Floor Statements

I thank my friend from Brigham City. I appreciate his generosity of yielding me such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I appreciate the fact that my friend from Worcester said we should have a defense capability that is second to none. We should be preeminent in the world. I appreciate his statement. I also appreciate the fact that he talks about the multifarious societal needs that are out there, ensuring that we don't see those who are struggling to make ends meet suffer. We concur wholeheartedly in that goal. But I have said this time and time again. I said it in the Rules Committee and Mr. Bishop and I had a discussion about this. And Mr. Hastings of Fort Lauderdale got into there as well.

This is my perspective. Thomas Jefferson said that two thinking people given the exact set of facts can draw different conclusions, but I've concluded as I looked at the preamble to the Constitution with all the important statements in there--We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States--I argue, Mr. Speaker, that the five most important words in the midst of that preamble are ``provide for the common defense.''

And the reason I say that is that as we look at all the things that the Federal Government does, virtually all of them--not all, but virtually all of them--can be handled by individuals, by communities, cities, families, counties, and States. But there's one thing that cannot be handled by those other entities, and that is our national security. We can't have the individual States providing for the national security. And that's why I believe it is the single most important responsibility for the National Government.

I believe that we can have a cost-effective national defense. I believe that we can correctly focus on waste. We know and have heard the horror stories, and we've heard about some of the waste that's taken place in the Pentagon. We've got to bring an end to that, no doubt about it.

At the same time, my friend from Utah just talked about the fact that our allies within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are spending a greater percentage of their gross domestic product on national security for the reason that they have felt threatened. They've lived under repression. There are NATO allies that have been countries that were basically under the control of the former Soviet Union. And in light of that, they continue to live with an understanding of how important national security is. We have important countries in Eastern and Central Europe that are struggling to not only become members of the European Union but to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization because they still are seeking a chance to be free of that kind of repression.

I'm reminded of what took place during the 2008 Summer Olympics in Georgia, when we saw the incursion from Vladimir Putin's Russia into Georgia over the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We continue to see lots of threats. It is a very dangerous world. Tragically, Plato said: Only the dead have seen the end of war.

And I remember that as we saw the demise of the Soviet Union, the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, many of us did believe as Francis Fukuyama famously wrote about the end of history, believing that political pluralism, the rule of law, and self-determination and democratic institutions would thrive all over the world. Well, it hasn't quite worked out that way in the last couple of decades. And we all know what the consequences of those threats have been. For the first time ever, we had the kind of attack that we did on September 11 on our soil.

All this is to say, Mr. Speaker, it's important that we have a strong, balanced defense authorization bill. And I believe that the National Defense Authorization Act that is before us is right. And I appreciated hearing the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, praise the fact that it's focusing on some of those very important social issues that she has raised and addressed. She complimented this defense authorization conference report for doing that.

And there are other things. This morning, I was listening to WAMU. I wasn't aware of this, but I heard the Delegate from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, talk about the fact that we are going to have recognition of flags in the District of Columbia for our veterans. And there's inclusion in this conference report that deals with that issue. She pointed to the fact that flags are very, very important. When we have foreign dignitaries come to the United States of America, flags are used to recognize their presence. Of course, veterans from the States across the country have that, but the District of Columbia hasn't. I'm pleased that Ms. Norton was able to have that issue addressed in the National Defense Authorization Act conference report.

And so this is a measure which I believe really transcends political party. There's great bipartisan support for it. And it also covers lots of important issues that do come back to our Nation's security. And so I believe, Mr. Speaker, that as we look, again, at those five most important words, from my perspective, in the middle of the preamble of the U.S. Constitution,

``providing for the common defense,'' that we are doing that--and exactly that--with this measure.

So I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the conference report that we will have. I believe it will be a great benefit to our men and women in uniform and to the future security of the United States of America and our allies.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 841 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Rochester, New York, the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I was just thinking about the fact that there are 26 letters in the alphabet, and we have had the first three letters used in discussion here on the House floor today, A, B, and my friend from Worcester brought up the letter C in talking about this. We have what is so-called letter B. And I'm not doing a Sesame Street skit here, Mr. Speaker. Letter B is what we are talking about, Plan B, and I think about Plan A.

Plan A is what the majority in the House of Representatives has been trying for the last 2 years to implement, and it's, very simply, a plan that is designed to put into place something that, interestingly enough, Democrats and Republicans alike say that they support. That plan is meaningful, strong, bold plans for a simpler, fairer Tax Code.

The President of the United States supports tax reform. I'm pleased that the President of the United States strongly supports the notion of taking the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. That, again, is a very positive area of agreement that we have. But I will say that we in the majority have been trying to put into place real, meaningful tax reform that can ensure that people will see reduced rates, and we will generate enhanced gross domestic product growth.

Coupled with that, our Plan A, Mr. Speaker, has been designed to bring about a reduction in the size, scope, and reach of the Federal Government. And everyone knows what that means. Everyone knows what has to be done to reduce the size, scope, and reach of the Federal Government, and that is real entitlement reform.

So Plan A consists, Mr. Speaker, of two simple things: pro-growth tax reform that will keep taxes low for individuals, job creators, and small businesses in this country so that we can encourage that kind of job creation to which we all, Democrat and Republican alike, aspire; and a reduction of the mammoth size of this behemoth, which, as we all know, encourages a cycle of dependence which has been generational, and it's essential that we turn the core of it.

So just getting our fiscal house in order dealing with the 16-plus trillion dollar national debt is, again, only part of that. But encouraging individual initiative and responsibility, creating pride in individuals by, again, paring back entitlement spending is the right thing for us to do as a nation. That's what Plan A consists of, Mr. Speaker.

Now, if you look at where we are today, we know 11 days from now we are going over the so-called proverbial fiscal cliff. What does that mean? It means that every single American who pays income taxes will see a tax increase go into effect. We also know there will be a massive sequester, which, as we have just passed the rule, and I guess we're going to have a vote on that, as we've just debated the rule on the National Defense Authorization Act, we know it could have a devastating--devastating--impact on our national security.

We know, I think Democrat and Republican alike--not universally, because I know there are some people who do want to go over that cliff, but very few--I think Democrat and Republican alike by and large recognize that increasing taxes on working Americans, in fact, will create a scenario which will impinge on our ability to encourage the kind of gross domestic product growth that is important for us and for our security as well, economic security and our overall national security.

So I think about my former California colleague, the now-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who said to this institution:

Please do what you can to ensure that we don't have that

sequester take effect. Do what you can. Work hard to try and

make sure that we can address abuse that's taken place within

the Pentagon spending, but have what is necessary for our

national security.

So as we look at these issues, we're going through a troubling time. We have divided government, something that those nations that live under a Westminster-type system don't have. We have a Democratic President and a Republican House of Representatives. I happen to believe that that creates an opportunity.

I didn't vote for Barack Obama for President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, but I will say that I do believe that having a President of one party and a United States House of Representatives of another party does create an opportunity for us to work together in a bipartisan way tackling entitlement spending.

We know that if my party had won everything, it would have been tough for us. It would have been tough for us because of the political attacks that would have taken place from the other side of the aisle to take on entitlement reform. But working together now that we have, again, a President of one party and a House of Representatives of another party, I believe that we can tackle this issue, and that's really what we desire. I think it's the right thing to do.

We're in the midst of very tough negotiations that are taking place between two people, as we all know: the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner. And I want to express my appreciation to

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I've been in the minority. I've served in the minority up until--from 1980 until 1994, 14 years I served in the minority, and from 2006 until 2010, for 4 years I served in the minority. And it's challenging. It's not easy.

But we are, as I said, 11 days away from going over the fiscal cliff, and we feel strongly about the need for this institution to state its position on this. I know that we've heard that the majority leader in the United States Senate, Mr. Reid, has indicated that he doesn't want to bring up, if this bill passes the House of Representatives, this measure, and the President has put out a Statement of Administration Policy that this bill would not gain his signature.

I don't think that anyone is convinced that the bill that we're going to pass here is one that is going to end up being the agreement, but it's very important in the negotiating process for work to proceed and for institutions to stake their position.

We happen to believe that Mr. Boehner has really made some bold steps in working to ensure that we do not go over that fiscal cliff, and I think that we are in a position today where I think that the action that we will take will be a positive step to enhance the chance for a negotiated resolution to this.

I want to say that the process hasn't been perfect, and I'm not claiming that everything that took place upstairs in the Rules Committee last night was perfect. But I will say, look at what it is that we've included: basically a reduction of $238 billion over 10 years in the reconciliation package that passed this House of Representatives earlier this year. The measure that we have before us that is going to be debated separately is one that is actually pared back from the measure that passed the House of Representatives. The only changes that have been made have been made to accommodate the date change, putting in this month of December in place of the earlier month this year when the debate took place.

We know what this is. And for those who might claim that the so- called ``reconciliation package'' that we have is imposing draconian cuts which will be devastating for those who are struggling in this country, I remind them of the alternative, which happens to be the sequester. It's our hope that this reconciliation package, Mr. Speaker, will play a role in ensuring that the sequester that would be devastating--I acknowledge it would be devastating--does not take place. This is the alternative to the sequester, Mr. Speaker.

The package that we have will, in fact, see rate increases for those earning in excess of $1 million. That's .19 percent of the American Federal income taxpayers. That means that all the rest of the Americans, an overwhelming majority, will actually avoid seeing that tax increase go into effect.

I also would like to say that we have to remember that if you look at the '01 and '03 tax cuts that became public law, part of that law, current law, Mr. Speaker, makes it clear that we actually would see those rates with the top rate at 39.6 percent. That's part of the '03 agreement that we had. So any action that we take that is less than that top rate of 39.6 percent, Mr. Speaker, is actually a tax cut, and we need to recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, what we're doing here--and I appreciate again the understanding of the minority--is simply trying to move ahead with this good-faith negotiating process that Speaker Boehner and the President of the United States are in the midsts of. I hope that in light of the balanced approach of this package, that we'll be able--by the way, this package has enjoyed at least statements of support from Democrats in the past from both the House and the Senate--I hope that this can be a positive step as we seek to resolve just as quickly as we possibly can this question.

We all know that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity; and our goal is, Mr. Speaker, to put into place a policy that will have the kind of certainty that will encourage our job creators and encourage those who are out there seeking to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder to have the kind of opportunity that is necessary.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

If the measures before us constituted the Republican Plan A, they would be a package of sweeping tax and entitlement reforms. They would provide considerable new revenues through economic growth and a simpler, fairer tax code. They would rein in our ballooning deficit by making our entitlement programs solvent over the long term. Together these critical initiatives would put our economy back on the path toward prosperity and opportunity.

For two years, this Republican Majority has worked tirelessly to enact Plan A. We have passed dozens of bills. Speaker Boehner has spent countless hours negotiating with President Obama. All in an effort to advance our Plan A. I still have hope that we will reach an agreement that will substantially achieve the goals that we have outlined: growth and balanced budgets through meaningful tax and entitlement reform.

But the measure before us today is not Plan A. It is Plan B. Time is running out. We are 11 days away from the end of 2012. 11 days away from our last opportunity to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. 11 days away from significant tax increases on every single tax payer in America and devastating cuts to our military.

The Members of this body may disagree on many things, but we all agree that the across-the-board tax rates that become effective on January 1 will have a very damaging effect on our frail economy. The first of today's underlying bills is a safeguard against the most detrimental aspects of the fiscal cliff. It extends the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the 99.81 percent of Americans who make less than $1 million a year. This action protects the middle class and virtually all small businesses. No other single action would go further to mitigate the crisis that is looming before us.

The second of today's underlying bills makes responsible spending cuts that will help to rein in our deficit without compromising national security. Defense Secretary Panetta has tirelessly exhorted Congress to avoid these draconian cuts to our military at all costs. We are absolutely committed to getting our fiscal house in order. But we must do so in a way that does not sacrifice our security. The underlying spending package makes essential cuts, while ensuring that we do not put our homeland and our troops at grave risk.

We of course want to go much further than simply limiting the worst of the damage of the fiscal cliff. We will continue to strive for a comprehensive solution until the tremendous challenges before us are addressed. These challenges will not be resolved in any sustainable way until we substantially reform our tax code and deal with the fundamental insolvency of our entitlement programs. But we would be utterly derelict in our duty to first do no harm if we failed to implement these critical stopgap measures.

It is essential to recognize that current law raises taxes for every single Federal income tax payer on January 1. Every working American, every small business owner, will face a higher marginal rate 11 days from now. That is the current law of the land. Today's underlying tax bill maintains current law for 0.19 percent of taxpayers, while cutting taxes for 99.81 percent. This is not a tax increase. It is a tax cut for very nearly everyone. Without it, we run the real and serious risk of plunging our economy back into recession.

Today's measures represent neither a comprehensive solution nor the end of our efforts to reach one. It is simply action that must be taken to protect our fragile economy and beleaguered workforce until a long- term solution can be reached.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to associate myself with the remarks that my good friend from Rochester has made as it relates to the sequester. I agree with her completely, Mr. Speaker. It is very important that we not let the sequester take place, and I hope and believe that she is right, that we will not see that happen.

Number two, I'd like to associate myself with her remarks as it relates to ensuring that we do not go over the fiscal cliff. That's something that is very, very desired on our part as well.

I'd also like to respond to just one point very quickly, Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my good friend from Roseville and say that I can provide my friend from Rochester, our distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, assurance that we will not be adjourning the Congress today and ending our work. I have said--I said in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker--that we are going to continue with our work.

The action that we are going to take relates to these two measures: again, the reconciliation package, which is designed to ensure, as my friend from Rochester has said, that we don't see sequestration, which we all know would be devastating if it were to take effect. It is a package of $238 billion over a 10-year period of time. It is a very responsible measure that is not going to be gutting programs but is going to responsibly begin to tackle entitlement reform.

I yield to the gentlelady from New York.

If I could reclaim my time, I will say again that I have served as long in the minority as John Dingell. I have served longer in the minority in this House, Mr. Speaker, than the dean of the House, John Dingell, has served, and I understand. I've served 18 years in the minority, and I

understand that it is challenging, and I respect that fact. To say that as we're dealing with the very end of this session that we're not trying to get to an agreement is a mischaracterization of where we are.

I've associated myself with the remarks of my friend from Rochester as it relates to our quest to ensure that we don't see the sequester take effect or that we go over the fiscal cliff, and to say that the package that we have that deals with the reduction of $238 billion over a 10-year period of time is, again, virtually identical to what passed this House. It has actually been reduced by 100 pages. It's much smaller than what was passed in May by this House, and I believe that it's a package that is, again, one that can responsibly be a first step towards something that we all know does need to be done. As I talk to Democrats, there is recognition that entitlement reform has to take place, and so I believe that that is the right thing to do.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend, a very, very strong budget hawk, my fellow Californian, Mr. McClintock.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inquire of my friend how many speakers she has remaining. It looks like she has a couple at least. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield 5 minutes to my friend from Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a very hardworking, thoughtful member of the House Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side?

So I think the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) might want to exhaust some of the speakers she has.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask my friend to yield? I will yield her an additional 30 seconds.

I just wanted to inquire. I didn't understand this ``there is no sequester here.'' We're dealing with the threat of a sequester, and our idea is $238 billion in spending reductions within the reconciliation bill that passed the House last May is what we're including. So I just didn't understand, if I could just ask my friend.

And I'm happy to yield her an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.

If the gentlewoman would further yield, let me just say that there is a plan to respond to the sequester, and that is the $238 billion reduction over a 10-year period of time that is the reconciliation bill that was passed by the House last May.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a very thoughtful colleague from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Tiberi.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to a great member of the Appropriations Committee, our hardworking friend from Savannah, Georgia, Ann's father, Mr. Kingston.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that we all know we're 11 days away from going over the proverbial fiscal cliff. We are trying our doggonedest to make sure that a sequester doesn't go into place. We all know that Secretary Panetta has said that that would be a devastating thing for our Nation's security.

I think that discussions taking place between the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives are very important. I also think it's important for every Member of the House to have an opportunity to state where they stand on these issues.

The bill before us is one which actually has, again, basically enjoyed bipartisan support. I remember when Senator Schumer made it clear that he believed that there should not be any increase for anyone who earns under $1 million. That was a request that he said. I know there was a lot of discussion within the Democratic Caucus as to exactly what that level should be. Well, this is at the level that Senator Schumer had indicated that he supported earlier on.

I've got to say to my friend from Rochester, Mr. Speaker, we are not planning to adjourn. We want to address this issue. We want to do everything that we possibly can, Mr. Speaker, to resolve this just as quickly as we possibly can.

We're just a few days away from Christmas. We are obviously still here working. We're prepared to come back after Christmas. Sadly, many of our colleagues are going to the funeral of Senator Inouye. That service that will take place in Hawaii has created a challenge for us when it relates to the schedule itself.

We understand that this is a difficult time, but we need to work together to put into place pro-growth economic policies. I think that there is, as I said in my opening remarks, a bipartisan quest to do that. I congratulate the President for his call for reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Real tax reform is something we've been trying to do for a while and I think can be done in a bipartisan way. Real entitlement reform that does not hurt our fellow Americans is something that can be done in a responsible way.

So I will simply say that this is not a perfect process, but it's an end-of-the-session process that's going on right now to deal with a tough, tough situation. We don't want our fellow Americans to be hurting, especially at this time of year as we look towards the Christmas holidays. I believe that we can see an agreement which will work to ensure that that does not take place.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, support the underlying legislation, both the tax issue and the effort to ensure that we don't see a sequester take place to bring about $238 billion, as the House passed it last May, of spending over a 10-year period of time. This is the right thing for us to do to get on a path that can provide certainty, which we all know is necessary.

So I urge support of the rule, and I urge support of the underlying legislation, both bills.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. It is a great privilege to stand here to recognize and honor Jay Pierson for his stellar service to this institution and, by virtue of that, to the United States of America.

Two years ago this month, I stood in the well to honor one of Jay's greatest friends, Dean Hirsch, who was the president of World Vision-- an amazing organization that has dealt with hunger and strife around the world. Interestingly enough, I was recognizing Dean Hirsch's 34 years of service to World Vision; and when I think about the kind of work that Dean Hirsch has done, in many ways, the issues that we

address and continue to pursue vigorously here in this institution are designed to do the exact same thing. We are focused on improving the quality of life and on recognizing societal needs not only here in the United States but around the world.

The reason I talk about this high-minded issue is that it's the kind of thing that our friend Jay Pierson has spent his life working on as well. Not everyone knows that he has roots in California. He is an alumnus of Westmont College, and he is someone who cannot be replaced and will not be replaced because he has this amazing skill on the House floor to ensure that things go smoothly. Now, things don't always go smoothly on the House floor, and you'll notice that when they're not going smoothly the reason is that Jay Pierson is not always at hand.

I will say that this institution is a greater place for his incredible service, and he has been a great friend to so many of us. As he heads into retirement, in recognizing that many of our colleagues want to speak, I just want to wish Jay well and congratulate him on his great service. I know that we are going to continue to hear and see great things that will come from this very, very patriotic American and committed public servant.

Mr. Speaker, as the Republic of Georgia deals with its first democratic transition of power, I spent the last few days speaking at length with President Saakashvili and the new Prime Minister Ivanishvili about the necessity to continue the pursuit of the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical moment for the Georgian people that could either put the country inexorably on the path of sustainable democracy or turn back the clock on the tremendous gains that have been made since the Rose Revolution. Mr. Speaker, the United States must remain engaged with the new government to promote continued democratic reform.

A robust democracy demands not only the ability of the majority party to advance its agenda, but also the preservation of the rights of the minority to raise questions and hold the government accountable.

Furthermore, prosecutions must be conducted in accordance with the rule of law, with full inquiries preceding arrests. Great diligence must be exercised to ensure that investigations are legitimate and not politically motivated.

I have urged and will continue to urge, Mr. Speaker, this new government to deliver on its campaign promises of continued democratic development and enhanced transparency.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say to our colleagues that it is very gratifying that in just a few minutes we are going to begin to address the first issue that will come before us as a lame-duck Congress, and it's an issue that is going to be addressed in a bipartisan way. I'm very happy to see my friend from Worcester here, who has joined with me in doing a ``Dear Colleague'' in support of passage of permanent normal trade relations for Russia and Moldova. Our commitment to economic growth and human rights is one which has led us to this point, Mr. Speaker.

And I think that the idea with the mandate from the election was for us to resolve issues and work together, and we are going to have a chance to do that. And so as I get ready to call up the rule in just a moment, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleagues that this is a great day for us to take on the very, very serious challenges. And I believe that the success we are going to have, with the bipartisanship that is going to be demonstrated on this issue, should lay the groundwork for the work of the rest of this Congress and I hope very much for the next Congress as well.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 808 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, let me say how great it is to see you in the Chair, and I wish you well.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Worcester, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, let me say, as I just mentioned in my 1- minute, it is very gratifying that, as we look at this election, we have many people who have used the term ``mandate'' to describe what it is they have gotten. The President says he has a mandate to increase taxes. Some Republicans say we have a mandate to not increase taxes. Lots of people throw this word ``mandate'' around.

I believe that the mandate is for us to focus on job creation and economic growth. And while we still embrace the Madisonian vision of the clash of ideas--it's a very, very important notion put forward by the author of the U.S. Constitution--at the end of the day, it's important for us to do something. And I think that the mandate from the election is that the American people want us to do everything that we can to create jobs, get the economy growing, and deal with many of the societal challenges that we face.

Mr. Speaker, that's why I say it is very gratifying that the first item out of the chute after the election is something we will be able to do in a bipartisan way. Not that it hasn't been controversial, and I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that there is controversy that surrounds this issue, and I'm going to talk about it, but I will say that it is great that we'll be able to do something, with Republicans and Democrats in the House, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, and the President of the United States on the same page in support of Russia's accession to the WTO and, most particularly, the opportunity for the United States of America, our workers, to have access to 142 million consumers in that country.

So, Mr. Speaker, on August 22, Russia became a member of the World Trade Organization. Again, a huge economy. In fact, the last large economy to actually become a member of the WTO, and that's a good thing. It's a good thing because Vladimir Putin is not a good guy. It's a good thing because we are going to, not only with accession of the WTO but also with the multifarious provisions that are included in this measure, call on the United States Trade Representative, call on the State Department, and call on other entities to focus on things like intellectual property violations, negotiations, sanitary and phytosanitary agreements, the information technology agreement, and the government procurement agreement.

There are a wide range of provisions in here that will force Russia to live with a structure that it does not have today and will not have until we take this very important action.

Now one of the reasons that I have been such a strong proponent of this issue has to do with a name, and it's not the name we're going to be talking about in a minute. The name is Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a businessman who was jailed and at this moment is incarcerated in the midst of a 7-year additional extension of his sentence for so-called ``tax evasion.''

Now I mention those two words in explaining why I'm here because I met

Mr. Khodorkovsky, who was the head of Yukos Oil and was widely respected. I'm sure he was a great businessman. But he was widely respected and was a great philanthropist in Russia. He was a critic of Vladimir Putin's. And as we all know, and as I said, he is incarcerated today for one thing and one thing only: being a critic of Vladimir Putin's. That's really why he's in prison.

Well, the reason I am standing here and am such a strong proponent of the action that we're about to take is that after I had met with Mr. Khodorkovsky in Moscow, he sat in my office right upstairs here in the Rules Committee. And in that meeting that I had with him, Mr. Khodorkovsky--a great philanthropist, one of the wealthiest people in Russia--said to me, I'm concerned about my safety and well-being. I think that there might be action taken against me.

Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed to say that my reaction was to laugh at him. I said, There's no way that a man of your stature, doing the kinds of good things that you've been doing in Russia, will face anything other than broad-based support.

Mr. Speaker, I was wrong. The human rights violations which have taken place against Mikhail Khodorkovsky and a wide range of other people are one of the other reasons that we are here, pushing very, very strongly for permanent normal trade relations to force Russia to do something that they might not want to do, and that is to live with a rules-based trading system.

The other name that leads us here, of course, is Sergei Magnitsky, a young lawyer who was simply raising questions, a so-called whistleblower, a whistleblower who was beaten to death 3 years ago tomorrow. Tomorrow marks the third anniversary of Sergei Magnitsky's death. And it is outrageous, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of action in this 21st century still exists in a country that claims to be a democracy. It is horrendous, and it is unacceptable. And that's why I believe coupling the permanent normal trade relations for Russia and Moldova along with the Magnitsky language--and I want to congratulate our Senate colleagues Ben Cardin and Jon Kyl, and I know my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has been involved in pushing this. I strongly support the effort that we have had that will ensure that those who are responsible for Sergei Magnitsky's tragic, brutal beating, which led to his death 3 years ago tomorrow, will be followed and be brought to justice.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a great bipartisan effort. It's one that I think will inure to the benefit of the people of Russia and the people of the United States. And I would like to say that, remember, we're not giving up a thing. We're not lowering a single tariff. There is not a single sacrifice that's being made here in the United States of America. What we're doing is we're breaking down the barriers there.

Last year, we exported $11 billion to Russia. The projection is that by 2017, our exports will be $22 billion, twice what we have today. And there are a number who anticipate that they will go actually beyond that.

So, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this is a win-win all the way around. It's a win for the cause of human rights. It's a win for the cause of those of us--Democrats and Republicans alike--who want to create good American jobs so that we can have access to 142 million consumers. And it's a win for the people of Russia, who deserve better than they have gotten and, through the U.S. access to that market, will have an opportunity to see their standard of life and quality of life improve, because I believe passionately in the interdependence of economic and political liberalization.

This accession to the WTO will enhance economic liberalization, and it will create an opportunity. I hope and pray for the kind of political reform that is desperately needed.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me again express my appreciation to my good friend from Worcester, and it's been a great honor and privilege to work in a bipartisan way with him on this, as I've been privileged to work with many Democrats in this House on many different bipartisan issues over the years.

And I'm getting ready to leave this place, Mr. Speaker. I'll be in January, as you will, moving on to another life. For me, it's after nearly three-and-a-half decades, and we've got lots of work ahead in the next 4 weeks. To have this trade issue as one there is something that is very gratifying for me.

As I mention that I'm leaving, for his first speech since being named chairman of the Rules Committee for the next Congress, I'm very happy to yield such time as he may consume to the very thoughtful, dedicated, and hardworking gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Sessions).

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that there are lots of hard workers in this House, and we all learned as kids there is a differentiation between a workhorse and a show horse. And I've got to tell you something, Mr. Speaker--and you know this very well--there is no Democrat or Republican in the United States House of Representatives who works any harder than Pete Sessions, and I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that he is going to be succeeding me as chairman of the House Rules Committee.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

And, Mr. Speaker, as I was sitting here listening to the very thoughtful remarks of my successor as chairman of the House Rules Committee, it reminded me of what really got him onto the Rules Committee and got him engaged with me, and interesting enough, Mr. Speaker, it was this issue. It was the issue of breaking down barriers to allow for the free flow of goods and services and capital.

When he first came to this body, Mr. Speaker, we were in the midst of our battle on China's accession to the World Trade Organization and establishing PNTR at that juncture, which has been a great thing; not that it's been problem free--I acknowledge that--but it's been a great thing to be able to take the steps that we have. And it was Pete Sessions, Mr. Speaker, who came to me and said, I want to help you with this. I actually gave him an assignment, and it was to talk to a half dozen Members about how important this was.

Mr. Speaker, in less than an hour he came back to me, having done the job right then, and that's why I describe

him as the person--as I say, there are a lot of hardworking people here, there are a lot of hardworking people on both sides of the aisle, but no one has been more diligent and worked harder than my friend Pete Sessions, and I thank my friend for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

When you said ``many years,'' you are my junior colleague by one term.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Levin, for his very thoughtful comments and to say I was very pleased to join with Mr. McGovern--as Mr. McGovern has mentioned and as I did earlier--a joint Dear Colleague to focus on the benefits of this legislation as we tackle this important challenge of human rights.

I happen to believe very fervently that economic liberalization is a key part of ensuring the ability of human rights to be recognized. That's why I think this legislation is very, very complementary in addressing not just job creation, economic growth, and improving quality of life for people, but I believe both aspects--the Magnitsky aspect and the permanent normal trade relations--together work to enhance the human rights situation that is as devastating as it is.

Mr. Speaker, I know I have talked about a number of other Members, but I'd like to say that for nearly a decade and a half I've been very privileged to work on a wide range of issues, but one of the most important has been the issue of trade liberalization with my friend from Hinsdale, Illinois. She is

going to be leaving this institution, as you, Mr. Speaker, are and as I will as well. But I've got to say that this institution is a better place. The issue of ensuring economic opportunity here in the United States and around the world is brighter for the work that has been done by Judy Biggert. I'm happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to express to my very dear friend from Philadelphia, express my appreciation, Mr. Speaker, for his very kind words and to say that the recognition that economic liberalization is one of the greatest keys to our goal of enhancing human rights, the standard of living, and the quality of life for our fellow human beings is a very, very important point; and I just want to underscore that point that was made.

Yes, the Magnitsky legislation is important, but I'm going to talk in just a moment about what some leaders in Russia have had to say specifically about PNTR and its impact on human rights.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, with that I'm very happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Huntington Beach, my fellow Californian, Mr. Rohrabacher. And pending that, let me say that he and I have been great friends since he was a speech writer for Ronald Reagan. We've worked closely on a wide range of things. And I just told him, Mr. Speaker, since I'm leaving Congress, he's taught me one thing and one thing only and that is how to make margaritas.

So with that, I'm happy to yield to my friend, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Will the gentleman yield?

I'd like to ask my friend if he has looked at the schedule that we have for the next 4 weeks. I think it's light years away until I deal with the last rule here if you look at our legislative schedule. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, at this juncture, I have no further requests for time. If the gentleman would like to close, I will then offer some closing remarks.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me offer some closing remarks and say that, as I reminisce, having spent virtually my entire adult life as a Member of this body, privileged to stand in this well for nearly three-and-a-half decades--making arguments, engaging in debate--as I said, I'm very gratified that we were able to work on one of the many final issues, which is the first issue of the lame duck session, in a bipartisan way as my friend from Worcester just said. I was privileged to work with him and to have him as a cosigner of this Dear Colleague letter that we sent out in support of this legislation.

I am reminded, in having listened to remarks from both sides of the aisle--my California colleague (Mr. Rohrabacher) and others--that on the 6th of November 1979, Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for President of the United States. He offered lots of eloquence and lots of brilliance, but he said something that at the time was seen as absolute heresy, not only here in the United States but around the world and within this hemisphere.

On the 6th of November 1979, Reagan envisaged this notion of eliminating tariff barriers among all of the Americas so that we could have the free flow of goods and services and capital and ideas, and yes, people as well. That's aspirational. That's a notion that he put forward. A few years later in the Congress, I was privileged to be elected the day Ronald Reagan was elected President. I joined with my colleagues Mr. Colby and Mr. Lewis, and introduced legislation calling for the elimination of tariff barriers among Canada, the United States, and Mexico, which led to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the idea behind this diminution--in fact, elimination-- of tariff and nontariff barriers is so we can enhance freedom, enhance opportunity, and improve the quality of life and the standard of living for people not only here in the United States, but around the world, as well. We understand that even in repressive societies, that if we can proceed with economic liberalization, political liberalization will follow.

I have to counter the statement that was made by my California colleague, Mr. Rohrabacher, about China. I am not going to stand here on the day that Xi Jinping has become the new leader of China and claim that things are perfect in China, but I will argue that permanent normal trade relations and China's accession to the World Trade Organization has been beneficial. Why? Because if one looks at the great leap forward in China, there were tens of millions of people who were killed. During the cultural revolution, well over a million people were starved to death.

So you look at the great leap forward, you look at the cultural revolution in China, and you look today at the horrendous human rights violations that exist in China, and my goal is still to see us move towards political pluralism, the development of democratic institutions, a greater sense of the rule of law. But there are a few thousand political prisoners in China. It's horrible. It's not acceptable. But, Mr. Speaker, I argue that that is progress.

It was 10 years ago that I was very privileged to work with President Clinton in seeing China's accession to the World Trade Organization and permanent normal trade relations established. We were able to do that right here in a bipartisan way, and things are better than they were. They're not great; they're not acceptable; but, Mr. Speaker, they are better than they were.

I know there are some who--and Mr. Rohrabacher thoughtfully did point to the fact that Russia is obviously not what it was like under the Soviet Union. I mean, we can all think back to the refuseniks. I remember adopting refuseniks, Jews who were unable to emigrate from Russia. You think about all of the military expenses that were involved throughout the Cold War, stories--I just came back from Georgia and the Ukraine, overseeing their elections, having been throughout Eastern Europe and Central Europe and heard stories about the kind of repression that existed. As bad as Russia is today, it's still a marked improvement over what existed during the Cold War and the time of the Soviet Union.

A lot of us held out a great deal of hope for Russia, more so than we have right now, just a few years ago, and because we've seen backward steps. I've talked about my friend Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who, at this moment, is languishing in a Russian prison for simply criticizing Vladimir Putin. I'm here today in large part because I want Mikhail Khodorkovsky to be freed. I want to see an end to that kind of treatment of individuals.

Similarly, tomorrow marks the third anniversary of the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky. It was absolutely horrible that this 37-year-old lawyer, a young man with, as my friend pointed out, a wife and small children, was imprisoned for simply being a whistleblower. He was tortured, abused, and left to die 3 years ago tomorrow. Again, in the 21st century, that is intolerable. It can't be accepted. That's why we need to continue to pursue this effort on economic liberalization.

I'm not going to counter what my friend said about the importance of the Magnitsky component to this legislation, but I would like to share the words of some formerly incarcerated Russians, some of whom were incarcerated human rights leaders in Russia who long before we did the Magnitsky language talked about how important this is. Let me just read a bit of this letter that is signed by seven human rights activists. It goes down the line of these Russians who have been opposition leaders in the forefront.

Before we did this, understanding how important PNTR and China's accession to the WTO would be, they said:

The persistence on the books of the Jackson-Vanik amendment

does not help to solve the problems with democracy and human

rights in modern Russia at all. Moreover, it brings direct

harm. This helps Mr. Putin and his cronies.

He is basically saying that repeal of Jackson-Vanik is something that is going to help undermine Putin and his cronies.

They go on to say:

Those who defend the argument that Jackson-Vanik's

provisions should still apply to Russia in order to punish

Putin's antidemocratic regime only darken Russia's political

future, hamper its economic development, and frustrate its

democratic aspirations.

We, leading figures of the Russian political opposition,

strongly stand behind the efforts to remove Russia from the

provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment.

This is exactly what this measure has done before.

While I'm gratified that we've been able, in a bipartisan way to include Magnitsky, there is recognition that simply repeal of Jackson- Vanik would go a long way towards undermining the political repression that exists in Russia today.

Mr. Speaker, I also have to say on this overall issue of trade, thanks are being spread around. I want to express my appreciation to my very good friends and colleagues, Dave Camp, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Kevin Brady, who chairs the Trade Subcommittee. I've worked with them for many years on the important issue of trade liberalization and in our pursuit of ensuring that we can create good American jobs, union and nonunion jobs, by opening up these markets.

I also have to say that I know people like to malign the 87 newly elected Republican Members, this Tea Party class of crazy people. You read that. You hear that in the media on a regular basis. Frankly, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, the leadership that they have shown on this issue and on the issues of Colombia, Panama, and South Korea are very important issues. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I express my appreciation to the fact that 73 of them signed a letter to the President saying that this needed to be brought forward. We want to work in a bipartisan way to make this happen.

I urge support of this rule, and then tomorrow when we have the vote on PNTR, a strong bipartisan support in behalf of the efforts of Messrs. Camp and Levin and Brady and others.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, this being the first day that we've convened since the election, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to our chaplain, Father Conroy, for his very inspiring and thoughtful prayer.

Mr. Speaker, we are here this week to deal with a very important issue. And I will say that we were all taught as kids, better late than never. We're here because U.S. workers at this point don't have access to 140 million potential consumers for their goods and services. I'm talking about the vote that we're going to have on so-called ``Russia Permanent Normal Trade Relations.''

Mr. Speaker, Vladimir Putin is not a good guy. Vladimir Putin has inflicted horrendous human rights policies on the people of Russia. We have seen crony capitalism take hold. And that's why it's very important, Mr. Speaker, that the United States of America be at the table as part of the WTO's effort to force Russia to live with the rules-based trading system.

Last year we exported $11 billion in goods and services to Russia. If we can pass PNTR, we will double that to $22 billion by 2017.

Mr. Speaker, it's a very important vote. We need to make sure that it's successful this week, and I'm gratified that it's going to be done in a bipartisan way.

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. 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. 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.

If I could reclaim my time, I thank my friend for his very strong commitment to this.

I would like to expand on this Medtronic example for a moment, if I could, because we talk about big pictures; we talk about numbers; we say, yes, we want to create jobs, but the example of Medtronic is very clearly a specific opportunity.

I wonder if my friend has any examples or if he has talked to executives at Medtronic about the benefits of opening up that market in Russia, because it's true. We are horrified at the crony capitalism that exists in Russia, and we are horrified at the human rights violations that exist, but there are also many very, very good, dedicated, hardworking Russian people who would like to have an opportunity to have access to many of the products that are made right here in the United States. I know my friend and I have traveled around the globe, and one of the things that consistently comes forward is people saying we want to be able to purchase goods from the United States of America, goods manufactured in the United States of America.

I wonder if my friend might tell us a little bit about the success of Medtronic and what has happened and exactly what benefit we would see created for jobs here and also for the consumers in Russia.

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.

We've still got months to go.

Absolutely, we should do that.

I'll just reclaim my time there to underscore the very important point that my friend has made, Mr. Speaker.

We all know that the intentions behind the Jackson-Vanik amendment were very good. We saw horrendous policies from the Soviet Union in a wide range of areas. Virtually everything they did was bad as the Soviet Union, a totalitarian country. But the denial of opportunities for Jews to emigrate, especially going back to Israel, is what led to that amendment to the 1974 agreement.

I would like to ask my friend to repeat again--he said that we've had complete compliance that we've been able to certify for now exactly two long decades since 1992. That's 20 years ago, 1992 to 2012. For 20 years, we've had annual certification because there has been an opportunity in Russia since, thank God, the Soviet Union came down with the work of so many people. We saw it come down, and we now have seen really what you would call a Cold War-era provision that has been left in place for two decades.

Why in the world would we still have this? It seems to me that it's the right thing for us to do to ensure that we sweep this aside so that we can move ahead with these market-opening opportunities. I assume that's the point the gentleman was making.

I'm happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time just to underscore this point, this notion that the WTO, which is an entity that stems from an agreement that the postwar leaders put together in 1947 called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the idea behind that was to diminish tariff and nontariff barriers. When we saw in the early 1990s the WTO put into place, the idea is to see issues like intellectual property violations, which we know are rampant around the world, in Russia, and we have intellectual property violations here in the United States, as well. We see lots of retaliatory action that is taken. With the structure of the WTO, there is pressure to live with a rules-based trading system to deal with these kinds of corrupt practices that go on with great regularity.

I'm happy to further yield to my friend.

If I could reclaim my time, I think the gentleman makes a very important point about what I like to refer to as the interdependence of economic and political liberalization.

We know people in this country are hurting. We all have constituents who are having a difficult time keeping a roof over their head, keeping food on the table. People have lost their jobs and their homes. We know it's been very tough. We know again that creating markets for these workers is very important. So seeing the standard of living improve throughout the rest of the world creates new markets for us, and it leads to political liberalization.

As we see that the many people in Russia who are suffering have opportunities to improve their quality of life and their standard of living by buying U.S. goods and services, it seems to me that's going to lead towards greater pressure for political reform, to address these human rights problems, to address the crony capitalism that exists, to address the kind of outrageous behavior that we see with great regularity from Vladimir Putin.

I'm happy to further yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, just to underscore again, PVC is that material that's used in sprinklers. And I see this PVC material. I have been very familiar with it for many years.

What my friend is saying is there is an opportunity for exports to exceed the $24 million coming from Louisiana to Russia, but right now we're seeing other parts of the world transcend that. By virtue of the fact that they have access to that consumer market in Russia, it's denying the people of Louisiana from being able to see an increase in the level of exports of PVC material into Russia.

I yield to the gentleman.

Well, Mr. Speaker, let me express my appreciation for the very thoughtful remarks. The dedication that my friend has shown to his Louisiana constituents and the American people is, really, very, very respected in this institution. And I want him to know how much, Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate his understanding of what it's going to take to create more jobs in Louisiana for the people there who are struggling and working so hard.

One issue that I wanted to mention, I talked about it earlier, but I think is

very important, and it's really what's led to people who are in opposition to this, and that is this question of human rights. We have horror story after horror story.

I have stood in this well and several times talked about the relationship that I developed with a man who is currently in prison in Russia, and this man's name is Mikhail Khodorkovsky. He was in the energy business, a company called Yukos. He was one of the most successful, dedicated, and hardworking Russians. He was one of the greatest philanthropists in Russia, giving huge sums of money to support many, many charitable causes.

But, Mr. Speaker, he was guilty of one thing and one thing only: He was not a supporter of Vladimir Putin. And he sat in my office in the Rules Committee, right upstairs here, and, having visited him in Moscow and then having him visit me here in the Capitol. He said that he was nervous, and he was concerned that he was going to face some consequences for his opposition to Vladimir Putin.

Today I'm embarrassed to say how I reacted. I laughed. I said, The Soviet Union no longer exists. We have moved to a country that is independent, free, strong, vibrant, moving away from corruption, and, you, Mr. Khodorkovsky--Mikhail, I was calling him then--I said, You are, in fact, one of the most successful people in the country. There's no way that you would face that kind of threat.

Well, Mr. Speaker, tragically, we saw Mikhail Khodorkovsky jailed for 7 years, and then we saw an extension, another 7-year extension of his sentence. I will tell you that that is one of the reasons, because of the dedication that I have to the name of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who at this moment is suffering in a prison in Russia, it is for that reason that I want us to take every step that we can to ensure that we bring about the kind of reform and the change that is essential.

What we've done in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is we have dealt with a specific case where a man died. Sergey Magnitsky was relatively young. He was in his thirties, a lawyer who raised questions and concerns about the behavior of Vladimir Putin's Russia. For that, he was sentenced to prison. He was beaten, tortured, and left to die.

That has raised concern here in the United States and around the world. That kind of action is not acceptable, and we have to do everything that we can to ensure that those who are responsible are brought to justice and that it never, ever happens again.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to say that in this legislation we have the so-called Magnitsky bill, which was reported unanimously out of our House Foreign Affairs Committee. This measure has passed the Senate. We need to see the melding of these. We need to see this put together and passed so that we can say that we're going to expand our American values, creating jobs in the United States by opening up this market and, at the same time, saying we will ensure that whoever is responsible for this kind of outrageous behavior is brought to justice. We're seeing, obviously, horrendous human rights violations take place around the globe.

Yesterday morning I stood here to talk about our great, great Ambassador, an amazing Foreign Service Officer who represented the United States in Damascus, Jerusalem, and other spots in the world in his dedicated career. Tragically, Chris Stevens was killed, as we all know.

We are seeing a very, very dangerous world, and that's why it's important for us to stand up and take action, and that's exactly what this measure calling for the U.S. to be at the table with Russia by granting PNTR will do.

Again, my friend has said it perfectly. Mr. Paulsen said it. Mr. Meeks said it. My colleague, I know, in his talking points that I submitted for the record, Mr. Moran, would have said it. Kevin Brady, the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee had to go to a meeting, but he very much wanted to be a part of our presentation this evening, and he passionately believes that this is the way for us to most effectively deal with the very, very serious problems that we have on economic growth and on human rights violations. I hope, I hope that we will be able to see passage as soon as possible.

Again, I know that this is the time of year, as I said at the very outset, just weeks before the election, to be very partisan. This is something that we can have a bipartisan victory on.

That's why, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to implore President Obama to get engaged on this. I know that there are many issues, again, looking at Africa and the Middle East. I know he is campaigning in his quest to be reelected. This is something that Democrats and Republicans in the House will pass with strong support if he will get engaged and work with us, work with us to ensure that we can bring this together.

And so I hope very much that he will do that in the coming days and weeks to underscore his goal of creating jobs.

I'd like to further yield to my friend. It looks like he'd like to offer something.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution on that. As we talk about human rights violations and the kind of threat that exists to those lovers of freedom around the world, I will say that just a couple of hours ago I talked to a friend of mine who is Libyan. In fact, his father was the lead opposition for four decades to Muammar Qadhafi in Libya. And he was in tears in our conversation, saying that the people of Libya owe everything to the United States of America. He said Benghazi would have been completely lost were it not for the United States of America and what it is that we did to bring about the kind of liberation that they so desperately needed, having been repressed for 42 years under Muammar Qadhafi.

And he went on to say that as we look at Libya, it's important to note that the tragic murder of Ambassador Stevens did not come from the people of Libya. It came from individuals, a few individuals. He said the people of Libya love the American people and revere the American people. I suspect that as we're talking about Russian PNTR that the same thing exists in Russia. Because they're living with great oppression. They're living with what is little more than an authoritarian dictatorship with the kind of crony capitalism and the violations of human rights that we're speaking of. Mr. Speaker, the people of Russia--and I know many Russians; we all do--have great respect and love for us as well.

So, again, our goal is to bring an end to repressive policies and use, as my

friend so eloquently said, the economic strength of the United States that is exemplified in every American who is working in whatever capacity at all to see our economy grow. Because we're the only complete superpower left in the world today, the only complete superpower. By virtue of that, I mean militarily, economically, and geopolitically. And we have to step up to the plate and continue to exercise that strong leadership role; and passage of permanent normal trade relations, taking this step will go a long way towards doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my friends who participated. And I know, as I've asked for general leave, others who wanted to be here who were unable to are going to be joining in submitting statements for the Record.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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

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

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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