David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember two great Americans, former Secretary of State Caspar Weinberger and former advisor and press secretary to Ronald Reagan, Lyn Nofziger. Both Californians, both true patriots and both World War II veterans, both dedicated public servants and both notable contributors to the Reagan revolution and legacy. President Reagan's vision of peace through strength found the perfect advocate and architect in Secretary Weinberger. He rebuilt and revitalized a military that had suffered from underfunding and underappreciation. His success laid a foundation for the end of the Cold War and for the military might we rely upon today. He recognized that a strong defense would not only secure the peace, but would protect our freedom as well. Cap said, ``Peace alone is not enough. Peace can mean even slavery sometimes. Peace and freedom is what we have to have.'' Lyn Nofziger is probably best known for his off-color humor and his dedication to his long-time boss, Ronald Reagan. As a spokesman for the Governor and the President, he communicated on behalf of the Great Communicator. During the dark hours after the attempt on President Reagan's life, it was Lyn who relayed to the world Reagan's famous line, ``Honey, I forgot to duck.'' What Lyn valued most, though, was freedom and the pursuit of it. On his Web site, which is still up and where you can still read his musings, he said that he was a Republican ``because I believe freedom is more important than government-provided security.'' Mr. Speaker, these were remarkable men who so strongly valued freedom that they fought for it, and so fully believed in the promise of the United States that they gave voice and policy to a President who made our country more prosperous and our world more free. We honor the service and tremendous contributions of Caspar Weinberger and Lyn Nofziger. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 1-year anniversary of passage of House Resolution 135, which established the House Democracy Assistance Commission. Upon the resolution's passage, 16 appointments were made, and I was honored to be appointed as chairman of this effort by Speaker Hastert; and I know that my colleague, David Price, the ranking minority member, was equally honored to be appointed by Ms. Pelosi as the ranking minority member. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the purpose of the House Democracy Assistance Commission is to strengthen legislatures in emerging democracies. In recent years, we have seen that the spread of democracy cannot be contained; but these new democracies have little experience in the actual practice of democracy. Over our 230-year history, we have learned that elections are relatively easy. It is the mechanics, practice, and procedure of democracy that is far more difficult. Many fledgling democracies have a long history of authoritarian rule. The revolutions that sweep dictators and reformers in often center around charismatic leaders that, with popular support, secure the levers of executive power. But as our Founding Fathers understood, the people's branch of government, the legislature, serves as the safeguard, ensuring that new leaders did not lead their nations back down towards a path of dictatorship. Acting as a check on executive power by conducting oversight and overseeing the national budget are necessary authorities for a parliament to exercise if democracy is to flourish. Unfortunately, parliamentarians working in authoritarian systems often have no incentive or ability to learn about their rights and responsibilities as members of parliament. The commission has seen it in Georgia, where decades of Communist rule emasculated the parliament. We see it in Macedonia where Tito's rule and the Balkan wars made democratic rule impossible. We have seen it in Kenya, where the plague of African corruption has stalled democratic reform. We have seen it in Indonesia, where the strong-armed rule of Suharto reduced parliament to an afterthought. We have seen it in East Timor, the newest nation on the globe, which has no history of self-government, democratic or otherwise. Mr. Speaker, the commission has or soon will travel to these places to provide peer-to-peer technical assistance to these legislatures at their request. We hope to soon be working in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Ukraine, and Iraq as well. America has long extolled the virtue of democracy to our neighbors abroad. Our commission allows the House of Representatives to do its part to keep democracy on the march. We know that democracy remains a work in progress for all of us, but global progress requires that democracy works. It is our obligation to help new democracies by sharing the lessons that we have learned. From Tbilisi to Dili, from Kabul to Nairobi, from Beirut to Baghdad, Mr. Speaker, stronger democracies make stronger allies; and through our work we will come closer to securing the undeniable right of freedom for all.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act. This bill combines three measures, previously approved by the House with strong bipartisan support, which seek to protect our children, combat gang violence and ensure the safety of judicial and law enforcement officials. This legislation sends a strong message to our law enforcement officers and local officials that the Federal government is a key partner in their efforts to keep our communities safe. I represent Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, where law enforcement officers are combating gang violence by increasing the number of gang task forces and reaching out into the community to give kids alternatives to gang membership. This legislation imposes the tough mandatory sentences we need to keep gang members off the street and our neighborhoods safer. We are also doing the same for sex offenders, keeping them off the streets longer, and enforcing registration laws to empower parents with the information they need to keep their children safe. I would like to take a few moments to comment on the judicial and law enforcement protection provisions of the bill. Judges, peace officers and everyone involved in the justice system are protectors of the law and servants of safety. They devote their lives and often place themselves in harm's way so that we may live without fear and danger. Any attack on these dedicated Americans is an attack on the very foundation of our Nation. H.R. 4472 addresses the growing national problem of violence against those working to uphold the law. Although crime is down nationwide, threats and attacks against police officers, judges, and witnesses continue to escalate. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), between 1994 and 2003, 616 law enforcement officers were murdered in the line of duty. This includes 59 officers from my home state of California, the most of any state. Murdering a law enforcement officer is an especially despicable and heinous crime. Tragically, California lost one of its courageous officers nearly four years ago and only recently has the suspected killer been apprehended. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy David March was brutally slain execution style during a routine traffic stop on April 29, 2002. The suspect, Armando Garcia, fled to Mexico within hours of Deputy March's death and had eluded prosecution by U.S. authorities. Mexico's refusal to extradite individuals who may face the death penalty or life imprisonment had complicated efforts to bring Garcia back to the U.S. to face justice. Over the last four years, Deputy March's family and friends, fellow law enforcement officers, local public officials and my colleagues in Congress have worked together to find a resolution to this horrible situation. Mr. Speaker, we must protect our Nation's sovereignty and ensure that criminals who break our laws and flee the country are brought to justice here at home. That is why we urged President Bush and officials at the State and Justice Departments to take aggressive action to change Mexico's extradition policy. We met with officials in the Mexican government to urge them to change their extradition policy. I even argued before Mexican Supreme Court justices on the intolerable nature of their extradition rulings. Last year, my friend from Pasadena, Mr. Schiff, and I introduced H.R. 3900, the Justice for Peace Officers Act, with the strong support of Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca. The bill makes it a federal crime to kill a peace officer and flee the country; it provides for the possibility of federal prosecution; and it allows for punishment by the death penalty or life imprisonment. I am especially pleased that Chairman Sensenbrenner and Mr. Gohmert included key provisions from this bill in H.R. 1751, and now in H.R. 4472. Specifically, this provision makes it a federal crime to kill a law enforcement officer, and it makes such a crime punishable by the death penalty, life imprisonment or a mandatory minimum of 30 years in prison. In addition, the bill adds a mandatory minimum 10 year penalty on top of the punishment for killing a law enforcement officer if the suspect flees the country to avoid prosecution. This is a national problem that will now receive national attention. Making it a federal crime to kill a peace officer will provide another critical tool to pursue and punish cop-killers on the federal level. This provision also ensures that criminals who murder law enforcement officers and escape to another country will have the full weight of the Federal Government on their trail. Mr. Speaker, last year, we experienced a tremendous breakthrough in our efforts. In November 2005, the Mexican Supreme Court issued a ruling to allow extradition for suspects facing life in prison in the U.S. for their crimes. The decision, which overturns a four year old ban on such extraditions, will now pave the way for more extraditions to the U.S. from Mexico. And on February 23, Mexican law enforcement agents, acting on information provided by the U.S. Marshals Service, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, apprehended Armando Garcia in the Guadalajara suburb of Tonala. He is now in custody and U.S. authorities are taking steps to extradite him to the U.S. Mr. Speaker, the capture of Armando Garcia is a victory for justice and, most important, for the March family. Law enforcement on both sides of the border deserve tremendous credit for working together and staying on his trail for nearly four years. This success demonstrates the importance of an ongoing dialogue between our two countries. While approving H.R. 4472 is a bold step toward enhancing protection of peace officers, we must continue our efforts to prevent tragedies like Deputy March's murder from ever happening again. I firmly believe that the Administration should use all available resources to bring about a change in policy in any country that refuses to extradite murderers to the U.S. because they may face the death penalty or life imprisonment for crimes they committed on our soil. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the bill and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, under the leadership of our colleagues Jim Kolbe and John Cornyn, a bipartisan, bicameral delegation attended the 45th meeting of the U.S.-Mexico Inter- Parliamentary group that was held in Mexico. The House Members, on Saturday, then went to the Mexico-Arizona border. We had the opportunity there to meet with local law enforcement officials and hospital administrators to discuss the tremendous strain that illegal immigration imposes on resources and law and order in our communities. As an advocate of greater security at our borders, I have long supported addressing the root cause of illegal immigration, and that is a lack of economic opportunity that exists at home for the people in Mexico. We know that the majority of illegal immigrants come to this country for one very simple reason. They are seeking economic opportunity. They want to better their lives. They want to feed their families. Economic growth, job creation, and higher wages in Mexico are special components to a long-term solution to the very serious problem of illegal immigration. By pursuing an open trade agenda that expands economic engagement in this hemisphere, we are not only shoring up our regionally based economy, and creating new opportunities for the United States workers, we are benefiting workers, the business owners and investors as well. Mr. Speaker, we are hoping to drive the economic growth necessary to reduce the number of illegal immigrants who are trying to make that dangerous trek across the border, doing so simply because of the fact that they are wanting, as I said, to feed their families. It was therefore with great interest that I read a recent Business Week article describing the emergence of a growing middle class in our neighbor to the south. The success of the North American Free Trade Agreement can be seen in the greater economic stability outlined in this Business Week piece. It talked about steady growth, tame inflation, climbing wages and falling interest rates. This increasingly stable and healthy economic environment has helped Mexico become, and I quote from the Business Week article, a middle-class nation where millions have access to mortgages, solid jobs provide security, and a class of strivers saves to put its kids through college. Mr. Speaker, Mexico's middle class has grown to over 10 million families or 40 percent of all the households in Mexico. Business Week also credits home ownership as another key factor in the emergence of a robust middle class. Strong economic fundamentals have slashed mortgage rates in half in just 2 years. The growing ranks of Mexican homeowners buttresses middle-class growth by allowing families to build equity, plan for their financial futures and move further up the economic ladder. The middle class has also been able to afford additional consumer goods. Last year, auto sales in Mexico were up 33 percent from 2000 as a record 1.3 million cars and trucks were purchased. Home appliance sales have tripled in the past decade. Even extras like concert tickets and sporting events tickets are increasingly accessible to the average working family. Mr. Speaker, most of us would not consider refrigerators or baseball games to be major luxuries. But for a country that has struggled greatly with poverty and deep economic crises, these are signs of tremendous economic progress. They are proof that our policy of economic engagement through agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement are working to bring new opportunities for the people in Mexico and also for the people right here in the United States. They are an important step forward in ensuring that the swollen ranks of illegal immigrants are losing their incentive to come here illegally to find opportunity. Mexican officials are demonstrating the fact that they recognize the reality of the problem of illegal immigration as well. On February 16th, the Mexican Congress adopted a resolution that acknowledged the graveness of the illegal immigration issue and outlined the principles of its agenda to combat the problem. This resolution cited economic opportunity as critical to a successful campaign to prevent illegal immigration to the United States and to encourage the return of migrants to their homes in Mexico. I am encouraged by the Mexican Parliament's bold language in accepting responsibility for action, and putting forth the outline of a plan. I am heartened that economic growth is central to Mexico's long- term strategy, because we know a growing Mexican middle class is a shrinking illegal immigrant class. With greater hope for the future, there is a greater incentive to stay and build a life at home. Mexico is pledging to remain committed to a pro-growth agenda. We must remain equally committed to an open trade agenda that helps our southern neighbor to continue down a path of economic growth and greater opportunity.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for one minute for the purpose of making an announcement. The Committee on Rules may meet the week of March 6th to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2829, the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2005. The Committee on Government Reform filed its report with the House on November 18, 2005. The Committee on the Judiciary ordered the bill reported today and is expected to file its report with the House tomorrow, March 3rd. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Wednesday, March 8, 2006. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, which should be available on the websites of the Committee on Rules, Government Reform, and the Judiciary by tomorrow, March 3rd. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, last night I stood here in the well to talk about our out-of-date job surveys that we have, the payroll versus the household surveys. I discussed the changing nature of job creation in the 21st century economy. We have evolved into a technologically advanced, upwardly mobile, highly flexible workforce. The types of jobs, the way jobs are created and our methods for finding new work have all changed dramatically in the 6\1/2\ decades since our job surveys were developed; and yet, Mr. Speaker, our surveys remain fundamentally unchanged over that period of time. The result has been job statistics that are increasingly incapable of accurately tracking job growth in a dynamic economy. This afternoon I would like to talk about another economic indicator that is unable to fully portray the true state of our modern economy, that being the gross domestic product. Growth in GDP is our broadest measure of economic strength; and, as such, it is perhaps the most commonly cited and heavily relied upon statistic. And yet, like our job surveys, our methods for calculating GDP were developed in the industrial age and have remained unchanged while our economy has been transformed dramatically, as we all know. The need for assessing and tracking GDP was borne out of the Great Depression. As our Nation faced the worst economic crisis in its history, policymakers found that they lacked the tools to assess whether our economy was getting better or getting worse, so the Department of Commerce began the first accounting of national income and output. In an industrial economy, this meant tallying such tangibles as machines, tractors and buildings. Purchasing new factory equipment or building a new facility was counted as long-term investment, while spending on research or training was not. For example, AT&T's investment in Bell Labs where the transistor radio was invented didn't show up at all in the GDP numbers. Even at the time, the economists who developed the methodology recognized the limitations. But an economy based on heavy industrial manufacturing could be adequately analyzed, by and large, on the basis of tangible, easily identified and easily quantified investments. However, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, today's economy is drastically different from the economy that we faced following the Great Depression. Our knowledge-based economy is based on ideas rather than things. Investing in research and development, developing brand equity and exporting best practices are driving successful businesses in our innovation economy. Yet they are absent from our most important measure of economic vitality, and by missing these intangible but fundamentally important factors, our GDP numbers are misleading. For example, Mr. Speaker, since 2000, the 10 largest U.S. companies that report research and development spending have increased capital spending by only 2 percent. That means that the types of investments that are captured in the GDP calculation, new buildings and more equipment, have been meager over the last half decade. Based on this number, we would be led to believe that some of the country's greatest engines of growth are stagnating and failing to make long-term investments. But, Mr. Speaker, these same 10 companies have actually increased R&D, research and development spending, by a whooping 42 percent over that period of time. They are investing rigorously in tomorrow's innovations, better products, better services, better ways of doing things. Our economy's creative thinkers are propelling our economy forward and ensuring growth in the future. Yet our old economy calculations miss this good economic news entirely. To give another example, look at how the value of Apple's iPod is incorporated into GDP. While superior design, quality and marketing, all developed in my State of California, have led to a global powerhouse brand, the actual product, the iPod, is assembled in China. So when the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis calculates our GDP, it does not count the $800 million, nearly a billion dollars, that Apple spent in research and development and brand development last year. It merely counts the number of units shipped here from China and sold in the United States. As Business Week put it in an article 2 weeks ago, this sort of accounting reduces Apple, one of the world's greatest innovators, to nothing but a reseller of imported goods. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that quantifying intangibles like technical innovation and marketing savvy presents some formidable challenges; and adopting hasty changes that make our GDP numbers too confusing or complicated would obviously be no improvement to the status quo. It is essential that we begin to look at ways to make our economic statistics more meaningful by bringing them into the 21st century. We need to do that by looking at these major modifications.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today's job seekers have a vast technological arsenal at their disposal. They can search online for job openings. They can e-mail their contact of networks for leads. They can fax their resumes and conduct job interviews via video conferencing. And if they get enough of the rat race, they can start their own business. That is what goes on today, becoming their own boss. This dynamic, technologically advanced picture of the American workforce is fundamentally different from that that existed in the late 1930s and 1940s. At that time, most workers typically had lifelong employment in long-established companies. And heavy industrial manufacturers were among the most common employers. In six and a half decades, Americans have experienced a sea change in how we look for work, where we work, and how often we find new work. We have progressed into a wired, upwardly mobile, flexible workforce. Small business, self-employment, and independent contracting have become the hallmarks of our entrepreneurial innovation-driven economy. With such a drastic transformation, you would expect the way we measure employment would have evolved too. Yet our most frequently cited survey of job creation remains mired in a Depression-era mindset and research method. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' payroll survey tracks payroll employment by surveying established businesses. This results in monthly job creation numbers. The household survey, on the other hand, tracks employment by household and produces the unemployment rate from that. While the household survey tracks all types of employment, from someone who holds a lifelong job at a big business to someone who just became their own boss, the public and private sectors have historically relied on the payroll survey to gauge national job growth. When we look back to the pre-World War II economy, favoring the payroll survey makes sense. Today, however, Mr. Speaker, the employment landscape is entirely different. Just look at the area I represent in Southern California, with its biotechnology facilities, independent IT contractors and small, specialized consulting firms. Yesterday's start-up is today's big business, and today's brainstorm is tomorrow's start-up. It is not surprising then that the payroll and household numbers portray quite different results. The disparity between the job survey became particularly apparent throughout the early stages of the post-recession recovery that we enjoyed in 2002 and 2003. While the payroll survey lagged for months, the household survey demonstrated a strong and growing workforce, where self-employment accounted for one-third of all the new job creation that we saw. Following the end of the recession in November of 2001, job creation in the household survey rebounded by the following May. Although there were some ups and downs in the ensuing months, the household job numbers never again dipped below the November 2001 level. By November of 2003, more than 2.2 million net new jobs had been created, and the pre-recession job numbers had been surpassed. By contrast, the payroll survey did not demonstrate net job growth until August of 2003 and did not return to the November 2001 level until April of 2004, nearly 2 years after the household survey had caught up. And the payroll survey's pre-recession job numbers were not surpassed until February of 2005, a year ago. This prolonged lag in the payroll survey's job creation numbers led to claims, and you will recall this, of the ``jobless recovery.'' Mr. Speaker, while every other major indicator of economic strength surged forward, from the gross domestic product numbers to productivity, the payroll survey persisted as an anomaly of negative news. Only the household survey was able to accurately portray the strength of our workforce because of its ability to track the nontraditional employment that the payroll survey misses. In an already-dynamic economy, the increased churn created by economic expansion only highlighted the growing inadequacies of a Depression-era payroll survey. Using the 20th century methods to take a snapshot of the 21st century employment picture simply did not work. To launch an overhaul of our job surveys, I introduced H. Res. 14, which called on the Bureau of Labor Statistics to review and modernize the way we collect our jobs data. BLS conducted a report that analyzed the two surveys and evaluated options for change. While the report stopped far short of proposing a complete reform of the surveys, it did acknowledge that a growing discrepancy exists between the two numbers and determined that further analysis is necessary. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that BLS has taken this very important first step. But it is only a first step. We must continue to push for reform so that our job surveys effectively track job creation. After all, policymakers rely on accurate economic data to draft effective legislation, and businesses need the right numbers to plan for their future. In an economy where the only constant is change, unreliable numbers will result in off-target legislation and poor business decisions. A modern economy needs modern statistics, and we must make sure that we give it that.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have taken out this Special Order this evening because in the past several weeks and months we have seen a wide range of public opinion polls, including one that came out just recently from ABC News and The Washington Post showing that an overwhelming majority of the American people believe that we have an economy that is, if not in recession, in deep, deep trouble. For some reason, there is a perception that the U.S. economy is in the tank. Today, in the East Room of the White House, President Bush signed the budget reconciliation bill, the first time since 1997 the Congress tackled a measure to reduce by $39 billion the so-called entitlement spending which goes on without interruption unless the Congress takes action, and we did so in this body. It took, unfortunately, only Republican votes in both the House and the Senate to do it, but we were able to rein in the spiraling increase in spending. More needs to be done, but we took that first step. Today, in the East Room, as the President prepared to sign that measure, he began talking, Mr. Speaker, about the tremendous improvement that we have seen in our economy. We all know that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts. So for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to offer some prepared remarks about the state of our economy, the challenges that lie ahead, and the work that we have done and the work that we need to continue to do. It was just last Tuesday night, a week ago last night, that President Bush stood right behind where I am here and addressed a joint session of Congress, delivering his State of the Union address. Since 1934, Presidents have delivered such a speech following the first of every year. In much that same way that we Americans take stock every new year, assessing the present and looking forward to the future, the President came here to this Chamber to describe where we stand as a Nation and where his leadership will be focused in the coming year. President Bush spoke about the strength of our Nation, our economy, our troops, our resolve. He also spoke about the challenges we face, the war on terror, maintaining our leadership in the global economy; but despite these challenges, we face a very promising future. As President Bush said, and I quote: ``And so we move forward, optimistic about our country, faithful to its cause, and confident of the victories to come.'' During the speech, Mr. Speaker, I was reminded of the optimism of Ronald Reagan when his Presidency began exactly 25 years ago last month. As my colleagues surely remember, pessimism in January of 1981 would have been well-founded. Economic growth was erratic, inflation was out of control, unemployment was abysmally high, interest rates were soaring through the roof, and communism, as we all know, was a global menace. Violence and chaos were spreading throughout Central America, right in our own backyard, in this hemisphere. Yet, Mr. Speaker, President Reagan was optimistic because he believed in the American spirit. In his inaugural address on January 20, 1981, again 25 years ago just this past month, he said, and I quote: ``If we look for the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on Earth, it was because here in this land, we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before.'' Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan knew that when Americans are freed from the burdens of an intrusive government and are empowered to work hard and achieve success, we prosper. That is why Ronald Reagan embarked on an 8-year crusade of cutting taxes, reducing burdensome regulation, and opening up new global opportunities through free trade. When we look at everything that has been accomplished in the 25 years since Ronald Reagan spoke those words, we see clearly that he was right to be optimistic, to have faith in the American spirit. But while Ronald Reagan had little more to go on than that faith, today we do have facts. If we take a look at all the indicators of the strength of our economy, it is clear that we face a very promising future. I would like to take the opportunity to review these positive indicators, examine the policies that got us here, refute our economic nay-sayers, and outline our path to an even brighter future. As The Wall Street Journal recently reported, over the past 277 months, our economy has been in recession for only 15 of those 277 months. Ninety-five percent of the time our economy has been growing and creating wealth. The 25 years since Reagan's first inaugural address have brought us 43 million new jobs and $23 trillion in new wealth. There can be no question that when Americans are not held back by government we fulfill our own best hopes for the future. Today, with over 143 million Americans working, more than ever before in our history, it is very important to note that. Over 2 million payroll jobs were created last year, according to the payroll survey. The household survey demonstrated even stronger job growth than that, with over 2.6 million new jobs created in 2005 alone. This strong pace of job creation has resulted in an unemployment rate of 4.7 percent, the lowest rate in 4\1/2\ years, and below the average of the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. Not only are more Americans working than ever before, but more of our fellow Americans own homes than ever before in our Nation's history. Greater household wealth and rising living standards have resulted in a homeownership rate of nearly 70 percent. These gains have been achieved across a broad demographic range, as minority homeownership is also at an all-time high of over 51 percent. Household income and wealth are at all-time highs. Household net worth grew 11 percent in the last year alone. Real hourly compensation is steadily rising. Real after-tax income has grown 7.2 percent since the 2003 tax cuts were put into place. America's working families are experiencing greater prosperity, greater financial autonomy, and an ever-improving quality of life. Growth in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic strength, tells the same story. The GDP grew at 3.5 percent in 2005, as the President pointed out today in the East Room of the White House. Despite a dip in the fourth- quarter growth, the annual rate was very strong, and analysts predict a growth rate as high as 4 percent or more in the first quarter of this year. This robust growth is responsible for tax revenues surging to their highest levels ever. Total tax receipts were up 12 percent in December as the Treasury Department announced the first monthly budget surplus in years. Perhaps the most telling and significant indicator of our economy's strength is productivity growth. Since the end of 2001, the recession that existed in 2001, productivity has increased at the fastest rate since World War II. Averaging at a pace of 3.4 percent growth annually, workers are now over 17 percent more productive than they were in 2001. Let me say that again: productivity, one of the most important gauges of success, is up to the point where workers today are 17 percent more productive than they were just 5 years ago. These numbers are so important because no factor is more critical to long-term sustainable growth and increasing standards of living than improved productivity. It is essential to maintaining steady creation of increasingly better paying, better quality jobs. Let me continue in my presentation in which we are talking about the level of productivity which has surged in the past several years and is such an important, important gauge of the kind of economic success that we are enjoying. It is amazing. Given the storms of our economy, what we have weathered since the stock market bubble burst back in 2000, this level of strength and vitality that we have seen in productivity is truly astounding. In order to give the numbers some additional context, I think it is very useful to compare our current economic circumstances with the same point in the previous business cycle just over a decade ago. In April of 1995, we were 4 years out of the recession that existed in the early 1990s, just as we are today 4 years out of this past recession. Mr. Speaker, by virtually every measure, our current expansion economy is stronger and more promising than the expansion economy of the spring of 1995. Today, we have an unemployment rate of 4.7 percent, as I said earlier. In April of 1995, unemployment was more than a full percentage point higher at 5.8 percent. Furthermore, employment is stronger today across minority demographics. The current unemployment rate for African Americans is 8.9 percent. In April of 1995, a little more than a decade ago as we were 4 years out of economic recession, this rate was at that point nearly two points higher for African Americans than it is today. It was 10.7 percent versus the 8.9 percent unemployment rate for African Americans today. The improvement for Hispanics is even greater. Today, the unemployment rate for Hispanics is 5.8 percent. At this point during the last expansion, April of 1995, the rate was 8.9 percent. That is 8.9 percent Hispanic unemployment at that point. Today, Hispanic unemployment is at 5.8 percent, a difference of almost three full percentage points. Clearly, minority workers, as well as the workforce at large, are facing a much brighter economic outlook. This pattern holds throughout nearly every major economic indicator. The homeownership rate is nearly four points higher today than it was in April of 1995. Minority homeownership is 7.7 percentage points higher today than it was in 1995, as I say, at record levels of homeownership and minority homeownership. Annual growth in household net worth over the past year is nearly 3 points higher than it was. Mr. Speaker, real hourly compensation is now growing at a rate of 1.2 percent versus an actual decline in April of 1995 of seven-tenths of 1 percent, that is, actually a decline took place 4 years out of the last economic recession that we reemerged from in the mid-1990s to today, real hourly compensation growing at 1.2 percent today. Today, that all-important investor class, those who have investments, has grown to include 56.9 million American families as the stock ownership rate for Americans has risen to nearly 60 percent of all households, or 19 percentage points greater than it was in April of 1995. Again, that investor class, Democrats and Republicans, all the way across the economic spectrum, has grown dramatically. GDP growth is 1.3 percentage points higher than it was in April 1995, again, when we were 4 years out of economic recession. Mr. Speaker, annual productivity growth, which is so fundamental, as I said earlier, to sustaining rising living standards is a staggering 10 times greater than it was at this same point in the previous expansion. The rate of growth over the past 4 years at 3.4 percent is not only impressive for an expansion economy; it significantly outpaces historic rates. From 1973 to 1995, productivity grew at 1.4 percent; 1973 to 1995, 1.4 percent. At that rate it would take 50 years to double the standard of living. But stronger growth has now put us on the path to double living standards twice as quickly as it did from that period of time between 1973 and 1995, that 22-year period. We recently witnessed a symbolic reminder of the 1990s economy as the Dow Jones Industrial Average broke through the 11,000 mark on January 9, closing above 11,000, pierced a barrier that had not been surpassed since June of 2001 when our economy was several months into a decline that had become a recession. And we obviously should not gauge the markets on a daily basis. Today we saw the Dow Jones Industrial Average up by over 100 points. A great deal of fanfare accompanied the return of the stratospheric level of the late 1990s when the Dow hit 11,000. But this milestone was significant not only for the symbolism. Whereas what was called by Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, as irrational exuberance, it played a great deal in driving the Dow up to this level before, back in the 1990s, this time the Dow hitting 11,000, up 100 points today, as I said, was soundly grounded in sound economic and market principles. Several years of strong, steady growth, rising incomes, more jobs, and a growing and increasingly prosperous investor class have led to sustainable gains in the stock market. We did not reach this level of economic strength by accident or by chance. Many people talk about the cycle. I was listening to the radio this morning, and some people were saying, regardless of policies, we still see these surges take place in the economy, whether you have had tax increases or tax cuts. That is just plain wrong. Our economic strength is the direct and predictable result of an aggressive Republican agenda of progrowth policies, decreasing tax and regulatory burdens, expanding free trade and opening new markets around the world. Empowering entrepreneurs and small business owners to innovate, adapt and grow is critical to sustaining this kind of success. These policies have created an environment that has increased the prosperity of Americans, created new opportunities, and brought about all of the positive economic news that I have discussed from job creation to home ownership. Perhaps the starkest illustration of cause and effect comes from those 2003 tax cuts. The day the Senate passed those tax cuts, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 8,601. Again, the Dow was at 8,601 the day that the Senate passed those 2003 tax cuts. Today, as I have said, we have seen the Dow once again surpass 11,000, up 100 points today. It has remained close to that 11,000 mark. During that time, the bull market propelled by our booming economy, since we put into place the 2003 cuts, has created $5 trillion in new shareholder wealth. The total return to stock investors since the tax cuts were enacted has been 41.3 percent. Now, remember, that is not simply the rich. With nearly 60 percent of American families now members of the investor class, the total return to stock investors since those 2003 tax cuts has been, as I said, 41.3 percent. We have seen the same direct benefit to job creation. Following the 2001 recession, the payroll jobs number hit its lowest point the very month the 2003 tax cuts were enacted. Since that time our economy has added nearly 5 million new payroll jobs. And as I have already cited, real after-tax income has increased by 7.2 percent over that same period of time. Furthermore, we accomplished all of this while increasing Federal tax revenues. Revenues to the Federal Treasury have increased as a byproduct of implementing those 2003 tax cuts. Total receipts in 2005 were up nearly 15 percent. In all, tax receipts for last year totaled $2.2 trillion, the largest margin, the largest amount of revenues ever collected, ever collected in a 12-month period, $2.2 trillion. And that has all happened since we put tax cuts into place. And I remember vividly debating my colleagues on program after program when they would say that if we put into place these tax cuts, we would see the U.S. economy go right into the tank, and we would see a great reduction in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. The exact opposite is the case. In fact, tax receipts have been at record highs since last August when the previous 12-month record of $2.1 trillion was broken. So, Mr. Speaker, let us review. By every major economic indicator, our economy is booming. Gains are being made by the economy at large, and by individuals of all demographics. Across the board the American people are benefiting. Our economic strength is remarkable by any standard, but it is even more impressive when compared to the same point, as I said, that previous postexpansion period, in April of 1995, 4 years out of the economic recession. The markets are returning to their bubble-era levels, but this time these levels are solidly grounded, as I said, in real growth. And, finally, Mr. Speaker, all of those tremendous gains have been achieved through the Republican commitment to a progrowth agenda of lower taxes and greater economic freedom. And yet incredibly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle deny this good economic news. I have listened to the Special Orders that they have taken out here on the House floor, and I can understand if the American people simply listen to that message why they believe the economy is in the tank. And even more incredibly, they claim that our progrowth agenda is actually hurting our economy and bankrupting the Federal Treasury. Now, it is one thing to predict failure at the outset. It is one thing to predict failure as they did when we were looking at implementing these tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. It is quite another to claim that our agenda has failed amid clear and overwhelming evidence of its success. Mr. Speaker, our economy has recovered from the bursting stock market bubble, a recession, terrorist attacks, and corporate scandals. Our economy has weathered storms, literally and figuratively, such as Hurricane Katrina, high oil prices and stagnating growth that is existing for some of our trading partners in their economies. Our economy, Mr. Speaker, has increased the prosperity of Americans, and all the while the rhetoric that we hear from the leadership on the Democratic side has remained constant. But we in the majority have worked, sometimes in a bipartisan way, but unfortunately not in concert with the Democratic leadership. Well, we have worked to ensure everyone has the opportunity to pursue and potentially achieve the American dream. They have worked only to advance the myth of, you remember this line, two Americas. They have tried to instill that standard old but failed argument of us versus them, the class warfare mentality that disregards the truth, and tragically, Mr. Speaker, it greatly divides our country. Now, Mr. Speaker, when perpetuating this myth that only a privileged few have access to the American dream, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will frequently invoke the threat of outsourcing. Do you remember that word, outsourcing? You could not turn on cable television news without hearing that word outsourcing. That is a term that you do not hear all that often anymore. Frankly, whenever they tried to explain away all of the positive economic news of the past few years, American jobs moving to places like China and India were usually held up as Exhibit A. They are still talking about it. They tell us of struggling plants such as the Paper Converting Machine Company in Green Bay, Wisconsin. They tell us about how this company, PCMC, the Paper Converting Machine Company, and its workers faced some very, very difficult times. We are told that first the recession was bad for business, and then one of its biggest customers demanded drastically reduced prices, encouraging PCMC to outsource, to move production to China. And then when things could hardly get worse, PCMC was acquired by another company that cut workers and cut pay. Throughout this whole process, sales for PCMC plummeted by 40 percent, and jobs were slashed from 2,000 American jobs to 1,100 jobs. Times were indeed very hard. But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what my Democratic colleagues, when they hold up that example of PCMC of Green Bay, Wisconsin, they do not tell the rest of the story. The story of PCMC does not end with lost jobs and plunging sales. They at PCMC had a strategy for reversing these losses and prospering once again, and it included the process of outsourcing to India. They saw that they were losing orders because of the limits in their engineering department. So their chief engineer developed plans to utilize an engineering center in Chennai, India. Because U.S. and Indian engineers can now collaborate around the clock, PCMC has been able to expand their engineering services while making the whole process more cost-effective. The result has been a strengthened U.S.-based company that continues to grow in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The CEO, Robert Chapman says and I quote, we can compete and create great American jobs, but not without offshoring or outsourcing. This is the true story, Mr. Speaker, of the American economy. It is not a story of the haves and have-nots. It is not a story of doom and gloom. Mr. Speaker, the American economy thrives and grows, because when entrepreneurs face adversity, they have the freedom and flexibility to innovate, pursue new strategies and prosper. Allowing business owners to tap into the vast resources of the global economy is essential to our continued economic strength right here at home. But you do not have to just take my word based on one anecdote of PCMC and their success. If all the positive economic data demonstrating the strength and vitality of the U.S. economy is not enough, the Information Technology Association of America, the ITAA, recently conducted a study on the direct impact of trade in services, otherwise known as offshoring or outsourcing. The study looked specifically at outsourcing in the IT field, the information technology field, and it found that trade in IT services is a clear net benefit for our economy. The new economic activity generated by increased trade in services ripples throughout the economy, creating jobs, boosting growth and increasing exports. Specifically, this study that the ITAA did found that offshore outsourcing resulted in the creation of 257,000 net new jobs in 2005. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker, because I realize it is counterintuitive. I was actually talking to the President today about this study, and I know that people have a difficult time understanding this. Offshoring, outsourcing, actually in 2005 created a net new job increase of 257,000 jobs, meaning if we had taken action here and somehow tried to stop that, it would have cost 257,000 new jobs that were created right here. And more than 337,000 net new jobs are expected to be created within the next 5 years, just from this issue of outsourcing. It is true that greater engagement in the global economy contributes to a considerable churn in our workforce and accelerates the rate of change. And I am not going to stand here and claim that there has been no American who has been detrimentally impacted from this change. But we all know that change is inevitable, and we also know that the net increase in jobs that has taken place because of so-called outsourcing or offshoring has been dramatic, in excess of a quarter of a million net new jobs created in the last calendar year alone. But as we saw with the manufacturer in Green Bay, PCMC, it creates new opportunities for American workers and ultimately leads to stronger job growth right here at home. Again, remember, we have a 4.7 percent unemployment rate, Mr. Speaker. So all of those people who predicted that outsourcing was going to wipe out the U.S. economy have got to recognize that we have the lowest unemployment rate that we have had in 4\1/2\ years, lower than the average for the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. The study also demonstrates overall gains in economic growth. ITAA estimates that IT offshore outsourcing contributed an additional $68.7 billion in real GDP growth in 2005; $68.7 billion in real GDP growth right here in the United States of America because of so-called outsourcing, offshoring. Greater global engagement in IT services is expected to create another $147.4 billion in real GDP growth by 2010, within the next 5 years, 4 years now I guess. Exports are boosted as well, Mr. Speaker, with an additional $5.1 billion in exports in 2005 and another $9.7 billion predicted by 2010. Again, $5.1 billion in new exports that have been a byproduct of policies that have included offshoring. These gains are an obvious and direct benefit to the workers who gain jobs and the business owners who boost both sales and revenue. But the increased efficiencies and economic activities spread throughout the economy at large. These disbursed benefits, as I said to everyone, by lowering inflation, increasing productivity, and helping to keep interest rates low, the economic benefits of greater engagement impact every single one of us. We as Americans reap the benefits through higher wages, new opportunities, and rising living standards. Opponents of open trade and a policy of global economic engagement paint outsourcing as an effort by, and you will recall this term that was used in the 2004 Presidential campaign, ``Benedict Arnold CEOs'' who supposedly exploit cheap labor overseas while American workers are suffering. But as I discussed, Mr. Speaker, the empirical as well as the anecdotal evidence proves precisely the opposite. When American entrepreneurs are free to leverage all of the world's resources, the result is new and better opportunities for workers right here in the good old United States of America. The benefits of being free to globally engage are just further demonstration of what has always been true of the American economy: our strength lies in our ability to innovate. Change has always been an inescapable part of the American economy. We have grown from an agrarian economy, as we all know, to an industrial economy, to what is today's 21st century high-tech Information Age economy. We prosper not because we have resisted change. We prosper because we have used change as an opportunity to innovate, to think creatively, to adapt, and to grow. Outsourcing simply presents a new opportunity for the United States to maintain its role as the world's leading innovator. The cost savings of outsourcing have enabled businesses to remain competitive and have spurred new economic activity. But business analysts agree that the real power of outsourcing is in enabling companies to innovate and transform themselves. The new buzz word in the business world is ``transformational outsourcing.'' Business Week recently noted: ``Many executives are discovering offshoring is really about corporate growth, making better use of skilled U.S. staff, and even job creation in the United States, not just cheap wages abroad.'' They go on to say: ``True, the labor savings from global sourcing can still be substantial, but it's peanuts compared to the enormous gains in efficiency, productivity, quality and revenues that can be achieved by fully leveraging offshore talents.'' Meaning that we can take advantage right here at home of utilization of offshoring. Mr. Speaker, outsourcing provides an opportunity for businesses to stage 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week operations. U.S. workers can collaborate with other skilled workers around the world. New solutions to old challenges can be explored. Limited resources can be shifted from routine low-tech processes to higher value-added activity. By tapping into all the resources the global economy offers, American entrepreneurs have the opportunity to revitalize struggling businesses, spur innovation, and develop new projects that would otherwise be impossible. All of this potential has led many business analysts to believe that U.S. companies are on the cusp of a new burst of productivity, driven by this transformational outsourcing. We saw this worked for that manufacturing company that I have used as anecdotal evidence, PCMC, in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Now let me go close to home for me. IndyMac Bancorp, Inc., which is a Pasadena, California-based financial services company, is an example of a 21st-century services company that has made offshore outsourcing an integral part of its business model, and it is thriving. Three years ago, IndyMac was the 22nd largest mortgage issuer in the United States. Today, Mr. Speaker, it is number nine and I believe moving up. IndyMac's consumer banking CEO credits its success in large part to their strategy of aggressive outsourcing. He has said that outsourcing has made IndyMac ``more productive, cost efficient and flexible than our competitors with better consumer service.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, by working with an Indian firm, IndyMac is developing new software platforms and applications that it expects will boost efficiency another 20 percent at least over the next 2 years. They have also moved 33 back-office functions offshore. Thirty-three of those back-office functions have moved offshore. And what has been the impact on job creation right here in the United States? Mr. Speaker, by moving 33 of their operations offshore, IndyMac has doubled its American workforce to almost 6,000 in the past 4 years, and at this moment they continue to hire more Americans. All of this is possible because of the openness and flexibility of our wonderful U.S. economy. Now, Mr. Speaker, our goal as Republicans is to reduce the burdens on workers and business owners and increase their access to the global economy. Now, I mention the fact that Democrats have assailed, they talk about Benedict Arnold CEOs, they would say the CEO of the consumer bank operation, IndyMac, is some sort of Benedict Arnold CEO I am sure. And, of course, Democrats have proposed a massive tax increase and barriers to innovation and entrepreneurship. We as Republicans have pursued greater engagement. We have cut taxes, regulation, and other market barriers of entry. We have continued a policy of greater trade liberalization. We have worked to reduce the size and scope of government so that Americans are increasingly free to prosper. In short, Mr. Speaker, we have continued the Ronald Reagan vision of hope and optimism in the American spirit. We have carried Ronald Reagan's legacy of empowerment and prosperity through greater economic freedom. Mr. Speaker, I wish that President Reagan could have seen last year's great milestone in the fulfillment of his vision, the passage of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement. He had envisioned, as we all know, and announced it on November 6 of 1979 when he proposed his candidacy, he put forward his candidacy to be President of United States, he at that point did something that many thought was heresy. He proposed a free trade area of the Americas stretching from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego, as President Reagan used to love to say. When he first spoke, as I said, of this FTAA when announcing his candidacy, the idea seemed even more far-fetched than his optimism for the U.S. economy at his first inaugural address 25 years ago last month. Much of the Americas at that time, particularly Central America, as we all will remember, was ravaged by violence and dictatorship; and yet these last 25 years have seen the birth and growth of democracy and free markets in the region. The passage of DR-CAFTA last year was hugely significant in pursuing that ultimate goal and vision that President Reagan put forward: first, as a further commitment to the region of greater political and economic freedom and liberalization; and, second, as a major stepping stone, as I said, towards implementation of that vision of the FTAA. There may still be those who believe the idea of a free trade area of the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego to be farfetched, and it is being undermined, we all know, by some leaders in this hemisphere; but Ronald Reagan and the continued Republican legacy have proved that any people can prosper when given the freedom to do so. We have seen this demonstrated right here at home throughout this region and, Mr. Speaker, in this hemisphere when we have seen improvements in trade opportunities developed. We have seen it demonstrated worldwide, Mr. Speaker. Every year Canada's Fraser Institute publishes a report on economic freedom throughout the global, documenting the direct link between economic freedom and quality of life. The 2005 report finds that economic freedom continues to be determinative in individual well-being and opportunity. The report's authors at the Fraser Institute, in conjunction with nearly 70 public policy organizations from around the world, found that life expectancy in the world's economically freest countries is more than 25 years longer than in countries with the least economic freedom. Freer countries have lower unemployment; those living in the poorest 10 percent demographic have much higher incomes and a much better standard of living in countries with high economic freedom than in those countries that are most restrictive. Corruption in public office goes down as freedom goes up. Political rights, political stability, and civil liberties all go hand in hand with increased economic freedom. Year after year, the economic freedom of the World Annual Report finds the same thing. Everyone experiences greater prosperity with greater economic freedom while the world's poorest gain the most. By pursuing greater liberalization abroad through free trade, we help to increase prosperity for our allies and our neighbors. By reducing taxes, regulation and other economic burdens here at home, we increase the prosperity of Americans. And as we all engage in the global marketplace, we prosper together. Ronald Reagan knew this to be true and then went on and proved it. President Bush and our Republican majority have built on this success by continuing to liberalize our own economy as we encourage our trading partners to do the same. The result has been a strong and growing economy, new job opportunities, and a rapidly rising standard of living. So when we look to the coming year, what is the path that we will choose? First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, we must remain committed to the agenda that gave us this tremendous success. This Republican Congress will continue to reduce the tax burden on America's working families. We will continue to reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government, as was evidenced today by the President's signing of that $39 billion reduction by signing the budget reconciliation package. We will work hard to reduce the size and scope of government, as I said, and to rein in the reach of the government by minimizing regulation and decreasing the bureaucratic red tape that strangles job creation. And we will continue to liberalize our trade relationships. We will continue to pursue more free trade agreements. This agenda will not only continue to increase our prosperity; it will enable us to maintain our global competitive edge through innovation. The lesson of trade and outsourcing has been that global engagement has helped us to remain competitive. President Bush spoke a great deal about competitiveness at the State of the Union address. He spoke about it today when he announced, first here and again he is continuing to talk about this moving across the country, referring to his American Competitiveness Initiative. The President's plan will contribute an additional $136 billion to scientific research and the promotion of math and science education. By strengthening the fundamentals of education, research, and with a well-educated, highly skilled workforce, we can ensure that we will continue our global competitiveness far into the future. As President Bush said when he stood right here in this Chamber last week, Mr. Speaker: ``The American economy is preeminent, but we cannot afford to be complacent.'' The President said: ``In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors. To keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above all. We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, in the coming months and years, this Republican majority remains committed not only to expanding economic freedom at home and abroad. We are fully committed to an agenda of competitiveness and innovation. As we begin this new legislative year, it is important that we recognize where we are and how we got here, and look optimistically, as Ronald Reagan did, to the future. I am very proud of the fact that we have achieved such economic success. As I said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts. I am even prouder of what we have been able to achieve through our Republican pro-growth, pro-economic freedom agenda. And, Mr. Speaker, as Ronald Reagan said so well, he believed that the American spirit has the ultimate potential when it is unleashed, and that is why I join that spirit of Ronald Reagan, as I know President Bush and our Republican colleagues do, and we certainly welcome Democrats to join in this effort as we look optimistically, hopefully, and very confidently to our future. As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us to note that many people have tried their darnedest to claim that somehow the U.S. economy is in the tank. I hope that what I have shared over the past few minutes, which provides both anecdotal, through companies like PCMC in Green Bay, Wisconsin, and IndyMac Bank in Southern California, that that anecdotal information shows the success that we are enjoying. I also hope that the empirical studies done by the Information Technology Association of America, the ITAA, showing that a net 257,000 new jobs were created in 2005 because of so-called outsourcing and offshoring, and that the Fraser Institute study from Canada demonstrating that when you unleash potential through greater economic liberalization, standards of living grow, and even those at the lowest end of the economic spectrum in those countries have higher standards of living than those who live in restrictive societies, that those facts are understood by the American people so that the American people will have an understanding that the gloom and doom negativism consists of nothing but words, because the facts belie them.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Right, but the best way to enforce this, of course, is just to ensure that those who are paid lobbyists do not even get to come on to the House floor.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will just clarify again. If former Members of Congress, who are registered lobbyists, being paid to represent interests, are not allowed to even enter the Chamber when we are doing our work here on the House floor, it is very clear there will not be a problem. I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me just state that the process of suspension of rules is a time honored structure that has existed here which requires a super majority. This measure will not pass unless two-thirds of the Members, a bipartisan coalition of Members, vote in support of it.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend and classmate, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my friend from Arkansas for pointing to some of the important aspects of this legislation. We are committed to bold, strong, dynamic reform for this institution. The Republican Party, Mr. Speaker, has stood for reform ever since I can remember. When I was in the minority, we had the privilege of working on the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, and that committee made a wide range of recommendations that would have focused on improving the deliberative nature of this institution, the transparency that is necessary, and the accountability. Unfortunately, when we Republicans were in the minority, they were not implemented. When we won the majority in 1994, we proceeded with very sweeping reforms which focused on lobbying and a wide range of other areas. I have always argued, Mr. Speaker, that when we are completed with reforms, what we should do is proceed with more reform; and it needs to be done in a way in which we recognize the deliberative nature of this institution. I love this institution, Mr. Speaker. I proudly describe myself as an institutionalist. But we have a problem that needs to be addressed. We have just begun this process of beginning the reforms for the Second Session of the 109th Congress. We have been working on reforms in the past session of Congress and in Congresses before that, but today we begin the work following the President's great State of the Union message on the issue of reform; and that is why this measure that we are moving forward with is one that we believe is very important, very transparent and gets at a problem that does exist. The fact of the matter is, every single American has the constitutional right to petition their government. It is a precious right that we need to protect, and we need to do everything possible to ensure that every American can in fact come to their elected representative and state their opinion. Concern has come forward from a number of Members, and this has existed really since the beginning of time, or since the beginning of this institution, where we have now seen former Members who are registered lobbyists come to the House floor and engage in lobbying activity. It is against the rules, it is not supposed to happen, but in fact it has happened. That is why this resolution is designed to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that former Members of Congress who are registered lobbyists do not have any kind of advantage over the average American when it comes to access to Members of the United States House of Representatives. This resolution is clear. It says for the House of Representatives, the House floor and the gym, that former Members of Congress are not able, if they are registered lobbyists, to have access there. We believe that this is a concern that needs to be addressed; and I hope very much that we will be able to, as I have been very pleased in the past several weeks to work in a bipartisan way on the passage of this measure. Let me state, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first step in our process of greater reform. My friend from Arkansas has come forward with some very interesting ideas. He testified before the Rules Committee. I will say to him right now that I am very happy and pleased to look at the proposals that he has offered and consider them legislatively. This is the first day of the Second Session of the 109th Congress, but there are a wide range of reforms that Speaker Hastert and I and others have proposed. There are a wide range of reforms that have been proposed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. So I am convinced we can, in a bipartisan way, work to increase the level of transparency and make sure that there is a greater degree of accountability to this institution. This step is one that we can begin with; and it is one that should enjoy, as I said, strong bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman by simply saying we all know what it is that we are trying to do here, and I believe that we are in a position where we will address those things. The prospect of the kind of gathering taking place in the cloakroom, which my friend just outlined, is obviously outrageous, and I will say that I am determined to make sure that it does not happen. I will say that, again, all of the issues that my friend has brought forward we look forward to addressing in comprehensive legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to close this debate by saying again that we do have a problem that exists, and we are committed to bringing about major institutional reform. Increasing the level of transparency and disclosure is a high priority. We have seen guilty pleas from lobbyists who have done things that are absolutely reprehensible, and we want to do everything that we can, in a bipartisan way, to ensure that those things never happen again. Every American has the right to petition their government. Every single American has the right to petition their government. We do not believe that anyone should have an unfair advantage over any other American when it comes to that. That is why what we are doing here today is the right thing to do. Former Members of Congress who are registered lobbyists should not be on the House floor when the House of Representatives is doing its business. Today, we begin the work of the Second Session of the 109th Congress, and it is very apparent that we will be able to enjoy strong bipartisan support for this first step on the road to reform. There are many other things that need to be addressed. The Speaker of the House has been working on this. I have been working with him on this issue, and he is committed to getting input from Members on both sides of the aisle and to work in a bicameral way with our colleagues who serve in the other body. I have had countless meetings with Democrats and Republicans. I have been listening to proposals, and I believe that we are going to have an opportunity to address those understandable concerns so that the American people will once again be able to hold this institution in high regard. It is a challenge. This is the greatest deliberative body known to man, but I believe that it is our responsibility to do what it is that we are going to do here today.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, I am just reading from the committee report here, Mr. Speaker, and it is very specific in saying that you referred to ``educational functions from the restrictions of this clause, such as a joint meeting to receive a message from a foreign head of state,'' and last night the State of the Union message would have obviously been an exemption; ``a tour when the House is not in session'' when no Members of Congress are on the House floor. I suppose they could be conceivably when the House is not in session but I do not know when they have ever been. Or for Former Member's Day, when there is a conclave of former Members of the House and Senate who come here to the House floor for the former Members' meeting. So we are very specific and I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, my friend from Miami.

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

Mr. DREIER. I do not have any more speakers on this side. We are expecting no requests.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the Republican Party has been and continues to be the party of reform. We are committed with this first step that we are taking today, with this package, that addresses something that is just not right. Former Members of Congress, who are registered lobbyists should not have access to the floor of the House of Representatives, and that is something that we are going to do. It is not a Band-aid. No one is arguing that this is comprehensive reform. This is a first step towards the large process which will allow us to address the concerns that have come forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman. I want to simply say once again, Mr. Speaker, that all of the items that he has outlined, whether it is dealing with the issue of a gift ban, greater transparency and accountability, looking at the issue of privately funded travel, all of these are issues, as the gentleman knows and as others know, that Speaker Hastert is committed to addressing in a comprehensive way. And it is our intention, I hope very much that as we craft legislation, that we will be able to do so in a bipartisan way. We felt strongly, Mr. Speaker, that at the outset here, as we begin the second session of the 109th Congress, that this issue which falls within the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee, which I am privileged to chair, could be addressed on the opening day to make it clear that we are committed to comprehensive reform. And so anyone who would lead someone to believe otherwise is just plain wrong. So I would simply say to my colleague that I do look forward to working. He has very, very creative, good, interesting and important ideas in the legislative package that he has put forward, and I am committed to looking at every single one of those as we craft our legislation. I am happy to yield to my friend.