David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I should state for the record that he was willing to offer me 1 minute during this debate, until I told him I was going to extend compliments to him, and that is how I got the 2 minutes of time here. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how much I appreciate the great work of the chairman of the committee, the chairman of the subcommittee and, of course, the ranking members of both the full committee and the subcommittee on this issue. As we look at the wide range of issues that have been discussed over the last few minutes, reform of the Corps, this important work in the Everglades, I am even more enthusiastic in my support of this legislation. But I rise to again extend compliments for the fact that this committee chose to take and include the authorization on a very important piece of legislation that is impacting not just the area which I am privileged to represent in Los Angeles, but in fact the entire country. In the middle part of the last decade, the discovery of perchlorate in the groundwater was something that came to the forefront in Southern California. Mr. Speaker, this came from the fact that during the 1950s and 1960s, during the Cold War buildup, that companies were in fact disposing of spent rocket fuel, legally, I should underscore. Well, since that time, some of the companies that were involved in that buildup during the Cold War are still in existence, but many of them are not in existence. I believe that those companies that are responsible, obviously, should shoulder the burden of this. But we obviously have potential legal problems, and this could be drawn out in the courts for many, many years. During that period of time, perchlorate will continues to seep into the groundwater. That is why this legislation is so important to move forward, because cleaning up the groundwater that has the potential of impacting 7 million people in Southern California, but also trying to figure out how we will effectively address this in the future and for other parts of country, is an important part of this measure. So I again compliment my colleagues for their vision and for including this very important measure, and I urge all to vote in favor of this very important legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would like to congratulate my friend. I just walked in, and I see the picture and I see the headline saying ``increasing payroll taxes again is not the answer.'' I would like to say that I could not agree with the gentleman more. Obviously increasing the payroll taxes would be a horrible thing on those struggling workers, certainly the middle-income wage earners. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to compliment my colleague on this very interesting special order.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for yielding me this time, and I would like to rise and congratulate my fellow Committee on Rules member for the very important role he has played in bringing about a very balanced compromise. It is no secret that I have for years stood in the well here and talked about the importance of globalization and global trade and expanding our Western values into repressive societies. I happen to believe that it has had a great deal of success, and I know that there are many here in this House who actually voted to broadly open up Cuba. But we were working on this compromise with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and several others here. So that is why I believe we have a carefully crafted compromise, and we hope very much the President is going to agree to sign this bill. I also want to say that I believe when it comes to the issue of prescription drugs, we are pursuing a reasonably balanced approach on that. We all want to make sure that affordable drugs are available to our senior citizens, and a prescription drug plan happens to be a very high priority for this Republican Congress. The fact of the matter is our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting to go to what is clearly a failed policy. It was a failed policy when it was applied here in the United States by a Republican administration, President Nixon, who imposed wage and price controls. It is a failed policy when we look at repressive societies all around the world. Cost controls do not work. And when we look at the issue which is of prime concern to every single one of us, and that is finding a cure for diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, it seems to me that we need to do everything that we possibly can to try to encourage and provide incentives for those individuals and those companies which are attempting to find cures for those so that we can, in fact, have an improved quality of life and we can have an extension of life, which is something that is very near and dear to all of us. So that is why this bill deserves our strong support. I urge my colleagues to support this rule. Vote against the previous question, or whatever it is they might try to offer, and let us proceed and get a measure to the President's desk which he can sign.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, which is very aptly named for the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, and I want to congratulate the gentleman for the hard work he has put into this. This is, as has just been pointed out by statements that have been made here, a measure that enjoys bipartisan support. We are extremely proud over the past several years we have been able to take on this issue of rebuilding our national defense. It has been a very high priority. It was stated here very clearly by the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) at the beginning of the 106th Congress that as we looked at the four issues with which we were going to deal, improving public education, providing tax relief to working families, saving Social Security and Medicare, clearly, as has been pointed out, rebuilding our Nation's capability has been a top priority. That is exactly what this legislation and the conference report which we are considering will be doing. Mr. Speaker, I would like to especially express my appreciation for a very important provision in this measure which deals with the issue of exportation of the export of computers. I believe that we have come to a very important compromise on this, which does reduce the time level, but at the same time, underscores our commitment to our national defense. I appreciate my colleagues for doing that, and I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for joining with me in that effort.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. At this juncture, we do not anticipate any appropriation conference reports to be on the floor on Tuesday.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Do we anticipate? As my friend knows, the Continuing Resolution expires one week from tomorrow, and we hope very much we will have the work of the 106th Congress completed by that time. So, at this juncture, we hope that we will be completed by next Saturday.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my fellow Committee on Rules member, the gentleman from Dallas, for yielding. I am pleased to announce to our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that the House has completed its legislative business for the week. The House will next meet for legislative business on Tuesday, October 10, at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. The House will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a list of which will be distributed to Members' offices later today. On Tuesday, the House will also consider H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. We are hoping in the Committee on Rules to be able to report the rule on that conference report out before too terribly long. I hope my friend from Texas will remain with us while we attempt to do that. On Tuesday, I should say there are no votes anticipated until after 6 p.m. On Wednesday, October 11, and the balance of the week, the House will consider the following measures: H.R. 4461, the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report; H.R. 4577, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Conference Report; and H.R. 4942, the District of Columbia Appropriations Conference Report. The House will also consider any other conference reports that may become available throughout the week. I thank my friend for yielding and hope that when we do report out this conference report rule upstairs that we will be able to send everyone home for the weekend.

Mr. DREIER. If my friend would continue to yield, I cannot provide assurance that my friend from Wisconsin will be completely happy with the procedure that will be followed.

Mr. DREIER. Well, I will assure my friend that we will not continue with any kind of ``charade'' that he thinks may or may not have taken place. We are going to try to proceed with conference reports and have votes on those next week.

Mr. DREIER. I think it would be great if we could finish it midweek and adjourn sine die, but that probably will not happen. At this juncture, we have until Saturday, when the Continuing Resolution expires; and it is our hope that we will complete our work by that time.

Mr. DREIER. We will obviously want to work closely with our friends on the other side of the aisle and down Pennsylvania Avenue to bring about some kind of resolution on that question. I think it is too early to raise that question, and we are all hoping that by the expiration of the Continuing Resolution next Saturday, we will be able to adjourn sine die.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, that glitch happens to be article 1, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman will yield further?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I would like to extend my appreciation to my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary, first, for bringing this up. This fee increase is one which was struck through an agreement in legislation that my colleague next to whom the gentleman is standing, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and I worked, beginning last October. It is very important for us to recognize that while just 2 days ago we were able to pass legislation which does bring about that increase to 195,000 the number of H-1B visas, it is important for us to realize the long-term solution is to do exactly what my friend from Michigan has said, focus on scholarships for the National Science Foundation, increase math and science education at the K through 12 level, and realize that if we are going to have a workforce that is going to be globally competitive, we must have them trained and educated here in the United States. Until that time, we have increased the H-1B visa level. We have had a bipartisan agreement to do that. It seems to me that this legislation, which I was very proud to introduce, after we passed the H-1B visa bill, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, is one which we can move immediately. Again, I would like to compliment my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and others who have worked long and hard on trying to move ahead with the package. On this issue of education and math and science education, I specifically want to mention the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who has done a great deal of work focusing on the importance of math and science training. So I hope we can move ahead just as quickly as possible. Again, I congratulate all those who have been involved in this effort.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, 2 decades ago I had the privilege of being first elected to serve here in the Congress, and one of the greatest members of that class in 1980 was the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who, as has been pointed out by virtually everyone here, has served extraordinarily well as chairman over the past 6 years of this very important subcommittee. I listen to my colleagues who are proud to represent this Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, and yet I have to say that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has also done an awful lot to help us deal with one of the most pressing problems that we have in my State, especially in the southern part of the State which I am privileged to represent, and that is transportation. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) just mentioned the focus on safety, and that, obviously, is a high priority. I want to praise the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for focusing on air traffic safety, which is obviously a very important issue, near and dear to virtually all of us who live outside of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area who travel by air regularly. Of course, for those of us who suffered through the horrible delays this past summer, we want to bring about some kind of resolution to ensure that that kind of thing does not, as many have predicted, get worse. Let me talk briefly about just four specific Southern California priorities that we have. First and foremost, for years we have worked together to deal with the challenges that have confronted the Metropolitan Transit Authority in Los Angeles. Dealing with the construction there has been difficult, but the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has regularly been understanding of the very important needs that we have faced there, and the fact that in Southern California, Los Angeles was the largest city on the face of the Earth without a mass transit system. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has helped us as we have moved ahead to try and address that need. Specifically, in the area that I represent, there are three particular priorities that we have. That is, number one, when we look at the fact that we live in a global economy, international trade is very, very important for our survival. The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are going to be providing an opportunity to expand trade in both directions, to the Pacific Rim and other parts of the world. A project known as the Alameda Corridor was established to make sure that goods could get to and from the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in the Los Angeles area to downtown. One of the things that we had to realize, though, and it did not come to our attention until a few years ago, is that once things got to downtown Los Angeles, they had to get to the rest of the Nation. So we established a priority known as the Alameda Corridor East so on the east side of Los Angeles, going to the rest of the country, we could deal with grade separations and other problems that existed there that would jeopardize the ability of goods to move in both directions. So there is very important funding here for the Alameda Corridor East, which is important. The other priority we have in our area, which is a very, very important one and with a great partnership, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) knows between the local communities, the private sector, and the Federal Government, has been something known as Foothill Transit. It has had wonderful success. Again, I believe, as I have testified before, the subcommittee of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) should be a model for the rest of the country of how we can see disparate levels of government come together, along with the private sector, to proceed with meeting this very, very important need. Then there is one little item, we in Southern California you may recall suffered fires and ensuing rains which caused mudslides. We have a very important road known as Chantry Flats, which has been wiped out because of those storms. I am very appreciative of the fact that we are going to be able to have the resources in to make sure that we construct that and get it back on track. So let me just say that along with the priorities that have been outlined by so many, the Coast Guard, which the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) talked about, very important to California, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is part of that important Maryland, Virginia, and metropolitan Washington D.C. area. His interest in dealing with national concerns, even those 3,000 miles away, has not gone unnoticed; and I greatly appreciate the time and effort he has put in to addressing our needs.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I said the President did.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield on that point, I think it is important for us to note that with that $264 billion projected deficit, it pales in comparison to the projected spending level that we would see under these plans that have been unveiled by Vice President Gore. I think that is one of the most troubling things. As bad as those proposals were projecting a $264 billion deficit, they look wonderful, and almost like a surplus, compared to what has been put before us as far as projected spending.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. The reason I am here is that, with two distinguished Texans having taken the floor, I think it is important to provide a little geographic perspective to this debate. The fact of the matter is my geographic perspective comes from California and the area which I am privileged to represent, Los Angeles, which happened to be the site of the Democratic National Convention. At the Staples Center, we saw the Vice President deliver a speech in which he unveiled about 37 different programs which, based on the studies we found, would cost a projected $2.3 trillion. And so, my friend is right on target when he talks about the fact that when we look at where it is we are going and the things that have been proposed, we are going back to a dramatic level of spending. In fact, I have argued that if, God forbid, Al Gore were to be elected President of the United States, there are many people, certainly on our side of the aisle, who might look back and think, my gosh, would it not be wonderful if we had the days of Bill Clinton again. Because we know that it has been President Clinton who has embraced the 1997 balanced budget agreement, putting us on the road towards balancing the budget not through the tax increase, much of which has been repealed in 1993 that he put through and which Vice President Gore was the deciding vote on in the United States Senate when they voted to do things like have a $48 billion cut in Medicare that was included in that package that they are so proud of, and at the same time we saw the President embrace our tax reduction effort in 1997. He has embraced the traditional Republican themes of free trade, and we are very proud that he joined with us in doing a number of free trade things; and, of course, the welfare reform bill, which, as we all have said time and time again, he twice vetoed and ultimately signed. My point is that those bipartisan accomplishments which President Clinton has joined us on, would I believe in large part be reversed with many of the programs that my friend is referring to that have been unveiled by the Vice President. I think it is very important for the American people to know that, while people have said that the moniker of tax and spend which traditionally had been put around the necks of Democrats in the past and we Republicans have so often said tax-and-spend Democrats, it has been not as easy to do that over the past few years since President Clinton joined with us in a number of initiatives, but if we look at this proposal which has come forward from Vice President Gore, tax and spend would be an understatement for the pattern that we would have. I wonder if my friend would agree with that.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield on that point, when I heard him mention the Great Society, I was reminded of an analysis that I heard of the programs that have been put forward by the Vice President, and an independent analyst, I frankly have to admit I do not remember which one it was, I was either reading the newspaper or I may have listened to it on National Public Radio, they came on and talked about how these proposals which have come forward from the Vice President actually match, or in some cases even exceed, the level of spending that we saw launched as the Great Society. We do know full well that the spending on subventions that we saw launched with the Great Society were in excess of $5.2 trillion, as Speaker Hastert likes to say, with a T, that is trillion with a T, $5.2 trillion in spending; and we saw during that period of time the poverty level in this country go from 14.7 percent to 15.2 percent. And so that pattern has clearly failed. And we all know very well that it has failed around the world, as we have seen people clawing toward self- determination. We are watching the situation unfold at this moment in Belgrade where hundreds of thousands of people are storming to have self-determination because they feel that their votes were improperly counted there. The rest of the world is moving towards individual initiative, responsibility, self-determination, and the proposals that have come forward from Vice President Gore shift us back to the failed policies of the Great Society. That is something that I think again the American people need to know and it is an extraordinarily troubling situation.

Mr. DREIER. I am going to give a second opinion, but it is my opinion of what Professor Cogan had to say on the issue of tax reduction. My friend, another Dallas friend of mine here, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), just handed me a clip from the editorial page of the ``Wall Street Journal.'' First, I see we are joined by another gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield, that was due to one measure. It was the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which Ronald Reagan pushed for and was able to get ultimately some southern Democrats and some of your Texas colleagues to vote in favor of. That laid the groundwork for a doubling of that flow of revenues to the Treasury through the decade of the 1980s.