David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare for a load of speeches that most of us will be giving on Monday, it is important to think about the debate which has taken place today on the Defense Authorization Act. The issues raised during the debate on amendments to the Defense Authorization Act, as I said, which involve the relationship between the United States and China, are some of the most deeply troubling that I have witnessed since I have had the privilege of serving here in the Congress. And make no mistake about it, the long-term bilateral relationship between the United States of America and China is very serious business. We are talking about the world's leading democracy and only superpower and the world's fastest growing and most populous nation. This may be the most important bilateral relationship in the world. We have a responsibility to make every effort to craft a strong and stable bilateral relationship that is built on positive economic and political reforms in China. Mr. Speaker, success is critical to our future. Now, our Constitution places in the executive branch, in the presidency, the responsibility to first and foremost protect our Nation's security. As the Commander in Chief and executor of foreign relations, there is no substitute for the President on foreign policy. During the past two administrations, I have worked long and hard on a bipartisan basis to help craft policies toward China which promote more stable relations based on free market reforms and the seedlings of democratic progress in that country. What is so troubling today is that very serious, Mr. Speaker, disturbingly serious charges are being leveled at the current administration which cut to the very heart of the fitness of the administration to carry out a sound China policy. The first and foremost responsibility of the executive branch of the President is to protect national security. Nobody else can do that, Mr. Speaker, not American businesses and not other foreign entities. The key events in question do not seem to be in dispute. We know that for years a number of American firms that construct and use satellites have desired to use Chinese launch vehicles, Chinese rockets. They have used them because they are cheaper and more available. The big problem has been that they are very unreliable. Those rockets blow up too often, destroying their expensive satellite cargo. This, obviously, can be a big problem. In the spring of 1996, a Chinese rocket blew up that was carrying such a satellite. It is reported that the insurance companies responsible for the $200 million satellite destroyed by the rocket failure essentially told their American satellite customers to either improve the reliability of Chinese launch vehicles or find new launch sources. It is reported that the U.S. companies proceeded to help improve the launch vehicles. Mr. Speaker, this assistance raised very, very serious red flags at the Department of Defense and the Department of State about the prospect that this assistance would likely help improve Chinese ballistic missiles, a clear national security concern. The key fact is that over the course of 2 years, an internal debate raged within the administration between the economic benefits to a few companies being able to use better Chinese launch vehicles and clear national security warnings from within the Defense and State Departments. Added to the mix are a blizzard of campaign contributions to the President's campaign from the corporate interests involved. Mr. Speaker, while no pun is intended, it does not take a rocket scientist to recognize that better Chinese satellite launch vehicles will result in better Chinese ballistic missiles. The fact that it appears that the administration chose the financial benefits of some companies over a clear national security concern is very troubling. The fact that such large campaign sums may have had an impact on the decision is even more disturbing. Finally, the fact that the Administration would devastate their own ability to carry out our Nation's foreign policy towards China with some degree of respect and moral authority is staggering. The administration had better recognize the signal that was sent to them by the House with the passage of the amendments today. The relationship with China is too important to be foolishly squandered. It is time for the administration to immediately provide the Congress with all information related to these events. While we have a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to continue to try to foster a sound relationship with China, we must ensure that the administration holds national security as the bedrock upon which our foreign relations stand.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Could we clarify that before we proceed further with the debate?

Mr. DREIER. I think, once again, we are making each other's arguments. My friend is for tax and spend, we are for cutting the tax burden on working families. So we have clarified that. But let me just ask this question once again. Does the gentleman's amendment go beyond simply deleting the Dreier language that was passed in Committee on Rules? He has just said that is what his intent is, but I am continually told by our crack staff assistants around here that it goes well beyond that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) be given an additional 2 minutes.

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

Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman be given 2 additional minutes.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that like my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), I share representation of the Los Angeles area with him and I am very sensitive and concerned about environmental quality, both in California and throughout this country and throughout the world, and I will say that I would do nothing whatsoever that would in any way jeopardize or endanger environmental quality in this country. All we are saying with the underlying language here is we would look at the perspective imposition of mandates on the private sector, and we will have a 20-minute debate and we will be able to look specifically at that mandate, and we will be able to then proceed with an up or down vote here. I think it needs to be very clear, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and I pointed out in a ``Dear Colleague'' the other day, that this underlying bill itself will not end private sector mandates, just as the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act which we passed has not ended public sector mandates. It will, however, force the Congress to consider the effects of mandates on consumers, workers and small businesses, including any disparate impact on particular regions of the country or industries, and to work with the private sector to establish our public policies in the most efficient and cost effective manner. That is what the whole goal of this bill is designed to address. This bill cannot be used to block a vote on environmental health and safety mandates. A point of order is subject, as I said, to the 20 minutes of debate, after which the Members must vote on whether to proceed with consideration of the legislation. This mechanism was crafted to ensure that the House would have additional information and debate time on certain Federal mandates, but that legislation containing such mandates could continue to be considered by the House, if a majority so desires. This is clearly, Mr. Chairman, about having accurate information. There are some horror stories that have been brought to our attention here. In 1993, the Department of Transportation considered promulgating hazardous material regulations for the shipping of butter and salad oil. The plan would have required 24 hours of hazardous material classroom and field training for workers who responded to butter or salad oil spill emergencies. In November of 1995, Congress approved legislation requiring Federal agencies charged with the regulation of oil to treat animal fats and vegetable oils differently from toxic chemicals. Under the Waxman amendment, that legislation would have been subject to a point of order, which seems to me to be very preposterous. Mr. Chairman, while the Clean Water Act requires a waste treatment facility to submit a simple form stating that a fence restricts access by the public, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requires an additional 25 pages detailing the fence design, the location of the posts and gates, a cross-section of the wire mesh and other minor technical matters. One facility had to submit a six-foot stack of supporting documents with its permit application. Under the amendment we are considering right now by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), legislation to streamline this paperwork process and save hundreds of trees would be subject to a point of order. So all we are saying, Mr. Chairman, is we want the House to deliberate, but we do not want to move ahead with this sort of tactic which, I think, would jeopardize the goal of the underlying legislation.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding to me. I appreciate his courtesy, Mr. Chairman, and I rise simply to respond to the statements that were made by the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and I am very, very sad that he would not yield to me for a clarification. The statement that he made in the well was a very eloquent argument against the underlying unfunded mandates bill. He does not want us to in any way be able to zero in and target those mandates which are imposed by Washington, D.C. onto the private sector, small businessmen and women of our economy. He tried to say that he simply was supporting the Moakley amendment in opposition to the amendment that I had offered in the Committee on Rules. But he went much, much further than that. There are no tax increases in the ISTEA legislation that has moved forward. It seems to me that we should recognize that what the gentleman was trying to do was simply trying to oppose the entire language. What the gentleman argued would not in any way be addressed if we simply passed the Moakley amendment and then went ahead and passed the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, for yielding so I can clarify that.

Mr. DREIER. I wanted to clarify.

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

Mr. DREIER. I think, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to inquire, then, of the Chair, if it does go beyond simply deleting the Dreier amendment.

Mr. DREIER. So the gentleman's intention is to simply to delete the Dreier amendment?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I think the gentleman has really explained this very well once again. He is in favor of spending for a wide range of very well intentioned proposals, and I think a lot of these issues need to be addressed; whereas we, with my amendment, are focusing on this whole question of reducing the tax burden on working families. But, let me just say that I am a little confused at exactly what we have before us right now, because apparently, and the gentleman can correct me if I am wrong, but the amendment that has just been put forward goes much further than simply deleting the so-called Dreier language. It appears to me it guts the entire bill. Now, my friend told me that he is no longer supportive of the bill as he might have been in the past when we were talking earlier, but the way this amendment has been crafted, I have just been informed that it basically strikes out all points of order that can be raised against private sector mandates. Is that the gentleman's intention?

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

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire, is the amendment pending?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to engage my colleague, if I could, with a question. Is there an amendment that we are considering here?

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

Mr. DREIER. I do not have anything to say, Mr. Chairman, until I know what it is.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I guess the gentleman will be recognized then in support of his amendment and I would like to be heard in opposition to it. Amendment Offered by Mr. Moakley

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment, not surprisingly, and I have a prepared statement which I know the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) will understand very clearly. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Moakley amendment because it seeks to perpetuate a set of budget rules that have, for the past decade, dramatically shifted Federal policy in the direction of more Washington spending programs at the expense of tax relief for working families. At a time when the Federal Government is raising $500 billion more in revenue than was projected in the Balanced Budget Act, it is unconscionable our colleagues in the minority would attempt to further rig the rule so that those revenues which belong to hard-working families can be used to tax and spend our way out of a balanced budget. H.R. 3534 provides that if a measure contains private sector mandates exceeding $100 million, consideration of the measure may be subject to a point of order. An exception is made for legislation containing tax or tariff provisions which cause the $100 million threshold to be exceeded but result in an overall net reduction of tax or tariff revenue over a 5-year period, provided that the bill does not include other nonrevenue-related Federal private sector mandates that exceed that $100 million threshold. If a bill contains tax or tariff provisions which result in a net increase in revenues, or it contains nonrevenue related mandates, a point of order may still apply. This language is necessary, Mr. Chairman, because in the universe of private sector mandates, our budget rules discriminate against tax cuts by requiring that they be paid for by increases in other tax revenues or reductions in mandatory spending. In other words, our budget rules require us to impose mandates on the private sector as a condition of providing tax relief to the American people. In addition, given the dynamic effects of tax rate changes, I find it hard to believe that anyone would suggest that tax rate reductions that may actually raise revenue, such as the capital gains tax cut, we all know it has been a revenue raiser, should be treated as private sector mandates and subject to a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I find it ludicrous, but that is exactly what would happen if the Moakley amendment were to prevail. Mr. Chairman, I also want to respond to some inaccuracies in the administration's policy statement on this bill. It states, and I quote, The administration is especially concerned about the amendment added to the bill that would establish a point of order on the use of user fees and revenues. Mr. Chairman, someone did not read the amendment that was adopted in the Committee on Rules that I offered because the point of order was always in the bill. The amendment that I authored in the Committee on Rules makes an exception to that point of order. The statement for the administration further goes on, and I quote, This amendment could delay or undermine funding for a number of well-established and important programs and laws that have traditionally received bipartisan support, including airline, air traffic and ground safety; the Superfund program; the Senate passed version of the Internal Revenue Service reform bill; and legislation under consideration that provides relief to tobacco farmers and additional resources for public health and health research. Once again, Mr. Chairman, the person who wrote that statement obviously did not read the bill or my amendment. All H.R. 3534 says is that if a point of order is made, it is subject to 20 minutes of debate, after which the Members must vote on whether to proceed with consideration of the legislation. All we are doing is encouraging a deliberative process. This mechanism was crafted to ensure that the House would have additional information and debate time on certain Federal mandates, but that legislation containing such mandates could continue to be considered by the House if a majority so desires. The Dreier amendment, adopted by the Committee on Rules, does nothing to change this process. In other words, if Congress takes up legislation to raise tobacco taxes and uses that revenue to fund President Clinton's great budget blow-out proposals that he unveiled here in his State of the Union message, that legislation could be subject to a question of consideration. The Committee on Rules amendment did nothing to change that outcome. If, however, revenues from a tobacco tax increase are returned to working families in the form of tax relief, then the Committee on Rules amendment provides an exclusion from the point of order. Mr. Chairman, the Moakley amendment seeks to strike this taxpayer protection and allows legislation providing a net tax reduction to be subject to a point of order if it contains loophole closers or tax rate cuts that actually raise revenue. This will further bias our procedures against tax cuts and seriously undermine our efforts to simplify the Tax Code and provide badly needed tax relief to working families. For this reason and all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I am going to oppose the amendment.

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 H.R. 3534, the bill just passed.