[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15643-15650]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WILL FOCUS ON REMOVING 
        BARRIERS TO COMPETITIVENESS OF THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY

  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution (H. Res. 352) providing that the House of 
Representatives will focus on removing barriers to competitiveness of 
the United States economy.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 352

       Whereas the economy of the United States is part of a 
     global economy in which domestic industries face ever 
     stronger competition from foreign industries;
       Whereas growth in exports accounts for one-sixth of all 
     growth in the United States economy;
       Whereas approximately 1 in 5 factory jobs in the United 
     States depends directly on international trade;
       Whereas American farmers export 1 in 3 acres of their 
     crops, and exports generate nearly 25 percent of farmers' 
     gross sales;
       Whereas the estimated total regulatory burden on United 
     States business is more than $850 billion per year;
       Whereas, according to a study sponsored by the Office of 
     Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, government 
     regulations cost firms with fewer than 20 employees 60 
     percent more per employee than the cost to firms with more 
     than 500 employees;
       Whereas the Office of Management and Budget recently found 
     that for every dollar of direct budget expenditure devoted to 
     regulatory activity, the private sector spends $45 to comply 
     with regulations;
       Whereas high-technology industries are driving economic 
     growth around the world, as shown by the fact that the global 
     market for high-technology goods is growing at a faster rate 
     than the rate for other manufactured goods;
       Whereas more than 1 million American jobs are dependant 
     upon research and development spending in the United States;
       Whereas the cost of medical care in the United States 
     regularly outpaces general inflation;
       Whereas 90 percent of Americans who are under age 65 and 
     covered by health insurance currently obtain that insurance 
     through employers;
       Whereas 85 percent of jobs in the United States today are 
     classified as skilled jobs and in 1950, only 20 percent of 
     jobs were so classified;
       Whereas 80 percent of the 50 fastest growing occupations 
     require education beyond high school;
       Whereas, despite spending $60 billion per year on training, 
     60 percent of United States companies are prevented from 
     upgrading technologically by the low educational and 
     technical skill levels of their workforce;
       Whereas, in 2003, American taxpayers spent an estimated 
     $203.5 billion to comply with the Federal income tax code, 
     enough to buy more than 5 million new luxury 4-door sedans at 
     retail price and by 2007, annual compliance costs are 
     projected to rise to $244 billion;
       Whereas the tax compliance burden is twice as much for 
     businesses with fewer than 20 employees as it is for 
     businesses with more than 500 employees;
       Whereas the cost of frivolous litigation in the United 
     States exceeds $230 billion per year, an amount equal to more 
     than $2,000 per American household;
       Whereas the cost of liability defense is approximately 
     $150,000 per year for each small business, money that could 
     be spent to hire additional employees, expand operations, or 
     improve health care coverage;
       Whereas, in 2002, trial lawyers received approximately $40 
     billion from litigation, more than the annual revenues of 
     Microsoft and Intel, and twice the revenue of Coca-Cola;
       Whereas total energy consumption in the United States is 
     expected to increase more rapidly than domestic energy supply 
     through at least 2025;
       Whereas the Energy Information Administration projects that 
     net imports will constitute 36 percent of total United States 
     energy consumption in 2025, as compared with only 26 percent 
     in 2002; and
       Whereas, according to a study sponsored by the National 
     Association of Manufacturers and American Council for Capital 
     Formation, consumers will face a 61 percent increase in 
     gasoline prices unless the United States implements a policy 
     to increase the supply of affordable energy: Now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved, 

     SECTION 1. RECOGNITION OF EXISTING BARRIERS TO KEEPING AND 
                   CREATING JOBS.

       The House of Representatives recognizes that there are 
     existing barriers to keeping and creating jobs in the United 
     States, particularly in the following areas:
       (1) Trade restrictions and inequality.
       (2) Bureaucratic red tape.
       (3) Innovation and investment.
       (4) Health care security.
       (5) Lifelong learning.

[[Page 15644]]

       (6) Tax burden and complexity.
       (7) Lawsuit abuse and litigation management.
       (8) Energy self-sufficiency and security.

     SEC. 2. NEED FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.

       The House of Representatives recognizes that improving the 
     competitiveness of the United States economy depends on 
     congressional action to remove barriers in the areas referred 
     to in section 1.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL AGENCY REVIEW OF RULES AND POLICIES.

       The House of Representatives expresses the sense that every 
     Federal agency should review its rules and policies regarding 
     the competitiveness of the United States economy.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 352.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the United States has the number one economy 
in the world. For almost two centuries, we have been the envy of the 
world: a dynamic economy; a hardworking, motivated workforce; truly the 
land of opportunity where innovation has thrived. The status is 
changing, though. We are running a $670 billion annual trade deficit 
which is contributing to our Federal budget deficit and slowed economy 
over the past few years.
  This development is not a temporary blip on the radar screen. It is 
the culmination of a generation of increased regulation, unsound tax 
policies, languishing emphasis on math and science education, unchecked 
health care costs, rampant lawsuit abuse, unfocused research and 
development funds and a weak trade policy enforcement. In short, our 
government has made it difficult and undesirable to do business in the 
United States. We have put roadblocks to keeping and creating jobs in 
America, and we have done this to ourselves.
  If these current trends continue, our economy will continue to lag 
and we will no longer remain the most dynamic economy in the world. 
Meanwhile, China, India and other nations are preparing for the future. 
They are educating their students in math, science and technology, and 
pumping out record numbers of engineers. They are reducing tax rates 
and other economic barriers to entice investments in their nations. 
They are pursuing aggressive trade policies to reduce America's 
dominance in world trade.
  Without attention to these matters, the United States is headed 
towards a third-rate economy; 5, 10, 20 years down the road, we will no 
longer be the world's leader or even second place. We will become a 
third-rate economy. That is why we need to take this issue seriously.
  Last year, we began the competitiveness legislative agenda on the 
floor, and over a period of 8 weeks, we discussed and voted on issues 
related to keeping and creating keeping jobs in America. Later this 
summer, the Jobs Action Team will again bring legislation to the floor 
to combat this problem. We need to take a longer-term vision.
  For this reason, I am initiating the House Economic Competitiveness 
Caucus. The caucus will carefully examine the issues facing our ability 
to compete economically over the coming years. We will work to focus 
congressional efforts to removing the barriers to American economic 
competitiveness and develop economic goals for the future and find 
paths to get there.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in finding ways to guarantee a 
vibrant, internationally competitive American economy now, 5, 10, 15 
and 20 years down the road. Our goal is to ensure high-quality and 
high-paying jobs for all Americans today and in the future.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, none of us could be against removing barriers. However, 
the definition of barriers allows room for a lot of disagreement. It is 
very interesting that the thrust of this resolution is that regulations 
in the United States are barriers to competitiveness, and yet our 
economy is linked to a nation which has the maximum number of barriers 
in terms of regulatory procedures, the economy of China.
  China is still a communist government. China is still an economy 
ruled by a communist government, which means they can set up 
regulations as they see fit and change the rules as they see fit, and 
yet we are linking our economic fate to China. Our industries have 
moved on a wholesale basis to China. Obviously, regulation is not 
ruining the situation in the Chinese economy, and our propensity for 
dealing with this communist/capitalist country, this mongrel, whatever 
economy we want to call it, our greedy manufacturing industry has gone 
there. Retail and wholesale industries are bringing back the consumer 
goods. We just love China. Wall Street loves China, and China is a very 
tightly regulated economy. The greatest barrier one can imagine is 
there, and yet they thrive.
  I want to run through a few of the whereases in this very interesting 
resolution which covers a lot of territory. One cannot disagree with 
some of the whereases: Whereas our technology is driving economic 
growth around the world, as shown by the fact that the global market 
for high-technology goods is growing at a faster rate than the rate for 
other manufactured goods. I agree with that whereas.
  Whereas more than 1 million American jobs are dependent upon research 
and development; whereas the cost of medical care in the United States 
regularly outpaces general inflation. How can I disagree with that? 
That is a fact.
  Whereas 90 percent of Americans who are under age 65 and covered by 
health insurance currently obtain that insurance through employers. 
Maybe that is a barrier we want to remove by having a national health 
care plan which takes some of the burden off employers. I would be in 
favor of that, certainly.
  Whereas 85 percent of the jobs are classified as skilled jobs, and in 
1950, only 20 percent were so classified. That is a fact.
  Whereas 80 percent of the 50 fastest-growing occupations require 
education beyond high school. Let us pause there. Is that fact going to 
lead to a recommendation that we expend more money to improve our 
education system, that we catch up with some of the nations in the 
world? Do Members know that the richest nation in Europe now is 
Ireland? Ireland. Ireland is the richest nation in Europe. In terms of 
per capita income, Ireland has the highest per capita income. Why, 
because the Irish decided a couple of decades ago to invest 
wholeheartedly into a state-of-the-art public school system. Now they 
have moved beyond that, and they are providing free higher education. 
So an Irish youngster can develop in the free system right up to the 
end of his higher education.
  So that is a barrier that we would like to remove. So we agree that 
this is significant, that 80 percent of the 50 fastest-growing 
occupations require higher education beyond high school, and yet we are 
shortchanging our education. No Child Left Behind has been shortchanged 
by $20-some billion over the last few years.
  Whereas, despite spending $60 billion per year on training, 60 
percent of the United States companies are prevented from upgrading 
technologically by the low education and technical skills level of 
their workforce. That is a fact. We can agree with that. Our public 
school system ought to be doing a better job.
  Whereas, in 2002, trial lawyers received approximately $40 billion 
from litigation, more than the annual revenues of Microsoft and Intel, 
and twice the revenue of Coca-Cola. What does that have to do with 
anything? Why did they take a swipe at the trial lawyers in the midst 
of the whereases? The money received by the trial lawyers

[[Page 15645]]

was money used to defend ordinary Americans. How about the corporate 
lawyers? You do not have a whereas about the corporate lawyers, or a 
whereas about the tremendous amount of corruption in corporate America 
that the Republican Party refuses to even hold hearings about. Enron, 
WorldCom, a whole series of criminal activities that have been unveiled 
by the attorney general of New York State, nobody wants to deal with 
that corruption. That is a barrier to our success and our 
competitiveness.
  I hope that you will address some of these whereases that I have just 
mentioned in terms of some answers as to why we do not pursue the 
obvious, commonsense solutions.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the gentleman with regard to 
Ireland. Surely they have improved their public education system. And, 
furthermore, they have lowered their regulatory burden and cut taxes. I 
think those two areas are largely responsible for their growing economy 
and the increased opportunity in Ireland.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. 
Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, in America, the road to 
opportunity is a fast-moving highway. Any American with creativity and 
simply a desire to work hard can achieve their dreams. Anyone can 
succeed. Anyone can start a business. Our road to opportunity has been 
an open road.
  But unfortunately, our government, sometimes with very noble 
intentions, is putting up red lights, stoplights and dead ends on the 
road to opportunity. The heavy burden of needless governmental 
regulation is slowing down hard-driving Americans, Americans whose 
diligence and hard work is needed to secure our Nation's economic 
future.
  Let us consider a few numbers for a moment. The regulatory burden on 
United States businesses is more than $850 billion each and every year. 
The Small Business Administration says that complying with all of the 
government's rules and regulations costs small businesses a staggering 
$7,000 per employee. American taxpayers spend an estimated $250 billion 
a year every year just trying to comply with the American Federal 
income tax code. This crippling over-regulation can destroy the 
entrepreneurial spirit. It is a hidden tax on our businesses and on our 
citizens.
  Simply put, the cost of doing business in America is quickly rising. 
And make no mistake, our foreign competitors are capitalizing on it. 
Our trade deficit is now an unbelievable $670 billion and growing. It 
is time for America to reopen the road to opportunity, and it is 
imperative that this Congress and this Nation enact a competitiveness 
agenda.
  It is unacceptable that the cost of frivolous litigation now exceeds 
$230 billion a year. That interpolates to $2,000 for every American 
household. Our citizens, business owners and entrepreneurs face enough 
hurdles as it is. Our government does not need to raise new ones. We 
need to focus on eliminating some of the ones we have.
  We must and will make America more competitive in the global 
marketplace. I know by working together we can do the right thing for 
the American people, for American business and for America's future.

                              {time}  1130

  Let us remove the red lights, remove the stop signs and the dead ends 
and reopen the road to opportunity.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
very much for yielding me this time.
  And I must say that never have I seen a resolution that demonstrates 
so completely the lack of understanding by the other side of what is 
necessary to maintain and improve America's competitiveness in the 
world economy.
  They go through all of their whereases, but when they get to the 
therefores, this resolution does nothing, does nothing. They ignore 
what those people who are on the cutting edge of trying to improve 
America's competitiveness, those companies that are on the cutting edge 
of competing in a world economy, their recommendations, one of the 
first of which is to fully fund No Child Left Behind. They are $40 
billion behind the curve. But that is what the American Electronics 
Association says should be done first and foremost in education.
  Improve math and science teaching, you do nothing to improve math and 
science teaching.
  They go on to say support research and development. The permanent, 
the permanent R&D tax credit, not the year-to-year funding that you 
provide, but the permanent, so companies can count on this, can make 
their economic decisions, can make their financial decisions. Improve 
the business climate, the stock options, which your side failed to 
provide for. Stop having the raids on the patent and trademark offices 
of the United States Government to fund the general fund.
  The fact of the matter is that this provides nothing, provides 
nothing that the industries that are on the cutting edge identify as 
their most important objectives, their most important priorities, and 
that is to provide for a dramatic and sustained improved investment in 
education; a dramatic and sustained improvement in the R&D of this 
country, nondefense related, basic R&D on a permanent basis, something 
you have not done in 6 years.
  And also they recommend, after doubling the National Science 
Foundation, a sustained effort at doubling the National Science 
Foundation. You thought it was a one-time target, and now you are 
cutting. You thought sequencing the human genome was a one-time event. 
That is the beginning, not the end of the story. That is the beginning, 
is the doubling of the National Science Foundation, then maintaining 
it. What we are talking about and what the companies have constantly 
recommended to us is a sustained effort and investment in education, in 
innovation, in health care. Universal access to health care, universal 
access to affordable health care, something not discussed in this 
resolution, something not done in the 6 years. More people are without 
health care now than in the 5 years that this administration has been 
in office.
  This resolution so completely misses the mark that we wonder why we 
would spend an hour of our time on the floor dealing with this when 
there are such important items. The problem is that the other side of 
the aisle already voted for a budget that does not make the R&D tax 
credit permanent, voted for a budget that cuts higher education, voted 
for a budget that cuts elementary secondary education. A budget that 
does not even get close to funding No Child Left Behind, as, again, the 
companies who are out there competing, not the political rhetoric on 
the floor, but what they have made after years of discussion.
  It does not even get close to an immigration policy that allows our 
universities to continue to attract the highly skilled students that we 
were before 9/11. That is not working. Those young people now are going 
to India. They are going to China. They are going to France. They are 
going to Germany. The are going to England, and they are not coming to 
the United States because this administration failed to take that 
action.
  Finally, the protection of our intellectual properties. The 
protection of our intellectual properties is so terribly important. We 
continue to see them hijacked on a daily basis from the automotive 
industry, to the film industry, to the music industry, to the computer 
industry, and the effort has not yet been made.
  That is the report on what has happened over the last 4 or 5 years in 
this country. That is the report of what this Republican-led Congress 
has done. And what does the Republican-led Congress do? They give us a 
resolution with a lot of ``whereases,'' a lot of ``whereases.'' No 
action, just ``whereases.''
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

[[Page 15646]]


  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for 
yielding me this time.
  I welcome the comments from the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller). He talks about a lot of issues that are more important to 
making America more competitive. We may disagree on the track, but I 
think it is important that we do move forward with an R&D tax credit 
that is permanent. I think it is important that we do move forward to 
protect intellectual property rights. But he does make an additional 
point, and that it is always easy to be against something instead of 
for something. If we are going to make progress, we need to work 
together; so I would welcome him to join the Economic Competitive 
Caucus because I think together we could find ways to fund technology 
grants and technology schools. And I would like to point out that we 
have doubled the funding for the National Science Foundation, and we 
continue the strong funding of that.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) also mentioned a couple of 
things that I think are important to be addressed in this debate. One 
is the effect that China is having on our economy, and I think the 
point was made by the gentleman from New York that regulation is not 
holding them back. But let me tell the Members what is happening in 
China. They have focused on technology. They graduated 350,000 
engineers last year. They graduated more English-speaking electrical 
engineers than America did, and they have done that because they want 
to target certain areas. In Kansas they have targeted several 
industries: the hand truck industry, the auto lift industry. They are 
trying to run American businesses out of business so that they can have 
a corner on the market, and that is why we need to have enforceable 
trade policy, which is part of this resolution.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) addressed 
education. That is why education and lifelong learning is part of this 
resolution.
  But let me just tell the Members what China is doing that I think is 
important to the debate and why I think they should understand why we 
need to address these issues today instead of putting them off. The 
regulation barriers that we have are keeping us from doing wonderful 
things that could help create and start jobs. In China they are trying 
to create a Silicon Valley. They have set up a top-notch university. 
They have given venture capital to the area. They have office space 
available. They have property management for anybody who has a good 
idea. They have legal advice, patent advice. They even allow professors 
and students to start businesses on their own.
  The way to address that is by changing our system and removing the 
barriers. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) mentions the trial 
lawyers, the $40 billion that came out of our economy for trial 
lawyers. Just think, if we apply some commonsense reforms, we can make 
jobs in America. One example is in 1995 when the Statute of Repose was 
passed, which put commonsense limits on the manufacture of airplanes, 
and the following year 4,000 jobs were created in Kansas alone, plus 
additional jobs all across the United States.
  All we are saying in this resolution is let us step back from what we 
are doing today and say if we were going to start this system tomorrow, 
would we do the same thing? Will it impact jobs? Can we work together 
to create and keep jobs in America instead of seeing them slide off to 
other countries?
  So I think this is a good resolution, and I would welcome the 
suggestions from the other side, and I think together we can help bring 
jobs back to America.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, when I looked at today's 
floor schedule, I was pleasantly surprised to see an item addressing 
the issue of declining United States competitiveness in the world.
  The fact is the issue of competitiveness has not been a priority for 
Republican leaders in this Congress or in any preceding one in the last 
10 years, and I thought perhaps finally the Republicans had woken up. 
Unfortunately, I was very disappointed when I read the text of the 
proposal because this plan is nonbinding; it has really nothing that 
will make the United States more competitive. That is what I have come 
to expect in this Congress, this Republican-led Congress: more talk and 
no action. And once again this resolution has failed to propose 
specific policies that would actually boost technological innovation or 
our commitment to education.
  As many know, I represent Silicon Valley, along with the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Honda), the most creative and innovative place on Earth; and if I were 
to bring your resolution back to the leaders of the Silicon Valley, the 
engineers, the techies, Ph.D.s, venture capitalists, educators, CEOs, I 
think I would be laughed all the way back to D.C. I suspect that you 
did not consult with any of the people in the tech industry because, if 
you did, we would have had something with a little meat on it that 
meant something.
  We need a sustained commitment to Federal funding of R&D. The 2006 
budget proposed by President Bush continues to cut R&D. It underfunds 
the National Science Foundation by billions of dollars; and the fact is 
if we do not count weapons research, this administration has sharply 
reduced federally funded scientific research, and this nonbinding 
resolution will not do a darn thing to change it.
  We need to dramatically improve our math and science education in our 
country. We know that we are falling short, and meanwhile we are 
continuing to fail in our funding promises to No Child Left Behind. We 
need to reform our immigration policies so that the best and brightest 
students can come and study in the United States and not be poached by 
universities who are benefiting in Australia and England and elsewhere 
through our short-sighted and bureaucratic policies; and we need a 
sustained commitment to science research and education. We cannot 
afford to sit back and pass nonbinding resolutions that do nothing. We 
could at least enact the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Eshoo) bill 
for stock options.
  With an exploding deficit, reduced support for education of 
Americans, a door shutting on Nobel-level scientists from abroad, no 
energy policy that will lead to energy independence, this proposal is 
worse than nothing because the right wing will not take action on 
competitiveness and will probably say they did something if this stupid 
and meaningless resolution is permitted to pass.
  Republicans are like the guy in court who killed his parents and now 
pleads for mercy as an orphan. They have controlled the House of 
Representatives for 10 years. Their policies for the last 10 years have 
shorted education. They have shorted science. They have eliminated 
protection for tech innovation. These words do not change those failed 
policies, and I hope that we turn down this resolution and tell the 
truth that our policies are threatening the competitiveness of our 
United States, and this mere meaningless resolution will do nothing, 
nothing, to solve that.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First I want to respond to a few comments made by the opposition 
here. There is a lot of talk about a nonbinding resolution, but this 
House today is going to take up four bills to reform OSHA that will 
help small businesses and their enterprises be more competitive and 
their employees be more competitive in the global economy. Health care, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) brought up health 
care, and he very well knows that the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce that he sits on as the ranking member is addressing health 
care. We recognize that health care is a problem. We recognize that the 
plight of the uninsured is a problem. And yet I will say as a 
physician, as someone who has dealt with health care on a daily basis, 
universal government-run health care is not the answer.

[[Page 15647]]

  We need to continue to address this problem and support solutions 
like association health plans, something that we have already taken up 
in committee and will be coming to the floor soon. This will help get 
people who are uninsured back on to the rolls of being insured. This 
will help small businesses provide insurance for those who lack 
insurance today.
  We need to continue to expand health savings accounts. These have 
already begun to help many Americans, but we need to continue to work 
on this. This is the future of health care. This is how we are going to 
create a competitive health care environment that will bring down the 
cost and make it affordable for all Americans.
  And we need medical liability reform. We need medical liability 
reform. No question about it. And this Congress will address these 
issues.
  So to say this is a nonbinding resolution, surely it makes a 
statement about some of the needs that we need to work on, but at the 
same time this Congress is addressing all of those issues; and we ask 
our colleagues across the aisle to join us to pass these bills so that 
we can help those Americans in need and we can increase our 
competitiveness on the global market.
  I support this resolution, and I want to thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for their 
tireless work to remove barriers on U.S. companies, to ensure that 
America can be competitive in the global economy.
  American businessmen and -women are second to none in 
resourcefulness, entrepreneurial spirit, business ingenuity; and the 
government should foster, not stifle, these qualities.
  I mentioned, as a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, that we are going to work on OSHA reform and AHPs. These are 
commonsense good measures that will improve our competitiveness.
  Frivolous lawsuits, costly health insurance, an overly complicated 
Tax Code, skyrocketing energy costs, compliance with innumerable 
Federal and State regulations result in small businesses spending more 
time just trying to comply with government and government laws and 
regulations than growing their businesses, creating jobs, and 
generating revenue. Yet because of the entrepreneurial spirit of these 
Americans and many small businesses that we have out there, they do 
survive and even thrive despite all these adversities.

                              {time}  1145

  Let me talk about my district in southwest Louisiana for a moment, 
which has been known for its entrepreneurial spirit. Today, it is a 
spirit that continues to grow our agricultural influence, despite many 
adversities, and build small businesses that are grabbing the eye of 
the global market. We have a port, the 11th largest port in the 
country, the Port of Lake Charles. Once known as a regional provider, 
it has grown into an economic engine for our State and our Nation. And 
as it continues to increase in size, it is moving larger numbers of 
products into the United States and out into the world.
  Our economic developers are finding ways to attract businesses that 
have never before known the advantages of doing business in Louisiana. 
Let me give an example. Lafayette Economic Development Authority is a 
prime example of showcasing the educational and technological benefits 
of Louisiana's Seventh Congressional District to attract companies to 
our area. Gregg Gothreaux heads up this organization and has strived to 
capitalize on an outstanding workforce to make Lafayette a competitive 
force in the business world. In fact, in the year 2004, Inc. Magazine 
named Lafayette, Louisiana, one of the best places to do business. And 
3 months ago, Entrepreneur Magazine named Lafayette one of the top 
technology centers in the South, based on its appeal and ability to 
attract high-tech companies.
  Another great example from my district is a small business with 15 
employees headed up by Rick Broussard, and he has been able to attract 
the United States Marine Corps with a service by building these drone 
airplanes. And he is hoping to build his business, employing hopefully 
in the near future 100 employees, so that he can improve his 
competitiveness and raise his revenue and contribute to the 
competitiveness of our country and our defense initiatives.
  He is not an isolated example. There are many examples in Louisiana 
and around this country that are competing, despite the regulatory 
burden, the tax burden and other added costs of doing business.
  Mr. Speaker, it is our job, it is our job as elected officials to 
ensure that our businesses have the necessary tools to compete in this 
global economy, and this Congress will address these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
his leadership in defense of our economy, workers' rights, and our 
desire to build on an American economy that can provide opportunity for 
all.
  Mr. Speaker, if the Congress were to take up legislation for the 
purpose of removing barriers to the competitiveness of the U.S. 
economy, I do not believe, respectfully, it would read like H. Res. 
352.
  But, it might read something like this: Whereas, U.S. trade with 
foreign countries is so imbalanced that the U.S. has a trade deficit 
with every continent in the world except Australia and with nearly 
every country in the world;
  Whereas, before NAFTA, the U.S. exported about an equivalent amount 
to Mexico as it imported to Mexico. But, after NAFTA, imports from 
Mexico increased 195 percent, more than double the increase in exports. 
NAFTA caused a balanced trade scenario with Mexico to become 
unbalanced, to the disadvantage of the U.S.;
  Whereas, exports create jobs; imports destroy jobs. And when imports 
outpace exports, more jobs are destroyed than created. So while 
increased exports after NAFTA may have created almost 800,000 jobs, 
according to the Economic Policy Institute in 2003, increased imports 
due to NAFTA destroyed almost 1.7 million jobs. Every State in the 
Nation lost jobs due to NAFTA;
  Whereas, Congress will soon be compounding the damage with 
consideration of CAFTA, which is modeled on NAFTA;
  Whereas, China's seemingly endless supply of dollars to acquire IBM, 
Maytag, and now UNOCAL is supplied by America's huge trade deficit with 
China. In fact, since Congress agreed to admit China to the WTO, 
granting it permanent Most Favored Nation status, the U.S. trade 
deficit with China grew by 50 percent in only 2 years.
  Now, if Congress was to take up legislation for the purpose of 
removing barriers to the competitiveness of the U.S. economy, it might 
read like this: Whereas, America needs a new trade policy based on the 
principle that what the U.S. buys from a country should roughly match 
what it sells to that country;
  Whereas, the cost of private, for-profit health care is a serious 
impediment to competitiveness;
  Whereas, the U.S. paid $5,270 per capita for health care in 2002, and 
two countries with the closest level of spending were Germany at $2,820 
and Canada $2,930, both of which provided universal health care;
  Whereas, the CEOs of Ford Motor Company of Canada, GM Canada, 
DaimlerChrysler Canada wrote in a 2002 letter that ``publicly-funded 
health care thus accounts for a significant portion of Canada's overall 
labor cost advantage in auto assembly versus the U.S. which in turn has 
been a significant factor in maintaining and attracting new auto 
investment to Canada.''
  The resolution that we need to hear would say: Whereas, H.R. 676, the 
U.S. National Health Insurance Act, which has 50 cosponsors, would 
provide less expensive, high-quality, single-payer health care systems 
like many U.S. competitors;
  Whereas, the current course of U.S. economic and health policy is 
unsustainable, and a day of reckoning

[[Page 15648]]

could involve the bursting of the housing price bubble, rise of 
interest rates, budget austerity and the shredding of the social safety 
net, mass unemployment, and a loss of economic sovereignty.
  Therefore, be it resolved, Congress has once again lost the 
opportunity to change the course, correct the trade imbalance, lift up 
living standards in the U.S. and the world, and set the country on a 
more sustainable economic course. The coming readjustment will be 
painful indeed while this administration and Congress drive the U.S. 
economy over a cliff.
  Vote ``no'' on H. Res. 352.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished Majority Leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us represents a promise, a promise 
by the House of Representatives to the American people that not only 
are we aware of the hindrances to prosperity now existing in the 
national economy but that we are committed to removing them as soon as 
possible.
  We are aware that compliance with Federal regulation costs American 
companies $850 billion a year. We are aware those costs are passed 
along from American businesses to American consumers in higher prices 
to the tune of $8,000 per family per year.
  We are aware that exports account for one-sixth of our economic 
growth, and that one in five American factory jobs and one in three 
American crop acres depend on customers in foreign markets and that 
many markets are still closed to our goods.
  We are aware that 1 million American jobs rely on research and 
development conducted by private businesses and through our world-class 
university system.
  We are aware that 60 percent of American businesses are impeded in 
their growth by the lack of advanced training in the workplace. We are 
also aware that health care is too expensive, coverage too limited, and 
that small businesses are at a disadvantage in covering their 
employees.
  We are aware that our tax system is unfair and inefficient, and that 
it costs families and businesses billions of dollars and hours every 
year.
  We are aware that our economy is dangerously dependent on foreign 
sources of oil, and that it is overrun with frivolous lawsuits that 
abuse our legal system.
  And, starting this week, Mr. Speaker, the House is going to do 
something about it. We are going to take up major legislation 
addressing these eight sources of economic friction and tear down these 
eight walls now surrounding the American dream.
  The debate about these eight issues: trade freedom and fairness; 
bureaucratic red tape; innovation and investment; health care security; 
lifelong learning; tax relief and simplification; lawsuit abuse reform; 
and energy independence are over. We all know these impediments to 
prosperity need reform, and we know what we have to do to reform them.
  With this resolution, Mr. Speaker, the House will take a first step 
toward enacting these needed economic reforms to help small businesses 
create not just jobs but long-term, rewarding careers for the American 
people.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, there is really nothing 
terribly, terribly wrong with this resolution. Talking about a need to 
invest in greater innovation, research and education, certainly makes 
sense. The vexing thing for me is this Republican Congress and White 
House has systematically unfunded almost all of those items. We heard 
the numbers from my colleagues, and I will not go back over them, 
except to remind folks of the recent debate we had over the 
appropriations bills.
  Repeatedly, throughout the debate, as Democrats talked about spending 
more money on a variety of different items, the Republican 
appropriators said, You know, this is the money we have, this is the 
best we can do with what we have.
  Well, let us look at the decisions that left us in the position where 
``this is what we have.'' One of the consequences of those decisions is 
we do not have enough money to fund the research, education and 
innovation that is necessary. All of the items that are ticked off, the 
National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, No 
Child Left Behind, we all know what they are. We know how important in 
the global economy innovation, research, education and skills training 
is. Yet the programs that fund those vital needs, vital needs 
particularly for blue-collar, middle-class and lower-class workers, are 
consistently cut, reduced, not funded like they should be because of 
the budget decisions of this Congress.
  Part of it certainly is the tax cut. That has been the decision of 
this Congress; supply-side tax cuts for people making a lot of money at 
the expense of all of these programs we are talking about today. It is 
incredibly vexing to hear the Republican majority stand up and talk 
about how much they care about these programs.
  At a minimum, I wish they would make a choice, they would say: 
Supply-side tax cuts for people making a lot of money, that is what we 
support; that is what we are going to do. That being done, we cannot 
afford to do these other things, and that is okay. But to stand up 
today and say that you care about them when you have created a budget 
environment where they cannot be funded is disingenuous, to say the 
least. If these are priorities, then let us change the budget. And it 
is not just tax cuts. We can look at the spending decisions of the last 
6 years that have seen massive increases in overall Federal spending 
while, at the same time, underfunding these critical items.
  The budget priorities of the Republican Congress are responsible, and 
an empty ``Sense of Congress'' resolution is not going to fix that.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
  I would remind the gentleman that these tax cuts have led to an 
economic growth of 3.8 percent and significant job growth, so I would 
remind him that these are pro-economic growth policies.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for 
yielding me this time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) did talk about some issues 
that I think are very important, especially when he talked about 
education. I think education is very important for the future of this 
economy. If we look at education spending over the last 5 years, we 
have had dramatic increases in education, as far as the spending is 
concerned.
  What we need to do now is focus on math, science, engineering and 
technology. We know this is the direction the future economy is going. 
The world is getting more technically complex, not less technically 
complex. Yet we have fewer people going into engineering. We have fewer 
young women going into science. We have fewer people going into the 
technologies, the maths and the sciences. It should be concerning to 
us, and we need to take steps today. I would welcome their support as 
to how we do that.
  National Science Foundation money, the NSF has come up several times 
here. We increased the NSF again this year, again. Over $5.6 billion 
will go into NSF this fiscal year and we have plans to increase that 
funding in the future, too.
  Innovative research is very important. We need help from the other 
side of the aisle to get research and development tax relief permanent, 
and I think we can do that. I just want to mention the supply-side tax 
cut did stimulate the economy. We have more people working today than 
ever before in the history of our Nation. The average wage is higher 
than it has ever been in the history of this Nation. We have more 
people owning their own homes today than ever before in the history of 
this Nation, and we have done it because we cut taxes. More money got 
into the economy, and jobs

[[Page 15649]]

started increasing. But does that mean we should be satisfied? No. We 
have barriers that need to be removed so that we can increase the 
number of jobs and the number of opportunities in America in the 
future.

                              {time}  1200

  I think it is important that we work together. I look forward to 
working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) on issues like we 
addressed with Sarbanes-Oxley, corporate corruption, we had hearings. 
We had hearings; we had legislation on the floor. We made progress. We 
passed Sarbanes-Oxley. And now there are white collar criminals in jail 
today.
  Corporate corruption was addressed and needs to be addressed in the 
future. But certainly we made some movement. But I welcome them. I know 
we can agree on creating more jobs. I think it is important that we 
work together to do that.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
certainly look forward to working with the gentleman also.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to just cite a few examples of 
how Republican policies have shortchanged the initiatives which they 
talked about today. Instead of having an aggressive policy on math and 
science education, the Bush administration has underinvested in proven 
math and science instruction.
  Today, China graduates four times as many engineers as the United 
States. And South Korea, which has one-sixth of the population of the 
United States, graduates the same number of engineers as the United 
States. Instead of keeping the Republican promise on education, 
President Bush has already underfunded No Child Left Behind, his own 
legislation, his own innovation, he has underfunded by more than $40 
billion.
  Instead of investing in research and development to keep the U.S. on 
the cutting edge of technological advancement, Republicans have cut 
$877 million in Federal science and technology funding. Instead of 
having a national broadband policy, the Bush administration has allowed 
access to broadband to lag.
  Instead of passing the 21st century bill to increase energy 
independence through advances in cutting-edge technology, the 
Republicans have failed to enact any energy bill at all. This 
resolution before us is a mulligan stew that has been allowed to spoil; 
it is a spoiled mulligan stew. It is not serious. We have 40 minutes to 
discuss items which would require really 40 days.
  If we were serious, we would have a long discussion of these items 
before we move on and prepare some real legislation to deal with the 
shortcomings.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), who has worked so hard to ensure 
the competitiveness of this country.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Boustany) for his leadership on the floor today and his help in these 
very important issues of making America more competitive tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, when I listened to the debate today, I find 
that there are areas both Republicans and Democrats can agree on. And 
there are ways that we can work together to make a more solid economy 
in the future so that we can retain our number one status in the future 
instead of falling into a second or third-rate economy.
  The danger is out there. We heard talk from the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich) that it is all because of NAFTA. That we have lost all 
jobs to NAFTA. Yet we have more jobs than ever before in the history of 
our Nation. We have heard that we do not spend enough money on R&D, 
that the tax credits are not permanent.
  We need your help in making them permanent. We need to make these tax 
credits permanent. There are eight issues that we have confined the 
problems that we are facing tomorrow in, and these eight issues are 
health care, security, bureaucratic red tape termination, lifelong 
learning, energy self-sufficiency and security, spurring innovation, 
trade fairness and opportunity, tax relief and simplification, and 
ending lawsuit abuse.
  Today we are going to take a giant step forward in dealing with 
regulation. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) is going to lead 
the effort to reform OSHA.
  And let me just tell you a little bit about why it is important that 
we take on these agencies and try to change the environment. In the 
past we have had this adversarial relationship between the government 
and the private sector. There are fines, there are citations, there are 
unnanounced intrusions into companies.
  Employers are unable to deal with this without high expenses, without 
high cost, without hiring individuals to take care and track what the 
increasing regulation burden is.
  Today we are going to start with OSHA, and we are going to deal with 
that today. We are going to try to create an environment where we work 
together. You know, we could work together. In fact this happened in 
Wichita, Kansas, where OSHA targeted Sedgwick County, and said we are 
going to go to the homebuilders and we are going to make it a safe 
place. They stood off. They took pictures. They fined, they created 
citations, and the housing industry shut down.
  We got the Wichita Builders Association together with OSHA and we 
said, why do we not work together? Why do you not come in on an 
announced basis, make a list of the violations, let the company have 
time to make the safe environment at the work area, and then come back 
and see how they are doing? Well, they did that. The housing industry 
went back to work. And they created a safe work environment by working 
together, working together instead of against each other in an 
adversarial relationship.
  That is what we are talking about in changing the environment in 
America so that we can create and keep jobs in the future, working 
together and not against each other. Now, this environment here on the 
floor of the House is an adversarial environment. But yet we can work 
together. That is what we are advocating here, the government working 
with private sector to make more jobs in the future.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, the issue of competition is one that is lived 
out and dealt with daily in my congressional district, Silicon Valley.
  As this resolution states, high-tech industries drive economic growth 
around the world. Every day my constituents tell me that the United 
States is falling behind our competitors in Europe and Asia.
  This resolution identifies some of the challenges for U.S. 
competitiveness. But this is not enough. The resolution is not binding. 
It does not set into motion any legislative action to address the key 
issues relative to competition.
  One of the top issues in Silicon Valley today is stock options. 
Broad-based employee stock options plans drive innovation and 
competitiveness.
  The House overwhelmingly passed legislation I authored with Rep. 
Baker to protect employee stock options almost a year ago, but the 
Administration has refused to lift a finger to get this bill through 
the Senate and to the President's desk.
  For many, many years the high-tech industry has begged Congress to 
make the R&D tax credit permanent. It hasn't happened. What has 
happened is a decline in investment and a diminishment of innovation.
  The President has said that the U.S. should have universal broadband 
access by 2007. We've yet to see the Administration's plan for 
achieving this. Today the United States has fallen to 16th in broadband 
penetration, down from 4th in 2001.
  This resolution correctly points to education as a critical issue of 
competitiveness, but once again this Administration and the 
congressional majority have underfunded critical education programs. No 
Child Left Behind is funded $39 billion below its promised level. Pell 
grants will be eliminated for 90,000 college students, and an 
additional 1.3 million students will have their scholarships reduced 
this year. These figures do not meet the standards of a great nation 
serious about her technological and competitive future.
  The resolution states that energy is a major problem, yet the 
Department of Energy's independent analysts have said that the 
provisions in the House energy bill will have a ``negligible'' impact 
on prices, production, consumption, and imports of energy.

[[Page 15650]]

  The Administration continues to underfund critical Federal research 
programs, flat-funding civilian research and development and reducing 
total Federal research by $400 million. This underfunds our collective 
future.
  What is missing in the Congress is the commitment to reshape the 
critical policies which will renew our Nation's competitiveness in the 
21st Century.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am not voting for this 
resolution, because I think it does not make a constructive 
contribution to the problems facing our country and the national 
economy.
  The resolution says that trade restrictions and inequality are 
barriers to keeping and creating jobs in the United States--but it does 
nothing about them, just as it does nothing to make it easier for 
Americans looking for work to find good jobs.
  The resolution says that bureaucratic red tape is a barrier to 
economic progress, but it does nothing to reduce that barrier or to 
require the Bush Administration to exercise leadership in reducing red 
tape.
  The resolution says there is need for more innovation and investment, 
but it offers nothing substantive to promote innovation or to encourage 
more productive investment.
  The resolution correctly says there is a need to overcome barriers to 
health care security, but it does nothing to help the millions of 
Americans who lack health insurance or to make good health care more 
affordable.
  The resolution says we need to promote lifelong learning, but is 
silent as to how to go about achieving that desirable result.
  The resolution mentions taxes and the complexity of the tax laws, but 
provides no useful suggestions as to how to reduce that complexity or 
to promote tax fairness.
  The resolution complains about ``lawsuit abuse'' and seems to support 
``litigation management,'' but says nothing about the extent to which 
the courts can protect individual rights and the essential role of law 
in our society.
  And while the resolution correctly says there is a need for greater 
energy self-sufficiency and security, it does nothing about it. While 
that actually is an improvement over the energy-policy bill the House 
passed earlier this year, with its many wrong-headed provisions, it 
falls far short of what is needed.
  In short, this resolution is not serious. It deserves neither the 
time consumed in debating it nor approval by the House. I will not vote 
for it.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I voted for H. Res. 352 because I agree 
that there are barriers to keeping and creating jobs within the United 
States and that Federal agencies ought to review their rules and 
policies to improve the competitiveness of our economy. But I do not 
associate myself with the sense of the ``Whereas'' clauses that America 
must adopt foreign values and standards in order to compete 
economically. I also note that the ``Whereas'' clauses include partisan 
distortions and falsehoods that are an ill-considered disservice to the 
cause of American competitiveness.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 352.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________