David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful comments, and I would just like to underscore this notion of doubling our exports. Taking that level from $11 billion in the next 5 years to $22 billion will inure to the benefit of New York, of California, of Minnesota, of Louisiana, and it will provide benefits all across this country. And at the same time, it will help us deal with this human rights question, which is such an important one, because I haven't talked about it, but obviously including the legislation that deals with the very tragic death of Sergey Magnitsky, who was a lawyer in Russia who was raising questions and, basically, a whistleblower of raising concerns about the behavior of the Russian Government. He was left to die in prison. And we, with this legislation, will be ensuring that those who are responsible are brought to justice and that it never happens again. And so I think that, all the way around, this can be a win-win for the cause of human rights and for the cause of creating jobs right here, and I thank my friend from New York for his thoughtful contribution. We're very pleased to be joined, Mr. Speaker, by my good friend from Minnesota, with whom I've been privileged to travel and has a great understanding and grasp of the issue of globalization and how opening up new markets around the world will benefit his constituents. And I'm happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. In reclaiming my time, my friend is absolutely right, and I just want to again express appreciation to his commitment to our Trade Working Group, which is on a wide range of issues. We've been able to focus on creating jobs for millions of Americans as we have sought to recognize the benefits of exports and imports as well when it comes to improving the standard of living and the quality of life for our fellow Americans. He has been very dedicated to his constituents, and I appreciate your participation this evening, too. I am also very pleased to see that we are joined by my very good friend from Louisiana, another hardworking member of the House Ways and Means Committee and someone who understands the world extraordinarily well. I would like to recognize my friend Mr. Boustany.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue that both Democrats and Republicans, and virtually every American, is talking about, and people all over the world are talking about. What is that issue? How do we increase global economic growth; and here in this country, how do we create more good American jobs. It's obviously a key part of the Presidential campaign. We have Democrats and Republicans daily stand in the well of the House of Representatives and offer proposals, talk about their ideas as to how we can create good jobs. We have the sad report of 380,000 people who fell off the rolls even looking for jobs. We have literally millions of our fellow Americans who are looking for jobs, and we have many businesses that are struggling. One of the great challenges that President Obama put forward was the goal of doubling our exports, and we all know that he very much wanted to do that. We, as Members of Congress, came together after a decade, and we finally were able to successfully pass market-opening opportunities for U.S. workers to sell their goods and provide our services in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. It took us a long time to get there. I know that it's easy to point the finger of blame, but the fact is we've been ready for a long time. This institution was ready for a long time, Democrats and Republicans alike, and we were finally able to get the legislation up here from down on Pennsylvania Avenue, and we were able to make it happen with strong bipartisan votes on all three of those agreements. Well, Mr. Speaker, with recognition that opening up markets around the world for U.S. goods and services is a key way to create jobs here--because, again, as we debated the Panama, Colombia, and Korea Trade Agreements, there were Members on both sides of the aisle who stood up and argued in behalf of those great agreements--we now have before us what I believe is an absolute no-brainer, but tragically it's created some political consternation over a lot of confusion. We know that the idea of seeing countries join the WTO, the World Trade Organization, creates a scenario whereby they have to comply with a rules-based trading system. We know that once they enter the WTO, there are constraints imposed on them along with the benefits that they get for their membership in the WTO. And there was a lot of negotiation, a lot of talk about Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization. The idea of seeing Russia forced to comply with a system that would prevent them from engaging in discriminatory practices, from engaging in the kinds of acts that prevent products and services from getting into their country, the structure of having to comply with a rules-based system is something that membership in the WTO forces and creates. Again, there were a lot of negotiations. The last was dealing with a border dispute with Georgia that was resolved, and that was resolved several months ago. That put into place a structure that allowed, on August 22--last month--for Russia to enter the World Trade Organization. Russia is part of the WTO. They are now, having been for over 3 weeks, a member of the World Trade Organization. That means, as I said, tremendous benefits that Russia gets. They have 140 million consumers, and there are going to be opportunities for countries around the world to export into Russia. We, last year, exported $11 billion of goods and services into the WTO. But guess what, Mr. Speaker? We're not at the table anymore. We've lost out on our chance to be able to sell our goods and services into Russia, that market of 140 million consumers. Now, why is it that we've lost out? Well, we haven't been able to have a vote here in the Congress on Russia's accession into the WTO. Why hasn't that happened? Well, I hate to be political--even though this is the time of year when people are especially political--but we need to get this sent up here to the Congress so that we can put together what I know is going to be broad bipartisan support to make this happen. When it comes up, I know that we will see tremendous support on the Republican side of the aisle. And I say that because I'm particularly proud of the 73 newly elected Republican Members of Congress. Of the 87, 73 sent a letter to President Obama saying that they believe it very important for us to open up that market, so that if we all have this desire of creating more good jobs in the United States, let's open up that market to 140 million consumers. Well, unfortunately we're still waiting for that. And I know that it's not just Republicans who are in support of this, Mr. Speaker. We have Democrats who are passionately and strongly in support of it. My very dear friend from New York (Mr. Meeks) says he's going to join us. We've got other colleagues of ours who are going to join us in just a minute. But I want to say that this is something that absolutely should be done. Now, I talked about the fact that I believe it's a no-brainer, but I recognize that there is a lot of political consternation about this because it's Russia. We all know that Russia has an absolutely horrendous human rights policy. We know that Russia has engaged in trying to expand its sphere to other former republics of the Soviet Union. We know that there is tremendous corruption and cronyism that exists in Russia today, and it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to any of us. Now, there are some, Mr. Speaker, who argue that for us to deny the U.S. an opportunity to have a vote on PNTR--basically repealing Jackson-Vanik and allowing us to proceed with this--would be a good thing and it would send a message to Russia, when in fact the exact opposite is the case. There is nothing that we could do as the United States of America that would be a greater boost to supporting the perpetuation of the aberrant behavior that we have seen from Russia than for us to deny a vote on permanent normal trade relations that would see us, then, have access to that market. I said that last year we exported $11 billion of goods and services to Russia. If we could pass PNTR here, projections are that by 2017 we would double that from $11 billion to $22 billion. Now, what does that mean? It means more good U.S. jobs. And what does it mean? It means an expansion of our American values. It means, again, this forced compliance with a rules-based trading system. It means creating a structure that will allow us to undermine the kind of political repression that exists in Russia. Our sticking our head in the sand would be just plain wrong. Now, those are not just my words, Mr. Speaker. We, on the 12th of March, received a letter from seven of the most prominent and outspoken human rights activists in Russia. They, in a letter, an open letter that was sent to those of us who are considering this issue, said the following. Now this is from these very, very prominent dissidents and activists, some of whom I'm sure have been imprisoned. They've had long histories of being opposition leaders to Vladimir Putin. So in the letter that they sent to us, Mr. Speaker, they said: Some politicians in the United States argue that the removal of Russia from Jackson-Vanik would help no one but the current Russian undemocratic political regime. That assumption is flat wrong. Although there are obvious problems with democracy and human rights in modern Russia, the persistence on the books of the Jackson-Vanik amendment does not help to solve them at all. Moreover, it brings direct harm. It limits Russia's competitiveness in international markets for higher value-added products, leaving Russia trapped in its current petro-state model of development and preventing it from transforming into a modern, diversified, and more high-tech economy. This helps Mr. Putin and his cronies. At the end of the day, those who defend the argument that Jackson- Vanik's provisions should still apply to Russia in order to punish Putin's anti-democratic regime only darken Russia's political future, hamper its economic development, and frustrate its democratic aspirations. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to include this letter from the seven dissidents in the Record in its entirety, underscoring how critically important it is for us to take this action so that we can boost those who are struggling to improve the plight of those Russians who are seeing their human rights jeopardized based on the current policies. March 12, 2012. Remove Russia From Jackson-Vanik! Removal of Russia from the provisions of the Cold War era Jackson-Vanik Amendment has long been an issue of political debate. Although the outdated nature and irrelevance of the amendment is widely recognized, some politicians in the United States argue that the removal of Russia from Jackson- Vanik would help no one but the current Russian undemocratic political regime. That assumption is flat wrong. Although there are obvious problems with democracy and human rights in modern Russia, the persistence on the books of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment does not help to solve them at all. Moreover, it brings direct harm. It limits Russia's competitiveness in international markets for higher value-added products, leaving Russia trapped in its current petro-state model of development and preventing it from transforming into a modern, diversified and more hi-tech economy. This helps Mr Putin and his cronies, who continue to benefit from control over raw materials exports and who have no real interest in diversifying Russia's economy. During the period of their rule, dependence on oil and gas exports has become even greater than before. Needless to say, hanging in a petro-state limbo prevents the emergence in Russia of an independent and advanced middle class, which should be the main source of demand for pro-democracy political transformation in the future. More and more talented and creative Russians are leaving the country because there are better opportunities for finding good jobs in hi-tech industries abroad. At the end of the day, those who defend the argument that Jackson-Vanik's provisions should still apply to Russia in order to punish Putin's anti-democratic regime only darken Russia's political future, hamper its economic development, and frustrate its democratic aspirations. Jackson-Vanik is also a very useful tool for Mr Putin's anti-American propaganda machine: it helps him to depict the United States as hostile to Russia, using outdated cold-war tools to undermine Russia's international competitiveness. We, leading figures of the Russian political opposition, strongly stand behind efforts to remove Russian from the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. Jackson-Vanik is not helpful in any way--neither for promotion of human rights and democracy in Russia, nor for the economic interests of its people. Sanctions which harm the interests of ordinary Russians are unhelpful and counter-productive--much more effective are targeted sanctions against specific officials involved in human rights abuse, like those named in the Senator Benjamin Cardin's list in the Sergey Magnitsky case (Senate Bill 1039). It is time to remove Russia from Jackson-Vanik! Sergey Aleksashenko, Political Council member, People's Freedom Party (Parnas). Alexander Lebedev, Independent businessman and politician. Vladimir Milov, Leader, ``Democratic Choice'' movement. Alexey Navalny, Attorney and civil activist. Boris Nemtsov, Co-chairman, People's Freedom Party (Parnas), ``Solidarity'' movement. Ilya Ponomarev, State Duma member, Just Russia Party. Vladimir Ryzhkov, Co-chairman, People's Freedom Party (Parnas). I also want to say that as we look at this question of job creation and economic growth, it's not something that, again, is at all partisan, and it's something that transcends this institution. We have received a number of letters--and let me see if I can dig this one up here. We have a bipartisan letter from Governors across this country that was sent just weeks ago, on the 25th of July. It was sent to us by Governors from Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, a broad cross-section geographically and politically, Democrats and Republicans. All these Governors were signatories to this letter in which they say: As Governors, we know from firsthand experience in our States that expanding opportunities for international trade and attracting foreign investment are essential to promoting U.S. economic growth and creating new and better jobs right here in America. Russia's impending membership in the World Trade Organization offers a significant opportunity to increase our trade and investment with the world's ninth- largest economy. So I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, you can understand why I see this as a no-brainer. To me, this is a pretty simple thing. But I recognize that some might believe that it's a reward to Russia and to Vladimir Putin, and I stand with them for all the reasons that they're opposing it. But I argue that the reasons that they and I oppose the actions of Vladimir Putin underscore why we need to ensure that the U.S. is at the table. And so, with the President having stated that he has this goal of doubling U.S. exports, and we've got 140 million consumers there who very much want to have access to U.S.-manufactured products, to our goods and services, we need to get it done. And why don't I begin, since I see a number of my colleagues here, by recognizing my very good friend from New York (Mr. Meeks), who has joined us. As I recognize Mr. Meeks, I'd like to say that a number of Members have come up to me from both sides of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, and indicated that they very much wanted to be able to be here this evening to talk about this. With that, I would like to yield time to my very good friend from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his contribution. Madam Speaker, if I may simply extend condolences to the loved ones of Ambassador Stevens and to say that we need to ensure that those who are responsible for this tragic death are brought to justice. And we need to do everything that we can to continue to encourage the development of the rule of law, self-determination, political pluralism, and, as Mr. Price has just said, the development of democratic institutions around the world. It's a universal right, and the United States of America is the single best model for that. So our thoughts and prayers, again, are with the loved ones of Ambassador Stevens.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, back in 2009, my good friend and the cochair of the House Democracy Partnership, David Price of North Carolina, and I had the opportunity to visit former General--and at that time, U.S. Ambassador--Karl Eikenberry, Ambassador to Afghanistan. We were at the Ambassador's residence in Kabul, and I was struck with a statement that was made by General Ambassador Eikenberry. He said we have a tendency, as Americans, to express appreciation to men and women in uniform, those men and women who served in our Nation's Armed Forces around the world, but too rarely do we extend our appreciation to the men and women who represent the United States of America in the Foreign Service as diplomats around the world, and General Eikenberry encouraged us to do that. And Mr. Price and I have consistently done that in the visits of the House Democracy Partnership to the 17 countries with which we've partnered over the past 7 years. I have to say that 3 years later, just a few months ago, Mr. Price and I were leading a delegation to Afghanistan and we recounted that story to our great diplomat, Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan. Ambassador Crocker, when we shared the story with him, reminded us that more U.S. Ambassadors have been killed since the Vietnam War than generals or admirals. We know that down at the Harry S. Truman Building, there is a plaque that lists the names of the 231 U.S. diplomats who have been killed since the first death in 1780. And, Madam Speaker, I have to say that the news that we have of the tragic death of Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi, the U.S. consulate in Libya, is very sad news for all of us. Now, the upheaval in the Arab world has brought about many great things. For the first time in millennia, there are individuals who have been able to participate in elections and make decisions. But then we get the sad and tragic news that Ambassador Stevens and, according to the early reports, two marines, maybe another Foreign Service officer, were killed in this tragic attack. I would like to say that we have spent time there. We were just in Libya, Mr. Price and I, just a few weeks before Ambassador Stevens arrived, and Libya is a place that has held out great promise. I am determined, as I know Mr. Price is, to ensure that the promise that we saw several weeks ago in Libya will not be shattered by the tragic death of Ambassador Stevens. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to be joined by my dear friend and colleague, Mr. Price, and would like to yield to him at this point.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, nice try. Let's not be drawn in by this kind of gimmick. Vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to say that I've said it all. With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on my dear friend's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by extending my congratulations and to associate myself with the very thoughtful remarks of my dear friend from Rochester, the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules. As she at the beginning said, Democrats and Republicans alike agree on the need for comprehensive tax reform. She is right on target when she says that, Mr. Speaker, and that's exactly what we're doing. The problem that we have is that the amendment that she is proposing undermines the ability for us to get that done. Now, as I think about this issue that is before us, we have virtually everyone talking about the need to get this done. We have Democrats talking about it, and we have Republicans talking about it. We have the President of the United States talking about it. In fact, it's very interesting. As I heard my friend characterize the ``misguided principles'' set forth by the Republicans, I am struck by the fact that at least one of those principles has been called for by President Barack Obama. President Obama has said that we need to reduce the top corporate rate from 35 percent. He acknowledges the fact that we have the highest corporate tax rate of any nation on the face of the Earth now that Japan has very wisely reduced its top corporate rate. So what my friend from Rochester describes as ``misguided'' is actually one of the proposals submitted by President Obama. So, again, talk is great. I've talked about tax reform myself for the three decades that I've been privileged to serve here. My friend has just talked about the need for tax reform, but there is a time, Mr. Speaker, when we need to step up to the plate and take action. The Framers put into place a very, very good structure, a differentiation between the rules and operations of the House and the Senate. We know that the House of Representatives is the coffee cup into which the coffee simmers. As President Washington said so eloquently to Thomas Jefferson as they were sitting down at the Willard Hotel and were describing the Senate--Jefferson was the really smart guy, but it was Washington who was describing to Jefferson what that ``saucer'' is. It's where the simmering of the coffee takes place, and he said that that's what the Senate is. That was a great vision put forth by our Framers, Mr. Speaker, but there comes a time on some important issues when we need to streamline operations, expedite procedures, and that's what we're doing. What my friend from Rochester said is absolutely right. We need to put into place comprehensive tax reform. I totally agree with that. Now let's get it done. Yes, we put forth some guidelines. We say two rates, no more than 10 or 25 percent. I mean, let's deal with the globalization issue by shifting from a worldwide to a territorial tax system. Let's do what we can to obliterate the alternative minimum tax, which we all know has impacted so many of our fellow working Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. It was never designed to do that. And as President Obama has said, let's reduce that top corporate rate. Mr. Speaker, as we look at this issue, we can talk about tax reform until we are blue in the face, but this structure is one that's going to actually get it done. I say very sadly that this measure that is being proposed by my friend is a measure which simply extends the talking, and it undermines the ability for us to actually take action. Let's move ahead. Obviously, we need to make sure that we maintain the tax structure for everyone, the tax cuts for all. We did that yesterday. There is this notion of saying let's just proceed with what we all agree on, which is that we all agree on keeping taxes low for those in the middle class. Well, if we do what it is that they're saying, what we would end up doing is actually imposing a massive tax increase on job creators. So we can't come to an agreement on that because, as President Obama again has said, increasing taxes during difficult economic times is bad public policy. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my distinguished Rules Committee colleague for his very thoughtful, warm, and loving mischaracterization of where we stand on this issue. This is not about Donald Trump. This is not about Donald Trump at all. We continue to hear the two words ``Donald Trump'' invoked in the tax debate. What this is about, Mr. Speaker, is the 253,484 women-owned small businesses in this country who are seeking to ensure that they can continue to have the ability to hire people and grow their businesses. This is about the potential of losing 710,000 jobs, based on the Ernst & Young report that has come forward. This is about ensuring that we turn the corner on our economy. Now, Mr. Speaker, when I came here in 1981, one of the first bills that I introduced was a bill calling for a flat rate tax. People talked about that all the time. I mean, there was a standard joke out there. It was, well, the simple tax form asks, How much did you earn last year? The second line was, Send it to Washington. I mean, those are the kinds of things that people have said might be in the direction of tax reform. But what we need to do is we need to recognize that everyone has talked about the problem of taxes. Famously, the former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Long, would say, Don't tax you. Don't tax me. Tax the guy behind the tree. We all know, Democrats and Republicans alike, that there is a desire to make this happen. There is always talk from Democrats and Republicans. Again, President Obama has said we need to bring about tax reform. President Obama has said we need to reduce the top corporate rate from that 35 percent level. I congratulate him for acknowledging that we have the highest corporate tax rate of any nation on the face of the Earth, now that Japan has lowered theirs, Mr. Speaker. Everybody talks about it, but the question is: How do we actually get it done? Now, my friend said that if we really wanted to do it, we could have done it. Well, there are specifics in this measure. There are specifics. We have five of them. Included among them: ensuring that we repeal the alternative minimum tax, and everyone acknowledges how terrible that is; ensuring that we have two rates of not more than 10 and 25 percent; and, yes, doing what President Obama has said we need to do, and that is reducing the top corporate rate, this calls for 35 to not more than 25 percent; and then also dealing with the global aspect. This has specifics in it. And what it has, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day is: Let's get the job done. Action, action, action. We can continue to hear all kinds of talk--press releases and all this sort of stuff, talk about what this is. This is about actually doing what Democrats and Republicans say needs to be done. I think that by working with our colleagues in the Senate--we ensured, by the way, under this structure that no Democrat is denied the opportunity to offer amendments. My friend said that we don't have this great bipartisanship. Well, we're pursuing a bipartisan goal of comprehensive tax reform and the structure to make that happen. But as this process begins, we will have, clearly, amendments in both the House and the Senate offered by any Member who wants to participate in this process at the committee level as it goes through. I see we have the ranking Democratic member of the Ways and Means Committee, my very dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), here on the floor. I'm sure that as we proceed with tax reform under this structure that Mr. Levin will be offering many thoughtful amendments to this measure. His right is guaranteed under these expedited procedures. So what we're arguing, Mr. Speaker, is that we need to make sure that, rather than simply talking, we get things done. And I think we've got a chance to do that now. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure. We're going to go into a debate now with our friends on the Ways and Means Committee; and from there, we will have a vote on the substitute, which I'm happy to say that we made in order, that will be offered by the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and then we will proceed with a vote on this measure. So I urge my colleagues to support action, action, action over talk, talk, talk when it comes to the imperative of growing our economy and reforming taxes. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I'm prepared to close. If my friend has speakers, I'd certainly sit here patiently and look forward to hearing any thoughtful comments that they might make.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. An exorbitant amount of ink has been spilled chronicling the many divisions here in the United States Congress. I was just speaking a couple of hours ago in the well about the bipartisan consensus we were able to put together on the trade issue. And I've got to say that the differences of opinions between and within the Democratic and Republican Parties are extraordinarily well documented, and too little attention is focused on the kind of bipartisanship that we've had on issues like the one that we were debating earlier today. But, having said that, even though it doesn't get much attention, there are a number of issues, Mr. Speaker, on which we can all agree. We all agree, for example, that dramatic reform of our budget process is needed. We may diverge significantly on the kinds of reforms and the manner in which they should be implemented, but none of us looks at our skyrocketing deficit, anemic economic growth rate, or persistent unemployment and thinks that the status quo, when it comes to the Federal budget process, is acceptable. I, personally, believe very strongly in the notion of our going to a 2-year budget cycle so that we could have both the Appropriations Committee and the other authorizing committees expend time, energy, and effort meeting their constitutional responsibility of oversight. So again, there are a wide range of views as to how we deal with the issue of budget process reform, but there is a consensus. Democrats and Republicans alike believe that it is necessary. We also all understand that budget challenges must be addressed within two specific areas: both taxing and spending. Again, we disagree greatly on the level and the structure of both, but we agree that it needs to be addressed. We know that meaningful budget reform must consist of both reform of the budget process, itself, as well as reform of the tax structure. Mr. Speaker, the exponential rise in spending in recent years infused our reform agenda with a great sense of urgency, which is why we, as Republicans, have focused so intently on reversing that trend and bringing about meaningful spending cuts. In fact, when I announced that I would be leaving here at the end of this year, one of the things that I had wanted to accomplish was that I made the choice, even though I wasn't originally planning to run again--this was 2 years ago. One of the things I said we had to do was reverse that trend we'd been on with an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending that we'd seen the years before. Well, I'm happy to say that we have been able to at least begin the process of reversing that trend. Now we face a new level of urgency on the tax side of the equation. As we face the prospect of stark tax increases at the end of this year, while unemployment is stuck, as we've had pointed out to us by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp, an unemployment rate in excess of 8 percent, which has gone on for more than 40 months--and we've just gotten the report at the end of last week that our GDP growth rate was revised downward from 1.9 to 1.5 percent. Tomorrow we're due to get these unemployment numbers. We all hope and pray that we will see improvement. But even if we do see some improvement, we know that the length of this challenging economic period is something that needs to be dealt with, and one of the best ways to deal with it is meaningful tax reform. The legislation that we have before us, H.R. 6169, represents one- half of our two-pronged approach for preventing the enactment of catastrophic tax increases that would further paralyze our economy. The first step that we must take, Mr. Speaker, is to put a stop to the tax increases looming at the end of this year, which is precisely what this institution, the House of Representatives, did yesterday with the passage of H.R. 8. That bill will keep in place our current tax rates, as we all know, for 1 additional year. Now, that's an essential step. The President of the United States has said increasing taxes during difficult economic times is bad policy. In fact, not just President Obama, but even the traditional Keynesian economists will argue that the notion of increasing taxes during slow economic growth is a prescription to exacerbate the economic downturn. So it's very important that we do that. Again, that's one very important step. But on its own, it's just a stopgap solution, what we have done yesterday, here, for that one period of time. Mr. Speaker, the second part of our two-pronged approach creates a pathway to a long-term solution. Now, this legislation puts in place a structure that will facilitate consideration and passage of meaningful, comprehensive tax reform. Again, Democrats and Republicans alike regularly say they are for meaningful tax reform. We have talk from both sides of the aisle about it. What we're doing here with this compromise that we have is putting into place a structure that can lay the groundwork to have action taken rather than, simply, simply talk. Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that our Tax Code is not working for the American people. I think that it's another point on which we can all agree. I would say to my friend from Worcester, he knows very well that the Tax Code that we have today is not working. We believe on our side that the Tax Code we have today is not working. It's unfair, and it is Byzantine in its complexity. And we all know, too, that the Tax Code that we have, Mr. Speaker, is clearly a drain on our economy. I'd like to make a couple of points on this. Since 2001, that's basically a decade plus a year, a little over a decade, there have been nearly 4,500 changes made to the U.S. Tax Code, so within that decade, 4,500 changes made to the Tax Code. Now, Mr. Speaker, that works out to one change a day, one change a day over that 10-year period of time. Now, the resulting complexity leads nearly 9 out of 10 families to seek assistance in filing their Federal income taxes. And at the same time, Mr. Speaker, the majority of small business owners, small business men and women in this country, 71 percent, 71 percent of all unincorporated businesses are forced to pay someone else to prepare their taxes. Now, dealing with the Tax Code under these circumstances forces individuals, families, and employers in this country to spend--are you ready for this, Mr. Speaker?--over 6 billion--6 billion--hours, costing over $160 billion every single year in an effort to faithfully comply with the burdensome and complicated Federal tax system. Now, Mr. Speaker, I've talked to tax attorneys and accountants--tax attorneys and accountants--and they acknowledge that these wasted resources are a drain on economic growth and on our shared bipartisan quest for job creation. Furthermore, the current system is injecting a great deal of uncertainty in our economy. Many of us like to point to the fact that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity. Now, Mr. Speaker, let's look at the uncertainty that has existed over the past several years. Tax rates have been scheduled to increase sharply in 3 of the last 5 years, requiring the enactment of repeated temporary extensions. What does that create for job creators and for investors out there? It creates that uncertainty. And that uncertainty, again, is the enemy of prosperity. Now, Mr. Speaker, as you know, dozens of other major tax provisions expired in 2011 or are currently scheduled to expire by the end of this year. Working families and small business owners are not able to plan for the future or make rational business decisions, including hiring decisions, in this extraordinary environment of uncertainty. Now, Mr. Speaker, all of these challenges argue forcefully for comprehensive reform. Unfortunately--unfortunately--real results in this quest have proved, so far, to be elusive. We are all aware of the challenges of moving comprehensive legislation through the Senate. Here in the House, we have, as we all know, a majoritarian body where a simple majority is able to work its will. The nature of the Senate is fundamentally different, far slower, far slower, by design. Frustrating though its inactions may often be, I do believe that the Framers of our Constitution were actually right to structure these two bodies differently. However, at times throughout our Nation's history, we've recognized the need to come together, the two institutions to come together to facilitate decisive action on critical matters. And, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what we are doing here today, recognizing that the imperative for tax reform, something that has been discussed for literally decades, is going to be able to have something other than just talk, but action. And we're going to facilitate that with this effort here. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, lays out a roadmap for reform and helps to ensure its timely consideration in both the House and the Senate. It provides for consideration of a bill that is introduced by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee by April 30 of next year, and then incorporates five key pillars of comprehensive reform. First, the reform package should provide individual filers with much needed clarity and simplicity by consolidating the current individual income tax rates into no more than two brackets, 10 and 25 percent. Second, it should spur job creation and growth by limiting the corporate tax rate to no more than 25 percent. And again, focusing on the bipartisan nature of this, I've regularly said that I appreciate the fact that President Obama has come forward and called for a reduction in the top rate on corporations in this country. Third, it should protect middle class families by repealing the alternative minimum tax. We all know how onerous that has been, and we all know that more and more Americans have, unfortunately, been drawn into this alternative minimum tax, which was designed to focus on very, very few people. And fourth, Mr. Speaker, it should broaden the tax base to maintain revenue between 18 and 19 percent of our gross domestic product. And so, as we look at our economy, the goal of 18 and 19 percent. And finally, one of the things, again, I was talking about earlier is our global leadership role. We need to make sure that we shift from a worldwide to a territorial system of taxation to have greater equity, to allow for those who want to invest and participate to be able to do so on a global basis. These are broad outlines of the tax reform agenda, Mr. Speaker, and they're an outline that I think will lay the groundwork, again, for the details to be put into place. The legislation provides for expedited procedures in the House and the Senate, so that comprehensive reform can receive its due consideration. Now, Mr. Speaker, in the House, under this structure, any committee that receives a referral on the tax reform bill must report the legislation to the House within 20 calendar days. Failure to do so within that time period will result in an automatic discharge of that legislation. Our Rules Committee will then have 15 legislative days to provide a special order for consideration of the bill before the majority leader is automatically empowered to offer a motion to proceed with floor action. Now, Mr. Speaker, to underscore how important the right of every member of this institution is, after 2 days, any Member of the House will be able to do so if action has not been taken by the majority leadership. These procedures will help to ensure that no committee or Member has the power to prevent or indefinitely delay consideration of comprehensive tax reform. Now, Mr. Speaker, in the Senate, which is where this is really needed because, of course, we have a Rules Committee here in the House and so it's not absolutely essential that we do this. But in the Senate, where this is really needed, the bill, tax reform bill must be referred to the Committee on Finance, understandably, which will then have 15 calendar days to consider and report the bill before the legislation is automatically discharged. Mr. Speaker, in the Senate, the Majority Leader can then offer a motion to proceed to the bill. After two more days, any Senator will be empowered to do so, again, ensuring that people will not be able to stand in the way of moving ahead with tax reform. Now, that motion will not be debatable, and cloture is not required before a vote on a motion to proceed; basically meaning, Mr. Speaker, that a super majority will not be necessary to allow to move ahead on the debate on tax reform in the Senate. Now, each amendment will be limited to 2 hours of debate in the Senate, and cloture will also not be required before votes on individual amendments. However, cloture, a very important power that does exist in the Senate, cloture on the underlying bill may still be required prior to the vote on passage of the bill. So what this does, Mr. Speaker, these procedures ensure timely consideration in the Senate, while maintaining that last hurdle of a potential cloture vote on to final passage. I believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that this agreement strikes the right balance between facilitating action while preserving the very core nature of the Senate process. The magnitude and the urgency of our current economic challenges demand that we create this clear pathway to comprehensive tax reform. Our proposal provides a real solution to the uncertainty, the complexity, and the burdensome nature of our Tax Code. And, Mr. Speaker, it unleashes a powerful source of new revenues. Now, you know this very well, Mr. Speaker. There is a common misperception out there, and you hear it reported from people in the media, and I don't believe that it's normally meant as a pejorative, but what they say is, Republicans don't want to increase revenues. Republicans don't want new revenues to the Federal Treasury. We hear this drumbeat over and over again. I'm here to say, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Republicans want new revenues to the Federal Treasury. We absolutely must find a way to bring greater revenue. We've got to find a way to bring revenue into the Federal Treasury. We all decry the $15- plus trillion national debt that we have and the massive deficit spending. We've got to have greater revenue to the Federal Treasury. Where we diverge, between the two political parties, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is the manner in which we see these new revenues actually achieved. Rather than raising tax rates on any one set of individuals or businesses, we want to raise revenues through greater gross domestic product growth. We want to expand the overall size of our economy, creating opportunity for all Americans. We've done this as a Nation many times in the past. I always like to point to President John F. Kennedy, who pioneered this approach by cutting marginal tax rates and growing revenues as a result. Now, I acknowledge the marginal tax rates when President Kennedy did this were significantly higher than they are today, when he was able to reduce marginal rates for individuals and reduce capital gains. But we still can put into place pro-growth tax policy. Mr. Speaker, President Reagan did the same thing 20 years after John F. Kennedy did it, and we all know what happened. We all know what happened, Mr. Speaker, when President Reagan, with the support of many Democrats, through what was known as the Conable-Hance tax package, it was a Democrat and a Republican, a then-Democrat and Republican. Mr. Hance has since seen the light and become a Republican, but he was a Democrat at the time. He offered this measure that brought about major marginal rate reduction. And what did that do? During the decade of the 1980s, contrary to so many reports, we saw a nearly doubling, a nearly doubling of the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury, bringing even greater results than we saw following President Kennedy's cuts. So, Mr. Speaker, we want to follow the Kennedy-Reagan tradition of expanding the Federal Treasury by implementing pro-growth tax reform. Now, we all know that our friends on the other side of the aisle do take a different point of view. I wish that they would follow President Kennedy's great example on this. But, unfortunately, the leadership on the other side of the aisle does take a different point of view, which brings me to the final point on which we all agree. The Democratic approach to the considerable economic challenge we face is to raise taxes. I mean, we all agree that that's what our friends on the other side of the aisle are arguing. I've been watching television ads with President Obama on there talking about increasing taxes on working Americans. Yes, they're in the upper income, but these are people who are creating jobs and investing, and he wants to increase the tax burden on those people. They readily admit that their solution is to allow a large portion of the tax increases to proceed. They want the tax increases that are scheduled to go into place in January to succeed. So I come back to my points on the fact that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity, and the statements of President Barack Obama, who as we all know has in the past agreed to an extension of these tax cuts to keep the economy growing. We also know that Keynesian economists have again made it clear that increasing taxes during a slow economy is a prescription for disaster. So this is where the disagreement lies. Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that Democrats want to increase marginal tax rates and that we as Republicans want to grow the economy to enhance the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. We as Republicans argue that making the Tax Code more burdensome for some and more complicated for all is not the solution. Raising taxes when our economy and our job market are flagging is not the solution. The only way for us to create opportunity for all Americans is to reignite our engines of economic growth, but we cannot spark new growth without addressing both the immediate crisis of impending tax increases and the long-term need for comprehensive tax reform. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very, very critical legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 6169.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 747, I call up the bill (H.R. 6169) to provide for expedited consideration of a bill providing for comprehensive tax reform, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, many of us have enjoyed saying over the past several years that if we don't shape the global economy, we will be shaped by it. And we also have, as we all know, so much attention focused on divisions that exist in this institution. We know that the media like to cover pictures, mistakes and conflict. And, obviously, conflict here is something that the media like to focus attention on. Well, here we are, Democrats and Republicans, coming together under the great leadership of my friend Dave Camp, the chairman of the Ways and Mean Committee, we have the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Brady, was here earlier, the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, working to focus on this notion of our shaping the global economy. As I look over and see my friend from New York, Mr. Rangel, I'm reminded of December 1999. He and I were with President Clinton in Seattle, Washington, at the ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization. You know, that meeting itself turned out to be an abject failure. The meeting itself was an abject failure. In fact, I'll never forget, the week after that ministerial meeting in 1999, the cover of the Economist magazine said: ``Who Lost in Seattle?'' And the photograph was a starving baby in Bangladesh. But the good thing that did emerge from that meeting in Seattle that we attended back in 1999 was the fact that we were vigorously pursuing the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act; and we had laid the groundwork, again, working in a bipartisan way, to say that pursuing trade, not aid, was the best thing for everyone. Now, Mr. Camp was testifying before the Rules Committee the other day, and we were talking about this issue of a zero sum game when it comes to taxes. We also have to recognize, when it comes to the issue of trade, it is not a zero sum game. It is a win-win for us if you look at all of the issues covered in this measure--whether it's the African Growth and Opportunity Act, whether it's focusing on our great friends to the south, the Central American countries and the Dominican Republic, whether it's looking at the area where I'm going to be next week. Next week, I'm headed to Burma, and I'm so enthused about the changes that are taking place. We need to encourage that, and I believe that the actions we are taking here can play a role in continuing to encourage the positive reforms that we are seeing take place in Burma. We're not there yet-- that's why we need to take this action--but we are moving in the right direction. My fellow Californian Mr. Royce mentioned South Sudan--the newest country in the world. Last month, I was there when they marked their first anniversary of existence. This is a country that is seeking to get its sea legs. I was pleased to be there with my colleague Mr. Price, who cochairs our House Democracy Partnership. We are looking at the idea of possibly putting together a partnership between this new parliament, with a very impressive speaker, in South Sudan and the United States House of Representatives. The idea of incorporating South Sudan as part of the African Growth and Opportunity Act is again an indication that we very much want to strengthen ties with new and reemerging democracies around the world, not just politically but commercially as well. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this effort, and I congratulate my friends on both sides of the aisle who are making it happen. I especially express appreciation to my very, very good friend Mr. Camp, who has championed this and so many other important issues. He and I will be together again this afternoon when we get to, I hope, put together a strong bipartisan effort to implement the notion of bringing about real meaningful tax reform.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, August 22 is a very important date. The reason I say that is that August 22 is the date that Russia will become a member of the World Trade Organization. It's a done deal. Both Houses of the Russian Parliament have passed it, and it's been agreed to. I point to this day because there are many who believe that as we look at a vote on permanent normal trade relations with Russia that will be on the horizon--we're not going to be able to do it this week; I hope we will do it shortly after we come back in September--there are some who believe that we are playing a role in getting Russia into the World Trade Organization. That is not the case. All we're saying, Mr. Speaker, is that since Russia is already going to be a member as of August 22 of the World Trade Organization, we want to make sure that U.S. workers and U.S. businesses will have the opportunity to have access to the 140 million consumers in Russia. Mr. Speaker, it's important for us to note the question is not whether or not Russia will be a member of the WTO, because I believe that our access will play a role in undermining the policies of Vladimir Putin. The question is: Are we going to get our Western values into Russia? We need to say ``yes.''

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize and pay tribute to Major Khieem Jackson, United States Marine Corps, on the occasion of his transfer from the Marine Corps Liaison office. I and many of my colleagues have had the pleasure of working closely with him over the past three years, as he has served as part of the Marine Corps' Office of Legislative Affairs and as the Deputy Director of the Liaison Office in the U.S. House of Representatives. He has done exemplary work in this capacity, working tirelessly in behalf of not just his fellow Marines, but also the Members and staff of this Chamber, and the American people. Many Americans may not be aware of the tremendously important role of the Marine Corps Office of Legislative Affairs. By acting as a conduit between the Marine Corps and the Congress, this hard-working team provides a vital link between our military leaders and the American people's elected representatives. Major Jackson stepped into this role with extraordinary dedication and enthusiasm. He was able to develop and execute legislative strategy for the United States Marine Corps that was instrumental in creating a fiscal and policy landscape conducive to training and equipping the Nation's most elite fighting force and ensuring its success on the battlefield. His candor and expertise were essential in developing close working relationships with many Members of the House of Representatives and Committee Staffs--a cornerstone of Commandant of the Marine Corps' strategic vision and a vital aspect of civil-military relations. Throughout his tour, Major Jackson personally supervised the response to hundreds of congressional inquiries, some of which gained national-level attention. Through his exceptional inter-personal skills and broad knowledge in a wide range of military affairs, he assisted the Director, Marine Corps Liaison Office, in gaining the Members' support and trust on critical issues. Major Jackson also successfully planned, coordinated, and escorted an extensive number of international and domestic missions for Congressional and Staff Delegations. I had the pleasure of leading many such CODELs that Major Jackson helped to organize, under the auspices of the House Democracy Partnership. His impressive attention to detail and anticipation of requirements allowed our delegations to focus exclusively on our mission to promote the building of sound democratic institutions around the world. Major Jackson was an invaluable member of our team, and we remain deeply grateful for his tremendous work. Through his exceptional personal efforts, Major Jackson has contributed immeasurably in the Marine Liaison Office here on Capitol Hill. I wish him well in all of his future endeavors, and look forward to hearing of his many successes to come.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, nearly three decades ago, one of my great heroes, Ronald Reagan, famously said: In all of the arsenals of the world, no weapon is so powerful as the will and moral courage of free men and women. For the last year and a half, no development on the world stage has drawn greater interest or sparked more passionate debate than the upheaval in the Arab world. What started in Tunisia in December of 2010 has spread throughout North Africa and the Middle East, leaving virtually no Arab nation untouched. Tunisia ousted a dictator and elected a constituent assembly, which is drafting a new constitution. Libya fought a civil war, rid itself of its dictator, and held elections. In both cases, particularly in Libya, blood was shed, but it has so far not been in vain, as real hope for democracy and an improved quality of life prevails. Other countries, such as Morocco and Jordan, have seen more modest changes, but in the same direction--toward greater openness. Elsewhere in the Arab world, this unprecedented chain of events has thus far taken a far more tragic path. The Syrian people are suffering immeasurably for their efforts to unseat a regime that has proven itself eager to take innocent lives in brutal fashion. In countries like Bahrain, the violence has been more limited, but no less tragic. Even in those nations where regimes stifle public discourse, we know that the autocrats are watching. They are mindful of Reagan's lesson that the will of the people cannot be suppressed indefinitely. Of all the nations where this movement has unfolded, none holds greater sway over the future of the region than Egypt. Since the stunning fall of Mubarak in February of last year, Egypt has held parliamentary and presidential elections. Both sets of elections swept the Muslim Brotherhood to office, setting up a power struggle between the Brotherhood's leadership, the secularists, and the military council. Knowing of the harsh and deeply troubling rhetoric the Brotherhood has used over the years, many Americans rightly ask the question, can we work with the newly elected leadership in Egypt? Should we continue to provide support to this government and the Egyptian people? What exactly does the Brotherhood stand for, and how will they lead? Mr. Speaker, these are important questions. To answer them, we have to go beyond the reactionary and reductionist assumptions that are often made. I've spent a great deal of time in Egypt, meeting with staunch secularists to Salafists and everyone in between, including leaders and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. What I have found is a vast movement that is far from monolithic. It is made up of moderates and hard-liners, reformers and the old guard, and great internal differences exist. One thing, however, that has unified them is their public statements of support for the Camp David peace accords for human rights, including women's rights, as well as religious freedom, all of which are prerequisites to meet their quest to get their economy back on track through tourism and international investment. I've joined with a Democratic colleague in introducing a resolution calling for a free trade agreement with Egypt to help achieve just that. Ultimately, we will judge them not by their words, as Secretary Clinton has just said in a piece, but by their actions. But the mere fact that these public statements have been made says a great deal about the stark difference between the nature of an underground movement, which the Muslim Brotherhood was, and an elected government. Now that the Brotherhood has at least taken some of the responsibility of righting the economy and providing opportunity for 85 million Egyptians, it will face enormous pressure to pursue a reform agenda, engage appropriately with the West and eschew regional conflict. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we as Americans have a responsibility to live up to our own ideals. How can we preach democracy, yet shun the free and fair choices of Egyptians? Of course, we cannot be naive. We have to recognize that democracy is about more than just elections, but also about protecting minority rights and building institutions that outlast the individuals who occupy them. But we also have to recognize that supporting only democracies around the world that produce our own preferred results is the height of hypocrisy. On a more practical level, compromising our own values would only strengthen the hands of anti-Western fundamentalists. Refusing to engage with the Muslim Brotherhood would simply achieve a self- fulfilling prophecy by giving rise to extremists over reformists and moderates. No country following decades of authoritarian rule can make a full transition to a thriving, stable, peaceful and prosperous democracy quickly and painlessly. Even with the most optimistic of outlooks, the Egyptian people will struggle for years to come to throw off the shackles of the past and create the kind of future for which we all strive. We have been working at this for 236 years, Mr. Speaker, and we still haven't gotten it exactly right. We have a responsibility, as longtime Egyptian allies and as champions of democracy around the globe, to stand with them in this process, encouraging continued reform and providing our support for the development of real democracy in the Arab world's most populous nation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss an issue which I hope we will be addressing in the coming days. There is a great deal of confusion about the possibility of our passing PNTR for Russia. Some are laboring under the impression that this is a reward to Vladimir Putin and Russia; and, in fact, the opposite is the case. We know that Vladimir Putin--in fact, many people say they look at him and what they are reminded of is the KGB. We know that Vladimir Putin, according to many reports, is attempting to reassemble the former Soviet Union. We know that he has grossly violated human rights. We know that they have a massive bureaucracy, crony capitalism, and a very corrupt court system. That's why, Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us to make sure that we pass Russia PNTR. According to The Wall Street Journal in an editorial last week, they made it clear, Vladimir Putin does not want to us to pass the Magnitsky Act, which is part of PNTR, and they go on to say that he probably would be just as happy if we did not have PNTR. Why? Because based on overwhelming votes that took place in the last 2 weeks in the Russian Parliament, in the Duma, the lower house, and the Federated Council, the upper house, overwhelming votes, Russia is going to become a member of the World Trade Organization. I personably believe that's a good thing. It will take a great step in the direction of forcing Russia to live with a rules-based trading system, to address those issues of crony capitalism, a corrupt court system, and a massive bureaucracy. But, Mr. Speaker, having said that, I think it is important to note that we've seen action taken here in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, and we have seen a great deal of enthusiasm focused on the Magnitsky Act. What is the Magnitsky Act? It is legislation that is named for Sergei Magnitsky, who was a whistleblower who focused on basically corruption that existed within the tax reporting system, basically, tax fraud. He reported on that, and he was imprisoned. He died in 2009. Mr. Speaker, what happened, very sadly, according to most reports, is that he was beaten to death. Well, what does this legislation do? Something, again, Vladimir Putin would be virulently opposed to. It actually penalizes anyone who was involved in those human rights violations against Sergei Magnitsky. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a good thing. And at the same time in passing PNTR, we will say that the 140 million consumers in Russia will have access to goods and services from the United States of America. Under the measure that has passed both houses of the Russian Parliament, as I said, overwhelming majorities, it will go into effect within the next couple or 3 weeks. What we need to do, Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize that the world will have access to that consumer market. We need to create jobs here in the United States of America. We need to open up that market for U.S. goods and services. And so, Mr. Speaker, when this vote comes forward, don't believe that this is somehow a reward to Vladimir Putin and the people who are leading Russia. This, in fact, is a great benefit for workers in the United States of America, businesses in the United States of America, and a benefit to the consumers of Russia who will have access to our goods and services. I want to congratulate, in closing, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues Billy Long and Tom Reed, who, along with 71 other of the newly elected Members, sent a letter that indicates strong support of this effort.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution and, in fact, disabusing people of this notion that somehow this group of 87 new Republicans who have come to Congress are not willing to tackle important issues. They led the effort to bring about passage of the Panama, Colombia, and Korea Free Trade Agreements. And once again, they're providing tremendous leadership on our goal of creating good American jobs by prying open that market and ensuring that the United States worker will have access to it. If you think about not only creating jobs here, but dealing with the problems of crony capitalism, dealing with the problems of a massive bureaucracy, and dealing with a corrupt court system--which is what exists under Vladimir Putin today--this is the right thing for us to do. We should not lose access to the market. I also want to note that my very good friend, Mr. Herger, who has been a great leader on the issue of trade, is here. Mr. Berg is here as well, who's been very involved in this. I would be happy to yield, if I might, to my friend from New York (Mr. Reed), who has played such an important role on the trade issue.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, the cover of this week's Economist magazine covers it very well. Rebuilding America's economy is its point. We all want to do everything we can to create good, American jobs. Well, unfortunately, we're on the verge of losing a potential market of 140 million consumers. And the reason I say that is that just last week and today, debate is taking place in the Duma, the Russian parliament. The Duma is the lower house, and the Federation Council is the upper house. The Duma has passed it, and the Federation Council today is debating. They may have already voted on it. They are going to be joining the World Trade Organization. This Economist publication talks about the fact that the way we rebuild our market is through expanded exports. Well, we know that forcing Russia to live with a rules-based trading system is something that could inure to the benefit of U.S. workers. And that's what accession to the WTO is. Guess what? Russia is going to be a member of the World Trade Organization within 30 days. The question is whether or not the United States of America will be able to have access to that market. We all know that Putin engages in crony capitalism. They have a massive bureaucracy and a corrupt court system. Forcing them to live with a rules-based trading system is the right thing for us to do. Now, I'm happy to say that there has been an effort led by my colleagues, Mr. Long and Mr. Reed, within the freshman class that has brought 73 Republican Members to send a letter to the President of the United States urging support of permanent normal trade relations with Russia and urging this institution to support that. I'm happy it's a bipartisan effort. My friend, Mr. Meeks, has joined in this effort, as well. I would like to, at this point, yield to my good friend from Missouri (Mr. Long) and thank him for the effort that he has made to tackle this important issue. I'm happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Let me just say that when we did this, when we did this here, it was done under a process that was unprecedented for an issue of this magnitude. That closed process, Mr. Speaker, is one of the things that I believe played a role in seeing the Speaker of the House of Representatives, then Nancy Pelosi, have to hand the gavel to John Boehner. The American people understood the fact that things were so closed around here, and I am very proud and happy that since we have been in the majority our Rules Committee has reported out bills that have allowed for a structure that has made more amendments considered in the first several months of this Congress than have been considered in the entire last Congress. So we have tried to work for more openness and, again, a real example of that closed process was what took place in the last Congress. Well, we need to take this measure, we need to repeal it. I hope very much that some of our colleagues in the other body will agree to that. People always say it's a foregone conclusion what's going to happen. Well, you know what? I never come to an absolute foregone conclusion. We have our responsibility, as Members of the House of Representatives, to step up to the plate and do what we as a body think is the right thing for us to do, and that's exactly what is going to take place today. So if it doesn't happen, I think that there might be a chance for us next year to do this. Again, Republicans, contrary to what is often said, do want to take steps to ensure that all of our fellow Americans--and we listen to these horror stories, and they are terrible stories of the way people have been treated. That's why I am a proponent of a structure that will allow for ways to deal with pre-existing conditions. I believe that we can in a bipartisan way, since the President advocated it, deal with meaningful lawsuit abuse reform. Again, we need to remember that if we want to keep our Nation on the cutting edge of technological development to find a cure for cancer, Alzheimer's and these other ailments, we need to make sure that there's still an incentive for that to take place. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, and I support our underlying measure.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, our friend from Dallas, Mr. Sessions, for his superb management of this rule. I would like to say that as we look at where we're going, contrary to arguments that have been propounded here on the floor, it's important to note that everybody wants to do everything we possibly can to ensure that our fellow Americans have access to the best quality, affordable health care in the world. We have the best health care system in the world; we all know that. We want to make sure that we continue to see that health care system improve, and we have just come to the conclusion that the massive expansion of government is not the answer to the goal of ensuring that people have access to quality health care. The Supreme Court made their decision. We know what the Supreme Court's decision was. I think that that decision pointed out a few things. It's a tax. We were told consistently it wasn't a tax, and, frankly, if we had known what the Supreme Court told us about it being a tax, I don't believe that we would have had the passage of that measure from the House. That decision has been made, and also the Supreme Court, by virtue of determining what is constitutional, does not mean that it's good public policy. In fact, the Chief Justice has made it clear that they are not casting an opinion as to whether or not this is a right measure. I think that most of us have come down on the side of saying that we should have taken an incremental approach in dealing with this. There are a number of things that if we had done that would have, I believe, immediately reduced the cost of health insurance and direct health care costs, Mr. Speaker. They include things like allowing for the purchase of insurance across State lines, things like saying that there should be association health plans, which interestingly enough passed the House and died because of Democrats blocking it in the Senate when my party was last in the majority here. Also, things like allowing for real meaningful lawsuit abuse reform, which the President of the United States said he advocated when he was here, and I acknowledge pooling to deal with pre- existing conditions is something that needs to be done. The fifth point is expanded medical savings accounts, which encourage people to put some dollars aside with a tax incentive plan for their health care needs. If we had done these five things, Mr. Speaker, and these are things that we as Republicans have put forward and again--as I said when we were last in the majority, when people on the other side often said that we did nothing--we passed association health plans, which, again, allow small business to pool together, come together and work to get lower rates as large corporations do. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that as we look at the challenges that we have, we can make this happen. The reason that we are casting the vote, as we will today to repeal, is that we need to do that so that we can do this in an open way. Now, I have got to say some would say this is a closed rule. This is simply an up-or-down vote on whether or not we should repeal this. When we last considered this measure that we are voting to repeal today, Mr. Speaker, I have got to tell you it was done under the most closed process we have ever had.