H4912 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 18, 2012 

all about the future of public broadcasting. For unless we fight it now, 

there may be nothing left to protect. 

f 

RUSSIA’S MEMBERSHIP IN THE 

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

California (Mr. DREIER) for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, the 

cover of this week’s Economist magazine covers it very well. Rebuilding 

America’s economy is its point. We all 

want to do everything we can to create 

good, American jobs. Well, unfortunately, we’re on the verge of losing a 

potential market of 140 million consumers. And the reason I say that is 

that just last week and today, debate is 

taking place in the Duma, the Russian 

parliament. The Duma is the lower 

house, and the Federation Council is 

the upper house. The Duma has passed 

it, and the Federation Council today is 

debating. They may have already voted 

on it. They are going to be joining the 

World Trade Organization. 

This Economist publication talks 

about the fact that the way we rebuild 

our market is through expanded exports. Well, we know that forcing Russia to live with a rules-based trading 

system is something that could inure 

to the benefit of U.S. workers. And 

that’s what accession to the WTO is. 

Guess what? Russia is going to be a 

member of the World Trade Organization within 30 days. The question is 

whether or not the United States of 

America will be able to have access to 

that market. We all know that Putin 

engages in crony capitalism. They have 

a massive bureaucracy and a corrupt 

court system. Forcing them to live 

with a rules-based trading system is 

the right thing for us to do. 

Now, I’m happy to say that there has 

been an effort led by my colleagues, 

Mr. LONG and Mr. REED, within the 

freshman class that has brought 73 Republican Members to send a letter to 

the President of the United States urging support of permanent normal trade 

relations with Russia and urging this 

institution to support that. I’m happy 

it’s a bipartisan effort. My friend, Mr. 

MEEKS, has joined in this effort, as 

well. 

I would like to, at this point, yield to 

my good friend from Missouri (Mr. 

LONG) and thank him for the effort 

that he has made to tackle this important issue. I’m happy to yield to my 

friend. 

Mr. LONG. I thank the gentleman for 

yielding. 

Madam Speaker, we agree that we 

need to get our Nation’s economy 

growing again in order to create jobs 

for American families. Increasing our 

Nation’s exports is one area that would 

help grow the economy and create jobs 

without costing one thin dime. I support free trade because more exports 

equal more jobs. 

I recently led an effort, as Mr. 

DREIER mentioned there, to rally my 

freshman class to support permanent 

normal trade relations with Russia. 

After nearly two decades of negotiations, Russia is poised to join the 

World Trade Organization this summer, and without repealing a Cold Warera trade restriction, American businesses will be at a severe disadvantage 

to international competitors. While the 

U.S. already trades with Russia, the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik provision 

would level the playing field for U.S. 

exports after Russia joins the WTO. 

b 1010 

The media and some in this country 

like to portray my freshman class as a 

group that’s not willing to work for the 

benefit of the American people or work 

in a bipartisan spirit. We can put those 

portrayals to rest. The President has 

shown an interest in increasing American exports, and the purpose of my 

letter was to show the President that 

73 Members of the Republican freshman 

class are willing to work on this issue 

to help support American jobs. 

I will continue to support efforts that 

will boost trade opportunities for 

American manufacturers and businesses. This is about doing what is 

right for our country and supporting 

efforts to create jobs for American 

families. 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me 

thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution and, in fact, disabusing people of this notion that 

somehow this group of 87 new Republicans who have come to Congress are 

not willing to tackle important issues. 

They led the effort to bring about passage of the Panama, Colombia, and 

Korea Free Trade Agreements. And 

once again, they’re providing tremendous leadership on our goal of creating 

good American jobs by prying open 

that market and ensuring that the 

United States worker will have access 

to it. 

If you think about not only creating 

jobs here, but dealing with the problems of crony capitalism, dealing with 

the problems of a massive bureaucracy, 

and dealing with a corrupt court system—which is what exists under Vladimir Putin today—this is the right 

thing for us to do. We should not lose 

access to the market. 

I also want to note that my very 

good friend, Mr. HERGER, who has been 

a great leader on the issue of trade, is 

here. Mr. BERG is here as well, who’s 

been very involved in this. 

I would be happy to yield, if I might, 

to my friend from New York (Mr. 

REED), who has played such an important role on the trade issue. 

Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman, 

and I rise today in strong support to 

join my friend from California. As he 

knows, we’ve been supportive of free 

trade from the moment we got here, 

and I was so pleased to see Colombia, 

Panama, and South Korea be passed. 

WHAT WOULD RONALD REAGAN 

DO? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Virginia (Mr. CONNOLLY) for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam 

Speaker, this month, as American families and businesses anxiously await 

Congress’ action on the expiration of 

any number of tax cuts, I thought it 

would be a good idea to ask ourselves 

again that question: What would Ronald Reagan do? Let’s query the Gipper. 

After all, for the past 3 years all we’ve 

heard from Republicans is the claim 

that President Obama taxes too much. 

When the Tea Party started its lobbying efforts in 2009, their name ‘‘tea’’ 

actually was an acronym standing for 

‘‘taxed enough already.’’ So just like 

the Republican Party, the Tea Party 

expressed an apoplectic furor about 

what they thought was happening to 

taxes. 

But while blind conjecture and pithy 

slogans are useful in getting attention, 

they ultimately fail unless they’re 

backed by facts. Thankfully, the nonpartisan Congress Budget Office recently came out with its comparison of 

the average Federal tax rates paid by 

American families over the past 31 

years. I’m sure Republicans and the 

Tea Party were all as surprised as 

many of us to learn that since 1979 

Americans paid the lowest average 

Federal rate in 2009 under President 

Obama. That’s right. Thanks in large 

part to the Recovery Act’s $243 billion 

in middle class tax cuts—which my 

friends on the other side of the aisle 

opposed to a person—the average Federal tax rate fell to a 31-year low. 

The average Federal rate since 1979 is 

21 percent—meaning that, on average 

over the past 31 years, Americans paid 

21 percent of their yearly income to the 

Federal Government each April. The 

previous low for the past 31 years was 

18 percent. But in 2009, President 

Obama’s first year in office, the average Federal tax rate actually fell to 

17.4 percent, the lowest since 1979 when 

Jimmy Carter was in the White House. 

That means a lower percentage of taxes 

paid than under Bill Clinton, lower 

taxes than under both of the two 

George Bushes, and, yes, a lower average Federal tax rate than under the 

Gipper, Ronald Reagan. 

Throughout President Reagan’s 8 

years in office, the average Federal tax 

rate was 20.9 percent, never dropping 

below 20.2. In contrast, in his first year, 

the average rate under President 

Obama was 17.4. In other words, after 

taking into account all the tax breaks 

and tax loopholes—especially the Recovery Act’s Making Work Pay tax 

cut—Americans, in 2009, paid 2.8 percent less of their income to the Federal 

Government than they paid during 

Ronald Reagan’s best year. Ronald 

Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, the 

other George Bush, and President 

Obama. By far, President Obama has 

the lowest tax rates. 

Perhaps if the average Federal tax 

rate under President Obama was as 


rfrederick on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 18, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4913 

high as those during President Clinton’s second term, then maybe Republicans would have a better argument. 

Of course, President Clinton’s second 

term also saw significant job growth 

and expanding economy, and the only 

Federal budget surpluses since 1969— 

four in a row. But to complain about 

Federal deficits and then immediately 

call for cutting taxes on the highest income brackets—even lower than the 

current 31-year low under President 

Obama—shows significant hypocrisy or 

a lack of basic addition and subtraction skills. 

So as today’s Republicans try to spin 

a tax fairy tale, where the lowest Federal tax rate in 31 years under President Obama is somehow too high, while 

ignoring the higher rates through the 

eighties and nineties, perhaps it’s time 

once again to ask: What would Ronald 

Reagan have done? 

Republicans, even those who profess 

to idolize President Reagan, of course, 

won’t ask because they don’t want to 

hear the answer. Following the significant initial tax cuts in 1981, President 

Reagan subsequently signed into law a 

host of taxes to try to bring the budget 

back into balance. Five times he raised 

taxes in his 8 years. 

Madam Speaker, as Congress debates 

the extension of the current tax burden, comprehensive tax reform, and 

overall budget deficits, I again feel 

compelled to ask my colleagues: What 

would Ronald Reagan do? 

f 

GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM, 

NOT THE SOLUTION 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. POE) for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, 

recently I heard from Jacqueline, a 

small business owner in southeast 

Texas, and here’s what she said: 

Business owners who want to succeed put 

their heart and soul into their business. 

They are the ones who get there at the crack 

of dawn and leave after everyone else is long 

settled in for the night. I’ve been a small 

business owner, and I know a great many 

others like me, and nobody did anything for 

us, we did it for ourselves, and the only thing 

that the government did for us was tax us. 

Apparently, this President disagrees 

with Jacqueline’s statement. According to the administration: ‘‘If you’ve 

got a business, you didn’t build that. 

Somebody else made that happen.’’ So 

the President is inferring, I suspect, 

that government should get the credit 

for the success of entrepreneurs. He is 

wrong, Madam Speaker. 

People are the reason for American 

success—not government. Americans 

have the vision, creativity, and audacity to pursue a dream—not the government. Americans risk their life savings, not knowing what profit they will 

get back in return for their labor. Government doesn’t risk anything. Americans spend long days, sleepless nights, 

and working on weekends away from 

their family in order to keep their 

company afloat and pay their employees. Americans battle through discouragement and criticism in the hope for 

better days ahead. It is Americans who 

give up their home in order to pay for 

a store. And it’s Americans who pay all 

those taxes and expensive government 

regulations that they’re forced to pay. 

Government isn’t there when a decision is made to get a business started, 

to take a leap of faith, make a hire, 

sell first goods, or tally bills. People 

pursue their own American Dream 

without government holding their 

hand. 

Those believers in Big Government 

say that Americans can only be successful if government controls their 

lives. Madam Speaker, government 

isn’t the answer; government’s the 

problem. America is not great because 

of government programs. It’s great because of Americans, individuals with 

the spirit and desire to make their 

lives and this country better. Government doesn’t assume the risk in business, individuals do. 

Starting a business is not easy. Business is driven by American ingenuity, 

creativity and, yes, hard work. Those 

who have been successful didn’t wait 

around for someone else to help them 

with a government handout. The reality is that government actually 

makes it harder to do business now, 

not easier. 

When I ask Texas businesses what 

Washington can do for them, their answer is always the same: get out of the 

way. Businesses cannot afford to hire 

others and give them jobs because of 

the costly, unnecessary regulations imposed by government. 

b 1020 

According to the World Bank’s 2012 

‘‘Doing Business in a More Transparent 

World’’ report, the U.S. now ranks 13th 

in the world in places to start a business. We trail countries like Belarus, 

Macedonia, and Rwanda. Now, isn’t 

that lovely? 

America should not be a place where 

people wait for a government handout 

check. Instead, they should get a paycheck for working. 

Individual achievement used to be 

celebrated in this country, but the administration seems to punish success. 

And what does the government do 

when individuals are successful? The 

government punishes them with taxes. 

According to the collectivists, business wealth was created by government, and so it belongs to everybody. 

Sounds a lot like statism to me, 

Madam Speaker, the idea that citizens 

should be beholden to the government 

for everything and government is worshipped as the savior of us all. That is 

not the American philosophy, I know. 

So the policy is, under the statists, 

tax people to death. Madam Speaker, 

you’ve heard that statement. If something moves, regulate it. If it keeps 

moving, tax it. And then if it stops 

moving, subsidize it. Government is 

doing all of the above to businesses in 

this country. And government is also 

overtaxing those small businesses, 

keeping 23 million Americans from 

finding jobs. 

Madam Speaker, small businesses 

create most of the jobs in this country. 

You see, when a small business is successful it can expand by hiring people. 

Government doesn’t create jobs; people 

and businesses do. 

So what next? Are the good days of 

American exceptionalism behind us? 

No. Americans are as exceptional as 

ever before, and it’s the government 

that is our problem. 

Where I come from, we teach our kids 

that, in this country, no matter who 

you are or where you came from, hard 

work and personal responsibility will 

pay off. In the America I know, people 

earn their paycheck and don’t sit 

around waiting for a free government 

check. 

Small business owner Jacqueline is 

correct. Individuals, American ingenuity, and free enterprise create success, not Washington. That is the 

American Dream, Madam Speaker. And 

when you see the President, tell him 

he’s wrong. 

And that’s just the way it is. 

f 

WE NEED PNTR NOW 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

New York (Mr. MEEKS) for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MEEKS. Russia, with some of the 

world’s most sophisticated consumers 

and a rapidly growing market, will join 

the World Trade Organization by summer’s end. After 18 years of negotiating 

with the United States and the World 

Trade Organization, after improving 

their trade laws and reducing tariffs, 

yes, very shortly Russia will be a member of the World Trade Organization. 

For the United States, this could 

mean improved market access for our 

exports of goods and services. It could 

mean protections if Russia violates 

international rules. It could mean a 

trade boost, an additional 50,000 jobs or 

more right here in the United States of 

America, and all of this, if the United 

States and this Congress lifts the Cold 

War relic, the Jackson-Vanik amendment, and authorizes permanent normal trade relations. We’ve waived 

Jackson-Vanik for over 20 years. We 

now need PNTR, and we need to do it 

now. 

Our competitors will have access to 

that market. We will then fall behind 

them. 

We can compete with anybody in the 

world. This is the greatest country in 

the world. Let’s not lock ourselves out 

of the market in Russia. Let’s not put 

ourselves behind our competitors. 

Here’s an opportunity for us to come 

together. 

You heard earlier this morning my 

friend and colleague, DAVID DREIER, 

bringing folks together, talking about 

how we can do this together with the 

President of the United States, who 

has an export initiative, to create more 

jobs. 


rfrederick on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE