David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds. We have sat and painstakingly, with several other of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, gone through these pending cases to bring about a resolution on this issue; and in just a few minutes, I'm going to be yielding to my friend, Mr. Farr, to talk specifically about this and the challenges we have. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend, the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, who represents what she calls the gateway to the Americas. I think Los Angeles comes pretty close to that too. But Miami, Mr. Speaker, is the gateway to the Americas, and they are very ably represented by our colleague from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. DREIER. I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it's obvious that Colombia is not a safe place. I'm not claiming that at all. There have been murders that have taken place and it still is a very dangerous spot. But it's important to note that a Mr. Gomez, who is the leader of one of the three main labor organizations in Colombia, has said that the labor agreements included in this package are the single greatest achievement for social justice in the last 50 years of Colombia's history. We still have a long way to go, Mr. Speaker. We still have a long way to go, but progress is being made. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker. On August 15, because we had done nothing, our Colombian friends negotiated a free trade agreement with the Canadians, with our good friends to the north, the Canadians. And guess what, Mr. Speaker. In literally 1 month, there was an 18\1/ 2\ percent increase in Canadian wheat exports to Colombia. This is the kind of opportunity that we've been prevented from having, and we've been debating this for 5 years. It's high time that we vote, and that's exactly what we're going to do, after hours of debate, both tonight and tomorrow. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that my friend from Illinois is absolutely right: Colombia is not a safe place. But we have seen an 85 percent reduction since 2002 in the murder rate among trade unionists. It's not perfect and it still is a very dangerous place, but that is progress. I'd also like to say to my friend from Worcester--and I appreciate the fact that he didn't say it--Mr. Gomez is still supportive of the Colombia-U.S. free trade agreement that he mentioned in his remarks. And I think that he voiced frustration over the implementation of agreements. That's something that takes place in a free society. That's something we see here regularly and there regularly. Implementation of this will help with that enforcement. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Worcester, how many speakers he has remaining on his side?

Mr. DREIER. I have a couple of speakers. How much time is remaining on each side, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the bipartisan nature of this, and to stress that, and being the only one who will yield time to Democrats who are in support of these agreements, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend and a man with whom I have spent time in Colombia on numerous occasions and will in just a few weeks, the gentleman from Carmel, California, a Peace Corps volunteer who served four decades ago in Colombia and knows about it as well as anyone, Mr. Farr.

Mr. DREIER. At this time I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to a very, very strong free trader, a bold and courageous friend from New York City, Mr. Meeks.

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

Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time. I'd like to get the debate back to where it was. We have before us four pending issues. We have trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, South Korea, and we have the very important trade adjustment assistance. Mr. Speaker, our fellow Americans are hurting. Job creation and economic growth is something that Democrats and Republicans alike are talking about. I was listening to the words of one of the protest leaders up in New York. This guy was saying that the protests are about economic and social justice, and he said working class Americans can no longer be ignored. Now, this measure that is before us, according to the International Trade Commission, will create 250,000 new jobs here in the United States of America. I argue that, if we had had these agreements in place, the pain that so many of our fellow Americans are feeling at this moment would not be as great as it has been because, for half a decade, these agreements have been languishing, waiting to be considered. The last two speakers I yielded to happen to be Democrats. I am very proud of having worked closely together with Sam Farr and Gregory Meeks on these agreements. There are lots of other people who have been involved and who have worked tirelessly for years. Over the last two decades, I've had a working group that I started with former Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, going all the way up now to working with Dave Camp and Kevin Brady and Wally Herger and others. There have been many people who have been involved in working with this. Democrats have joined with our bipartisan trade working group because there are Democrats and Republicans who want us to get back to the bipartisan approach to our global leadership role. They want to open up markets around the world for the United States of America; and with the passage of these three agreements, we're going to have access to $2 trillion of economic activity and to 97 million consumers. Mr. Speaker, we need to support this rule. We're going to have debate going into this evening, and we're going to have debate throughout the day tomorrow. Let's support the rule. With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for many reasons. First and foremost, the American worker is going to have an opportunity, I believe, to gain access to new markets in Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. Union and nonunion jobs are going to be created. Another reason it's a great day is that, in just a few minutes, led by the distinguished chair of the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, my friend from Houston (Mr. Brady), who has been such a great champion of trade, is going to talk about the tremendous benefits that we're going to see. I see that he's going to be joined at least by Mr. Canseco, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Smith, Mr. Davis, Dr. Boustany, Mr. Herger, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Dold, maybe Ms. Jenkins, and maybe even Angela Ellard for all I know, but lots of other people. Oh, my gosh. Who else have we got? Tom Reed, of course, is in the back of the Chamber, and he's going to be a part of this. Mr. Speaker, we are coming together in a bipartisan way. The President has just hours ago set up these agreements so that, again, union and nonunion workers are going to have a chance to have more jobs created as we open up these markets. I wish all of my colleagues were going to participate in this. Godspeed, and thank you, thank you, thank you for coming together for the American people.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 412 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close on our side. If my friend is prepared to close, then we can close the debate here and move to a vote on the rule, and then move directly to consideration of the appropriations bill, so that the American people will be closer to getting resources they desperately need.

Mr. DREIER. I am prepared to close the debate on our side. I reserve the balance of my time for that purpose.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I have no idea what the gentleman is talking about. What is 72 hours? What is that?

Mr. DREIER. Well, there was never any such pledge made. If the gentleman looks at the rules of the House, he knows very well that there's nothing in there that states 72 hours.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my friend that it's very unfortunate. In my opening remarks, I made the best attempt that I could to be as bipartisan as possible. Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that we've had the most open House, the most transparent process, and that more amendments have been made in order. I am very proud that the Rules Committee has repeatedly made McGovern amendments in order that have been proposed to the Rules Committee. In the measure that we have addressing the regulation issue, we made every single amendment that complied with the rules of the House in order--an amendment offered by my friend Mr. Hastings. So, to talk about these sorts of crocodile tears, Madam Speaker, the House has gotten to a new low. We need to make sure that the American people who are suffering and in need have the resources that are necessary. The measure that is before us has a higher level of funding for those who are in need than the President has proposed to ensure that we immediately get those dollars to the people who are suffering, and there are people all over this country who have been suffering through these disasters, and it needs to be done. Madam Speaker, I will say that we are what we are. The legislative process is not always a pretty one, but I began by talking about our priority of job creation and economic growth; limiting the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government; trying to decrease the regulatory burden, which our TRAIN Act--which we just debated the rule on a little while ago--is designed to address these sorts of steps, designed to make sure that more Americans will have opportunities to be members of the workforce, to be able to support their families and so that people won't see their small businesses lost because of the economic downturn. Those are the priorities that we have, and getting our fiscal house in order while meeting our priorities which, in this day and age, disaster assistance is one of, are what we've got to do. So I am proud to work closely with my Democratic colleagues. I am proud of the fact that they have been supportive, Madam Speaker, of a number of the measures that we have had before us; and I am proud that we have been able to take many of their ideas, Madam Speaker, and allow them to be considered on the House floor so that we've been able to have a free-flowing debate. That's what the American people want. I believe that since every Member of this House represents just about the same number of people, about 600,000. Under the new census, it will be, I think, 704,000 constituents, that they have a right to be heard, they have a right to have their ideas considered. That hasn't always been the case under Republicans or Democrats in the past, but today it is. We're doing our doggone-est to make sure that more Members have their ideas considered. I am very proud of that fact, and I will say that I regularly have Democrats come to me and say they are very appreciative of the fact that we have been able to allow their ideas to be considered on the House floor. I am proud of the strides that we have been making under Speaker Boehner. We have a long way to go, but this is all inside baseball stuff. As you know very well, Madam Speaker, the priority is job creation and economic growth to ensure that our fellow Americans have the kinds of opportunities that they need. Let us proceed. This is a procedure that I don't particularly like, but in light of the fact that there had been a bipartisan agreement yesterday that did not work out--that's about the nicest way that I can put it, it didn't work out--and so we had no choice other than to allow for a rule that would provide for same-day consideration simply of this measure to ensure that we don't go through a government shutdown. I mean, we wouldn't be doing a same-day rule, Madam Speaker, if we weren't faced with, frankly, the threat--and I'm not going to point the finger of blame, but I will say it hasn't been Republicans who have been talking about the idea of a government shutdown. It's something that has come from some others and some on the other side of the Capitol who have talked about the prospect of that. We want to avoid it. We want to ensure it doesn't happen. And so we're going to have an opportunity, Madam Speaker, to have a measure before us that will address the very important priorities of disaster assistance and other areas which doesn't cut as much as I would like. I would have loved to have voted ``no'' yesterday, Madam Speaker, because I believe that the spending level is higher than it should be. The Republicans do, in fact, have a majority in the House of Representatives, but our Democratic colleagues have a majority in the United States Senate. We know that President Obama is a Democrat. In light of that, we have to come to some kind of a bipartisan consensus. So we're turning ourselves inside out to make that happen, and we have done it time and time again; and this is another example of it. I hope that we will be able to move ahead and as expeditiously as possible provide the assurance that our fellow Americans need. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say, Madam Speaker, to my very good friend that jobs and job creation are exactly what virtually every piece of legislation that we've been addressing in this House has been designed to deal with. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that the nearly $1 trillion--it was like $787 billion, I think, and then if you add the interest, it came up to like $1.1 trillion. That stimulus bill was their jobs bill. As I recall, we were told, if we saw that $1 trillion stimulus bill implemented, that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent. Well, Madam Speaker, in part of the area that I represent, we have an unemployment rate of 14 percent. We have a national unemployment rate of over 9 percent, and it's not acceptable. So I totally concur with my friend's assessment, and I congratulate him. I congratulate him for his opening statement there when he said the best way for us to deal with the deficit is to make sure that people in this country have jobs. Economic growth is what we've been talking about. I believe if we had 2, 3, 4 percent more GDP growth in this country, we wouldn't be here having this discussion. The question is: How is it that we get our fellow Americans back to work? We believe that it's essential to create long-term, good jobs in the private sector. We believe in doing things like opening up new markets around the world, because 96 percent of the world's consumers are outside of our borders. Ninety-six percent of the world's consumers are outside of our borders. And yet, unfortunately, we have not been able to have, yet, the agreements that have been negotiated over the past several years sent to us in the Congress to vote on. Clearly, if we had the agreements that have been negotiated between the Koreans and the United States, the Colombians and the United States, the Panamanians and the United States, we would create many, many jobs here in the United States. Yesterday, Madam Speaker, I met with the Ambassador from Colombia. On August 15, they implemented an agreement with Canada for a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia. And guess what? There has been an 18.9 percent increase in wheat exports from Canada to Colombia in 1 single month. Now, Madam Speaker, I have said this time and time again here. We have union and nonunion workers who are employed by companies, great American companies that are manufacturing companies like Caterpillar, John Deere, and Whirlpool, and we could get these people working, we could get these people working if we could open up new markets for those manufactured products in Latin America and in Asia. That's exactly what we've got ahead of us. And I hope very much that the President will immediately send to us those agreements so that we can enjoy, again, bipartisan support, Democrats and Republicans working together to pass these agreements. If we do that, we will do exactly what my friend just said, Madam Speaker, we will do exactly what my friend just said in his opening statement there. What he said was we need to get Americans into jobs so that we can have the revenues that are necessary for us to deal with the deficit and debt challenges that we have.

Mr. DREIER. Excuse me?

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 409 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, my Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time that is yielded is yielded for debate purposes only. General Leave

Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the matter that is before us.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, we are dealing with extraordinarily challenging times. The American people have been sending a message to us which is powerful and overwhelming, and it's one that I believe that both Democrats and Republicans have heard, and that is: We need to get our economy back on track. We need to make sure that we have a climate that will create jobs so that people--many of whom I represent, sadly, and I know the Speaker faces the same thing in the Show Me State of Missouri, and my friend in his State of Massachusetts faces this. We have friends and neighbors who have lost their jobs, who have lost their homes, who have lost their businesses, and the message that has come to us overwhelmingly is that we must put into place policies that will encourage job creation and economic growth. We obviously have a very troubled global economy. The developments that have taken place in Europe have played a big role in leading to today's huge drop in the stock market. I haven't looked at it in the last few minutes, but earlier today it was down over 400 points, and I know we have obviously difficult decisions that lie ahead for many. We, as an institution, the United States Congress, have a responsibility to address the fiscal needs and challenges that are before us. One of those challenges and one of the factors that has played a role in the economic downturn, I believe very strongly, has been the $14\1/2\ trillion national debt that looms before us. Again, as you know very well, Madam Speaker, in a bipartisan way, Democrats and Republicans alike decry the $14\1/2\ trillion national debt that we have and the fact that we have deficits going as far as the eye can see. Now, we know that last July, just before we adjourned for the month of August, we had to deal with the question of whether or not we were going to increase the debt ceiling. We tackled that issue, and we ended up coming to a bipartisan consensus. We all knew that it was necessary for us to increase the debt ceiling because there was a responsibility to pay the bills that have been accumulated in the past. From this side of the aisle, we complained and fought against the 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending that we've seen over the past 4 years, but with that money having been spent, we recognized that the bills had to be paid. That led us, Madam Speaker, to come to a bipartisan consensus that we would, in fact, increase the debt ceiling; but we had to tackle, in a bipartisan way, the deficit and debt issues that are looming before us. So we put into place a joint select committee which, as we all know, is going to be charged with, by November 23, completing its work and, by December 23, having a vote in the House and the Senate. And if they're not successful, we will deal with sequestration, which will be across-the-board spending cuts that I don't think anyone wants to see happen because we want to be in a position where we make those decisions for $1\1/2\ trillion. And as many have said, that group of Senators the other day said a $4 trillion--excuse me--$4 billion. What is the number? I was right, $4 trillion. Excuse me. You know the proverbial Everett Dirksen line: A billion here, a billion there; before long, you're talking about real money. And that was five decades ago that he said that, and we are where we are now. So the plan, as proposed by some, Madam Speaker, would take us to as much as $4 trillion in spending cuts, and I hope we can do that in a bipartisan way. Now we are in a position where we--as I said yesterday during the debate on the rule on this issue, last year, for the first time since the 1974 Budget Act was put into place, we didn't have a budget that was proposed to us. Hey, I'm not in the business of pointing the finger of blame. I'm just in the business of looking at the facts of where we are. So we know what has been inherited. We know, as we hear these very strong statements being made, that we've gone through a difficult 9 months. We had to deal with the continuing resolution to simply clean up the mess. The Acting Speaker is a member of the Appropriations Committee, and she knows very well the challenges that we had with those appropriations bills having to be done last year. That Appropriations Committee on which the Acting Speaker sits has to deal with this issue, and had to deal with it earlier this year. Today, Madam Speaker, we are in a similar position. We, right now, know that the fiscal year comes to an end next week. We have some very important priorities that need to be addressed, and the one that everyone is talking about is the fact that we have seen disaster after disaster hit this Nation. We are determined to ensure that those who have suffered most over the past several weeks and months from disasters--flooding--and I remember seeing my colleague from Vermont (Mr. Welch) yesterday. He sent out photographs of the devastation of the flooding that has taken place in Vermont. In Pennsylvania, we just had a Republican Conference at which one of our new colleagues, Mr. Marino, was up, talking about the fact that he has been walking through mud, talking to families--to parents who have their children literally sitting on automobiles because they can't get into their homes--and asking what it is that they're going to do. We have our fellow Americans who are suffering, and we want to ensure that the dollars necessary for the Federal Emergency Management Agency are there. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee reported to us that we're seeing about $30 million a day being expended through the FEMA funding, and there's about $200 million left. So we are faced with the prospect of expiration--the expiration of all of the resources that FEMA needs--by this weekend, Madam Speaker. That's the reason that we are back here today. We all know what happened yesterday. The Democratic majority and some Republicans chose to vote ``no'' on the continuing resolution, which would simply take us from now to November 18--a very short period of time, just a matter of a month and a half--so that during that time we can, as Speaker Boehner has said, deal with the overall appropriations process and establish the priorities. So we are here today, having had a meeting in the Rules Committee last night, calling for same-day consideration so that, quite possibly, with some modifications, we can bring up that bill which had enjoyed bipartisan support. It is no secret, I'm sure the Democrats will acknowledge, that the minority whip, Mr. Hoyer, and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Dicks from Seattle, both had indicated earlier support. They acknowledge it. They're on the record as having done that. They said that they had changed their minds, and I respect that. Members have a right to change their minds. We all have a right to change our minds. But that decision was made, and we went to the vote and the votes were not there. Madam Speaker, I think there is clearly a bipartisan understanding that ensuring that resources get to our fellow Americans who are suffering due to these disasters that have hit--hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding--is a priority that we all share. Personally, I'd like to see the Federal Government get out of being the place of first resort for the American people to look to when there is a time of disaster. In fact, the Acting Speaker's late husband, with whom I was elected in 1980, led an effort, going back decades, when he served here, that was working on proposals for us to address the disaster relief issue, which was a very, very challenging one. He explored and came up with some great proposals for how we could deal with disasters beyond having the Federal Government be the place of first resort for the American people when they are faced with the aftermath of a disaster. But, Madam Speaker, those changes that were proposed by my late colleague Bill Emerson were not made in order, were not addressed, were not implemented, and so we are where we are; and while I'd love to see those changes down the road, today we need to address the very pressing needs that our fellow Americans have for some kind of resolution to this issue. We have this same-day rule so that we can today pass with what I hope will be strong bipartisan support a continuing resolution that will simply carry us from now to November 18, during which time we will see, Madam Speaker, you and the other members of the Appropriations Committee work to come up with some kind of resolution to this issue. I am going to urge my colleagues to support this measure in the name of bipartisanship, in the name of our effort to try and resolve this pressing issue. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my extraordinarily quick-witted, thoughtful and hardworking colleague from the Rules Committee for yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of this rule, and I take the floor to do my doggone-est to help us put in perspective why it is that we're here and what it is that we're doing. Let me say that at the outset I think most everybody acknowledges if you're a job creator, that often government regulation and government control has undermined your potential to create new jobs and streamline your operation and make sure you can deliver a product or a service to a consumer at a lower price. Let's just at the outset say that the notion of trying to tackle the issue of the overreach of government overregulating businesses and individuals is a challenge that needs to be addressed. That's really what came to the introduction by our colleague, Mr. Sullivan, and the very hard work done by Mr. Whitfield in the Energy and Commerce Committee of this so-called TRAIN Act, T-R-A-I-N. Don't ask me to say exactly what the acronym means. I'd have to read it to see it. It basically means that we're going to have an entity put into place that's going to look at both the costs as well as the benefits for dealing with the issue of regulation. Now, my friend from Fort Lauderdale regaled us in the Rules Committee when we were marking this up a couple of days ago about the time that he spent in Los Angeles. He told the story about awakening and not being able to open his eyes because the air pollution was so great in Los Angeles. He may have shared that with our colleagues here on the House floor as he did in the Rules Committee. I don't know. I haven't followed the debate that closely. I was in another meeting. I will say that I live in Los Angeles today, and I represent the Los Angeles basin. I'm a Republican. I'm a Republican who likes to breathe clean air, and I'm a Republican who likes to drink safe water. I don't have as a goal, as a priority, the obliteration of air quality or water quality. It's not a priority for me, and I frankly don't know of any Democrat or Republican in this institution who has a desire to do that. I am also one who recognizes that many of the things that have been done at the governmental level have played a role in actually improving air quality and in playing a role in improving drinking water. I will say that there is no desire on the part of anyone to undermine the assurance that we have of clean air and safe drinking water. Now, having said that, I think it's important for us to recognize that we are going to do everything that we can, though, to say when we see duplicative regulation. When we see the kind of burden that has been imposed, we should see action taken. But guess what? This committee is not empowered to do anything--anything at all--like what has been described or implied by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This committee will not be able to repeal any regulation as it relates to drinking water or clean air or any of these ideas. I also want to say that I happen to believe that good environmental policy happens to be good business. I know there is often this sense that, if you're pro-environment, you must be anti-business, and if you're pro-business, you must be anti-environment. I see the two really going hand in hand; but it's important for us to make sure that we don't go overboard in undermining businesses' potential to address environmental needs with a regulatory burden that is as great as some have reported it to be. To me, we have made every single amendment that complied with the rules of the House in order, so we're going to have an opportunity for a free-flowing debate with Democrats, including an amendment that the Democratic floor manager of this rule will have that has been made in order by the Rules Committee. We're going to have an opportunity for a free-flowing debate, and I urge my colleagues to support this very commonsense measure.