David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would be happy to yield to one of the greatest proponents of free trade, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from The Woodlands, Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who is a strong opponent of this Hugo Chavez rule, the gentleman from Shreveport, Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of my friend how many speakers she has remaining.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I yield 1 minute to my friend from Washington, I would say to my friend from Texas that if she turns to page 1,136 of the book that she held up, she would see that that has the rule we are abrogating with this vote that we are about to take. With that, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from Auburn, Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of my friend; so I assume there are no further speakers then?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to the Republican whip, I'd like to yield for a unanimous consent to my good friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. I would again inquire of the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules if, in fact, there are going to be any other speakers on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time to simply say that this has been a very interesting debate. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side have put forward some, well, let's say some inaccuracies. The fact of the matter is that over the last 4 years, when this process began, the administration has been working very closely with hundreds and hundreds of meetings in a bipartisan way to come together so that we can do what both Democrats and Republicans alike have said that they want to do, strengthen our ties within this hemisphere and do what we can to ensure that we bring about an agreement which will work to create jobs right here in the United States. The distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee has just reminded me of the fact that every country with which we have a free trade agreement, every single country, we enjoy a surplus of trade, a trade surplus. So the notion that pursuing these FTAs somehow costs us jobs is preposterous, and the facts don't hold it up. One of our friends on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), talked about the fact that we were the manufacturing giant in 1974, 34 years ago, when fast track authority was put into place. And I will tell him that today we are still the world's manufacturing giant. In 1974, we had a $1.5 trillion economy; today, we have a $14.1 trillion economy. So as was said by the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, this is a no- brainer, as Mr. McCrery said, this is a no-brainer economically. We need to recognize that if we as a Nation are going to maintain our leadership role, we have to shape it. Vote ``no'' on this horrible Hugo Chavez rule, Mr. Speaker. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend from Fairfax, the distinguished former chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Government Oversight and Reform.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Springfield, Missouri, who will vigorously oppose this Hugo Chavez rule.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, which expresses the sense of Congress that Ukraine and Georgia should enter the NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) as soon as possible. I visited Ukraine just two weeks ago, and the visit was an opportunity to witness the country at a unique time. Many will say that it is a country divided, but I believe it is simply a country experiencing the growing pains of blossoming democracy. The process has often been ugly and chaotic--like democracy itself. But Ukrainians are committed to democracy and to a place in Europe. They want a modern country that plays a constructive role in the international community. But while they are universally committed to achieving a place in Europe, the Ukrainian people are still deeply ambivalent on the issue of NATO because they have not yet had the opportunity for an open discussion, or education on the matter free from propaganda. The issue has successfully been cast by its detractors as one of antagonism toward the East. This is, of course, utterly false. The MAP process is critical because it presents an opportunity to allow all factions of Ukrainian society to get a complete picture of what NATO membership means. Of course Ukraine should not join NATO until the country stands as one on the issue. But it will never reach consensus without education and honest debate. That's what MAP is all about, and why it is so important for Ukraine to begin that process at the upcoming NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania. We all want to see Ukraine in NATO one day. We want to see Ukraine solidify its democratic tradition, strengthen its institutions, modernize its defense systems, grow its economy and play an important and constructive role in both the West and the East. The name ``Ukraine'' itself means ``borderland.'' It has the opportunity to be a bridge between Europe and Asia, and NATO can only be strengthened by such a key player. But NATO membership cannot be undertaken prematurely, and the time will never be right without the work that is done via the MAP process. Georgia still has a long way to go as well before it is ready for NATO membership. But its people are committed to beginning down this path, and we should not deny them the opportunity to formally begin the process at Bucharest. Like Ukraine, Georgia experienced a democratic ``color'' revolution, and has since had to deal with the great challenges of implementing the goals and ideals of that revolution. They have also experienced growing pains, and have learned that the day-to-day work of building a democracy is not easy. But the Georgian people remain utterly committed to this work. They are working to ensure that critical institutions, including defense and security institutions, are strong, transparent and democratically governed. Both Georgia and Ukraine must solidify their gains and begin the MAP process. The road to NATO membership is often long and challenging, and no one would benefit--not the U.S., not NATO, nor the region--from delaying the start of this process.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by associating myself with the very eloquent remarks of my colleague from Miami, Mr. Diaz- Balart. Mr. Speaker, you never get a second chance to make a first impression, so the old saying goes that we've all heard. Once first impressions are made, it can be difficult to reinvent oneself. Circumstances may change, but assumptions and perceptions are very stubborn things. Just ask any Colombian. People became familiar with the country of Colombia in the 1980s and the 1990s as the drug wars exploded. We didn't know much about the place, but we were familiar with the highlights: Bloody drug wars fought in jungles and on the streets of cities like Medellin, Bogota and Cali. And although we probably couldn't name many of the elected officials in Colombia, everyone knew the name of Pablo Escobar, the drug lord. But over the course of this decade, a dramatic transformation has taken place in Colombia. The rule of gang lords has been replaced by the rule of law. The streets have become safe again. Armed terrorist organizations no longer operate in huge swaths of the country with impunity, and paramilitary groups have been dismantled with their leaders having gone to jail. Funding for the Colombian Justice Department has nearly doubled, to ensure that criminal cases, old and new, are dealt with professionally and expeditiously, sending a clear signal that the days of impunity are long gone. Poverty has been cut dramatically, while social spending has increased. The Colombia of today is unrecognizable to those who knew it just a decade ago. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of being there on several occasions and have been amazed by what I have seen. Nowhere is the transformation starker than in the city of Medellin. This city was ground zero for the Escobar drug cartel. Its murder rate rivaled the most dangerous places on the face of the Earth. Terror and violence ruled everyday life. Today, the city tells an utterly different story. Violence has plummeted. New public transportation projects and schools have given hope to previously blighted neighborhoods. New jobs and development, especially in the apparel industry, have provided a path to that first rung of the economic ladder, and greater upward mobility which was totally unheard of just a few years ago. Mr. Speaker, fair trade and specialty coffee industries have also provided new opportunities for well-paying jobs in the area. This thriving community is a shining example of the stunning turnaround that it has made since 2002. And yet much of the world has failed to take notice. While hostages and explosions make for front-page headlines, the slow and steady work of rebuilding a country is far less flashy. But the very difficult and remarkable work that has been done deserves recognizing. Many of us in Congress are working hard to solidify the gains that have been made through the implication of a free trade agreement. This agreement is strongly supported by the private sector unions of Colombia because they welcome the jobs and opportunity that the agreement will bring. I hope very much that the free trade agreement will be considered soon for a vote. But as this debate does go forward, I believe it must proceed based on facts, not assumptions, inaccurate perceptions, and outdated figures. When we talk about Colombia in the year 2008, we are not talking about the Colombia of Pablo Escobar. We are talking about a country transformed and on the mend. After the long, difficult struggle of the Colombian people, we owe them a little credit and recognition for the remarkable things that they have accomplished.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and I appreciate his fine work. It's no secret that there is a lot of controversy surrounding this issue of modernization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and everything that surrounds our effort to successfully prosecute this war on terror. We know that sacrifices have been made. We know that sacrifices continue to be made. And we're all very committed to the civil liberties of every single American. That's why I'm convinced that we are not going to take actions which will in any way undermine the civil liberties of our fellow Americans. It is very important to note, Mr. Speaker, that as we look at this issue, there is a great deal of bipartisanship that exists. Unfortunately, it's not in this body. And I recognize that as the people's House we have a unique responsibility and we should not in any way become a rubber stamp for action taken by the other body. But I will say this. As we look at bipartisanship, it extends beyond our colleagues in the United States Senate. It does exist right here in the House, in that 21 Democrats signed a letter to the Speaker and made the specific request that we have a chance to vote on the proposal that is, in fact, the bipartisan compromise that did emerge from the Senate. We also have had a bipartisan group of attorneys general across the country who have indicated that they very much believe that we should proceed with taking the action that is embodied in that bipartisan compromise that has emerged from the Senate. And, Mr. Speaker, I think one of the most important things that we should note is not simply bipartisanship but something that clearly transcends any kind of politics or partisanship, and that is the words that come from the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell. And when I say that he transcends partisanship, I would like to remind our colleagues that this is a man who has spent four decades of his life working in the intelligence field. He was the head of the National Security Agency for President Bill Clinton, and he now serves as the Director of National Intelligence. In testimony before the Judiciary Committee, he referred to the fact that there has been a 66 percent reduction, a two-thirds reduction in the amount of information that they need, that they should be able to glean in the intelligence area. And he has said that in his discussions and negotiations with those in the telecommunications industry that they will not be able to continue as they have in the past to help us prosecute this war if they don't have this immunity. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the things that we in this debate on the rule are saying is that, let's just allow a vote on that bipartisan compromise, the so-called Rockefeller-Bond bill that emerged from the Senate. Sixty-eight Democrats and Republicans came together and agreed on it. And we had an interesting Rules Committee meeting, Mr. Speaker, in which we simply said, okay, we're going to have a chance to vote on the measure that will emerge from the majority, but why if as my very dear friend, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Conyers said, he said he wanted there to be an exchange of ideas, if there's going to be an exchange of ideas, let's at least allow our colleagues to have an up-or-down vote on that bipartisan compromise which embodies the above-partisan recommendations of the Director of National Intelligence, the bipartisan recommendations of the attorneys general across the country and simply say that we should have a chance to vote on it. It's very unfortunate that this rule denies Members of the House of Representatives the opportunity to have that vote. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote down this rule. We need to defeat this rule so that we can in fact have a package that will allow us to do everything we need as we pursue our very, very important responsibility, and that is to secure our Nation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we can attain the bipartisanship that the distinguished Speaker and the majority leader would like us to have. We can do so by defeating the previous question so that we can make that in order. I am happy to yield the balance of our time to my friend from Westchester, Ohio, the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. DREIER. At this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to our hardworking friend from Stillwater, Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend we have a couple of speakers remaining, and if she has more than that, we will continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair, what is the procedure to move ahead to ensure that we have enforcement of rule IX?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a hardworking member of this so-called bipartisan task force on ethics reform, my friend from Michigan (Mr. Camp).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Republican whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would just say in response to my friend that bipartisan input has, unfortunately, not taken place. The gentleman is totally incorrect. And to confirm that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to a hardworking member of the task force, my friend from Goddard, Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt). (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my friend from Pasco, the former chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the present ranking member, Mr. Hastings.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 5 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from San Antonio, the Republican leader of this important task force, Mr. Smith.