David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the over 200 McDonnell Douglas employees in Monrovia, CA, who are engaged in producing night vision/targeting systems for use by the U.S. Army and Navy. For nearly 10 years, the Army's Mast Mounted Sight [MMS] has been assembled at this facility. During Desert Shield/Desert Storm, many Americans saw pictures and video images of Army OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopters with a large dome over the rotor blades. This dome, or MMS, was developed to increase survivability through its capacity to identify and target potential threats in both day and night, and during adverse weather. Through its multisensor electro-optical sighting system, our pilots were able to see through fog, and storms and thick smoke from burning oil fields, thus allowing our soldiers to own the night. The U.S. Navy also made wide use of the MMS to protect our warships passing through narrow shipping lanes. More than 200 Mast Mounted Sights were deployed during the Gulf War to spot and destroy floating mines, detect and track antiship missiles, and to destroy enemy missile sites. Even under adverse conditions of war in a desert environment, the MMS maintained a 96 percent mission capable rate. Using lessons learned from producing the MMS, the team at Monrovia is transitioning their facility to the next generation system known as Thermal Imaging Sensor System [TISS]. TISS is primarily designed for shipboard application and uses a combination of infrared sensor, TV camera and eyesafe laser range finder to detect, recognize and track mines, ships, small boats, low flying aircraft, cruise missiles and swimmers. TISS is fully operational at night and during bad weather, and is effective in close-in operations where radar may be ineffective. It is also useful for navigating and for search and seizure operations. TISS can easily be adapted to helicopters, fixed wing aircraft and security installations. TISS is now in production and delivery of initial units to the fleet is scheduled for September 1997. The U.S. Navy plans to procure between 120 to 150 systems over the next 6 years. Over the past few years, my staff and I have visited the outstanding production facility in Monrovia and found both the workers and production line to be of the highest quality. Each and every McDonnell Douglas employee at Monrovia, along with their supplier team, should be extremely proud of their efforts in providing our military forces the finest and most reliable equipment available for carrying out their difficult mission of defending the resources and interests of the United States of America.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I would first like to congratulate him for taking out this time to talk about a great American hero, Henry Salvatori. I think the last point that my friend has made is really right on target here, because many have said that the very best citizens in this country are those who become American citizens by choice. Henry Salvatori really epitomized that, having been a member of Ronald Reagan's Kitchen Cabinet and having played such a key role in the conservative movement. He established at my alma mater the Salvatori Center, which has done a great deal of research. So, rather than simply being involved in politics, not a lot of attention has been focused on his tremendous philanthropic involvement and his support of education. He has provided to my friend and to me and many others tremendous inspiration, and a great deal of advice and counsel and support. I would simply like to join my friend and say Henry Salvatori will be sorely missed by so many of us. It is a great loss for the United States of America. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I have taken this time to continue with the debate that my very good friend from Martinez, CA, Mr. Miller, was engaged in; but I have a completely different view. Actually, it was put forward very well by a former adviser to President Clinton. Yes, he served also in Republican administrations; but he most recently in his public service was an adviser to President Clinton. I am referring to the editor-at-large of U.S. News & World Report, who in this week's U.S. News & World Report on the back page has an editorial, which I would commend to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as this debate proceeds. The editorial is entitled ``A Bloody Shirt on Taxes: It's time for the left to stop twisting the truth about tax relief.'' Now, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] was referring to many people who have said that this package that we have put forward is nothing but a sop for the rich. But if we look at the facts, I am very happy to say that many Democrats in this House know full well that this tax package is, in fact, very, very helpful to middle and lower income wage earners in this country. There are a few points that Mr. Gergen makes in this piece which I would like to share with my colleagues. He says, the central liberal charge is that the bills adopted by the GOP-led Senate and House would give as much tax relief to the top 1 percent as to the bottom 60 percent combined. Sounds horrific, doesn't it? What they ignore, as Jim Glassman of U.S. News & World Report noted, is the top 1 percent also pay more in taxes than the bottom 60 percent combined, a lot more. IRS records show that the top 1 percent shoulder 29 percent of the Nation's total tax bill, while the bottom 60 percent pay some 9 percent. Recognize that we singled out the top 1 percent for tax hikes in that 1993 bill that the President moved through. It also would not be terribly unfair to include them in at least a modicum of tax relief today. He goes on to talk about this issue of funny money, which my friend from Florida, [Mr. Stearns] mentioned earlier, this imputed income whereby if someone paid off their mortgage, they in fact have what would be the rental income included as income to them, and it is actually obviously money they would never see. Mr. Gergen writes that stripping away the funny money, the Census Bureau shows that the top 20 percent really starts with households earning $65,124 a year. That means that the criticism that has come from the left, Madam Speaker, is they are pretending that families that make $65,124 are categorized as rich. Then a very important item that needs to be mentioned, one that I have been working on since the opening day of this Congress and, frankly, for a number of years, is this issue of capital gains. When I mention how Democrats have joined with me in cosponsoring very important legislation, H.R. 14, to bring about an across-the-board reduction in capital gains, it is because they know that the average family of four would see an increase of $1,500 per year over a 7-year period in their take-home pay. Mr. Gergen says another shell game on the left involves proposed reductions in capital gains and estate taxes. Liberals say it is selfish for people who invest in stocks or save for their children to receive tax relief. But they ignore the fact that these funds have already been taxed, when they were first earned. To tax earnings a second time at rates as high as 55 percent, which is the case with inheritance taxes, borders on confiscation. Now, Madam Speaker, we know full well that we are in this together, and I think Gergen's closing paragraph is a very telling one. This country does face serious challenges in addressing the growing income gap between those who are affluent and everyone else. Clearly, we should be working harder to ensure that children of poor and middle-class families have an equal chance at the starting line of life. Just as clearly, those who have the most should give the most back. But the way the left is trying to twist this tax debate, bullyragging successful Americans as a way to score political points trivializes the real issues and divides us as a people. We don't need another bloody shirt. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to read this editorial, and I will send it around to everyone.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glens Falls, the distinguished chairman of the committee, for yielding this time to me. This has obviously been an extraordinarily contentious debate, and I have to say first that to see the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] stand here and make his very eloquent arguments on the second anniversary of his liver transplant is a very important statement to this House, and I appreciate the fact that he has stepped forward. But now having said that, I have got to say that I completely disagree with virtually everything the gentleman from Massachusetts said. The fact is John Adams did envisage the time when we would see that third generation from politics and war to mathematics and philosophy to music and poetry. He envisaged the idea of young people in future generations being able to participate in the arts. Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly about that. My father passed away this spring, and he had been chairman and president of the opera company in Kansas City, MO, and he was very involved, and he and I had many arguments about that. My dear friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and I have discussed this before: My dad wanted me to be a strong supporter of the National Endowment for the Arts, but I told him that as we looked at establishing priorities it is very important for us to realize that there is Government subsidization of the arts because we provide a tax deduction for people to make these contributions. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] mentioned the fact that many of my constituents could in fact participate by contributing to the arts. Many large corporations have called for continued support for the National Endowment for the Arts. But I think we should do everything we can to encourage them to participate through even greater philanthropy. And I have to say that having supported the Crane amendment myself in the past, this compromise is going to allow those local communities to enjoy Shakespeare, poetry, other very, very important arts because 40 percent of this funding will be going to State arts commissions and 60 percent to local school districts as we look at this compromise. And during that period of time, if this can in fact become law, and obviously there is a big question about that based on what might happen in the other body and down on the other end on Pennsylvania Avenue, but if we were to put this package into place, it seems to me that we could continue down this road of encouraging more and more people to contribute. The arts are very, very important, and I am very proud that my family has spent many years as supporters of the arts. But it seems to me that, as we look at our priorities here, to claim that the sky is going to fall if the National Endowment for the Arts is not maintained exactly as it is today is a ludicrous argument because they are going to continue, the Government will continue to support them through providing opportunities for tax deductions to be out there, and I hope very much that we can move ahead with this balanced compromise approach. Support this rule, and let us move ahead with the bill.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Boise, ID [Mrs. Chenoweth], my very, very good friend.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I simply close by saying that this is a very fair and balanced approach because of the uniqueness of this 41-member coalition that has been assembled, the Quincy Library Group. And I would like to again congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Resources who, under his self-description, has out-environmentaled the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. I would also like to congratulate the gentleman from Marysville, CA [Mr. Herger], who has done a superb job on this legislation over the past several years. And I would like to congratulate those Members on the other side of the aisle who have joined in this bipartisan coalition to ensure that we look at this issue in a very fair way. I look forward to passage of this rule and passage of the legislation. 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 180 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Dayton, OH [Mr. Hall], and, pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded is for the purpose 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. 858, the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997 under a modified closed rule. While I share the sentiments of the minority that bills of this nature should be considered under an open amendment process, I believe a modified closed rule in this instance is appropriate and justified. The Quincy Library Group is a 41-member coalition of local environmental organizations, the timber industry and local officials that met in Quincy, CA. In 1993, the group developed an innovative consensus-based pilot program to permit local management of 2.5 million acres of three national forests in California. It is a responsible plan that emphasizes local cooperation and balances environmental protection with local economic needs. H.R. 858 is intended to end the 4-year stalemate over the implementation of environmentally sound management practices for the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests that are aimed at preventing wildfires that are a serious threat to life and property. The Committee on Resources has been negotiating for 8 weeks with environmental groups, the Clinton administration and even our California colleagues over in the Senate to address their substantive concerns. The amendment in the nature of a substitute that is made in order by the rule addresses all of their concerns except the concern over local control, which is the primary purpose of this bill. In particular, the substitute amendment specifically states that the pilot project is subject to all existing environmental laws and reviews. Let me underscore that again, Mr. Speaker. The pilot project is subject to all existing Federal environmental laws and reviews. The amendment in the nature of a substitute accurately reflects the plan that was painstakingly negotiated by this 41-member coalition. There is a legitimate concern that efforts to substantively revise that plan could cause that coalition to unravel. The Quincy Library Group bill has bipartisan support. To strengthen that support, the rule affords the respected ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources, my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], to offer a germane amendment to further address additional concerns that, in the unlikely event, may be overlooked in the substitute amendment. The rule, Mr. Speaker, ensures ample debate by providing 1 hour of debate on the Miller amendment in addition to the 1 hour of general debate. So Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible rule that will ensure the integrity of the Quincy Library Group while allowing for an innovative and responsible forest management plan, a pilot plan to be developed by local consensus so that we can move forward. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule and of the bill itself. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] by saying that this measure enjoys very strong bipartisan support in this House. My friend from West Sacramento, CA [Mr. Fazio] is a strong supporter of this. The gentleman from Marysville, CA [Mr. Herger] has done a spectacular job in putting this together. And it has been, frankly, in some ways over his protest said before the Committee on Rules last night, the gentleman from Fort Yukon, AK [Mr. Young], the chairman of the Committee on Resources, has moved dramatically to end up supporting this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the very, very compromising gentleman from Fort Yukon, AK [Mr. Young]. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pleasantville, PA [Mr. Peterson].

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, class warfare is exactly what it is, and they are engaging in it. It seems to me that as we listen to this vitriolic attack on the capital gains tax cut, which God forbid Donald Trump might benefit from, let us look at who really benefits from reducing that top rate on capital gains. Over a 7-year period, the average family of four would see an increase in their take-home pay of $1,500 per year. We continue to hear talk about how $1,500 is going to be cut from the average family with this package. Baloney. We need to realize that a capital gains tax cut is what the American people need to help those who want to emerge from middle-class status and frankly become wealthier. So they are the ones who are trying to engage in this us-versus-them argument. We are the ones who recognize that we are all in this together; because the fact of the matter is, Paul Tsongas was absolutely right when he described his political party and said, you know, the Democrats unfortunately love employees but they hate employers. We are all in this together, Mr. Speaker. Let us support the Republican tax plan.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in November 1979, when he announced his candidacy for President of the United States, Ronald Reagan called for the creation of the world's largest free trade zone, the North American accord. His vision of the United States, Canada, and Mexico working together as friends in peace and prosperity was more than fanciful conjecture. He understood that spreading free markets and free trade promoted prosperity and political reform. It was good for America. Across the world, the past 18 years have proven Ronald Reagan's views correct. This weekend Mexico held national elections. For the first time in decades three parties, led by the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, split the seats in the Mexican Parliament. A non-PRI candidate won the mayoralty in Mexico City. Mr. Speaker, the American people must recognize that great and positive political change is proceeding in Mexico under the leadership of President Ernesto Zedillo. It is not that we applaud who is winning the elections, but that a full-fledged multiparty democracy is emerging on our doorstep. Cooperation on all fronts, from trade, immigration to crime and corruption, is the only way to continue to build the United States- Mexico relationship on a foundation of mutual respect, cooperation and friendship befitting two great nations. NAFTA, Ronald Reagan's North American accord, certainly promotes that process.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, this capital gains issue is one that I believe is very important, and it is unfortunate that we see this class warfare thing going on over and over and over again. When we testified on H.R. 14, the capital gains reduction package to take it from 28 to 14 percent before the Committee on Ways and Means, we had the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] join us. He has stood in this well time and time again, talking about the fact that 63 million American families own mutual funds today. It seems to me that we should look at the fact that 85 percent of the returns that are filed are among people who have less than $100,000 a year in income. That is very apparent; it cannot be forgotten, and class warfare is unfortunate. The late Paul Tsongas was right when he said, the problem with my Democratic Party is that they love employees, but they hate employers.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Atlanta for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this has become a very, very sad time for me, having worked since the beginning of this Congress and actually in many previous Congresses on this issue of the capital gains tax cut. I have about 165 Democrats and Republicans who joined as cosponsors of H.R. 14. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] has been one of our great fighters on behalf of reducing the top rate on capital gains, knowing full well that it is not a tax cut for the rich. We have been able to successfully throw that us-versus-them class warfare mentality out throughout the debate on capital gains. We got the President in the agreement to acknowledge that reducing the top rate on capital gains will in fact benefit the middle-income wage earner. In fact a study that we did found that the average family of four, if we were to get to a 14-or 15-percent rate, would see their take-home pay increase by $1,500. Those are the ones who benefit from things like a capital gains tax rate reduction. Yes, there are people today in this country who are unemployed and we need to get capital invested so that we can create job opportunities for them. So the reason this is a sad day is that many of my Democratic colleagues who have joined as cosponsors of H.R. 14 have unfortunately now been drawn in by their party to this trap of saying that this is simply a tax cut for the rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. We will hear it time and time again that 76 percent of the benefits go to people earning between $20,000 and $75,000. Ninety-three percent of the benefits go to people with incomes of less than $100,000. So the fact is, we are there trying desperately to help those struggling middle-income wage earners create greater opportunities, improve their quality of life, and things like a capital gains tax rate reduction will do just that. So I just want to say that it saddens me that we have seen the debate come down to this level.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon]. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that if proceedings on the Journal resume immediately after an electronic vote on another question, then the minimum time for any electronic vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal may be 5 minutes.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, there has been an awful lot of talk throughout this debate over the issue of sending a signal. ``Let's send a signal.'' They are absolutely right. There are several very important signals that we should be sending. For starters, in just a few days, we are going to see Hong Kong revert to China. We need to send a signal to the freedom-loving people in China that we want to maintain United States-China relations. In fact, the greatest apostle for freedom there, Martin Lee, has made it very clear in his statement that the nonrenewal of MFN would hurt us badly. We also need to send a signal to the international community, especially our closest allies in Asia. Bob Dole made it very clear in a piece that he wrote today in the Washington Times: Revoking MFN would engender grave doubts in all Asian capitals about the wisdom of American policymakers and undermine their respect for us as the guarantor of Asian stability. We also, Mr. Speaker, need to send a very important signal to American citizens, American private citizens who are in China, American citizens there who are spreading the gospel, American business men and women who are on the front line pursuing capitalism and pushing our western values into China, and also to democratic activists, like our International Republican Institute, out there encouraging democratization at the village level. It is very important that these signals be sent, and the most important signal is to the people of China, the 1.2 billion people of China who should know that we stand with them. The single most powerful force in the 5,000-year history of China has been the economic reforms. We need to stand for MFN and in opposition to this resolution.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], one of our greatest and hardest working champions and one of the initiators of the whole plan to deal with democracy and human rights in China.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], a very valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], my very good friend and one of the hardest workers in the cause for MFN.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)