David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I know that what I'm about to say may be seen as heresy by many--or at least counterintuitive--but, Mr. Speaker, this statement is based in fact: outsourcing is not decimating our economy. If we take a step back and look at the big picture, setting aside demagoguery and knee-jerk reactions, we see that engagement with the worldwide marketplace is a positive thing for our economy and our shared quest to create good American jobs. Being globally engaged takes many forms. It includes exporting our goods overseas. It includes imports. It includes complex supply chains that allow us to maximize comparative advantage and productivity on a global scale. It demands innovation, creativity, and adaptability. This is all part of the dynamic worldwide marketplace, and it does not constitute a zero sum game. If a U.S. manufacturer can lower costs by importing some of their raw materials, increasing their competitiveness and hiring more U.S. workers as a result, our job market improves. American workers benefit. By the same token, if a company can tap into other labor markets, becoming more competitive in the process and then hiring more U.S. workers as a result, we can all benefit. This is not a hypothetical scenario. We have the data that demonstrates the clear benefits of engaging in the worldwide marketplace. The last time the issue of outsourcing became a political flash point was in 2004. We often heard this term, ``Benedict Arnold CEOs'' who were sending good U.S. jobs overseas. The McKinsey Global Institute did an in-depth analysis of the effect of outsourcing to see what impact it was actually having on our economy. What they found was very interesting. They found that companies that utilize outsourcing as a component of their business plans enjoy new export opportunities, increased productivity, and significant cost savings, all of which support new investment in the United States and greater job creation right here at home. Furthermore, the jobs that are created by globally engaged companies tend to be higher-skill, higher-waged jobs than those created by their nonglobally engaged counterparts. Mr. Speaker, the findings of the McKinsey report are only buttressed by my own firsthand experience. I'll never forget, several years ago I was in Kathmandu visiting one of those call centers. Now, many would have viewed that call center as a symbol of outsourced jobs, and yet when I looked around, I found U.S. companies right there. I'm not claiming that all of these products were manufactured right here in the United States, but many were manufactured here in this hemisphere. They had names on them like Carrier air conditioners. There was a Westinghouse refrigerator there, Dell computers, and AT&T telephones. Rather than stealing jobs from Americans and this hemisphere, this call center epitomized the very way that global engagement benefits us all. It is simply inaccurate to claim that every job created overseas destroys a job here in the United States, and it completely misses the point. Rather than demonizing those who are trying to build competitive companies that grow our economy and create opportunity for Americans, we should be looking at what we can do to attract investment here to the United States. We should be looking at what we can do to empower entrepreneurs to revitalize our economy and restore our job market. Mr. Speaker, attacking private enterprise won't create a single job here or elsewhere. In fact, the danger of isolationist, mercantilist rhetoric is that it can spawn bad policy that further stifles innovation and economic growth. If we want to have a constructive debate that leads to policies that will encourage growth and job creation, we need to look at the facts, and the facts are very simple. Engaging globally through exports, imports, outsourcing, in-sourcing, and all the many ways of tapping into the dynamic, competitive worldwide marketplace is the best way to get Americans back to work. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to succumb to the politically expedient but economically damaging rhetoric of isolationism.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark an important anniversary. Thirty years ago today, President Ronald Reagan delivered one of his most important speeches. He delivered an address to Westminster in which he talked about the imperative of our supporting the notion of self-determination around the world, and he called for the establishment of one of the most important national security items that we have in place today. It's known as the National Endowment for Democracy. Mr. Speaker, in that speech, President Reagan said: We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means. Three decades later, the vision that Ronald Reagan put forward in that famous speech is not only alive, but it's well and thriving all over the world. I would like to congratulate, congratulate all of those who have been part of the effort that was launched by that speech 30 years ago today by Ronald Reagan. To the people all over the world who want to determine their futures, we stand with them in their quest for self-determination.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I want to thank my good friend for his able management of this important rule. I say to my friend from Fort Lauderdale, I'm really surprised to see Democratic opposition to this rule. Why? Well, we're dealing with an issue that has been near and dear to my friend from Ft. Lauderdale for years--intelligence issues. He served with distinction on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and we have come up with a structured rule. That structured rule makes seven amendments in order that were submitted by Democrats and two amendments in order that were submitted by Republicans. If you look at the litany of those amendments the Democratic Members are offering, it's very clear that we have--we will have a wide-ranging debate, which, as we all recognize, Democrats and Republicans alike, has to be somewhat limited when we're discussing our Nation's intelligence issues. So we've got a rule that makes in order seven Democratic amendments and two Republican amendments to deal with intelligence. Then we have three appropriations bills--three appropriations bills--all of which-- all of which--under this proposed rule will be considered under an open amendment process, regular order, full, open amendment. I have got to say that when I think back to being in the minority-- and we served for 4 years in the minority here--if our friends on the other side of the aisle had come up with a structured rule that made seven Republican amendments in order and only two Democratic amendments in order on the Intelligence authorization bill and they had three completely open rules, I would feel very sanguine in saying that we would not only embrace, but we would enthusiastically support, that kind of rule. That's why I've got to say that as the American people continue to ask us to work together, I mean, we have the CBO report that came out, just came out, talking about the prospect of another economic recession coming after the first of the year if we don't deal with issues like spending and taxes. And I'm not going to get into a big debate on that. We all know where we stand on those issues. But if we don't deal with those, we face the threat of another serious economic downturn based on this study that the Congressional Budget Office has just put out. They're saying to me, as I talk to people in California and around the country, they want us to work together. We've come forward with a rule, Mr. Speaker, that allows for three open rules. To remind my colleagues what that means is it means that any Member, Democrat or Republican, will have the opportunity to stand up and submit their amendment, debate it here on the House floor and have an up-or-down vote on it, and we're going to deal very responsibly in what I believe will be a bipartisan way with intelligence issues. Now, I understand, to be fair, that there are some concerns of what was included in the appropriations bills themselves. But the process itself is one which has existed under both Democrats and Republicans. It provides protection for the work product of the Appropriations Committee but has an open amendment process on floor. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I hope that as we move ahead with these appropriations bills and other items that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will recognize that we would have been grateful--we would have been grateful on our side of the aisle when we were in the minority--to have the kind of treatment that is now being rejected when we have put it forward on our side. Again, this is a very fair opportunity which recognizes the rights of Republicans and Democrats alike, and I hope we will have a bipartisan vote in support of the rule and then move to this very, very important work that we have that lies ahead.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking my friend for his superb management of this very important rule. I'm happy to see my very good friend and very thoughtful colleague from Washington, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, here; and I know Mr. McKeon and his team have been here as well. And I want to extend appreciation to them for their hard work in putting together a bipartisan package which will deal with what I argue is the one thing that only the Federal Government can do. Mr. Smith and I had an exchange in the Rules Committee on this. There are many things that the Federal Government does that are very good. There are many things that the Federal Government does that are important. I argue that most of the things that the Federal Government does can, not necessarily that they must, but can be handled by other levels of government or individuals, or charitable organizations or a wide range of things. But when it comes to our Nation's security, only the Federal Government has the ability and the responsibility to deal with that. I argue that if you look at the preamble of the Constitution, the five most important words are right smack dab in the middle. They are ``provide for the common defense.'' And that's exactly what we are doing with this effort. Again, I believe that we have put together a rule that is not perfect. I'll acknowledge that it's not perfect; but I do want to express my appreciation to my friend from Worcester, the floor manager on the minority side for this rule, in acknowledging that we have made in order an amendment that will allow for a debate on this issue, the amendment of my California colleague, Barbara Lee, and he's encouraging support for that amendment. I understand that he's disappointed that his amendment was not made in order. But, Madam Speaker, it's important to note that we had 243 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration of the Defense authorization bill, and we had the challenge of trying to put together, which happens under both Democrats and Republicans, putting together a rule that will allow for a free-flowing debate and an opportunity for Members to cast up-or-down votes on the issues that relate to the Defense authorization bill. And we have done just that: 142 of the 243 amendments have been made in order; 66 percent, 66 percent of the amendments that have been made in order have been offered by Democrats or in a bipartisan way. And so the notion of saying somehow that the majority is not allowing for debate on any issue, including Afghanistan, is a mischaracterization of what this rule does. I will say that my friend is absolutely right: this has been an extraordinarily long war, the longest war we've faced. It's a war that's ongoing. It's a war against radical extremism. We all know that. People ask, What is it that is our mission in Afghanistan regularly? And I think that as we point out what that is, to me it's obvious. It's ensuring that neither the Taliban nor al Qaeda are in a position to pose a threat to the United States of America and our interests and peace-loving people around the world. That's what we are trying to accomplish. We all know what happened at the end of the 1980s when we saw the demise of the Soviet Union and we saw, obviously, an effort in the early part of the first half of the 1990s, we saw the Taliban reemerge, and we saw threats that existed from an al Qaeda to all parts of the world: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Nairobi, Kenya; the World Trade Center attack in 1993. We can go through the litany of these attacks. We have, as a goal, ensuring that the kinds of threats that we faced never, ever happen again. That's why it is that we're there. Now, has it worked out perfectly? Absolutely not. And we know that we have a Nation that is war weary. I, Madam Speaker, am war weary. I want to bring our men and women home. But at the same time, I understand why it is that we are there; and I think, working in a bipartisan way, we can get where we all ultimately want to be because we do share the goal of a stable, safe, free, peaceful world. That's the reason that we, as a Nation, have stood firmly committed to our Nation's defense capability. And so, Madam Speaker, I'd just like to say that this is a rule that is not perfect, doesn't make everyone happy; but it will allow, today and tomorrow, for us to have a free-flowing debate, move ahead with this constitutionally very important issue of providing for our common defense. With that, I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, illegal border tunnels pose a risk to our national security and undermine our efforts to protect the border. The threat lies not only in the illegal trafficking of drugs and humans, but also in the potential exploitation by terrorists. That is why I rise in support of H.R. 4119, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2012. In 2006, I authored the House version of the original Border Tunnel Prevention Act, which criminalized the construction of illegal border tunnels into the United States with fines and imprisonment of up to 20 years. The law also carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years for those who recklessly allow others to build these tunnels on their land. In addition, the law doubled the sentence for using a tunnel to smuggle aliens, weapons, drugs, terrorists or illegal goods. While the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006 gave law enforcement agencies powerful tools to combat the construction of illegal border tunnels, they are still being used by criminals to smuggle drugs and other materials into our country. For example, last fall, in my home state of California, I was troubled to learn that an elaborate tunnel was discovered in San Diego that linked to a warehouse in Tijuana. The tunnel contained wooden flooring, a rail system and an elevator. Its discovery led to the seizure of more than 32 tons of marijuana. Unfortunately, this is just one example of the more than 40 tunnels that have been discovered in California in the last five years. H.R. 4119 will give law enforcement additional ability to investigate and prosecute criminals using these tunnels. The bill also prohibits attempts to use, construct or finance a cross border tunnel. Finally, it provides for the forfeiture of cash and merchandise that is illegally brought into our country through a tunnel. Madam Speaker, H.R. 4119 is a common sense solution that helps combat those who attempt to illegally bring goods into our country. I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, Dick Clark is a name that is synonymous with the American spirit. He was an entrepreneur, an entertainer, and a patriot. For decades, Americans of all stripes welcomed him into their living rooms to hear new music, to be entertained, and to ring in the new year. Dick had that uniquely American ability to be forward-thinking while grounded in tradition. He had a passion for the universal appeal of music and understood that it could unite people across barriers of both age and race. He knew this country to be a land of opportunity, and he, in turn, created opportunity for countless others. In fact, he was such a tremendous mentor to so many that spending time with Dick came to be known as attending ``Clark University.'' In 2004, he suffered a stroke, but the indomitable Dick Clark never slowed down. Thousands of Americans found yet another reason to draw inspiration from America's oldest teenager. He continued to work hard and take pleasure in every single day. I remember thinking on the last night I spent with him, shortly before he died, that Dick would live to be 100. Sadly, I was wrong. Within hours of his unexpected passing, the White House called and asked that I convey the condolences of President and Mrs. Obama to Dick's wife, Kari, and his children, Rac, Duane, and Cindy, and their families. Dick Clark enriched the lives of millions and leaves a legacy that will, no doubt, touch generations to come.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I appreciate his yielding. The reason I've come to the floor is to share with our colleagues the very sad news of the passing of my very close friend Dick Clark, who just within the past couple of hours, it has been reported, has passed away. When I listen to the topic of your discussion, I am reminded of a conversation. I had dinner with him 2 weeks ago, and he was somebody who said exactly what my friend from Georgia indicated. He was a proud taxpayer. I know people are going to be talking about ``American Bandstand.'' This was someone who actually broke the barrier by bringing African Americans on to television in the 1950s and the 1960s. He is someone who was an amazingly successful businessman. He was a small business man, himself, but was a very, very successful one. I just want to say that, as I listened to your discussion, I was reminded of how he regularly said everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. He said that not too long ago to me, and I said I appreciated that because he knew he was paying my salary and yours and yours as well. But I just want to share with our colleagues what a great loss this is for our country. The show that he started initially and became so famous for was ``American Bandstand,'' and I think it's a very appropriate one because this guy was a very patriotic American. He was a believer in the free enterprise system. He was a believer in encouraging individual initiative and opportunity on a regular basis, and he is someone who provided inspiration to people all the way across the spectrum. I just wanted to say that, as you guys are here, talking about the need for tax fairness and the imperative to ensure that we encourage more people like Dick Clark, I think it's important for us to remember the wonderful life that this man had. I've got to say just a couple of things if I might. He was someone who, you'll all recall, on New Year's Eve would regularly host up in Times Square; and in 2004, he suffered a massive stroke. I have never seen anyone with more determination and fight than Dick Clark. A number of people said, Gosh, why did Dick Clark continue to go out and be on television? Do you know what? I had a conversation with him just before he decided to go this past fall to do this program. People across this country said to him, The fact that you have suffered this stroke and are continuing to fight to get better and continuing to be active is something that is an inspiration to us. So that kind of fighting spirit is exactly what the small business man or -woman has who at this hour is still working and who my friend was just talking about; and the imperative to make sure that everyone pays their taxes but no more is something that, I think, he should be remembered for along with all of the great, great accomplishments that he had. I just wanted to take this moment to share this with our colleagues here in the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I would just like to say to my friend that as the lone Republican who represents Hollywood, I don't like aspersions being cast at my very distinguished constituents, as my friend has just chosen to do.

Mr. DREIER. Well, it's going to take more than 5 minutes to clean up that mess. Madam Speaker, let me just say that while I am here to clean up Mr. Bishop's mess, I've got to say I never in my wildest dreams believed that the ship that my grandmother almost rode on, but didn't quite get on, the Titanic, would be brought into this debate. I'm very impressed that my friend from Massachusetts has proceeded to do that. But I will say that another of his lines, Madam Speaker, was just absolutely incredible: taking food from the mouths of hungry children. Come on, give me a break. Madam Speaker, the notion that anyone-- Democrat or Republican alike--would in any way embrace the notion of taking food from the mouths of hungry children is one of the most preposterous things imaginable. We want to ensure that every single child in this country has opportunity, as well as food. We want to make sure that we're able to get our fiscal house in order. And frankly, as I listened to all of the complaints being leveled about the action that we will take with passage of this rule, it is simply unhappiness over the fact that our friends on the other side of the aisle have lost the budget debate. Madam Speaker, what we're doing is very simply doing the work that this body has charged us with doing. The work that we've been charged with doing is to put into place a reconciliation package, getting the authorizing committees to work on the charge of a budget. One of the words that we regularly hear the American people use to malign all of Washington, D.C., is the word ``gridlock.'' I'm not one of those. I subscribe to the George Will view that sometimes the notion of having a President of one party and a Congress of a different party is not necessarily a bad thing. But we know that the term ``gridlock'' is used as a pejorative. Madam Speaker, I can think of not much that would exacerbate gridlock more than our saying the House passed its budget and we all know that the Senate has failed in more than 3 years and 100-some-odd days since they've passed a budget, that the Senate has failed to pass a budget. So we have the responsibility, since we have been able to pass a budget here, to do our work. This notion of calling it deem and pass and somehow likening it to the outrageous proposal that--fortunately the American people stood up and said it was not acceptable, and finally the House responded by not deeming and passing that incredible health care bill, which is potentially unconstitutional. We'll see what the Supreme Court says sometime this summer. But the idea of characterizing that with our doing exactly what Democrats did when it came to the budget in the past and that is that since the work hadn't been done, the reconciliation process had to begin, we had to do the work that follows the passage of a budget. That's exactly what we're doing. To somehow describe this as extraordinary is, again, a gross mischaracterization of what it is that we have before us. Madam Speaker, I will say that for us to proceed with this rule and consideration of this very important measure, we have a $15.5 trillion national debt. We have budget deficits as far as the eye can see. The so-called Buffett rule, I mean its author in the Senate acknowledged yesterday that it would do nothing--Senator Whitehouse said it would do nothing to create jobs, and he threw out there, he said, it's not going to solve all the ailments of society. It's not going to cure all the ailments of society. The fact is we need to focus on job creation, on economic growth, and that's exactly what we're trying to do with this budget. This budget is designed to get our economy growing, and at the same time it's designed to, yes, ensure, with the social safety net, that those who are truly in need are able to benefit from those programs. But it's designed to make sure that those programs will not go into extinction completely. And it's designed to ensure that we create opportunity for every man and women in this country, as many people have been discouraged, as many people are struggling to have the opportunity to find a job. The budget that we have is designed to encourage the kind of government structure which will make it possible for that to happen. Madam Speaker, let me just say with that, I encourage an ``aye'' vote on this rule. Let's get down to work. That's what the American people want us to do. And I hope and pray that I have cleaned up for Mr. Bishop.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I would say to my friend, obviously we have to deal with very, very serious fiscal challenges that exist here, and I know that these State-run programs are designed to ensure that those who are truly in need are able to benefit, and so no one has the desire to take food from the mouths of hungry children.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say that I agree with part of his statement here, that being that we need to look at overall tax reform. I concur with the notion of reducing any kind of subsidies. I don't like the idea of engaging in social planning through tax policy, and so I hope in the context of overall tax reform that we will be able to do exactly what my friend is arguing when it comes to the issue of subsidization. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have long aspired to a relationship at the U.S.-Mexican border like the one that the United States of America has with Canada. And I know that raises some red flags, but the fact of the matter is three things need to be done: We need to have economies of scale, an end to illegal immigration, and an end to narcotrafficking. One of the things that is essential is economic growth in Mexico, and many people have constantly talked about the fact that we have nothing but rich and poor. And while that disparity still exists, there's a very important study, and I just got this from Arturo Sarukhan, the great Mexican Ambassador to the United States, entitled, ``Mexico: A Middle Class Society, Poor No More, Developed Not Yet,'' by two academics, Luis de la Calle and Luis Rubio. Mr. Speaker, in this document--and I commend it to my colleagues; I suspect it's been sent to a number of them--they talk about the fact that we have seen the middle class in Mexico emerge dramatically within the last half century. The study points to the fact that in 1960, a majority of Mexicans lived in one-room homes. Today, a majority of Mexicans lives in homes with three rooms or larger. If you look at the other tremendous indications, the fact that there is a burgeoning middle class in Mexico is a positive sign towards dealing with the challenges that we have. Again, Mr. Speaker, I commend this document to my colleagues.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all committees have until 5 p.m. on Friday, April 13, 2012, to file reports to accompany measures.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 38, 112th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of issues with which we have to contend around here. Obviously there are dramatic increases in gasoline prices. We are going to be dealing with the budget this week. FCC reform is on the agenda for today. But one issue that hasn't gotten a great deal of attention that we are going to be addressing in the coming weeks and months is whether or not we deal with the issue of so- called ``Jackson-Vanik legislation'' and allow us to proceed with extending permanent normal trade relations for us to be able to trade with Russia. Mr. Speaker, as we look at this issue, there are a number of factors that need to be addressed: first and foremost, what impact is this going to have on our Nation's job creators, those who are trying to grow our economy; and equally, if not more, important is the impact on human rights, the development of the rule of law, and the building of democratic institutions in Russia. Now, we all heard the statement that was made by the President just yesterday in his off-microphone discussion with President Medvedev about how things are going to go and the flexibility he'll have in his second term. Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that one thing that is very important for us to recognize is, there is action that we can take today that will allow us to deal not only with the notion of our creating jobs here in the United States of America but also tackling the very important human rights issue. Let's also realize that Russia is going to be a member of the World Trade Organization. All that's necessary now is for the Duma, the Russian Parliament, to ratify their accession. The question is, will U.S. workers have access to the Russian market? And that's very important. But also, as we look at the challenges of getting our economy growing, we recognize that that is a priority. But as I said, Mr. Speaker, it's also very, very, very critical for us to do everything that we can to ensure the development of those democratic institutions in Russia, the development of the rule of law, which we all know has been lacking based on what we've seen in the last election, and also to ensure the kinds of human rights and women's rights that have been ignored. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues a little bit of a letter that was just put forward by a half-dozen of the lead human rights activists in Russia. These are not my words. These are the words of these human rights activists. They say: Those who defend the argument that Jackson-Vanik provisions should still apply to Russia in order to punish Putin's antidemocratic regime only darken Russia's political future, hamper its economic development, and frustrate its democratic aspirations. They go on to say: Jackson-Vanik is also a very useful tool for Mr. Putin's anti-American propaganda machine. It helps him to depict the United States as hostile to Russia, using outdated Cold War tools to undermine Russia's international competitiveness. We, leading figures of the Russian political opposition, strongly stand behind efforts to remove Russia from the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment. Jackson-Vanik is not helpful in any way, neither for the promotion of human rights and democracy in Russia nor for the economic interests of its people. Mr. Speaker, it's high time that we tackle this issue to ensure that we can promote human rights, the rule of law, and the development of democratic institutions in Russia and ensure that we, for the American worker, can create job opportunities right here in the United States.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I want to join the distinguished gentleman from Maryland in expressing appreciation to my friends, Messrs. Dingell and LaTourette, for taking time out to talk about John Sullivan. It is true that I decided to follow the Sullivan lead, and I too will be leaving the Congress. I'm going to stay a little longer than John has. I'm going to stay until January, but I will tell you that this place is a much better institution for the service of John Sullivan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by associating myself with the remarks of my friend from Maryland, with one very important correction. We scurried around over here when my friend said 17 years. It, in fact, is 27 years that John Sullivan has served in the Parliamentarian's Office. So I offer that one minor, but very important, correction to my friend from Maryland. I take to the well to do something that I don't often do and that is to read. The reason I'm doing it is I'm trying to show off the Rules Committee. We're very proud of the fact that the House Committee on Rules--I'd say to my friend from Michigan and my friend from Ohio, however eloquent you all will be in talking about John Sullivan, you have not done what the Rules Committee did last night, and that is pass out a resolution, an enrolled resolution commemorating the great service of John Sullivan. So I would like to share that with our colleagues, if I might. It says: Whereas the Honorable John V. Sullivan has been a committed government servant for over 40 years and worked in the House of Representatives for 27 years; Whereas Mr. Sullivan was appointed to the Office of the Parliamentarian in 1987 and, over the ensuing 25 years has served under six successive Speakers, the past eight years as Parliamentarian of the House of Representatives under the appointments of three successive Speakers; Whereas Mr. Sullivan has displayed extraordinary rigor in the application of pertinent precedent to every parliamentary question and provided sage counsel and advice in matters critical to the institution; Whereas the Committee on Rules constantly relies on the advice, counsel, and expertise of Mr. Sullivan to meet the Committee's obligations to the House; Whereas Mr. Sullivan has cultivated and led a team of dedicated and nonpartisan deputies, assistants, and clerks committed to ensuring that the decisions of the Chair and the operation of the rostrum are regarded by all as fair, accurate, and professional; Whereas Mr. Sullivan has served the House during a period of ongoing transition with shifting majorities, and has done so to the same standard of nonpartisan excellence expected from the Parliamentarian; Whereas Mr. Sullivan participated in numerous programs of the House Democracy Partnership, providing advice and counsel to legislators from new and reemerging democracies around the globe as they work to strengthen their legislative institutions, reform their rules of procedure, and amend their constitutions; Whereas Mr. Sullivan has endeavored to update the practices and procedures of the House to reflect developments in technology while remaining faithful to the institution's Constitutional underpinnings; and Whereas Mr. Sullivan has informed the Speaker that he will be beginning a well-deserved retirement on the last day of March, two thousand and twelve: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That-- (1) the Committee on Rules, on behalf of the Committee and the House, expresses its profound gratitude to the Honorable John V. Sullivan for his exemplary record of service and his steady, impartial advice and guidance as the Parliamentarian of the House of Representatives; and (2) the Clerk of the Committee is hereby directed to prepare this resolution in a manner suitable for presentation to Mr. Sullivan. I signed this, as did the ranking member, my good friend from Rochester, Ms. Slaughter. This is suitable for framing. We will have one for framing, and Mr. Sullivan will be able to have this. I would like to, Mr. Speaker, just take a moment, if I might, since everyone will be talking about John's work here--I mentioned the work up in the Rules Committee and we did have one whereas clause where we talked about the House Democracy Partnership. I would like to share with our colleagues the work of the House Democracy Partnership, because not everyone is aware of the projects that the House Democracy Partnership has taken on. It is an extraordinarily bipartisan organization that in the post- September 11 world was designed to focus on strengthening the legislative branches. I see my good friend from Texas (Mr. Conaway) here who is a member of our partnership. It is designed to strengthen the legislative branches in new and reemerging democracies around the world. My colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and I serve as cochairs of this effort, and we just established our 17th partner in central Asia, the country of Kyrgyzstan; and, in fact, we're going to be, at the end of this week, continuing our mission. We're going to be going to two of our partner countries, Kosovo and Macedonia; and we'll be in Libya and Egypt as well, where we're going to be talking about the importance of strong, vibrant parliaments. Well, I've got to say that the House Democracy Partnership and these countries have been the great beneficiaries of John Sullivan's expertise, specifically in Kenya. We had an opportunity to visit Liberia and Kenya, two of our partner countries. We were in Mali, as well, on this one particular trip. Following the very, very tragic aftermath of the '07 elections in Kenya, there was a huge change that took place--lots of disruption, to put it mildly. And Kenya has just gone through a whole constitution reform process. When we were in Kenya, John Sullivan spent time looking at the proposed constitution, meeting with the staff members and members of Parliament in Kenya, and he was virtually immediately able to cite a number of discrepancies that took place in the constitution. And so his very, very shrewd skill and expertise has not only been utilized to the benefit of the United States House of Representatives, but, in Kenya and in other countries that we have visited, John Sullivan has been able to use his expertise for the expansion of democracies around the world. He's met with a number of our incoming delegations, and it has been, again, extraordinarily important work. So, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to express my appreciation to John for his work and to express best wishes. We all know that Wick has big shoes to fill, but he's going to do a stellar job in this very, very important position as Parliamentarian. And I have to say that I hope very much that, as John Sullivan goes into retirement, he will continue, as his predecessor Charlie Johnson has, to focus on this institution and also on the imperative of doing what we can to expand self-determination, political pluralism, and the development of democratic institutions around the world as well. So I say congratulations. I'm now going to present this to our friend, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my friends for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am deeply saddened by the loss of my dear friend and esteemed colleague, Don Payne. I was privileged to serve with Don for more than two decades. I always had enormous respect for his passion, dedication and encyclopedic knowledge of a range of foreign policy issues, particularly the 54 nations of Africa. He was one of the founding Members of the House Democracy Partnership, a commission that benefited tremendously from his expertise and commitment. In November Don and I had the opportunity to travel together throughout Eastern and Central Europe to commemorate the post-Soviet transition to democracy of several nations. He endured with good spirits a number of speeches honoring Ronald Reagan, never failing to remind me that John F. Kennedy was the world's leading champion of democracy long before Reagan's presidency. We continued on to Egypt, where Don and I served as international witnesses in the first round of parliamentary elections. His enthusiasm and energy never flagged as he spent two long days traveling from poll to poll in Egypt's first true election in 7,000 years. As Don always exemplified, our endeavor to protect human rights, promote the rule of law, create economic prosperity and eradicate violent extremism through the building of democratic institutions is a thoroughly bipartisan one. He will be greatly missed by all who were privileged to know him.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend congratulations to Vladimir Putin for his election to become President of Russia. We saw the reports yesterday. There were nearly 100,000 Web cams that followed the voting stations all across Russia, and even though there have been reports from the Organization For Security and Cooperation in Europe of voting violations, we are where we are. Vladimir Putin is going to be the next President of Russia. I believe that, in light of that fact, it's important for President Putin to recognize that, contrary to what he said in his acceptance speech last night, we do not want to destroy Russia. I believe that it is very important that we take every step that we can to encourage a strong, vibrant, growing, independent, democratic Russia. I'm not going to, as President Putin said last night, dictate from the West what he should do, but I do think that those of us, like the United States of America, a country that has had a 223-year history of democracy, could provide a little bit of advice to a country that is just now beginning to enter its third decade of democracy and obviously has had more than a few challenges. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that if we look at some of the recommendations, the economists last week pointed to some very positive steps that could allow President Putin to, rather than repressing the opposition that he faces, embrace it. Now, what could he do? First, he could announce that this 6-year term will be his last term, that he will not run again as President of Russia. Second, it would be very important in light of all of the controversy that took place following last December's parliamentary elections for him to call new parliamentary elections so we could have a greater degree of transparency and accountability. Third, as we look at the prospect of provincial elections, what are tantamount to governorships, having those elections being free and fair would be a very positive thing. Additionally, I was very glad to hear the news this morning from current President Dmitry Medvedev about the prospect of releasing my friend who sat with me on numerous occasions here in the Capitol, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was the head of Yukos Oil, one of the great energy companies in the world, and was a great philanthropist in the country, and was guilty of one thing and one thing only, that being opposing Vladimir Putin. The prospect of his release would be a very welcome sign. I also think, Mr. Speaker, that as we look at the prospect of the appointment of a new prime minister, there are names that have been thrown out there. Alexei Kudrin, who formerly served as finance minister, would be someone who would be very welcome in light of the fact that he has actually engaged the protesters. So, Mr. Speaker, I throw these proposals out simply because I believe that we need to have a strong, vibrant, growing Russia. We need to recognize that those countries that are formerly part of the Soviet Union should also have an opportunity to be strong, vibrant, democratic, and independent without facing repression. I do also believe, Mr. Speaker, that as we look at the debate that we're going to face here, that bringing Russia into a rules-based trading system by seeing them join the World Trade Organization would be a very positive thing as we pursue our shared goals. So, again, as we look forward to the important relationship between Russia and the United States of America, I wish President-elect Putin hearty congratulations.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, what I'm about to announce will not come as much of a surprise. But we all know that this institution has an abysmally low approval rating, and the American people are asking for change in Congress. And so I'm announcing today that I will leave the Congress at the end of this year. Now, I take the unusual step of announcing it from here in the well of the House because I am a proud institutionalist. I believe that this institution is as great as it has ever been. Mr. Speaker, I announce it from here because, between the Rules Committee upstairs where you serve with me, Mr. Speaker pro tem, and the House floor, this is where the people of California sent me to represent them. Now, as we look at the challenges that lie ahead, they are very, very great. I deliberated over this decision, and I have to say that 3 years ago I contemplated leaving at the end of that Congress, but ultimately made a decision that I wanted to continue to serve through this term. I wanted to do so in hopes that we would win the majority, with a goal of pursuing the four-point platform that I had always run on, that being the pursuit of a free economy, limited government, a strong national defense, and personal freedom. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to work with not just my Republican colleagues, but my Democratic colleagues as well, working in a bipartisan way to accomplish a number of things. First, it was absolutely essential that we do everything to end the course that we had been on that ultimately brought us an 82 percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending. I'm happy to say that we've turned the corner on that. Second, after years of languishing, we were finally able to pass three trade agreements that will create good jobs for union and nonunion workers in this country by virtue of having passed the Panama, Colombia, and South Korea free trade agreements. I also believe that it's very important for us to recognize, as we look at our national security, the notion of people all over the world who are seeking to determine their own futures has created a wonderful opportunity for us. The House Democracy Partnership, another strong bipartisan organization, has just now partnered with its 17th country in central Asia to help the legislative body strengthen and have the kind of independence and oversight of their executive branch that we have a tendency to take for granted here. Fourth, Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly--again, working in a bipartisan way--that it was essential to ensure that both Democrats and Republicans have the opportunity to have their ideas heard through their amendments on the floor of the House of Representatives. Now, I do believe, again, Mr. Speaker, that this is the greatest deliberative body known to man. We've got a great deal of work that lies ahead throughout this year. But I'm looking forward to following the Madisonian directive--that Members of Congress, after serving here, should go out and live with the laws that have passed. I will say that, as passionate as we've been pursuing a pro-growth jobs-creating agenda, I look forward to doing that myself as I move into the private sector next year. Mr. Speaker, I will say that I want to express my appreciation. I want to express my appreciation, Mr. Speaker, to lots of people. Of course the volunteers, family and friends, supporters, and the people who have offered prayers for our country on a regular basis. I also want to, most important, express my appreciation, Mr. Speaker, to the people of California who, back in 1978, when I was 25 years old living in a dormitory at my alma mater, Claremont McKenna College, they gave me the nomination for my party, and it's been a very, very exciting time. I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I express my appreciation to the very, very dedicated public servants in my office in California and my offices here in Washington for their commitment to do the best job possible to help me represent the people of California.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me first extend my congratulations to John Sullivan for his extraordinary service to this institution over the last quarter century. We're going to have a chance to talk about one of the greatest, most incisive minds in this place--and the bar is not too high for that. He has been extraordinary. I want to congratulate Mr. Wickham as well, Mr. Speaker. With that, I rise to say, on the 28th of June 1787, Benjamin Franklin, in the midst of the Constitutional Convention, said that they should call on the assistance of Heaven and have a prayer every day as the assembly began. That's a tradition that continues today, and it's one that has just been utilized by Reverend Adam McHugh, who is a very, very capable and thoughtful guy, who is from Upland, California. He is a prolific writer as well as serving as chaplain at the Vitas Hospice Center in Covina, California. I've got to say also, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that we are making history here in that both the Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives--our dear friend, Father Patrick Conroy--and Reverend McHugh and Reverend McHugh's wife, Lindsay, and I are all graduates of a very small institution just to the east of Los Angeles known as Claremont McKenna College. I believe that hearing from Reverend McHugh was wonderful, and I have a copy of his book that he has just given me here. I would like to enter into the Record, Mr. Speaker, a list of the publications that he has put forward and to say that he has one coming next year. We all look forward to that, and I hope I get an autographed copy of that one as well. Publications Books Introverts in the Church: Finding Our Place in an Extroverted Culture (InterVarsity Press, 2009) The Listening Life (InterVarsity Press, 2013) Articles ``Profile of Father Patrick Conroy, Chaplain of the U.S. House,'' CMC Magazine, November '11. ``Hospitality for Those Who Would Rather Stay `In','' Conversations Journal, December 2011. ``The Introverted Leader,'' Leadership Journal, August 2011. ``The Phases of Writing,'' The Ooze, June 2011 ``A Mere Lump of Humanity?'' Internet Monk, June 2011 ``Why Pastors Should Get Their Heads Examined.'' Patheos, May 2011 ``The Introvert Brand,'' Patheos, March '11 ``Why Most Pastors Won't Tell the Truth.'' Church Leaders, Mar '11 ``The Writer as Madman and Mystic,'' Crosswalk, Dec '10 ``Are Happy Churchgoers Good News? The Washington Post, Dec '10 A Counter-Cultural Quiet in Advent,'' Patheos Dec '10 ``Meals that Change Your Life,'' Relevant Magazine Nov '10 ``Introverts in Evangelical America,'' The Washington Post Sept '10 ``Conversations with the Saints,'' Patheos Aug '10 ``The Ancient Art of Listening,'' Patheos June '10 ``Can Introverts Thrive in the Church?'' Catalyst Space May '10 ``Introverts in the Church,'' Ministry Today, January '10 ``Can Introverts Lead? Breaking Down Stereotypes,'' The Christian Century Nov '09 Speaking Highlights Westmont College Chapel, Santa Barbara, CA, April 2012. Laity Lodge, Kearney, TX, July 2011. Glenkirk Church, Glendora, CA, March 2011. Irvine Presbyterian Church, Irvine, CA, September 2010.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise first to congratulate my good friend from north Charleston, a hardworking member of the Rules Committee, for his stellar management of this rule. And on the other side, a pretty fair job is being done by my friend from Fort Lauderdale, I have to say. Madam Speaker, I will say that I listened to the opening statement of my colleague from Fort Lauderdale. As he talked about the plight of those in Florida, constituents of his who are struggling, I was thinking about the fact that today I deal with in an excess of 14 percent unemployment rate in the Inland Empire, part of the area that I represent in southern California. When I hear the stories all across this country of people who are suffering, it does resonate. And it leads me to say, Madam Speaker, Why is it that we're here today? Why is it that we're here looking at an extension of unemployment benefits? Why is it that we're here looking at an extension of the payroll tax holiday? The reason is that we have an abysmally low, unacceptable gross domestic product growth rate in this country. We have a GDP growth rate which is not acceptable. Yes, we've seen some positive signs, and we're all gratified about that. I truly believe that the positive signs that we have seen are in spite of, not because of, anything that has come from Washington, DC. I mean, years ago we passed a stimulus bill that was supposed to guarantee that we wouldn't see an unemployment rate that would exceed 8 percent. We all know what has happened. We've seen a great deal of suffering. We've looked at the 82 percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending that took place in the 4 years leading up to our winning the majority. That, obviously, didn't play a role in getting our economy growing. The reason our economy is growing is that there is a great deal of innovation, creativity, diligence, hard work on the part of our fellow Americans, small business men and women, working Americans who are out there doing it. That's the reason we're seeing these positive signs. Now, if we did have pro-growth economic policies put into place, if we had those put into place, it's obvious that we would not have to rely on an extension of unemployment benefits. We would not have to look to extending the payroll tax holiday. We all know that the payroll tax is designed to specifically go to ensure that people who are retirees are able to have those benefits. So we are, obviously, undermining that. Now, we all argue, certainly on our side, that increasing taxes for anyone during slow economic times is not acceptable policy, and that's the reason that we are doing what it is we're doing, supporting this measure. It's obviously something that is essential because of the fact that we have not seen the kind of GDP growth rate that we can put into place. That's why I believe that after we move beyond this, it is essential for us to do all that we can to implement the kinds of policies that will, in fact, spur the kind of incentive, create the kind of incentive that our job creators need. And there are a wide range of things that we have talked about. We all know what those are. I hope that we can come together in a bipartisan way to do just that. I congratulate my friend, Dave Camp, and the other conferees who have come to this agreement. It is acceptable to some of us. Some of us are not enthusiastic. My friend from Marietta, a few minutes ago, was talking about the package that existed last December. That was good public policy. It ended up not being good politics. I'll recognize that. It was the exception to the rule that good public policy is good politics, because what it did is that accepted what it is we're doing today, what the President requested, that we would extend this package for 1 year rather than just 2 months, which is what we had to reluctantly agree to last December. And I also have to say that, on the sustained growth rate issue, that is, ensuring that hardworking doctors out there have the adequate compensation for their labors, we need to have major reform of the SGR structure; and I think that what we have done today is a step in that direction, and I hope very much that we are going to be able to do that. So, again, I thank all my colleagues who've been involved in getting us to where we are. Now that we are going to do this, it's essential that we move ahead with very positive pro- growth policies.