David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm very happy to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and hardworking colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Miami (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), a great champion of freedom.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to a very strong free trader, my friend from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from Miami (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, 2 months ago today, our colleagues in the other body passed this very important bill designed to provide assistance to our veterans. And here we are 2 months later, and there is a desperate need to ensure that our Nation's veterans have exactly what they deserve. Yesterday afternoon I followed the example of our colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and his wife, Beverly, who regularly go out and visit our wounded troops, and I went out to the Walter Reed Army Hospital. I had the opportunity to see a number of these courageous men who have sacrificed and have been wounded. And I couldn't help but think of it, as I came back and went to the Rules Committee last night and saw this attempt being made, which they have done, to tie the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill to the Veterans bill, as nothing but pure politics which undermine the ability for us to get what these brave men and women who have fought on behalf of the cause of freedom need. This is wrong. We have got to end it right now. Bring a clean bill to this floor.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as I listened to the very distinguished chairman of the Military Quality of Life Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, I've got to say that I was somewhat saddened at this constant finger-pointing: the Republicans did this in 1996 and we didn't know how to run the place and we didn't provide the funding that was necessary for veterans and all of this sort of stuff and we were late in doing these things. The fascinating thing about this is that there's this brilliant document that came forward during last fall's campaign, and it was unveiled by the new Speaker of the House. It was called ``A New Direction for America.'' And in it, it talked about this new spirit of openness, the fact that we would have transparency and disclosure and accountability, the likes of which we had not seen in a long time, if ever. Madam Speaker, I will tell you that we all know that we've gotten the exact opposite of that. I unveiled a few weeks ago, along with my colleagues Mr. Hastings, Mr. Diaz-Balart and Mr. Sessions, an outline of what has happened in this year. Well, this process that we're dealing with at this very moment is an example of the kind of arrogance that we have seen in trying to utilize veterans as a political pawn. Now, the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), quoted the veterans publication in which they said very clearly, we can do something that will ensure that the resources necessary for our Nation's veterans are there. We can pass in a bipartisan way a military quality of life appropriations conference report. We can get it through both Houses of Congress, and we can get it to the President of the United States. And then we will have, albeit late, we will have been able to get the funding that is necessary. Now, Madam Speaker, I don't believe that there are Members of this institution who actually want to deprive our Nation's courageous veterans from having access to the quality health care and the other items that they need to have to address their concerns. I don't believe that anybody sincerely wants to do that. But I will tell you this, we know full well that there has been game- playing in this process. In fact, all one needs to do is look at the rule. We know that rule XVIII in the Senate basically says that you cannot link up two appropriation bills. It's a scope violation, and it can't be done. Madam Speaker, on October 31, 44 Members of the United States Senate signed a letter, and I'd like to include this letter in the Record at this point. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, October 31, 2007. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Majority Leader Harry Reid, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid: We write this letter to request that federal funding for our nation's troops and veterans not be further delayed and held hostage for partisan purposes. Congress must promptly complete its work on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Military Construction- Veterans Affairs (MilCon-VA) and Defense appropriations bills, and they should be sent to the President's desk as freestanding measures by Veterans Day. It has been nearly two months since both Houses passed their respective FY 2008 MilCon-VA appropriations bills, and nearly one month has gone by since both chambers approved their FY 2008 Defense appropriations bills. Plenty of time has passed for these measures to go through conference and get signed into law. Yet to date, this Congress has still not sent a single appropriations bill to the President--a failure of accomplishment that has not happened in decades. Meanwhile, our brave soldiers are defending us overseas, taking the fight to the terrorists, and keeping our nation safe. Veterans continue waiting for increased funding, which the President already has signaled that he would approve and will lead to improved medical care and other benefits. Swift action on the MilCon-VA and Defense appropriations bills is not only fitting with Veterans Day coming in less than two weeks, but it also is one of our highest responsibilities as lawmakers. Our soldiers and veterans already have done so much for our country. The Democratic Congressional Leadership should not now cynically use them to shoulder a bloated ``minibus'' funding bill up Pennsylvania Avenue and wrest billions in excessive spending. Leading veterans groups have expressed strong concerns about such an approach. For months, the President has said that he would oppose it. Our troops and veterans cannot afford unnecessary delay, and they rightfully expect Congress to put their interests ahead of politics. It therefore is irresponsible to attach VA and military funding measures onto a domestic spending bill which we know will get vetoed. Instead, we urge you to work with us in a bipartisan manner so we can quickly advance freestanding MilCon-VA and Defense appropriations bills for the President's signature. It was addressed to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, and in it they said that they were not going to stand for this attempt to play politics, partisan politics, with funding for our Nation's veterans. And so we all know what is going to happen if this measure passes out of this House. The Senate has the ability and 44 Members have signed this letter saying that they are going to, in fact, raise a point of order to prevent it from proceeding. Now, it was 2 months ago today, Madam Speaker, 2 months ago today that the Senate passed this appropriation bill; and, unfortunately, the attempt to get the resources necessary for our veterans is, in fact, being denied. I think that it is absolutely reprehensible that we would use them to try and pass a bill that we know the President of the United States has said he's going to veto. So I suspect that just as we went through this debate on the State Children's Health Insurance Program measure, there will be some that say Republicans are voting against providing resources for our Nation's veterans, and it's the power of the majority here in the House. They can fashion things in such a way that that, in fact, can be described. They can characterize the vote that way. The veterans of this country aren't going to buy it. The American people aren't going to buy it. They know that games are being played with this very important funding measure. Madam Speaker, it is essential that we defeat this rule, make sure that we get a clean appropriation bill for our veterans to the President's desk just as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. DREIER. Well, I had just completed my statement, Madam Speaker, and the gentleman said getting lectures from people, and I'd given a 5- or 6-minute statement. So I don't know, maybe it was an exaggeration for me to infer that the gentleman was referring to what I said when, in fact, I had served on the Rules Committee in a leadership position in the past several Congresses. So maybe I was wrong in interpreting that he was referring to my statement. But, Madam Speaker, let me say this: we know that the House of Representatives did, in fact, pass out those appropriations bills. We worked in a bipartisan way to make that happen. We had a friendly exchange with the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations in which we characterized the Senate as the enemy and the other party as merely the opposition. The fact of the matter is we've had a real challenge in dealing with the Senate. We know that as we look at this measure we, in past Congresses, have, in fact, been successful at passing measures out of the House of Representatives. And I will say again that my friend referred to these lectures when, in fact, I began my remarks by pointing to the fact that we were promised a new day, and the fact is we're getting much, much worse. We're getting much worse than the behavior and the performance that my friend complained about of the past. So, Madam Speaker, I've got to say that playing politics with our Nation's veterans is exactly what we're going through right now, and I think it's a very sad commentary. And I am gratified, I'm very gratified, that our Nation's veterans organizations are recognizing exactly what's happening, and I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I was very sorry that my friend from Fort Lauderdale wouldn't yield to me, and I would be happy to yield to him in a moment as I respond to the statement that he made just when I completed mine. He said that I was responsible for leaving 11 appropriations bills on the floor. He said that he got a lecture.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my good friend from Arkansas, the cochair of the U.S.-French Caucus, and appreciate his thoughtful remarks as well as the remarks of my friend from New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise because I think it is really a great day that we are once again, after what could only be considered as somewhat of a hiatus in this institution, underscoring the importance of the relationship between the United States and France. It's very clear that there was a period of time when we were quite critical of France and, in fact, we all know that the sort of the politically correct thing to do was to engage in French bashing. I always had a tough time with that myself. One of the reasons is that as we are here in this Chamber, the portrait just to my right is of the man who underwrote the American Revolution, Marquis de Lafayette. In fact, his portrait is the only portrait of a non- American that hangs anywhere in this great building, the U.S. Capitol. For us to recognize, as my friend from Arkansas just has said in his remarks, the great new, renewed friendship with the election of President Sarkozy between the United States and France is, I think, a great thing. I am very enthused about 11 o'clock Wednesday morning when we are in this very Chamber going to hear the words of France's new President. As my friend said, for Nicholas Sarkozy, before he became President, when he was a minister on the fifth anniversary of September 11, to go to New York and demonstrate his solidarity with those who stood up to the terrorists and, again, his great assistance in working with us in supporting the State of Israel, in making sure that we do everything that we can to diminish the threat of the potential nuclear buildup in Iran; of course, the kinds of missions that Nicholas Sarkozy has embarked on most recently to return the hostages of many conflicts around is something that, I believe, is to be heralded. We just had the news this morning that President Sarkozy personally was able to see the return of, I think it was seven nurses, who had been held hostage. So his commitment to the cause of freedom and liberty, and I will say, yes, his underscoring the great importance of the relationship and the alliance between France and the United States of America is a great thing for us. I congratulate my colleagues for their support and urge everyone to support this resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), for their very thoughtful remarks on this resolution. I also want to join in expressing my appreciation to my fellow Californian, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr. Lantos and, of course, the ranking Republican, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen. I think both of the sets of remarks offered underscore something that is extraordinarily important, and that is that we thank and express our appreciation to our allies, no matter how large or how small their populations, in dealing with the challenges that we face internationally. But I will say I have a particular interest in the world's oldest republic because I am privileged to represent its namesake, the City of San Marino, California. I had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of leading the first bipartisan delegation to what, as my friend from New York correctly said, is the oldest republic on the face of the Earth, and we took this delegation back in 2004 to the Republic of San Marino. I had the opportunity to present to the Captains Regent, as was said, the co-heads of their state, of their government, a proclamation passed by the San Marino City Council expressing its greetings and appreciation for the friendship that they share. San Marino, California, was named at its founding for the republic on the Adriatic Sea and displays in its seal Mount Titano, where the republic was first established. Today, like its namesake, San Marino, California, is known for its beauty. It is home to the Huntington Library and Gardens, one of Southern California's great treasures. But the relationship with the Republic of San Marino reaches far beyond beauty. It's my hope that this resolution will help to make us all more aware of the great bond the United States shares with this small, but very important, country. The Republic of San Marino, as was said, was founded over 17 centuries ago by those who were fleeing the religious persecution of the Roman Empire. They founded a community based on liberty and tolerance 1,300 years before the Pilgrims would land on Plymouth Rock on a similar endeavor. Since those early days of the republic, San Marino has continued its strong tradition of democracy and freedom. Our close bond, based on a shared commitment to these principles, was first, as my friend from New York said, recorded in history through an exchange of letters between President Lincoln and the Captains Regent. President Lincoln expressed in that letter his deep respect for the Republic of San Marino, saying, ``as one of the most honored in all of world history.'' Mr. Speaker, he took encouragement from its example that any ``government founded on republican principles is capable of being so administered as to be secure and enduring.'' Those are the words of President Lincoln. Now, as our Nation faced a great crisis, Lincoln looked to the example of San Marino, which had endured for so long while standing with its small ``r'' republican foundation. As the United States has faced new crises in the 20th and 21st centuries, it has again relied upon San Marino for its steadfast support within international institutions such as the United Nations. San Marino has been a close collaborator on a number of critical issues like combating international terrorist financing. This year we have honored their friendship and support, as was said, by elevating our relationship to the ambassadorial level. My good friend and fellow Californian Ron Spogli, as the first U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of San Marino, presented his credentials to the Captains Regent in a ceremony in San Marino's Palazzo Publico on March 8 of 2007. And as my friend from New York said, the exchange was completed when on July 25 of this year, Paolo Rondelli, the first Ambassador of the Republic of San Marino to the United States, presented his credentials to President Bush at the White House. Mr. Speaker, today we honor this exchange of ambassadors, and we honor the close relationship between our Nation and the world's oldest republic and the fundamental values that bind us. And, again, I thank my colleagues for their support of this resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I again thank my friend from Arkansas for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from New York for his very thoughtful remarks on this important resolution. I rise in strong support of it. I think that both my friends from New York and Arkansas have underscored the grave concern that we have about Iran's entry into this hemisphere, and especially in the remarks offered by the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Speaker, he underscored this nexus which has been developed by Hugo Chavez in Caracas, Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Now, what is it that we have seen? Obviously there are a great deal of differences that exist when it comes to the vision that a Hugo Chavez would have and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have. But they have rallied around one particular point, and that is, virulent opposition to everything that the United States of America stands for. Both of them have been hypercritical of the United States and our policies and the cause of freedom, quite frankly, based on what we've seen in both countries. The thing that is most troubling is the fact that Mr. Chavez has had this pattern of inviting Mr. Ahmadinejad into this hemisphere and, basically, continuing to promote the anti-American sentiment. And it is cause for concern, and I believe this resolution is very important. Mr. Chavez took Mr. Ahmadinejad to the inauguration of Rafael Correa in Quito, Ecuador. And again, as my friend from Arkansas has just said, the prospect of an Iranian Embassy opening in Quito is something that's very troubling. Similarly, he took him to meet with Evo Morales, the President of Bolivia, again, a very, very troubling sign. And I will say, quite frankly, I am even concerned about, while we've heralded the election that took place a week ago yesterday in Argentina, I do believe that there is reason for concern of the potential for this linkage there that exists. I think it's very exciting to see Cristina Kirchner become the President, succeeding her husband in Argentina, but I do believe that we need to remain very vigilant in looking at this linkage between Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and others within this hemisphere. I would also like to laud my colleague from Arkansas for underscoring the importance of continuing to build our economic alliances with those countries in the hemisphere that are committed to political pluralism, the development of democratic institutions, the rule of law and self- determination. We are on the verge, this week, we're going to be addressing the issue of a U.S.-Peru free trade agreement. We also have on the horizon, as we all know, in this hemisphere both the Panama and the Colombia free trade agreements. And so I will say, Mr. Speaker, I think this resolution is very timely. I congratulate my friends for underscoring the importance of this. And I hope that a by-product of it will be the recognition that working with our allies in this region to develop even stronger economic ties should be the next step for us to take. Again, I urge strong support of this resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. A couple of things. At the outset, Madam Speaker, I referred to a statement that was made by my good friend from Fort Lauderdale on the Rules Committee last night when he said that there was only one opportunity in the 109th Congress for an amendment to be made in order for a Ways and Means Committee bill when, in fact, we researched that, as I said, and Mr. Hastings was absolutely wrong when he said it. We have five instances in the 109th Congress where we, in fact, did make in order amendments for Mr. Rangel on the Ways and Means Committee for the consideration of measures. Also stated last night, unfortunately, our friend from Worcester (Mr. McGovern) made a statement that all trade adjustment assistance measures have been considered under suspension or closed rules. There was an item that was considered under suspension. As I said, if it's considered under suspension and passed, it means that there is clearly a strong bipartisan consensus because, as our colleagues know, Madam Speaker, one is required to have a two-thirds vote to make that happen. But there was another bill that dealt with this issue. It was H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, and it was considered under a structured or modified closed rule in the 107th Congress and it provided then-Ranking Member Rangel with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. So I just think it's important for us to make clear that we, in fact, did provide those kinds of opportunities. Madam Speaker, as I said, I was prepared to support this rule. I do believe that it is a monumental accomplishment that, as we have gotten to October 31, Halloween, we are for the first time seeing a substitute made in order for the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, and I congratulate the Democratic majority, after having made this promise in January in a New Direction for America, that great document put forward by Speaker Pelosi in which the promise was made that amendments, open, full, fair debate, including a substitute, and it has taken us until October 31 before that has happened, but I celebrate, Madam Speaker, the fact that we have finally gotten to this point. That was what was going to lead me to be supportive of this rule. But then I picked up the Roll Call newspaper, one of our affectionately called ``rags'' on Capitol Hill here. On page 3 I looked, and I have a printout of it right here, the article goes through a press conference that the majority leader held yesterday and a statement by the very distinguished Chair of our committee, the gentlewoman from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter), in which she said the following: ``Nothing is imminent. We want to take our time and do it right.'' Madam Speaker, what she is referring to is this quest that was launched by the Democratic majority to undermine the minority's right to offer a motion to recommit. Now, again, as I said earlier, this is all inside baseball, but the motion to recommit means that nearly half of the American people, through their elected representatives, Democrat or Republican, have a right to offer a motion to recommit. There have been some very thoughtful motions to recommit, 21, 22 of them that have succeeded in this Congress. Madam Speaker, we are in the minority. They would not have succeeded had we not seen a large number of Democrats join, and in a number of cases they have been passed nearly unanimously on recorded votes. So now with what are described as simply political moves, which are, interestingly enough, very thoughtful proposals that have been propounded by the Members of the minority, we are being told that once again the majority is looking to deny nearly half the American people the right to be heard on one single instance. So for that reason, I am going to encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule. I am going to ask Members also to oppose the previous question on the rule so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to go to conference with the Senate on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, which passed this House with overwhelming bipartisan support. There have been reports that the majority leadership is planning on playing a political game with our veterans and our men and women on the front lines by wrapping the Defense bill and the Veterans Affairs bill into the Labor, Health and Human Services bill. The Military Construction bill could have been sent to the President's desk weeks ago, but the Democratic leadership was content to play political games with America's kids. All we have asked this majority to do is to simply come to the table and I am asking here today that we oppose the previous question so that I can make in order an amendment that would allow us to proceed with this. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be inserted in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The point that I am trying to make is that people who are impacted on a wide range of other factors that are not trade related are not those who should be directly benefiting from this. We need to look at ourselves, what it is that we as a Nation can do to ensure that those individuals about whom my good friend has just spoken, who are laid off and are looking for new opportunities and want to have an opportunity to succeed, we need to look at what policies we can pursue in ensuring that we create the kind of opportunities those people deserve. Because right now government policies with a tax and regulatory policy and a lack of opportunity to sell in new markets around the world, because we have not proceeded with those trade agreements, are the things that are jeopardizing the ability for those U.S. workers to find the kind of opportunities they need. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, I will say I completely concur with my friend on the need for us to ensure that those who are negatively impacted by trade are, in fact, benefited.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And I would say to my good friend from New York that I think he's taken out of context my use of the term ``sob story.'' Now, as I said, I am a strong proponent of trade adjustment assistance and want to do everything that I possibly can to ensure that workers who have been negatively impacted by any kind of trade agreement are, in fact, able to receive the training and the benefits that can help them improve their standard of living and their quality of life. But, Madam Speaker, when I was using the term ``sob story,'' what I was talking about is the fact that time and time again we have demands made on those job creators out there, demands made of job creators which undermine their ability to create jobs and opportunities for people so that they can succeed. And then we, unfortunately, are faced with complaints coming from those people who are negatively impacted by the demands of policies that they have made to increase the regulatory burden, to increase the tax burden, which prevents those who are struggling to create new opportunities for U.S. workers from having an opportunity. It looks like my friend would like me to yield to him. I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, the point that I try to make on trade is that it is a win-win. As I said in my statement, we have just this morning gotten the news of a 3.9 percent Gross Domestic Product growth rate, annualized, which is the largest growth rate that we've had in a year and a half. Now, I recognize that we have problems out there with the subprime market. We have lots of difficulties with which we're trying to contend. I think it's very important, Madam Speaker, for us to note that as we deal with these problems they are not trade related. They are not trade related. In fact, the standard of living, quality of life, 3.9 percent GDP growth rate that we're enjoying is due to the fact that we are in the midst of prying open new markets for U.S. workers so that they can sell to them. As I said in the Rules Committee last night, Madam Speaker, 96 percent, 96 percent of the world's consumers are outside of our borders. The world has access to our consumer market. The world can sell to the consumers in New York, in California, and in other States as well. That has helped improve the quality of life and the standard of living for the American people. And so as that has happened, we have access to our market, but unfortunately, those other markets around the world are not as open as ours. What is it that these agreements do that have been negotiated with Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea, and I hope, Madam Speaker, that we can do many more of these agreements. What they do is they pry open their markets for U.S. goods and services. For example, in Colombia, the tariff rate on U.S. goods going into Colombia is 11 times greater than the tariff rate on Colombian products coming into the United States. So, Madam Speaker, what we are saying is we want to create opportunities for U.S. workers so that they can export more. And, yes, if there is some displacement, we want to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that those workers who are negatively impacted by trade are, in fact, able to be trained and have the assistance that they need. With that, I would like to inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, we are here discussing trade adjustment assistance, and it is designed to ensure that, we as an institution, will have an opportunity to, as I said earlier, open up those very important markets around the world. They're all relatively small, and the United States of America has a $13.3 trillion economy, the largest economy the world has ever known. We have lots of things that are trade-related that are beneficial to the United States of America. First and foremost is our national security. I think it is critical for us to proceed with passage of the Panama, Peru and Colombia free trade agreements for the security of this hemisphere. Similarly, the Korea agreement is very important because we all know about the challenges that exist on the Korean peninsula, and engaging in greater economic exchanges between and among these countries is very important for our Nation's security. At the same time, Madam Speaker, it is important that we do what we can to ensure that we have the very important trade adjustment assistance for those Americans who are negatively impacted by trade. With that, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. And if by chance the previous question proceeds, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on this rule because of the kinds of things that the new majority is trying to do to undermine the rights of nearly half the American people. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time, if I might.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and on this beautiful day in our Nation's Capital, I wish you and our colleagues a Happy Halloween and say that it is an honor to be here on what is a very important piece of legislation. I thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and want to congratulate him on his very thoughtful statement and say that I consider him to be one of the most able Members of the new class that has come in. I hope my saying that doesn't jeopardize his standing in the Democratic Caucus, but I do appreciate his hard work on the Rules Committee. I was prepared, Madam Speaker, to rise in support of this rule, but I've decided to oppose the rule, and the reason I've decided to oppose the rule is not the fact that we, for the first time in the 110th Congress, have a substitute made in order on a bill that has come forth from the Committee on Ways and Means. I should say at the outset that last night our colleague Mr. Hastings of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, said that there was only one instance in the 109th Congress where an amendment was made in order by the then-majority for the consideration of a Ways and Means Committee bill, when, in fact, we researched that overnight and found that there were five instances, five instances in the 109th Congress where our majority, in fact, made in order an amendment to a Ways and Means Committee bill. Madam Speaker, I would, at this point, include in the Record that statement which outlines those measures that we have put forward. Bills referred to the Committee on Ways and Means considered under ``structured'' or ``modified closed'' rules in the 109th Congress: 1. H.R. 8--Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005. 2. H.R. 6--Energy Policy Act of 2005. 3. H.R. 4297--Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act of 2005. 4. H.R. 4437--Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. 5. H.R. 4157--Health Information Technology Promotion Act of 2005. Madam Speaker, so I do say that here we are on Halloween for the first time in this 10-month period of time having a substitute made in order, and I was, as I said, prepared to support the rule, but I've decided to oppose it. I decided to oppose it because of an article that I read in the Roll Call this morning which made it very clear that the Democratic majority is once again going down a path that they abandoned last summer, I'm happy to say, but they've unfortunately brought it to the forefront again, and that is the notion of casting aside the opportunity for the single bite at the apple that the minority has, and that is to offer the motion to recommit on measures. Now, I know, Madam Speaker, that's a very inside baseball discussion, but our colleagues know that the motion to recommit is something that was often denied the Republican minority during the four decades before 1994, and when we won the majority in 1994, we made it very clear that we would, in fact, guarantee the minority, guarantee the minority a right to a motion to recommit, meaning at least one bite at the apple on a measure, even if all amendments were denied. Now, this report has come forward that the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter of Rochester, New York, is in the midst of a discussion, and she said in this quote in the paper that she wants to not say that it is imminent but she wants to get it right, getting it right, shutting down the opportunity for the minority to have that single opportunity to address an issue in the bill. And so the mere fact that this has come to the forefront again, Madam Speaker, has led me to come to the conclusion that I can't be supportive of this rule that we're debating here today. I will say that I am in opposition to the underlying legislation itself, but as I said, I'm very happy that we have the opportunity to debate a minority substitute for a major package from the Committee on Ways and Means. Now, I mention this nearly 1-year period of time we've gone through, completed 10 months here, and we saw at the beginning of the Congress this wonderful document that I'm sure you've seen, Madam Speaker, that was put forward by Speaker Pelosi. It's entitled ``A New Direction for America.'' Now, in this document, she says that basically every measure that is considered here on the House floor, and I quote from this document. It says, ``should include procedure that allows an open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.'' Now, Madam Speaker, that was what was stated by Speaker Pelosi at the beginning of this Congress, and today, Halloween 2007, October 31, marks the first time, the first time in the 110th Congress that this opportunity for the minority has been availed us. I will say that we have repeatedly considered in the Rules Committee Ways and Means measures, and we have repeatedly asked for a minority substitute to be made in order so that our constituents, and this has nothing to do simply with party, this has to do with the right of each Member of Congress who represents 600,000 and some people to have their opportunity to be heard here. Unfortunately, throughout this entire year, up until this point, every request for that minority substitute has, unfortunately, been denied. I am happy that we are finally, today, allowing what I know will be a very thoughtful substitute that will be debated by my California colleague, Mr. McKeon, the ranking Republican on the Committee on Education and Labor, as well as the ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, our friend from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery). I do commend my colleagues on the Rules Committee, the majority on the Rules Committee, for taking this first step. I hope very much that it is a sign of a new day at the Rules Committee. I hope that we will have this greater transparency, openness and bipartisanship which we were promised at the beginning of this year. The underlying bill was actually a good place to start with this, in part, because the issue in question is so important, and, in part, because the proposal that has been reported from the Ways and Means Committee is in such dire need of improvement, that's why I believe that this substitute is one which should be able to enjoy very strong bipartisan support. Madam Speaker, as you know very well, and you have been involved in the trade debate since you have come to the Congress, and I suspect you were probably interested in it even before you came to the Congress, the issue of trade adjustment assistance is a very, very critical and important and a very well-intentioned program that does need to be reformed and modernized in order to effectively help American workers compete in the worldwide marketplace. My friend from Vermont talked very thoughtfully about the issue of globalization and the fact that we have seen a dramatic improvement in our gross domestic product growth. In fact, just this morning, I know it surprised many, we got the report that we have a 3.9 percent GDP growth rate annualized, the report that came from the Commerce Department this morning, demonstrating that opening up new markets and developing opportunities for U.S. workers and consumers has, in fact, been a positive. I will acknowledge, and I know we are going to be hearing a lot of sob stories through this debate, and, frankly, I am sympathetic with those sob stories, the stories about people who have been victimized by trade. But I have got to say that one of the sad things that I have observed in the debate on trade is that it is blamed for virtually every ailment of society. In fact, I often am reminded of the fact that one time a constituent came up to me a couple of years ago and said we didn't have a single illegal immigrant coming from Mexico into the United States until you passed the North American Free Trade Agreement. We know very well that the North American Free Trade Agreement has actually created a third of a trillion dollars in cross-border trade between the United States and Mexico. I argue that the problem of illegal immigration would have been dramatically worsened had we not put into place the trade agreement which has improved the quality of life and the standard of living in both countries. I will say that the middle-class population in Mexico today is larger than the entire Canadian population, and that is by virtue of the fact that we have seen economic growth take place in Mexico that is a by- product of the North American Free Trade Agreement. But having said all of that, as we will continue to rage on with the debate on the benefits of trade as we face, I hope, in the coming weeks and months the trade agreements for Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea, I will recognize that there are some sectors of our society that have not benefited from trade, and that's why we are here today. We are here today to recognize that it is very, very important for us to do everything possible to address the concerns of those workers who have been negatively impacted by trade. Unfortunately, what the Democrats have done is to take an inefficient program and compound the inefficiencies and inadequacies and block all efforts to build more accountability into the system, which we all believe is very important. Then they intend to self-execute the fusion of this ill-advised proposal with another bill that imposes massive new regulations on American job creators. Perhaps most troubling is that this bill opens the door for TAA benefits to be granted to illegal immigrants. If we look at that problem, potentially having illegal immigrants benefiting from the program, if we look at the regulatory burden which is going to impinge on those who are creating jobs, I think we have got to recognize that we have a lot of work to do on that. I believe the substitute is the best answer. The Democratic majority has tried to distract us all from the mess they have created by throwing billions of dollars at the problem. Of course, since money sadly does not grow on trees, the Democratic majority has once again resorted to raising taxes to pay for their boondoggle that won't actually do what they claim, in this case helping American workers deal with job loss. In fact, by saddling businesses, large, medium and small, with hefty new regulations, they are further diminishing our economic competitiveness and, in fact, exacerbating the problem that they purport to address with the measure that they have brought forward. How the Democratic majority can say with a straight face that they want to help workers and yet are determined to shut down the job creators is beyond me. Whoever said irony was dead should just turn to C-SPAN. It's alive and well here on the House floor. The challenges facing Americans in 2007 are very, very different than the challenges of just a few years ago, let alone when the TAA was established. Fundamentally, we are still striving for the same things we always have, good jobs that allow us to provide for our families and ensure a better life for our children. But we are achieving these goals in very different ways, and facing very different obstacles. The reality is that opportunity and challenge often go hand in hand. One enterprising young entrepreneur may be very successful at tapping into the global economy, finding clients and contractors all over the world, allowing businesses to grow here at home and creating lots of good, well-paying jobs for Americans. But the company down the street might not navigate the effects of globalization so successfully. It may find itself struggling to compete with Indian software designers or Polish manufacturers or Australian marketing firms. The opportunities are limitless, but the challenges are broad-based. Limiting our focus to just those whose jobs are directly impacted by trade is a hopelessly narrow and simplistic approach. Trade is just one factor in the ever- churning economy that we face. As I said, unfortunately, there is this tendency by many, the moment they witness any kind of change, the moment they witness any kind of displacement, the moment they witness any kind of problem at all, they want to blame it on trade, and that is just plain wrong. There are new technologies growing exponentially and changing the nature of jobs and job creation irreversibly. There are new competitors halfway across the globe that are in the marketplace whether we trade with them or not. There are 100 million Chinese workers who have been lifted out of abject poverty and are entering the middle class for the first time ever. Madam Speaker, you know as a proponent of trade that these are all good things, but we have to change our thinking in a very broad way if we don't want to drown in a sea of changes that we aren't prepared to navigate. We need better math and science education from kindergarten all the way up. We need to make adult continuing education a part of everyday life. We need to enhance the financial literacy of American families. We need an economic agenda that is focused on growth and competitiveness, including opening up new markets for American producers and service providers. In other words, we need policies that assure that individuals are always finding new and better job opportunities. When all else fails, we need worker assistance programs that help all workers get the training they need throughout an entire lifetime in an effective way that actually allows them to continue to climb up the economic ladder. We need programs that help to keep workers competitive, regardless of why they have lost their jobs. Whether the blame lies with technology, lost competitiveness, or simply dying industries that are going the way of blacksmiths and buggy whip makers, the only thing that matters is that every American can find a job and remain upwardly mobile throughout a lifetime. As I said, Mr. McCrery and Mr. McKeon have crafted a very thoughtful substitute that would work to accomplish just that. It would integrate trade adjustment assistance into other Federal worker programs so that we can help all workers facing tough times to get the training they need to remain competitive. Let me say again, we are very, very committed to ensuring that those workers who are facing tough times because of displacement that has come about due to trade agreements, that their concerns and their needs are addressed. It would integrate trade adjustment assistance, as I said, in other Federal worker programs. In particular, it focuses on the Workforce Investment Act which has, as we all know, been very, very effective. This substitute would provide greater flexibility for workers so that they can actually get their training and education while they work, over a longer period of time. It would bring trade adjustment assistance into the 21st century, broadening its focus to reflect the new realities of the worldwide marketplace. It would ensure that the program remains accountable so that we can assure the taxpayers that their money is being spent in an effective and an efficient way. It would do all this without raising a single tax or creating any additional barriers to innovation and entrepreneurship. This very thoughtful substitute is based on the premise that broad, far-reaching challenges demand broad, far-reaching solutions. And it is based on the very logical and simple fact that workers don't benefit when government puts job creators out of business. The Democrats' bill, on the other hand, takes a very narrow and flawed approach, while drastically increasing the money that we are wasting. Only the Democrats could manage to think small and spend big all in the same bill. I hope today we can have a meaningful debate on the important issue of enhancing the competitiveness of the U.S. economy and ensuring that American workers, all workers, have access to new and better opportunities. I believe that our substitute gets us closer to that goal, and I anxiously look forward to the debate on this proposal. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I'd like to continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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