David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to have the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) joining us. Let me say as we look at where we stand on this tax proposal, the thing that was very, very troubling was this argument that, of course, every bit of benefit goes to the richest 1 percent of the American people. We continue to have that argument put forward. Professor Cogan has really blown the top right off of that argument, as was pointed out, in this piece in the Journal the day before yesterday, in which it talks about the fact that people at the lowest end of economic spectrum are those that have the greatest percentage reduction. I guess if you look at the fact that there are people who make large amounts of money and maybe pay $500,000, $1 million in taxes, you have got to ask if someone does pay $500,000 in taxes, as Michael Reagan posed last night on his radio program when I was talking to him, are they not entitled to some type of reduction? Well, under the plan that Governor Bush has put forward, they would get about a 10 percent reduction in their tax burden. Yet those who are earning less than $35,000 a year get how much, based on this assessment that Professor Cogan has put forward? A 100 percent reduction. Why? Because if you couple the doubling of the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, along with the overall rate reduction, it is very, very clear that those who are earning less than $35,000 are the greatest percentage beneficiaries from this program that has been put forward by Governor Bush. Again, that has not gotten out there, but Professor Cogan very correctly points to that, those who are in the upper-income levels have the lowest percentage reduction. But it does seem to me that the argument that we have been getting for the past several months on this us-versus-them class warfare, that is why I think George Bush is right on target when he describes himself as a uniter and not a divider. I have oft quoted our former colleague, the late Senator Paul Tsongas, who said it so well. He said, ``The problem with my Democratic Party is that they love employees, but they hate employers.'' So that has created a situation where we do not recognize what my friend from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Armey) has just mentioned, where the people in, for example, the technology sector of the economy, 45 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product growth in the past 3 years has come from these job creators. Yes, there are a lot of very rich people, and I know my friend opened by talking about Bill and Al. Bill Gates is one of them, who has been very successful financially. But look at what he has created in jobs, in improving the quality of life and standard of living, not only here in the United States, but around the world. So they are tremendous beneficiaries of this successful man, who has had the incentive to try and look at creative ways to deal with challenges that are out there. And these proposals, which would be so divisive, that the Vice President has put forward, would do little more than stifle that kind of creativity. I find it very troubling.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my best wishes to our colleague Chairman Bill Goodling as he returns to the private sector and express my thanks for his many years of service to the nation and to the people of Pennsylvania. I have had the privilege to serve with Bill Goodling since I was elected to the House in 1980 and throughout that time I have been impressed with his strong commitment to putting people before politics. Bill Goodling's 22 years of experience as a public school teacher, coach and principal in York County, Pennsylvania were the perfect preparation for his service as Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Throughout his tenure as Chairman, Congressman Goodling has made a lasting impact on how we view the federal role in both education and the workforce. Chairman Goodling has emphasized allowing decisions to be made on the local level and creating a federal system that works effectively and efficiently with local authorities. Since Republicans came into the majority, Bill Goodling has taken the primary leadership role on some of the most important legislation affecting Americans. He has been central to Congressional efforts to pass legislation to reform the welfare system and to eliminate waste in the Department of Education. Through bills like Dollars to the Classroom which would direct 90 percent of federal funding for education directly to the States and local school districts and allow no more than 10 percent to be used for administrative purposes and the EdFlex legislation which provide States with the flexibility to decide where federal funding is most needed without the typical red tape and regulations from Washington, he has been successful in forcing us to reexamine the role of the federal government in education. Along with these accomplishments, his work to address the needs of the disabled in both our education system and the workforce will remain a strong legacy for Bill. Since it's enactment in 1975, he has shown a strong dedication to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA has helped to ensure that students with disabilities receive the same access to a quality education as other children. he has been tireless in his work to improve the program and to push for the full federal funding requirement 40 percent which, under his leadership and commitment is expected to happen by 2004. I would like to express my personal appreciation for Chairman Goodling's help in my attempt to promote financial literacy education in our schools. With his support, the House passed my concurrent resolution encouraging the Secretary of Education to promote financial literacy programs in schools. As well as this resolution, he also supported my request for inclusion of language in the Elementary and Secondary Reauthorization Act that would provide grants to states and implement financial literacy programs in their schools. While we will all miss Bill Goodling's leadership and friendship, I know he will enjoy this next step in his life and I wish him and his wife Hilda all the best.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in less than 2 hours millions of Americans are going to be watching what will certainly be a very exciting and stimulating debate that will take place between Governor Bush and Vice President Gore. It is going to be a very partisan debate, and that is why I am happy that we in the House of Representatives just 2 hours before that debate are able to participate in a very important bipartisan effort here. It is one, as my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), said, that began over a year ago. And, yes, it was about a year ago that we began working together on this issue. I want to say, first of all, that the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims (Mr. Smith), has been extremely helpful in moving this process ahead, and there are a litany of people on our side who have always worked very hard on this: the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), who is managing this bill now; the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte); and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who has the very important component which really has not been mentioned a lot, and that is the issue of education, his focus on math and science education, which will create a scenario where we do not have to rely on H-1B visas for these jobs to be filled in the United States. That is the long-term solution. I should say that is why my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, and I have joined just a little while ago in introducing H.R. 5362, which takes the very important component in our legislation which is designed to increase the fee from $500 to $1,000. Why? So that we can have the resources necessary to address these very important issues which the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) has focused on. Now, let me say that, again, this has been a bipartisan effort, and I want to express my appreciation to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). We have gone through some bumpy times on this issue; but we have come, again, to accept this very, very great piece of legislation that our colleagues in the Senate by a vote of 96 to 1 have passed. Also there are other people on the other side of the aisle who have worked hard on this, including the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran); my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley); and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), who just spoke very eloquently about the fact that we will be creating jobs right here in the United States by increasing the number of H-1B visas. Today there are about 300,000 jobs that need to be filled, and those jobs have not been filled. Why? Because we do not have the expertise here in the United States to do that. Now, what is it that can allow us to fill them? To make sure that we break down barriers and allow that expertise, regardless of where it is in the world, to be right here in the United States. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) just quoted the chairman of Intel, Craig Barrett, who said very appropriately that we can either choose to import workers, or export jobs. The fact is there are countries in the world today that would very much like us to see not only the jobs, but actually the bases for these operations, the headquarters, to move to Singapore, Ireland or other spots in the world. We need to do everything we can to break down government barriers, so that we can make sure that that expertise is here. Now, a number of people have mentioned the fact that we have seen tremendous strides in the area of biotechnology. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) just spoke eloquently about the genome project. When you look at the fact that we want to cure a wide range of diseases that are out there, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease, we need to make sure that we continue with innovation. That is why the pharmaceutical industry, which I know has been criticized in this presidential debate, is very key. They have to have the expertise available to do this. Also in the technology sector, again, that ripple effect which the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) mentioned is so key, because jobs will be created right here. What we have is a situation where we are relying on people and brain power, not steel and machines. That is the wave of the future. So for us to break down a governmental barrier is the best thing for us. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that we are going to move forward in doing the right thing. The gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), our majority leader, have worked long and hard and have been very supportive of this. I am pleased that having gone through this challenging time, that we have come together in a bipartisan way. I hope that we can overwhelmingly pass this, take this language, send it down to the President for his signature, and improve the quality of life for the people in the United States and around the world, and increase the number of American jobs right here for Americans.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the time and thank him for his management of this rule. We filed this late last night, and I want to rise in strong support of it and the underlying conference report. And I want to congratulate the retiring distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the former mayor of Carlsbad, who will go off and be doing all kinds of wonderful things as he leaves behind him this great work product. I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. And I want to take just a few minutes to talk about a very important provision which is in this bill, which I have been working on for a number of years. It began in Southern California when the water quality authority, a group that came together to address the water challenges that we have there, found something called perchlorate in the groundwater. And perchlorate is a chemical which unfortunately has tremendous negative repercussions getting into the groundwater. We worked hard to try and find out exactly what led to the perchlorate getting into the groundwater, and they discovered that it came from the legal disposal of spent rocket fuel during the military buildup during the Cold War during the 1950s and 1960s. Many people, when this perchlorate was discovered, began pointing fingers and saying that somebody is responsible for this. One of the things that we found, Madam Speaker, is that there are many companies that were very important to the buildup during the Cold War that are no longer in business, and so it was easy to begin pointing fingers. Some of us said that we needed to solve the problem, and so that is why, when we look at the fact this is a national security issue, yes, it was first discovered in Southern California, but this has national repercussions. It has national repercussions because the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, has been faced with the same problem. There are people from other States of the Union who have found just recently the discovery of perchlorate in the groundwater. So I was very pleased that several months ago the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the subcommittee chairman, agreed to put together a hearing which was designed to specifically address this question. We were able to utilize something I am very proud of, new technology; and we had a hearing of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the subcommittee that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) chairs, which was able to include community activists from Southern California, people with the Water Quality Authority, and several of my colleagues who in a bipartisan way joined in introducing the authorizing legislation, H.R. 910. They included the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and others, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), who have been very supportive of this effort. Well, Madam Speaker, I am pleased that we have been able to include in this legislation in this conference report important funding to begin this to find a solution to this problem. It is a small amount of money. But it is a beginning. Again, it is one of the very serious environmental questions that we have. So in passage of this conference report, we will in this Congress be taking a very bold step towards addressing a major environmental concern, not only for Southern California, but for the entire country. I want to express my appreciation again to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). I would especially like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who has been phenomenal in providing me with assistance in dealing with this. Also, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Domenici for his work on this and, as I said, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) for the effort that they have put together in helping us deal with an important problem that, as I said, impacts, it appears, Southern California right now but also the entire Nation. So I urge strong support of this rule and support of the conference report.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I say to my friend from Missouri that I am pleased to be here to respond to his call. His call is for us to work in a bipartisan way to deal with these very important issues; and, Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with him more. First, let me say that I am extremely proud of the bipartisanship that we have established under Republican leadership over the past 6 years. If we simply look at the kinds of things that we have succeeded in working on just in this Congress, I think it is very important to underscore them. First and foremost, we must look at how we have effectively begun to retire the national debt. We are very proud of the fact that we have been able to retire $350 billion of our Nation's debt, and we are committed to retiring the entire national debt by the year 2013. And, yes, I will say to my friend, the minority leader, we have been working on that, as he just requested, in a bipartisan way. We also have done something that is virtually unprecedented. We have been able to go through 3 years of surpluses with our budget, which is again, I think, a monumental accomplishment; something which we Republicans have been proud that we have been able to do in a bipartisan way. Yes, working with the White House to do that. I also think it is important to note that on those very important issues of Social Security and Medicare the compacts which we have made with the American people. We must do everything that we can to make sure that we address and maintain their solvency. And we are proud that for 2 years in a row we have not, as had been done for 3 decades, reached in and spent that surplus on a wide range of other programs. It is also important to note what has been one of our top priorities; and we, again in a bipartisan way, have worked to accomplish our goal. And what has that issue been? It is education. It is obviously a top priority today in the presidential campaign. The 106th Congress has tremendous accomplishments to which we can proudly point that are bipartisan, specifically passage of the Education Flexibility Act and the Teacher Empowerment Act. What are they designed to do? They are designed to do what Governor George Bush has been saying, and now Vice President Gore is saying he agrees with, and that is trying to enhance decision-making at the local level. It is also important to note that this Congress has successfully passed legislation to reduce the tax burden on working families, that horrendous inheritance tax, the death tax. As Speaker Hastert likes to call it, the widows and orphans tax. We have passed that here. But of course on the presidential veto, we narrowly failed an override. We did it in a bipartisan way, even though we were not quite able to override the President's veto. Similarly, on the marriage tax penalty, we were not quite able to get the votes we needed to override the President's veto. But we did pass the legislation, and we attempted the override with strong bipartisan support. So it seems to me that if we look at the kinds of priorities that we have established, we want to do them in a bipartisan way. I am pleased that the White House and many Democrats have joined us in our commitment, or we hope the White House will join us. They have indicated a willingness to do that, but we want to make sure that happens, to take 90 percent of the surplus and apply that towards debt reduction. Obviously, in a time of unprecedented surpluses, we want to reduce the tax burdens. But at the same time we want to make sure that we do continue down that road towards retiring the national debt. We also are committed to working in a bipartisan way for a prescription drug benefit coverage package for America's seniors. Our Republican majority has again passed a plan to provide prescription drug coverage that is voluntary, affordable, and available to all seniors, a very high priority. Again, we share the bipartisan quest to address this issue. We believe very sincerely that no senior should be forced to choose between food on the table and the medicine that they need to stay healthy. And we are committed to doing even more to address that very important issue which I mentioned a moment ago, improving our public education system. We have the best postsecondary education system on the face of the earth. We need to do everything that we can to improve the primary and secondary education systems. What we want to do is we want to actually create even more flexibility than we did with the Education Flexibility Act by making sure that decisions are made at the local level, in the classrooms, knowing full well that decision-making here and the imposition of mandates on State and local government does little more than undermine the ability for teachers to improve that quality of education that they very much want to do. We know that very little of the money actually comes from Washington; but, unfortunately, many mandates have been imposed from here. We want to try to do what we can to relieve as much of that as possible. So I am here to say, in response to the last speaker, that we are working for continued bipartisanship. I know it does not get a lot of attention when we have accomplished many of these things in a bipartisan way, but we have done it so far. And all we are saying now, with this measure that we are going to be considering, is let us go for one more week, Mr. Speaker, with a continuing resolution so that we can get the very important work of the 13 appropriation bills completed. Why? Because the American people want us to do our work. And guess what? We have succeeded in working so far. We do not want anyone to stand in the way of these very important priorities which I have just outlined, and which I believe Democrats and Republicans alike share. So let us pass this rule, pass the continuing resolution, and keep the negotiators' feet to the fire so that we can complete our work in a very timely fashion.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the San Gabriel, Pomona and Walnut Valleys are home to 17 cities and other communities in northeastern Los Angeles County. It is home to the San Gabriel Mountains and the Angeles National Forest--the most visited part of our national forest system. It's one of the few places in America where you can stand in warm and comfortable 90-degree weather and look up at a beautiful, snowcapped mountain such as Mount Baldy. Dating from the early days of Spanish settlement in California, my district was home to many ranchos and other agricultural settlements. The complexion of the region changed little over many decades. The completion of the railroad from Chicago late in the 19th century unleashed growth that would eventually remake the entire region. With the advent of access to the east, the San Gabriel Valley began to boom. People flocked to the area in search of better job prospects and a more comfortable climate, and many small towns began to grow along the rail lines. Many of the towns and cities in the San Gabriel Valley today trace their roots to midwesterners who settled in the area beginning in the late 1800's. The traditions and values of those early citizens can still be found today in the small-town atmosphere in cities from one end of the valley to the other--even though the area is part of the sprawling Los Angeles megalopolis. About the same time as the railroad completion, it was discovered that citrus fruits grew well in the region's rich soil and warm climate. The Valleys became leading producers of oranges and lemons, as groves blanketed the area. The citrus industry brought people and a booming economy which lasted until the second World War. After the war, the citrus groves gave way to housing tracts and growing suburbs. The area remains a diverse mix of residential areas and businesses, small and large. At the same time it is undergoing rapid demographic shifts as the diversity of California continues with the arrival new immigrants from China, India, Mexico and a host of other countries in Asia and Latin America and elsewhere. Today the area is a blend of old and new. The San Gabriel Valley is home to showcase events such as the annual Pasadena Tournament of Roses Parade and the Los Angeles County Fair. At the same time it is becoming a modern center for high technology. Firms headquartered in the region are at the cutting edge of engineering and construction, of internet commerce, of computer hardware and of communications technology. The area is also home to the world renowned City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte and a number of outstanding institutions of higher learning, including the Claremont Colleges. The vibrant economy is increasingly centered around technology and trade and our unique location at the edge of the Pacific Rim.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my friend, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions), for his superb statement in which he gave an account of the testimony that the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) delivered before the Committee on Rules on the very important aspects of this measure. I would also like to compliment my dear friend, the gentleman from South Boston (Mr. Moakley), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, for the first sentence of his statement in which he congratulated us on making sure that the Democratic substitute was in order. The rest of his statement was baloney; but the first sentence was actually very good, and it should be congratulated. I would like to say that we are in the midst of doing some very, very important work here. We hear the President say, do not send another risky tax scheme bill or tax cutting binge, as John Podesta called it, they have all these great names for it, do not send all these bills that basically allow the American people to keep more of their hard- earned dollars down to the White House because they will veto it. And we look at the litany of measures that the President has said that he was going to veto in the past, including that very important Education Flexibility Act and the Teacher Empowerment Act, which take power from Washington, D.C., and turn it back for decision-making at local school boards and in the State legislatures and local governments. The President was going to veto that; and, sure enough, he signed it. National missile defense is something that we regularly talk about, I am happy to say, in somewhat of a bipartisan way. The President was determined to veto that measure. He said he was absolutely going to veto it. And what did he do? He ended up signing it. Welfare reform. We all know that he twice vetoed it. And then a virtual identical bill he signed. We are just now seeing the tremendous accounts of those benefits based on the work of our colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), to the welfare reform that has been put into place. We have seen tremendous improvements all the way across the board. So these are measures which the President said he was going to veto and he signed them. Similarly, when he said, do not send another tax cutting bill down here because I am going to veto it, I think we have a responsibility to do our work. And this is one of those very, very important measures. Back in 1993, we saw the arguments made that the way that we could balance the budget would be to impose the largest tax increase in American history. I know my Democratic colleagues like to call this the balanced budget measure. The fact of the matter is it was the largest tax increase in American history, and it is a measure which did have not one single Republican vote in favor of it, neither the House nor the Senate. They love to argue that. I am proud of the fact that I did not vote for that bill. And we call it the Gore tax because it was decided by a single vote in the other body and that was the vote that was cast by the Vice President, Al Gore, in favor of the increase. One of those very important aspects of that massive tax increase bill was the one that said to senior citizens that, if we do not repeal this measure over the next year, 8 million will be paying an additional $1,180 in taxes on their Social Security benefits. We saw this increased from 50 percent to 85 percent. I will tell my colleagues, as my friend, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions), has said in recounting the statement of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means before our Committee on Rules, do we not want to encourage people to plan for their retirement? Did we not, with only 24 Members, all Democrats voting against the measure but everyone else supporting it, pass a measure which said that we should increase from $2,000 to $5,000 the contributions to individual retirement accounts, expanded 401(k)s? These are the things we are trying to do to encourage people to plan for retirement. But what is it we do with the measure we have got here? We say to people they are rewarded if they do not plan for retirement; and they in fact are penalized if they do plan for retirement and have a little bit of success. That is what the Democratic substitute, which I happily made in order, will be considering. This argument that my friend, the gentleman from South Boston (Mr. Moakley), put out about jeopardizing Medicare and hospital insurance, the Hospital Insurance Fund is protected, and it is guaranteed to be solvent. The provisions that are in our measure are also in the Democratic substitute. So that really is a red herring that has been put out there. This is a responsible measure. It allows hard-working Americans who have been forced throughout their entire lifetime through no choice of their own to pay into the Social Security system to have a chance to keep some of their own hard-earned money. And we want to encourage people to save for their retirement. So we are doing the right thing. We have got a surplus. Why do we not do what they said they were going to do when they passed the massive tax increase, balance the budget? Now that we have done that, let us go ahead and repeal that tax. I suspect we are going to do it in a bipartisan way. Democrats and Republican alike are supportive of this. And at the end of the day, I hope very much that President Clinton will sign the measure. So I thank my friend for his very, very fine statement and his leadership on this issue.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute for the purpose of explaining the schedule for the rest of the evening and tomorrow.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to have the House recess until 7 a.m. tomorrow, at which time we hope to file H.R. 4516, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill conference report. Then, the Committee on Rules hopes to meet at 8:30 a.m., at which time we will consider the rules on both the Legislative Branch conference report for H.R. 4516; the adjournment resolution; and the Child Support Distribution Act, H.R. 4678. At that time, the House, after the filing of those rules, would adjourn, and the House would then convene at 10 a.m. tomorrow and we would consider the bills that I have just mentioned, the 3 measures that I have just mentioned, as well as continue work on the District of Columbia Appropriations bill and H.R. 4865, the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act. Mr. Speaker, that is our intention at this point.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recess until 7 a.m. tomorrow, July 27, 2000.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for allowing me to take this time to congratulate him on his effort. While our Republican colleagues are at this point out working on a stunning victory over our Democratic colleagues on the baseball field, the Committee on Rules is hard at work; and I know my friend from Iowa is working hard too, and I thank him.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 4807 which reauthorizes the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act. I want to thank my colleagues on the Commerce Committee and particularly, Representatives Coburn and Waxman for their work in bringing forth a bipartisan bill. The CARE Act is critical to the lives and well-being of hundreds of thousands of individuals living with HIV and AIDS and those who are at risk of contracting HIV. Now in its tenth year, the CARE Act has been instrumental in creating and maintaining a system of care for those individuals without the ability to pay, including state-of-the-art medical services, cutting-edge diagnostic techniques, newly developed pharmaceutical therapies, and social support services. The CARE Act is significant to many individuals, and H.R. 4807 directs federal funding to growing populations affected by the disease. Specifically, this bill addresses long-standing historical inequities in the distribution of funds across Ryan White Title I areas, the portion of the Act directed to the epicenters of the epidemic, which includes Los Angeles County. These inequities are driven primarily through the implementation of the ``holding harmless'' provision included in the previous reauthorization. The changing dynamic of the disease means that the CARE Act can no longer disregard the needs of all the other jurisdictions to protect just one jurisdiction. I believe that this bill ensures greater equity in the distribution of Ryan White funds across those jurisdictions most heavily impacted by the AIDS epidemic. Once again, I want to commend my colleagues on the Commerce Committee for bringing forward this bipartisan legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to compliment my very good friend, the gentleman from Simi, California (Mr. Gallegly), who has done a superb job on the Committee on International Relations, and having authored this resolution is a demonstration of his strong commitment to building ties between the two very important nations. I would like to say that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) is somewhat modest on this when he talks about how he has vacationed in Mexico. He has actually worked in Mexico, too, because he is a veteran member of the Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Conference; and over the past 2 decades that he and I have been privileged to serve here in the Congress, he has been an active participant in a number of those meetings and has, as I have, observed the tremendous transition which has taken place. In fact, when he and I were elected to the Congress exactly 20 years ago, we saw a Mexico which in fact was facing very serious economic problems. In fact, I remember in 1982, after the first Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary meeting that I attended, we saw President Lopez Portillo nationalize the banking system and we saw a wide range of other steps which were actually retrograde steps when it comes to the issue of economic reform. Beginning in 1988, we saw the economic reform that my friend is actually saying needs to take place. What we saw was policies put into place in the Salinas administration, led by the likes of Pedro Aspe, the treasury secretary, and Jaime Serra Puce, the commerce secretary who brought about the kind of reform that we as a nation and the rest of the world are moving towards: privatization, decentralization. They closed down many state-owned enterprises. They, in fact, saw President Salinas because of his concern for environmental issues close down the largest oil refinery, putting 5,000 people out of work in Mexico City because of his commitment to environmental issues. That took place during the 6-year period of the Salinas administration; and, admittedly, there were many problems. President Salinas continues to face problems there, but his commitment to economic reform which began in 1988 was key to what we saw on July 2. Now, in 1993 and 1994, my friend the gentleman, from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), who is going to be speaking in just a few minutes, often at 10:39 in the evening, would stand here and talk about the importance of breaking down barriers, tariff barriers, among Canada, the United States and Mexico as we were seeking to get the Congress to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement. We argued that if we were to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement we would see very positive changes and economic improvement. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that that has happened. We have seen a dramatic improvement in both the standard of living in the United States and in Mexico. In fact, today the Mexican population that is considered to be middle class is larger than the entire Canadian population. So, sure, there are many poor people in Mexico, and there are many rich people in Mexico. We have often heard that to be the case, but the North American Free Trade Agreement has been key in our quest to see the standard of living improve in Mexico. Much more work remains to be done, but we saw that step take place. We knew, based on the evidence that we have seen in other countries in this hemisphere, Argentina and Chile and the Pacific Rim, South Korea and Taiwan, that focusing on economic reform would in fact bring about an improvement in the issue of self-determination, political rights, human rights. Mr. Speaker, I will say, having joined with the former Secretary of State, James Baker, and the mayor of San Diego, Susan Golding, in co- leading a delegation of the International Republican Institute, an arm of the National Endowment for Democracy, we saw self-determination finally take hold. Now we have seen the success of opposition parties in mayoral elections. In fact, 15 of the 16 largest cities in Mexico have opposition party mayors. Governorships throughout the country, of the 32 states, we have seen a number of them with opposition party governors, but for 71 years we continued through a dozen elections to see the Institutional Revolutionary Party, the PRI party, hold control. In fact, even members within the PRI acknowledged that there were a great deal of problems, to put it mildly, in elections that have taken place in the past. We remember very well in the 1994 election when the computers broke down, the PAN party had actually been ahead, and we saw a change that took place overnight. So that is why the commitment that President Zedillo made to strengthen the FEI, the Federal Electoral Institute, which was designed to have an independent body, independent of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, play a role in encouraging free and fair elections. We saw it finally work. It is a demonstration of the commitment to economic reform and the success of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the commitment of President Zedillo and as my friend from California, the author of this resolution, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) made it very, very clear, the success of the National Action Party, the party which has embraced the policies which I believe are key to bringing about the kind of success economically that we have seen in the United States and around the world. I am happy to see the PRI party embrace many of those PAN party positions during the 1990s, but now the people of Mexico are going to get the real thing with Vicente Fox as its president. It is a coalition that has been put together, but the sense of optimism that I saw in Mexico was overwhelming. On election night, at about 1:00 in the morning, I joined one of the members of our delegation, M. Delal Baer, who is one of the most prominent Mexicologists at the Center for Strategic International Studies here in Washington, and to stand at what is known as the Plaza, which is the Angel of Independence, when Vicente Fox came out we stood among about 50,000 or 60,000 people, the level of optimism, the confidence that the people had was incredible. I will say in closing that I will never forget being in a little tiny town called Metepec, which is in the hills above Puebla and Atlisco, when at 6:00 we counted the ballots, which was in a rural area where in fact the Institutional Revolutionary Party, the PRI party, was supposed to be very strong because of a lot of things that they had done to promote incumbency there, and a young 18-year-old woman who was the representative of the National Action Party stood there, and we witnessed the counting of the ballots in this casilla, which was a voting station. The vote was 210 votes for Vicente Fox and 106 for the PRI party candidate, Francisco Labastida. What we saw was a level of excitement because this woman said to me, my family for years, as members of the National Action Party, we have been working to bring this day about, and it has finally happened. That is why I think it is very important for us as a Nation to say that the already strong relationship between Mexico and the United States will, I believe, be strengthened even more with the election of Vicente Fox. I believe that we have a tremendous potential for the future. I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for joining in as a cosponsor of this resolution. I want to again congratulate my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), who for years and years and years has pursued improvements in Mexico; and I was pleased when he stood in this aisle in 1987 and asked me to join with him as a cosponsors of legislation to eliminate those tariff barriers, and we on July 2 saw that ultimate victory because of the economic reform. So I congratulate the people of Mexico and, of course, my colleagues who moved ahead with this.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 4700, which gives Congressional approval to the Kansas and Missouri Metropolitan Cultural District Compact. One of the hallmarks of this Republican Congress has been its commitment to empowering state and local governments to address local and regional challenges. This legislation is a great example of that commitment. H.R. 4700 imposes no federal mandates on the states of Kansas and Missouri, or on the local governments which have endorsed the compact. It does not call for the use of federal dollars. It does not require that the Compact be extended into the future. Instead, it simply gives the necessary Congressional approval to the Kansas and Missouri Metropolitan Cultural District Compact. The Compact is a unique effort to provide a secure source of local funding for metropolitan cooperation across state lines to restore historic structures and cultural facilities. Since it was established a few years ago, local leaders have worked through the Compact to restore Kansas City's Union State, one of the Midwest's important historic landmarks. It has also led to the addition of the Kansas City Museum's Science City Project. When the Compact was initially created in 1994, sanctioning legislation sped through both the House and Senate by voice votes in just a few months. As other advocates of H.R. 4700 have noted, the breadth of support for the Compact is overwhelming. It is supported by the legislatures of both Kansas and Missouri, the Governors of both states, and by both Republican and Democratic elected officials. I commend the gentlelady from Kansas City for bringing this measure forward, and I encourage all my colleagues to join me in voting for it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time on July 25, 2000, or any day thereafter, to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 99) disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974, with respect to Vietnam; that the joint resolution be considered as read for amendment; that all points of order against the joint resolution and against its consideration be waived; that the joint resolution be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means in opposition to the joint resolution and a Member in support of the joint resolution; that pursuant to sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion; and that the provisions of sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act of 1974 shall not otherwise apply to any joint resolution disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam for the remainder of the second session of the One Hundred Sixth Congress. Mr. Speaker, let me say it is the intention of this unanimous consent request that the 1 hour of debate be yielded fairly between Members of the majority and minority parties on both sides of this issue.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Mt. Clemens for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the House has completed its legislative work for the week and am happy to report, and I know it comes as no surprise, that the House will not be in session tomorrow. The House will next meet on Monday, July 24, at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debates and 2 o'clock for legislative business. We will consider a number of measures included under suspension of the rules, a list of which will be distributed to Members' offices tomorrow. On Monday, no recorded votes are expected before 6 p.m. On Tuesday, July 25, and the balance of the week, the House will consider the following measures subject to action by the Committee on Rules: H.J. Res. 99, disapproving the extension of the waiver authority under the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam; District of Columbia Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001; and H.R. 4865, the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act. We also expect, Mr. Speaker, several motions to go to conference on appropriations bills and plan to consider conference reports next week as they become available.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman want me to speak for the full House or the Committee on Rules at this point?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we hope not to be too late with suspensions. It would simply be that motion to go to conference which we were discussing.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, again, the issues of appropriation conference reports that we want to complete before the recess. And it is quite possible that the Labor-HHS conference report would be before us at the end of next week and/or the Legislative Branch appropriations conference report. I know my friend joins us in wanting to get as much as we possibly can accomplished for this ``can do'' Congress of ours.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that we do not anticipate late nights other than a great celebration by Republicans on the victory which we are anticipating Wednesday evening for the baseball game. And, of course, Thursday is the White House picnic, and I know there is going to be a lot of celebrating at that point, as well.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is the plan right now. But it is possible that there could be a motion to go to conference on the Foreign Operations appropriation bill.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is our anticipation that on Wednesday or Thursday of next week we will most likely consider that.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the dean of the Georgia delegation for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here with my colleagues from Georgia and other parts of the country to talk about our friend Paul Coverdell. No one could ask for a better friend than Paul Coverdell. I first met him when he was appointed director of the Peace Corps in the late 1980s, and at that time the attention in this House and around the world was focused on the emerging democracies of Eastern and Central Europe. In several meetings that we had in my office, Paul Coverdell was talking with such enthusiasm about creative ways in which we could help the people of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and other countries that were starting to get that first taste of freedom. I was so struck with the dedication that this man showed that I made a decision early on that I wanted to do anything that I possibly could to help him. So he took me up on that. He took me up on it when in 1992 he called me and told me that he was going to run for the United States Senate. I thought, what a great idea. He asked me to help him, so I did; and I will never forget the day that I was flying to Atlanta from what is now, and I see Mr. Barr here, affectionately referred to as Ronald Reagan National Airport; and I was standing in the terminal with a former colleague of ours from the other side of the aisle, and he said, Well, why are you flying to Atlanta? I said I am flying down to help Paul Coverdell win his election to the United States Senate. Well, this former colleague of ours from the other side of the aisle laughed hysterically because he did not believe that Paul had much of a chance to win, and there were a lot of people who did not think Paul had a great chance to win. In fact, I suspected that this former colleague of ours from the other side of the aisle kind of thought that Paul had about as much chance of winning as he did of losing. So the fact of the matter is, we saw in Paul Coverdell a stick-to- itiveness that was very, very impressive. He was dedicated to his work. I spent time traveling in Georgia with him, and he had a couple of events. There were a few people who attended a number of those events. I assumed it was because they had announced that I was going to be there. But the fact of the matter was, this guy never gave up. He was a real fighter. One of the things that we have so often found in these Members who worked with him closely in Georgia for decades know that whenever someone wanted a job to be done, the person to whom they would look was Paul Coverdell because when this guy said that he was going to take on a job and do it, he did it. We so often hear the juxtaposition between work horses and show horses in this place, and we all know that Paul Coverdell epitomized the work horse. He was a guy who was extremely dedicated. I am so happy that the chairman of the Committee on International Relations reminded us of his having hosted the Mexican Interparliamentary Conference along with, I remember the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) was there with us when we held that meeting and Paul was so proud of the opportunity to host that very important meeting. I served with him as a cochairman of the Republican House-Senate Dinner. Boy, that guy was absolutely relentless when it came to our goal of building a strong Republican Party, and as has been said by our colleagues from the other side of the aisle, he, working for a strong Republican Party, knew that ultimately working in a bipartisan way was the only way that we could actually get things accomplished. My thoughts and prayers go to Nancy and other members of the family, and I cannot say what a shocking and devastating loss this is, not only for this great institution of ours but for the Nation as a whole.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, for his very important leadership on this issue. We all have gone through this discussion very vigorously over the past several months. We know that this, as many people have said, was the most important vote that we would face, some reported in a generation, in their entire careers, whether we would grant permanent normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China. Because we have not seen the completion of China's accession in the World Trade Organization, we are here today dealing with this annual renewal question. As we look at this issue, I have to say that, having listened to my friends with whom I disagree on this issue, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), I just listened to the statements of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), no one is arguing about the problems that exist in China. We all know that they are there. I think it is important for our colleagues who oppose us on this who support what really is a policy of trying to disengage, to end normal trade relations with China, we have to recognize that we do share the same goal of trying to ensure the recognition of human rights, to make sure that we maintain stability, the stability in the region, that we diminish the threat to Taiwan, that we do everything that we possibly can to recognize the rights of the people in Tibet. All of these questions, technology transfer, all of these are very high priorities for all of us. The question is, how do we most effectively deal with them? Well, I argue that it is very clear that a policy of trying to encourage the spread of our Western values is the most effective way to deal with it. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that we have an instance which has shown dramatic success, and that instance to which I am pleased to point to took place just 2 weeks ago. I am talking about the election in Mexico. Now the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) suspected that I might want to hit him hard on this. I am not going to hit him, I am going to praise and congratulate him, because he stood in this well in 1993 when we, on a regular, on regular occasions would engage in debate with the gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and I were on the same side going against the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) when we were arguing in behalf of the North American Free Trade Agreement. We realized as we were arguing for that that we were going to do everything that we could to enhance the economy of Mexico, to improve the standard of living. At the time that we were debating the NAFTA, working hard with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) my friend in the back of the Chamber here, and others, we argued that economic reform which began under President Salinas in 1988 was a very positive force. We saw privatization, decentralization. We saw President Salinas close down the largest oil refinery in Mexico City. We saw very bold moves towards free markets in Mexico. When we were debating the NAFTA, one of the criticisms leveled by opponents to the NAFTA was the critical corruption that existed in Mexico, the fact that they did not have free and fair elections. We did not argue with that. But we said that there is an interdependence between economic and political freedom. Maintaining strong economic ties is the best way to bring about the kind of political change and reform that we all want to see take place. So what is it that took place? We saw the implementation of the NAFTA. We have seen great benefits, dramatic improvement in economic relations, a great increase in exports from the United States to Mexico, from Mexico into the United States, a dramatic improvement in the standard of living to the point where Mexico's middle-class population is today larger than the entire Canadian population. Yes, we still have problems. We all recognize that. But we did see for the first time free and fair elections. In 71 years of one-party rule, we had so many problems developed. President Zedillo, to his credit, said that he wanted self-determination in Mexico. Having followed economic reform, they brought about free and fair elections. I was pleased, along with the former Secretary of State James Baker and the Mayor of San Diego Susan Golding to have led a delegation of 44 members observing that election. It was terrific. To see the enthusiasm the people of Mexico had for participating in an election where their votes actually count was very reassuring. Mr. Speaker, the same thing is going to happen in the People's Republic of China, not tomorrow, not next week, not next year, maybe not for 5 years or 10 years, but clearly based on the evidence that we have seen in Mexico, in South Korea, in Taiwan, that clearly is the wave of the future. So expanding our values into China is the best way that we can deal with repression. Rejecting this resolution of disapproval, realizing that Taiwan is very supportive of maintaining our ties with China, those sorts of things will benefit us, they will benefit the people of China and help maintain world peace. Vote no on this resolution of disapproval.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time on July 18 of 2000, or any day thereafter, to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 103) disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the People's Republic of China; that the joint resolution be considered as read for amendment; that all points of order against the joint resolution and against its consideration be waived; that the joint resolution be debatable for 2 hours equally divided and controlled by the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, in opposition of the joint resolution, and a Member in support of the joint resolution; that pursuant to section 152 and 153 of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion; and that the provision of section 152 and 153 of the Trade Act of 1974 shall not otherwise apply to any joint resolution disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the People's Republic of China for the remainder of the second session of the 106th Congress. Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is the intention of this unanimous consent request that the 2 hours of debate be yielded fairly between Members of the majority and the minority parties on both sides of this issue.