David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3183, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY2010 Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3183, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY2010 Account: Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources Legal Name of Requesting Entity: San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority Address of Requesting Entity: 1720 West Cameron Avenue, Suite #100, West Covina, California 91790 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $4,000,000 for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund to continue the design, construction, and operation of water projects to contain and treat the spreading groundwater contamination in the San Gabriel and Central Water Basins. The San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority was established by California State law under SB1679 in 1993 to develop, finance and implement groundwater treatment programs in the San Gabriel Basin and act as a clearinghouse for federal funds that have been appropriated for these programs. The project is authorized in P.L. 106-554 and this request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Bureau of Reclamations Water and Related Resources account. The current authorization ceiling for the Restoration Fund has yet to be reached, with roughly $4,000,000 yet to be appropriated. The San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority will provide a minimum of a 35% cost share which will come directly from the Water Quality Authority. Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3183, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY2010 Account: Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Inland Empire Utilities Agency Address of Requesting Entity: 6075 Kimball Avenue, Chino, California 91710 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $100,000 for the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Project. Construction of the project is underway, and FY 2010 funding will be used 50% for purple pipe and 50% for storage tanks. When complete, the project will yield 100,000 acre feet of new recycled water annually. The project is authorized in P.L. 108-361, Title 1, Section 103(d)(3) and additional specific authorization is provided in P.L. 110-161, Sec. 210. The total project cost is $226 million. As is consistent with law, the federal share is capped at $20 million, which is less than 10% of the total cost of the project. Requesting Member: Representative David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3183, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY2010 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Los Angeles County Flood Control District Address of Requesting Entity: 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, California 91802 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $600,000 to continue a feasibility study and ultimately a watershed management plan which will focus on the restoration of the natural hydrologic function of the watershed and the management of water resources and water quality improvement including habitat and recreational resource restoration. The estimated total project cost is $2.7 million with more than 50% provided by local, non-federal funds.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, let's state for the record, I would say to my colleague, why it is that Colombia has resorted to these agreements with Mercosur, with Canada. The reason is very simply, 967 days ago when this agreement was signed, President Uribe and our friends from Colombia assumed that within a relatively short period of time, that we in both Houses of Congress would do our due diligence of looking at the agreement, and then we would have had an up-or-down vote. So it's hard to blame our friends and allies in Colombia for having embarked on negotiations with Canada and with Mercosur as we have, again, reneged on our commitment to have an up-or-down vote here. And I'm happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I will say to my colleagues something that I mentioned in my opening remarks, and I know that you'll agree with this, and people are always saying that these trade agreements cost manufacturing jobs here in the United States, people are thrown out of work because of these trade agreements, when, in fact, the opposite has been the case. We actually run a manufacturing job surplus with our partner countries with these FTAs. And I'm happy to further yield.

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for recommending that we take time to talk to our colleagues about this important issue. And, again, I will say I know that she and Mr. Conaway, Mr. Herger and others join me in hoping that this will be a bipartisan agreement. Let me just take one moment as I prepare to yield to my other colleagues, and I'm happy to yield again to my friend from Hinsdale, to talk about the much-maligned North American Free Trade Agreement. Now, my friend comes from Texas. My California colleague is here. We represent States that border on Mexico, and we so often hear people describe virtually every ailment in society as being tied to the North American Free Trade Agreement when, in fact, more than one-third of all U.S. exports, more than one-third of all the exports leaving the United States of America, go to our NAFTA partners, and for some States, that percentage is significantly higher. Michigan, we know what a devastating economy Michigan has. The number actually in Michigan is 68 percent of the exports from that State go to our NAFTA partners, obviously a great percentage to Canada but also much to Mexico. In Ohio, we so often hear our colleagues from Ohio maligning any kind of trade agreement. Yet, 54 percent of the exports from Ohio, where do they go? To our NAFTA trading partners. Those jobs created in Ohio, 54 percent of them go to our NAFTA partners. In Indiana, it's 52 percent. In fact, without the North American Free Trade Agreement the manufacturing workforce of these States would be devastated, and let's say that again, Mr. Speaker. While we hear that NAFTA is responsible for any job loss that takes place in Ohio, in Michigan, and in Indiana and other States, in fact, were it not for the North American Free Trade Agreement the manufacturing job loss would be tremendously higher than it is today. Since implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States and Mexico, we have actually seen our trade triple to nearly $1 trillion. Between 1993 and 2007, 28 million American jobs have been created, or a 25 percent expansion in our workforce. Between 1993 and 2007, U.S. industrial production, three-quarters of which is manufacturing, rose by 57 percent, almost double the productivity increase in the 12-year period before implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. And more than 110,000, small- and medium-size businesses export to Canada and Mexico, 110,000. I know many of them are in Texas, many in California, many in Illinois and other States. These companies are spread all across the country, but the top exporters to Canada and Mexico are, in fact, Texas, California, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, New York, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. And so while we regularly hear the North American Free Trade Agreement as being maligned and responsible for any economic challenge we face in this country, the opposite is the case. Have there been any people displaced? Well, of course there have been, and that's one of the reasons I've supported trade adjustment assistance, as I know my colleagues have, so that any people who do, in fact, face job loss that they will be in a position where they are able to be retrained, put into positions that will end up being very beneficial for them. So I'm very pleased now to be joined by one of the great champions of the trade agenda who's a member of the Agriculture and Intelligence and the Armed Services Committees, and he's the gentleman from Midland, Texas (Mr. Conaway). I'm happy to yield to him.

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, let me just add that not only are they our neighbors to the south, but they are, without a doubt, our strongest allies on the South American continent playing a big role in dealing with the interdiction of illicit drugs coming into the United States. And I regularly point to the fact that there is no country in modern history that has gone through a greater transformation for good in a 5- year period of time than Colombia. And the reason is that under the leadership of President Uribe, he has not only taken steps to demobilize the FARC and the paramilitaries in his country, but he also has made great steps towards dealing with the labor issues. And tragically there have been, in the past, labor killings, and there have been problems that continue to exist in Colombia. But he has been so helpful with us. We do know that on the South American continent today there are leaders who are not only not friendly to the United States, but are subverting the cause of freedom; and we know those leaders, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Abel Morales in Bolivia and, of course, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. We are seeing very serious problems here. And yet we have this important, strong ally dealing with these issues. We promised them that we would have a vote so that we can create good, American jobs for Caterpillar's workers, for Whirlpool's workers, and for the other small businesses that exist. That is why I think it is very, very important that we continue to hold up our tradition of supporting our global leadership and trade, continue to do that. And I'm happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. I must say, it's unusual for me to use facts.

Mr. DREIER. So the gentlewoman is saying that the unions in Colombia are supportive of this agreement? I'd be happy to further yield.

Mr. DREIER. We're constantly hearing, Mr. Speaker, that unions are all opposed to this agreement. It seems to me that the unions here in the United States of America are opposed to it, and I've never quite understood that. How can creating more jobs for the union members and workers at Caterpillar and Whirlpool and a wide range of other companies across this country be the wrong thing to do, opening up markets so that their products can be sold into those countries? To me, I can't understand it. And when we've got the unions--all except one union, I'm told, and it's actually basically the public services union, which has nothing to do with the issue of global trade is the only union in Colombia that has opposed this. But I have had the chance in Bogota to meet with a wide range--and I know my colleagues have--of union leaders who are passionately supportive of this measure because they know it will end up being beneficial to their country and their workers. I'm happy to further yield.

Mr. DREIER. I appreciate the gentleman for his very thoughtful contributions and I'd be happy to yield to my friend from Hinsdale.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for her contribution as well, and it has been an unfortunate thing. I believe that there are intelligent people within the union movement here in the United States who understand that creating jobs in the United States hinges in large part on opening up markets where 95 percent of the world's consumers are outside of our borders, and yet, they have, for some unknown reason, and there's lots of speculation as to why they do this, they have continued to drum up and really pander to what is the lowest common denominator of fear, frightening people, My gosh, if we embark on an agreement, we're going to lose jobs, when, in fact, every shred of evidence that we have is that the opposite is the case. And I thank my friend for her contribution. I thank my friend from Midland as well. Now, I'm very, very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to yield to our very, very hardworking colleague who for many years served as the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee Subcommittee on Trade who's been a great champion of it, as a fellow Californian, represents important agriculture industry in his State, the largest industry. I say as an Angeleno, that I know full well that agriculture is the number one industry in our State of California, and the idea of opening up new markets is very important. And actually, as the gentleman begins, I want to talk a little bit about the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement because I know that would play a very big role in benefiting the constituents he has, the farmers whom he represents. With that, I'm happy to yield to my friend from Chico.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me ask my friend to repeat that. We are the number one manufacturing country in the world? So few people realize that. People believe that it is China. People believe that there are other countries, that Mexico is, but we continue, even with this struggling, down economy to be the number one manufacturing country in the entire world?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his contribution. And just to take his great example on Panama and to further build on Colombia, it's very interesting. It has been, as I look at my colleagues here, Mr. Herger, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Conaway, who've been very involved in this issue for so many years, it's hard to believe when I was given this number today, it has been 967 days--967 days--since we signed the agreement with Colombia. And people from the State of the great gentlewoman from Hinsdale, Illinois, who work for Caterpillar and others have actually been forced in that 967 days to pay $2.1 billion in tariffs that otherwise would not have been there. And if one could think of the tremendous number of jobs that could have been created right here at home--because that's what this special order is about, Mr. Speaker. It's about creating good jobs here in the United States of America. This Special Order is actually the brainchild of my friend from Hinsdale. We were having a meeting of our Trade Working Group, and she proposed that we come to the floor and talk about how we can create more good U.S. jobs by expanding open trade. And with that, I'm happy to yield to the author of this Special Order, my friend from Hinsdale (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I would like the gentlewoman to repeat that number. So, again, the actual raw number in dollar value of the increase in our exports from the United States is what number?

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I find it very hard to believe the gentlewoman from Hinsdale drove a high loader. A Caterpillar high loader?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for his very thoughtful contribution, especially mentioning the very important Korea agreement. This is about jobs, jobs, jobs created right here in the United States of America. And that is exactly what these trade agreements will do. I thank my friend and all of my colleagues for their participation in this very, very important Special Order. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that we will continue this conversation, and look forward to work in a bipartisan way to get these agreements through so that we can create more good job opportunities for our fellow Americans.

Mr. DREIER. If I were to witness that, Mr. Speaker, I would get out of the way, but I'm sure you did very well.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend it was not just--it was not just a change. It was, from my perspective, a complete abrogation of the responsibility that we had. And my concern is that we embark not only on other free trade agreements, but any other international negotiation with any other partner in the world to deal with national security issues and other challenges out there. What good is our word after a commitment was made that there would be an up-or-down vote because of trade promotion authority that was granted by the Congress to the executive branch and negotiate this agreement saying we would have an up-or-down vote and then all of a sudden reneging on that commitment that was made? I would be happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me express my appreciation to my colleagues, Mr. Lungren, Mr. Barrow, the very thoughtful remarks of my Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Ft. Lauderdale, Mr. Hastings. I simply want to chime in and say that four decades of extraordinary service to this institution is, frankly, quite rare. I see the Dean of the House sitting here, and we all know he's been here a little more than a decade beyond that. But it still is extraordinary when we have someone who has taken on what is one of the least recognized, but what is clearly one of the most important, responsibilities in this institution. Bringing the office into the 21st century has been something that has been made possible because of that four decades of experience. Members have the task of trying to put together legislative packages, and often work, as we all know, is done very late at night. Often, many changes are made which are challenged on both sides, but the professionalism that has been shown by Mr. Barrow and the entire office is something that I can say, as a minority member of the House Committee on Rules, does not go unnoticed or unappreciated. We are going to have challenging days ahead, and I believe that that four decades of work has laid the groundwork for what I know will be continued professionalism as we deal with these many challenges.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. One other caveat, as we talk about these committees, one of the things that I think my colleague should know about the Rules Committee is that we have the ability to do virtually anything that we want in the Rules Committee. And as we have heard over the past few weeks, the concern that has been raised is this calendar issue, trying to get this work done before we head into the August recess to deal with these issues. I think that it is clear that after this process goes on, an outside time limit could be put into place on each of the appropriations bills. That could be the rule that comes down, if that is something that the majority chooses to do. The concern that I have as we look at the amendments, traditionally there have been opportunities for bringing about real spending cuts in appropriations bills. As we look at these double-digit increases in the appropriations bills, unfortunately, cherry-picking amendments, which is really what has happened so far with this process--and I understand the offer that my friend made early on about minority amendments and the opportunity to offer that. But right now what we have is a situation where the Rules Committee is choosing these amendments. If, in fact, it simply is a time issue, rather than choosing those at all, the Rules Committee could, as my friend has pointed to the 200 hours that have been spent, it would be very easy to simply say, 8, 10, 12 hours would be the outside time limit for the appropriation work of a subcommittee here on the floor, and then we can do it under an open amendment process. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the very thoughtful remarks coming from my friend, the distinguished majority leader, I am reminded that he came to Congress just a few months after I came in 1980. And I am reminded how we stood here on opposite sides engaging in the first Oxford-style debate, if the gentleman recalls, Mr. Speaker, on the issue of trade policy being used to enforce human rights. That was the discussion we had two decades ago. I simply put that forward, Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to underscore the fact that we are both institutionalists. We both served nearly three decades here, and we feel strongly about this institution and about the responsibility that we have to the American people. I know that my friend understands full well that if one looks at the Constitution and the precedents that have been set in the past, there is a clear differentiation between the Ways and Means Committee's work and the Appropriations Committee's work. And there is also clearly an understanding of the disparity between the notion of opening up the Tax Code to a completely open amendment process and dealing with the appropriations process through an open amendment process which has, for 220 years, been the case, with some exceptions. The interesting thing about those exceptions, and I know we have had both private discussions and we are engaging in public discussion now, and I thank my friend, the distinguished Republican Whip, for yielding to me, one of the things that I believe has not been tried, I know has not been tried in this process, is to allow not the top elected leaders of the party to make these kinds of decisions, not even the chairman and ranking member of the full committee. But just to report to my friends here, Mr. Speaker, in the Rules Committee the day before yesterday we had an opportunity to hear from the distinguished Chair of the Agriculture subcommittee, Ms. DeLauro, and the ranking member of that committee, Mr. Kingston. And recognizing that there has been difficulty, recognizing that sometimes the appropriation process has, as my friend correctly has said, seen Members engage in dilatory practices, Mr. Kingston made it clear that if we were to have an open amendment process, that he would do everything within his power to ensure that shenanigans would not take place on our side of the aisle that could delay the process, because we all acknowledge that we want to get the work done. Mr. Cantor has said that. Mr. Lewis has said that. We very much want that to take place. What we are arguing is that if you look at when we have had structured rules in the past, they have, in almost every instance, followed the inability of the subcommittee chair and ranking member to successfully propound a unanimous-consent agreement. So while Mr. Cantor just made an offer, I frankly believe that we should do everything we can to at least attempt, just take one of the appropriations bills, and see if, not the majority leader and the Republican Whip, or the Republican leader and the Speaker or whatever, the top elected positions within our party, rather let the subcommittee chairmen make an attempt at doing that. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because as we look at even the notion of what we began with, which was what created the high level of frustration for us--and yesterday I did a ``Dear Colleague'' explaining this process, the notion of somehow having a preprinting requirement does create undue constraint on both Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the appropriations process. And that is what led to the over- 100 amendments being filed, because of the fact that when we considered the bill that we just passed 1 hour ago, in this House, last year, the unfortunate thing was there was no chance for even perfecting amendments to be offered to technical concerns that were there. In light of that, we felt very concerned about even having the preprinting requirement. So my request would be, since we have now--unfortunately, having passed the five appropriations bills that we have, I guess it is six now that we have passed, six now as of this afternoon--we are unfortunately creating what I'm describing as the ``new norm.'' I know that as an institutionalist, the majority leader would not like to see that continue. I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, that we are able to at least make an attempt to embolden, as has been the case in the past, our Chairs and ranking members of the appropriations subcommittees, who are expert on these bills, to work on them and work with our colleagues on that. I thank my friend for yielding. I hope very much we can at least make that attempt on one bill as we move forward.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I would simply say to my friend, I was downstairs in the meeting and my friend stood up and began talking about the fact that we considered measures under structured rules in the past, and it's frankly important for us in the name of Democrats and Republicans alike who are denied amendments and the American people whose Representatives are not able to participate in the very important constitutional article I section 9 responsibility of appropriations here. That's why there is in fact bipartisan concern on this issue, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I'm happy to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations. I'll look forward enthusiastically to yielding to him after I make a couple of points. First, the gentleman has ended his remarks by talking about the need for some kind of outside time limit. In fact, just yesterday I pulled out of my coat pocket the schedule that we have seen. We all understand that getting the appropriations work done is important. It's a priority for Democrats and Republicans alike. The fact of the matter is the Rules Committee, with a great deal of ease, could in fact simply report out a special rule which would establish an outside time limit on the amendment process at all and we could proceed, as has been the case for the last 220 years, with an open amendment process. Now my friend also referred to the fact, and I know that my friend from Marietta didn't say that it was unprecedented to have unstructured rules when we deal with appropriations bills, but it is unusual. And I will remind my friend who talked about the history that back in 1997, when we did in fact have five appropriations bills considered under structured rules, it was done so after, in the case of one, it came to the floor. As our late colleague, the former chairman of the committee, Mr. Natcher, used to always say, bills should be considered as privileged. The disparity between a measure emerging from the Ways and Means Committee and the privileged structure for consideration of appropriations bills is something that is very easily understood in the rules of the House of Representatives. And so I'd be happy to yield to my friend if he would like to respond to the notion of the fact that we began those measures that ultimately were considered under structured rules, we began them, one, under a privileged structure, which meant that the Rules Committee did not even need to act because points of order could be raised against the work product of the measure itself and also to the point of time limits. The Rules Committee could easily report out a rule that would establish an outside time limit. That's all we'd need to do. And then we could consider the measure under an open amendment process. I'm happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Grandfather community for yielding me the time, and appreciate her fine service to the Rules Committee. Sadly, she is on the minority side presiding over another very, very sad day for Democrats and Republicans and the American people. Mr. Speaker, if we pass this rule today, we will again set a record. The record we will be setting is the largest number of restrictive rules for consideration of appropriations in the history of the Republic. Now, in the past we have had restrictive rules that have come about after an open amendment has begun on the floor, and the Rules Committee has taken action. In 1997 it happened on four occasions, and we ultimately did in fact put into place restrictive rules. This is the fifth rule for consideration of an appropriations bill. And so by virtue of the action that I suspect this House will take, we have to remember that the rights of the American people, not the rights of Republicans, the rights of the American people, Democrats and Republicans, all are being subverted with this process that is being put into place. In fact, it is a sad day because by virtue of taking this action, Mr. Speaker, what is happening is we are now setting the new norm. The new norm is a restrictive process shutting down the rights of Democrats and Republicans from having an opportunity to amend appropriations bills. What I have here is a copy of the House Rules and Manual. And tragically, tragically as we look at this appropriations process, our colleagues are going to, 10 or 20 years from now, be looking at the Rules and Manual and the moniker ``open rule'' will be little more than a footnote in the history of this institution based on the pattern we have set forward. I know that is all inside baseball, but the fact of the matter is it comes down to the effort being made by the majority to not only shut out Members of their own party, Republicans, but what is happening is we are preventing Members from having an opportunity to bring about any kind of reduction in spending. We know, with what we have seen under the actions of this Congress, what has happened, we spend too much, we tax too much, and we borrow too much. One of the things that has been great about the appropriations amendment process in the past has been simply that Democrats and Republicans could stand up and offer germane amendments that could bring about reductions in spending. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) has consistently gone up to the House Rules Committee, made an attempt to bring about some kind of opportunity for spending reduction. He has had very few opportunities to do that. It is denied again in this rule that is before us. And so, Mr. Speaker, again it is a very unfortunate thing that when you look at the appropriations bills and see that the bill that we are considering up in the Rules Committee right now, the Foreign Operations bill, has a 33 percent increase. The Interior bill, a 17 percent increase. This Agriculture bill that we are considering the rule on right now, a nearly 12 percent spending increase. Now the American people have sent a very clear message: They want to make sure they keep their jobs. They don't want to lose their businesses. They don't want to lose their homes. And they were promised by President Obama that if we passed a $787 billion stimulus bill, that the unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. Well, it is now 9.5 percent, and so I think the message may be getting through to some people who heretofore may have been supportive of an increase in spending, that maybe that is not the best way. And so I think Democrats and Republicans alike may want to have an opportunity to bring about some kind of reduction in these 17 percent increases, the 11 to 12 percent increases, the 33 percent increases, when they in their family budgets are trying to hold onto their jobs. And obviously, if they have lost their jobs or homes, they are faced with tremendous reductions in their own personal budgets. We recognize there is a proper role for the Federal Government. Spending needs to take place, but we should not in any way be continuing down the road that we are, denying Democrats and Republicans an opportunity to bring about even the most modest of spending cuts. I think of our friend, Mr. Broun from Georgia, who regularly comes before us to offer a one-half of 1 percent cut in appropriations spending, and we deny him through this process, which is now unprecedented, never been done before in the 220-year history of the country, denied an opportunity to do just that. And so, again, Mr. Speaker, I hope very much that we will follow the direction that Ms. Foxx is providing us in voting ``no'' on this rule so that we can come back and have what has been the tradition up until this process, and that is an open, free, and fair debate so that Democrats and Republicans and, through their elected representatives, the American people can finally be heard.