David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, as has been made very clear, that the thrust of what this amendment that I have offered is designed to do is to decrease that extraordinary burden on working families. I think that while there may be this view out there, my friend said he has been a long-time supporter of this measure, I would like to share with him and my colleagues a list of just a few of those people who have said that they support the bill as it was reported in the Committee with the Dreier language. That includes the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Taxpayers Union, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the American Farm Bureau, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Restaurant Association, the National Retail Federation, Small Business Survival Committee, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors, American Subcontractors Association, National Association of Self-employed, National Association of Manufacturers, and on and on and on and on. So virtually everyone is supportive of the language as has come out. My friend, who has been a supporter of the bill, I appreciate it, and he is welcome to stand alone in favor of tax increases over tax cuts.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I think my friend from West Los Angeles has actually made a very good point. There are more than a few Members in this House, including the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, we have a couple of very distinguished members of the Ways and Means here who are looking at the idea of overhauling the Tax Code. And I will tell my colleagues, I hear often from the people whom I am privileged to represent in California that they want us to certainly pare back, overhaul or possibly even eliminate the Internal Revenue Service. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has a proposal, we have flat rate tax proposals, but it appears to me that if we were to proceed with the Moakley language deleting the amendment I offered in the Committee on Rules, we could not even consider a complete overhaul of the Tax Code, which the American people desperately want. And so, as my friend from California (Mr. Waxman) has just indicated, we have a situation here that, yes, there could be some kind of modification, but I think it is very troubling this would tie the hands of a Congress that really wants to do these kinds of things.

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

Mr. DREIER. This is a big tax and spend bill, and I would just like to make sure we have the right amendment before us.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out that the gentleman from Iowa, with whom the gentleman from Massachusetts has just agreed, was actually disagreeing with the whole thrust of the legislation.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Sugarland, Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished Republican Whip.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to my friend and hallmate, the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Portman), the lead author of this measure who has worked long and hard on not only this issue, but the unfunded mandates that were imposed on State and local governments.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a very able member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Fairfax, Virginia (Mr. Davis), author of a very important amendment which we intend to accept.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time remains for general debate on each side?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 429) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 426 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from South Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), and pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, all time yielded will be for purposes of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order H.R. 3534, the Mandates Information Act of 1998, under a completely open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules. This is an appropriate rule, since the purpose of H.R. 3534 is to improve deliberation on proposed private sector mandates. Mr. Speaker, in the first 2 years that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act went into effect, Congress passed 13 bills with private sector mandates costing more than $100 million. In contrast, only one bill passed with intergovernmental mandates, costing more than $50 million. To address the very clear bias against the private sector and the way we consider legislation containing Federal mandates, our colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), introduced H.R. 3534, the Mandates Information Act of 1998. I want to commend them on a job well done. H.R. 3534 is a revised version of an earlier bill introduced by the same sponsors. It contains necessary safeguards to ensure that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act procedures cannot be abused. The bill was further improved in the Committee on Rules last week with an amendment providing an exception to the point of order procedure for legislation that results in an overall net reduction of tax or tariff revenue over a 5-year period, and provided that the bill does not include other non- revenue-related mandates that costs $100 million or more. This change is needed to address a bias in our procedures against tax cuts, and against efforts to overhaul and simplify the tax code. Mr. Speaker, the current Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not go far enough to discourage Congress from imposing costly mandates on the private sector. Such mandates cost businesses, consumers, and workers about $700 million annually, or $7,000 per American household. That is more than one-third the size of the entire Federal budget. These mandates are particularly burdensome on families attempting to climb the economic ladder, Mr. Speaker. Over the next 5 years, 3 million people will move from welfare to private sector payrolls. Small businesses will provide most of those jobs, yet the imposition of new mandates upon existing burdens will reduce the resources available to create those much needed jobs. It is important to note that H.R. 3534 does nothing to roll back some of those unnecessary mandates, nor does it prevent the enactment of additional mandates. But it will make Congress more accountable by requiring more deliberation and more information when Federal mandates are proposed. Likewise, Mr. Speaker, this rule would allow us to fully deliberate H.R. 3534, so I urge adoption of the rule and adoption of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Glens Falls, New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is very clear that my friends on the other side of the aisle are very concerned about the idea of an overall tax cut, and in spending more time looking at the Dreier amendment, I think people have found that clearly, if we look at a question like capital gains, we have found within the past several weeks that reducing the top rate on capital gains has actually increased the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. When we have a broad bill, a bill that is actually cutting taxes, if there is some adjustment in there, for example, if we were looking at tax simplification, which this Republican Congress is focusing attention on, the idea of a flat tax, the idea of a consumption tax, an overhaul of the present tax code, if we look at the grand scheme of things there, and there is some modification which would have the slightest increase in some area, and I know my friend, as is so often the case from the other side of the aisle, is perpetuating the class warfare of the poor versus the rich, us versus them, but the fact of the matter is that there is even a minor technical correction in there. All we are saying is that the overall bill cuts taxes. Let us be in favor of reducing that burden on working people in this country. That is the reason we are going ahead with this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. DREIER. If my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, would further yield, I would simply say that clearly there is nothing in the Dreier amendment that prevents us from having a debate and having a discussion on this issue. We are doing that right now, and I think we will continue to. The question really will come down to a very simple and basic point. My friends on the other side of the aisle support tax increases. Those on this side of the aisle are passionately committed to reducing that tax burden.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Portman), the lead author on this legislation.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Goss), chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as has been said probably most eloquently by the gentleman from South Boston, this is an open rule. For that reason, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the measure. 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. DREIER. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend from Baton Rouge for yielding me this time, and I would like to begin by congratulating him for his excellent work as chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, where he has been the driving force for this whole issue of the three-way street affiliations, which are very important, so that we can continue our quest to meet the consumer demand. I rise in very strong support of his amendment for a number of reasons. I think one of the most important is, in fact, to counter the argument that was just provided by my friend, the gentleman from Springfield, Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). I believe the provisions that were initially put forward by our friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), are very important to deal with that tremendous regulatory burden which has been placed onto the shoulders of those small banks that are trying to deliver financial services to people in small communities. I think that we have a tremendous chance with this amendment to greatly improve what I think is a flawed measure. And so I think that as we look at the work that has been done by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) and others in this effort, that this amendment deserves our very, very serious consideration and support. And I urge my colleagues to join in doing just that.