David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 314, I wish to announce the following suspensions which may be considered today, Wednesday, November 12, 1997, and Thursday, November 13, 1997:

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, Representative Richard Baker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 2937, the Electronic Financial Services Efficiency Act. The purpose of this legislation is to facilitate electronic commerce by promoting technologies that can authenticate agreements in the conduct of consumer and financial transactions using the Internet and other forms of digital communications. It is estimated that commerce on the Internet will grow from $200 million in sales in 1995 to tens of billions of dollars by the year 2000. Therefore, it is critically important, given the explosive growth of electronic commerce and its ability to circumvent geographical and legal boundaries, that the Federal Government encourage the private sector development of uniform standards for electronic authentication while not imposing rigid rules that may stifle innovation. It is equally important that any effort to preempt State digital signature laws not accord such a preemption solely to one particular provider of authentication services. H.R. 2937 provides for a national system that is competitively and technologically neutral. It establishes a National Association of Certification Authorities [NACA], which would function as a self- regulatory organization consisting of registered providers of electronic authentication services. NACA will maintain a market- oriented approach to the regulation of electronic commerce by promoting a clear and predictable legal environment to insure that competition and consumer choice are the hallmark of the emerging global digital marketplace. Such a system will also have beneficial applications for the delivery of Government benefits and services. With appropriate safeguards to protect against fraud and privacy violations, citizens will be able to pay their taxes, access Social Security records, and make Freedom of Information Act requests in a secure environment. Even the House of Representatives is looking to digital communications as a means to conduct much of its administrative transactions and disclosure requirements in the future. Mr. Speaker, it would be a mistake for Congress to establish a system that relies on Government to regulate electonic commerce. Despite the rapid advancements in information technologies and our comprehension of them, we continue to know too little about future technology advancements and their potential applications. Nobody could envision just 2 years ago how the Internet would be used today as a means for transacting business, and nobody has a clear vision of how electronic commerce will be conducted 2 years from now. H.R. 2937 places the responsibility for setting the rules governing the authentication and security of electronic commerce in the hands of the people most knowledgeable about that technology. Only as that technology becomes more standardized and widely understood, and as problems arise that cannot be adequately addressed by a set of voluntary rules, should we begin to consider the need for direct Government oversight or regulatory intervention. How we establish the rules of the road governing electronic commerce is one of the most important economic challenges facing Congress as our country transitions into a 21st century information economy. H.R. 2937 will allow us to establish those rules in a way that promotes competition and innovation, and I urge my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, computers not only make virtually every aspect of our lives easier, we depend on their efficient operation to help safeguard our national security, economy, and way of life. Yet all it takes is a determined criminal with a personal computer and an Internet connection to cause a great deal of harm. That's why it's crucial that America protects sensitive information in computers with the best technology available. Ensuring the security of information stored in computers, and preventing criminals from breaking into critical systems requires encryption software, which uses mathematical formulas to scramble sensitive information so it can only be accessed by authorized users, who have the `key' to decode the material. The more complex the formula, the tougher it is for an unauthorized user to decipher the scrambled material. While American companies generally hold an edge over their foreign competitors in the development of advanced encryption software, export controls allow them to export only relatively simple encryption products. Over 400 companies outside the United States produce encryption software, and most are not subject to the same restrictions as U.S. companies. These companies are increasing their share of the rapidly expanding world market for encryption software at the expense of U.S. firms, which are not allowed to compete. The Clinton administration has proposed a radical change in encryption policy, one that would impose a mandatory key recovery system on encryption software used in the United States and exported abroad. Key recovery would require the maintenance of a centralized databank with all the Nation's encryption keys, and is primarily intended to help law-enforcement and increase national security. If police or other law-enforcement officials believe criminals have encrypted information that would help prevent a crime or catch a lawbreaker, they would obtain a court order, then retrieve the key from the centralized database. They could then convert the encrypted information back into its original form. Not only does this proposal raise concerns about how to prevent criminals from breaking into the key database, and about the privacy of law-abiding users of electronic commerce and Internet communications, it probably won't work. While the Clinton administration is working to require that U.S. companies only export advanced encryption software that uses a key recovery system, many other nations will impose no similar requirement on their firms. Because criminals will find it easy to import that software over the Internet, by electronic mail, on compact discs, or in some other way, they will continue to use encryption programs that U.S. law enforcement agencies don't have keys to. The people most affected by the mandatory key recovery system will be lawful Internet users, not the criminals and terrorists it is intended to combat. Furthermore, prohibiting the export of encryption programs that don't include a key recovery system will make it impossible for American companies to compete with foreign firms that are not similarly limited. American companies will stop competing in a key technology in which they now hold a lead. It will cost U.S. jobs, and prevent advances in a technology that is critical to defending the United States from terrorists, criminals, and even simple hackers. Instead, Congress should lift the controls on encryption software, encourage development of this promising technology, and focus resources on helping police develop better tools to catch criminals who use encryption in the commission of a crime.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by the end of this fiscal year, the Federal Government could run its first budget surplus in nearly three decades. This is certainly good news. For the past 30 years, deficit spending caused interest rates to be higher than they would otherwise have been, which in turn suppressed economic growth and reduced the living standards of American families. If not managed correctly, however, I am concerned that short-term budget surpluses could actually undermine the progress that Congress has made in recent years in controlling the growth of Government spending and reducing Government interference in the economy. With Government revenues still growing faster than the rate of economic growth, and without the economic and political consequences of having to raise taxes or expand the Federal debt to pay for new spending, continued efforts to restrain the growth of Government in the face of a budget surplus will likely crumble. Already, there is pressure to spend unrealized surpluses on Washington-run programs that are no accountable for results. That's exactly what happened in the late-1960's and 1970's, when inflation-driven growth created a surge in tax revenues, which increased the Government's appetite for new spending, which in turn led to the deficits of the 1980's and early 1990's. To deal with this potential problem, two of our Republican colleagues have proposed setting up trust funds to apply projected budget surpluses to debt reduction and tax cuts. These are certainly important priorities. According to a recent Gallop poll, 41 percent of Americans want Government surpluses to go to reducing the national debt, while 42 percent prefer tax cuts. But both proposals still require taxpayers to send their hard-earned money to a Washington bureaucracy that doesn't need it, and the distribution of those funds would be based on political incentives rather than economic incentives. Today, my colleague from Louisiana Representative William Jefferson, and I have introduced the first bipartisan bill which attempts to address the concerns about budgetary choices that Congress may make in an era of budget surplus. H.R. 2933, the Working Americans Gainful Employment [WAGE] Act, creates a permanent mechanism to impose consequences on Congress for any effort to spend a Federal surplus. It requires the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce the Social Security payroll tax rate prior to each calendar year by an amount equal to the Federal budget surplus for the fiscal year ending during the preceding calendar year. It defines ``federal budget surplus'' as the amount by which total Federal revenues exceed total Federal budget outlays-- unified budget. It also stipulates that any reductions in Social Security payroll tax rates do not affect revenues that would otherwise be deposited into the trust fund. The WAGE Act will provide desperately needed relief from a regressive tax on employment. Federal payroll taxes, paid in equal parts by employers and employees, are currently assessed at a rate of 15.3 percent of payroll beginning at the first dollar of an employee's earnings. These taxes, while necessary to finance Social Security and Medicare hospital benefits, impose a tremendous financial burden on working Americans, particularly low- and moderate-income workers. Counting the employer portion of these taxes, which are indirectly borne by employees in the form of lower wages and benefits, approximately 75 percent of American workers pay more in Federal payroll taxes than in Federal income taxes. The WAGE Act will also promote economic growth through tax rate cuts. Although the payroll tax rate reductions would not be permanent--unless the budget surpluses are permanent--businesses will know in advance what the rate will be for the coming year, and will plan investment and hiring decisions accordingly. Since payroll taxes paid by employers result in reduced employee compensation, any long-term reduction will be funneled back into higher wages and additional jobs. A payroll tax rate reduction will also encourage more small business start-ups because such firms must pay payroll taxes even if a profit is not made. Payroll tax rate reductions would come from after-the-fact surpluses, not estimated surpluses. The WAGE Act, therefore, would not undermine future efforts to allocate projected budget surpluses to other important priorities, such as tax reform or entitlement reform. If Congress enacts legislation allocating future estimated surplus for other priorities, there is likely to be little if any after-the-fact surplus to apply to payroll tax rate reductions. This is the key incentive that is missing from those proposals which seek to wall off future surpluses for reducing taxes of the Federal debt. The WAGE Act creates a benchmark by which other proposals to allocate future surpluses will be measured. If Congress attempts to apply projected surpluses to new spending or to tax cut efforts, those efforts would come at the expense of a payroll tax cut for working Americans. And for those who are concerned that payroll tax cuts could undermine revenues flowing into the Social Security trust fund, the WAGE Act explicitly states that deposits into the trust fund will continue to be based on the current statutory rate of 12.4 percent of wages. In other words, the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will be totally unaffected by this legislation. Mr. Speaker, dedicating future budget surpluses to Federal payroll tax cuts will lock in fiscal restraint while providing dividends to low- and middle-income workers who pay the bulk of those taxes. Our legislation accomplishes both of these objectives in a bipartisan way, and I urge my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this bill.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], for yielding me this time. Let me say that I am one who will acknowledge that that rule is clearly an extreme response. And it is an extreme response, unfortunately, for a very, very good reason. We have witnessed what I believe to be unprecedented and outrageous tactics over the last several weeks, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has said, jeopardizing the ability for this institution to do its work. Clearly, what we want to do is, we want to bring about a resolution to this struggle that exists over who actually was elected, and we are trying to recognize the very precious franchise that every American citizen has, and that is the right to vote. So, as we look at this, we have to look also at the pattern of elections that have been disputed over the past couple of decades, not one. Not one investigation that has taken place over the past couple of decades lasted less than 12 months. In fact, the average of those was 14 months. But the precedent that has been set here is constantly the attempt to bottle up the work of this institution. Mr. Speaker, when we look at what we are trying to do here, we know that we all have rights. The rights of the minority are something that I happen to treasure because I spent 14 years here as a member of the minority party. And in the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and I do our darnedest to recognize the rights of the minority. But something that we learned as members of the minority is that with rights come responsibility. We have a responsibility to do the work of the American people. Because of this dispute, which clearly, based on the arguments that were provided here last night, could be settled, and I think it could be settled reasonably and agreeably, but because there is disagreement among a very few extremists in the Democratic Party, and the reason I say that is that I have had more than one Democrat say to me, ``My gosh, I wish that we would back off, let's get this thing over and done with, let's get it behind us.'' People do not like the idea of holding up the work of this institution. So with rights come responsibility. We are trying to recognize that, and we have been left with no alternative other than to pursue this rule. And so I urge strong support of it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and classmate for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I was very privileged to work with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and others in what ended up to be a bipartisan way in putting together H.R. 2095, the China Human Rights and Democracy Act. One of the key items in H.R. 2095 is our goal of ensuring that those who are responsible for religious persecution are not able to receive visas to come into this country. I say that as one who is strongly committed to what I still believe is the most powerful force for positive change in the 5,000-year history of China, that being economic reform. Our commercial ties there are key to that. So I think it is very, very important to note that people like our new colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Joe Pitts], who joined me when we met with the Chinese Ambassador to specifically ask for the release of Pastor Su, and unfortunately that has not happened, and I believe we need to continue on a separate track to apply as much pressure. Now, quiet diplomacy is the route we are taking, but frankly, as we proceed with a debate like this, I think it is very fair for those of us who want to strengthen ties but at the same time raise our voices to let our concern be heard. So it seems to me that we have a very, very important responsibility to support this legislation because we do have many people who have faced religious persecution and we need to do what we can to release them. I agree with the statements that my colleagues have made, we should not reward those who are responsible for it by granting them visas to come into this country.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as intensity builds toward tomorrow's historic vote on fast track, I am gratified to stand here and inform my colleagues that, within the hour, they will have a suitable-for-framing ``Dear Colleague'' in their office which outlines the top 10 reasons Members of Congress oppose fast track. They come from our home office in Eugene, OR. Reason No. 10 the Members oppose fast track: Trade must kill jobs. We still have 4.9 percent unemployment. Reason No. 9: Smoot and Hawley got a bum wrap. Reason No. 8, two words: Black helicopters. Reason No. 7: Wall Street could use a total meltdown of Asian stock markets. Reason No. 6: Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan agree. Can they both be wrong? Reason No. 5: Fast track does not let United States Congress set the minimum wage in Portugal. Reason No. 4: 1998 Nobel Prize winner for economics, Ross Perot. Reason No. 3: My vision for our 21st century economy, manual typewriters, rotary telephones, and black-and-white televisions. Reason No. 2: John Sweeney told me to. And reason No. 1: Mr. Speaker, I want a better fast track, a better balanced budget, a better tax cut, and better welfare reform.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], for his leadership of one of the most brilliant parts of this measure, taking the Helsinki concept, the CSCE concept on human rights, and applying that here. And working with my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], and others, we have gone a long way in this measure. The NED provisions which my friend from Florida mentioned are important, and getting the business community focused on business, and getting our Government to focus on this human rights issue is very, very helpful. I would like to congratulate my friend.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], my very good friend and the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Budget and Legislative Process and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that this is our great opportunity to finally deal with this issue of the burden of proof, which has been a long time in coming. The leadership of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] and others have made this day possible, and I am very happy that we have seen our colleagues on the other side of the aisle come, not quite kicking and screaming, but they have now come enthusiastically in support of what I think is very good public policy. With that, I urge support of the previous question, support of the rule and support of the bill that will come from my friends on the Committee on Ways and Means. 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, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], 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. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 303 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Omaha, NE [Mr. Christensen], the future Governor.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first say that I want to congratulate my friend from Ohio. I remember very well when he took me to the well and had me sign a discharge petition to release this burden of proof legislation, and it has taken a long time getting to this point. I remember he told me that I might be in trouble for signing that discharge petition when he stood over me as I did it, but I still followed his directive. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], my friend and the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order H.R. 2676, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997, under a closed rule providing for 2 hours of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the House Committee on Ways and Means, as modified by the noncontroversial amendments printed in the report to accompany this rule, be considered as adopted. The first amendment simply clarifies the authorization for low-income taxpayer clinics and the salaries of members of the IRS Oversight Board to address Budget Act violations. The second amendment clarifies that IRS management and employees may address any flexibility issues in a demonstration project. The third amendment is a Rules Committee substitute making a number of clarifying and technical changes to section 422 relating to the Joint Committee on Taxation's preparation of a tax complexity analysis. The fourth amendment adds the text of H.R. 2645, the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 1997, which makes bipartisan and noncontroversial corrections to reflect the intent of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and the original sponsors of this bipartisan IRS reform bill, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. Thanks to their tremendous skill and determination in moving this historic bill forward, we are about to end once and for all some of the most egregious and abusive practices of the Internal Revenue Service. I also want to commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] for his efforts as cochairman of the bipartisan National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service. The Commission conducted a yearlong audit of the IRS and found a troubled agency that wastes billions of dollars in resources and lacks a culture of customer service. The audit also revealed an agency that is fraught with management, governance and oversight problems and is unaccountable to Congress and the American people. These problems were further illustrated during 3 days of Senate Finance Committee hearings in September, which revealed an out-of- control agency that intentionally engages in unnecessary and sometimes illegal tactics to harass middle-income taxpayers who have limited due process rights. If enacted, H.R. 2676 will bring about the first comprehensive reform of the IRS in four decades. It will make the IRS more user-friendly, 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 itself. The solutions to those problems require comprehensive reform of the Internal Revenue Code, which I hope very much the House will address next year. But the reforms contained in H.R. 2676 will go a long way toward protecting the rights of taxpayers, making the IRS more accountable, and restoring public confidence in the way the IRS enforces our tax laws. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very fair and balanced rule, and I urge strong support, bipartisan support, of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I include the following extraneous material for the Record: Explanation of Rules Committee Substitute to Section 422 of H.R. 2676 As reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means, Section 422 of H.R. 2676 requires the Joint Committee on Taxation to provide a ``Tax Complexity Analysis'' for legislation reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance and all conference reports that would amend the Internal Revenue Code. The analysis would identify those provisions in a bill or conference report that the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation determines would add significant complexity or simplification to the tax laws. If the report accompanying such legislation does not include a Tax Complexity Analysis, the legislation would be subject to a point of order in the House and Senate. The Rules Committee substitute makes a number of clarifying and technical changes to Section 422. For purposes of the requirement that the Joint Committee on Taxation provide a ``Tax Complexity Analysis,'' the term ``legislation'' is further defined as ``bills or joint resolutions'' reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means, the Senate Committee on Finance or a committee of conference. For purposes of compliance with Section 422, the Committee involved shall either include the Tax Complexity Analysis in the committee report or cause it to be printed in the Congressional Record prior to consideration of the legislation in the House and Senate. References to ``the staff'' of the Joint Committee on Taxation are removed. Tax Complexity Analysis is defined as ``a report which is prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation and which identifies the provisions of the legislation adding significant complexity or providing significant simplification (as determined by the Joint Committee on Taxation) and includes the basis for such determination.'' Language containing the point of order in the House of Representatives with respect to legislation reported by the Committee on Ways and Means and by a committee of conference is stricken from Section 8024 of the Internal Revenue Code and inserted in the rules of the House of Representatives. Specifically: Clause 2(l) of House rule XI is amended to require the report of the Committee on Ways and Means on any bill or joint resolution containing any provision amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to contain a Tax Complexity Analysis unless the Committee causes to have such Analysis printed in the Congressional Record prior to the consideration of the bill or joint resolution; and House rule XXVIII is amended to prohibit consideration of a conference report which contains any provision amending the Internal Revenue Code unless the accompanying joint statement of managers contains a Tax Complexity Analysis, unless such Analysis is printed in the Congressional Record prior to the consideration of the report.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Morris, IL [Mr. Weller], my very good friend, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this rule and to say that I am in agreement with many of the points that my friend from New York made. Probably the most important one to me is the fact that it is true over the years we constantly focus on the debate on whether or not we should renew most-favored-nation trading status with the People's Republic of China and then, while we have talked about many things, we unfortunately do not get on that road toward pursuing many of the very justifiable concerns that we have, and that is what this is all about today. Before we had the vote on renewal of MFN earlier this year, the Speaker asked my colleague from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and me to put together a package which includes, in fact, an overwhelming majority of the items included in this legislation. We worked with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and many other Members who got involved in this process, and in a bipartisan way we introduced H.R. 2095 with 40 cosponsors. And it is bipartisan; we have 14 Democrats who joined as cosponsors of that measure. I am not going to stand here and be one of those that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]) mentioned, who is going to praise the Chinese Government or, in fact, say that they are all very rich. I am a very strong critic of the actions of the Government of the People's Republic of China and those concerns which all of us share. I am not going to say that they are a rich country because they are not a rich country. But I will say that if we look at the 5,000-year history of the People's Republic of China, clearly, market reforms have been the most powerful force for change, and our commercial relations with the People's Republic of China have been integral toward pursuing those reforms which have addressed many of the concerns that exist among the 1.3 billion people. As I say, there are very deep and disturbing problems which do need to be addressed, and we are today taking a proactive position in trying to look at those. I think that we need to shift the policy of debate simply on the issue of trade toward those ways that we can promote our American values, the Western values of human freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for international norms. That is why I believe that when we look at the items included in H.R. 2095, we do many of those things that need to be addressed. One of them I think is very important, and that is to increase funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. We have been key toward encouraging village elections throughout China. While some are critics of village elections, I think that anything we can do to encourage democratization, even if it is coming from the ground up where we now have, unlike during the Mao years, non-Communist candidates and we have in fact secret ballots, things that did not exist when village elections were taking place decades ago, those are positive. The International Republican Institute is on the front line toward helping literally hundreds of millions of people to participate there. There are many other items that we have included in this measure, funding for Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America, and I believe that we have a very good package by and large. There are some things in this measure which concern me, but I do believe that those things that encourage greater political pluralism are things that we can support as a country. With that, I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I would simply like to rise as, I think, the most recent cosponsor of the gentleman's legislation to congratulate him. I believe this will go a long way toward addressing a number of our concerns. Technology transfer, as he and I were discussing earlier, is a very important way of stepping up our national ballistic missile defense system. I would simply like to congratulate my friend and encourage him wholeheartedly to proceed.

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

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we are not only at the end of the legislative day, but the end of the legislative week, and the three most heard words over the next several hours all across the country will be ``trick or treat.'' This is Halloween, and, as we think about those words, I would like to talk about an issue which some, unfortunately, believe may be a trick on the people of the United States of America, but in fact it is more than a very, very well-deserved and well-earned treat. I am talking about the issue that we will be voting on most likely 1 week from today, and that is whether or not we should be granting authority to the executive branch to proceed with negotiations in an attempt to open new markets, so that U.S. workers will be able to produce goods and services that can be exported into those new markets. Yes, it is called fast track, and I happen to believe that it is the right thing for the workers and the consumers of the United States of America and for workers and consumers throughout the world. My friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] was just talking about national security issues and the need for a missile defense system. I am a very strong supporter. As I said a few moments ago, I am proud to be I guess the 104th cosponsor of his legislation. Mr. Speaker, the issue that we are going to be voting on next week is a very important national security issue as well. In fact, in many ways, it may be the most important national security vote that we face. The reason I say that is that the United States of America, as we all know, is the world's only complete superpower: Military, economically, and geopolitically. As such, we have tremendous responsibility as a nation. We are clearly the world's greatest exporter. Our Nation is involved in the issue of international trade in a way that is greater than any other nation on the face of the Earth. And what has happened over the past several years? Well, the technological changes that we have seen, many of those items which have been developed right here in the United States of America, have led the world to shrink. We are dealing with what is known as a global economy. In fact, in an era decades ago when it would take a steamship to get a message across the ocean, we obviously see instantaneous communication. I talk to constituents who now, based on developments just within the last week, are up at 2 o'clock in the morning monitoring the stock exchanges in Singapore, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and other parts of the Pacific rim. Why? Because whether we like it or not, we are living in a global economy today. I happen to like it, because I believe that this global economy has played a key role in allowing the United States of America to have clearly the highest standard of living on the face of the Earth. Now, what do we need to do as we look at the need to continue to remain competitive in this global economy? It is very important that we remain in the most potent position. The only way to do that, the only way for us to do that, is if we allow authority to begin negotiations to deal with a lot of these issues to proceed. That is why the Congress must grant this so-called fast track negotiating authority. It expired a few years ago. We have been trying to come to an agreement, and I am happy to say several weeks ago we did come to an agreement which allowed us to successfully address many of the concerns that have been raised over the past several years. Why is it that we need this? Well, if you look at the fact that in this global economy the world has access to our consumers, that, frankly, is a very good thing. It is a good thing because it has allowed consumers in the United States of America to purchase high quality products at the lowest possible price. But now what is it we need to do as we look at other parts of the world and how we even strengthen our already strong economy? What we need to do is we need to break down barriers that exist in other countries throughout the world. A number of my colleagues have said to me in discussing this over the past several days, gosh, why don't those countries just unilaterally eliminate their tariff barriers? The fact is, if we look at where we are going on this issue, it does take a negotiating process. It does take a give-and-take. But the goal is to break down those barriers so that U.S. workers are going to be able to have new markets for their goods and services. So what needs to be done? We need to have the authority granted so that when negotiations start, our negotiators at the table will be in a similar position to the negotiators from other countries. And what does that mean? It means that when they negotiate an agreement to cut taxes, and a tariff is a tax, as they work for those tax cuts, those tariff reductions, they will be able to come back to the United States and say to the Congress, ``You can't renegotiate the agreement that we have struck, but you have the final say as to whether or not this is a good agreement.'' The U.S. Congress can vote ``yes'' or ``no.'' If it is a bad agreement, I will be the first one to stand here and vote ``no.'' But if it is a good agreement, I will be leading the charge in favor of it, because a good agreement is one that will cut that tax, that tariff barrier, and create new opportunities for U.S. workers. So as we look at where we are headed, I think it is important to touch on the benefits of this global economy to us. In fact, everyone acknowledges that we have seen tremendous improvements in our economy. One of the major reasons has been through international trade. I am privileged to stand in this Chamber as a Representative from the State of California. In California, we are the gateway to the Pacific rim and Latin America, tremendous new emerging markets in both of those parts of the world. And, remember, with those emerging markets, what happens? We improve the living standards in those countries. So many of the issues that we face as problems here can be effectively addressed. I am referring, of course, to the hotly debated question of illegal immigration, of great concern to me and the people whom I represent in southern California. Many people who come into this country come illegally seeking economic opportunity. Well, if we can through greater international trade enhance the economist of our neighbors and other countries throughout the world, clearly we will create a disincentive for people to come to the United States simply seeking economic opportunity, as has been the case. In fact, today international trade represents nearly one-third of the gross domestic product in this country, $2.1 trillion, an amazing figure from international trade. In fact, 25 percent of all of the U.S. jobs today are related to international trade, and, in fact, they have wage rates that are 16 percent higher than those that are producing simply for domestic consumption. That is why I am so troubled when I turn on the television and see these advertisements that the AFL-CIO and other opponents to international trade agreements advertise. These advertisements are a clear misrepresentation, because as we gain new and greater markets for U.S. products, just based on the way things have gone, the wage rates for those union members will be 16 percent higher than it is for those members who are simply producing for domestic consumption here in the United States. We have today the lowest unemployment rate in three decades. It is 4.9 percent. And, guess what? That 4.9 percent level of unemployment has gone down to that level following implementation of, again, the much-maligned North American Free Trade Agreement and the completion of the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. So as we have done that, we have been able to break down some barriers, and we have been able, as I said, to see 25 percent of the jobs in this country exist because of the fact that we have gained new markets. With this authority, we want to gain even more in new markets, because it will improve the standard of living here and in other parts of the world. I was mentioning the issue of our leadership role. Clearly the United States of America cannot cede that leadership role to other parts of the world, because we as a country have stood traditionally in a bipartisan way with Democrats and Republicans supporting this goal of breaking down barriers and trying to gain new markets and new opportunities for us. There are many people who have raised understandable concerns about the climate and the situation in other countries with which we would establish these agreements. People are understandably concerned about low wage rates in other countries. They are understandably concerned about the potential for low environmental standards. Well, I happen to believe that will, based on the empirical evidence we have seen, improve the standards of living in these countries, improve wage rates, improve environmental standards. Of course, look at our very strong economy. That has played a key role in allowing people to focus attention on making sure that we have a cleaner environment, and has allowed the American worker to focus on improvement of their plight. Getting wage rates up and improvements in their negotiations, in the same way as we proceed with international trade in these other countries, we will, through trade, be able to successfully improve those standards. One of the provisions in this fast track measure of which I am particularly proud is when it comes to the negotiating process we are not going to allow countries to engage in what is called the race to the bottom. We are not going to allow a country to intentionally lower their environmental standards or worker rights standards simply to distort trade. An example I use, just take for example if the Government of Chile, which is the country with which we hope to embark on a free trade agreement in the not-too-distant future after we put into place this fast track negotiating authority, if they were to lower their standards and say to the copper mining industry in Chile, for example, that you can dump sledge in the street, and it is being done to undercut the copper mining industry here in the State of Colorado in the United States, that is an issue that could go to a dispute resolution panel and could be addressed. So we do not allow under this agreement countries to simply reduce their standards as a way to distort trade. But the way to improve those standards, which we are all concerned about, is through greater exchange and greater trade. So I am very, very encouraged about that. There are many people who have raised concerns about the constitutional aspect of this, and clearly the use of fast track authority is the legislative branch, both the House and the Senate, exercising its rulemaking authority. Every trade bill needs to, as I said, be voted on and passed by a majority in both the House and the Senate and signed into law by the President. So we clearly do have a key role in dealing with these agreements. So I will say, Mr. Speaker, that this is, I know, a very controversial issue. It has created a great stir, and people over the next week are going to be talking about it. But I believe that it is a win-win-win-win-win situation. It is a win all the way around, because the idea of reducing taxes, reducing tariffs, has been a global desire now. It goes all the way back to 1947 when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was established. They were established with the goal of reducing tariff barriers. Now we have a great chance to do that. There are small businesses in California and in other parts of the country. I have been listening to our colleagues from both parties all across the country talking about how small businesses are involved in gaining access to new markets, and they want to be able to do more. They want to be able to do more. As I listened to the kinds of proposals that have come forward to address some of the concerns, I think that those are positive, too, because I think there are some justifiable concerns. But, Mr. Speaker, as we look at the vote next week, if we were to make what I think would be a horrible decision in this House and defeat the measure, we would basically be saying that the United States of America is no longer going to play the role as the world's strongest leader in the area of international trade. So it would be a grave mistake. This goal we have is a vision which has existed for a long period of time. I will say to my friend, the Speaker here, the Speaker pro tempore, he recalled with me just a little while ago that it was on November 7, 1979 when Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for President of the United States, and in that he talked about an accord that would see free trade going from the slopes of Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, ultimately seeing free trade among all the Americas. I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to be in Argentina and Venezuela and Brazil on the trip that the President took. On that trip it was very clear that these countries are looking to the United States for the leadership role in the area of international trade. I am confident that the U.S. Congress will, with a great, great vision, look next Friday when we cast that vote towards doing it. One of the other things beyond this hemisphere happens to be dealing with some very specific areas that need to be addressed in a multilateral way with many other countries. Those areas include agriculture. We have had a very tough time in agriculture getting into a lot of new markets. Why? Because there are many countries that have had these tariff barriers and nontariff barriers which exist which have prevented the chance for exports to go into those countries. If we look at the issue of financial services, we all see that there are banks all over the United States with international names. Basically the world's financial services industry has access into the United States. Yet we, unfortunately, have been unable to negotiate agreements that will allow our financial services industry to expand in providing those products and services to consumers in other parts of the world. That is why we need to get this fast track authority through. One of the other very important items, again to my State and to all the other States, is this very amorphous issue called intellectual property rights. Intellectual property, what does that mean? Well, these are items that are developed through the intellect of people in that home country. We need to make sure that those rights are protected. In the area of pharmaceuticals, we have many very, very necessary drugs and other items that are created in the pharmaceutical industry. We need to make sure that the responsibility for those lies with those countries where they are developed, and that they get full credit and remuneration for them. That is why international property agreements need to be struck. I represent the Los Angeles area. The entertainment industry is very, very important to our State. In fact, if we look at the entertainment industry, well over 90 percent of the world's programming for the motion picture industry and the television programming comes from right here in the United States, and we are all aware of the fact that piracy has been a serious problem. We need to deal with negotiations on that kind of intellectual property violation that has existed. Guess what? We will not be able to deal with the negotiations for financial services, getting our financial institutions into new markets, we will not be able to deal with negotiations for agriculture, to gain new markets for agricultural products, and we will not be able to as successfully deal with intellectual property violations if we do not have fast track negotiating authority passed. So while there are many people out there who would like to blame all the ailments of society on international trade, nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Speaker, I hope very much that the Speaker pro tempore and all of our colleagues will next week, when we face what I acknowledge will be a very tough vote here in this institution, that Members will join in supporting what is clearly the right thing to do as we remain the greatest Nation on the face of the earth.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. I would like to join with my colleagues in extending our condolences to Lois and Lisa and Todd and Laura. I would like to say as a Californian that I have had the privilege of serving in this body for, this is my 17th year. I have known more than a couple of people who have served here. When I heard the news last night from my friend Howard Berman of Walter's sudden passing, I was struck first with how horrible, how horrible it is to hear of someone who is so young, who is just beginning what obviously is a new chapter in his life. He has only had the opportunity to serve here for 10 months. Then I began to think about how Walter Capps was clearly the nicest Member of Congress I have ever met. Some Members of Congress are not very nice, but there are a lot of nice people. But I cannot think of anyone who was nicer than Walter. I also found him, surprisingly to many maybe on this side of the aisle, to be very reasonable. When I sat down with him and began talking about the need to reduce the top rate on capital gains, I was stunned when Walter said to me, ``David, I want to cosponsor your bill.'' I thought, wow, here is a guy who really is thinking deeply about a lot of issues and is not having a knee-jerk response to every single thing which many people had categorized, some, as his having done. I will say that I will miss him greatly. He was a true friend to many of us. That kind of levelheaded thinking is needed more in this institution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Huntington Beach, CA, [Mr. Rohrabacher], my very good friend with whom I have worked closely on a wide-range of issues, including the problem of illegal immigration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As has been pointed out on both sides, this is a very simple, clean continuing resolution which allows us to ensure that the government will not shut down. Yes, it does have that 2-week extension of 245(i). The main reason it does is that we are in the process of working on negotiations. The gentleman from Miami, FL [Mr. Diaz-Balart] has just walked onto the floor and he is in the midst of working on those, along with others who feel very strongly about addressing this issue. The gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has said that we will have a vote next Wednesday on the floor. So the issue is, in fact, moot at this juncture. We should support this rule and support the continuing resolution. 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, this rule makes in order House Joint Resolution 97, which makes further appropriations for fiscal year 1998. It is a closed rule providing 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The continuing resolution made in order by this rule is very simple and noncontroversial. It simply extends until November 7, funding for those agencies and programs that have not received permanent appropriations on the terms and conditions imposed by the previously adopted continuing resolution, which as we all know, expires tomorrow. As we all know, approval of this continuing resolution is necessary to prevent a Government shutdown since only 5 of the 13 appropriations bills have been signed into law, although 2 more are pending Presidential action right now. Hopefully, by November 7, differences over the remaining appropriations bills can be resolved, and the Government will be operating under more normal conditions. I also know that a number of my colleagues are troubled that the continuing resolution extends section 245(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. I share their concern that in its current state section 245(I) may continue to encourage illegal immigration, although it is not the source of our illegal immigration program, and I am not convinced that allowing it to totally expire is the right solution. The issue needs to be resolved, preferably through compromise language that both opponents and proponents of the law can agree on. My Committee on Rules colleague, the gentleman from Sanibel Island, FL, [Mr. Goss], has a thoughtful solution, and I hope it will be part of any discussions we have. Our Republican leadership is also working with both sides to resolve the differences. But this rule, and the continuing resolution it makes in order, are not the appropriate vehicles for settling this dispute. It is totally appropriate to grant section 245(I) a 2-week extension because this and other issues pertaining to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill are still being addressed in conference with the Senate. Let us debate section 245(I) and all of the other differences that have yet to be resolved, but let us do it at the appropriate time and the appropriate place. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.