[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 8498-8503]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONDEMNING MISTREATMENT OF IRAQI PRISONERS AND REMARKS ON CREATING A 
                      DYNAMIC 21ST CENTURY ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

[[Page 8499]]




               Condemning Mistreatment of Iraqi Prisoners

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


                Creating a Dynamic 21st Century Economy

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the best ways for 
the American people to deal with the changes that are taking place in 
our economy right here at home.
  I have actually been talking a lot about change in recent weeks and 
taking a look at the profound and rapid change that has been taking 
place in this country over the past 20 years. I have spoken a great 
deal about the transformation of our economy and the fact that that 
change has had a tremendous impact in the high-tech area. It has 
created this change, a dynamic 21st century economy, an economy largely 
based on serving customers, business customers, Mr. Speaker, customers 
like you and me.
  We have an economy that is based on skilled workers harnessing new 
technologies, finding new ways to increase efficiency, boost 
productivity and better serve customers. This is all taking place in a 
very fast-paced and very competitive environment.
  New technologies and new business practices develop practically 
overnight. In this 21st century economy, about the only thing that 
remains constant is the fact that things are constantly changing. And 
they are changing for the better. Over the past 2 decades, in the 
United States of America we have created 40 million new jobs, largely 
in high-wage sectors. Over that 2-decade period, real wages have 
increased by 30 percent and productivity has more than tripled, while 
the size of our economy has doubled to what is a nearly $11 trillion 
economy today, nearly twice the size of any other economy on the face 
of the Earth.

                              {time}  2015

  And, it is important to note that students here in the United States 
are graduating from college in unprecedented numbers.
  Now, there is no doubt about it: 2 decades of change have 
significantly improved the quality of life of average Americans. But 
there is also no denying the fact that change, even profound change for 
the better, does breed anxiety, and anxiety can cause people to seek 
stability rather than pursue greater change for the better.
  This desire for stability is certainly understandable. It also has a 
long-standing history in our economy. While the past 20 years have 
witnessed a remarkable rate of change and growth, massive change has 
swept through our economy before. At the time of our Nation's birth, we 
had a largely agrarian economy. America then underwent a long 
transition to become the world's leading heavy industrial economy. And 
this shift that took place certainly did not happen overnight, the 
shift from an agrarian economy to a heavy industrial economy.
  While there are no clear starting and stopping points, the 
transformation of our agrarian economy to an industrial economy took 
about 100 years, about a century. Through the increasingly widespread 
use of heavy machinery in factories, transportation modes and, of 
course, on the farm, we gradually witnessed what became known as the 
industrial revolution. Throughout this period, there was a great deal 
of anxiety about the changes that were taking place. Workers whose 
families had been farmers for generations were suddenly faced with 
having to find new kinds of work, new ways of supporting their 
families. This often meant finding a job and a line of work their 
fathers and grandfathers had never even heard of. A farmer in 1885 
certainly never dreamed that one day his son would head off to work in 
Henry Ford's assembly line. He probably spent his time wondering and 
worrying about the existing kinds of work that would be available for 
his children; the existing kinds of work that would be available for 
his children.
  Again, we can all understand this anxiety in the face of fundamental 
change. Predicting the future is not easy. If it were, I and I am sure 
all the rest of us, Mr. Speaker, would have invested in Microsoft and 
Wal-Mart 2 decades ago. But now, with the benefit of a century of 
hindsight, we can clearly see that the industrial revolution was a good 
thing, that transition from an agrarian economy to a heavy industrial 
economy was, in fact, a good thing. The middle class exploded. Our 
standard of living increased rapidly. Life expectancies climbed as 
workplaces became safer and grueling manual labor was no longer 
commonplace. Transportation became faster and safer. Communications 
also became easier and quicker. More and more Americans had access to 
quality education.
  The benefits of this massive transformation in our economy are so 
apparent, it seems absolutely absurd to ask the question if we are 
better off because of that transition from an agrarian economy to a 
heavy industrial economy. Who here today would go back to the lifestyle 
of the 1830s? Obviously, no one. The more interesting and more telling 
question is why did the loss of millions of agricultural jobs not bring 
about the collapse of the American economy? In the face of profound 
change, how was our economy able to change for the better?
  The answer simple: our flexible and dynamic system created new and 
better jobs. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker. It is a very simple 
response about this change from the agrarian to the heavy industrial 
economy. Our flexible and dynamic system, very inextricably tied to 
this free market process, created, yes, new and better jobs. Innovation 
led to new opportunities. Rather than viewing new technologies as job 
destroyers, hard-working Americans knew that these achievements in 
heavy machinery

[[Page 8500]]

could be powerful job creators. They harnessed these new technologies 
and transformed our entire economy.
  Because Americans had the freedom and flexibility to innovate, we did 
not stagnate and decline. We adapted and we grew. We call that 
progress.
  Today, we are well into our second economic transformation from that 
heavy industrial economy to our 21st century, business-serving-
customers economy. This time, the transformation is taking place far 
more quickly. Even during periods of very strong growth in job 
creation, the churning that takes place within our economy is rapid and 
very far-reaching.
  For example, back in 1999, just 5 years ago, our economy was booming. 
It was a boom year for the U.S. economy, 1999. Growth was quite strong 
with a 4.5 percent GDP growth number, and unemployment was very low at 
4.3 percent. Yet, Mr. Speaker, over the course of that year, we 
witnessed the destruction of 33 million jobs. Let me say that again. In 
1999, we had 4.5 percent GDP growth. We had an unemployment rate of 4.3 
percent. Yet, that year, we witnessed the destruction of 33 million 
American jobs. But, at the same time, 36 million new jobs were created.
  Now, over that period, nearly 100,000 jobs were lost every day, but 
our dynamic, bold, strong, innovative, creative economy created even 
more jobs than those 100,000 that were lost every single day. And the 
result, of course, was a net increase of 3 million jobs.
  Now let us look at a period of slower economic growth, just 2 years 
ago, in 2002. At that time, the economy was just beginning to emerge 
from economic recession. GDP growth chugged along at a 2.2 percent 
growth rate. Unemployment was right around 5.8 percent, and over the 
course of that year, 32 million jobs were lost, while 31.7 million new 
jobs were created. Now, of course, the net effect of that was a loss, a 
net loss of 300,000 jobs. Remember, slow growth, emerging from 
recession, 2.2 percent GDP growth, an unemployment rate of 5.8 percent 
and, yet, we saw 32 million jobs lost, 31.7 million jobs created.
  Now, this dynamism is often overlooked when we talk about our 
economy. In 1999, Mr. Speaker, news reports and economic commentary did 
not tell the story of 33 million jobs that were destroyed in this 
country. What we heard about was the net gain of 3 million jobs. In 
2002, we did not hear about the creation of nearly 32 million jobs. 
What we heard about was the loss of 300,000 jobs. The net gain is, of 
course, the number that we are all interested in. We want to see 
exactly how many net jobs are created, and we all want that number to 
be just as big as possible. But I am highlighting the millions of jobs 
lost and the millions of jobs created because they are the two sides of 
the equation that ultimately determines net job creation.
  In other words, there are two ways we could attempt to achieve job 
growth. We could either try to stop millions of jobs from being phased 
out, or we could, Mr. Speaker, focus on creating even more new jobs, 
many of which are obviously in new technologies, just as was the case 
back when that farmer never conceived of the fact that his or her son 
would one day work in Henry Ford's factory.
  So as I say, we could either try to stop millions of jobs from being 
phased out, or we could focus on creating even more jobs.
  I also highlight these numbers behind the numbers because they reveal 
something that is very interesting. In 2002, a year of relatively slow 
economic growth, as I said, about 2.2 percent GDP growth, fewer jobs 
were actually reported lost than in 1999, that year of booming job 
growth. Now, this is key. These numbers say we lost 33 million jobs in 
1999, and only 32 million jobs in 2002. Thirty-three million jobs when 
we had very bold, 4.5 percent GDP growth, an unemployment rate of 4.3 
percent, and 32 million jobs were lost when we saw very, very slow 
economic growth of 2.2 percent and an unemployment rate of 5.8 percent.
  The fact that more jobs could be destroyed during the boom is hugely 
significant. This tells us that our job growth equation, with job 
losses on one side and job creation on the other side, the number we 
should be focusing on is the job creation number. Yet, many of my 
colleagues have proposed just the opposite as a public policy for us. 
The opposite are these proposals designed to simply prevent any jobs 
from being lost.
  Now, there are several proposals making their way through the 
Congress and in State legislatures and, unfortunately, those proposals, 
Mr. Speaker, ignore the job creation numbers. They ignore the fact that 
2002, a year of relatively slow economic growth, actually saw fewer 
jobs lost, fewer job losses than 1999, that boom year. And they seek to 
somehow spur job growth by keeping the job loss number from growing.
  Now, the presumptive democratic nominee, John Kerry, has proposed 
raising taxes on companies that invest globally as a way to preserve 
jobs here at home.
  Chris Dodd, the senior Senator from Connecticut, has a proposal which 
was adopted by the other body in the form of an amendment to the 
corporate tax reform bill. That amendment was designed to prevent 
globally-engaged companies from competing for Federal contracts, and we 
have this discussed in State legislatures for States.
  My colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) has the 
same proposal here: preventing globally-engaged companies from 
competing for Federal contracts.
  The Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle, has his Jobs For Americans 
Act, which is cosponsored by Senator Kennedy. This legislation would 
impose new restrictions and regulations on any company, large or small, 
that invests in growing overseas markets. Each one of these proposals, 
intended to increase the number of jobs for Americans, attempts to 
control the job loss side of the jobs growth equation. But would they 
be effective? Can we boost job growth by trying to simply focus our 
attention on preserving existing jobs?
  Well, again, the numbers from the past several years demonstrate that 
we cannot. But rather than attempting to make an educated guess based 
on the data we have, I have a better idea, Mr. Speaker. We should use 
empirical evidence. I think what we should do is draw our wisdom from 
the example put forth by our friends in Europe; specifically, the 
French. The people of France thought up job preservation proposals long 
before they ever occurred to any of the economic isolationists we deal 
with here in both Houses of Congress.
  France, along with a number of other European Union countries, has 
been imposing these very kinds of restrictions for years. We do not 
have to predict if jobs will be created if we prohibit U.S. companies 
from freely competing on a worldwide basis. We can simply look at the 
French model and ask ourselves, is job growth strong? Is the capital 
creation that leads to job growth thriving? Do we want our economy to 
look like the French economy?
  Well, the answer is a resounding no. We know that the French have 
twice the unemployment and half the job growth, the GDP growth that we 
enjoy in the United States. Like the proposal that our colleague, 
Senator Daschle has in his Jobs For Americans Act, France imposes 
strict requirements on all businesses that intend to lay off workers. 
These restrictions have been in place for many years. For instance, a 
French employer must notify any worker of an impending layoff, in 
writing.

                              {time}  2030

  The notification period varies from case to case, but the minimum is 
6 weeks. And in some cases, employers must give their workers up to 9 
months before laying them off. This notification is followed up by a 
hearing in which both the employer and employee can state their cases.
  In the event that the employer does lay off a worker, he is required 
to provide a substantial severance package. In an effort to stem the 
exodus of businesses from their high tax, high regulations system, 
France began imposing, actually this is inconceivable, an exit

[[Page 8501]]

tax. They began this back in 1998, an exit tax. The European Union 
recently struck down this provision, but for 6 years the French have 
used this highly burdensome tax on businesses to prevent them from 
moving to countries with less restrictive government regulations.
  So with all of these ``job security'' measures in place, that are 
intended, very well intended, they are intended to prevent companies 
from laying off workers and moving offshore, you have to ask the 
question, are the French workers better off today? Has government 
regulation been able to save any jobs? Is new business creation, which 
would create new jobs, booming in France? The answer is an obvious no.
  Since 1999 the unemployment rate in France has been stuck right at 
about 10 percent. While it dipped as low as 9.1 percent in the end of 
2002, it is now back up to 9.5 percent. And it continues to rise at a 
time when the overall unemployment rate for OECD countries is falling. 
This decrease, I might add, is being led by falling employment right 
here in the United States of America.
  Furthermore, France's economy overall is fairing quite poorly. Last 
year the GDP growth rate in France was 1.8 percent; and estimates for 
this year are at 1.7 percent. Its finance ministry recently announced 
that it is hopeful that the economy could grow by as much as 2.5 
percent next year. But even they admitted that this relatively slow 
rate of growth will be very difficult to achieve.
  I think it is important to note that this stagnation is not a recent 
or temporary situation in France. The French are not simply going 
through a few difficult years as all countries do from time to time and 
as ours clearly has. Average annual growth and GDP throughout all of 
the 1990s in France was 1.9 percent. Just over half the average GDP 
growth rate of 3.4 percent that we have had here in the United States, 
but maybe France is just an anomaly, Mr. Speaker.
  France, their restrictive job security laws would have a different 
effect in a different economy. So let us look at another case. Germany. 
Germany has many labor regulations that are similar to France's. And 
like their neighbor to the west, these laws have been in place for many 
years. The Protection Against Dismissal Act, which could have been the 
model for Senator Daschle's Jobs for Americans Act, was adopted a half 
century ago just after World War II. This statute requires every 
employer to justify the laying off of any employee taken into account, 
taking into account social justice factors.
  Now, these factors include things like whether the employee is a 
single mother or elderly or disabled. Employers must give workers 
notice of layoffs between 1 and 7 months in advance, depending on how 
long a worker has been with a company. Employees can challenge any 
layoff in court and obtain preliminary injunction allowing them to 
remain on the job until their cases are decided. Preliminary 
injunctions can keep people on a job while their case is being decided, 
whether or not it is a good business decision for that operation.
  These are very stringent requirements imposed on German companies, no 
doubt in an effort, well-intentioned, the effort, of course, to protect 
German workers. But are these workers better off, Mr. Speaker? Since 
the late 1990s, unemployment in Germany has hovered above the 8 percent 
level and has steadily climbed over the past year. In 2003, it inched 
up from 9 percent to 9.2 percent and continues to climb.
  At the same time the GDP growth rate in Germany has, as has been the 
case in France, been a paltry 1.7 percent for the last 2 years.
  Mr. Speaker, economic forecasters have recently downgraded their 
growth predictions for Germany from 1.8 percent to 1.6 percent, even 
lower than that anticipated in France. Just like France, economic 
stagnation has been a part of the German way of life for many years. 
Throughout the 1990s, economic growth averaged just 1.5 percent, an 
abysmal one-third of the economic growth rate that we have seen on 
average here in the United States economy. The long term numbers 
clearly do not stack up well against the United States. But let us 
compare the short-term numbers, Mr. Speaker.
  French and German unemployment is at 9.5 and 9.2 percent, 
respectively, and those numbers are increasing. In the U.S., 
unemployment is at 5.7 percent. That is roughly half the levels of 
unemployment for both France and Germany. The same goes for economic 
growth. While the French and German economies have been inching along 
at less than 2 percent, GDP growth, the U.S. economy has been racing 
forward at a 4.1 percent annual growth rate, more than twice the growth 
rate of both France and Germany. And in the third quarter of 2003, the 
U.S. economy grew at a staggering 8.2 percent, our fastest growth rate 
in 20 years.
  But perhaps the most telling numbers of all are what I will call 
innovation indicators. In terms of new patents, research and 
development, venture capital, the U.S. far outpaces France, Germany and 
the entire European Union. For example, the United States leads the 
world with 185,000 new patents granted every single year. This is 
almost four times the amount for the entire European Union.
  In 2002, France granted fewer than 4,000 patents and Germany only 
granted 11,000 patents. In other words, U.S. innovators are producing 
50 times the work of their French counterparts and 17 times the work of 
their German counterparts. A look at research and development shows a 
similar picture.
  Last year, the United States spent almost $300 billion on research 
and development. That is nearly a third of a trillion dollars on 
research and development, including both public and private sources. 
This year we will spend $320 billion, an increase that stems in large 
part from the President's commitment to increase Federal research and 
development funding. In fact, the President's proposed R&D budget of 
$132 billion marks a 42 percent increase since he took office.
  France, by contrast, spends only $30 billion a year, a tenth of what 
the United States spends. Germany devotes $37 billion a year to R&D 
which is less than one-sixth of the U.S. total. Once again, the United 
States of America is the global leader while France and Germany trail 
far behind.
  Another important innovation indicator is venture capital. Business 
and individual investors provided over $21 billion in venture capital 
in 2002 right here in the United States. That compares with less than 
$2 billion in France and about a billion dollars in Germany. In both 
cases, a tiny fraction of the venture capital investment that we have 
here in the United States. In fact, the amount of venture capital 
raised each year in all of western Europe barely equals a third of the 
amount raised here in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, each one of these innovation indicators which 
demonstrate the vitality and dynamism of an economy together with 
factors like unemployment and growth and gross domestic product, 
clearly shows that our economy is creating far more and far better 
opportunities for workers than any place else. It seems that the ``job 
security restrictions'' might not be quite the boon to workers that 
their proponents would have us believe. Europe's failed attempts to 
artificially retain existing jobs have guaranteed economic stagnation, 
not future prosperity for their workers.
  The French and German models demonstrate that job growth cannot be 
achieved simply by trying to prevent any jobs from being phased out. 
Instead, we need to focus on the other side of that jobs equation that 
I have discussed earlier. The job creation side.
  In light of our economic history, this should come as absolutely no 
surprise whatsoever. Our Nation's economic strength has always been 
based on the ability of industry, workers, and consumers to innovate, 
adapt and create new and better opportunities. As we saw with the shift 
from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy, success did not stem 
from our ability to prevent the loss of agricultural jobs. Our success 
was a result of our ability to harness new technologies and create

[[Page 8502]]

entirely new fields of work. And we transformed our economy into a 
global leader in the process.
  Today it is just as critical as ever that we reject the path of 
stagnation and choose the path of progress instead. The path that 
encourages companies to innovate, raise productivity, compete abroad, 
and create the new kind of jobs that reflect our uniquely American 
ability to adapt to the changes of the future. This is the American 
model for job growth.
  But if this has been our formula for success and global economic 
leadership for nearly 200 years, why are our current job growth numbers 
not as strong as we would like? After all, our economy has been out of 
recession for over 2 years. In fact, growth is clipping along at a 
brisk 4.1 percent. The stock market is performing well, real wages are 
growing, consumer confidence and spending remain high, and home 
ownership is at record levels. All indicators point to 2004 looking a 
lot more like the boom of 1999 than the relatively slow growth that we 
saw in 2002.
  Yet, while the job growth numbers have recently grown much stronger, 
the overall job creation picture still looks a little weaker than 
expected. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are three reasons why 
the job creation numbers have not yet matched the exuberance of the 
rest of the economy. First, we quite simply are not counting all of the 
new jobs. Our jobs statistics, the number of new jobs that comes out on 
the first Friday of every month are derived from the payroll survey 
known as the Establishment Survey. The data are collected by asking a 
sampling of businesses how many people they employ and if they are 
adding or reducing jobs.
  The problem is that the payroll survey only looks at the established 
businesses. That is why they call it the Establishment Survey. There is 
no means for counting the self-employed, the independent contractors, 
the enough business start-ups. These entrepreneurs are completely left 
out by our job creation number. But we do know that they are out there. 
And we know that the number is growing.
  Significant anecdotal evidence from established businesses shows that 
companies are increasingly relying on more fluid business models. 
Independent contracting gives both businesses and skilled workers 
greater flexibility in coordinating projects and meeting their 
individual needs. While the payroll survey misses these types of 
workers, they do get counted in the household survey. The Department of 
Labor's household survey goes directly to individuals and asks them if 
they have a job and what kind of work they are doing.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, because the household survey looks at the entire 
workforce and the payroll survey only looks at a certain kind of 
employment, it is no surprise at all that the household survey shows a 
net gain of over 1.5 million jobs since the end of the recession in 
November of 2001. Over the same period, the payroll survey shows a net 
loss of about 350,000 jobs. While even the payroll survey has not 
recently begun indicating robust job growth, 308,000 new jobs in the 
month of March and 204,000 new jobs in the previous 2 months, the two 
surveys still show a discrepancy of almost two million jobs since the 
end of the recession.

                              {time}  2045

  Furthermore, trends in job creation indicate that the payroll survey 
is increasingly inadequate for counting new jobs. The household survey 
shows that one-third of all new job creation is in self-employment. 
This means that the fastest-growing part of our workforce is missed 
entirely by the payroll or establishment survey. If we are going to 
have an accurate picture on job creation, we need jobs statistics that 
account for the kinds of jobs our 21st century economy is creating.
  The second reason I believe job creation has not yet reached 
expectation is that our economy is in the process of creating entirely 
new types of jobs in entirely new types of fields.
  In recent decades, job losses and gains have primarily been the 
product of the business cycle. Employers would be forced to lay off 
workers during tough economic times and would rehire them during the 
recovery. Because the job opportunities before and after a recovery 
looked very similar, reemployment happened very quickly.
  Today, we still go through cyclical change, but we are also 
experiencing a great deal of structural change. As I discussed earlier, 
we are in the midst of a major economic transformation. In our 21st 
century economy, a new job is often new in every sense of the word, new 
work in a new field demanding completely new skills.
  Rather than simply going back to their old jobs, workers are 
increasingly finding work in cutting-edge fields and learning very, 
very different skills. Part of our focus in the 21st century economy 
should be helping to match workers with employers so that reemployment 
can take place so that we can see reemployment take place just as 
quickly as possible. We need to help match workers with employers, 
workers who were laid off so that we can help them.
  The third factor, Mr. Speaker, that I believe is affecting net job 
creation in this country, and the perception that we are experiencing a 
jobless recovery is the fact that there are very real barriers to job 
creation that still exist here in America. These include the rising 
cost of providing health care for workers, frivolous lawsuits, the cost 
of complying with ever-growing government regulations, and a Byzantine 
corporate Tax Code.
  In fact, the National Association of Manufacturers estimates that 
these factors raise the cost of doing business in the United States by 
almost 25 percent, that is, these factors, the things that exist, the 
frivolous lawsuits, the regulations, the tax burden and the cost of 
health care, they have increased the cost of doing business by almost a 
quarter. That can be devastating to any company, particularly small- 
and medium-sized businesses, and it can significantly impede the 
ability of entrepreneurs to turn their innovations into new jobs for 
Americans.
  These three factors, inadequate job statistics, the structural 
changes that are taking place in our economy and the barriers to job 
creation, are all impacting our jobs numbers; and each presents an 
opportunity for us, Mr. Speaker, as policy-makers.
  Improving our data analysis, helping to match workers with new jobs 
and training for new skills, seeking reforms that will lower the cost 
of doing business in the United States from tort reform to health 
savings accounts, these are a number of initiatives that the Congress 
of the United States can pursue to boost job creation in this country. 
The most important part is that we keep our focus on the job creation 
side of the equation.
  It is true that, as in an earlier era of buggy whip makers and 
blacksmiths, some jobs are disappearing forever; but I reject the 
belief that we have reached the end of American innovation. Call 
centers in India are simply not a harbinger of stagnation and decline. 
To say that they are is defeatism in its most basic form.
  Admittedly, I cannot stand here and tell my colleagues exactly what 
the jobs of tomorrow will be, just as a defeatist in 1850 could not 
have foreseen jobs in film production or software engineering. What I 
can tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, is that Americans have a long 
history of adapting and growing and being innovative and creative. If 
we allow workers to continue down that road towards innovation, we will 
continue to create lots of new opportunities for Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, Senator Kerry and many on the other side of the aisle 
want us to pursue the French and German models; and we know from that 
experience that what we have seen from the French and the Germans does, 
in fact, create stagnation and stifling regulation and jeopardizes the 
ability for Americans to be innovative and creative.
  Mr. Speaker, I will take the American way, with confidence in the 
American worker and the American employer for the future.

[[Page 8503]]



                          ____________________