David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Probably on Thursday of next week we would most likely consider the Foreign Ops bill.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, yes, the agriculture appropriation bill will be our work primarily on Tuesday.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, yes, the Legislative Branch appropriation bill, we hope. Then, as I say, we will be bringing up the rule on the agriculture appropriation bill. And I doubt that that will be completed at that time. It will go over.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me, and as we have just observed, we have completed our business for the day and for the week. The House will convene on Monday at 12:30 for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We plan to consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of this day. Any votes called for on those measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. Members should be aware we also plan to consider the rule for the fiscal year 2005 agriculture appropriation bill, as well as H.R. 4755, the fiscal 2005 Legislative Branch appropriation bill on Monday. On Tuesday, and the balance of the week, we expect to consider additional legislation under suspension of the rules. We plan to complete consideration of the agriculture appropriation bill, as well as consider additional bills under a rule: S. 15, the Project Bioshield Act; H.R. 4759, the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement; and the fiscal year 2005 foreign operations appropriation bill. Finally, and I know this will be pleasant news to all of our colleagues after a long Friday, we would like Members to know that a week from today, on Friday, July 16, we do not expect any votes on the floor. And I would be happy to accept any questions that my friend from Maryland, the distinguished minority whip, might like to proffer.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Water Supply, Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act, H.R. 2828, widely known as CALFED. The mission of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is to develop and implement a long-term comprehensive plan that improves water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta System. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, the Bay-Delta, is a region of critical importance to California, often described as the hub of the State's water supply system. The authorization of the CALFED program has been a priority for California and its neighboring States for many years. And while the existing program has accomplished a great deal in managing our water supply and improving the ecosystem of the Bay-Delta, this bill provides the comprehensive Congressional accountability it has been lacking. H.R. 2828 provides the authority for Federal agencies to fully engage in a partnership with the State of California and the stakeholders of the CALFED program. We have also long recognized the importance of improving management and coordination of existing water supply projects for meeting present and future water demands. Preserving and enhancing the ecosystem, while developing new sources of water for growing consumptive needs, and allocating existing supplies to meet changing demands, is a great challenge. This challenge was met head on by the House Resources Committee under the leadership of Chairman Richard Pombo, and Subcommittee on Water and Power Chairman Ken Calvert. I congratulate both of them for their extraordinary work in achieving this level of negotiation, compromise, and support. What is even more remarkable is that the work produced by Mr. Calvert will be voted on today without any amendments offered to it on the House floor, with the exception of the substitute that he crafted. This is a testament to his tenacity in providing Californians with the best water plan possible. I also know that Mr. Calvert and this legislation have widespread support back home in California, beginning with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. One of his first acts as then Governor-Elect in late October, 2003, was to send a strong letter of support for CALFED legislation to Congress expressing his desire to see Mr. Calvert's legislation succeed and making CALFED authorization a priority for the State. H.R. 2828 will provide a long-term comprehensive plan to address challenges in the Bay-Delta region by balancing water resource management issues including supply, quality, and ecosystem restoration. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Water Supply, Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to again extend congratulations, as I did earlier, to my colleagues. I have lived in California since I was a freshman in college since 1971. I remember very vividly during the past 3 decades the constant struggle that has gone on between north and south over this issue of water, the battles over the Colorado River water. And this notion of coming to some kind of reconciliation on a partnership between the State of California and the Federal Government is something that many believed could never ever happen. Because of the leadership of my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), working under the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) as chairman of the Committee on Resources, and closely with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), and I have seen so many Californians involved in this debate here on the House floor. The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) was speaking earlier, and I saw the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes) talking, and I know we have a couple of people in our delegation who are not on board. But the fact of the matter is we have been able to, I believe, bring together an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans from California to deal with this very important and pressing need. Remember, Mr. Speaker, there are 35 million people in our State. And I know that there are a lot of people around here who are not as crazy about California as those of us who represent it, but the fact of the matter is, California, is the largest State in our union, and virtually everyone around the country has some kind of tie to California. So it is important for us to, as a body and as a government, address this very important need; and so I thank, again, my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), who has worked so tirelessly. I was very honored to be at a water treatment facility that we have had as we worked together to deal with groundwater contamination in the area that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) and I represent with the discovery of per chlorate, which has created very serious problems. We have come together in a bipartisan way to address water issues, and passage of this legislation is going to be a great testament to the bipartisanship of our delegation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the previous question and the rule. Rule XX, clause 2(a) makes it very clear there is a minimum, a minimum, a minimum of 15 minutes to be allowed on each recorded vote or quorum call. There has been a long-standing tradition in this great deliberative body of people having the opportunity to change their minds. I am looking at my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). He and I came together here in 1980. I served for 14 years as a member of the minority, and I will say that that long-standing tradition of Members, at the invitation of the leadership, to change their mind is something that has existed on both sides of the aisle for decades and decades and decades. That is why we have leaders. That is why we have leaders, to provide that kind of very strong leadership to do just that. Now, we know that there has been complete compliance with the rules, and we are here, we are here at this moment, Mr. Speaker, to pass a rule for a very important bipartisan piece of legislation. It is a bipartisan bill that has been in the works for a decade and a half, and I want to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), who has been so diligent, diligent over the period of time we have been addressing this issue to bring about a final resolution which we are going to address today in a bipartisan way. So with that sense of bipartisanship, I would like to close by congratulating our baseball team for the great victory they achieved.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I think that is what my friend from New Mexico was arguing. And my point is that if that would take place, it would not even allow us to maintain the inflation rate that we have. That is why that it needs to be substantially higher than that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I simply want to respond to the comments of my good friend from New Mexico and say at the outset that this notion of a $1 million increase in funding for the National Endowment for Democracy does not even maintain a level at the inflation rate that it is; and this is a program which, remember, the President of the United States asked us to double, he asked us to double the funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. Why? Because when we think about the kind of success that it has had since we saw the demise of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall come down, what we have witnessed in the emergence of tremendous democracies of Eastern and Central Europe, the kind of effort that has been put into place, bringing about leaders who have addressed us in joint sessions of Congress like the former President of Poland, Lech Walesa, like the man who went from prisoner to President in 6 months in Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel. These people were able to enjoy success in large part due to the work of the National Endowment for Democracy. What is it we want? We want throughout the world for people to enjoy the same kind of liberties that are now taken for granted in Eastern and Central Europe, and this program needs to have a dramatic increase. And I believe it is very important for us to do everything we possibly can to ensure the further success of the National Endowment for Democracy. I also think it is important to note that this administration is strongly committed to the small business sector of our economy. There is no doubt about the fact that keeping the tax rates low for small businessmen and -women, encouraging economic growth, keeping interest rates low for small businesses, they are the backbone of our economy. But dramatically expanding a program when we have the director of the Small Business Administration opposed to this kind of a program, when, again, this amendment, this amendment does not allow the funding to get to that program. There already is a $12.5 billion level, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has just informed me. It seems to me that it is the right thing for us to do to oppose this amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez); but since I said that, Members know what position I am taking on their amendment. I am adamantly opposed to it. I appreciate their hard work, their commitment to the small business sector of our economy; but this amendment is wrong. Every single Member in a bipartisan way should oppose it for several reasons. First, I want to talk about the fact that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I came here 24 years ago, elected to serve in Congress the same day Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States. One of the great visions put forth in 1985 in a speech delivered by President Reagan at Westminster College at Fulton, Missouri, was establishing the National Endowment For Democracy. The notion behind this was the goal of ensuring that, rather than simply pursuing bullets, we would pursue ballots. What are we trying to do in the Middle East, in Iraq, and in other parts of the world? We are trying to do everything we possibly can to encourage self-determination, the rule of law, respect for democratic institutions, political pluralism. Why are we doing that? We are doing that in an attempt to help these people and to try and diminish the threat of engaging militarily. So this amendment, as well intentioned as it is, is bringing about a cut in the funding for that institution, the National Endowment for Democracy, which has done a phenomenal job all over the globe helping people who have been trying to claw their way to self-determination to have the kind of success that is so important. In the State of the Union message delivered by the President delivered right here, he called for a doubling of the funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. While the subcommittee of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has not quite gone to the level the President has requested, the $50 million level is a very good and important start because we know that we have been working to build these democratic institutions as part and parcel of the global war on terror, and we are having success and so we should not in any way jeopardize that. Passage of this amendment undermines the effort that we are leading in moving towards democratization around the world. Number two, the global war on terror, we are looking at a $60 million cut if we were to pass this amendment for the Department of Justice, which would tragically undermine the ability to deal with the very important threat that we live with every single day and have lived with every single day since September 11 of 2001, and that is the threat of global terrorism. We have seen activities take place just within the last few days, actions taken to keep ships that potentially posed a threat to our security offshore, and a wide range of other things which the Department of Justice has been involved in to try and help us turn the corner on the global war on terror. As we look at these issues, as well intentioned as this amendment may be, I think we should look at the people who join us in opposition. Hector Barreto, the director of the Small Business Administration, a fellow Californian who has provided great leadership at the SBA, he is opposed to this amendment. They oppose this amendment at the Small Business Administration. And as we look at the overall impact of this amendment, it is not even going to go towards its intended goal. This goes toward administrative expenses and will not provide assistance within the 7(a) program. It is well intentioned, but the amendment does not do anything like it is designed to do; and with what it does do, it undermines our quest towards encouraging democratization around the world, helping the people of Iraq in their quest to build those democratic institutions which are so important, and it threatens our overall goal of trying to deal with the global war on terror. For every single reason, I believe it is important for us to do everything we can to in a bipartisan way vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 120, 108th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me express my appreciation to the very thoughtful and provocative remarks by my friend from Indiana. He put it extraordinarily well. The interdependence of economic and political freedom are so clear. And getting back to this notion that a strong, bold, dynamic vibrant U.S. economy is going to have a positive ripple effect, and it directly itself is going to help provide the revenues necessary for us to help in our continued quest to bring about political pluralism, self- determination, the rule of law in Iraq, we know full well that it is going to be a continued painful time. We got the tragic news yesterday of the death of nearly 100 Iraqis. But that will lead us to strengthen our resolve. And, again, the important thing we need to do is underscore our commitment right here at home to keep this economy growing so that we can help others. Before I yielded to my friend from Indiana, I was talking about earlier the juxtaposition of 1984 and what was said by Walter Mondale at that time, who was running against Ronald Reagan, what is taking place today in the campaign between John Kerry and George W. Bush and the fact that John Kerry and many others referred to 1996 as the glory days. And we were talking about this misery index, the traditional one that has existed which is a combination of unemployment and inflation, and this new one which has five criteria that are included in the mix here. What I would like to do is to focus back on 1996 and compare that to 2004. In 1996, Mr. Speaker, the average monthly payroll job creation was 233,000, as was just said by my colleague, the average monthly payroll job creation has been in excess of 238,000. He referred to the 257,000 number that we saw last month, but it has consistently been in excess, higher than it was back in those glory days of 1996. Back in 1996 the number of manufacturing jobs created was 15,000. In 2004, so far, the number of manufacturing jobs, manufacturing jobs created has been 91,000. In fact, last month we saw the largest manufacturing job growth in 45 months. Again, that compares to the glory days of 1996 where we saw 15,000 created. Back in 1996, the percent of new jobs paying above the median wage was 60 percent. Actually in 2004 the number is exactly the same. The percent of new jobs paying above the median wage is 60 percent. In 1996, Mr. Speaker, the glory days of 1996, to which John Kerry refers, guess what the unemployment rate was? Mr. Speaker, it was 5.6 percent. Those were the glory days. Today the unemployment rate is 5.6 percent. Again, not an acceptable level at all. We want it to get better. But as people juxtapose 1996 and those glory days to the horrible miserable days of 2004, we need to recognize that those numbers are the exact same. Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate back in 1996 for African Americans was 10.2 percent. Today, again, not an acceptable level, but a full percentage point lower, 9.2 percent. Back then the unemployment rate in the Latino community, much of which I am privileged to represent in southern California, was 9.6 percent back in the glory days of 1996. In the miserable time as described by Mr. Kerry of 2004, the unemployment rate for Latinos is 7 percent. Back in the glory days of 1996, as described by Mr. Kerry, the average GDP growth over the previous three quarters was 3.1 percent. This year, 2004, what is described again by Mr. Kerry as the miserable time, the average GDP growth rate over the previous three quarters has been 5.4 percent. Back in 1996, again, the glory days as described by Mr. Kerry, the inflation rate was 2.8 percent. Today, 2004, this miserable time, the inflation rate is only 2.2 percent. Now, John Kerry likes to talk about how strong the economy was during Bill Clinton's reelection campaign and this current economic situation. But a look at the actual facts reveals that despite a recession, a massive terrorist attack, corporate scandals, and this ongoing war on terror, our economy weathered these storms and came out even stronger than those so so-called booming days of 1996. Now, I have gone through, Mr. Speaker, along with my colleagues a lot of economic data to demonstrate the strength of our economy and the success of an economic agenda based on cutting taxes and tearing down barriers to the worldwide economy. But it is easy to get lost in these numbers and lose sight of what exactly all of this means. So I would like to talk about some real life examples as my colleague from New Mexico did, examples of how granting Americans greater economic freedom empowers them to prosper and create new opportunities. In March of this year, President Bush travelled to New Hampshire to meet with small business owners. One of the people he spoke with was a first generation American, George Kassas, a native of Lebanon. Mr. Kassas founded his own company, founded his own company back in 2001, shortly after President Bush took office. He was his own boss and the only employee. Today Mr. Kassas employs 100 people in Derry, New Hampshire. The company is called Cedar Point Communications. It produces voice-over IP switching technology which is used by broadband service providers like cable operators so that they can provide telephone service over cable wires. Mr. Speaker, again, this is a new technology, something that consumers could not have even imagined two decades ago, but George Kassas came up with an idea and built a business out of it. His burgeoning company is flourishing, and it is an economic environment that is specifically geared towards expanding the economy and creating more jobs. Lower taxes and more investment opportunities like business expensing have made it possible. Mr. Kassas is hoping to start exporting his products this year and to continue to do so well into the future. Now, that means he needs and wants the opportunity to export his product so that his company can grow and grow and hire more people. It is a fact. Economic isolationism would prevent George Kassas from growing his company. We need to continue pursuing open trade policies through trade agreements that create exporting opportunities for small business owners like George Kassas. Another prime example of small business success in this economy is D.G. O'Brien, Incorporated, another high-tech company in New Hampshire. D.G., Incorporated, is an older company than Cedar Point, but it has thrived thanks to lower taxes and greater investment opportunities. D.G., Inc., employs 175 people. They produce electrical and optical interconnection systems for high pressure, highly corrosive, sub-sea and nuclear systems. D.G., Inc., is a medium-sized company that pays its taxes in the top 35 percent tax bracket. Thanks to the tax relief that we have passed in the last 3 years, D.G., Inc.'s, tax burden has lowered, and it was able to spend $400,000 in capital equipment in 2003 and will be spending $500,000 in capital equipment this year. With that money they have bought everything from machine tools to computers, all of it helping improve their productivity and the health of their company. Under John Kerry's economic plan, companies like D.G., Inc., would see that tax relief totally erased. A higher tax burden would translate into fewer investment dollars and would otherwise enable this growing company to create new jobs. A higher tax burden would derail the strong growth that we have been witnessing for many months, powered by both small and large companies, as well as entrepreneurs who are out there creating opportunities for themselves. The Bureau of Labor Statistics Payroll Survey shows not only robust job creation of payroll jobs for the past several months, but these gains are widespread, spanning over all sectors and all parts of our country. Net job creation is up in 44 of the 50 States over the last year, and the unemployment rate is down in all regions and in 46 of the 50 States. The most recent payroll jobs data show that for the month of May this widespread net job creation continues: 10,700 new jobs in Pennsylvania; 8,300 new jobs in Michigan; 4,100 new jobs in Connecticut; 23,600 new jobs in my State of California; 13,400 new jobs in North Carolina; 9,700 new jobs in Massachusetts; 8,400 new jobs in Arizona; 1,100 new jobs in Ohio; 25,400 new jobs created in New York; 12,900 new jobs created in Texas; 6,800 new jobs created in Florida; 12,100 new jobs created in Wisconsin; 9,500 new jobs created in New Jersey; 8,300 new jobs created in Virginia; 5,700 new jobs in Oklahoma; 8,100 new jobs created in Maryland; 4,100 new jobs in Kansas. The list goes on and on and on, Mr. Speaker. Furthermore, these jobs numbers encompass every single category of work except government employment. Every field, from manufacturing to construction to business services, witnessed the creation of thousands of new jobs. Again, these numbers that I share with my colleagues are just from last month alone, and these numbers do not even take into account the fastest growing sector of our labor force, self-employment and independent contracting. Those numbers were not even included in the figures that I gave my colleagues, which make up a third of all new job creation. There is simply no denying the fact that we have a strong, growing, bold, dynamic economy that is creating good jobs in every corner of our Nation. John Kerry wants to deny the facts. He wants Americans to believe that we are in a state of economic crisis. He wants us to believe that there are no good job opportunities out there. He wants us to believe that our lives are getting worse. Of course, things can get better, but pessimism is not based in reality. It is not based on the strong growth, rapid job creation, thriving small businesses and climbing incomes that we are witnessing across this country. This pessimism, Mr. Speaker, is also dangerous. Our prosperity is helping us to wage a global war on terrorism. Next Wednesday marks this very important handover. We are going through difficult times, there is no doubt about it, but our economic strength right here at home is part of the foundation of our security as a Nation, and that clearly has a ripple effect across the world. The evidence shows of the inextricable tie between our growing economy and peace and stability and growing job-creating economies throughout the world. It is the right thing do. I appreciate the fact that my colleagues have participated in this. I appreciate the forbearance that the Speaker has shown, as well as those of the staff who have joined us here.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that very helpful contribution, again underscoring the fact that many of our colleagues have a tendency to point the finger outward and blame everyone else as to why we have economic challenges here at home. It is one of the reasons that we dealt with last week the American Jobs Creation Act, a very important piece of legislation designed to decrease the tax that we have and, later, the regulatory burden, continuing on that road towards creating more and more incentive right here at home, opportunity for job creators to be able to succeed and compete globally. We need to shape the global economy. I regularly argue that if we do not shape the global economy, we will be shaped by it. And that is very important for us. Now, another very, very hard working and thoughtful new Member of Congress who is now a veteran having served almost 2 years ago, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), I am happy to recognize him.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I thank my friend for pointing to the tremendous benefits that these reductions in the tax burden have had on the economy of New Mexico; and, frankly, they could take place in the economy of Mexico, too, if we could encourage that, and that is one of the other things. Global trade is a very important part of this component. I thought before yielding to my friend from Indiana that I would take a moment to juxtapose, as I was saying earlier, the things that are being said and the proposals that were offered back in 1984, to what has taken place in 2004. As we all know, 1984, like 2004, was a Presidential year. The incumbent President, Ronald Reagan, had inherited a very troubled economy 4 years earlier. We all spent a great deal of time talking about that just a couple of weeks ago as we were memorializing Ronald Reagan. You remember the terms that were used, the fact that President Carter had referred to our Nation as being in a state of malaise. We saw a tremendous, tremendous increase in the interest rates, we saw a very high rate of inflation; and we saw, frankly, a devastated economy that Ronald Reagan inherited. But clearly, and I am very proud, I was elected to the Congress the day Ronald Reagan was elected President, and I stood here in this well in May of 1981, before my colleagues were born, and at that time when I stood here in that well, we were able to cast the deciding vote with bipartisan support for, first what was known then as the Gramm-Latta budget package, which reduced by 17 percent the rate of growth of Federal spending. It did not cut back Federal spending as much as we all were trying to do, and we are still working on that effort, but it did reduce the rate of growth. Then 3 months later, in August of 1981, we passed what was known as the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. As we put those very, very important job-creating economic-growth- stimulating packages into place, we saw by 1984 that the economy had been turned around through cutting taxes and by empowering companies to become more competitive, and tearing down the barriers, as I mentioned when I accidentally said Mexico as opposed to New Mexico, tearing down the barriers to the free flow of goods and services and capital. Yet inexplicably, the candidate ran a campaign in 1984 of economic isolationism. He ran a campaign based on pessimism about the present and the future, and he called for America to retreat into its borders and restrict the freedom of individuals to engage in the global marketplace. We all know that candidate was our former colleague, the former Vice President of the United States, Walter Mondale. In that 1984 campaign, he said when the American economy leads, the jobs are here. The prosperity is here for our children. But that is not what is happening today. Again, this is Walter Mondale speaking in 1984. He said, ``This is the worse trade year in American history. Three million of our jobs have gone overseas.'' That is what he said in 1984. Speaking of the American companies that were global leaders in fields from manufacturing, to finance, to the burgeoning high-tech industry, which was in its infancy in the 1980s, Walter Mondale said, ``To big companies that send our jobs overseas, my message is, we need these jobs here at home, and our country won't help your business unless your business helps our country.'' That is what Walter Mondale said as a candidate challenging Ronald Reagan back in 1984. 2004, Mr. Speaker, is a Presidential election year. We have an incumbent President who inherited an economy that was heading for recession, shedding jobs and reeling from a stock market whose bubble had burst. These circumstances were then compounded by the worst terrorist attack in American history, as I was saying, several high- profile corporate scandals, and the uncertainty and anxiety of the ongoing war on terror, including our challenge in Iraq. Again, President Bush, like Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, was able to turn the economy around with an agenda of cutting taxes, improving the regulatory environment for U.S. businesses, and knocking down barriers to trade, both here and abroad. Again, despite the tremendous success that these policies have met, the challenging candidate, our colleague, Senator Kerry, is running a campaign based on raising taxes and reversing our trade liberalization agenda. The Mondale quotes that I just shared with our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, could easily be slipped into a John Kerry campaign speech, and they would be right at home in the midst of that speech. In fact, we know that Kerry's whole platform could well be called the Mondale legacy campaign. John Kerry's term for the heads of U.S. companies that are global leaders, creating jobs, investing in growing overseas markets, is, as we all know, Benedict Arnold CEOs. Now he is trying to step away from that after having used it in 25 speeches, but clearly he described those job creators as Benedict Arnold CEOs. Mr. Speaker, these are companies that are America's greatest innovators, job creators and growth stimulators, and Kerry has proposed raising their taxes as punishment for their leadership. Senator Kerry is apparently oblivious to our 5 percent, four-quarter GDP growth; the record 69 percent homeownership, we just saw it surge in a report we got the day before yesterday; the 4.5 percent productivity growth, which is the fastest in four decades; and, of course, what we are enjoying is low inflation and low interest rates. These economic gains, Mr. Speaker, have resulted in hundreds of thousands of jobs being created every month, bringing us an unemployment rate which we all know is lower than the average during the seventies, eighties or nineties; 1.4 million new jobs created over the past 7 months alone, since August of last year. And yet John Kerry has said, ``The economy in this country is in the worst shape it has been in many, many years. It is the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover was President. It is the worst growth record since World War II. And the Bush administration policy is dead wrong.'' That is what John Kerry has said about the surging, bold, dynamic economic growth that Americans are creating because of policies that George Bush and this Congress have put into place to create that. Now, that makes for very compelling rhetoric; but actually, Mr. Speaker, I am more interested in the facts, and I believe the American people are as well. So let us take a look at some economic numbers from the 2004 economy. In keeping with our 20-year theme, I am going to compare them to 1984 numbers. 1984 was a year that witnessed some of the most dramatic economic gains in our country's history. By comparing the 2004 data with the 1984 data, we can put our current economic situation into context and better understand what the numbers mean. 1984: Real GDP growth was at a rate of 7.2 percent in that year, the fastest annual growth rate in 30 years. 2004: real GDP growth has been at 5 percent during the last four quarters, the fastest growth rate in 20 years. Back in 1984, productivity grew at a 4.5 percent rate, the fastest annual rate on record at that time. Today, 2004, productivity has grown at a 4.5 percent annual rate, which has taken place over the past 3 years, which is the fastest productivity growth rate in 4 decades. Business investment surged 18 percent in 1984, the highest annual percentage on record; and this year, business investment surged 12.5 percent in the last four quarters alone. Back in 1984, CEO confidence in the U.S. economy reached an all-time high in the second quarter of 1983, according to the Conference Board's CEO Confidence Index, which covers more than 100 CEOs in a wide range of industries across the country. This year, 2004, CEO confidence in the U.S. economy is at the highest level in the past 20 years, according to the Conference Board's CEO Confidence Index. Back in 1984, capacity utilization, which is the Federal Reserve's monthly estimate of the percentage of factory capacity that is being used, increased 8 percent in the 12 months ending in February of 1984, which was the largest 12 month jump on record. In 2004, capacity utilization is at its highest level since July of 2001, and it has increased 2.9 percent since June of 2003, so just about a year ago right now. Back in 1984, Mr. Speaker, shipments of manufactured durable goods increased 14 percent in 1984 as a whole, one of the largest yearly increases on record. December 1983 saw one of the highest readings in the history of the ISM manufacturing index at 69.9 index points. This year, 2004, industrial production saw its largest quarterly increase in nearly 4 years, 6.2 percent at an annual rate during the first quarter of 2004, and it increased further in April. The ISM manufacturing employment index increased to its highest level since April of 1973. Back in 1994, non-farm payroll employment in the first 5 months of 1984 increased by 1.9 million, Mr. Speaker. Now, 2004, the first 5 months of this year, non-farm payroll employment has increased by 1.2 million, on pace for nearly 3 million new jobs to be created in 2004, which is the highest since 1999. Back in 1984, the unemployment rate fell 3.5 percentage points from 10.8 percent. Remember that: 10.8 percent in the early 1980s was our unemployment rate, December of 1982; and it dropped 3.5 down to 7.3 percent in June of 1983. That is an unemployment rate, Mr. Speaker, from 10.8 percent in December of 1982 down to 7.3 percent in June of 1983. What is it today in 2004? The unemployment rate is 5.6 percent, not an acceptable level by any means; but it is down from the peak that we saw of 6.3 percent. And as I have said, it is lower than the average unemployment rate during the 1970s, 1980s, and the 1990s. Mr. Speaker, back in 1994, housing starts surged to 1.8 million, the highest level in 11 years. 2004, housing starts remained near record levels, new-home sales surged by 15 percent last month, and are up over 25 percent from just a year ago. Despite a recent uptick in interest rates, mortgage rates remain near historic lows, making home buying continually easier. Back in 1984, real disposable personal income increased 7.6 percent in 1983 as a whole, the fastest yearly growth on record. This year, 2004, two decades later, real disposable income increased at a 4.9 percent annual rate in the first quarter of 2004, faster than its annual pace in 1999 through 2003. Now, Mr. Speaker, clearly our 2004 economy is strong on all counts, from GDP growth, to job creation, to personal income, to homeownership, right down the line. In fact, our economy is so strong, that even Senator Kerry is having a hard time insisting that we are facing tough economic times. Now, I suspect that we will continue to hear references, and we actually heard it here on the floor of the House earlier today, to the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover; but that tune is changing just a little. Instead of trying to claim that no jobs are being created, what we are hearing from Senator Kerry is that only bad jobs are being created. The hamburger-flipping jobs, remember that back to the 1980s, Mr. Speaker? The term ``hamburger-flipping jobs'' was first coined by a New York Times piece in, surprise, surprise, what year? 1984. And has been resurrected time and time again by people like Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, John Sweeney, Lou Dobbs; and now John Kerry is trying to breathe new life into the rhetoric of the past by telling Americans that the only jobs being created are those in the local fast-food joint. John Kerry sent out a press release just last week stating, ``The economy has failed to create the new jobs that Bush said his stimulus package would create, and the jobs that have come back pay lower wages.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, the fact is real incomes and real purchasing power have been steadily rising for months. Average after-tax income is up nearly $2,000 since the start of the Bush administration. Real disposable incomes are growing at an annual 5 percent rate. Job creation in 2004 has been strong in every single occupation category except government work; and it has been particularly strong in high- wage sectors, like professional and business services. In fact, two-thirds, Mr. Speaker, of all job creation in 2004 has been in industries that pay above the average wage. Americans are finding jobs in amazing fields that years ago did not even exist; but they are very important fields, fields like health care, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, education, movies, entertainment and digital gaming, recreation, telecommunications, cable, satellite, TV and radio, phones, cellular phones and wireless networks, fashion, insurance, real estate, autos, maintenance and repair, mass transit, investments, whether you call it in the stock market, in pensions or securities and other areas, leisure, hospitality and tourism. Then there are the businesses that service other businesses, like engineering, environmental protection services and technologies, risk management, export and import financing, express delivery. Now, there are jobs that are directly related to the increasingly global forces and the focus of the U.S. economy, like this entirely new field, this entirely new field of logistics specialists. As supply and production lines become more and more complicated and diverse, businesses are relying on the expertise of this entire new field of logistics experts to coordinate and manage these complex systems. In fact, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, has established this new, entirely new department of logistics studies because of the movement of all these goods. More and more Americans, Mr. Speaker, are also following their entrepreneurial spirit by starting their own businesses and working as independent contractors. In the example that I pointed to time and time again, and I was thinking of when a moment ago I mentioned the fact that some of those businesses did not even exist, certainly in the 1980s or even a decade ago. There are 430,000 Americans who make their full-time strong living, good income living doing what? Selling full-time on eBay. Now, again, a decade ago no one would have even contemplated this. The 21st-century economy is affording more and more people the freedom and flexibility to work independently, far from becoming a Nation of hamburger flippers, which was said back in that New York Times article and then through the Presidential campaigns of 1984 and then Michael Dukakis. In 1988, I remember he used the line ``McJobs'' to describe the jobs that were being created, and now we are hearing that exact same argument coming at us again from John Kerry. So Americans are actually instead putting innovation and creativity to work making a living in these cutting-edge fields and dramatically improving their quality of life. And John Kerry keeps reaching for something, anything that he can possibly use to convince the American people that our economy is in the doldrums and that our lives are getting worse and worse. One of his most recent gimmicks, of course, has been this misery index, which I know my colleague from Indiana has seen, that was put forward back in the 1970s when our economy was in real trouble. Jimmy Carter came up with the misery index, the sum of the national unemployment and inflation rates. It has been used ever since to unofficially gauge the Nation's economic health, that combination of unemployment and inflation. In fact, during the 1996 Presidential campaign, Democrats touted the low misery index as a reason to reelect Bill Clinton, and even many of our colleagues here in the Congress used that. John Kerry, running for the Senate that year, that year when he was running, he proudly proclaimed that he was proud to run in a year when the misery index was at its lowest level that it had been in 27 years. Mr. Speaker, it is 2004. The misery index is not very high, because inflation is low and the unemployment rate is low and getting lower, in decline. So what is it that John Kerry has done? He makes up a new misery index because, obviously, the misery index that he was proud to run on, the best in 27 years when he was running in 1996, is a misery index that is even better today than it was when he was so proud. So he has come up with a new idea, and he is trying to tell Americans how miserable they are. Kerry's new index is, of course, much more complicated than that old favorite which was simply the combination of inflation and unemployment. It is based on seven factors rather than the two that I mentioned: median family income, college tuition, health care costs, gasoline prices, bankruptcies, the homeownership rate, and private sector job growth. But, Mr. Speaker, the facts just do not wash. According to Senator Kerry's new misery index, President Carter received a higher rating than President Reagan on the misery index, and I would venture to guess that most Americans who lived through the Carter and Reagan years would certainly say that they were better off during Ronald Reagan's term than they were during the Carter Presidency, which plagued them with over 10 percent unemployment rate, as I said, 10.8 percent; and remember, because we know gasoline prices are very high; we do not have the kinds of lines that we had back then in the 1970s when Jimmy Carter was President. Lower taxes and expanded trade opportunities are the policies that Ronald Reagan vigorously pursued, and they were the exact same policies again that George W. Bush has pursued and that have led to the latest increases that we have seen in job creation. Senator Kerry would do just the opposite of those policies that have continued to create historic, dynamic, bold, job-creating, economic growth. The policies of Kerry's proposals are to raise taxes, to discourage open trade. He said of the North American Free Trade Agreement that he voted for it back then; but if he had to do it over again, he would vote against it. As I said in my exchange earlier with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), we now enjoy a quarter of a trillion dollars of two-way trade between Mexico and the United States. It needs to get better. We still have very serious problems. But this notion of trying to blame the notion of free trade and John Kerry calling for a renegotiation is really pandering to the lowest common denominator. And, of course, that kind of talk does play a role in creating a degree of misery. This made-up misery index of Senator Kerry's actually ignores some key facts about our growing economy. After-tax incomes are up by 11 percent since December of 2000, just before President Bush took office, substantially higher than following the last recession; and household wealth is near an all-time high. Inflation is low, as we discussed, and interest rates and mortgage rates are near historic lows. Homeownership rates, as I have mentioned, are near record highs, with minority homeownership at its highest rate ever. I underscore that again for our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who regularly try to create this very, very divisive view. Minority homeownership today, Mr. Speaker, is at its highest level in our Nation's history. Homeownership rates, as I have discussed, continue, continue to grow all the way across the board. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose by 25 percent in 2003, and the NASDAQ rose by 50 percent. Consumer confidence is on the rise again, according to an ABC News Money Magazine Consumer Comfort Index. In case you are wondering what the old misery tells us about the economy today and the economies of the past, here are the numbers. And remember, the higher it is, the more miserable we are supposed to be. In 1976, it was 13.5 percent; in 1996 it was 8.4 percent; and today, the misery index is 7.7 percent. Sounds like Mr. Kerry is the only one who is actually miserable these days. Another gimmick that has been used by Senator Kerry that he likes to talk about are the ``glory days'' of 1996 when Bill Clinton was running for reelection. He likes to talk about what a strong, vibrant economy we had back then, and he likes to claim that today, we are far worse off than we were then. We have already taken a detailed look at the parallels between 1984, 2 decades ago, when Walter Mondale was the candidate for President of the United States for the Democrats, and 2004; but since John Kerry is so fond of reminiscing about 1996, I would like to, in just a moment, after I yield to my colleagues, talk about a juxtaposition between what Senator Kerry and Senator Kennedy of course would describe as the glory days of 1996, and compare those to what we are witnessing today. So I would be happy to yield to either of my colleagues, the gentleman from Indiana or the gentleman from New Mexico, if they would like to actually enlighten our colleagues on these issues. So since he is on his feet, I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time just to remind my colleagues, the Governor of New Mexico formerly served in this House. He was elected to this House one term after I was elected here. It is Bill Richardson, who served with great distinction as the Ambassador to the United Nations and the Secretary of Energy, and I worked very closely with him on global trade issues. He is now the Governor of New Mexico and has talked about and put into place important tax cuts to stimulate growth in your economy.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, several of my colleagues over the last few minutes have talked about the fact that we are about to mark Independence Day, and virtually all of our colleagues have left the Chamber and are en route to their homes, to their districts, for this work period. But I think that it is very important for us to take a few minutes to talk about what is on the horizon. Of course, Independence Day will be a week from this coming Sunday, July 4. But there is a very important date that we will be marking next Wednesday, and that, of course, is the turnover in Iraq from the Coalition Provisional Authority, the CPA, to the IIG, the Iraqi Interim Government, and the leadership of the new president, Ghazi al-Yawar, and the prime minister, who has been facing recently threats on his life, but has stood up courageously talking about the importance of the role that the United States of America and the coalition forces have played in bringing this about. So Iyad Allawi, the new prime minister, is an individual who suffered tremendously, faced nearly the loss of his life at the hands of Saddam Hussein's forces when he was in London, and he has now emerged as one who will be in charge of leading the government there. This clearly is an historic effort which is designed to bring about peace and stability to what is obviously a very troubled region. And we know, Mr. Speaker, that this is going to yield tremendous dividends to not only the region, but to the entire world and the security around the world and right here at home as well. What I would like to do during my period of time here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is to talk about our economy, but I want to start talking about it as it relates to this global war on terrorism and, again, the handover that we are going to be facing next Wednesday, on June 30. Clearly, the terrorists attacked us on September 11. When they did that, they went after the three very important pillars of America's success. What is it that they went after, Mr. Speaker? They went after our national defense capability when they launched the attack and flew the plane into the Pentagon. We know that they were headed towards the government. The report of the 9-11 Commission clearly shows that the plane that was courageously taken into the ground by those passengers in Pennsylvania were headed right towards this building, the great symbol of freedom, the dome that is above us right here, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Capitol. And we know that the first two targets were the center of the global economy, the World Trade Center Towers. The months following September 11 were obviously very difficult for us because in attacking the World Trade Center Towers, what was it they were trying to do? They were trying to attack and undermine the strength and vibrance of the U.S. economy. We all know that our Nation's economy was already in a downturn before September 11. In fact, it was the last two quarters of the year 2000 that we saw the economy begin to slow. And then in early 2001, just after President Bush took the oath of office, we saw two quarters of negative economic growth, which basically means we were in economic recession. Thankfully, during that period of time, we had passed tax relief just before September 11, and the goal of the tax relief that we provided at that point, Mr. Speaker, was to get our economy going again. And The Washington Post actually, as they looked at what happened on September 11, described the tax relief as ``fortuitously well timed,'' is the term that the Washington Post used to actually describe the timing of the tax relief that we put into place back in 2001. Why, one would ask, do we believe that tax relief is important? And the fact is that we find that the federal tax coffers do not suffer when we bring about tax cuts. They suffer when our economy is not growing and revenues are not being created. I know that that is counterintuitive, that one believes that somehow if we bring about taxes that we lose revenue coming into the Federal Treasury when, in fact, the opposite is the case. We know that the combined tax relief of the 2001 and 2003 tax package, the two tax packages, had the desired effect of growing the economy and generating more revenue for our Federal Treasury. In fact, the Treasury Department data that we had proves that. Through May of this year, Mr. Speaker, federal tax receipts for this fiscal year are running 2.3 percent higher than for the same period in 2003. Think about that for a minute. We cut taxes last year for millions of American workers and businesses, the job creators, and what is it? We have been actually getting more money to the Federal Treasury that had been anticipated. In March of this year, the Congressional Budget Office projected that receipts would be up $35 billion this year over the same period of time last year. Even further, the Congressional Budget Office noted in a recent report: ``Recent trends suggest that the deficit in 2004 will be less than what the CBO had projected in March.'' Outlays to date are consistent with CBO's expectations, but revenues are running $30 billion to $40 billion higher than anticipated, meaning that as we move towards our goal of getting back to a balanced budget, having dealt with the economic recession of 2001, the September 11 attacks on our national security, on our government, and on our economy, as well as tragically killing thousands of Americans and others, and then the war in Iraq, our tax cuts have generated an unanticipated $30 billion to $40 billion in revenues to the Federal Treasury. Right now our men and women in uniform are overseas fighting to protect us, our homeland, from another attack like the one that we saw on September 11, 2001. The good news, Mr. Speaker, is that our economy right here is working for them, our men and women in uniform, too. These increased revenues are what will be used to supply them with everything they need to complete their mission just as quickly and as safely as possible. We need the funds to provide everything from ammunition to Humvees and, of course, food and water for our troops. Our national security benefits from a strong, dynamic, growing economy right here in the United States and, of course, a strong, dynamic, growing economy here in the United States ensures to the benefit of other economies throughout the world, and that helps us. Tax relief creates a strong economy. So let us take a more detailed look at exactly how our economy is doing. I have been talking an awful lot in the recent months about the strength of our economy. One way of illustrating the nature of our 21st century economy is to look at it in the context of the past 20 years. Certainly a great deal of change has taken place over the past 20 years, since 1984. The past two decades have transformed not just the business world, but our daily lives as well. But while the changes over the past 2 decades are striking, the parallels between 1984, the things that were said in 1984, and 2004, are perhaps even more remarkable, and they are not getting an awful lot of attention; and that is one of the reasons that I and my very distinguished colleagues, the gentlemen from both Indiana and New Mexico, are joining me here this afternoon. Looking at 20 years of change, it becomes clear that the more things change, the more they stay the same. What I would like to do is I would like at this moment to yield to my friend from New Mexico, who has just been sharing with me the fact that we have been, as we have looked at these tax cuts that have taken place in 2001 and 2003. We have begun to see very, very positive benefits to our economy, and he has been sharing with me anecdotal evidence in New Mexico of benefits we have seen. I would like at this point to yield to my friend from New Mexico.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will try to be very brief because I know you only have 5 minutes. I have an hour special order and I will be talking in a little while about this. I think it is important to note that you just described this sort of trickle down in the area of tax cuts. And it is important to know what you describe as trickle down in the last 9 months has created 1.4 million new jobs right here in the United States. Month before last we saw the largest increase in 45 months in manufacturing jobs. I am very familiar with the Timken Company. I am very sympathetic and concerned about the issue that has just been raised on that issue. Similarly, if we look at the issue of trade we now enjoy a quarter of a trillion dollars, a quarter of a trillion dollars in trade between the United States of America and Mexico.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will say that if one goes back and looks at legislation that we passed in this House, H.R. 6, it, in fact, takes very bold steps towards ensuring that our constituents are correctly compensated. And so we have done just that. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I know that I have nearly exhausted the time for this side.

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, that was the request that was made. And I will tell the gentlewoman the request that was made for the structure of the rule by the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee was that we have an open amendment process and provide protection for those provisions that were reported out of the Committee on Appropriations, and that is exactly what we did. The bipartisan request for the structure of the rule is what we put together and what we reported out. It would have been extraordinary if we had, in fact, provided a waiver that would have allowed for this amendment. That was why I made the request of my friend, to fashion a rule so that we can address our shared concern to ensure that our constituents are correctly compensated and are not done in. And that is, I believe, exactly what has happened, along with passage of H.R. 6, our legislation, and the case that is underway before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Madam Chairman, would anyone else like for me to yield to them? Would the minority leader like me to yield? Is there anyone else who would like me to answer questions? I am more than happy to.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is not what I said. I am happy to yield again if the gentlewoman would like to challenge me on this. What I said was that the amendment as proposed did not comply with the rules of the House.