me personally. I know that many of my colleagues remember this well because I suffered for a while after having met him because it was Jack Shea who encouraged me to actually take the Skeleton Run at Lake Placid, and it was an experience that I shall never forget. And Jim Shea, Sr., Jack's son, encouraged me to simply say I wanted to ride the Skeleton sled to the team of men who were putting us on to the bob sled run, but it was Jack Shea who told me that I should actually take the Skeleton Run. And it was an unbelievable, an unbelievable experience; and one that I, as I said, shall never forget. He was an individual who inspired so many of us, and we have been fortunate to see that television commercial that has been running in which we could see how articulate and thoughtful he was. I remember the great interview that I saw just the other day after the tragic accident that took his life, when he talked about how he was able to shed a tear over the fact that his grandson would be the first of a third-generation Olympian. Four years ago the Skeleton Run was not established as an Olympic sport, and I know that it took a valiant effort on behalf of the Shea family and others to ensure that it would be an Olympic sport. And so I just want to say again, as I did the day after we got this news, that our thoughts and prayers go with the Shea family, although I know that it is not necessary, because they are so proud, so proud of their father and grandfather. I have been privileged over the past 4 years to call the Shea family friends, and I do want to say that I hope very much that Jimmy is a big winner when we see at the end of this week the Olympic games begin. And I know it is set for the 20th and 21st, our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) has told me; and I can hardly wait, whether I am there or watching it on television, to see that wonderful victory; and we know that no one, no one will be enjoying seeing Jimmy Shea take that Skeleton Run more than Jack Shea.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to report to the House the tragic loss of a great patriot, a wonderful American, who on the eve of the Olympics was killed. I am referring to Jack Shea, a 91-year-old individual who was the first American to win two gold medals in the Olympics in 1928. His son was in the Olympics in 1964, and his grandson Jimmy Shea is poised to participate for the first time in an Olympic event, which I personally participated in when our late departed colleague Mr. Solomon took me to Lake Placid; that is, the skeleton run, and we were going to have the opportunity for the first time ever to have third generation Americans participate in the Olympics. We just got the news yesterday that Mr. Shea was killed in a horrible accident, and so I would like to at this moment extend my condolences to all of the family members and the friends of the Sheas and all of those participating in our very important team, and I know that his grandfather would want me to wish Jimmy Shea well as he prepares with his skeleton sled that is painted with the red, white and blue colors to have great success in Salt Lake City.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following resolutions be laid on the table: H. Res. 290, H. Res. 291, H. Res. 317, H. Res. 318, and H. Res. 321.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I would like to congratulate him on his management of this rule and the next rule he is going to manage after we pass this one. Mr. Speaker, I woke up this morning to National Public Radio. Yes, I am one of those Republicans who listens to ``Morning Edition'' on National Public Radio. There was a story about three of the most prominent tacticians of the Democratic Party: Mr. Greenberg, Mr. Carville, and Mr. Schrum. Those three have authored a memorandum in which they talk about the need for Democrats to praise President Bush's superb handling of this extraordinary war that we are facing, and the American people are behind him, 90 percent of them, and the world has united behind the President. But in this memorandum, Mr. Speaker, they talk about the need for Democrats to attack George Bush on the economy, to attack Republicans in the House of Representatives on the issue of the economy. Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to the outrage demonstrated by so many of my colleagues here, I wonder whether or not they have read the Schrum-Greenberg-Carville memorandum. I can only assume that they must have, because the attempts that they have made to block this legislation are really unprecedented. They are unprecedented because this morning we saw the President of the United States do something that I have never known of before. He came not only to meet with Republican Members of the House of Representatives and Republican Members of the United States Senate, but he went that extra mile to meet with the Democratic Caucus. He is trying so hard, having met with the leaders of this body, Mr. Gephardt, the leader of the other body, Mr. Daschle and the Speaker of the House and the Senate minority leader. Mr. Speaker, the President has done everything that he possibly can to put together a very decent bill. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has just talked about the need for the minority to have an opportunity to offer a substitute proposal. Mr. Speaker, while the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said we have denied the minority the opportunity to offer that, we in 1994, when we won the majority, guaranteed the minority the right to offer a recommittal motion. Members of the minority will be able to put together that substitute, and we will be able to have an up or down vote on it with the motion to recommit. There are, in fact, Americans out there who are hurting. There are people who have been devastated by what took place economically here following the tragedy of September 11. I believe that it is absolutely essential that we move this legislation to the United States Senate, that we do everything that we can to recognize that this is a bipartisan package. It is one in which we have tried to build support from the other side of the aisle on. I am convinced that as we move through this very fair rule and consider the next one and have consideration of it, we will be able to provide that much needed assistance to the American people. I urge support of this rule, the next rule, and this compromise package.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the notice requirements of House Resolution 314, I announce that the following measures will be considered under suspension of the rules on Wednesday, December 19, 2001: H.R. 2869 and S. 1741.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for not only his handling of this rule, but also for his fine work on the Committee on House Administration and, of course, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) who have, as has been pointed out in this debate, fashioned this bipartisan effort to deal with a very serious problem that exists out there. We know that it was a year ago today, Mr. Speaker, that we saw a conclusion to the most historic election in our Nation's history for President. If we have learned anything in the past year, it is that democracy is a work in progress. A year ago this month, I had the opportunity to join with a number of other Americans in representing this country at the inauguration of President Vicente Fox in Mexico. It was the first time in 71 years that the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party had, in fact, been defeated in a presidential election. I was an observer of that election on July 2 of last year. We as Americans were there in behalf of the International Republican Institute, an arm of the National Endowment for Democracy which President Reagan established in 1985, to talk about how to hold elections and how to encourage democracy and to observe that process a year ago this past July. I will say that to then go into our election process here and see former Secretary of State James Baker, with whom I stood checking the validity of ballots in the hills, above Pueblo, Mexico, doing the same thing in Florida following our presidential election, was clear evidence that democracy is a work in progress. We also, over the past year, have had at least a couple of other experiences showing us that. Ten years ago in Nicaragua, we were able to bring about a free election, and it saw the removal of the Communist dictator, Daniel Ortega. Many of us who during the 1980s spent a lot of time encouraging the process of democracy and free and fair elections there had a rather rude awakening this year when this summer we found that the prospect of making changes that could have undermined the opportunity for voters to participate in Nicaragua was a serious one. I am happy to say that the International Republican Institute and other organizations played a role in encouraging voter registration and moving towards democracy, clearly showing that even though we saw an election a decade ago, it had to be closely monitored. Of course, the attention of the world is focused on Afghanistan. Again, a decade ago we saw the liberation of the people of Afghanistan from the Soviet Union. Many of us, after having spent a great deal of time focused on the problems in Afghanistan, chose to put our attention elsewhere. And so I think that this legislation is a demonstration that we as Americans understand that democracy is a work in progress. That is why I congratulate my colleagues on the Committee on House Administration for coming up with what is, as I said, truly a very bipartisan bill. Passage of this rule, Mr. Speaker, will ensure that there is language to deal with the issue that the gentleman from New Jersey just raised, and, that is, the access of the disabled to the polls. We have seen organizations like the National Council on the Blind come forward and indicate their willingness to be supportive of this measure. We also know that there are disenfranchised voters in this country, and we are strongly committed, again in a bipartisan way, to ensuring that, in fact, we will see an opportunity for everyone who wants to have the right to vote and access to the voting booth. It is just a first step, though. That is why I keep referring to this work in progress. We know that there are going changes that will be further proposed in the future. I know that under the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on the Committee on House Administration, there will be further efforts to look at this. But as was pointed out by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) in his testimony before the Committee on Rules last night for the first time ever, the Federal Government is stepping up to the plate and providing $2.65 billion in assistance to the States for Federal elections. Never in the history of our Republic has that been done before. This legislation moves us toward doing that. Yes, it is a closed rule. It is a closed rule because there is strong bipartisan consensus, as was pointed out by both Presidents Carter and Ford, to support this measure, and there are a lot of people out there who do, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) said so eloquently, want to game this thing and improve the opportunity for the Republican Party or improve the opportunity for the Democratic Party to maybe get an edge in this. I think that this package, moving forward from this committee under the structure that we have proposed here for consideration by our colleagues, will, in fact, maintain the bipartisan nature of it and move us in a very positive and bold way towards achieving our goal, and, that is, enhancing the opportunity for the American people to choose their leaders. It is a good measure, it addresses the concerns of the disabled, the concerns of minorities, and I think if there are proposals that others might want to offer, we had guaranteed the motion to recommit, and so that is a package that can come forward from our colleagues who do want to offer some other proposal on this. The rule deserves strong support, and I believe that the legislation at the end of the day deserves strong support as well. I encourage my colleagues to join with us.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is an announcement that I think Members might be interested in. Mr. Speaker, today a Dear Colleague letter is going to be sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet this week to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process for H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001. Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment by 2 p.m. on Thursday. That is 24\1/2\ hours from now. That is December 13. It should be sent up to the Committee on Rules, H-312 in the Capitol. Mr. Speaker, the bill, as our colleagues know, was reported favorably by the Committee on Energy and Commerce on May 24, and ordered reported, adversely, by the Committee on the Judiciary on June 18. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which will be available on the Web sites of both the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted, and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on this, the 60th birthday of our friend, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, it is important to note that we are on the verge of casting the single most important vote of the 107th Congress. Why? Because it deals with the two very important issues of our economy and the U.S. role in the world, our leadership role. We know that the attack that was launched on the United States first hit the World Trade Center, where people from 80 nations around the world were killed, and it was the worst attack on our civilian population ever. They knew exactly what they were doing. They were trying to undermine the leadership role we are playing. The fact is, the world is moving dramatically towards free trade. The President of Brazil said in a speech just a couple of months ago in Portuguese, ``Exportamos o moremos,'' export or die. He understands that very well. We as a Congress need to give this authority to the President so that he can pry open new markets for U.S. workers, producers, farmers, and businesses.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do plan to object, I am very proud of the way the Committee on Rules has put together this package, and I do not believe that this was done in the middle of the night. I believe, as I said in my statement during the debate on the rule, we are faced with an up or down vote on whether or not we are going to grant the President this very important Trade Promotion Authority, and I happen to believe that we have been talking about this for a long period of time. During debate of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) said let us move ahead and let us vote. So, Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. This is a fair rule. Yes, it is a closed rule, but this rule is about procedure. My colleagues are either for granting the President Trade Promotion Authority or they are against granting the President Trade Promotion Authority. So I do not know what all this argument is about all these other issues. Yes, we have worked long and hard to fashion a package. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and a wide range of people on both sides of the aisle have worked on this issue, and now we have come down to the point where Members of Congress will have to make a choice. They will either vote ``yes'' to give the President authority or they will vote ``no,'' and that is what this rule provides us with the opportunity to do. It is very fair, it is very balanced, and it is, quite frankly, the way rules that have addressed trade issues in the past have been addressed. So this is nothing new. When our friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, were in the majority, this is exactly the way they moved the rules dealing with trade issues. And so we have learned from you all so well. So we are following your model to a T here, and thank you very much for setting the example for us. Mr. Speaker, we all know that last week we learned with absolute certainty that our economy is faced with economic recession. It is a great difficult time for many of us. Many of our fellow Americans have been laid off. There is a great deal of suffering taking place. We are all aware of that, and we know it was dramatically exacerbated following September 11. What we are about to do, Mr. Speaker, I believe, may be one of the most important things that can help us turn the corner for those Americans who are suffering today. What is it that trade agreements mean for America? They will provide and have traditionally provided targeted tax relief to America's working families by giving them access to high-quality products at low prices. They create better, higher-paying jobs by prying open new markets for America's world-class goods and services around the world. And we know that those involved in the area of exports traditionally earn between 13 and 18 percent higher income levels than those goods that are produced simply for domestic consumption here in the United States. So by prying open new markets, we create opportunities for higher wage rates for American workers. They also provide that very important and powerful link between nations who want to participate peacefully in the global marketplace. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that every shred of empirical evidence that we have leads us to conclude that American exports and American trade provide us the opportunity to do one of the most important things that we can, and that is export our western values throughout the world. We know that as we deal with this challenging war against terrorism, trying to expand economic opportunity so that people have choices will go a long way towards dealing with this issue. The global leadership role that the President has played, especially since September 11, has been heralded by Democrats and Republicans alike. And I believe that this tool which we are on the verge of giving him will be able to go a long way towards effectively dealing with this issue. This is a positive, very positive rule. It is a good bill. My colleagues should join in strong support of it, and I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me, and I want to congratulate both the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for taking out this important time. Let me just say that I appreciate, as I said, the compliment; but I am one of a long line of people who really see this correctly. I do believe that we are on the verge of facing what clearly will be one of the most important votes certainly of the new millennium, and it is not that old, but the vote that we are going to be casting tomorrow will lay the groundwork for the extraordinary role that the United States of America will be playing in leading not only the issue of trade but the cause of freedom, political pluralism, and democracy worldwide. That is really what this has come down to in many ways, Mr. Speaker, is a vote of whether or not the United States will in fact step up to the plate and once again assume that rightful place which, unfortunately, has been greatly diminished since 1994 when we saw this very important, what we used to call Fast Track negotiating authority, which was really a misnomer, now correctly labeled Trade Promotion Authority. The reason is, and I am sure that we have heard this over and over again, with the signing of the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement just very recently, we now are a party to three of the 133 trade agreements that have been put together in the last several years. So we have observed, unfortunately, many countries that historically have not been strong supporters of free trade and the cause of it say that they are going to play this leadership role, and yet the United States of America is the most productive Nation on the face of the Earth; and our workers, our farmers, our businesses are prepared to compete. All we are going to be saying tomorrow when we have this debate and the vote is: Why do we not pry open new markets which have been limited to us because of tariffs? A tariff is a tax. We are talking about cutting the taxes for consumers so they can have access to U.S. goods and U.S. services. We have found the benefits of imports here in the United States. They have allowed us to keep inflation down, they have allowed people going to stores to have a decent holiday because they are able to buy products that have come into the United States; and because of imports, the United States of America has become even more productive because of competition that imports have provided here. Now let us give the President the authority to open up the world to us. As was said by the great Secretary of Commerce, Don Evans, at a news conference we held yesterday, 90 percent of the world's consumers are outside of our borders. The world economy is about $40 trillion, and $10 trillion, a quarter of that, is right here in the United States. But as we see these other countries improve their economies and develop new economic opportunities, they are going to have living standards improved to the point where they are going to be able to buy even more U.S. goods and services. So that is why we are simply saying the United States Congress, we hope, tomorrow afternoon we will say to the President of the United States that he should go out and negotiate the very best that he possibly can for the American worker, for the American farmer, for America's businesses, for America's consumers, and then come back to us, and we in the House and Senate will make a decision as to whether or not he has negotiated a good agreement. Then we will vote yes or no. I am here to say, I am proud to stand in this well to say that if the President brings back a bad agreement, I will be proud to lead the charge against that agreement. But if he comes back with a good agreement, an agreement which is going to break down tariff barriers, recognize the importance of environmental quality and worker rights, recognize the importance of enhancing opportunity for U.S. workers, farmers, and businesses, I believe that it will be the right thing for us to do. So I just would like to say that on the national security front this is the right vote because global leadership and what it is that the President is providing has been heralded by so many people. We have learned that Osama bin Laden has the ability to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to destroy. But I will say that we are the producers, we are the best producers on the face of the Earth, so let us have an opportunity to do that. I thank my friend for yielding, and I am sorry to have consumed so much of his time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and, as has been said by many of my colleagues, we all have our memories of Jerry Solomon. I have to stand here and say that I miss him. I miss the fact that we are no longer able to talk regularly on the phone. I miss his service here in this institution. I believe that this is an appropriate action that we can take here because of his extraordinary service not only here in the Congress, but his service as a proud Marine. My late father and Jerry became good friends. My father was a drill instructor in the United States Marine Corps and my father regularly encouraged Jerry to crack the whip on me. And Jerry followed my father's direction extremely well. On more than a few occasions I was taken to the woodshed by Jerry Solomon. I was encouraged to step outside, and I will say that it was good for me. And while at the time I may have been a little miffed with some of the things that Jerry said, as are many experiences in life, it was a great growing experience for me. I appreciate the leadership that Jerry Solomon showed in so many areas. He was a Korean War hero veteran, and there was no one in this institution who fought harder for, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) said, the demise of the Soviet Union than Jerry Solomon. I had the opportunity to travel with him throughout the world. We traveled in the Mideast. We traveled to Asia. He took me on my first trip to Vietnam on February 14 of 1986. I remember being there on Valentine's Day. We traveled numerous times to Central America. I thought a lot about Jerry as we just saw a few weeks ago the successful election of a democratic, small ``d,'' leader in Nicaragua, because we all know through the 1980s we had this amazing struggle providing assistance to the democratic resistance in Nicaragua so that we could encourage the kind of freedom and political pluralism and recognition of human rights and encouragement of the rule of law that Jerry had fought for through his entire life. So to be able to name the Saratoga National Cemetery the Gerald B.H. Solomon Saratoga National Cemetery is a very fitting tribute. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) for moving this resolution forward and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for moving this as expeditiously as they have. And I want to say once again to Mr. Solomon and his wonderful family, to the members of his family, that our thoughts and prayers continue to be with all of them during this very difficult and challenging time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, a week from tomorrow, we in this House are going to be voting on the very important trade promotion authority that the President of the United States needs. The administration has not had it, the past administration did not have it, it expired in 1994; and because of the fact that it was not there and has not been there, we have been a party to only 2 of the 130 free trade agreements that have been established worldwide in the last several years, basically meaning that the United States of America has ceded its very important leadership role when it comes to global economic growth. What is it that we need to do? We need to make sure that we step up to the plate and do everything that we can to militarily provide leadership, geopolitically provide leadership and, yes, economically provide leadership. That is what trade promotion authority is all about. It is an important vote. We will be giving this authority to the President so that he can pry open new markets and find opportunities for U.S. workers and businesses around the world. It is about creating jobs right here in the United States. I hope that a week from tomorrow, in a bipartisan way, we can provide overwhelming support for this very important measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, there is an expression that probably will only be understood by my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart), of those in the Chamber. I do not know how many bilingual people there are here. But I have struggled, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) knows, with my Spanish and this was a term that was taught to me by our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano). It is: ``Tapar el sol con un dedo.'' It basically means you try to block the sun with your thumb, which obviously is not going to happen. We need to realize that there is overwhelming momentum worldwide to break down tariff barriers and to expand trade. Many people who traditionally have not been supportive of that in the past in Latin America are now strong proponents; and we know that, obviously, improved trade increases the standard of living for people. It allows them to focus on political repression and other challenges. This bill is designed to deal with a number of factors. Obviously, it is focused on challenges that exist in Africa and the Caribbean basin. One of key issues in focusing on Andean trade is that we have been able to do everything possible to try and wean those countries that have been reliant on the crops that provided drugs to move off of that. Several weeks ago, I and a number of my colleagues had the opportunity to visit Bolivia, and there is no stronger example of a nation which has stood for that transfer away from coca, the drug crop, to legal, wonderful, productive crops than Bolivia. And there needs to be an even greater incentive as we try to diminish that flow of illicit drugs into the United States and other parts of the world. This measure is designed to do just that. There are, as has been pointed out in the debate, a wide range of other factors included in here, and there are concerns. But as I said with that expression, to try to block the sun with your thumb is something that we cannot do here. The world is changing, and I am happy to say that it is moving towards free trade because it does benefit the consumers. I do not want to see the tuna industry impacted negatively, I do not want to see the textile industry impacted negatively. And I know there are very understandable questions that have come forward, and I hope that we will be able to take steps to diminish the deleterious impact that this might have. I am convinced, I am convinced that as we deal with these shifts that have taken place domestically, as was pointed out earlier in the debate, that are now taking place globally, it is clearly the right thing for us to do to move in this direction. Our next step, then, Mr. Speaker, will be to grant trade promotion authority so that we can expand even further the very, very important message of freedom.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, virtually every Member of Congress is talking about the need for us to turn around the economic challenges that we have faced leading up to September 11, and the situation which certainly was exacerbated with what took place on September 11. We have right now an effort going on to put together an economic security bill which deals with putting in place both spending, opportunities to help those who are at the lower end of the economic spectrum, and also tax reductions, which are designed to encourage economic growth. I think it is important for us to note that as we look towards job creation and economic growth, one of the most important things that this institution can do is to create an opportunity for President Bush and his team to go out and pry open new markets for U.S. goods and services throughout the world. It is very apparent that within this hemisphere, every single one of the democratically elected leaders is committed to our goal of establishing a Free Trade Area of the Americas. Their goal is to have this done by 2005. Some of the countries would like to move it up even quicker. But Mr. Speaker, unless we grant the President trade promotion authority, the ability to put together that very important Free Trade Area of the Americas and other agreements would be greatly diminished. We will, in the not too distant future, be facing an opportunity to do something that will create jobs, help the workers in this country, and encourage economic growth, so I hope very much that, in a bipartisan way, our colleagues will join in support of trade promotion authority.