David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ken Calvert), another Member who has worked on the task force.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Hunter), our colleague who shares representation of Imperial County with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono); the man who gave his most sterling speech this morning before the Republican Conference.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Monticello, Indiana (Mr. Buyer), who was a very, very close friend of the late Sonny Bono.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Brian Bilbray), another great San Diegan, a great friend, and hard-working two-termer.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, this rule is needed to waive points of order against the conference report on H.R. 2676, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. This legislation is the culmination of years of dedicated effort and hard work by my colleague from Cincinnati, OH (Mr. Portman) and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer). Before outlining the historic nature of the conference report this rule would make in order, I first want to applaud the gentleman from Texas for his tenacity in overcoming the Clinton administration's opposition to bringing some badly needed sanity to the tax code. I am referring, of course, to the provision to roll back the absurd 18-month capital gains holding period that the President insisted on in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. That extra holding period turned the Schedule D form into the Rubik's Cube of tax forms, frustrating millions of families with unnecessary recordkeeping and complexity and also making it difficult for honest taxpayers to comply with the law. Thanks to the inclusion, Madam Speaker, of the Archer rollback provision in this conference report, millions of American families will no longer have to endure endless hours of mindless calculations to complete that Schedule D. But there are other benefits to the rollback as well. Notwithstanding the static revenue estimate provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Federal Government and State governments will see an increase in revenues from the effect of investors unlocking what heretofore has been unproductive capital. The unlocking effect from the reduction in the capital gains tax rate to 20 percent is primarily responsible for this year's budget surplus. Also, as our economy is further buffeted by the effects of the Asian economic crisis, streamlining the capital gains holding period will boost investment, capital formation and economic growth. And I will say parenthetically that I am very pleased that the Speaker has introduced legislation to take that top rate down to 15 percent. Nearly 170 of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, joined in the first session of the 105th Congress to get it to 14 percent. So, we are headed in the right direction. As I mentioned, this is a historic bill that will bring about the first comprehensive reform of the IRS in four decades. It will make the IRS more user friendly by, among other things, establishing an independent governing board and shifting the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS in disputes that reach Tax Court. These reforms will make the IRS more accountable to the American people. They will enhance the fairness of the tax collection process by giving the taxpayer the benefit of the doubt when he or she has cooperated with the IRS and has documented evidence of compliance. These reforms will not solve the more intractable problems brought on by a complicated and inefficient Tax Code. The solutions to those broader problems require comprehensive reform of the Internal Revenue Code itself, which I hope the House will address next year. But the reforms contained in H.R. 2676 will go a long way toward protecting the right of taxpayers, making the IRS more accountable and restoring public confidence in the way the IRS enforces our tax laws. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the conference report. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Dayton, OH (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise simply to associate myself with the very eloquent words of my very dear friend, the gentlewoman from Santa Barbara, California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would simply say that my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), and I obviously share the exact same goal. It is very clear that those of us who believe in the power of markets want to deal with the horrendous repression that exists in China and other parts of the world. It is just that we believe passionately that western values are best epitomized with the movement of free markets, and we believe that the best way to undermine political repression is to get those things in there. In fact, I have concluded and said here time and time again that trade promotes private enterprise, which creates wealth, which improves living standards, which undermines political repression. So I would just like the record to show, Madam Speaker, that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and I share the exact same goals. We obviously are approaching them in a slightly different way. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Bilbray), my very good friend, who is an expert on tax issues and is very pleased with a provision that has been incorporated in this conference report dealing with the effective date on the Tax Code.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise to simply encourage my colleagues to support this rule. It is a very fair and balanced rule. It will finally bring about much needed reform of the Internal Revenue Service, which the American people are desperately seeking. It will provide truth in advertising by finally taking that MFN moniker and changing it to what it is, normal trade relations. I hope we can pass this overwhelmingly. Of course, it will bring the very, very important end to that horrendous 18-month holding period on capital gains, which cannot be forgotten. I know my friend in the Chair was a cosponsor of H.R. 14 to cut that top rate on capital gains, and we are hoping to go further with that, but this is a very good first step. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 490 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to respond to the statement of my very good friend from California (Ms. Pelosi). For starters, this was not secretively stuck into this measure. It has been, discussed frankly for years. There are many people who for a long period of time have said, ``Why don't we have truth in advertising? Why is it that we call something that is not in fact a favored nation status what it is: normal trade relations?'' So for years people have been advocating this, and over the last several weeks a number of individuals have said, ``Gosh, as we proceed with the debate on the traditional MFN issue which will be coming up most likely the week of July 20, a number of people, Democrats and Republicans alike, said, ``Why don't we find an opportunity to finally establish normal trade relations and call them exactly what they are?' ''. There are five countries that do not enjoy what is now considered to be a so-called most-favored-nation trading status. They are Afghanistan, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam. It is basically the rest of the world has this kind of status, and we believe very strongly that it is important for us to do what we can to get our Western values into China. Now my friend from San Francisco very correctly talked about the imbalance of trade with the People's Republic of China that exists, and she is right, there is an imbalance of trade. But there are two points that I would like to make as it relates to that. First and foremost, she falls into that trap of the neo-mercantilist view of trade, that the only benefit for trade is exports; not recognizing that the standard of living in the United States of America is as high as it is because the world has access to our consumer market. And the second point that I think is very important that needs to be made here is the fact that as we have observed job shifts, they have taken place within the Pacific Rim. It is not this flow of U.S. jobs that have been going to China, as some would have us believe, but it has been the shift of jobs from Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea and other countries within the Pacific Rim. As we have seen those shifts take place, what has happened? We have been able to see the cost of products coming into the United States and going to the other parts of the world come at a lower level. So it seems to me all we are providing here is truth in advertising by changing this from ``MFN'' to ``normal trade relations.'' It is the right thing to do. Even opponents of MFN in the past have told me, ``Why don't you call it exactly what it is?'' So we are doing the right thing here, and I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the conference report when we proceed with it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend for yielding time to me. If he had not yielded me the full time, I would have called on my equally dear friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and I am sure he would have gladly given me a minute. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report, and to congratulate all those who have been involved in this issue, and to say that I am particularly pleased about a number of items that really transcend the issue of IRS reform. For starters, I believe that one of the most unfortunate aspects of the 1997 tax bill was this ridiculous, preposterous, bureaucratic 18- month holding period. The Schedule D provisions provided my constituents and all Americans who dealt with the issue of capital gains a great burden. So for us to make the change which the conference did in this bill is, I think, a very important and beneficial one. I congratulate the committee for having taken that action. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a moment, if I might, to engage the chairman in a colloquy on one issue that has, I understand from the report that he has given me, not been discussed so far on this. That happens to be what I believe to be one of the most brilliant truth-in-advertising changes that has been made, that being the shift from this so-called most-favored-nation trading status, and it specifically relates to the People's Republic of China, as the debate around this place goes. We all know that there are only five countries on the face of the Earth that do not enjoy what is now called most-favored-nation trading status with the United States. We are changing the arrangement with the People's Republic of China as we proceed with this debate to correctly call it what it is, normal trade relations. When we were debating the rule on this conference report earlier today, one issue came to the forefront which one of our colleagues said was snuck in at the last minute, and that no one knew about it. Mr. Speaker, I would just like the chairman to, if possible, explain as to whether or not this was snuck in and how it worked out.

Mr. DREIER. I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is it not true that this has been discussed widely for a number of years? Many people around here have been saying we must change this name so people can understand exactly what it is.

Mr. DREIER. I thank the chairman for his explanation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Sanibel for yielding me this time. I am very pleased that the chairman of the Committee on Rules is still here in the Chamber because I would like to rise in very strong support of this rule, because I think that if one were to look at the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, it is very clear that this appropriation bill that we are going to consider is the single most important appropriation bill that we will ever consider here. Why? Because providing for the common defense, as stated in the preamble, is our top priority. We know that there are a wide range of issues with which we deal in this institution, ranging from health care, education, a wide range of things, all of which, all of which can be dealt with by local and State governments and individuals in many cases. But when it comes to our Nation's security, there is no level of government, city, county, State, and individuals cannot unilaterally provide for our common defense. So that is why the measure which the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will be bringing forward as this rule is passed is the single most important appropriation bill that the Congress considers. Having said that, I believe that there are a number of things that need to be brought to light. I know that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman, and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), have spent a great deal of time working, thoughtfully, in a bipartisan way on this. But I am one who believes that as we have looked at national security threats that have come to the forefront just over the past several months, whether it was the potential transfer of technology to the People's Republic of China, the nuclear proliferation and testing that has taken place in India and Pakistan, if we look at the very, very dangerous Korean peninsula, we look at developments in the Middle East, it is obvious that we need to do what we can to enhance our defense capabilities. As was said by the ranking minority member of the subcommittee before the Committee on Rules, he has talked time and time again with the President. The President calls for the deployment of troops to deal with very serious situations throughout the world, and yet we do not always provide the necessary resources for those troops. I was told not long ago that we have troops in 65 countries throughout the world. Yet since we have seen the demise of the Soviet Union, we have cut back, we have cut back dramatically. We all are very pleased that the Soviet bear is now history, but we do still live in a very dangerous world. That is why I strongly support the work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and then some. I hope very much that we will recognize that we can do more. But as we look at this very important question that has come to the forefront on the so-called Y2K problem and the argument that was provided that funding that was necessary was going to be in the defense appropriations bill and the Treasury/postal appropriations bill, it is obvious that the problem is a very, very serious one. If we look at the statement of administration policy that came out, first on the DOD appropriation bill, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has provided me with this; it is very important in looking at the Y2K issue. The statement from the administration is: The administration appreciates the emphasis that the committee has placed on Year 2000, the Y2K computer conversion activities. And so obviously there is recognition and support for that. But then when one looks at the Treasury and general government appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999, on this same issue the administration says: At this time we believe that the resource levels included in the President's budget will fully address Y2K computer conversion requirements governmentwide. Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that we have made the decision that we want to do this in a supplemental is that most everyone has acknowledged that the governmentwide problem impacts all 13 of the appropriations bills. This is a very, very far-reaching issue. There are reports coming right now that a particular airline will in fact not fly any aircraft on the first day of the year 2000. There are reports that we could potentially see, we know all kinds of very dangerous things that could happen, but possibly we could see a blockage of the flow of fuel throughout this country and other parts of the world. Then, of course, as came up during the discussion on the DOD appropriations bill in the Committee on Rules, the potential problem that could exist with computers in other parts of the world, in fact, with countries that have nuclear capability. This is a very, very serious and frightening issue, and that is why, while we see this statement made in the Treasury report of administration policy that they are satisfied with what was there in the administration's budget, we believe very strongly that this needs to be looked at governmentwide in an even more serious way and a more intense way. Now, a statement was made earlier by one of my colleagues that it has been decided that funding for this will come from mandatory spending, that decision has not yet been made. I will say that while the President has said that he wants every nickel of the budget surplus to be expended on Social Security, the thing that concerns us greatly is that some who are looking to deal with this issue simply want it to come from the surplus. We do not know exactly how it is going to be paid for yet, whether it is mandatory or discretionary. But it seems to me that we will be doing everything that we possibly can to deal as responsibly as possible with this. I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I urge support of this rule and the measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Glens Falls, New York, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of both the rule and the resolution, and to say that I am very pleased that in a bipartisan way there has been an agreement on both the establishment of a Select Committee and on the funding levels for the committee, and the fact that they will be coming out of the already appropriated legislative branch measure. I rise as a very strong proponent of what has been known as the Reagan-Bush-Clinton policy of engagement with the People's Republic of China. I still feel very strongly about the need to ensure that we do maintain contact and engagement and, among other things, normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China, because I believe the power of the free market is very, very great, and we should not do anything that would possibly diminish it. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I joined with several of my colleagues when this issue first came to the forefront, colleagues of mine who have joined with us over the years, working to make sure that we have maintained normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China and we sent a letter to the President, which I would like to share with my colleagues. And I do so not trying to in any way raise the level of rhetoric, which I think appropriately both the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) have said that we ought to keep on a balanced level, but to remind our colleagues why it is that we are here dealing with this issue. In the letter that was dated May 22nd, we wrote, Mr. President, each of us has been deeply involved in supporting the policy of engagement and maintaining Most Favored Nation status with the People's Republic of China. We support a strong and stable relationship that is bolstered by free market reforms and the seedlings of democratic progress in that country. The first and foremost responsibility of the Executive Branch is to protect national security. Therefore, we are deeply disturbed by the very serious charges regarding the transfer of rocket technology to China. These charges call into question the fitness of your administration to carry out a sound China policy. We have questions regarding the apparent decision of the administration to place narrow commercial considerations over national security concerns. The fact that large campaign contributions were accepted from firms that stood to gain from such decisions is even more troubling. Our greatest concern is that your administration has undermined its own ability to carry out our Nation's foreign policy toward China. Absent the ability to command respect both at home and abroad, your administration will not be able to move this critical relationship forward. Therefore, we implore you to work quickly with the appropriate Congressional committees to make available all relevant information related to the matters in question. It is in our national security interest to resolve these questions so that we can build support for a policy of engagement in China that is firmly rooted in our national security interests. I strongly support the establishment of this committee, and I support the efforts that I believe can be addressed and put together in a bipartisan way.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like the Record to show that I was in the chamber when the gavel went down without allowing the 2-minute grace period on the recommittal motion on H.R. 3079. I would like the Record to show that, had I been recorded at that time, I would have voted against the recommittal motion.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution just passed.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that I would like to urge support of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the hard-working member of the Committee on the Budget with his very impressive chart.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, to close the debate on our side, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) a member of the Committee on the Budget who is neither a CAT nor a Dog.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, from somewhere in California, I thank my friend for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise to think back to 3 years ago, when, at the second lectern right behind us, the President, in delivering his State of the Union message to an overwhelming bipartisan ovation, said the era of big government is over. Then I am reminded of what he did here just this past January, when he unveiled his plan for $150 billion of new spending programs, and it included, as I guess the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) told us in the Committee on Rules last night, 85 new programs, 39 new entitlements, $130 billion in new taxes. And then I was struck with the fact that just a few weeks after that the new premiere of the People's Republic of China, Zhu Rongji, unveiled his plan to close down 14 government ministries and lay off 4 million bureaucrats. And as we debate this China-U.S. problem that we have got that the administration has quite possibly created, I wonder which government is headed in the right direction. Thank God we are having this debate which is beginning to focus back onto the issue of individual initiative and responsibility and creating a climate where we will have Washington do better with less so that the American family will do better with more. Now it seems to me that, as we look at this, one of the things that was very troubling to me, and I raised it last night when the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget was in the Committee on Rules, was this idea of saying that any time that we look at the prospect of cutting taxes it has to be offset with a tax increase. I am not a big fan of this paygo provision, because we found that since we were able to reduce the top rate on capital gains what happened? We have generated a tremendous surge in revenues to the Federal Treasury. Mr. Speaker, 172 Democrats and Republicans joined with us in our quest to reduce that top rate on capital gains from 28 to 14 percent. We did not quite get there. But I am convinced that if we were to go even further we could generate another level of revenues to the Treasury. I think that what we need to do is we need to have a cut in the payroll tax. 75 percent of the American people pay more in payroll taxes than they do in Federal income taxes. It seems to me that we are now at least starting to get back on the right track, countering what was said here at the State of the Union message earlier. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this rule, and I urge support of the Kasich budget that we will be moving forward with.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), my favorite play-by-play sportscaster.