David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of May 17 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2005. The Committee on Armed Services ordered the bill reported yesterday, May 12, and is expected to file its report in the House tomorrow, May 14. 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 Committee on Rules in Room H-312 of the Capitol by 5 p.m. on Monday, May 17. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Armed Services which should be available tomorrow for their review on the Web site of both the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Rules. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to 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, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of May 17 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of one or more of the following: H.R. 2432, Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act of 2003; H.R. 2728, Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court Act of 2004; H.R. 2729, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act of 2004; H.R. 2730, Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act of 2004; and H.R. 2731, Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act of 2004. Mr. Speaker, any Member wishing to offer an amendment to any of these bills should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 11 a.m. on Monday, May 17, 2004. Members should draft their amendments to the text of H.R. 2432 as reported by the Committee on Government Reform on May 12, which is expected to be filed on Friday, May 14. Members are also advised that the text of H.R. 2432 should be available for their review on the Web site of the Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on Rules today, Thursday, May 13, 2004. Members should draft their amendments to the texts of H.R. 2728, H.R. 2729, H.R. 2730, and H.R. 2731 as reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce on May 5, 2004, which will be filed momentarily. Members are also advised that the text of these bills should be available for their review on the Web sites of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Rules today, Thursday, May 13, 2004. 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 that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have seen tremendous improvements. We can see that a great deal has been accomplished. As we have seen suffering that so many have gone through, we are enjoying tremendous success.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we all demonstrated our righteous indignation over what took place in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and we are horrified by it. But I would like to take just a few minutes to share the transcript of the Fox News Sunday program hosted by Chris Wallace, in which he talked about the positive accomplishments. He said on Sunday, ``As many of you may know, we thought the ABC News program, `Nightline,' made a mistake last week, listing all the brave men and women who died in Iraq but without providing the context of what they died for. So we have said that we would put together our own tribute, our own list of what these brave men and women have built in Iraq. ``A couple of points before we begin. Some of you have written saying that we're pushing the White House agenda. As you saw in the last segment, there are plenty of hard questions to ask about the Bush administration's policy in Iraq, and we will keep asking them. ``There were also times this week when you couldn't help but wonder about putting on the good news from Iraq, as we saw those ugly pictures from the Abu Gharib prison. But the more we thought about it, what better time to talk about what the vast majority of our troops are doing there? What better time to try to make sense of the sacrifice of the 767 men and women who have died in Iraq? ``We call our tribute, `What We've Accomplished.' '' Chris Wallace went on to say, ``First, ending the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. Ending the systematic torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Since Saddam was overthrown, investigators have found dozens of mass graves in which more than 300,000 Iraqis were buried. ``Ending the theft of billions of dollars from the Iraqi people,'' Wallace goes on to say. ``Since 1991, Saddam built 48 palaces, at a time when his regime said it did not have the sources to build housing. And an investigation has found Saddam stole more than $11 billion from the U.N.'s Oil for Food program. ``Ending the threat that weapons of mass destruction will be developed and used. Since the invasion, U.S. inspectors have not found WMD, but during its time in power, Saddam's regime manufactured chemical and biological weapons and, at one point, actively pursued nuclear weapons. ``Second, quality of life. Daily life has improved dramatically for the average Iraqi since the fall of Saddam, but it has come at a cost. These three soldiers were killed last July while they guarded a hospital at Baquba. ``Under the old regime, little money was spent on education and there was no schedule for maintaining school facilities. So far, 2,500 schools have been renovated, with another 800 to be finished soon.'' Then the voice of an Iraqi female saying, ``They put in electricity for us and a fan for us so we could get some air, and I say thanks to God.'' An Iraqi child says, ``Before, the school was dirty and not clean and even the bathroom was not good. This year, they made a new bathroom for us and they changed the building and painted it well.'' Chris Wallace goes on to say, ``What children are learning in school has also changed. Before the war, the government fired teachers for not following the party line. Almost 9 million new math and science textbooks have been printed and distributed. Old books were filled with pro-Saddam propaganda. ``And here are U.S. troops handing out knapsacks full of school supplies in Samarra. This just days after those four American contractors were killed and their bodies mutilated in Fallujah. ``Major progress has also been made in health care. Under Saddam, the Ministry of Health spent $16 million a year. The current budget is almost $1 billion. The health care system is now open to all Iraqis, with 30 percent more people using the facilities. Doctors who used to get $20 a month now earn up to $180. Modern medication, such as cancer drugs, are now available, something unheard of during Saddam Hussein's years. ``Last Sunday, these five Navy Seabees were killed in the Sunni triangle while on assignment rebuilding schools and medical facilities for the Iraqis. ``Third, human rights. Since the end of Saddam Hussein, a fully functioning legal and judicial system has been developed. More than 600 judges are working in courtrooms across the country. Iraqis charged with crimes now have rights that would have been laughed at under the old regime: the right to remain silent when they're arrested; the right to a fair, speedy and open trial; the right to a defense lawyer at all stages of the process. ``Iraqis now enjoy freedom of speech. Street protests against the United States occupation are now routine in Baghdad, something that in the past would have earned these demonstrators imprisonment or death. ``There is also something approaching freedom of the press. Under Saddam all newspapers were controlled by the government.'' Here was a woman that was a reporter for 27 years. She said, ``Before, we write as they tell us to write. Now we write what we believe.'' Mr. Speaker, I include the rest of the transcript for the Record. WALLACE: Now, 120 papers are being published, some of them critical of the U.S. The coalition has shut down only two papers, which it said were inciting violence. This is another sign of new freedom: Internet cafes. Before, few people had access to computers, fewer still to the government-monitored Internet. Now people can communicate, get information or sound off in Web blogs. And here's more technology that was banned under Saddam Hussein: satellite dishes. Now more than one-third of Iraqi households receive news from around the world by way of these dishes. Finally, the economy and infrastructure. There's a new currency in Iraq. Gone are those ever-present pictures of Saddam in a country that used to have two weak currencies, there is now one stable form of money. Iraq's most important resource, oil, is showing a strong revival. Production now exceeds pre-war levels, averaging half a million barrels a day more than when Saddam was forced from power. Still, gasoline shortages have meant that U.S. soldiers often have to guard filing stations to prevent looting. Private First Class Jason Wright from the 101st Airborne Division was killed by a drive-by shooter as he protected Iraqis who were buying gas. One crucial area that has seen solid improvement is basic utilities. After years of neglect, Iraqis have electricity for only part of the day. By this summer, the average Iraqi will have electricity for 16 hours a day, 40 percent above pre-war levels. Under Saddam, only half of the country had access to clean drinking water. Now extensive renovations of water plants have brought cleaner water to more people, almost 15 million, on a more reliable basis. Before the war, few areas had proper sewage facilities. One example of what soldiers are doing on the ground is in Mosul, where a neighborhood was swamped with raw sewage for 17 years. The U.S. Army spent $40,000 to hire local workers, and the problem is fixed. Improvements in the infrastructure are widespread. Here are some key examples. Baghdad airport now has 43 passenger flights a day, including regular commercial service to Jordan. And look at something as simple as phone service. Under Saddam, cell phones were a luxury, reserved only for top party and government officials. Now, more than 340,000 Iraqis have cell phones, and business is booming. There's one other big difference: When Iraqis make a call now, they say no one is listening in. IRAQI MALE: I call him now on the phone. Now we can discuss anything. We are not--I am not afraid to say anything. WALLACE: As we struggled to put all of this together, we were astonished by all that our troops have accomplished. And we'll keep an eye out so we can update you on some of the ways our troops are making life better for so many Iraqis.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Last night, I stood here in the well following the speech that my friend from Georgia gave and he has delivered the same speech, and I want to say to my friend from Georgia, while addressing the Speaker according to the rules of the House, that righteous indignation is something that every single one of us, every single one of us has demonstrated by the support of this resolution. We are all outraged at the photographs that we have seen, and we believe that it is reprehensible that these kinds of actions should take place. Dating back to 1785, the framers of our Constitution, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and others, focused at that point on the importance as we deal with conflicts of recognizing the human rights of even our adversaries, and that is why it is so important for the United States of America, which is the only Nation on the face of the earth that could do this kind of work, to step forward, and yes, liberate the people of Iraq, send a positive message for the cause of freedom throughout the entire world, but at the same time, recognize those important rights that do date back to 1785 and the founding of the United States of America. We do, as my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) stated very eloquently, need to realize why it is that we are in Iraq. We are there because of the global war on terrorism. We are there because this is part and parcel of the global war on terrorism. There are 135,000 American troops who are part of this very important international coalition, and we have seen tremendous success. It is important for us to support this resolution, but it is also very important for us to realize that any sign of weakness from the United States of America as we proceed with resolve in dealing with these terrorists in Iraq, any sign of weakness emboldens those terrorists. That is why, yes, we are going to ensure that anyone who is responsible for this and is convicted under the Uniform Code of Criminal Justice is in fact going to go to jail because they are criminals. At the same time, we must realize that, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) said, there are 135,000 courageous men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces who are seeking to win this war and we need to, with this resolution that the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has put together, underscore and demonstrate the solidarity and resolve of the American people and the United States Congress behind our men and women. Support this rule, support this resolution, and let us move forward and make sure that we do resolve this very difficult situation.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I simply would like to say that while I disagree with the final conclusion that the gentlewoman has just drawn, the outrage that she began stating in her comments is outrage with which we totally agree; and we have been working over the last couple of days since this news came out to bring forward what we hope will be a bipartisan resolution from this House tomorrow. We are going to be meeting, it appears now, possibly early in the morning in the Committee on Rules to report out a resolution which will state our strong condemnation of the actions that we have seen taking place in the treatment of these Iraqi prisoners. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time so I could clarify this.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the best ways for the American people to deal with the changes that are taking place in our economy right here at home. I have actually been talking a lot about change in recent weeks and taking a look at the profound and rapid change that has been taking place in this country over the past 20 years. I have spoken a great deal about the transformation of our economy and the fact that that change has had a tremendous impact in the high-tech area. It has created this change, a dynamic 21st century economy, an economy largely based on serving customers, business customers, Mr. Speaker, customers like you and me. We have an economy that is based on skilled workers harnessing new technologies, finding new ways to increase efficiency, boost productivity and better serve customers. This is all taking place in a very fast-paced and very competitive environment. New technologies and new business practices develop practically overnight. In this 21st century economy, about the only thing that remains constant is the fact that things are constantly changing. And they are changing for the better. Over the past 2 decades, in the United States of America we have created 40 million new jobs, largely in high-wage sectors. Over that 2-decade period, real wages have increased by 30 percent and productivity has more than tripled, while the size of our economy has doubled to what is a nearly $11 trillion economy today, nearly twice the size of any other economy on the face of the Earth. And, it is important to note that students here in the United States are graduating from college in unprecedented numbers. Now, there is no doubt about it: 2 decades of change have significantly improved the quality of life of average Americans. But there is also no denying the fact that change, even profound change for the better, does breed anxiety, and anxiety can cause people to seek stability rather than pursue greater change for the better. This desire for stability is certainly understandable. It also has a long-standing history in our economy. While the past 20 years have witnessed a remarkable rate of change and growth, massive change has swept through our economy before. At the time of our Nation's birth, we had a largely agrarian economy. America then underwent a long transition to become the world's leading heavy industrial economy. And this shift that took place certainly did not happen overnight, the shift from an agrarian economy to a heavy industrial economy. While there are no clear starting and stopping points, the transformation of our agrarian economy to an industrial economy took about 100 years, about a century. Through the increasingly widespread use of heavy machinery in factories, transportation modes and, of course, on the farm, we gradually witnessed what became known as the industrial revolution. Throughout this period, there was a great deal of anxiety about the changes that were taking place. Workers whose families had been farmers for generations were suddenly faced with having to find new kinds of work, new ways of supporting their families. This often meant finding a job and a line of work their fathers and grandfathers had never even heard of. A farmer in 1885 certainly never dreamed that one day his son would head off to work in Henry Ford's assembly line. He probably spent his time wondering and worrying about the existing kinds of work that would be available for his children; the existing kinds of work that would be available for his children. Again, we can all understand this anxiety in the face of fundamental change. Predicting the future is not easy. If it were, I and I am sure all the rest of us, Mr. Speaker, would have invested in Microsoft and Wal-Mart 2 decades ago. But now, with the benefit of a century of hindsight, we can clearly see that the industrial revolution was a good thing, that transition from an agrarian economy to a heavy industrial economy was, in fact, a good thing. The middle class exploded. Our standard of living increased rapidly. Life expectancies climbed as workplaces became safer and grueling manual labor was no longer commonplace. Transportation became faster and safer. Communications also became easier and quicker. More and more Americans had access to quality education. The benefits of this massive transformation in our economy are so apparent, it seems absolutely absurd to ask the question if we are better off because of that transition from an agrarian economy to a heavy industrial economy. Who here today would go back to the lifestyle of the 1830s? Obviously, no one. The more interesting and more telling question is why did the loss of millions of agricultural jobs not bring about the collapse of the American economy? In the face of profound change, how was our economy able to change for the better? The answer simple: our flexible and dynamic system created new and better jobs. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker. It is a very simple response about this change from the agrarian to the heavy industrial economy. Our flexible and dynamic system, very inextricably tied to this free market process, created, yes, new and better jobs. Innovation led to new opportunities. Rather than viewing new technologies as job destroyers, hard-working Americans knew that these achievements in heavy machinery could be powerful job creators. They harnessed these new technologies and transformed our entire economy. Because Americans had the freedom and flexibility to innovate, we did not stagnate and decline. We adapted and we grew. We call that progress. Today, we are well into our second economic transformation from that heavy industrial economy to our 21st century, business-serving- customers economy. This time, the transformation is taking place far more quickly. Even during periods of very strong growth in job creation, the churning that takes place within our economy is rapid and very far-reaching. For example, back in 1999, just 5 years ago, our economy was booming. It was a boom year for the U.S. economy, 1999. Growth was quite strong with a 4.5 percent GDP growth number, and unemployment was very low at 4.3 percent. Yet, Mr. Speaker, over the course of that year, we witnessed the destruction of 33 million jobs. Let me say that again. In 1999, we had 4.5 percent GDP growth. We had an unemployment rate of 4.3 percent. Yet, that year, we witnessed the destruction of 33 million American jobs. But, at the same time, 36 million new jobs were created. Now, over that period, nearly 100,000 jobs were lost every day, but our dynamic, bold, strong, innovative, creative economy created even more jobs than those 100,000 that were lost every single day. And the result, of course, was a net increase of 3 million jobs. Now let us look at a period of slower economic growth, just 2 years ago, in 2002. At that time, the economy was just beginning to emerge from economic recession. GDP growth chugged along at a 2.2 percent growth rate. Unemployment was right around 5.8 percent, and over the course of that year, 32 million jobs were lost, while 31.7 million new jobs were created. Now, of course, the net effect of that was a loss, a net loss of 300,000 jobs. Remember, slow growth, emerging from recession, 2.2 percent GDP growth, an unemployment rate of 5.8 percent and, yet, we saw 32 million jobs lost, 31.7 million jobs created. Now, this dynamism is often overlooked when we talk about our economy. In 1999, Mr. Speaker, news reports and economic commentary did not tell the story of 33 million jobs that were destroyed in this country. What we heard about was the net gain of 3 million jobs. In 2002, we did not hear about the creation of nearly 32 million jobs. What we heard about was the loss of 300,000 jobs. The net gain is, of course, the number that we are all interested in. We want to see exactly how many net jobs are created, and we all want that number to be just as big as possible. But I am highlighting the millions of jobs lost and the millions of jobs created because they are the two sides of the equation that ultimately determines net job creation. In other words, there are two ways we could attempt to achieve job growth. We could either try to stop millions of jobs from being phased out, or we could, Mr. Speaker, focus on creating even more new jobs, many of which are obviously in new technologies, just as was the case back when that farmer never conceived of the fact that his or her son would one day work in Henry Ford's factory. So as I say, we could either try to stop millions of jobs from being phased out, or we could focus on creating even more jobs. I also highlight these numbers behind the numbers because they reveal something that is very interesting. In 2002, a year of relatively slow economic growth, as I said, about 2.2 percent GDP growth, fewer jobs were actually reported lost than in 1999, that year of booming job growth. Now, this is key. These numbers say we lost 33 million jobs in 1999, and only 32 million jobs in 2002. Thirty-three million jobs when we had very bold, 4.5 percent GDP growth, an unemployment rate of 4.3 percent, and 32 million jobs were lost when we saw very, very slow economic growth of 2.2 percent and an unemployment rate of 5.8 percent. The fact that more jobs could be destroyed during the boom is hugely significant. This tells us that our job growth equation, with job losses on one side and job creation on the other side, the number we should be focusing on is the job creation number. Yet, many of my colleagues have proposed just the opposite as a public policy for us. The opposite are these proposals designed to simply prevent any jobs from being lost. Now, there are several proposals making their way through the Congress and in State legislatures and, unfortunately, those proposals, Mr. Speaker, ignore the job creation numbers. They ignore the fact that 2002, a year of relatively slow economic growth, actually saw fewer jobs lost, fewer job losses than 1999, that boom year. And they seek to somehow spur job growth by keeping the job loss number from growing. Now, the presumptive democratic nominee, John Kerry, has proposed raising taxes on companies that invest globally as a way to preserve jobs here at home. Chris Dodd, the senior Senator from Connecticut, has a proposal which was adopted by the other body in the form of an amendment to the corporate tax reform bill. That amendment was designed to prevent globally-engaged companies from competing for Federal contracts, and we have this discussed in State legislatures for States. My colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) has the same proposal here: preventing globally-engaged companies from competing for Federal contracts. The Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle, has his Jobs For Americans Act, which is cosponsored by Senator Kennedy. This legislation would impose new restrictions and regulations on any company, large or small, that invests in growing overseas markets. Each one of these proposals, intended to increase the number of jobs for Americans, attempts to control the job loss side of the jobs growth equation. But would they be effective? Can we boost job growth by trying to simply focus our attention on preserving existing jobs? Well, again, the numbers from the past several years demonstrate that we cannot. But rather than attempting to make an educated guess based on the data we have, I have a better idea, Mr. Speaker. We should use empirical evidence. I think what we should do is draw our wisdom from the example put forth by our friends in Europe; specifically, the French. The people of France thought up job preservation proposals long before they ever occurred to any of the economic isolationists we deal with here in both Houses of Congress. France, along with a number of other European Union countries, has been imposing these very kinds of restrictions for years. We do not have to predict if jobs will be created if we prohibit U.S. companies from freely competing on a worldwide basis. We can simply look at the French model and ask ourselves, is job growth strong? Is the capital creation that leads to job growth thriving? Do we want our economy to look like the French economy? Well, the answer is a resounding no. We know that the French have twice the unemployment and half the job growth, the GDP growth that we enjoy in the United States. Like the proposal that our colleague, Senator Daschle has in his Jobs For Americans Act, France imposes strict requirements on all businesses that intend to lay off workers. These restrictions have been in place for many years. For instance, a French employer must notify any worker of an impending layoff, in writing. The notification period varies from case to case, but the minimum is 6 weeks. And in some cases, employers must give their workers up to 9 months before laying them off. This notification is followed up by a hearing in which both the employer and employee can state their cases. In the event that the employer does lay off a worker, he is required to provide a substantial severance package. In an effort to stem the exodus of businesses from their high tax, high regulations system, France began imposing, actually this is inconceivable, an exit tax. They began this back in 1998, an exit tax. The European Union recently struck down this provision, but for 6 years the French have used this highly burdensome tax on businesses to prevent them from moving to countries with less restrictive government regulations. So with all of these ``job security'' measures in place, that are intended, very well intended, they are intended to prevent companies from laying off workers and moving offshore, you have to ask the question, are the French workers better off today? Has government regulation been able to save any jobs? Is new business creation, which would create new jobs, booming in France? The answer is an obvious no. Since 1999 the unemployment rate in France has been stuck right at about 10 percent. While it dipped as low as 9.1 percent in the end of 2002, it is now back up to 9.5 percent. And it continues to rise at a time when the overall unemployment rate for OECD countries is falling. This decrease, I might add, is being led by falling employment right here in the United States of America. Furthermore, France's economy overall is fairing quite poorly. Last year the GDP growth rate in France was 1.8 percent; and estimates for this year are at 1.7 percent. Its finance ministry recently announced that it is hopeful that the economy could grow by as much as 2.5 percent next year. But even they admitted that this relatively slow rate of growth will be very difficult to achieve. I think it is important to note that this stagnation is not a recent or temporary situation in France. The French are not simply going through a few difficult years as all countries do from time to time and as ours clearly has. Average annual growth and GDP throughout all of the 1990s in France was 1.9 percent. Just over half the average GDP growth rate of 3.4 percent that we have had here in the United States, but maybe France is just an anomaly, Mr. Speaker. France, their restrictive job security laws would have a different effect in a different economy. So let us look at another case. Germany. Germany has many labor regulations that are similar to France's. And like their neighbor to the west, these laws have been in place for many years. The Protection Against Dismissal Act, which could have been the model for Senator Daschle's Jobs for Americans Act, was adopted a half century ago just after World War II. This statute requires every employer to justify the laying off of any employee taken into account, taking into account social justice factors. Now, these factors include things like whether the employee is a single mother or elderly or disabled. Employers must give workers notice of layoffs between 1 and 7 months in advance, depending on how long a worker has been with a company. Employees can challenge any layoff in court and obtain preliminary injunction allowing them to remain on the job until their cases are decided. Preliminary injunctions can keep people on a job while their case is being decided, whether or not it is a good business decision for that operation. These are very stringent requirements imposed on German companies, no doubt in an effort, well-intentioned, the effort, of course, to protect German workers. But are these workers better off, Mr. Speaker? Since the late 1990s, unemployment in Germany has hovered above the 8 percent level and has steadily climbed over the past year. In 2003, it inched up from 9 percent to 9.2 percent and continues to climb. At the same time the GDP growth rate in Germany has, as has been the case in France, been a paltry 1.7 percent for the last 2 years. Mr. Speaker, economic forecasters have recently downgraded their growth predictions for Germany from 1.8 percent to 1.6 percent, even lower than that anticipated in France. Just like France, economic stagnation has been a part of the German way of life for many years. Throughout the 1990s, economic growth averaged just 1.5 percent, an abysmal one-third of the economic growth rate that we have seen on average here in the United States economy. The long term numbers clearly do not stack up well against the United States. But let us compare the short-term numbers, Mr. Speaker. French and German unemployment is at 9.5 and 9.2 percent, respectively, and those numbers are increasing. In the U.S., unemployment is at 5.7 percent. That is roughly half the levels of unemployment for both France and Germany. The same goes for economic growth. While the French and German economies have been inching along at less than 2 percent, GDP growth, the U.S. economy has been racing forward at a 4.1 percent annual growth rate, more than twice the growth rate of both France and Germany. And in the third quarter of 2003, the U.S. economy grew at a staggering 8.2 percent, our fastest growth rate in 20 years. But perhaps the most telling numbers of all are what I will call innovation indicators. In terms of new patents, research and development, venture capital, the U.S. far outpaces France, Germany and the entire European Union. For example, the United States leads the world with 185,000 new patents granted every single year. This is almost four times the amount for the entire European Union. In 2002, France granted fewer than 4,000 patents and Germany only granted 11,000 patents. In other words, U.S. innovators are producing 50 times the work of their French counterparts and 17 times the work of their German counterparts. A look at research and development shows a similar picture. Last year, the United States spent almost $300 billion on research and development. That is nearly a third of a trillion dollars on research and development, including both public and private sources. This year we will spend $320 billion, an increase that stems in large part from the President's commitment to increase Federal research and development funding. In fact, the President's proposed R&D budget of $132 billion marks a 42 percent increase since he took office. France, by contrast, spends only $30 billion a year, a tenth of what the United States spends. Germany devotes $37 billion a year to R&D which is less than one-sixth of the U.S. total. Once again, the United States of America is the global leader while France and Germany trail far behind. Another important innovation indicator is venture capital. Business and individual investors provided over $21 billion in venture capital in 2002 right here in the United States. That compares with less than $2 billion in France and about a billion dollars in Germany. In both cases, a tiny fraction of the venture capital investment that we have here in the United States. In fact, the amount of venture capital raised each year in all of western Europe barely equals a third of the amount raised here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, each one of these innovation indicators which demonstrate the vitality and dynamism of an economy together with factors like unemployment and growth and gross domestic product, clearly shows that our economy is creating far more and far better opportunities for workers than any place else. It seems that the ``job security restrictions'' might not be quite the boon to workers that their proponents would have us believe. Europe's failed attempts to artificially retain existing jobs have guaranteed economic stagnation, not future prosperity for their workers. The French and German models demonstrate that job growth cannot be achieved simply by trying to prevent any jobs from being phased out. Instead, we need to focus on the other side of that jobs equation that I have discussed earlier. The job creation side. In light of our economic history, this should come as absolutely no surprise whatsoever. Our Nation's economic strength has always been based on the ability of industry, workers, and consumers to innovate, adapt and create new and better opportunities. As we saw with the shift from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy, success did not stem from our ability to prevent the loss of agricultural jobs. Our success was a result of our ability to harness new technologies and create entirely new fields of work. And we transformed our economy into a global leader in the process. Today it is just as critical as ever that we reject the path of stagnation and choose the path of progress instead. The path that encourages companies to innovate, raise productivity, compete abroad, and create the new kind of jobs that reflect our uniquely American ability to adapt to the changes of the future. This is the American model for job growth. But if this has been our formula for success and global economic leadership for nearly 200 years, why are our current job growth numbers not as strong as we would like? After all, our economy has been out of recession for over 2 years. In fact, growth is clipping along at a brisk 4.1 percent. The stock market is performing well, real wages are growing, consumer confidence and spending remain high, and home ownership is at record levels. All indicators point to 2004 looking a lot more like the boom of 1999 than the relatively slow growth that we saw in 2002. Yet, while the job growth numbers have recently grown much stronger, the overall job creation picture still looks a little weaker than expected. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are three reasons why the job creation numbers have not yet matched the exuberance of the rest of the economy. First, we quite simply are not counting all of the new jobs. Our jobs statistics, the number of new jobs that comes out on the first Friday of every month are derived from the payroll survey known as the Establishment Survey. The data are collected by asking a sampling of businesses how many people they employ and if they are adding or reducing jobs. The problem is that the payroll survey only looks at the established businesses. That is why they call it the Establishment Survey. There is no means for counting the self-employed, the independent contractors, the enough business start-ups. These entrepreneurs are completely left out by our job creation number. But we do know that they are out there. And we know that the number is growing. Significant anecdotal evidence from established businesses shows that companies are increasingly relying on more fluid business models. Independent contracting gives both businesses and skilled workers greater flexibility in coordinating projects and meeting their individual needs. While the payroll survey misses these types of workers, they do get counted in the household survey. The Department of Labor's household survey goes directly to individuals and asks them if they have a job and what kind of work they are doing. Now, Mr. Speaker, because the household survey looks at the entire workforce and the payroll survey only looks at a certain kind of employment, it is no surprise at all that the household survey shows a net gain of over 1.5 million jobs since the end of the recession in November of 2001. Over the same period, the payroll survey shows a net loss of about 350,000 jobs. While even the payroll survey has not recently begun indicating robust job growth, 308,000 new jobs in the month of March and 204,000 new jobs in the previous 2 months, the two surveys still show a discrepancy of almost two million jobs since the end of the recession. Furthermore, trends in job creation indicate that the payroll survey is increasingly inadequate for counting new jobs. The household survey shows that one-third of all new job creation is in self-employment. This means that the fastest-growing part of our workforce is missed entirely by the payroll or establishment survey. If we are going to have an accurate picture on job creation, we need jobs statistics that account for the kinds of jobs our 21st century economy is creating. The second reason I believe job creation has not yet reached expectation is that our economy is in the process of creating entirely new types of jobs in entirely new types of fields. In recent decades, job losses and gains have primarily been the product of the business cycle. Employers would be forced to lay off workers during tough economic times and would rehire them during the recovery. Because the job opportunities before and after a recovery looked very similar, reemployment happened very quickly. Today, we still go through cyclical change, but we are also experiencing a great deal of structural change. As I discussed earlier, we are in the midst of a major economic transformation. In our 21st century economy, a new job is often new in every sense of the word, new work in a new field demanding completely new skills. Rather than simply going back to their old jobs, workers are increasingly finding work in cutting-edge fields and learning very, very different skills. Part of our focus in the 21st century economy should be helping to match workers with employers so that reemployment can take place so that we can see reemployment take place just as quickly as possible. We need to help match workers with employers, workers who were laid off so that we can help them. The third factor, Mr. Speaker, that I believe is affecting net job creation in this country, and the perception that we are experiencing a jobless recovery is the fact that there are very real barriers to job creation that still exist here in America. These include the rising cost of providing health care for workers, frivolous lawsuits, the cost of complying with ever-growing government regulations, and a Byzantine corporate Tax Code. In fact, the National Association of Manufacturers estimates that these factors raise the cost of doing business in the United States by almost 25 percent, that is, these factors, the things that exist, the frivolous lawsuits, the regulations, the tax burden and the cost of health care, they have increased the cost of doing business by almost a quarter. That can be devastating to any company, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses, and it can significantly impede the ability of entrepreneurs to turn their innovations into new jobs for Americans. These three factors, inadequate job statistics, the structural changes that are taking place in our economy and the barriers to job creation, are all impacting our jobs numbers; and each presents an opportunity for us, Mr. Speaker, as policy-makers. Improving our data analysis, helping to match workers with new jobs and training for new skills, seeking reforms that will lower the cost of doing business in the United States from tort reform to health savings accounts, these are a number of initiatives that the Congress of the United States can pursue to boost job creation in this country. The most important part is that we keep our focus on the job creation side of the equation. It is true that, as in an earlier era of buggy whip makers and blacksmiths, some jobs are disappearing forever; but I reject the belief that we have reached the end of American innovation. Call centers in India are simply not a harbinger of stagnation and decline. To say that they are is defeatism in its most basic form. Admittedly, I cannot stand here and tell my colleagues exactly what the jobs of tomorrow will be, just as a defeatist in 1850 could not have foreseen jobs in film production or software engineering. What I can tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, is that Americans have a long history of adapting and growing and being innovative and creative. If we allow workers to continue down that road towards innovation, we will continue to create lots of new opportunities for Americans. Mr. Speaker, Senator Kerry and many on the other side of the aisle want us to pursue the French and German models; and we know from that experience that what we have seen from the French and the Germans does, in fact, create stagnation and stifling regulation and jeopardizes the ability for Americans to be innovative and creative. Mr. Speaker, I will take the American way, with confidence in the American worker and the American employer for the future.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have some remarks that I am going to share with our colleagues on the 21st century economy and some of the challenges that we are going to face, but I would like to preface my remarks by responding to some of the issues that have been raised by my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who spoke just before me. There is in fact righteous indignation, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) just said, over what we as a Nation have seen take place in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. We as a Nation and as a people are outraged over this treatment of prisoners. It appears to be in clear violation of the Geneva Convention, and I believe that we have a responsibility to do everything that we can as a body to clearly state the outrage that we have. As I said in response to the remarks being made by my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), Mr. Speaker, we are working at this moment on a resolution that I hope very much can enjoy bipartisan support that will allow every single Member of this House to go on record expressing what the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) correctly describes as righteous indignation over what we have observed. Now, the closing remarks that were just offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) had to do with the call for our withdrawal from Iraq; and I would take just a moment to respond to that, Mr. Speaker, by saying that it is very apparent that some seem to have forgotten what led to where we are today. It was September 11, 2001, when our world changed. Following September 11, President Bush immediately moved in on al Qaeda and the Taliban and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. We also know that the global war on terrorism extended beyond Afghanistan. We know that in Iraq, Saddam Hussein had been a supporter of terrorist activities, clearly in his region; and we know that he had utilized weapons of mass destruction against his own people. There is a reason that we are in Iraq today, Mr. Speaker; and it has to do clearly with our quest to do what only, only the United States of America is capable to do, and that is to stand up for freedom, liberty, human rights and independence as we struggle with this global war on terror. That is why I want to congratulate President Bush for the strong, unwavering, decisive leadership that he has shown in this global war on terror. Creating a Dynamic 21st Century Economy

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join and commend him and commend our Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from New York, for focusing on the life of Mary McGrory. I think that the gentleman may have been referring to me with what he just said because I am a proud Republican who often, in fact I rarely agreed with Mary McGrory. But the fact of the matter is she was an incredible writer, an extraordinary human being, and very talented. I had many vigorous exchanges with her on a wide range of issues. Believe it or not, we did on more than a couple of occasions come down on the same side on an issue. She was thoughtful, she was dedicated, and she was very capable. I just want to thank my friend and join as one of those Republicans who did have a great admiration for this great woman. I thank the gentleman for yielding and again thank the gentlewoman from New York.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise because today marks a very important anniversary. We all know that Ronald Reagan in the mid-1980s talked about the fact that as we pursued an end to the Cold War militarily, one of the important things for us to do was to also engage in democracy-building around the world. Today actually marks the 20th anniversary of the International Republican Institute, which is an arm of the National Endowment For Democracy. We all remember the anxious final years of the Cold War, when President Reagan, in a speech he gave in 1982 to the British Parliament, envisioned moving toward a world in which all people are at least free to determine their own destiny. Now, that speech led to the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy, and within that is the International Republican Institute. Since that time, the IRI has conducted programs in over 75 countries, from Haiti to Kazakhstan. Its efforts to train political parties, encourage voter participation, and enact institutional reforms within governments have no doubt contributed greatly to President Reagan's goal. IRI's continued commitment is evident in its current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As we confront the threat of terrorism in the post- September 11 world, I am confident that the International Republican Institute will continue as an important contributor to the cause of freedom.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time and for his management of this legislation; and I want to begin by extending my compliments to my very distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), who has long been a champion on this issue, as well as my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), who just gave a very thoughtful statement about where we go and why we need to focus on ensuring that we provide financial literacy education to young people in this country. And of course every single debate on the House floor is dramatically enhanced by the voice of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), so I want to express my appreciation as always to him for his presence here. Several years ago, Mr. Speaker, I joined our colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), in establishing an organization known as Jump$tart, realizing that many of us years and years ago took for granted the understanding of financial literacy. I will never forget, as a kid, when my father ensured that I started a savings account. I looked at that little passbook that I had, which saw only a relatively modest rate the money I had in there growing; but it was a wonderful, wonderful thing. Today, when we look at the wide range of information that is flooding not only adults but young people as well, and we look at this 21st- century economy, we realize that everybody is deluged, whether it is through the mail by credit cards, on the Web, through advertising that we see; and it can be extraordinarily confusing. And so things that were taken for granted decades ago when many of us were growing up, we now have to focus on in the way of education for our young people. On the Web today, people have the tremendous opportunity to pay their bills, they have the opportunity to have access to a wide range of financial services and products, and we also need to realize that today we have seen this growing investor class. Over half of the American people, Mr. Speaker, are members of the investor class. They are invested either through their 401(k), through individual retirement accounts, through pension funds, and of course those who directly invest in the markets or in real estate or in other areas. So more than half the American people are members of that investor class. As that number grows, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we need to do everything we possibly can to ensure that our young people have an awareness level of things that were so often taken for granted and seen as simple common sense in the past. We passed last year legislation, the Federal Financial Literacy Commission, to promote and enhance financial literacy for all Americans. The initiative established a national financial literacy public service campaign to raise the awareness level regarding personal finance. I was pleased that we have had that in legislation that we have pursued in the past. Last month there were a number of organizations that had spent time and effort focusing on and promoting financial literacy. They include Citigroup and the Citigroup Foundation's $200 million global financial literacy initiative; the Credit Union National Association's National Credit Union Youth Week; the American Bankers Association's National Teach Children to Save Day; the Jump Start Coalition's biennial Survey on the State of Financial Literacy among high schoolers; the National Council on Economic Education/NASDAQ Educational Foundation's National Teaching Awards Event; and last but not least, my Governor in California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, established April 2004 as California Financial Literacy Month with a proclamation. Put very simply, Mr. Speaker, financial literacy is all about opportunity. It is about empowering individuals to make informed financial decisions, helping them to attain financial independence and to plan for their future prosperity. Working together, we can ensure that the young people in our country gain a fundamental understanding of personal finance to help them succeed later in life. I again congratulate the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for recognizing that focusing this month of April on financial literacy is the right thing to do. I know that all of my colleagues will want to join in support of this important resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I would join with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and say that we do truly want to work in a bipartisan way to make sure that the greatest deliberative body known to man is maintained as that, and I hope very much that our decision to accept the motion to recommit which is being offered in good faith by the gentleman from North Carolina will see us proceed with an overwhelming vote.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Let me say that the imponderable, if every single one, all 537 of the Federally elected officials, the President, the Vice President and all the Members of the House, and all the Members of Senate, in fact, are killed, including all of the Cabinet members, including the Cabinet member who is not here at the State of the Union message, it would be up to the people to come together and make the determination as the rebuilding process begins. I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, the amendment extending from 45 to 75 days in fact lengthens the amount of time when we could possibly get this body back together.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would say that there is no way that you are going to get me to argue with Learned Hand. I share that skepticism, and I believe that is a very healthy thing, and it is an important thing. We have pondered almost every possibility. As I listened to the opening statement that was made during the debate on the rule from my friend from Washington describing what conceivably could happen if we were in the midst of a State of the Union Address, and we had every single Member of the House and Senate and everyone, save the one member of the Cabinet who does not come to these addresses, obliterated, what would happen. Frankly, if it was as described, a nuclear bomb were to go off in this area, who knows how far that would reach, and that individual could be killed. So we have pondered everything. What we have done, I believe, is we have worked very hard talking to many, many different people about the most balanced way that we can approach an imponderable, difficult situation, and I think we have come up with something reasonable. That is why in light of the fact it is going to be very difficult, I am happy to say, for a constitutional amendment to pass this body, I think that we need to ask the question, what is the backup position? What is it that is proposed, short of a constitutional amendment, other than this legislative approach, which we have tried to take in a bipartisan way?

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say there is no attempt whatsoever to give the executive branch the opportunity to run without the oversight that is, in fact, ensured in the Constitution. I believe that we would have a complement of Members. I do not know exactly what that would consist of, but the goal of this legislation is to make sure that we can get back to the full 435 membership, ensuring that we are the body of the people. I would say that one of the interesting things about our Constitution, juxtaposed to other constitutions in the world and State constitutions, mine in California being an example, is the fact that any of us, just like the majority leader, are able to put it in our pocket. So that is why that very small item that I mentioned in Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, makes it clear, and that interpretation, upheld by the United States Supreme Court, makes it clear that we do have the ability to do that. That is how we are legislatively able to proceed with this. I will once again say to my friend from Washington and others on this issue, as we look at what appears to me to be growing opposition to amending the U.S. Constitution, and I will say to my friend, I have had Democrats as well as nearly every Republican with whom I have spoken on this say they are opposed to it, I think that there should be a realization that for us to take this first step with this very responsible, very balanced, very thoughtful approach, which has been considered over a long period of time, is the route for us to take.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his question. I wanted to respond to it earlier. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution makes it very clear that times, places and manner of election are within the purview of this institution. I would go on to say that the United States Supreme Court has correctly, in my opinion, held that the times, places and manner clause of Article I, Section 4, grants Congress broad power, broad power, over elections, including, and I quote from the Smiley v. Holm decision of the Supreme Court, where they say ``authority to provide a complete code for Congressional elections, not as only to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting votes, making and publication of election returns.'' Mr. Chairman, let me say that is the provision that was upheld by the Supreme Court, and to me that makes it very, very clear that we have that authority. The issue of uniformity is something we were very, very careful in crafting in this legislation. Why? Because as we look at this 45-day period, we want to make sure that all across the country we have an opportunity for people in a time of crisis to at the same time cast their ballots. Now, when my friend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) used the issue of the State, I think it was Minnesota, that had that 15-day provision, I am convinced that just as we in California were able to take on that very unique and unprecedented recall election that we held last year, similarly States like Minnesota, which have had that nominating process take place, they have held those primaries in 15 days, similarly that nominating process could take place within the 10- day period. We all know, Mr. Chairman, that this would be an extraordinary circumstance. And one of the reasons, I would say to my friend from Washington who raised the concern about the immediacy of trying to ensure that we have a full complement of Members of the House working, that is the reason that we have the 45-day period put into place, and that is the reason that we spent a great deal of time over the last year and a half talking with secretaries of state across this country, including, as I said, the three members of this institution who did serve as secretaries of state, to come up with a time which would best allow us to ensure those rights, realizing that this is in an extraordinary, potentially very difficult time for our Nation.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I briefly mentioned during the debate on the rule what happened out in California. We know that each congressional district has about 650,000, fewer than 650,000 people. We might have two or three candidates in those races. In California, we had 125 candidates and we had a total of 55 days; and the prediction of doom, I was frankly suspicious about the prospect of seeing us put together in a 55-day period with 35 million Californians this special election when in fact we found that we were able to do it in that period of time for a State of 35 million people. I think in the congressional districts that are a fraction of that size, 45 days is a reasonable period. I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. Let me state that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that is arbitrary about the 45-day period. The State of New York has a maximum of 40 days, and we know that it has worked very well in the State of New York. And I think it is also important to note that there are three former Secretaries of State, I know at least on our side of the aisle, who serve here; and we fashioned this legislation in consultation with Secretaries of State in seeking the amount of time that would, in fact, address the concern that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has raised that we as quickly as possible make sure that this institution is reconstituted. So I think it is important just to note that we have not been arbitrary in the selection of this 45 days. A lot of research went into this.

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