To authorize the President of the United States to agree to certain amendments to the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States concerning the establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to claim time in opposition, please.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation with mixed feelings, because the need for environmental remediation along the border is extraordinary; and I wish to express my deepest respect for my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), and those who have worked to bring this matter to the floor.

I rise in opposition because I really do not believe this should come to us under a suspension. I think that the issues concerning us all out of NAFTA, and NADBank in particular, deserve the full engagement of this Congress. And I think Members should pay attention to this legislation that was brought up very quickly and out of a single committee, a committee on which I do not serve, and this is my only way of informing the membership of issues at stake relating to NADBank and adjustment to NAFTA.

As an appropriator in this Congress, I have to express the view that NADBank in and of itself deserves a very, very close look by Congress because if we look back to NADBank's establishment, it had a very curious beginning. It existed only as a side agreement that was tacked on to the original NAFTA trade agreement that was passed by a narrow margin here in Congress in 1993.

NADBank was sort of an afterthought. I can remember the gentleman from California who helped negotiate it, but it never had a separate debate in this Congress. Its functions, its operations have never been separately debated here, and now we are asking for amendments to something we have never had a full debate on in this Congress.

NADBank's shortcomings are vast, and it operates in a most unusual and atypical fashion, outside the normal jurisdictions of our Committee on Appropriations. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) mentioned it has a half a billion dollars of capitalization. Some of it came from the general revenues of the United States, the people of our country, and the remainder from the people of Mexico; but even though it has a half a billion dollars of capitalization, it comes in the form of several pieces that wash through various appropriations subcommittees. It has no real home. Some might say its jurisdiction is segmented. Others might say it truly is haphazard and hard to get your arms around. The American people deserve better.

Indeed, NADBank operationally as a bank is a moving target, looking for a home in the Federal Government. It technically resides in the Department of Treasury. Yet its loan and grant authorities float mysteriously between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Small Business Administration, and a growing role for the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, which all manage to somehow, in ways unknown to Congress, subsidize the activities of NADBank.

What we do not know about NADBank far surpasses what, in fact, any individual Member of Congress might know. I know that Members who live along the border have a horrible environmental problem that they are dealing with. I have seen the cesspools being created by industrial production and agricultural production with no funds for environmental remediation.

We tried to build environmental provisions into the original NAFTA. They were rejected. They were rejected and now, with the billions of dollars of commerce occurring across the border, who is being asked to pay for the environmental remediation? Not the companies creating the damage, but the taxpayers of the United States of America.

This is a chart showing the trade deficit with Mexico. Before NAFTA's signing, we had a positive balance with Mexico, both ways. Since NAFTA's passage, every single year we have moved as a Nation into deeper and deeper trade deficit with the nation of Mexico, as well as Canada. We have lost over three million jobs in this country due to NAFTA; and the people of Mexico have had their wages cut in half, and now 250 million jobs in northern Mexico and those maquiladoras are moving to China where the wages are even cheaper.

We ought to revisit NAFTA. It is 10 years since its passage and millions and millions of people are being harmed. Indeed, the most harmed, in my opinion, are the peasants coming off the ejido system in Mexico who have no voice and no representation, and they deserve it in this highest Chamber of our government.

NADBank should realistically deal with these adjustments and it does not. We should not just have a suspension bill that deals with two or three small provisions. We should deal with the fundamentals of this agreement and the giant holes that are in it.

In the United States, in a State like my own--and here is a current chart of this showing our unemployment--the dark green covers counties in our State with the highest rates of unemployment. One of the five top States in the

Union to lose jobs because of NAFTA, most recently Dixon Ticondaroga Pencil and Crayon Company in Sandusky, Ohio, and also Phillips Electronics, in Ottawa, Ohio, over 2000 more jobs have relocated to Mexico.

We know a lot about NAFTA and its impact, and yet we look at the NADBank regulations and which counties have they helped with all the job loss in Ohio? Well, they picked one here and they picked one here and they picked one here to try to give a minimal amount of assistance. But there is no regularity, frankly no real help. NAFTA's NADBank has no regularity with which it deals with the huge job loss that these trade deficits represent.

The bill that is before us expands the area of eligibility for NADBank, as my colleagues rightly wish to do, by about 200 additional kilometers down into Mexico. But it does absolutely nothing to provide support to the thousands of communities across our Nation that have also lost jobs to Mexico.

My problem is NADBank's reach is not great enough. In fact, the part of the bank with the least staff and support, called CAIP, C-A-I-P, the Community Adjustment and Investment Program, has just experienced the resignation of its director and the Bush Administration has proposed no funding for future grants.

As an appropriator, I want to help the NADBank for all of America. NADBank will not let me help it, and this debate will not let me find an appropriate way in which to pay for the adjustment that is so essential not just in Ohio but in California, in Tennessee, Oregon, south Florida and so many other places that have lost jobs because of

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate very much appreciate the gentleman yielding just for a question.

It is my understanding that the Community Adjustment and Investment Fund, CAF, which is within NADBank, is basically zeroed out in this proposal, which means that it will have no money. And this is the portion of the bank that deals with loans and grants to the nonborder regions.

Could someone please clarify for me whether my understanding is correct? And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), who is such an expert on this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my colleagues, particularly those along the border, for engaging in this debate today. I would just like to place on the Record information from the Community Adjustment and Investment Program headed in San Antonio, Texas, from NADBank that says Congress has zeroed out future funding for the Community Adjustment and Investment Program. The Bush budget contains no money, no appropriated dollars for the program to help in the nonborder areas of the United States.

I would beg my colleagues who are supporting this, please look beyond just the border and even for the border, recognize who is making the pollution and who should pay for it. But please do not disenfranchise communities across our country that are losing jobs.

I will end with this story. One of the companies that has just left my district in Sandusky, Ohio, Dixon Ticonderoga, one of the workers just committed suicide. The head of that company called me and said, Congresswoman, we're going to leave you a building, an empty hulk. I said, well, sir, all I've got is NADBank. So I called NADBank about 2 weeks ago and I said, they're leaving us an empty hulk. What can we do with a loan or grant program to create something, some type of economic activity inside that building? And the answer was, We have no funds. So we are talking here about only one square on a very large board.

I urge my colleagues to please withdraw this bill today. Let us work together and put language in there that helps all of the United States and all of North America, all of North America that has been so badly harmed by NAFTA, including agricultural adjustment provisions, so that no Mexican worker will die in this country because there is not a labor registration system across this continent that gives them the dignity of a work card where they cannot be bonded and sold by those coyotes all across this continent. There are huge problems that NADBank could be the vehicle to solve. Please vote ``no,'' or withdraw this bill today in order that we bring something back to this Congress that can help us perfect an agreement that is badly flawed.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 574 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), ranking minority member of the committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 574 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2005. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution which may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment.

The rule further provides, upon the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment, for a final period of general debate not to exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. Finally, the rule permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to offer amendments in the House to achieve mathematical consistency and provides that the concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question of its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, the Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2005, H. Con. Res. 393, provides for $2.4 trillion in total Federal spending for the next fiscal year and sets us on course to cut the deficit in half in 4 years. The resolution provides for total discretionary spending of $818.736 billion in fiscal year 2005. Discretionary defense spending is at the President's requested level of $402 billion. The resolution also accommodates the President's requested increase in homeland security, minus a 0.5 percent efficiency savings. Non-defense, non-homeland security spending is held level for fiscal year 2005. The resolution also responsibly provides for up to $50 billion in fiscal year 2005 for additional costs related to operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Total veterans spending is increased by $1.2 billion for the next fiscal year, and the resolution does not include any of the fees proposed in the administration's budget.

It should be noted, also, Mr. Speaker, that no new mandatory spending is provided for in this resolution. Reconciliation instructions are included directing the Committee on Ways and Means to report a bill by October 1 that prevents a tax increase over the next 5 years. Without a change in the law, expiring provisions in the 2001 and 2003 tax relief bills would result in a tax increase on Americans beginning next year. The resolution also accommodates changes needed to write permanently into law the $1,000 child tax credit, the marriage penalty relief, and setting the lowest income tax bracket at 10 percent. Additional reconciliation instructions direct five House committees to report bills by July 15 of this year to eliminate $13.2 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse from government programs over the 5 years of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of both the Rules and Budget Committees, I would like to congratulate Chairman Dreier on a fair rule allowing for open debate and Chairman Nussle for producing a budget that is focused on defense, economic growth, and our Nation's long history as a land of opportunity. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this budget is about securing America, creating jobs, and responsible planning. American families do not have unlimited bank accounts.

They have budgets, and they prioritize how they spend and save their money. The Federal Government must set budgets and prioritize spending as well.

This budget continues our commitment to defense and homeland security as the Federal Government's number one responsibility, just as our Founding Fathers intended. It provides for increased funding to help secure America's borders, defend against biological attacks, protect our critical infrastructure, and train and equip our first responders. And it takes a comprehensive, responsible approach to protecting our Nation, winning the war on terror and preparing our military for future security threats and challenges.

Mr. Speaker, by avoiding tax increases and protecting the child tax credit and relief from the marriage tax penalty and relief for lower- income workers, our budget continues the policies that are helping our economy to recover.

Our economy is growing, not as fast as I would like, but it is headed in the right direction, and we need to keep it on track that way. Raising taxes would stop this growth dead in its tracks.

I believe in balanced budgets, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud to have served in the House when Republicans produced the first balanced budget in 40 years. But I do not believe in balancing the budget by simply shifting the burden to American workers, families, and business owners in the form of tax increases. Our budget is focused on allowing the Committee on Appropriations to make the responsible spending choices and fund the highest priorities within the overall framework established by this resolution.

We provide for full funding of the Medicare law to provide seniors help in paying for their prescription drugs for the first time ever. We continue the yearly increases in education spending and fund the No Child Left Behind Act so that our children are better prepared for the future, and we provide an additional $1.2 billion for veterans' health care.

Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from Iraq, and that trip served as a close-up reminder of the hard work and sacrifices made by those who serve in the Armed Forces. We made our promises to veterans, and those promises must be kept. Our budget provides for these priorities, strengthens our defense, and puts us on track to cut the deficit in half in the next 4 years, with declining deficits in the future, and is accomplished without raising taxes on the American people.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time

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

Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman from Texas that I have no further requests for time, and if he is prepared to yield back his time, I am certainly prepared to yield back my time. Perhaps the 6 hours of debate took all the steam out of what we have been talking about here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Budget had a very extensive markup

session; I think we had roll call votes on something like 25 particular items to add to the budget in particular areas. So we had a vigorous debate on that. Yesterday, in the Committee on Rules, there was again vigorous debate on the amendments that were offered.

It has always been the tradition when we deal with the budget document, which I might add is the broad blueprint for our appropriation process that is coming up later on, but it has always been the tradition when we do the budget document that the amendments that we make in order are full substitutes.

The gentleman spoke about his concern of the pay-go issue, and one of the substitutes that we made in order, the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget substitute, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), has precisely that issue within the substitute. So we will have a vigorous debate on that. The Committee on Rules made in order 40 minutes for each of those substitutes. I might add that three of the substitutes that we made in order come from the other side of the aisle, and one of those substitutes comes from our side of the aisle.

So we will, I think, have a vigorous debate on the issue that the previous speaker just brought up, and I think it will be a healthy debate; and then we will let the will of the House make that determination.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just remind Members that the Committee on Rules made in order three substitutes, and I erred when I said the Spratt amendment was only for 40 minutes; it is actually for 60 minutes. The other ones are for 40 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, Economics 101 tells us that if we spend more than we make, we quickly find ourselves in a hole. And as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) often says when asked about the Federal deficit, the first thing we have to do when we find ourselves in a hole is stop digging. Well, Mr. Speaker this country has been digging for 3 straight years, and the result is a very, very deep hole.

Three years ago we projected a surplus of $432 billion for fiscal year 2005. But the Republican budgets of the past 3 years have changed a few things. We now face a deficit of $521 billion this year; a debt accumulation of $1.2 trillion over the last year, this year, and the next; and deficits will continue as far as our forecasts go. That is a dangerous trend, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell the Members why.

Budget deficits and the ensuing debt are bad for the economy. That is a view that almost all economists share. The current chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, Harvard Professor Gregory Mankiw, even agrees. As a matter of fact, I have right here his well-known and respected 1998 economics textbook, ``Principles of Economics.'' In it, Professor Mankiw wrote about what he called `` . . . the most basic lesson about budget deficits,'' that when a government runs a budget deficit, investment falls and the economy's growth rate is reduced.

This is a very important point to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the budget deficit can really harm the economy, especially since the jobs outlook for the 8.2 million unemployed is getting worse, not better. The latest Labor Department numbers show the average length of unemployment is now up to 20.3 weeks, the longest duration of unemployment in 20 years. Coupled with the administration's refusal to extend unemployment benefits, the situation for the jobless looks bleak and unlikely to improve.

It did not have to be that way, Mr. Speaker. Our Nation's surpluses were meant to shore up Social Security for the retiring baby boom generation and pay down the national debt. This may sound familiar to anyone who may be listening to the debate today, and it should. Mr. Speaker, for the third year in a row, this House is considering a budget that makes deep funding cuts to our national priorities while at the same time it drives America deeper and deeper into debt.

There is only one way to dig ourselves out of this hole now, Mr. Speaker: by working together, as a national family, to restore fiscal responsibility. That is how families across the country operate. They take an honest look at their expenses, their debts, and their income, and then they sit down at the kitchen table and work it out.

That is what Democrats have tried to do repeatedly with the Federal budget. We have repeatedly urged Republicans to forget politics as usual and join us in a bipartisan budget plan that does not bankrupt our grandchildren.

Last year, Democrats offered a budget that would have saved our Nation and our grandchildren almost $1 trillion in debt over 10 years. I need to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The budget Democrats proposed last year cost almost $1 trillion less over 10 years than the Republican budget. That is a phenomenal number, but not one Republican Member of this House voted for that bill, not one.

Mr. Speaker, despite their rhetoric, Republicans do not want to deal with the problem of the deficit. They would rather hide behind budget gimmicks and accounting tricks to hide the true cost of their agenda.

The budget that is before us today does not reflect the fiscal reality of our Nation today, Mr. Speaker. That is because it omits a number of large expenditures that are sure to exist, including funding for the war in Iraq after fiscal year 2005 and the cost of making the President's tax cuts permanent, a goal that Republicans have repeatedly advocated, but which is conspicuously missing from their budget. Republicans also assume billions of dollars in unspecified cuts that will never be enacted.

At best, the Republican budget will dig our Nation deeper into debt, leaving us with a $377 billion deficit in 2005, spending the entire $1 trillion Social Security surplus from 2005 to 2009, and leaving America with deeper deficits far into the future. It is an irresponsible proposal brought to us by the leadership of the Republican Party.

Mr. Speaker, I am getting sick and tired of this. The American people deserve better, and they expect that Congress will act in their best interest, not spend the Social Security surplus and burden their grandchildren with debt. I believe that America deserves better than this partisan misleading and divisive resolution. That is why today, Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favor of the Democratic budget alternative.

The Democratic budget resolution will provide real fiscal discipline, with a balanced budget over 10 years, by extending pay-as-you-go rules to both spending and tax cuts and by offsetting the cost of tax cuts through reform measures such as closing costly loopholes and eliminating abusive tax shelters. There are no tricks, no gimmicks, and no hidden costs.

The Republican budgets of the past 3 years have clearly led America in the wrong direction. And what do we have to show for 3 years of fiscal mismanagement, 2.9 million fewer jobs, paltry funding for education, health care, and other national priorities, and a $1.2 trillion debt for our grandchildren to pay. The budget resolution before us today will only compound these problems.

If Members of Congress are really serious about reducing the debt, they would vote today for the Democratic budget alternative. Democrats have put together an honest proposal to reduce the deficit, invest in our Nation, and restore fiscal responsibility in the budget process. It is the right and responsible vote to make for this country, its economy and its people. And that is why I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Democratic budget alternative.

The American people deserve no less.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman that we do have some speakers and one is here currently.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on the Thompson-Moore pay-as-you-go amendment. This amendment would require that any new mandatory spending or tax cuts must be paid for. Mr. Speaker, the amendment was offered in the Committee on Rules last night, but was defeated on a straight party-line vote.

For some reason, the Republican leadership is afraid to allow Members the opportunity to vote on this responsible and reasonable proposal. Three years ago the budget deficit was shrinking and the economy was robust and growing; but, as Members have stated today, the leadership of the Republican Party has turned a balanced budget into record deficit spending. And here they go again, pushing a dangerous budget that will spiral the deficit out of control.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I just do not see how we can continue this reckless, unchecked growth in our national debt. I believe deficit spending is a serious threat to our economy. The numbers are so high and out of control, they have almost lost their full impact. Republicans are throwing trillions of dollars around like it is pocket change. But it is not pocket change, Mr. Speaker; it is a staggering number, and it can crush any chance our Nation has of an economic recovery.

We must put something in place to halt the out-of-control deficit, and I think the Thompson-Moore pay-as-you-go amendment is a step in the right direction. A ``no'' vote on the previous question will let the American people know once and for all which Members stand in favor of reduced deficits, responsible spending, and fiscal restraint.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials at this point in the Record, and I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 254) to authorize the President of the United States to agree to certain amendments to the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States concerning the establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and include extraneous material thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 254, as amended by the Senate. This bill makes necessary changes to the charter agreement of the North American Development Bank, or NADBank. This bill, which this Member reintroduced on January 8, 2003, contains legislative changes requested by the administration. This legislation passed the House on February 26, 2003. Over a year later, the Senate did pass H.R. 254, with an amendment, on March 12 of this year.

First, this Member would like to thank both the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, and the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for their efforts in bringing this measure to the House floor.

I would also like to thank the following four members of the House Committee on Financial Services who are original cosponsors of this legislation: two distinguished gentlemen from California (Mr. Ose) and (Mr. Royce) and two distinguished gentlemen from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) and (Mr. Hinojosa). All four of these Members, who provided valuable input into H.R. 254, have a distinct interest in this subject, as they come from a State, either California or Texas, where the NADBank is commissioned to work along the international U.S.-Mexican boundary.

In addition to these Members, the following Members are seven additional bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 254: the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla; the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva); the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes); and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez). All of these Members, with the exception of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), represent a portion of the U.S.-Mexican border.

In this Member's opening statement on H.R. 254, he would like to briefly discuss the following three items: the background on the NADBank; the contents of H.R. 254; and the description of the Senate amendment to H.R. 254.

First, as to background, during the 1993 debate on the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, environmental issues emerged. A particular concern was that NAFTA could result in the industrialization and population growth in the U.S.-Mexico border region, which could further exacerbate pollution problems in the area. In addition, during the NAFTA debate, some Members of Congress were concerned that the perceived lax enforcement of environmental laws by the Republic of Mexico would not be sufficient.

As a result of these factors, which were raised in the NAFTA debate, the

U.S. and Mexico agreed to create the NADBank which was charged with financing environmental infrastructure projects on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico international boundary. The NADBank currently assists communities within 100 kilometers of the U.S.-Mexico border by financing environmental infrastructure projects that address the need for waste water treatment, drinking water, and disposal of municipal solid waste.

As the administration has testified, the NADBank's overall performance thus far has been inadequate and unsatisfactory. As of March 10, for example, of this year, the NADBank had approved only approximately $96.4 million in loans to projects and disbursed only $20.8 million in loans, despite having $450 million in scheduled paid- in capital and a total lending capacity of $3 billion.

In order to address the inadequacies of the NADBank, U.S. President Bush and Mexican President Fox came forth with a joint agreement which was announced in Monterrey, Mexico, in March of 2002. Two of the provisions in this joint agreement require U.S. congressional approval as they are amendments to the Border Environment Cooperation Agreement which established the NADBank.

Of the second thing, the legislation before us today includes the following changes agreed to by Presidents Bush and Fox. These provisions are as follows:

Number one, NADBank would be able to make grants and nonmarket rate loans out of its paid-in capital resources with the approval of the board of directors. Currently, NADBank can only finance market rate loans.

Two, the region that the NADBank serves will be expanded on only the Mexican side from 100 kilometers of the international boundary to within 300 kilometers of that boundary.

With respect to the first legislative change, the administration believes that NADBank's current financial framework is having a limited impact in regions with high poverty rates. Communities in the border regions in many instances have been unable to afford market rate financing for environmental infrastructure projects. An element of the financing which involves grants and nonmarket rate loans will make the NADBank more affordable for the eligible communities.

With respect to the second legislative change, the administration believes that the geographic expansion on the Mexican side of the international boundary will give the NADBank more opportunities to address a greater scope of environmental issues that affect communities along the U.S. and Mexican border. For example, with this change the NADBank will be better able to undertake projects that improve water use over a broader geographic area.

Furthermore, H.R. 254 would also enhance congressional oversight through an annual reporting requirement on the subject of the NADBank by the Secretary of the Treasury to both the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Currently, there is no such reporting requirement. In addition to this report, H.R. 254 also includes four different senses of the Congress resolutions which address either water pollution or water conservation.

Third and finally, the Senate amendment, which was authored by the distinguished senior Senator from Texas, would limit the amount of grants which can be given for any one project.

The rationale behind this argument was to help ensure that NADBank does not run out of money by using grants exclusively for just a few projects.

Specifically, the Senate amendment requires the U.S. representatives to the NADBank to oppose any proposal which would either: (1) Be for a project that is not being financed, in part, by loans from any source; or (2) for a NADBank grant to account for more than 50 percent of the financing for an individual project.

The Senate amendment also includes an exception to this above rule, however. The U.S. representative to the NADBank cannot oppose a proposal if the President determines there are exceptional economic circumstances for making a NADBank grant, which does not exceed $250,000, and the grant is made for a project for which finding a loan is impractical. If the President would make this determination, the President must consult with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Financial Services.

In conclusion, for the reasons stated and many others, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 254, as amended by the Senate. We have been told that the President is eager to sign this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to H.R. 254. So it is my understanding that my colleague from Ohio would then be controlling the entire 20 minutes in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague from Illinois for this opportunity.

Of course, I rise in strong support for passage of H.R. 254. I have great admiration for my colleague from Ohio who stands in opposition to 254 today, but we do have a fundamental difference of opinion. This piece of legislation was not intended in any way to revisit, reopen, recast, or rescind the North American Free Trade Agreement, the treaty itself; rather, it is to improve an institution that was created to assist in any problems that would be encountered as a result of the treaty itself. And that is where we stand today.

This is a bill to authorize the President to agree to certain amendments to the binational agreement establishing the North American Development Bank. H.R. 254 was passed by the House Committee on Financial Services on February 13 by voice vote. Last October, H.R. 5400, a bill exactly like 254, passed the House by unanimous consent. So I will remind my colleagues, Members of this House, that we are revisiting a piece of legislation that was passed by unanimous consent in the 107th Congress. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to take up H.R. 5400, necessitating its resubmission in this Congress.

This bill is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 11 Members of Congress, almost all representing districts along the United States/ Mexican border. I do wish to express my sincere thanks to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley),

chairman of the Committee on Financial Services; chairman of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter); the ranking member, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders); and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity; as well as to the former ranking member of the full committee, Mr. LaFalce, who retired last session, for their cooperation and hard work in making today a reality and, hopefully, finally, in passing this bill once more and allowing the Senate the opportunity to pass it.

Mr. Speaker, NADBank was created pursuant to NAFTA. It is an investment in water, wastewater, and other public infrastructure along the United States/Mexican border. The bank is headquartered in my district, the 20th Congressional District of Texas, and provides conventional loan financing, below market-rate financing, and grants for communities located near the United States/Mexican border to help fund their water, wastewater, and other infrastructure needs. Additionally, NADBank manages an institutional development program that provides training to local officials on both sides of the border on how to effectively manage public utilities.

Since I arrived in Congress, I have heard so many Members use the phrase ``not letting perfect be the enemy of the good.'' I never thought I would resort to that, but today I will because that is what is happening here. NADBank is the only development bank specifically dedicated to the infrastructure needs of the United States/Mexican border. It meets a specific public financing need that has long been neglected by both Washington and Mexico City. Whether or not one is a supporter of the NAFTA treaty it is hard to argue with the purpose of NADBank, which is to provide critical financing and training for infrastructure improvements in disadvantaged United States and Mexican border communities.

Mr. Speaker, in a minute I will be yielding to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), whose district borders Mexico. I will agree with my colleague from Ohio that NADBank has not fulfilled its true mission due to certain restrictions that Congress has neglected, or by not having the authority to really have any say with Treasury. Treasury has been in charge. This is the answer. This is the fix. This is the fine-tuning we have been seeking for so long. Never has this been meant to be an instrument to reopen the debate on NAFTA. This is an essential piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Many of the shortcomings that both my dear friends from Ohio and California have pointed out are actually remedied by this bill. The answer is before us. Is it a complete answer? We never have a complete answer in any one piece of legislation; but this is definitely a start, and it is a meaningful one. My colleague from California poses the question, Where is the input? The input is in H.R. 254 because we as Members of the House of Representatives will finally have a voice. It will not simply be Treasury in the executive branch determining the parameters and the programs and the activities of NADBank. We will finally have something to say about it, so that my colleague from Ohio and my colleague from California will have a voice. That is what this piece of legislation is all about.

If someone sees this as an opportunity to relegislate NAFTA, I cannot do anything about that; but that is not what it does. It does not attempt to do that in any shape or form. But this is the answer that those that speak today in opposition are seeking. We all are in agreement. If this bill does not pass, it is only the House of Representatives that remains irrelevant to NAFTA and to the NADBank. That will be the end result.

I ask again, please consider this piece of legislation carefully, understand its merits, and you will vote for it. I ask each and every one of my colleagues to join us, all of us along the border, all of us from the border States that are so heavily impacted, to do something about the consequences of NAFTA but in a positive and constructive manner.

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.