David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time on that point, I would say our quest to have them become more like America is one which is, as my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has said very appropriately, is recognition of the rule of law, and he touched on the fact that piracy has existed, the so-called intellectual property debate, and it is an important one. The promotion of the rule of law is key to that relationship. And we have made great strides in our quest to improve it. I know of people in this government who have been working very hard for years to try and promote that rule of law, because that, again, recognition of private property and, again, intellectual property is something that we cannot ignore and is a very important part of the debate. And one person who I think has underscored the importance of that has been Martin Lee, who a week before last met up in our Committee on Rules office and talked with a few of our colleagues about the issue. Martin Lee is someone who some may have forgotten. If we go back nearly 3 years ago, to 1997, when we observed the handover of Hong Kong from British colonial rule to the People's Republic of China, Martin Lee has been on the cutting edge in Hong Kong as the greatest promoter of democracy and freedom and human rights. He came to Washington as the great champion of human rights and democracy in Hong Kong to say that he believed that it is so important that we grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Now, this is not someone who is involved with industry and all the disparaging remarks that have been made by opponents of Permanent Normal Trade Relations. He is not a part of that camp. He is one who simply focuses on democracy, the rule of law, freedom and opportunity, and he has made great sacrifices in the pursuit of that. And in his statement, he said that China's WTO membership, and I quote, would not only have economic and political benefits but would serve to bolster those in China who understand that the country must embrace the rule of law. He understands that it is very key to the promotion of the rule of law for China to become a member of the World Trade Organization.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I said during the one-minute speech I delivered just a few minutes ago, I am going to talk about this very important vote that we are going to be facing next week here in the Congress. I will tell you during my nearly decade-and-a-half as a member of the minority, I often would utilize this special order time to talk about a wide range of issues, but during the past 6 years since we have been in the majority, since we have been very successful at implementing so many of those issues around here, I have not taken a lot of special order sessions to talk about public policy questions. But I think it is very important for us to talk about this one, because, as I have said, the vote that we will face next week that will decide whether or not we grant permanent normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China, which will allow the United States of America to finally gain access to that consumer market of China, is, as I said, at least, at least, the most important vote that we will cast in this session of Congress, and there are many who have come to me and said things, like Leon Panetta, the former White House Chief of Staff, the former Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the former chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, my former California colleague, said to me when I ran into him the other night, ``David, I believe this will be the most important vote of the decade.'' My colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), with whom I have been working very closely to put together bipartisan support for this vote, said that he believed that this will be probably the most important vote that will be cast during the entire Congressional careers of Members. I, for that reason, felt it important to take some time to explain why it is that this is such an important vote and to try and clarify some of the very confusing statements and, frankly, some of the inaccurate statements that have been put forward by a number of people who are opponents. Let me begin by saying that I share the concern that opponents have raised about a wide range of issues. In fact, I would like to say that I will take a back seat to no one when it comes to demonstrating outrage over the human rights policies that we have seen in the People's Republic of China, or anyplace in the world, for that matter. I am very concerned about the fact that we have an imbalance of trade. I am very concerned about the continued threats that we have observed from Beijing to Taipei, the most recent one having been made today. I am very concerned about religious persecution that exists in China. I am very concerned about the people who are in Tibet and have been mistreated. So as we go through these issues, it is important for us to realize that this is not, as many have described it, simply a desire on the part of the proponents to line the pocketbooks of the U.S. business sector of our economy and worshipping at the altar of the all-mighty buck. That is an absolutely preposterous claim that the opponents have made. Those of us who have embraced this policy do so because we recognize that the single most powerful force for positive change in the 5,000 year history of Chinese civilization has been what? Economic reform, reform of the economy which began in 1972 with Deng Xiaoping's embrace of what was known as, following the Shanghai Communique, dramatic economic reforms. Those economic reforms have led to some tremendous changes that are positive in China. Guess what? Not many people are aware of this. There are more shareholders, more shareholders, in the People's Republic of China today than there are Members of the communist party. There are in fact today in China people who have their own small businesses. So we have private property recognized, we have a entrepreneurial class that is recognized, and we have these very, very bold and dynamic reforms that Premier Zhu Rongji has put into effect which have led towards privatization, decentralization. He has closed down state-owned entities. These reforms are things that cannot be ignored. And, guess what? These are the kinds of reforms that are based on what we in the United States of America believe in, and that is individual responsibility and initiative, pursuit of the free market, opportunity. Now, I am not claiming that life is perfect in the People's Republic of China. In fact, life is not that great in the People's Republic of China. We need to address religious persecution, human rights violations, the threats toward Taiwan, the transfer of military weapons and technology to Pakistan and Iran and other spots. Those sorts of threats are very, very important and we need to address them. But in trying to address those, we should not consider withdrawing the one good thing that exists there, which has been the economic reform. Now, I am one who has actually sat down and gone through the full intelligence briefing on this issue, on the national security question, and I asked myself, how is it that we can deal with the espionage problem and those other things that are out there? I say, well, suppose we have the opportunity to close off the United States of America, to prevent any opportunity for access to be gained in the United States of America. But, guess what? We live in a free society today, and that is not going to happen. We are not going to see the United States of America close itself off to the rest of the world. So while we are concerned about things that have taken place in China, what is the best way for us to deal with those concerns? It is to do everything within our power to open it up, to get in there. Now, what we have before us is a vote which will be coming next week that, for the first time ever, we are going to not say, as we have for the last two decades, simply that China, the People's Republic of China, will be able to gain one way access to the U.S. consumer market by selling their goods and services here at very low tariffs, being able to get into our consumer market. What we are saying is now we have the reverse situation, where we are going to, by seeing China accede to the World Trade Organization, which, of course they will be able to do anyway, so the U.S. worker and U.S. businesses will be able to gain access there, we will be, again, prying open that market, with a population that approaches five times that of the United States of America. We are the third most populous nation on the face of the Earth, behind the People's Republic of China and India, which has just now gone to a billion people. We are the third most populous. Yet the most populous nation is nearly five times the size of ours. So, think about that; the chance we have to open up that market is one which we would be foolish, foolish, to deny. I see this vote that we are going to face as a win-win-win. It is a win for our first class U.S. workers, and it is a win for our farmers in this country. Earlier today a news conference was held by members of the Committee on Agriculture in which they were pointing to the fact that an opportunity to export U.S. agricultural products into the People's Republic of China is a very important thing. The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Combest, last night took some time here on the floor to talk about the importance of that. So it is a win for our workers. It is a win for businesses and farmers. I am convinced that when Americans compete, Americans win. We have proved that time and time again. The thing that I want to talk about this evening, that I believe is very, very important, is to talk about American values and our quest to spread those American values throughout China, and frankly throughout the world. The rest of the world is embracing those American values. We know that to be the case, not universally, but it is spreading. This building in which I am standing right now is a symbol throughout the entire world of freedom and liberty, and that kind of freedom is today taking place. I mean, we are taking bold steps forward in China. What I would like to do is, again, point to the very serious problems that exist there, realize that there are many people who have been victims of the repressive policies in China, who have said time and time again, and just as to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) pointed out, that it is very, very important for the U.S. to grant permanent normal trade relations if they are going to have a chance to gain further freedom and further liberty. The power of the United States to get those values in has been enhanced through technology. Today there are 70 million cellular telephones in the People's Republic of China. Now what does that say? It says that people are communicating. We knew that the spread of fax machines brought down the evil empire and the Iron Curtain. Similarly, we are able to get our values spread throughout China with fax machines and, of course, the World Wide Web is one of the best ways to get our values spread throughout there. Just a few years ago there were roughly 4 million Internet users, computers in China. Today we are up to 9 million. That is going to continue to grow dramatically in the coming years. Why? Because the proverbial genie is out of the bottle and they cannot put the cap back on it. Yes, they have tried to control the Internet, but as someone pointed out not too long ago, a kid can crack through the kind of protection and limitation that the government has tried to impose. So the genie is out of the bottle. I believe that the leaders of China understand that. Why is it that they are embracing this? Well, there happens to be a great deal of poverty that exists in China, and they know that in dealing with the couple of hundred million people who live in poverty in China, that the best way for them to see their standard of living to improve is to continue with economic reform. That is really what has led them to do that. A number of my colleagues have sent out letters in opposition to this, in which they have somehow described this as a gift, a gift, to the leadership in Beijing. If the people in Beijing want this, it is obviously bad for the people of China, bad for the United States of America and bad for the rest of the world. I not only do not see this as a gift, Mr. Speaker, I see this as, again, the best way to undermine the repression that exists in China and has existed there. Now I would like to get very specific and point to a couple of individuals who have really stepped forward and indicated that this vote will, in fact, be the best way to deal with the human rights situation that exists there. One is a statement, and this is from a dear colleague letter which I would commend to all, that I suspect is on the Web page of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), and I know that that would be available to our colleagues, but this is a dear colleague letter that he sent out from having met with a number of religious leaders, and I would like to share some of the quotes. This is a statement from Zhang Rong-Liang, and I will not say who he is because he describes it, and this is the statement that he has released. He said, I am a leader of a Chinese house church and a co-worker of the Unity Movement of China's church. I have been in ministry for 20 years. It will have a direct impact on China if it joins WTO and keeps its door open to the outside world. As a result of it, Christians from overseas can enter China in great numbers, thus challenging the ideas and old thinking of the Chinese people. By keeping itself open to the outside world for over the past 10 years, the door of the gospel has already gradually opened as China undergoes its open door and reform policy. If China cannot enter WTO, that means closing the door on China and also on us Christians. Now, that is the statement from Zhang Rong-Liang, who is one of obviously the religious leaders in China. Now, I am happy to also state that I just received a letter that came to me last week from the Reverend Billy Graham. Many people have talked about the fact that religious leaders in this country are opposed to this because of the problems that exist in China. Well, Billy Graham is clearly one of the most respected human beings not just in the United States, but throughout the world because of the inspirational leadership that he has provided. I would like to share the letter that he sends because he does not actually come out and say we need to vote for permanent normal trade relations because Billy Graham, and I have a great deal of respect for him, because of this, does not inject himself into political debates; but he did feel so strongly, as we head towards this, that he wanted me to share this with my colleagues. He says, Dear Congressman Dreier, thank you for contacting me concerning the People's Republic of China. I have great respect for China's long and rich heritage and I am grateful for the opportunities I have had to visit that great country. It has been a tremendous privilege to get to know many of its leaders, and also to become familiar with the actual situation of religious believers in the People's Republic of China. The current debate about establishing permanent normal trade relations with China raises many complex and difficult questions. I do not want to become involved in the political aspects of this issue. However, I continue to be in favor of strengthening our relationship with China. I believe it is far better for us to thoughtfully strengthen positive aspects of our relationship with China than to treat it as an adversary. In my experience, nations can respond to friendship just as people do. While I will not be releasing a formal statement on the permanent normal trade relations debate, please feel free to share my view with your colleagues. May God give you and all of your colleagues His wisdom as you debate this important issue. I think that that is a very telling statement from Reverend Graham. He is not injecting himself into the debate, but he knows that next week we are going to be voting on this, and he does talk about the importance of having a relationship with China which does, in fact, include openness and extending a hand. I believe that if we look at what has taken place, again, at the last decade, that Reverend Graham has said that if one goes back to 1992, there were 200,000 Bibles distributed throughout China. Mr. Speaker, last year 2 million Bibles were distributed throughout China. So this opportunity to spread the gospel, to spread our goal of western values, is one that has been dramatically enhanced since in the last couple of decades we have had this policy of openness. I would also like to share a statement. One of the most prominent dissidents in China is a man called Tong Bao, and he lays out a very key division about the issue of human rights and that aspect of the debate. While everyone supports greater freedom and democracy in China, Bao points out that some want things in China to get as bad as possible, primarily, through the denial of commercial relations. And it is true, there are some who want things to get as horrible as possible as Tong Bao points out. Now, I believe that since we have observed not a perfect society but improvements, we need to do everything within our power to make sure that those positive things continue. I have lots of other thoughts on this, but I am happy to see that several of my colleagues have entered the Chamber, and at the direction of my friend from Dallas who is on the Committee on Rules, I would like to recognize my very good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, let me once again thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) for her cosponsorship of this amendment and to say that it is very helpful. Again this is a package that has been put together with both the Republican leadership and many Democrats included in this. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the show-me State, (Mr. Skelton), distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, national security is the top priority that we have here in Washington, D.C. As I said during the debate on consideration of the rule that made these amendments in order this morning, there are a wide range of issues that we address and discuss on a regular basis, many of which can be handled at other levels of government. But the security of the United States of America can only be handled by the Federal Government, and that is why I want to make it very clear that our security is my top priority. That is why I am very happy to say that we have worked out in a bipartisan way a very, very important piece of legislation which will allow us to strengthen our security. I would like to begin by commending the very distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who has joined me as the lead cosponsor of this amendment on the other side of the aisle as well as the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and several others. This is a compromise that has been put together working closely with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) the man not only who chairs the committee, but after whom this legislation that we are dealing with here today is named, and I would like to express my great appreciation to him for his stellar leadership and for working with us in putting together this bipartisan compromise, which, as I said, not only includes both sides of the aisle, but also deals with various committees that have been involved in it. It is a very common sense proposal that will establish a 60-day congressional review period when the President raises the threshold for export controls on high speed computers. The amendment protects our congressional prerogatives. Let me underscore once again, this amendment protects the prerogatives of the United States Congress by ensuring that the review period will not occur when Congress is adjourned sine die. In short, this amendment is a very balanced proposal that is designed to promote sound export controls and the continued global leadership of our Nation's computer industry. As I said, it is very good for our national security. Let me just say that I happen to believe that as we look at where we are going on this legislation, we have got to deal with our Nation's security, but at the same time, we have to recognize that the computer industry in this country is constantly re-creating itself. It is not just happening in this country, it is happening throughout the rest of the world, they push the technology envelope on a regular basis, and I think that the current export policy regime structure that we have is really out of step with the changes that have taken place with the 6- month current law that does exist. I would like to say that this stems from legislation that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and I introduced earlier, and I believe it is very, very important for us to realize that that launched the effort, and now we have worked a compromise which I think can be acceptable all the way around. I urge support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues that after we get through the wonderful 5-minute special orders that people are going to be delivering here, I am going to take an hour or a good part of that 1-hour to talk about the single most important vote that will be casting this year, and that is whether or not we are going to pry open the markets with 1.3 billion consumers in the People's Republic of China so that our workers can export goods and services and other great things, including American values, into that very repressive society in the People's Republic of China. We have got a lot of very, very interesting things, so I want to encourage my colleagues who are here in the Chamber to stay because it is going to be a very, very enlightening special order that I plan to deliver.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and let me just say that it has been an honor to work with the chairman of the very important Committee on Appropriations, who has long been a great champion of this issue of biennial budgeting.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther), a very able coauthor of this bipartisan amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today along with my colleagues, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy), the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), and others who worked long and hard on this to offer a bipartisan amendment, and I underscore the word ``bipartisan amendment,'' to establish a biennial budget and appropriations process and to enhance programmatic oversight, management, efficiency, and performance of the Federal Government. I would like to specifically commend the hard work of the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), my colleague as I mentioned, who is here on the floor. He has been a strong supporter of this. He is a member of the Committee on the Budget. This is also, I should say, a recommendation, as we pointed out several times, of the bipartisan Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress back in 1993. Under a biennial budget process, the President would submit a 2-year budget, and Congress would consider a 2-year budget resolution and 13 2-year appropriations bills during the first session of a Congress. The second session of the Congress would be devoted to consideration of authorization bills and for the very important programmatic oversight of government agencies. Now, Mr. Chairman, I happen to believe that the enactment of a biennial budget process could lead to the most significant government- wide fiscal reform that we have seen in a quarter century. I am not alone in that belief. President Clinton proposed it in his most recent budget. Vice President Gore proposed it as a key component of his reinventing government reform outlined in the National Performance Review Report. Governor George W. Bush has stated that biennial budgeting is a reform that needs to be done by the Congress. Let me say that again. We have got President Bill Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee Vice President Al Gore, presumptive Republican nominee Governor George Bush of Texas, all agreeing on the need for us to have a biennial budget. Earlier this year, the Committee on Rules held three separate days of hearings on biennial budgeting where we received detailed testimony from 32 witnesses. I should stress the Committee on Rules held three separate hearings, very important hearings, on the issue of biennial budgeting. Thirty-two witnesses, which included the former House Committee on the Budget chairman and Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Leon Panetta, my former California colleague, the current director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jack Lew, 10 academics, the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Accounting Office, and 17 Members of Congress, which included opponents like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and the Speaker of the House and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, both of whom testified in strong support of this measure. Let me tell my colleagues that I recently met with our former colleague, Leon Panetta. He feels very strongly about this. He is a strong partisan Democrat. But, remember, he was chairman of the Committee on the Budget. He served as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and he served as Chief of Staff to President Clinton. He stated in his testimony ``a biennial budget built around a 2-year life of the Congress offers a better way for Congress to commit itself to continuing fiscal discipline and to better planning for the coming years.'' Jack Lew stated, ``the primary potential benefit from biennial budgeting is that, by concentrating budget decisions in the first year of each 2-year period, time would be freed up in the second year that could be redirected to management, long-range planning, and oversight.'' My cochairman of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, our former Democratic colleague, Lee Hamilton, now the head of the great Woodrow Wilson Center here in town said ``biennial budgeting would free up Members' time for important work that is now being squeezed out by competing pressures.'' Now, this bipartisan amendment, Mr. Chairman, is the product of months of extensive hearings, technical consultation, and legislative drafting. It addresses comprehensive concerns with uncertainty in projections, weakened oversight, and larger supplementals. There are only two reasons, only two reasons to oppose this amendment. One either wants to maintain the status quo, which has created government shutdowns and a lot of contention late in a session. It breeds that annual conflict, and it enhances the level of cynicism that the people have towards this institution. Or one is one of those who supports the idea of a do-nothing Congress. Let us block any kind of reform that might be coming forward. I will say that I do not think that we should be doing either of those things. I do not think that we should be maintaining simply the status quo, and this Congress is dedicated to doing everything that it can to bring about major reforms. We have an historic opportunity here, again, the first time that we have had a chance to vote on biennial budgeting; and it is the first time in a quarter century that we could offer such a sweeping reform to this budget process which has created so many problems for us. So with that, I urge strong support of this bipartisan amendment which I am honored to author. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the very able coauthor of this amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has the right to close?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 1 made in order under the rule.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say, since 1990, every State that has changed its budget cycle has changed from an annual to a biennial process. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), one of the able coauthors of this amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on all sides here?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has a great deal of common sense to it. There are a number of statements that have been made that I think need to be refuted. This argument that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is making about oversight, biennial budgeting dramatically enhances the ability to have oversight. The subcommittee of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) can continue with its oversight and appropriations. But, also, we very much want to have the authorizers spend time on oversight. It is a constitutional responsibility which, unfortunately, we do not get to do enough of now because we spend so doggone much time on all of these budget disputes that are going on. This argument that has been made about this transfer of authority down to the executive branch, Jack Lew, a great protege of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), who is now our Director of the Office of Management and Budget, said in his testimony, ``While I respect the concern of those who believe that biennial budgeting will shift power between the two branches, I don't share this concern. I do not believe that, under biennial budgeting, executive branch officials would become less responsive to Congress. That is because biennial budgeting would not alter the fundamental reality that, under the Constitution, Congress has the power of the purse.'' Dan Crippen, who is the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, stated, ``It seems unlikely that agencies would be less responsive to the Congress simply because they would be requesting regular appropriations every other year. Also, a biennial budget cycle by setting aside some time for Congressional action on oversight and authorizing legislation might relieve the appropriation process of time-consuming debates on substantive policy issues, which could actually improve congressional control of spending.'' That is what we are trying to get at. Mr. Chairman, this is the most sweeping reform in a quarter century. It makes so much sense. We have got everyone who is now in the White House and seeking the White House in support of this. We have bipartisan support. The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the Speaker of the House, many of the cardinals, many Democrats have joined in support of it. We should provide this very, very key to the reform of the budget process. I urge an aye vote.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by extending my congratulations, since he is walking out of the Chamber, I am going to mention him first, and that is to my very good friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and fellow member of the Committee on Rules. Now that he is out of the chamber, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is still here; so I would say that the distinguished vice- chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), has done a great job. And even though he is no longer in the chamber, I am going to say the name of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). He did a spectacular job in his presentation that he just made here. Maybe he is in the cloakroom and is able to hear my words here. There are a lot of people who have spent a great deal of time working on this issue of budget process reform, and we are beginning what is clearly an historic debate. For the first time in over a decade, the House will debate fundamental reform of the budget process. The bill that we will be making in order with this rule is a product of the work of both the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Rules and the efforts that we have put in for a long time. It also represents a landmark process in which those two committees of jurisdiction over the budget process have come together in a bipartisan manner. And I have got to stress that word ``bipartisan'' again. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has been working for years and years on this with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and with the rest of us, and it is due to their spectacular leadership that we have gotten to the point where we are today. As the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) said just a few minutes ago, it is very clear that the budget process that we have now does not work. It is a disorganized patchwork of decades' old rules and laws. The bipartisan Comprehensive Budget Reform Act will make the process more rational, it improves accountability, and it strengthens enforcement in the budget process. Is it a panacea to all the ailments of society? No. Is it a cure-all for all of the challenges that we face on the budget process? No. But I will tell my colleagues, it is a very, very important step, which enjoys, again, bipartisan support. One item in here I will say, as a Californian, that I think is a very important aspect is the issue of dealing with natural disasters. We all know that they are a fact of life, whether it is hurricanes in Florida, or ice storms in upstate New York, or floods in Iowa, or in my home State we all know what we get, we get earthquakes in California, we know that there is going to be some kind of disaster and it will have an impact on the budget. This bill requires the President and the Congress to face reality and set aside a disaster reserve fund within the budget. We do not need to pit the victims of Mother Nature against those who desire sound fiscal policies. This is just one of the many sensible reforms that have been put into place in this bill. The rule also makes in order a number of amendments for Members with very, very diverse views on this issue. Such amendments include biennial budgeting, which the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) mentioned and I will be offering later, an automatic continuing resolution, and pay-go. All of these amendments are very important reform issues, and they deserve to be fully and openly considered in this debate, which is what this rule actually does. Now, I will take just a moment to talk about this issue which I feel so strongly about, and that is the question of biennial budgeting. That process could lead to the most significant change in the budget process that we have had in over a quarter century. Really, since the 1974 Budget Empowerment Act was put into place, biennial budgeting would be the most sweeping reform. The enormous amount of resources that are expended by the executive branch in preparing multiple annual budgets at the same time would be diverted to long-term strategic planning and improving the performance of Federal programs. Again, this effort is put together with strong bipartisan support and enjoys the strong support of President Clinton, who, in his budget submission earlier this year, called for biennial budgeting. Vice President Al Gore, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the President of the United States, he is a strong proponent of biennial budgeting. Governor George Bush of Texas, the presumptive nominee and I hope the next President of the United States, is in fact a strong proponent. He has a 2-year budget process in Texas and believes that we should do it here in Washington, D.C. When combined with other significant bipartisan budget reforms contained in the base bill, I believe that the biennial budget amendment which I will be offering represents a whole package of very comprehensive reforms. I urge my colleagues to resist the harsh partisan politics and to come together on what will be, as I said, a significant Government reform package that will benefit the American taxpayers. There will be tremendous taxpayer dollars saved if we can move in the direction of bringing about biennial budgeting and some of these other budget process reform issues. So I want to again congratulate all of those who have been involved: the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and others who have worked on this measure and to congratulate them for their hard work and to say that I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule that we will be offering and also in favor of the budget process reform package and vote ``yes'' on the biennial budgeting amendment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I simply want to compliment him on his fine work and to say that the bill which will be coming forward tomorrow on military construction should I think go a long way towards addressing some of the concerns that my friend has raised.

Mr. DREIER. We are going to work on that right now.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this time out to talk about a very important issue that we are going to be addressing later this month here in the Congress, but I of course would join in extending happy Mother's Day to all of the mothers all over this country and all around the world, for that matter. Mr. Speaker, the issue that I am talking about is an issue that, according to several of my colleagues, will be the single most important vote that we will cast in our entire careers here in the Congress. The question has to do with whether or not we are going to pry open a market with 1.3 billion consumers in the People's Republic of China and force this very repressive society to live with a rules- based trading system, or are we going to say that the United States of America will have nothing whatsoever to do with that sort of effort. It seems to me that it is the most important vote that we will cast possibly in this session of Congress at least, because it really says are we going to maintain our role as the paramount global leader, and are we going to maintain our economic prosperity, or are we going to turn our backs on it and cede that to other countries in the world. Well, I think that we have a responsibility not only to the United States of America, but to the rest of the world. Why? Because the United States of America is the greatest symbol of political pluralism. This building in which I am standing right now is the symbol throughout the world of freedom and democracy. It says to me that we have a responsibility to continue to provide the inspiration and the promotion of those things. And that is a message which I am happy to say is moving widely throughout repressive societies like the People's Republic of China. It is a message which can be sent with even greater enthusiasm if we bring the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization and, as I said, force them to live with a rules- based trading system. There are many people here who regularly talk about the fact that over the last 20 years we have provided one-way access for China to the U.S. consumer market and they have said why do we not get into their market so that our first class workers and businesses can export goods and services to those 1.3 billion consumers? Well, in the week of May 22, we will have an opportunity right here to cast a vote in favor of opening up that market so that it can benefit our workers and businesses. But there is an issue which in many way transcends this, and is one that is of great concern to me and I know to many of my colleagues here. That has to do with the question of our western values; the things that we hold here near and dear; the recognition of human rights; as I mentioned earlier, political pluralism, making sure that we have religious freedom. Those things need to expand throughout China. But guess what, Mr. Speaker. Since we have seen the opening of China, since what was known as the Shanghai Communique in 1972 when Richard Nixon opened China, we have seen improvements take place. There is a great deal of room for improvement. I do not stand here as an apologist for the policies that exist in Beijing, but we do have to recognize that there have been very positive steps taken that move us closer to the kind of China that the world needs. As was pointed out by President Ford in the event that was held at the White House earlier this week, maintaining stability in Asia is in our U.S. national interest, and this is a very important issue which will play a role in helping to maintain stability there. I think it is important for us, Mr. Speaker, to take a few moments to look at some of the statements that have been made by outspoken dissidents in China. In this morning's Washington Post, there was an article which talked about three dissidents who actually believe that granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China will do more than almost anything to address the very important concerns of human rights and religious freedom and those other concerns that are out there. Tong Bao, who is one of the most prominent dissidents, actually lays out a really key distinction that needs to be made here. He talks about the division. He said that there are some in China who believe that things must ``get as bad as possible.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe that that is wrong. I do not think that we should have things get as bad as possible, and neither does Tong Bao. He happens to believe that it is important for us to do everything that we can to improve that situation there, and in so doing, I believe that we will create an opportunity to get our western values through Permanent Normal Trade Relations. So I will simply close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I believe that we have a wonderful chance for success. I hope that every single one of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, will join with the Republican leadership here and President Clinton in bringing about a positive vote on this.