David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to inquire of the chair of the subcommittee, it is my understanding there are five pending recorded votes.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the waiver extension and in opposition of the resolution of disapproval. I think that Thomas Jefferson was right on target when he said, ``Two thinking men can be given the exact same set of facts and draw different conclusions.'' Mr. Speaker, I obviously have the highest regard for the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), my very dear friend and a great hero, a former POW himself, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and others who are supporting the resolution, and of course the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of my Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, when I think about the changes that all of us have observed over the past several years in Vietnam, they are incredible. I went in the early part of this decade and had the chance to see Negen Kotach, who was the Foreign Minister, present to me translated copies of Paul Samuelson's economic text. There are very bold moves being made towards a free market, and in fact we are making progress in the area of human rights. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of serving on the POW/MIA Task Force. In 1986, I went with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) on my first trip to Vietnam. It was a very, very troubling experience for all of us. But I have concluded that over this period of time, based on every shred of evidence that we have, we have seen a dramatic improvement in the cooperation of the Vietnamese Government with the United States in trying to resolve this issue. So, I oppose the resolution of disapproval and support the extension of the Jackson-Vanick waiver.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 510 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Frost), my friend, and pending that I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, all time that I will be yielding will be for debate purposes only. General Leave

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in the Record on the resolution now being considered.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order H.R. 4328, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1999 under an open rule containing a number of noncontroversial waivers against points of order. The rule also self- executes two noncontroversial changes in the bill, of which one is technical in nature. I would like to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, as well as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the full committee, and the other members of the committee for the tremendous job that they did in producing a bill that adequately funds our Nation's priorities within the constraints imposed by both the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Transportation Equity Act of 1998. Although 70 percent of the bill consists of spending mandated by the T.E.A. 21, resulting in a substantial increase in funding for highway and transit programs, the subcommittee was also able to increase funding for drug interdiction efforts and transportation safety programs. A total of $406 million is provided for Coast Guard counter-drug activities, an increase of $73.8 million over the President's request. Funding to reduce fatalities on the Nation's roadways is increased by more than 8 percent. Despite this balanced effort, I find it hard to believe that the administration, which signed the T.E.A. 21 bill into law, could be critical of the funding levels that are in this appropriations bill. Unfortunately, this seems to be par for the course for an administration that proposes to pay for more government spending with $9 billion in new taxes and user fees that are political nonstarters. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations produced a fair and balanced bill, and the Committee on Rules was equal to the task of reporting this rule. Therefore, I urge adoption of both the rule and the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as the Nation and the Capitol Hill family and, of course, the families of Special Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut deal with this extraordinary tragedy, we, of course, extend our condolences to the immediate family members and their dear friends, including all of our friends here on Capitol Hill who have been so impacted by this. One cannot help but think of what it is we can learn from this, and what it is that this has taught us. Of course, we have all, over the past few days, expressed greater appreciation for those men and women who are on the front line as Capitol Hill police officers than we have ever have. I have always prided myself on being friendly and talking with them, but there have been more than a few occasions where I have been in a hurry and rushed by. Over the weekend and yesterday and today, of course, like all of my colleagues, we have stopped and taken a moment to express our appreciation. We all know how important gratitude is. We also must remember, as we have just had the opportunity to walk by the two caskets in the great rotunda, and in about 45 minutes we will be moving into the Rotunda for this service, but we have to remember that this experience shows us the magnitude of man's humanity to man. We know it is, from this experience, our deeds that make us great, and while we have been talking, as we do so well here, we know that our words are important, but it is our deeds that will be remembered. Mr. Speaker, these two men exemplify the simple, everyday greatness of self-sacrifice. I join in extending condolences to the Gibson and Chestnut families, and wish them God speed.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4520, the Patient Protection Act, because it upholds a patient's most fundamental right-- the right to choose his/her own health care. As much as I believe that health insurance bureaucrats should not be able to decide what is best for patients, the federal government also should not be issuing onerous mandates and regulations that micromanage the care that patients receive. Instead, we should provide consumers with additional choices that may not be available from their employer-provided health care plan. Many employees are frustrated because they are forced by their employer to join a health plan that does not offer the level of benefits or protections that they want. This occurs because the federal tax code prevents employees from making important decisions about their health care. Under a quirk in the federal tax code, employers receive a tax subsidy for providing health care to their employees, and since employers pay for the health care, there is an incentive to purchase a plan based on costs, not on level of benefits. To give employees the option to choose coverage with a higher level of benefits, the solution then is not to add another layer of mandates, but to alter the system so that employees can choose the health plan that is best for them. To accomplish this goal, H.R. 4520 creates a system similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits program known as HealthMarts which are private non-profit organizations that offer a variety of health benefits to small businesses and the self-insured. Employers pay a set fee to the HealthMart, and it provides a variety of health insurance options, including health maintenance organizations, paid provider organizations, and fee-for-service plans, to employees. With a HealthMart, the employee, not the employer, has the flexibility to choose the type of plan based on the level of benefits, protections and costs. HealthMarts eliminate the possibility that employees feel dissatisfied with the health coverage and empowers them to choose the best provider that meets their needs. Unlike the Democrat substitute, H.R. 4520 actually addresses the 41 million Americans lacking access to affordable health insurance. Regrettably, many of these Americans are in families in which one member works in a job that does not provide health care coverage. Because they lack the purchasing power of large businesses, many small businesses often find the cost of providing coverage too prohibitive. H.R. 4520 gives small businesses and the self-insured the ability to bank together to obtain more affordable health care coverage. These Association Health Plans allow employers to join together through a trade association or their local Chamber of Commerce to broaden their risk pool and give them the same purchasing power as large corporations. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4520 provides an effective means to protect patients by offering them more choices. The Patient Protection Act restores accountability to health plans without raising premiums on the most vulnerable. It will also reduce the number of uninsured through innovative reforms and the creation of health care ``supermarkets'' so that the average American can have more available choices. I would like to commend my colleagues who served on the Working Group on Health Care Quality for their tremendous efforts in bringing forth this responsible legislation, and I urge support of this measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be able to have this opportunity to stand here in the well and say that just a few minutes ago the President signed the IRS Reform Bill, which has now established exactly what it is we are debating. There is nothing favored about this. We are talking about normal trade relations. Even many of the leading proponents of this resolution admit that it is not a serious legislative proposal; it is just a signal, a primal scream of frustration, a helpless yelp of resignation. We must send a clear signal. Furthering reform in China is a moral issue. And I think it is important for us to listen to some moral leaders who have commented on it. The Reverend Billy Graham said: ``I am in favor of doing all we can to strengthen our relationship with China and its people. China is rapidly becoming one of the dominant economic and political powers in the world, and I believe it is far better for us to keep China as a friend than to treat it as an adversary.'' The Reverend Pat Robertson: ``Leaving a billion people in spiritual darkness punishes not the Chinese Government but the Chinese people. The only way to pursue morality is to engage China fully.'' And His Holiness the Dalai Lama: ``Confrontation or condemnation: I don't think it works. The only practical way is to be a genuine friend.'' Mr. Speaker, we know that the single most positive change in the 5,000-year history of China has been the economic reform, those economic reforms which have empowered hundreds of millions of individuals to be lifted out of poverty. It is the height of absurdity to send a signal attacking the one positive change. We have found over the years, over the last decade and a half, that maintaining economic engagement has in fact led to the positive political reform that we all seek. We found that out in Chile. We found that out in Argentina. And in the Pacific Rim, we found that out in both Taiwan and South Korea. We never thought of cutting off economic ties with any of those 4 countries, which had horribly repressive human rights policies. And what has it brought about? That policy has helped us improve political pluralism, human rights, the rule of law in those nations. And it will do the same in China. If we are going to send a positive signal, we should be doing the very important things that we have discussed repeatedly here in the Congress. For one thing, $22 million for Radio-Free Asia, which is included in the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill, is a request that is over that that the President has requested. I want to compliment the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), chairman of that very important subcommittee, who has led the charge to help in this effort supporting the increased funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. I am privileged to work with the International Republican Institute, a very important arm of that. We now have over half a billion Chinese people who have participated in village elections there; and in 40 percent of those elections, we have seen non-communist candidates actually victorious. I think it is also very important for us to send a signal to the other body. That signal is they should pass the very important China bills that we successfully reported out of the House of Representatives last year. Maintaining this strategy of engagement is the wave of the future. We have to recognize that if we are going to do everything that we can to help the people in the United States and the people in China, we must maintain normal trade relations.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend and classmate from Findlay, OH (Mr. Oxley) the chairman of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Morristown, New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a very hard- working member of the Committee on Appropriations, one of the leaders in the cause of our strategy of engagement. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule; and I do so with the greatest respect for my very good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Sid Yates) who, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) said earlier, is going to be retiring. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) has over the last several weeks been insisting that the genes that have come from my late father will continue, because it is no secret that my father, who was very active as the head of the Lyric Opera Company in Kansas City, Missouri and several other organizations, was a strong supporter of the National Endowment of the Arts and encouraged me to do that. But let me just talk for a moment about this rule. I have heard words like ``Byzantine'' and ``extreme partisanship'' used to describe this rule, and I think it is important for us to note that there is a great deal of controversy about the National Endowment for the Arts. I am on record in the past saying while I am a very strong supporter of the arts, I make personal contributions to different efforts around the country, I do believe that when we look at the limited resources that we have here in Washington, D.C. and the fact that priorities need to be established, I think it is a very justifiable debate to say that expending hard-working taxpayer dollars on the arts is in fact not the most responsible use of those dollars when we have a very strong economy and voluntary contributions, with tax deductibility, can in fact be expanded. But as far as this rule is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that with this controversy we have without an authorization run by this structure that we have put into place saying that we should not have this measure protected in the appropriations bill but we will still, when it is struck out, have the opportunity for an up-or-down vote to be made with the Johnson amendment that will be made in order. So I think that the rhetoric is what has troubled me in saying that this is somehow Byzantine and extremely partisan when we are giving the debate an opportunity to be heard in the House. I do support this rule and the final bill as it comes forward.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), my soon-to-be friend, for yielding me such time as I may consume. He has been a friend and will continue to be a friend in large part because while his Dear Colleague letter said that this is to deal with border pollution, frankly those of us from the area that the gentleman describes as northern California, which is Los Angeles, are actually in fact the beneficiaries of this, too. Because clearly as we have looked at those automobiles which continue to pump out horrible pollutants, we have seen many of them on the freeways of Los Angeles. And so I simply want to rise and congratulate the vision of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) to not only address the needs of the San Diego area, but I believe that they really transcend those. I also am particularly privileged to be here with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), my very good friend. He and I for years debated the North American Free Trade Agreement. I have come to the conclusion that we today are able to look at issues like those that have been raised in the area of air quality by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) because of the fact that the North American Free Trade Agreement has focused attention on improving air quality and other environmental concerns. So, I simply want to say that as we look at the challenge that is ahead of us of improving our environment, there is no one who has been there on the frontline doing it more diligently than the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray). Mr. Speaker, a spectacular editorial was written by the San Diego Union-Tribune and should be included in the Record, so I submit that editorial for inclusion at this point in the Record. [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, June 27, 1998] Smog Intervention--Bill Would Aim at Nabbing Mexican Polluters As the largest city on the border, San Diego suffers disproportionately from the growing volume of air pollution generated by Mexican-registered vehicles that lack adequate smog controls. That's why San Diegans should cheer the House Commerce Committee's approval this week of a bill by Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Imperial Beach, to crack down on Mexican- registered polluters. California law requires Mexico-based autos that commute daily into the state to meet California emission standards. Most of these vehicles are owned by workers who live in Mexico but have jobs in California. They include both American and Mexican nationals. The problem, however, is that U.S. border agents have no legal authority to stop border commuters who lack California smog-check certificates. Bilbray's legislation would close that enforcement loophole, empowering U.S. agents to impound the vehicles of border commuters who are repeat offenders of California's air pollution laws. He estimates the crackdown on Mexican-based polluters would curb vehicular smog in San Diego by as much as 13 percent--a very significant amount, considering that autos account for the lion's share of our air pollution. With the Commerce Committee's approval of the bill, it is expected to win passage on the House floor later this year. But it has no champion in the Senate. Without one, it will die when Congress adjourns in the fall. Bilbray's proposal applies to border crossings in California only. Thus the only senators with a stake in it are California Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. Our hope is that they will team up to win Senate approval of the House bill so that San Diegans can breathe a bit easier. Mr. Speaker, the editorial points out the fact that the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) has been working for a long period of time on this issue, and it ends with a very important message. After this measure passes the House of Representatives, it is going to need to go through the United States Senate. So I would implore our colleagues in the other body to move as expeditiously as possible on this very important measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, some computers and electronic systems will have difficulty adjusting to the dates beginning in the year 2000. This is the oft-mentioned ``Y2K'' bug. This problem is caused by a long-time custom in electronic industries to use 2-digit dates. Thus, 1980 was simply ``80'', 1990 was ``90'', and 1998 is ``98.'' However, that system does not work when we get to January 1, 2000. At that time, many machines will think it is January 1, 1900. There are enormous national interests at stake as we prepare to deal with the technical challenge of the year 2000. Critical national infrastructures may be threatened, including many government services, banking and financial services, energy and power, telecommunications, transportation, and vital human services such as hospitals. It is not surprising that Federal Government agencies include millions of computer and electronic systems. Led by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), the chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, the Republican Congress has pushed long and hard to whip Federal agencies into action to address Y2K problems. Although the Federal Government faces a major Y2K challenge, the private sector challenge from the year 2000 transition is far greater. Recent congressional testimony from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System estimated costs at roughly $50 billion, and many estimates go far beyond that staggering figure. And those are U.S. costs alone. Actually, this is an international problem, and we must recognize that. Mr. Speaker, while I am not an alarmist, I believe it is prudent for Congress to immediately consider legislation to help the private sector deal with Y2K problems. It is clear that two legislative reforms would effectively encourage computer-related companies and the private sector clients that they serve to avoid Y2K problems and reduce the impact on the public by, first, a limited modification of Federal liability law and, second, a targeted anti-trust exemption for firms working together to deal with Y2K problems. These reforms make up H.R. 4240, legislation that I introduced just yesterday called the Y2K Liability and Anti- Trust Reform Act. The press is already reporting that some unscrupulous lawyers are planning and filing multi-billion-dollar Y2K lawsuits to reap monetary rewards from America's pain. It is clearly in the national interest to have companies focused on fixing Y2K problems rather than being frozen by the fear of lawsuits. Earlier this week, the Clinton administration proposed a pop-gun response to this potentially immense problem. The President proposed to provide a small degree of liability protection to encourage companies to share information on how to solve Y2K problems. Mr. Speaker, far more than that is needed. With just 17 months remaining before January 1, 2000, one of our core principles on Y2K policy must be to focus all relevant talent and energies on avoiding the problems. While the President's proposal falls short, the liability provisions in H.R. 4240 are the best way to achieve that goal. While talk is nice, the Y2K Liability and Anti-Trust Reform Act provides a real incentive for companies to solve Y2K problems before computer systems fail and the American people suffer. My legislation requires computer-related companies to take responsibility for products they have developed and sold. They must make fixes available to customers for their non-Y2K compatible hardware and software, and those fixes must be available cost-free for products sold after December 31, 1994. I am confident that freed from the fear of multi-billion-dollar lawsuits that the enormously creative and successful American high-technology industries can respond to this challenge. Companies that use computer and electronic systems must also take responsibility for fixing Y2K problems before things go wrong. Remember, Mr. Speaker, it is the American people that lose when a company adopts a strategy based on the plan to simply sue someone when things go wrong. Companies that use computer and electronic systems gain a similar degree of liability protection if they make all reasonable efforts to fix the Y2K problems in their systems, run a test by July 1, 1999, and notify all customers and the President's Y2K Commission of the prospects for their own Y2K failures by August 1, 1999. Right now, as the clock ticks towards the year 2000, too much private-sector energy is being wasted on legal liability strategies rather than finding and fixing potential failures. The liability provisions in H.R. 4240 will create a real incentive for companies to focus on finding and fixing problems, because there will be a tangible reward, some freedom from aggressive Y2K lawsuits.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to my very distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Palm Springs, California (Mrs. Bono).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, this rule makes in order a bill that will bring to fruition the hard work of our late friend and colleague, Sonny Bono. Specifically, it makes in order H.R. 3267, the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act, under a modified closed rule. The rule does provide for a substitute to be offered by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), or his designee. The structured rule is necessary, Madam Speaker, to protect a fragile compromise that is supported by all of the stakeholders in the restoration of the Salton Sea. The compromise ensures the expeditious development and congressional consideration of a plan to stop the ongoing environmental damage to the Salton Sea and to restore its health. Because the environmental problems facing the wildlife refuge and reservoir are worsening so quickly, it is important that Congress pass legislation that allows it to be addressed as quickly as possible. This rule, Madam Speaker, also ensures, as I said, that a minority alternative will be fully debated. I would like to commend the members of the bipartisan Salton Sea Task Force. The leaders of that have been our California colleagues, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Brown, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Doolittle of the Subcommittee on Water and Power. They have done a tremendous job, and they have worked long and hard in reaching a consensus that will allow this legislation to move forward. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3267 is critical to the health of both the environment and the economy in both Imperial and Riverside Counties. The Salton Sea is an integral part of the Pacific Flyway, providing food and a major rest stop for hundreds of thousands of waterfowl and shore birds. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the health of the sea is essential to the long-term viability of the migratory bird population on the west coast. Five endangered or threatened bird species and one endangered fish species depend on the Salton Sea. The economic impact of the project is equally significant. A study by the University of California Riverside's Economic Data Bank and Forecasting Center estimates the economic benefits of restoring the Salton Sea of between $3.4 and $5.7 billion. This includes the benefits of increased tourism, recreation, farming and other economic activity around the restored sea. The Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Restoration Act will halt a serious and ongoing decline in the local economy and replace it with real jobs and good, positive growth for the area. Madam Speaker, the deterioration of the Salton Sea is a problem that can be solved. While reducing the salinity presents a significant challenge, there are feasible plans for addressing the problem, including diking off a portion of the sea to serve as a final sink for collecting salt. The bill that the House will consider today allows this and other policy responses to be thoroughly researched so Congress can later consider the most cost-effective approach. Given the importance of the Salton Sea to the local economy and as a habitat for wildlife, it makes sense for the Federal Government to work in partnership with State and local governments to try to develop a plan for fixing the problem. This is particularly true given that H.R. 3267 only commits the Federal Government to considering a cleanup plan, not to helping fund the cleanup. This is a fitting tribute to a man who cared deeply about restoring the Salton Sea and for whom H.R. 3267 is named. For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of both the rule and the bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Dayton, Ohio (Mr. Hall), the distinguished ranking minority member of the very prestigious Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will say that all time that I will be yielding will be for debate purposes only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.)

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Obviously, with the remarks that we have heard from Members, not only from California but from other parts of the country, this is a very important environmental issue for us and it is a very important tribute not only to the late Sonny Bono but to his successor, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mary Bono), who has done a very, very important job here for the entire Nation, and I urge support of the rule.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 500 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mount Holly, New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the very distinguished chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Redlands, California (Mr. Lewis). Californians could not ask for a more able dean of our delegation.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.