David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett], for agreeing to my unanimous-consent request. Mr. Speaker, in light of the arrival this week of Mexico's President, Ernest Zedillo, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about a very controversial issue and one which has gotten a great deal of attention over the past several months, and that is the North American Free-Trade Agreement. We all know there was a very serious crisis which took place last December with devaluation of the peso, and many people have, I believe, mistakenly claimed that the problems that have existed have been because of the North American Free-Trade Agreement. Over the next few minutes I would like to make the case as to why this has not happened because of the North American Free-Trade Agreement. Quite frankly, I believe that the North American Free-Trade Agreement has been one of those key items which has played a role in actually diminishing the potential negative impact on the economies of both the United States and Mexico, the reason being that the North American Free-Trade Agreement locks in the kinds of economic reforms which heretofore have not existed in Mexico. A short-term analysis of United States-Mexico economic relations does not do justice to the North American Free-Trade Agreement, which is, and I underscore this, Mr. Speaker, a long-term agreement to promote greater economic efficiency, job creation, and regional economic integration within the Americas. President Zedillo, as I said, is in town, and in the aftermath of the currency crisis that took place earlier this year, the critics have been out there flooding the intellectual mainstream with anti-NAFTA pollution. NAFTA has lived up to its four major promises. First, it has increased United States exports beyond where they would be without the lower tariff barriers; it stopped Mexico from raising trade barriers, which cost United States jobs in response to their internal economic difficulties; third, it has helped increase the efficiency and health of many United States companies involved in production sharing to compete with Asian companies; and, fourth, it has provided United States firms with a tangible advantage over competitors from Europe and Asia. Let me take this issue, because I know many people are concerned about the fact that some jobs have moved from the United States to Mexico. I know you, Mr. Speaker, have suffered greatly in your district, and several others have, but let me lay some facts out. During NAFTA, we have seen an increase in U.S. exports. In the first year of the North American Free-Trade Agreement, United States-Mexico trade surged at a record pace from $80 billion in 1993 to $100 billion in 1994. United States and Mexican exports to the other's markets rose more than 20 percent, or about $10 billion each. So we have had this increase in the flow of goods and services between the two countries increase to the tune of about $10 billion each. Even using the most conservative export jobs multiplier, this has created more than 100,000 United States jobs, added to the 700,000 United States jobs already tied to our exports to Mexico. United States export growth has been temporarily slowed because of Mexico's financial problems. We all acknowledge that. Yet despite the peso crisis, United States exports to Mexico for the first half of 1995 still exceeded the export level they were before the North American Free-Trade Agreement. Let me say that again. In spite of the peso crisis, we have still seen an increase in our exports to Mexico, and it is at a level above what it was before implementation of the North American Free-Trade Agreement. NAFTA has helped keep Mexico from raising trade barriers in response to the peso crisis. This is what I was alluding to at the outset. It is a fact that in the past Mexico often responded to their internal economic problems by closing their markets to foreign products. For example, back in 1982 when we saw the major debt crisis exist there, the Mexican Government essentially closed the country to imports from the United States. U.S. exports dropped back in 1982, following their closure, dropped a whopping 50 percent and it took 6 years to recover from their decision to basically close their markets. Well, this knee jerk protectionist response represented what was clearly very bad Mexican economic policy. It is important to note that shutting out existing U.S. exports cost some Americans their jobs. With NAFTA, Mexico is legally committed to keeping its market open to United States goods. Let me underscore that again. If it were not for NAFTA, the chance for Mexico to completely close down its market, dropping tremendously our opportunity to export into Mexico, would have been on the horizon. But NAFTA ensured that those things would be locked in. By preventing a repeat of that protectionist measure that was taken in 1982 by the Mexican Government, we clearly protected literally hundreds of thousands of United States jobs. Rather than pursuing their past knee jerk course of action, namely, closing off their economy, Mexico has responded to financial problems by accelerating the sale of parts of the government-owned railroads, airports, and oil monopoly. As we talk regularly about decentralization, trying to privatize and deregulate, the Mexican Government, in the wake of their financial crisis, moved toward privatization of sectors of, as I said, the railroad, the oil monopoly, and their airports. With liberalized foreign investment laws, United States companies are also now major players in the Mexican banking and telecommunications industry. We know that that has existed, because many people in the United States have been involved in those areas. The other point that I raise is NAFTA has promoted production sharing with manufacturing occurring in both the United States and Mexico, which has helped increase the efficiency and the health of many United States companies competing with efficient Asian companies. One of the major goals of the NAFTA is to spur business partnerships and global competitiveness among the North American countries, among firms in North America. Production partnerships are critical to a growing U.S. job market. The United States International Trade Commission believes that United States-Mexico production sharing is critical to countering the fierce trade competition which faces this country from Asia and Europe. Goods made in conjunction with operations in Mexico contain much more United States content than similar goods made elsewhere in the world. That means that as more manufacturing is located in low wage countries, a trend that clearly is inevitable, more United States jobs are maintained by sourcing these facilities in Mexico rather than in countries in the Pacific rim. So we need to realize that there is a great benefit to U.S. jobs by sourcing within this hemisphere, rather than on the other side of the world. Economic theory is one thing, but yesterday's New York Times in an article on the NAFTA described a classic example of production sharing and the complexity of trade's impact on our economy. Key Tronic Corp. is a large manufacturer of computer keyboards in Spokane, WA. The company faces its stiffest competition from Japanese competitors. We often hear people on this House floor talk about the problems of Japan and the fact that they have access to our markets and yet we do not have access to theirs. So we know there is a great deal of competitiveness that comes from Japan. That is obviously the case for Key Tronic. This company recently laid off 277 workers who were employed assembling the keyboards for Key Tronic, and they moved those jobs to Mexico. NAFTA critics hailed this as a great sign that NAFTA has failed, because these 277 jobs failed Spokane and moved to Mexico. The keyboard manufacturing operation in Mexico is clearly more efficient than it is in Spokane. That was a business decision that Key Tronic made. [[Page H 9769]] Due to the increased efficiency of this one aspect of Key Tronic's operations, the company's sales have surged. They have gone way up. The company today is much healthier, because they were able to take advantage of a more efficient operation within this hemisphere, rather than seeing those jobs move to the Pacific rim or other low-wage countries. The components for the keyboards assembled in Mexico largely come from plants, where? Around Spokane, WA. Due to the increased keyboard sales, those plants have all increased output and employment. The overall employment level in Spokane related to Key Tronic sales is actually up. It is up because they took advantage, because they took advantage of this efficiency that existed in Mexico. Now, key points from the Key Tronic experience that I think we need to learn, Mr. Speaker, the keyboards are being made more efficiently for lower cost. American computer manufacturers who purchase keyboards will now be able to offer more competitive prices to their consumers. Key Tronic is a healthier company, better able to stand up to Japanese competition. Key Tronic employees in the United States have a better future in a healthier company. Key Tronic suppliers are healthier with better future prospects for them. Their employees are better off. In the long run it is indefensible to promote trade barriers that intentionally reduce economic efficiency when competitors elsewhere in the world continue to strive for efficient means of production. That is why we need to recognize that free trade is obviously the wave of the future. Yes, I want to make sure we do not lose U.S. jobs. But I realize as we compete internationally, it is essential for us to continue moving ahead with these partnerships. Trade is a win-win situation and, on balance, will create more opportunity here in the United States. NAFTA has provided United States firms with a tangible advantage over our competitors from both Europe and Asia. As Robert Paltrow, president of N.A. Communications, an Armonk, NY marketing firm, recently said: ``The great sucking sound is not the sucking of our jobs to Mexico. It is the sucking of jobs from the Orient.'' The remarkable level of United States exports to Mexico even during enduring a major Mexican recession, is clear evidence that NAFTA provides United States firms significant advantages over their competitors from Europe and Asia. Even during bad economic times United States firms account for a majority of the increase in Mexican imports. They are coming from this country. As Mexico recovers from their slump, Mr. Speaker, United States exporters are a major beneficiary. At least 70 percent of all Mexican imports come from the United States. This gives us another major stake in Mexican economic stability. Not that everyone in southern California does not already recognize that long-term economic health in Mexico is critical to finding a solution to the problem of illegal immigration, giving the United States a clear stake in economic development in Mexico is very, very important. Many people have argued that we should not have engaged in this agreement. But, quite frankly, there is no benefit for the United States having a poor southern neighbor. Trade is not a zero sum game. I recognize that there are tremendous losses of jobs in many of the districts, including yours, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has just informed me. But the fact of the matter is, I argue that many of those jobs that have gone to Mexico would have gone with or without NAFTA, and what has happened is the opportunity for partnership, deregulation, decentralization, and privatization. The things we all herald in Mexico were locked in because of the North American Free-Trade Agreement. So I believe that while we listen to those critics out there who talk about that giant sucking sound, who talk about the fact that we have somehow given up our sovereignty, we have to recognize that maintaining our sovereignty is a top priority, and I am as committed to that as anyone. But recognizing that we live in a global economy is just as important. It is just as important because if we do not recognize that, the United States of America will be at a tremendous disadvantage to other countries throughout the world. So this has been a positive agreement. It is a long-term agreement. It is one that is going to be phased in over a 15-year period. But I believe very sincerely that the arguments that we made 2 years ago on behalf of the North American Free-Trade Agreement stand today. Mr. Speaker, I again thank my friend from Texas. I have consumed a grand total of 12 minutes, having gone just slightly beyond the 10, but in between the 10 and 15 that I said I would use.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], my friend, very much for yielding and I compliment him on his statement, even though I have disagreement with it. We need to realize that in cases of voting rights, Baker verses Carr.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I was going to respond to the three mothers and the three highway patrolmen, but if the gentleman does not want me to, that is fine.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to extend congratulations to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono], my friend from Palm Springs, for the valiant effort he has put into the legislation. As I was saying during management of the rule, he saw a wrong and decided to right it and he stepped forward and I am pleased we are able to proceed with this legislation. I have been listening to debate here, and one thing that needs to be underscored is the fact that the U.S. Congress has consistently maintained the use of three-judge panels when it comes to issues of voting rights an voting procedure, and this legislation we are considering here today simply moves into a very small and limited areas that same provision. Mr. Chairman, some have said this would be a tremendous burden. Well, we have seen 10 of these cases over the last 10 years. I think that as we recognize that, this is a very responsible route to take. One of the questions that was raised, Mr. Chairman, and this was given to me by the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], the subcommittee chairman, was why should legislation passed by statewide referenda be afforded preferential treatment? The answer is in this concurring opinion in Baker versus Carr V regarding apportionment. Justice Clark explicitly recognized the similarity between State referenda and the protection provided by the constitutional prohibition of unfair apportionment. By use of a referendum, a State is reapportioned into a single voting district to vote directly on legislation. When the population exercises its individual vote, that process is revered as a cornerstone of our democracy. For that reason, apportionment cases go to a three-judge panel for the same reason the cases falling under H.R. 1170 should go to a three-judge panel. This is very important legislation. I again congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono] for having the vision to introduce this measure and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I have asked the gentleman to yield one time.

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

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Dayton, OH [Mr. Hall]. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do so to simply inform my colleagues that we are very pleased to have the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on Rules, the ranking minority member here, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], and the entire House would like to extend our very warm welcome. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Loveland, CO [Mr. Allard].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a member of the Committee on Rules and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative Process. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 230 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would join in saying that I believe this is a very important day. We are headed toward a balanced budget within the next 7 years. We have successfully, when we pass this resolution, avoided a shutdown of the Federal Government. It is due to the efforts of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and all of us who have participated in supporting their work here. I hope, very much, that we will be able to move quickly to passage of this and then provide it so that the President can sign it this weekend. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and support of the resolution. 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 am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from Harrisburg, PA [Mr. Gekas].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time a I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of House Joint Resolution 108, a continuing resolution making appropriations for fiscal year 1996 through November 30, 1995. The rule provides for consideration of the joint resolution in the House, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, with 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The motion to recommit may include instructions only if offered by the minority leader or his designee. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of an historic effort to change the Washington culture of deficit spending by balancing the Federal budget over a 7-year period. For the first time in three decades, the majority in Congress is insisting that Federal spending not take priority over the future of our children. We are implementing a budget plan that sets priorities within the $1.5 trillion Federal budget by slowing the rate of growth of most Federal programs while eliminating those that are clearly wasteful, duplicative, or unnecessary. Balancing the budget is clearly not a simple job, especially when the President, sizable minorities in the House and Senate, and special interests that live off the fat of the bloated Federal Government stand in the way. The appropriations process is a central feature of that budget balancing struggle. It is clear that the bills that meet the targets of the 7-year balanced budget plan will not be completed by October 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year. The continuing resolution that we are going to be considering here today gives Congress time to complete the regular appropriations bills. Mr. Speaker, the administration supports House Joint Resolution 108, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations appeared before the Committee on Rules yesterday and both supported both the rule and the measure. This continuing resolution is a bipartisan compromise that was the result of a long, sincere, and tireless negotiating process. While this continuing resolution is a responsible bill, there should be no mistake the fact he continuing resolutions will not replace the regular appropriations process. House Joint Resolution 108 provides the time we need to do the work we need, and that is it. It is a temporary stopgap, and it is a fiscally responsible stopgap. The spending level incorporated in this continuing resolution is below the level in the House-passed balanced budget plan. It should be made clear that this continuing resolution does not attempt to impose major policy changes on the Federal Government. Those policy changes will be accomplished through the regular legislative process, an effort, even a struggle in some cases, that I look forward to. But they will not be implemented today. Mr. Speaker, with the beginning of the new fiscal year rapidly approaching, it is important that we act quickly. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the resolution. It should be approved, sent to the other body for equally prompt and responsible consideration, and sent to the President for signature this weekend. Then we can get back to the critical work of balancing the Federal budget, saving the Medicare system from bankruptcy, ending welfare as we know it, and implementing a growth-oriented tax cut that will create more jobs and increase the take-home pay of American workers. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a comparison of the rules considered by the Committee on Rules during the 103d and 104th Congresses.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my friend if he has any speakers on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from Woodland Hills, CA [Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule for consideration of the bill, H.R. 1170, legislation to bolster in American voters the confidence that their democratic system is fair and just. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule makes in order the Committee on the Judiciary amendment in the nature of a substitute as the original bill for the purpose of amendment, and each section will be considered as read. Under this open rule amendment process, Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Record prior to their consideration will be given priority and recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise consistent with House rules. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, we are at a critical time in our Nation's history. The very institutions of American democracy are threatened with increasing public discontentment, or at least apathy. Too many Americans are losing faith in our system, threatening the very foundation of the democracy that has served as the inspiration for people striving for freedom and democracy around the globe. H.R. 1170, the first legislation introduced by my California colleague, the gentleman from Palm Springs [Mr. Bono], a new member of the Committee on the Judiciary, attempts to address in an exceedingly responsible fashion a legal practice that is undermining the faith that voters have in their statewide referendum systems. Basically, it is judge shopping. As we have learned in the State of California, special interests often shop around to find an ideologically biased Federal judge to stop State referenda from taking effect by gaining a temporary injunction pending final court action. Of course, such final action can take many years. H.R. 1170 is not an indictment of any particular judge. Nor is it an indictment of any past legal decision which resulted in a referendum in California, or any other State, not taking effect after it was passed by the State's voters. Instead, the legislation takes direct aim at the practice of judge shopping that stacks the deck in legal challenges in order to overturn the clearly expressed will of a State's populace. At a time when many Americans believe that our political and legal systems are stacked in favor of special interests over the mass of voters and taxpayers, it is especially unsettling when an overwhelming statewide vote can be overturned, often in a matter of days, by a single Federal judge. For example, and this actually was really the genesis of this legislation, when the people of California approved the highly emotional Proposition 187 by an overwhelming 3 to 2 margin, a single Federal judge in San Francisco issued an injunction when the polls had been closed for 24 hours keeping the measure from ever taking effect. It does not matter whether the injunction in that case was technically warranted. The very fact that a Federal judge with a lifetime judicial appointment can single-handedly overturn the directly expressed will of the people of the State can, and does, undermine public confidence in our system. Using a three-judge Federal panel to determine injunctions in cases of statewide voter referenda, as they are currently employed in cases involving voting rights, is a sensible insurance policy to bolster public confidence in our democratic process. Mr. Speaker this rule provides, as I said, for an open amendment process. It is a fair rule, respectful of the right of every Member of this House to participate in debate. There was no opposition to the rule in the Committee on Rules, and I look forward to rapid and bipartisan approval of the rule now so that the House can get down to the very important business of considering this bill. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule and does not seem to be controversial. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this rule. I am a strong supporter of the legislation of the gentleman from California, Mr. Bono, and should say that I believe it is a great day when Mr. Bono has seen something that he believes is wrong and needs to be corrected and has stepped forward and introduced this legislation and has come before our Committee on Rules and will be in just a very few minutes speaking here on the floor for this legislation. 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 227 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during considertion of H.R. 1170, pursuant to House Resolution 227 the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment, and that the Chairman of the Committee on the Whole may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall be not less than 15 minutes.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], my colleague from Santa Clarita, was telling me that over the weekend he talked to a constituent who said to him, It was interesting. Last Friday I turned on CNN and I saw the Democrats out on the lawn in the rain holding these hearings, claiming that Republicans were not holding hearings on Medicare. And then I flipped to C-SPAN, and there was the hearings in the Committee on Ways and Means on the issue of health care reform and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I am struck to hear the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] talk about the litany of hearings on other issues. The Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Commerce held 26 hearings. Last Friday's was the 27th hearing on the issue of Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I tore out a letter in yesterday's L.A. Times in which this fellow, Frank Anderson from Irvine, said that, On January 3, 1992, at age 65, my Medicare part B premiums were $31.80 per month. To and including January 3, 1995, I have had 3 increases, about $5 each, to raise my premium to $46.10 per month. If nothing is done, and continuing at this rate for the next 7 years, I would expect 7 more $5 increases to raise the premium to about $81.10 per month. Mr. Speaker, he goes on to point to the fact that our total would be about $90; President Clinton's, $83. We are strengthening, protecting, and preserving Medicare.