David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules' Subcommittee on Technology.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of both the rule we are considering now as well as the underlying legislation. Before I get into the legislation itself, I would like to briefly speak about the rule. Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair and balanced rule. The Committee on Rules received a total of 59 amendments for our consideration, and this rule makes in order 23 of those 59 amendments that were submitted to us. It includes 14 amendments offered by Republicans, eight amendments offered by Democrats, and one bipartisan amendment. The rule also makes in order a very bipartisan manager's amendment, which addresses a significant number of concerns that have been raised by many Members. The rule also includes an important provision from the Committee on Ways and Means to ensure fiscal solvency of the Highway Trust Fund, as well as a provision relating to the mass transit guarantee. Mr. Speaker, this provision is necessary to ensure that current flexibilities and authorities of Congress to set appropriate annual spending levels for basic salaries and administrative expenses for the Federal Transit Administration are maintained. Under current law, the Committee on Appropriations can adjust spending in this account so long as those savings are rolled into other mass transit programs and the full transit guarantees are preserved. The underlying bill, as reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, restricted the ability of the Committee on Appropriations to adjust spending on an account-by-account basis. The amendment to the bill included in this rule simply provides guidance in interpreting existing rules of the House to ensure that the status quo is maintained. This is not intended to provide any new authority whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, I want to note that I will continue to work with the committees to perfect language to ensure that the provisions achieve the intended purpose. Legislating House rules in this manner is not my preferred way to proceed. Regrettably, however, when TEA 21 was enacted, changes to the House rules were legislated within the authorizing statute and were not implemented through the regular order of the House. Instead, they were and are continuing to be legislated by a committee that does not have any jurisdiction over this matter. I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee on Rules has and will retain its jurisdiction over the rules of the House. As part of our review of budget enforcement procedures, this and other budgetary enforcement mechanisms will be further scrutinized. It is my hope that the affected committees will continue to work with the Committee on Rules to ensure that all changes to the rules of the House are thoughtful and reasoned. But, Mr. Speaker, despite my reservations over some portions of the legislation, I want to reiterate my strong support for the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users, reauthorizes our Nation's surface transportation programs for the next 6 years. The very core of this bill is safety and congestion relief. Investing in transportation infrastructure has fundamental impacts on our quality of life, our Nation's economic growth and, as was just said by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, our competitiveness in the world. Our highways, transit systems, pipelines, airports, harbors and waterways serve as the backbone of our economy by moving people and goods, employing millions of workers, and generating a significant share of total economic output. Transportation-related goods and services generate 10 percent of our total gross domestic product. In making our infrastructure backbone stronger, TEA LU provides safety improvements that will save lives. Many of the more than 42,000 highway fatalities each year can be prevented by building better roads and improving the safety features of existing roads. Commercial motor vehicles are involved in 12 percent of all crashes resulting in a fatality. Carriers transporting extremely hazardous materials must ensure that sufficient safety and security measures are in place to accomplish that transportation without loss of life, injury or property damage. Improvements in safety include the movement of freight from ship to shore, which must be conducted in a safe, efficient, secure manner in order to improve air quality and decrease congestion. Congestion relief is imperative. American families do not need books of statistics to know that traffic congestion has increased. We all know that rush hour starts earlier in the day and ends later at night, creating more travel time than ever before. Congestion also negatively impacts our environment by increasing emissions and wasting fuel. Vehicles in stop-and-go traffic not only emit more pollutants than they do when operating without frequent breaking and acceleration, but obviously they decrease fuel efficiency as well. In my home State of California, improving safety while reducing congestion has never been more critical. As California is considered the Gateway to the Pacific Rim, 40 percent of the Nation's goods are imported through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The infrastructure supporting the movement of goods from ship to shore through Los Angeles and Long Beach will distribute an estimated $314 billion worth of trade by the year 2020. Facilitating growth in trade is directly connected to the overall economic vitality of the entire Nation. Ninety-five percent of U.S. international cargo by volume is transported by ocean. According to the United States Trade Representative's Office, nearly 20 percent of all U.S. jobs are directly associated with international trade. In the Southern California region alone, improvements to our infrastructure will reduce a projected 300 percent increase by 2020 in auto-truck traffic delays in points where freight moving on railroads impedes vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This is just one example of how TEA LU strengthens our transportation infrastructure into the next decade. During this debate, you will hear the challenges we must still address in improving our surface transportation programs. Nobody can deny that the need is great and our resources are limited. In addition, I look forward toward working that States receive their fair share. However, our critical task here is to ensure the safety of American families and to move people and goods throughout this country faster and more efficiently. This bill accomplishes that goal. I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lipinski) on their leadership in crafting this important legislation. To that end, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 593 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time for the Speaker, as though pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, to declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of H.R. 3550, and that consideration of the bill proceed according to the following order: The first reading of the bill is dispensed with; All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived; General debate shall not exceed 2 hours and 40 minutes with 2 hours and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, including a final period of 10 minutes following consideration of the bill for amendment, and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; After the initial period of general debate, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion; and, No further consideration of H.R. 3550 shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional officer of Marines, Colonel Michael A Shupp. Colonel Shupp will soon complete a highly successful 3 year tour as the Marine Corps' Liaison Officer to the U.S. House of Representatives. It is truly a pleasure for me to recognize a few of his many outstanding achievements. Colonel Shupp was raised in Bethlehem, PA. He attended the Virginia Military Institute and graduated with a Bachelors of Arts Degree in History. He completed the Airborne Course at Fort Benning, GA in 1979, and the Marine Officer's Candidate School at Quantico. VA, in 1980. He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant upon his graduation from VMI and entered the Marine Corps in May 1981. His many assignments over the past 23 years have included command of Company ``A'' 1st Light Armored Infantry Battalion during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm and command of the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion of 1st Marine Division at MAGTF-Training Command, Twenty-nine Palms, CA. Additionally, he has served in many important staff billets to include being an operational planner for II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, NC, Plans Officer for 26 MEU (SOC) during Operation Dynamic Response, and being the Marine Corps' representative to the Assessment Planning Team for Operation Allied Force in Kosovo. In August 2001, Colonel Shupp arrived for duty as the Marine Corps Liaison Officer to the U.S. House of Representatives. For the past 3 years, he has expertly represented the Marine Corps on all matters in the House of Representatives and spearheaded the Marine Corps' most difficult and challenging legislative initiatives. Through direct and skillful interaction with Members of Congress, he ensured that Marine Corps capabilities and requirements were widely understood by key Members of this body, assisting them in their decision-making. His initiative, leadership, and tireless efforts as the House Liaison Officer have had a lasting impact on improving the war fighting capabilities and the quality of life for Marines throughout the Marine Corps. Most importantly Mr. Speaker, Colonel Michael Shupp has come to epitomize those qualities that we as a nation have come to expect from our Marines--absolutely impeccable integrity, moral character and professionalism. Mike was promoted to Colonel while serving here with us in 2003. He has traveled with us to dozens of countries, introduced us to hundreds of Marines worldwide, educated us on the capabilities and needs of the Marine Corps, and served as a stellar example of commitment to this great Nation. As he reports to his next assignment as the Commanding Officer of 1st Marine Regiment, headquartered at Camp Pendleton, CA I know he will continue his legacy of steadfast leadership and devotion to his men. Together with his lovely wife, Sherrye, he will always exemplify the Marine traditions of honor, courage, and commitment. It has been my pleasure to know and work with Colonel Mike Shupp over the last 3 years; a distinction I know is shared by many of my colleagues. I feel sure you want to join me in wishing Mike, Sherrye, and their daughter Jessica continuing success as well as fair winds and following seas.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, in response to growing concern that many of our good jobs are being sent overseas, a number of our colleagues have offered proposals to restrict the practice of offshoring. The idea, I suppose, is that by restricting the ability of Americans to freely invest and compete in the worldwide markets, we can somehow save jobs here at home. One of these proposals, offered by the senior Senator from Connecticut, was recently adopted in the other body in the form of an amendment to the international corporate tax reform bill. This proposal would permanently prohibit American companies that off-shore any of their work from ever doing business with the Federal Government. This restriction would also extend State projects that use any Federal dollars. Another example is the Senate minority leader's Jobs For Americans Act, which is cosponsored by Senator and presumed Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry. Before off-shoring any work that was previously done in the United States, this legislation would require companies, big and small, to disclose how many jobs would be affected, where those jobs would be going, and why they were being off-shored. Companies would also be required to give employees 3 months' advance notice, as well as notify all Federal and State agencies responsible for helping laid-off workers. Now, Madam Speaker, we are all concerned about jobs for Americans. We are very concerned about jobs for Americans. And since these anti- offshoring initiatives are clearly intended to save jobs, I believe we should take a careful, serious look at their potential impact on the health of our economy, an economy that is currently growing, and we just got the news today, at a rate of 4.1 percent, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in recent months, and witnessing nearly 1 million new business start-ups every single year. The good news is that we do not have to try to calculate what would happen if we were to adopt any of these measures. We can benefit from the wisdom of French and German policymakers, who adopted well-meaning job preservation techniques long ago. All we have to do is take a look at their economies and determine if we want similar results. Let us look at France first. Under French labor law, employers must notify workers of impending layoffs at least 6 weeks in advance. Under certain circumstances, this notification period must be much longer, as much as 9 months in some cases. Other employee rights include a hearing in order to fight the layoff and a substantial severance package. So with all these regulations and so-called worker protections, France must be a worker's paradise. French jobs must be eminently secure, right? Well, it is obviously not the case. For years, French unemployment has persistently hung around the 10 percent level. In 2002, it dipped as low as 9.2 percent, but it has since crawled back up to 9.5 percent, and it continues to climb. And the French economy overall is not faring much better than French workers are. Last year, GDP growth was a paltry 1.8 percent, and French Government analysts are predicting even weaker growth for this year, 2004. Germany has labor laws that are very similar to France's. 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 injunctions, allowing them to remain on the job until their cases are decided. But despite these job preservation regulations, German unemployment, just like in France, is frighteningly high. Since the late 1990s, unemployment in Germany has hovered just above 8 percent and has steadily climbed over the past year. In 2003, it inched up from 9 percent to 9.2 percent and continues to climb. Growth is also very weak, hovering below 2 percent for the past several years. Madam Speaker, American workers deserve better than this. We owe them more than the empty promise that tried and failed tactics will somehow save jobs. Rather than go the French and German way of stagnation and stifling regulation, I say let us create good jobs right here the American way, by continuing to innovate and grow and produce new opportunities for workers. That has been our recipe for global economic leadership for years; and if we continue to allow Americans to freely invest at home and abroad, we will continue to create more good jobs right here in the United States of America.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of March 29 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ordered the bill reported on March 24. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Tuesday, March 30. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure which is available for their review on the Web sites of both the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure as well as 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 that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of March 29 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 3966, the ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act of 2004. The Committee on Armed Services ordered the bill reported on March 17 and filed its report in House on March 23. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 1 p.m. on Monday, March 29. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Armed Services. 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. The distinguished majority leader is correct that we do hope to have a wide-ranging debate. I would just like to say that the announcement that I will make in just a few moments when the colloquy is completed will be calling for a structured rule, and what I wanted to say is that we have had a tradition in the past for consideration of these transportation authorization bills of a structured rule which has made in order a certain number of amendments. I just wanted to say, under both Democratic and Republican majorities, that has been the pattern. I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the very able subcommittee chairman, for yielding me this time; and I congratulate him as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for their work on this very important legislation. We know that President Fox and President Bush both talked about the importance of pursuing this legislation. This has been a priority. Why? Because we have an extremely critical relationship in the area of commerce between our two countries. It is with great regularity that some of my colleagues will come down and talk about the ills of trade between Mexico and the United States, and it is very rare that we focus on the important benefits. It would come as a shock to many people to realize that we have a quarter of a trillion dollars in cross-border trade between the United States and Mexico. In fact, Mexico has emerged beyond Japan to become the United States of America's number two trading partner. Doing whatever we can to facilitate an expansion of that will benefit both sides of the border. Mr. Speaker, I have long argued that it is absolutely ridiculous for the United States to be tolerant of having a poor southern neighbor. There is no benefit to the United States of America having a poor southern neighbor. As we look at the many problems about which we regularly commiserate, whether it is illegal immigration, the problem of drug trafficking, which I am happy to say has improved dramatically over the past several years; but as we look at these challenges, we have to understand that enhancing the economy of Mexico is the best way for us to provide a disincentive for people to illegally flee across the border into the United States. That is why I think this legislation can go a long way in helping us expand what is already a very important and very positive trade relationship between our two countries. I have had the opportunity, as I know most of my colleagues have, to visit Mexico and I regularly have people who say please make sure we have an opportunity to have access to more U.S. goods and services. This legislation will go a long way towards helping that, and I think we need to realize we are in this together. There are some people who would like to make a change to the fact that we share 2,000 miles with Mexico. I know this will sadden some, but there is no way we will ever change the fact that we share a 2,000- mile border with Mexico, and it seems to me that in light of that reality, which I happen to personally think is a great one, we should do everything that we possibly can to improve it and make lives on both sides of the border even better.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3633.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time for the Speaker, as though pursuant to clause 2(b)of rule XVIII, to declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of H. Con.Res. 393, and that consideration of the concurrent resolution proceed according to the following order: the first reading of the concurrent resolution is dispensed with; all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived; general debate shall be confined to the congressional budget and shall not exceed 6 hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, provided that 1 hour of such debate shall be on the subject of economic goals and policies, which shall be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) or their designees; After general debate, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion; and No further consideration of H. Con. Res. 393 shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a few minutes to talk about the issue of offshoring, which is hotly debated and oft discussed as we focus on the question of jobs. It really comes down to two choices that we have here in the United States: We can try to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world or we can continue, as has been the case throughout recent history, to innovate and create better and better jobs for Americans right here in the United States. After decades of American global economic leadership successfully competing in the worldwide marketplace and producing cutting-edge technologies and business practices, the economic isolationism option is clearly no option at all because of the success that we have enjoyed. That leaves us with only one choice, Mr. Speaker, and that is to allow Americans to continue to innovate, grow, and create better jobs right here. In fact, innovation has always been the key to our global economic leadership. Our culture of creativity, independence and free thinking has created what the CEO of an Indian high-tech company recently called a, quote, ``unique crucible for innovation.'' He shared this anecdote in the New York Times recently talking about the very powerful force of innovation here in the United States. He said, ``I was in Europe the other day and they were commiserating about the 400,000 European knowledge workers who have gone to live in the United States because of the innovative environment there. The whole process where people get an idea and put together a team, raise the capital, create a product and mainstream it, that can only be done in the United States of America,'' this Indian high-tech executive said. Mr. Speaker, our longstanding position as the leading global innovator continues to be very strong. For example, the United States is by far the world's leader in producing new patents. In recent years, an average of 185,000 new patents have been granted here in the United States compared to 120,000 in Japan and only 45,000 in the entire European Union of all those countries combined. Mr. Speaker, we also lead the world in research and development by a huge margin. The U.S. spends over a quarter of a trillion dollars on research and development every single year, while Britain spends about a tenth of that amount, Germany spends less than a fifth of the U.S. total, and France spent about an eighth. Our growing investments in research and development have led to steady growth in the number of intervention disclosures and patent applications by academic and nonprofit research organizations as well. In 2002 these grew by 15 percent and they continue to increase. These same institutions also are increasingly licensing their work in partnering with U.S. companies, primarily small- and medium-sized businesses, to apply their discoveries and innovations to our marketplace and to the global marketplace. This increased research and licensing lead has led to major breakthroughs in fields such as health care, including issues that are near and dear to virtually everyone here, cancer and Alzheimer's treatment, along with electronics with applications like improved cellular voice quality and computer monitors that create less stress on users' eyes, and even a new type of electric generator that can produce electricity with environmental-friendly hydrogen fuel at a fraction of the cost of current power plants. Mr. Speaker, venture capital, by providing the resources necessary to turn ideas into new goods and services, is also a key component of our ability to innovate. Once again, the U.S. is the global leader. Business and individual investors provided over $21 billion in venture capital in 2002 compared to just $8 billion in European Union. That constitutes a 600 percent increase in U.S. venture capital over the past decade. This environment, Mr. Speaker, is the cornerstone of American prosperity. It gives individuals the freedom to develop new ideas and concepts and encourages creativity and risk-taking. It has unparalleled financial markets and a venture capital system that are constantly helping Americans turn their dreams into reality. It has given American companies and individuals the power to invest, grow and create new jobs in cutting-edge fields, and it is our best answer to those who see offshoring as a reason to retreat behind the walls of economic isolationism. We should not be trying to isolate ourselves from the worldwide market which would actually stifle our innovative environment and cede our position as the global leader. Instead, we should continue to allow our spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship to empower Americans as we lead the world and create better and better jobs right here in the United States.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that my friend, the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, looked at that resolution and was so proud of it that he immediately joined as a cosponsor, as I believe everyone in this House should. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, obviously everyone in this House should be in support of a resolution which affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq; that commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted upon them by Saddam Hussein's regime; that commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution and commends the Members of the U.S. Armed Forces and coalition forces for liberating Iraq; and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service. That is what we are doing here today. Everyone should be in support of it. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: Previous Question for H. Res. 561 Rule for H. Res. 557--Iraq Resolution Amendment in nature of substitute: Strike all after the resolved clause and insert: Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 557) relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people and the valiant service of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces. The resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to final adoption without intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 2. During consideration of House Resolution 557 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the Speaker. Motion To Recommit With Instructions M. _____________ moves to recommit the resolution H. Res. 557 to the Committee on International Relations with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendments: Page 2, line 2, strike ``affirms'' and insert ``acknowledges the belief''. Page 2, line 4, strike the semicolon and insert ``, and the belief that a final judgment on the value of activities in Iraq cannot be made until Iraq is stable and secure;''. Page 3, line 5, strike ``and''. Page 3, line 9, strike the period and insert a semicolon. Page 3, after line 9, insert the following: (5) urges the President-- (A) to take all steps necessary to ensure that all members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq receive the best force protection equipment available, including protective body armor and extra-armored wheeled vehicles capable of providing better protection against explosive devices; (B) to ensure that all members of the Armed Forces who suffer wounds or other injuries, or who incur illness, while serving in Iraq receive complete, timely, and high-quality health care to treat the short-term and long-term consequences of such wounds, injuries, and illnesses; (C) to recognize the key contributions made by members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces, and their families, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and, in consultation with Congress, to address immediately the disparity that exists for many Reserve and Guard personnel between the pay they receive in civilian life and the military compensation they receive when ordered to active duty; (D) to acknowledge that there were serious deficiencies in United States pre-war intelligence on Iraq, particularly in light of the failure to find any evidence of significant weapons of mass destruction stockpiles, and to take steps now to improve intelligence so that United States troops are better protected and future United States national security strategies are better informed; (E) to request sufficient funding immediately to fully support United States military operations in Iraq and the surrounding region in order to ensure the safety and well- being of United States troops deployed to Iraq and the surrounding region; (F) to obtain far-reaching international participation in the securing, reconstruction, and political development of Iraq, including the protection of women's and children's rights; and (G) to take steps to correct the failure of the United States Government to plan adequately for the post-war occupation of Iraq, including the failure to integrate internal United States Government studies and outside expert opinions that predicted the onset of guerrilla activity and described how to promote effective reconstruction, democratization, and civil society development activities, and the failure to apply those studies and opinions today in order to improve current United States reconstruction efforts in Iraq; (6) expresses deep sorrow and regret for the deaths of more than 550 and the wounding of more than 3,500 members of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq and extends support to their families; and (7) expresses sorrow and regret for the deaths in Iraq of United States civilians, United Nations personnel, unknown numbers of Iraqi civilians, and other noncombatants.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the very distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules and, more importantly, the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Lemoyne, Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a very able Member.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin this evening by reading a brief excerpt from a letter sent by my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). He sent this letter to the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Greg Mankiw. The dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan, writes, ``I'm sure the 163,000 factory workers who have lost their jobs in Michigan will find it heartening to know that a world of opportunity awaits them in high-growth manufacturing careers like spatula operator, napkin restocking and lunch tray removal.'' Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand my good friend and esteemed colleague's deep concern for the loss of manufacturing jobs in his home State. Jobs are a big concern on everyone's mind, including my own. I believe that there are very few issues that are more pressing or more worthy of debate in this Congress than the issue of jobs. But I believe the premise behind the gentleman's statement is emblematic of a 2-decade effort on the part of anti-trade advocates to convince Americans that our economy is headed for disaster. It encapsulates a tired, yet oft used and mistaken, diagnosis of our economy, that is, that American business is going to ship all of our good jobs overseas, finally leaving American workers with no job opportunity other than the one behind the counter at a local fast-food joint. In fact, I recently stood right here a couple of weeks ago and talked about the legacy of, quote-unquote, hamburger flipping jobs, that argument, and I traced its roots back to 1984. Mr. Speaker, politicians and pundits have been predicting the demise of our economy and the good American jobs for the last 20 years. The gentleman from Michigan's letter to Chairman Mankiw is a quintessential example of the persistent, yet just plain wrong, rhetoric that jobs overseas mean lower-paying, demeaning jobs here in the United States. But let us look at what really happened in this 20-year period from 1984 to today. Mr. Speaker, profound and profoundly good changes have taken place. We shifted over this past 20 years from an economy based on heavy industry to our fast-paced, high-technology and ever-growing 21st century economy. This transformation ushered in a new era that fundamentally changed how business is conducted, and it vastly improved how we live our lives. Yet the letter written by the ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce proves that the predictions of gloom and doom are still alive and well today. He is not the only one predicting our hamburger-flipping future. Let us take a look at what is being said by the other critics of our growing economy. Senator John Kerry, who apparently now has all the delegates necessary to become the Democratic Presidential nominee, said not too long ago, ``People are worried about their wages, their jobs, about how we're going to compete with other countries, where we're losing a countless number of jobs to those countries.'' Before he dropped out of the Presidential primary, Senator John Edwards commented, ``The mills are gone and so are the jobs.'' Mr. Speaker, Lou Dobbs, the CNN anchor, rails almost nightly against U.S. companies that invest in growing overseas markets, claiming that ``we're exporting many, many jobs.'' Paul Craig Roberts, the economist, formerly committed to this country's open trade policies and a believer in the strength of our economy, has recently done an about face. Several weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, he joined our colleague in the other body, Charles Schumer, in penning an editorial for the New York Times that claimed the American workforce is doomed, stating that, and I quote, ``Lots of new jobs are being created, just not here in the United States.'' Robert Slater said at a Brookings Institution forum that the United States will be a Third World country in 20 years. Those are some very dire predictions that we have been receiving, Mr. Speaker. These political leaders and pundits are clearly asserting that our economy is in decline. They say we are rapidly losing all of our good jobs, mostly to foreign competitors, and that we are not creating new ones. Based on these claims, they see a very, very dismal future. That is why tonight I would like to focus on the heart of this issue, jobs, the issue that, of course, is regularly discussed here and should be discussed right here. Or more specifically, I want to talk about the incredibly fast pace at which our economy is creating exciting new types of jobs for Americans. As I have said, the issue of job creation is always on the minds of the American people, and it is always a very important topic of debate. But in light of these growing attacks that are being directed at our economy, attacks that question our strength and assert that our good jobs are being destroyed or sent overseas, an honest look at the robust and dynamic job creation that is currently taking place is particularly relevant and timely. Mr. Speaker, I am an optimist. I see a bright and promising future when I look at our economy. While I believe the doom-and-gloomers are correct in observing that our economy is changing, they have completely missed the fact that the change that is being made is change for the better. Like their predecessors who saw the decline of the buggy whip and telegraph industries, I believe those who are making the current gloom-and-doom predictions are missing the dynamism and innovation that have made our economy a global leader and one that continues to spur job creation. Literally thousands of new jobs, often in completely new fields, are being created routinely. But before we get into these new kinds of jobs, I think it is important to get a firm understanding of the broad changes that are taking place in the American workforce. Throughout much of our economic history, fluctuations in employment have been the product of the business cycle. In the 1970s and 1980s, half of all employment was cyclical, that is, businesses would lay off workers during weak times and would rehire them during recoveries. As business picked up, employers were able to hire workers for the same jobs using the same skills that existed before the economic recession. Often this meant rehiring the very same workers. Because the job opportunities after a recession looked a lot like the job opportunities before the recession, job recovery always quickly followed economic recovery. Today there is a lot more than just cyclical change taking place. Thanks to growing productivity, improved technology and a highly competitive global marketplace, many industries are undergoing fundamental changes. In other words, this economy has been experiencing a great deal of structural change. It is extremely important to note here that structural change is not just another term for permanent downsizing. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has noted repeatedly in recent months, for years our economy has been a very dynamic job-creating machine. Every quarter, millions of jobs are destroyed and millions more are created. In 1999, for example, a booming year for the U.S. economy, 33 million jobs were lost and 36 million new jobs were created. The important distinction between structural change and cyclical change is that increasingly the newly created jobs are not only new positions in long established companies and long established industries; more and more a new job is new in every respect, a new type of work in a new business that demands new skills. Mr. Speaker, this dynamism, which has produced a net gain of 40 million new jobs over these past 20 years about which I have been speaking, means that companies must constantly work to stay competitive and workers must continuously pursue more education and more training. But it also means that the U.S. continues to lead the world in productivity, innovation, and growth. But jobs are still a big concern. The U.S. may be the global economic leader, but what exactly are these new jobs that today's workers are supposed to be doing? Mr. Speaker, workers in our 21st century economy are finding jobs in fields such as network and communications administration, business administration and management, computer engineering technology, health information technology, legal support, accounting, marketing, advertising, customer relations, news and information reporting, tax preparation and planning, highly specialized transportation and delivery, human resources support, pension and benefits management, purchasing and global sourcing, demand forecasting, inventory control, warehousing and distribution. Mr. Speaker, these are good jobs using very valuable skills. They are service jobs that are a part of just about every kind of business in America today. They are not get-rich-quick jobs, but they are certainly not hamburger-flipping jobs. Think about the big and growing sectors of our economy. Think about what you spend, Mr. Speaker, on health care; biotechnology and pharmaceuticals; elderly care; education; movies; entertainment and digital gaming; recreation; telecommunications; cable; satellite TV and radio; phones; cellular and wireless networks; fashion; insurance; real estate; auto maintenance and repair; mass transit; investments, whether you call it the stock market, pensions or securities; government services, which is almost unimaginably big, as we all know; leisure; hospitality and tourism. Then there are the businesses that service other businesses: Engineering, environmental protection services and technologies, risk management, export and import financing, express delivery, high-tech manufacturing, and biomedical informatics. These are the jobs of the 21st century economy. Sure, there will always be hamburger-flipping jobs as long as there are hamburger eaters, but the vast majority of jobs that this economy is creating are good, skilled jobs that pay well. But in our ongoing debate about jobs and job creation, the issue of offshoring is inevitably raised. Whereas the doom-and-gloom crowd used to argue that good jobs will never be created, now they have shifted gears. They concede that for a while our economy managed to produce a few good service jobs, but today all of those jobs are being exported to low-wage countries via offshoring. They claim that countries like India and China are siphoning off our good jobs much faster than we can create them and Americans are being left with, you guessed it, the dreaded hamburger-flipping job. So what exactly is offshoring and what is its effect on our economy? Since offshoring is a relatively new word in the collective lexicon, it is easy to believe that it is a relatively new phenomenon. In fact, offshoring has always been a part of the free market. Whether it is a Ford plant importing some of its parts from Mexico, a multiplex in London showing American movies, or an Indian accountant crunching numbers for H&R Block, offshoring is a vital component of our economy. It comes down to one core concept, Mr. Speaker, and it is in many ways the basis on which this country and our market process was established and, that is, competitiveness. Again, there is nothing new about competitiveness. U.S. companies have always had to compete to survive in the free market. Being competitive has always required American businesses to be innovative, increase efficiency, invest wisely and employ the best practices that are available. This has, in turn, been a boon to American workers. Millions of Americans work for global leaders like Hewlett Packard, General Motors, IBM, and Johnson & Johnson and millions more work for small and medium-sized businesses that serve business customers that include these global leaders. The ability of Americans to find good jobs has always been directly linked to the ability of American enterprises to compete here at home and in the global market. Therefore, it is no accident that the companies that offshore, all those companies that Lou Dobbs rails against on his program on CNN almost every night, those companies are the largest creators of jobs right here in the United States. By investing in growing markets, which maximizes efficiency and increases productivity, these successful global competitors are able to turn around and reinvest here in America. Companies that are globally engaged employ millions of Americans and pay above-average wages. They make the majority of investments in physical capital right here in this country. They perform the majority of research and development right here in this country. They produce the majority of U.S. exports that go into other markets around the world. In short, companies that offshore are the biggest job creators right here in the United States of America. It is important to remember a key point that I discussed earlier. Job creation does not preclude job destruction. Remember that figure that I gave in 1999, 30 million jobs were destroyed while 33 million new jobs were created. This is a reality, and it is painful for some, I will acknowledge that, but this is a reality of our dynamic, fast-paced 21st century economy. Offshoring functions in the exact same way. Some jobs will be lost. The important thing is that more will be created and that they will be better jobs, using more skills and paying better wages. So what are some of these new jobs that offshoring is helping to create? One example, Mr. Speaker, comes from the software industry. U.S. companies outsourced 71,000 software programming jobs between 1999 and 2002, and those jobs paid an average of $55,000. Those were offshored. During that exact same period of time, 1999 to 2002, 125,000, 125,000, over 50,000 more software engineering jobs, were created which pay on average $74,000 a year. Let me go through that again. We saw the number of software programming jobs offshored, 71,000 of them paying on average 55 grand a year, and yet software engineering jobs were created to the tune of 125,000 right here in the United States, paying on average $74,000 a year. Not only was there a net gain in software jobs, but they, as I have said, were higher wage, higher value-added jobs. Another growing sector, logistics, has not only benefited from higher efficiency and productivity, it is actually a direct result of the practice of offshoring. As companies engage more and more on a worldwide basis looking for high-quality, low-cost goods and services throughout the globe, delivery has become a very complex engineering task. Complicated supply and distribution lines involve multiple sources, often literally a world apart; diverse shipping and transportation modes; weather patterns; political unrest that can affect ports, airports, and other transportation hubs in the developing world; raw material shortages; and, of course, the finicky consumer demand, these all come into the mix, and so logistics is a massive industry in and of itself. All of these complex factors require the highly skilled work of logistics experts, and companies pay very well for their expertise. Business owners have realized that fast and reliable delivery is one more way to cut costs and improve efficiency, and they are turning to logistics consultants on a widespread basis. Don Westfall, the director of the Research and Supply Chain Logistics Council at the Manufacturers Alliance, has called this line of work ``a huge growth area for service providers and an important part of improving productivity in U.S. industry.'' Mr. Speaker, demand for these types of workers has risen so dramatically in recent years, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for example, has significantly expanded its logistics program and has added a new master's degree dedicated to logistics in its school of engineering. Other new types of jobs that our robust economy is creating can be found simply by looking at the ways we spend our time and our money. For example, many people turn to eBay when looking to buy or sell anything from sports memorabilia to used books or cars, but the online auction is increasingly a place of business, a powerful resource used by individuals and small enterprises. Small business owners are using eBay to dramatically cut costs and conduct their business. And individuals are turning the Web site into a source of full-time work. In fact, these kinds of practices have become so widespread today, and I met with Meg Whitman last week from eBay and she confirmed this again, over 430,000 individuals and small businesses make their living on eBay. That is their source of income. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about nearly half a million Americans that count eBay auctioneering as their full-time job. Two decades ago, few economists could have predicted that in 2004, hundreds of thousands of workers would be employed by an online auction site that got its start by catering to collectors of movie posters and matchbox cars. But this is precisely the sort of dynamism that has kept our economy churning out new jobs in the face of rapid change. Another area where Americans are spending their leisure time and money and spurring job creation in the process is in, and I come from California so I have to talk about this, spa services. Massage therapy, for example, is a booming industry in this country. Just as we visit our internist, our chiropractor, our dentist, these professionals provide therapeutic services that many Americans are increasingly incorporating into their health care regimes, and rapidly growing demand is fueling growth in an industry that pays about $35 an hour, sometimes significantly more than that. The American Massage Therapy Association estimates that there are nearly 300,000 massage therapists in the United States. This is double the number in 1996, and the numbers are continuing to grow. One might say that a few hundred thousand massage therapists, eBay entrepreneurs, and logistics specialists are not so important to our economy. One might say that the jobs in these three industries, eBay entrepreneurs, massage therapists, and logistics specialists, that these jobs are in industries that are not enough to sustain a Nation of nearly 300 million people. But, Mr. Speaker, I believe that these types of jobs are in fact critical to our economy and to this debate. But I believe they are important for a number of reasons. First, in terms of sheer numbers, these jobs are not insignificant. Just this handful of industries taken together represents literally millions of jobs, and in most cases we are talking about very well- paying jobs, jobs supporting families, sending kids to college, and padding retirement plans. But they are also significant because in many ways they represent the new face of the American economy: the independent contractor, the entrepreneur, the small business owner. It is very important. Again, these people in these three industries that I have mentioned, eBay entrepreneurs, massage therapists, logistics specialists, they are part of this new economy consisting of the independent contractor, the entrepreneur, and the small business owner. These are the types of jobs that are booming the 21st century economy. Yet because of the old economy's mindset that is embedded in our employment survey, these are precisely the kinds of jobs that are overlooked in our jobs statistics. Our primary method of counting jobs in this country is the Department of Labor's Payroll, or Establishment Survey. Its numbers are gathered by asking a sampling of established corporations how many people they are hiring and how many people they are firing. For years this was a fairly reliable way of figuring out our unemployment rate. The vast majority of Americans worked in factories and businesses that had been around for a long time. And because changes in employment were due largely, as I was saying earlier, to cyclical trends, as I discussed, most workers, whether employed or unemployed, were easy to track because when we would see the downturn, we would see people laid off, and then because it was reasonably static at that time, once we saw an improvement in the economy, people would go back to those same jobs. But as we have seen, this is no longer the case. Americans are finding jobs in new industries. They are working as independent contractors and consultants. They are starting their own businesses, all of which are difficult to track using these old methods for determining unemployment. If we go looking for workers in their old jobs, we are not very likely to find them. For example, Mr. Speaker, the Payroll Survey estimates that there are roughly 70,000 massage therapists working in this country. That would probably come as a surprise to the almost 300,000 massage therapists that the American Massage Therapy Association says are working in that industry today. The Department of Labor somehow managed to misplace over 200,000 workers or 70 percent of this industry's workforce. For eBay entrepreneurs the chances of getting counted are virtually zero. The Department of Labor does not currently count anyone making a living by selling or buying on eBay. No category exists for logistics specialists either. And because many of them work as independent contractors, prospects for counting seem pretty dim for those workers in logistics specialty areas as well. Other workers who are largely getting missed by the Payroll Survey include the growing number of partners in Limited Liability Corporations or LLCs. The establishment of new LLCs is exploding, doubling in some States in just the last 3 years. But because these entrepreneurs are partners in new business startups, they are not counted in our jobs statistics. And the Payroll Survey is not just ill-equipped to accurately portray our economy in 2004, it has historically been a poor indicator of job creation during a recovery. During the recovery of 1992, the Department of Labor's numbers showed job creation as relatively anemic. As more and more data became available and a clearer picture of the economy emerged, the Payroll Survey was significantly revised to show that job creation had actually been quite robust. And that was over 10 years ago, before much of the boom in independent contracting, Internet entrepreneurship, and small business startups that, as I said, are such a big part of our economy today. However, we do have at our disposal another survey which is strong precisely where the Payroll Survey is weak. It is the Department of Labor's Household Survey. Instead of asking businesses if they are hiring or laying off, the Household Survey asks individuals and families if they are working. By going straight to the employees, this survey is well suited to more accurately portray employment in our economy. Whereas the Payroll Survey counts established jobs in established businesses of established industries, the Household Survey counts any and all types of jobs, or more precisely, it counts people no matter what type of job they have. This approach allows the Household Survey to track workers like the self-employed. And, in fact, this survey shows that 31 percent of job growth right now is in self- employment. Thirty-one percent of our job growth is in self-employment. In other words, one third of all job creation is entirely missed by the Payroll Survey. Therefore, it is no accident and no mystery why the Payroll Survey shows a net loss of 2.4 million jobs in the last 3 years and the Household Survey shows a net gain of 1.4 million jobs. That discrepancy is pretty significant during the highly politicized time that we are in, and it is huge in terms of the average American's peace of mind, which is why an honest discussion of what is really going on in the economy is so critical. To be sure, while a fast-paced dynamic economy in which new jobs are constantly being created is good for all of us in the long run, it also means that rapid change is a way of life. That can be exciting. And, Mr. Speaker, we all know it can also be scary. The only way we can continue to succeed and lead the world as the strongest, most innovative economy is to significantly step up our commitment to education and training and, yes, retraining. New jobs mean new skills to be learned, new technologies to develop and harness. But if we keep competing and innovating and remain committed to learning and using new skills, our 21st-century economy will continue to thrive and, Mr. Speaker, so will American workers. They are doing it today, and they can continue to do it in the future. We will keep creating new and better jobs, whether it is a specialized service in a booming industry like logistics or massage therapy, or an increasingly skilled part of a globally-competitive sector like software engineers whose jobs are supported by inexpensive computer programming labor in India, or an entirely new line of work that was just unheard of, inconceivable just a few years ago, like e-Bay entrepreneurship where, as I said, approaching a half a million Americans are working in their full-time jobs. There is no doubt that many of the cutting-edge industries of today will eventually become routine or even obsolete. What is important is that through technology, innovation, investment, and education hard- working Americans keep on embracing change and propelling our economy forward.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as true as my friend from Georgia has just said, we are about to begin consideration of a very important resolution. It is one which I believe should, in fact, enjoy strong bipartisan support. It is noncontroversial in that it is designed simply to, as the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) said last night before the Committee on Rules, provide commendation to our troops and to the Iraqi people and to the coalition forces for the fact that a year ago this week they began this effort to bring about the liberation of the people of Iraq, and there has been tremendous success. We often hear of the negatives, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is important, as Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has pointed out time and time again, we are seeing schools rebuilt. We are seeing all kinds of very, very positive developments, even though we deal with some serious challenges. So, Mr. Speaker, my message as we prepare for consideration of this rule, which will be debated for an hour and then we will have 4 hours of debate which will allow for a wide range of views to come forward, I hope that at the end of the day, the United States House of Representatives will stand firmly behind our troops and this effort which we mark the anniversary of right now.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is going to be a motion for an adjournment vote here, and I just wanted to, before we proceed with that, inquire how many speakers the gentleman has remaining for the debate as we prepare to go into this.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Brentwood, Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a very able new Member of this body.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that my friend from California is one of the greatest patriots in this institution. I hold him in the highest regard. I believe very strongly in the need for us to pursue a bipartisan foreign policy. Let me just say that, again, we had no intention of offending anyone in the crafting of this resolution, and it should be a nonpartisan resolution itself. At the end of the day because we found that controversy came forward in the Committee on Rules last night beyond the request that was made by Chairman Hyde, we did in fact offer a motion to recommit for members of the minority. But I do believe again that this resolution is designed to do nothing more than commend the troops and the people of Iraq. That is what it is designed to do. It has nothing to do with our foreign policy. This here marks the first anniversary of this very, very successful effort. I think that what we are trying to do here is, in a bipartisan way, acknowledges that. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), an able member of the Committee on Rules.