David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Metairie, LA [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in about 15 hours we will be casting one of the most important national security, trade, foreign policy votes of this year, and I am referring of course to the vote which will call for ending normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China. It is very important this year because, as we sit here on the verge of the reversion of Hong Kong to China, the termination of a 99-year-old lease, it seems to me that we have a responsibility to recognize the plight of the people of Hong Kong. It is very fascinating to observe the message which has emerged from Hong Kong. There is no more respected fighter for political pluralism, human rights and economic freedom than Martin Lee. Martin Lee has been an outspoken advocate, having fought diligently in Hong Kong for all of these things, and he has sent a very strong message on this vote which we are going to face tomorrow. He said, ``The nonrenewal of MFN would hurt U.S. Badly. This is something we cannot afford when we are already undergoing a critical transition.'' No one, no one is fighting on the front line for human rights and those things which we as Americans feel so strongly about than Martin Lee. The Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, has said, ``I say to you on behalf of the whole community in Hong Kong that you will not help U.S. by damaging our economy and damaging confidence in our future. The best way to help U.S. is by renewing MFN and continuing the policy of engagement towards China.'' Now these are two people who are right there on the scene. It is very easy for the U.S. to sit here in Washington, DC and do what makes the U.S. feel good rather than doing good. The fact of the matter is there are people there and there are people here in this House who fortunately understand how important it is. Today in the Wall Street Journal there was a great piece written by some extraordinarily patriotic Americans. Ronald Reagan's Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick, our former colleague and former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former presidential candidate and great business leader Steve Forbes, the former Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander; in today's Wall Street Journal they wrote: China has undergone significant liberalization and reform that have resulted in greater freedom for the Chinese people, and we believe that China is well on the road to major development, modernization and fuller participation in the processes of the democratic and law-abiding nations of the world. We know it is not there yet. The U.S. debate should focus on what policies we should follow to enhance, and not hinder, these favorable trends, and on what policies are most effective in dealing with problem areas. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is why today the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], my colleague, has joined along with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], chairman of the Human Rights Caucus, the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], someone who came up with many of the great ideas, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], in putting together legislation that we will be introducing called the China Human Rights and Democracy Act, geared toward that last sentence that I mentioned in the Wall Street Journal piece that appeared today. We should look at positive ways. We have been dealing with Members who have opposed MFN like the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], and others. I am hoping that they will join as cosponsors of this legislation when we introduce it because all it is, is positive movement by increasing funding for the National Endowment for Democracy which has played a role in encouraging village elections, where 800 million Chinese have participated with secret ballots, with noncommunist candidates in generating and selecting their own leaders, and we also called for increasing that very important message which we have all fought for through Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America. So I hope that many will join this legislation that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and I and others are introducing, and let me close, Mr. Speaker, by addressing an issue which has gotten a great deal of attention. There is a view that religious leaders in this country stand en masse opposing normal trade relations with China. Well, I was very pleased last week to have received a letter from the Great Reverend Billy Graham who does not want to get involved in the MFN debate and he made that very clear. But he did say the following in his letter to me. I am in favor of doing all we can to strengthen our relationship with China and its people. China is rapidly becoming one of the dominant economic and political powers in the world, and I believe it is far better to keep China as a friend than to treat it as an adversary. Mr. Speaker, I hope very much that my colleagues will join tomorrow by voting no on the resolution of disapproval.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to share with my colleagues an extraordinary letter that I received last night. Over the past several weeks there has been a perception that virtually all Christian leaders in this country support revocation of Most Favored Nation trading status for the People's Republic of China. Just yesterday we heard here in the Capitol from many Christian missionaries who have been on the ground in China working to spread the gospel, and then last night I received what I believe to be an unprecedented letter from the Reverend Billy Graham, and I am going to ask unanimous consent to have it included in the Record and I will have copies of it here for my colleagues on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, in this letter he says, ``I am in favor of doing all we can to strengthen our relationship with China and its people. China is rapidly becoming one of the dominant economic and political powers in the world and I believe it is far better for us to keep China as a friend than to treat it as an adversary.'' This is a very potent message. While the Reverend Graham does not want to get involved in the MFN debate, he makes his position very, very clear about the need to maintain engagement. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution of disapproval when it comes up next week. Montreat, NC, June 19, 1997. Hon. David Dreier, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Dreier, Thank you for the telephone calls concerning the People's Republic of China that you have made recently to both me and my son, Ned, who heads a ministry which works closely with the churches of China. Ned and I have discussed the issue and felt that it was important enough for me to write directly to you. Like you, I have great respect for China's long and rich heritage, and I am grateful for the opportunities I have had to visit that great country. It has been a privilege to get to know many of its leaders and also to become familiar with the actual situation of religious believers in the P.R.C. The current debate about renewing China's ``Most Favored Nation'' trading status no doubt raises many complex and difficult questions, and it is not my intention to become involved in the political aspects of this issue. However, I am in favor of doing all we can to strengthen our relationship with China and its people. China is rapidly becoming one of the dominant economic and political powers in the world, and I believe it is far better for us to keep China as a friend than to treat it as an adversary. Furthermore, in my experience, nations respond to friendship just as much as people do. While I will not be releasing a formal public statement on the M.F.N. debate, you should feel free to share my sentiments with your colleagues. May God give you and all your colleagues His wisdom as you debate this important issue. With every good wish, Billy Graham.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I know the hour is late, but I would like to take just a few minutes to discuss an issue that was being raised earlier by my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] and a wide range of other Members who were here discussing the need for us to look at the issue of economic growth. And also I wanted to respond in part to some of the statements that were made just a few minutes ago by my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey. As we look at the tax package that is moving forward, one of the things that has been discussed is the need for us to pursue a policy that does in fact encourage economic growth, and at the same time recognizes the need to increase the take-home pay of working Americans. The fact is, there is an important part of this package which, frankly, I wish had gone further, but because of the constraints imposed by the budget agreement it did not go as far as I would like to see it go, and that is one that relates specifically to the capital gains tax. On the opening day of the 105th Congress I was pleased to join with both Democrats and Republicans in introducing a bill that is numbered H.R. 14. The reason I remember it is that it takes the top rate on capital gains from 28 percent to 14 percent. Mr. Speaker, our goal was to recognize that the tax on capital is one of the most punitive taxes of all, that hurts most not those who are very rich, and I think we have pretty well succeeded in throwing that ludicrous argument out in which people have said reducing the tax on capital gains is nothing but a tax cut for the rich. We have, I believe, very successfully thrown that out because, as we look at the empirical evidence that we have, we have found that roughly 56 percent of those who are realizing capital gains have incomes that are less than $40,000 per year. If we look at those, those people are obviously not considered rich. What are they? They are people who have homes that may have appreciated in value, they have a mutual fund, they are retirees, they are small business men and women who are the backbone of this country. I believe that reducing that top rate on the capital gains tax will in fact, based on evidence that we have, increase the take-home pay for the average family in this country by $1,500. Why? It will come about because of the ensuing economic growth. We have got not just theory, which so many have people have said, oh, this is all based on theory, but we have actual facts. Take this entire century, and go back to the early 1920's. Andrew Mellon was the Treasury Secretary under President Warren J. Harding. At that time there was a reduction in tax rates, it anticipated the tremendous boom of economic growth that we saw through the 1920's, and, guess what, we even saw an increase in the flow of revenues to the Treasury. Our great chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has referred to the fact that this capital gains tax cut is going to increase the flow of revenues to the Treasury. Why? Because of the fact that we do not simply subscribe to that view that the pie is one size and can only be cut up in those little pieces. We subscribe to the view that the pie can grow. We are enjoying strong economic growth today, but I am convinced that it can be significantly stronger, because there are many Americans who have not been able to benefit from the economic growth that we have seen. Of course, I am referring to those who are in the inner cities in our country. We see this great talk that has been coming forward from both the President and the Speaker of the House about the need for us to look at the very serious societal problem that we have as race, in race relations. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that one of the key things we should do is recognize that a problem that exists in the inner city is primarily due to a lack of capital investment. Reducing the top rate on capital gains is going to play a big role in encouraging investment in a wide range of areas, and I believe it will provide a real boost to those who are in fact in the inner city. Mr. Speaker, reducing the top rate on capital gains is going to be a win-win all the way around. It is not a tax cut for the rich. It in fact is something that benefits working Americans and at the same time will encourage the $7 to $8 trillion that we have locked in from people who are literally afraid to sell because the tax rate on capital gains is so high today, they will be encouraged to move that. That capital will play a role in providing the much-needed boost in many parts of this country where people have not been able to benefit, and we will see from that growth an increase in our attempt to move on our glide path towards balancing the budget. Mr. Speaker, I just want to underscore the importance of this, and say that I hope very much that any of my colleagues who have not joined with the 160 to 165 Democrats and Republicans on board on this will in fact become cosponsors of H.R. 14, and continue to work towards a broad-based reduction in capital gains. I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we have watched the Committee on Ways and Means proceed with its markup, I think it is very important for us to recognize that the plan to reduce the top rate on capital gains is in fact not a tax cut for the rich, as many on the other side of the aisle and some harsh critics have said in the past. If we are to reduce the top rate on capital gains significantly, we can actually increase the take-home pay of the average family of four by $1,500 a year. That itself is a very important tax cut; it will in fact benefit working Americans. We also have to look at the fact that reducing the top rate on capital gains is not going to cost the Government a nickel. In fact, it is going to gain revenues to the Federal Treasury. How do we know that? Every single time that it has been done, from 1921 under President Warren G. Harding all the way to 1981 under President Ronald Reagan, reducing that top rate, in fact, expands the pie and generates an increased flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. Reducing the capital gains tax is a very important part of this package. We need to move ahead with it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the outstanding military service and contributions to our country of a native of Pomona, CA, on the occasion of his retirement from military service on December 1, 1996: Col. Peter V. Huisking, Military Intelligence Corps, U.S. Army. Born in Pomona, CA, in 1949, Colonel Huisking attended St. Joseph Elementary School and the Webb School of California, and received an Army Reserve Officer Training Corps [ROTC] scholarship to attend Pomona College in 1967. He was commissioned in field artillery upon graduation from Pomona College in 1971. He served in junior officer positions at the artillery battery level with 2d Battalion, 92d Field Artillery, V Corps, in Giessen, Germany, from 1972 to 1974. As a first lieutenant, he was commander of Battery C, 2d Battalion, 92d Field Artillery. Colonel Huisking transferred to the Military Intelligence branch in 1974, and served in numerous tactical and strategic intelligence assignments over the next few years: assistant S2, 42d Field Artillery Group, 1974 to 1975; chief, all source production section, 2d Armored Division, Fort Hood, TX, 1975 to 1977; commander, Headquarters and Operations Company, 522d Military Intelligence Battalion, Fort Hood, TX, 1977 to 1978; and staff and faculty, Defense Intelligence College, Washington, DC, 1979 to 1982. Other overseas assignments included G2 operations officer, 2d Infantry Division, Republic of Korea, from 1982 to 1983; chief, Intelligence Systems Branch, Headquarters U.S. Army, Europe, Heidelberg, Germany, from 1984 to 1986; deputy G2, 1st Armored Division, Ansbach, Germany, 1986; and executive officer, 501st Military Intelligence Battalion, 1986 to 1988. Colonel Huisking was assigned to Fort Huachuca, AZ, in 1988, where he served as the manager of the Intelligence-Electronic Warfare Program Office. He later commanded the 304th Military Intelligence Battalion at Fort Huachuca, from 1989 to 1991, and served with Headquarters, United States Armed Forces, Central Command in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, during Operation Desert Storm as the G2 plans officer for unmanned aerial vehicles. Following service as the Assistant Chief of Staff, G2, 1st Cavalry Division, at Fort Hood, TX, from 1991 to 1992, Colonel Huisking was assigned as a staff officer in the Directorate of Force Development in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans at Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, from 1992 to 1993. He later served as the deputy director for planning in the Directorate of Strategy, Plans, and Policy on the Department of the Army staff from 1993 to 1994. Colonel Huisking's last military assignment was Assistant Chief of Staff, G2, for the U.S. Army Signal Command at Fort Huachuca, AZ, from 1994 until his retirement in December 1996. Colonel Huisking is a graduate of the U.S. Army Field Artillery School, 1972; the Defense Intelligence College, 1979; the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1984; and the U.S. Army War College, 1996. He also graduated from Georgetown University with a master of arts degree in Government, 1980. His awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Bronze Star, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, and several service medals including the Saudi Arabia Kuwait Liberation Medal. He is also a recipient of the U.S. Army Signal Corps Regiment's Order of Mercury. Additionally, Colonel Huisking is authorized to wear the Army staff identification badge. Colonel Huisking is married to the former Henrietta Hardy of Tucson, AZ. They have three children: Elisabeth, who lives in Virginia; Thomas, a college student in Texas; and Andrea, a student at Smith Middle School, Fort Huachuca, AZ. Colonel Huisking is joining JBL&H Associates of Falls Church, VA, and will work at the U.S. Army Intelligence Center in support of the Directorate of Combat Developments. Colonel Huisking has served at all military echelons from platoon to the Army staff. He has led American soldiers as a platoon leader, a company commander, and a battalion commander. He served as a intelligence officer in key positions from Artillery Group to Major Army Command. His service has been characterized by his emphasis on two key elements: training for war and taking care of soldiers. This emphasis paid off during the successful deployment of elements of his battalion to Desert Storm. In the words of Maj. Gen. John Stewart, the Assistant Chief of Staff, G2, U.S. Army Forces Central Command, during the gulf war: Lieutenant Colonel Huisking's tireless, professional, and consistently correct staff work was a major factor in the success of Intelligence and Electronics Warfare during the Persian Gulf War. A great job. Colonel Huisking was also an outstanding supporter of every military community he lived in, both in the United States and overseas. He was a strong supporter of the Scouting Program, both boys and girls, and served as committee chairman of the Cub Scout programs. His involvement in youth athletics included coaching in youth T-ball and soccer, and service on Catholic parish councils in communities in Germany and Fort Huachuca, AZ. Additionally, he has served as a lay eucharistic minister and lector since 1979. As a professional intelligence officer, Colonel Huisking has made a particular impact on tactical intelligence units, having served in four combat divisions, and having been instrumental in the successful implementation of the combat electronic warfare intelligence [CEWI] concept in the Army beginning in 1976. Additionally, his training of the Army's only unmanned aerial vehicle unit before the Persian Gulf war led to its successful development and use during the conflict. His pioneering work in this area ensured that the Army will always go to war with this important intelligence capability. Colonel Huisking's service to the Army and his country spans a quarter of a century. It included the years of rebuilding the Army after the Vietnam war; standing guard on the frontiers of freedom from the demilitarized zone in Korea to the Iron Curtain in Central Europe; training units which ensured the readiness of the Army to deter aggression and ensure the victory of the United States in the cold war; preparing and leading soldiers to victory in the gulf war; and maintaining and equipping a force ready to deploy to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and other areas of the world during a time of declining resources and increased requirements. Colonel Huisking played an important role in all of these areas. His legacy is in the outstanding soldiers and units who benefited from his leadership, and who will carry the Army into the 21st century. The citizens of the State of California, particularly the 28th Congressional District, are proud of the service of this native son. They join me in thanking him and his family for their contributions to the Army and the United States, and in wishing them all the best both now and in the future.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Saturday, June 7, 1997, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 10, 1997, for morning hour debates.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Friday, June 6, 1997, that it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Saturday, June 7, 1997.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have taken out this time to talk about an issue which has come to the forefront. Many people are addressing it, and we apparently will be voting on this issue the week of June 23, most likely the 25th of June, that being whether or not we should renew most-favored-nation status for the People's Republic of China. There are a wide range of issues that are addressed here, whether it is arms proliferation, human rights, the kinds of things that have come to the forefront, trade issues. I will say that I am very concerned about every single one of them. But I would like to take this few minutes to talk about an issue which has troubled me greatly. I should say at the outset that, as has been the case in the past, I am very, very strongly supportive of maintaining most-favored-nation trading status for the People's Republic of China because in the 4,000- year history of China, the single most powerful force for positive change in that period of time has been economic reform. Let me say how important that has been and an issue which is of concern to me and many others, and that is the policy of forced abortion that exists in China. It is terrible to have the so-called one-child policy that exists there. I believe that we should do everything that we can to change that, because that policy cannot be tolerated. Mr. Speaker, not many people know that the policy of engagement and economic reform which has existed in China is undermining the one-child policy there. There is a young woman, 27 years old, who lives in a tiny town called Dongguan which is in the Guangdong Province which adjoins Hong Kong. Her name is Ye Xiuying. She worked for $35 a month as a factory worker in this area. A plant was opened up from a U.S. business, and she was able to establish her own small business near this plant. Her income went from $35 a month to $1,200 a month, an amazing growth, something that has empowered her. Because of the fact that she was able to gain such economic strength, she was able to pay the government the one-time $1,800 charge, and in fact not suffer an abortion as many of the provinces have imposed in China but in fact have her second child. She in fact had a girl, something that the government opposes. They want to have boys. She was able to have a second child; she was able to have a girl. As I listen to many of my colleagues talk about the idea of sending a message to the government of China by bringing an end to most-favored- nation trading status, that kind of policy would in fact encourage more abortions in China. As we listen to people regularly claim that we will be able to bring an end to the human rights violations, the saber rattling in the Taiwan straits, the horrible treatment of Tibet, the transfer of weapons, the military buildup in China if we end our contact with them through most-favored-nation trading status, clearly they are wrong. Because if we look at the recent past in China, during the great leap forward under Mao Zedong, 60 million people were starved. Also under Mao, during the cultural revolution, 1 million people were murdered by the government. And, of course, the world was not made aware of this. What has happened? As we opened up China, and did in fact what Ronald Reagan said he wanted to have done in Eastern and Central Europe when he said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,'' so that those in Eastern and Central Europe could mingle with the West, the same thing has been happening with China. It would be tantamount to declaring economic and political war with China if we were to tamper with or revoke what is an inappropriate name to describe it, most-favored- nation trading status, which simply means regular trading arrangements that exist there. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the fact that we have not solved every problem there, and I demonstrate my outrage over the human rights violations, I have talked with dissidents, I marched to the Chinese Embassy following the Tiananmen Square massacre to demonstrate my outrage, I have come to the conclusion that what would happen if we revoked MFN would be that we would not be isolating China from the world but we would in fact be isolating the United States of America from the most populous nation on the face of the earth. There are many missionaries today who are very involved in China and, yes, there is religious persecution and it is unacceptable, reprehensible and should be addressed. But if we ended MFN, we would clearly jeopardize the chance for those missionaries who are there from the United States and other parts of the world to be successful. Mr. Speaker, I simply say when this vote comes up in 2 weeks, I urge a vote against the resolution of disapproval so that we can do everything, including undermining the one-child policy.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for continuing to yield. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is the cost imposed on Fidel Castro of trying to block this program is the equivalent of 400,000 barrels just for Havana alone. If we go back and look at the height of the cold war, the Soviet Union was able to block 99 percent of the programming that went from Radio Free Europe into the Soviet Union. I think that we ought to think long and hard before we take this kind of action from the Congress, and I say that as one who believes that getting our western values into countries throughout the world is clearly the best way possible for us to undermine political repression, but I think that this two-tiered approach with both the legislative and executive branch's involvement is the most responsible approach for us to take.

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

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield further, I would like to say to my friend the gentleman from Colorado that I am very sympathetic, in fact the gentleman from Connecticut and I, a few weeks ago we were in Santa Fe, NM, and talked about the issue of Cuba. We were meeting with Mexican government officials. My friend the gentleman from Florida with whom I sit on the Committee on Rules knows that I also am sympathetic with this. But it seems to me that without undermining the goal that is set forth by the Skaggs amendment, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] is simply trying to in fact bring both sides into the question. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] says this is a political hot potato. It may be. Why should the hot potato simply be here in the Congress without letting the President, who obviously has gotten very involved, having signed the Helms-Burton legislation, he should be part of this process.

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. My dear friend the gentleman from Connecticut is right on target. That is exactly what the Diaz-Balart amendment does here. We should be able to come together. The goal of the amendment is to come together with both the legislative branch and the executive branch in fact recognizing the importance of this issue. The President has to certify that it is in the national security interest to keep or to not keep Television Marti. That is why I think that this is the very responsible, evenhanded way to get the two branches of government involved.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, exactly 1 month from today is the deadline imposed by President Clinton in his State of the Union address for Congress to vote on a campaign finance reform bill. But the reality is that the deadline will come and go with no action taken because the most widely debated proposals, which violate our constitutional right to free speech and protect incumbents by imposing campaign spending limits, are rapidly losing support with each passing day. It is time to consider new ideas that will enhance, rather than undermine, voter participation in our Federal elections process, and restore public accountability in the campaign process. That is why I have introduced H.R. 1780, the Voter Empowerment Act. It takes a different approach to addressing the problems of our campaign finance system. It will enable voters to make more informed voting decisions by giving them greater access to more campaign information. To this end, the legislation requires all disclosure information to be made available on the Internet, and establishes a disclosure limit for issue advocacy and soft money expenditures. It also requires the Federal Election Commission [FEC] to facilitate disclosure by mandating electronic filing for individual Federal candidates, PAC's and national parties within the next 2 years. After the implementation of electronic filing, the FEC would publish an expansive Internet site on the World Wide Web which would contain a separate page for every congressional and Presidential candidate, each PAC, and every national party. A congressional candidate's page, for example, would contain the aggregate contribution and expenditure amounts for the previous and current election cycle. If a candidate received money from a PAC, a link would be available to the PAC's page so that the public could learn more about their goals and beliefs. With the disclosure information freely available in an understandable format on the Internet, Americans will no longer need to rely on special interests and the media to interpret the FEC data for them. And most important, the new information will allow voters to make more informed choices at the polls. The Voter Empowerment Act will further increase the amount of information that is made available to the public by requiring persons or groups that spend more than $100,000 on specific advertisement to disclose to the FEC within 24 hours the amount of money spent, the type of communication and where it was broadcast or distributed. In 1996, issue advocacy communications inundated the voting public through voter guides and radio/television advertisements. Regrettably, the public had no idea who paid for or published these communications. During the 1996 election, many of the issue advocacy communications were paid for with soft money contributions, which are not subject to Federal disclosure regulations. Recognizing the need to facilitate disclosure without impeding the free speech rights of contributors, the Voter Empowerment Act contains a disclosure provision for individuals who contribute $250,000 in soft money to national parties. The bill requires individuals who contribute more than a quarter of a million dollars to inform the FEC of that amount, and it requires national parties to disclose to the FEC where the soft money was spent or distributed. Some of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, may criticize these two disclosure provisions for either doing too much or too little. Some claim that increased disclosure provisions regarding soft money and issue advocacy communications will restrict an individual's free speech rights. However, the Supreme Court has upheld reasonable disclosure limitations on campaign expenditures. Furthermore, the limits have been set extraordinarily high so only the largest donors, not grassroots activists or small contributors, would be required to file with the FEC. On the other hand, some may argue that the advent of soft money marks the ruin of our campaign system, so it should be banned. According to the Supreme Court, independent expenditures and soft money must be considered as political speech and deserve to be protected under the first amendment. Therefore, efforts to ban soft money are blatantly unconstitutional. In addition to facilitating disclosure, the Voter Empowerment Act encourages more individual participation in campaigns by indexing all Federal contribution limits to 1974 dollars. Established in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, the current contribution limits were meant to lower the cost of campaigns and eliminate the advantages of incumbency. However, the opposite has occurred. Between 1974 and 1994, total campaign spending, in constant dollars, by House candidates has nearly tripled, and reelection rates for House incumbents hit an all time high in 1988. By raising the contribution limits, individuals will be able to exercise their right of free speech more effectively and candidates will not be forced to spend a large amount of their time raising campaign funds. To further encourage increased participation by individuals, the Voter Empowerment Act reinstates the tax credit for individual contributions. Similar to the credit repealed in 1986, individuals would be able to claim a 50-percent tax credit up to $200--$400 for joint filers--if they contribute to a Federal candidate, PAC or national party. The credit would apply to the total contributions for the year. Encouraging individual contributions to Federal candidates is one of the best ways to eliminate the advantages of incumbency. In a recent study, Dr. Gary Jacobsen, a political science professor who specializes in the American campaign system at the University of California, San Diego, found that the positive effect of increased expenditures on behalf of incumbents was low to nonexistent, while the positive effect of increased challenger spending was enormous. It was no coincidence that, in the last election, all of the incumbent Senators who spent less than the limits set in the so-called McCain-Feingold bill won their races, and the challengers who spent less than the limits lost. Incumbents have free mail privileges, paid staff and the ability to generate press coverage. For challengers, additional campaign contributions are the only equalizer to those inherent advantages. I would also note, Mr. Speaker, that the FEC has become ineffective in its responsibilities to enforce our campaign finance laws. Frequently, the FEC takes an excessively long time to file a complaint against candidates or parties who violate campaign finance laws. For example, last month the FEC filed suit against the California Democratic Party for violations of election laws in the 1992 election. Five years after the alleged violations, the FEC is finally getting around to prosecuting those who broke the law. The American public cannot rely on the FEC to prosecute violations 5 years after the fact. Certainly, the FEC cannot turn back the clock and redo the 1992 elections. The FEC can only ask for a monetary fine, which would be a small price to pay for winning the Presidency and two Senate seats. Many other experts in campaign finance reform have suggested that the FEC is not capable of handling its enforcement authorities. In a 1989 report, common cause suggested, ``the best * * * remedy may be to abolish the FEC altogether.'' While the Voter Empowerment Act does not pursue that goal, it does transfer the FEC's enforcement authority to the Department of Justice. The Attorney General would have the latitude to design and develop the campaign finance enforcement division. The task of establishing a new office to enforce campaign finance laws would not be impossible for the Justice Department. In the past, the Attorney General has been given the responsibility to create new offices within the Department of Justice. Three years ago, she formed a new office comprised of lawyers from different departments to compensate citizens who wwere exposed to nuclear testing. Without its enforcement powers, the new FEC would be free to focus exclusively on those duties for which it was originally created. That is to facilitate disclosure and providing contribution and expenditure information to voters. With this limited responsibility, my legislation reduces the number of Commissioners from 6 to 2, with their terms staggered and limited to two full terms. In addition, the FEC would be required to work with the Justice Department in the development of new regulations, and would have to publish a compilation of advisory opinions with an index and publish names of candidates and committees who have accepted illegal contributions. Finally, my legislation eliminates the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and tax checkoff. Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.'' The Presidential Election Campaign Fund forces Americans to give their tax dollars to campaigns which they may not agree, and most Americans have not been supportive of the tax checkoff and campaign fund. Since 1981, the participation in the tax checkoff program has declined quite steadily. The repeal of taxpayer subsidies for Presidential candidates is what the American people want and it is long overdue. Mr. Speaker, over 50 bills have been introduced to change the campaign finance system in this country. While we all agree that change is necessary and improvements are possible, I believe the Voter Empowerment Act offers a more reasonable approach to improving our campaign finance system without undermining public participation in our electoral process. I urge my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the House has begun this very important debate on whether or not we are going to grant most-favored-nation trading status to the People's Republic of China. The question that we have to ask ourselves is where do the 5.5 million freedom loving people of Hong Kong stand on this. Because, frankly, if one is in Hong Kong, this is much more than simply a debating exercise. Hong Kong is a beacon of hope and prosperity and freedom to Asia. As it is transferred to Chinese control in just a couple of weeks, the five and a half million residents face an uncertain future. We have a moral obligation to consider them as we debate MFN. One unquestionable fact, Mr. Speaker, regarding this MFN debate is that Hong Kong adamantly opposes the United States' cutting off trade with China. Maintaining MFN bolsters Hong Kong's economic value to China, reinforcing their claim to separate treatment. Maintaining trade will also calm the economic concerns of the Hong Kong people at a time when they are worried about their political freedoms. Chris Patton said it best, ``For the people of Hong Kong there is no comfort to the proposition that if China reduces their freedoms, their jobs will go to the United States.''

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for his leadership and being so generous since I regularly say nice things about both Republicans and Democrats, and obviously I was very kind when I had the thrill to manage that rule, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has pointed out. Unfortunately, my dear friend from South Boston did not read further to find that there was in fact a second rule which in fact was very structured, limited the opportunity to provide amendments, and virtually everyone on this side of the aisle opposed that amendment. So I am very generous when they are open rules and when we have a very agreeable procedure, but when we were not treated fairly, obviously, it was not the same situation as we have today.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, obviously this debate has touched many different issues, because this is far-reaching legislation. I would like to talk about an issue that was raised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] which has played a role in leading me to strongly support both this rule and the legislation. Earlier this year the American people were outraged when we saw a 16- year-old girl run over on the streets right here in Washington, D.C., up at Dupont Circle. The real tragedy came when we found that the driver turned out to be a drunken diplomat from the Republic of Georgia. Then we, of course, looked at what conceivably could have happened. Of course, what could have happened is diplomatic immunity could have been used, and the driver would have no responsibility whatsoever for killing this young 16-year-old-girl. The immediate gut reaction from me and most people looking at this is why do we have diplomatic immunity? Obviously, diplomatic immunity is very important because it is conceivable that in another country we could see a U.S. officer in fact framed and charged with some crime that they are not responsible for at all, so diplomatic immunity is very important. But modifying the diplomatic immunity laws as they exist is very important. This provision includes some very important items which we brought about in a consensus which includes, as Chairman Gilman pointed out, now the support of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and several other organizations that heretofore have not gotten involved in legislation like this. What we call for is, first, a full accounting of the use of diplomatic immunity in the United States and in other countries, and, second and very important, we call on the administration to proceed with negotiations to deal with a procedure that would allow the countries of origin to in fact have jurisdiction over the actions of one of their foreign service officers in another country. It is a very important step in dealing with a critically important problem, and that is why I think it is important for us to move ahead with this rule, get this legislation forward. So many people have said the legislation is going nowhere, but I think that dealing with this problem of diplomatic immunity and the potential loss of life and looking at the other victims means that we should in fact move ahead with it. I support this rule, Mr. Speaker, and support the underlying legislation, and hope that we will be able to proceed as expeditiously as possible in approving the previous question as well as the rule.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for yielding me the time, and I congratulate both the chairman and ranking minority member for moving forward with this very appropriate legislation. Last Thursday night in Los Angeles, a wonderful birthday tribute was held for Bob Hope as he marked his 94th birthday. It seems to me that this legislation is very fitting right on the heels of that important celebration. When one thinks of the name of Bob Hope, for me the first word that comes to mind is patriot. That is why bestowing on him this title of being an honorary veteran is very, very apropos. He has spent countless days and very important days, holidays, away from his family to entertain our troops during very difficult times in our Nation's history. It seems to me when we think about the kinds of sacrifices that he has made, they clearly do certainly establish very, very good justification for Bob Hope to be named as a veteran of the armed services. Mr. Speaker, I have considered Bob Hope and his wonderful wife Dolores and his son Tony and others in his family very good friends. They have homes in both Los Angeles and in the Palm Springs area and are very active in the community in southern California. We are happy to, first of all, mark his 94th birthday and wish him many more to come and to congratulate the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] for moving forward with this very important and well-deserved legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, from the Los Angeles County Fairgrounds in Pomona to the Santa Anita race track in Arcadia, California's San Gabriel Valley is totally charmed by our Triple Crown contender and favorite son, Silver Charm, but it is owners Bob and Beverly Lewis who have captured our hearts. Their generous spirit of giving is evident throughout southern California. We celebrate with them as their Kentucky Derby and Preakness winner makes his bid to add the final jewel to his crown. Silver Charm represents the spirit of America. He is a street fighter who rose to the top through sheer hard work, ability and talent. He is what America is all about. We all root for him because in essence he represents us. He has come not from the royal barns of Kentucky but has become a champion in spite of it. The son of Silver Buck and Bonnie's Poker continues to fascinate us as he heads to the Belmont Stakes. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday Californians will be very proud as we celebrate our first Triple Crown winner.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank my colleagues for their forbearance. I rise tonight to respond to the fact that this morning we saw the official beginning of the annual debate on the extension of most-favored-nation trading status for the People's Republic of China. Quite frankly, the term ``Most Favored Nation'' is, to use what is today the vernacular, I guess, a very inappropriate euonym, e-u-o-n-y-m, to describe the trade relationship between the People's Republic of China and the United States. I say that because it simply means that we would be continuing with normal trading relations that exist with virtually every other country on the face of the earth. Like every Member of this House of Representatives, I am very troubled at the human rights violations that we have seen take place in China over the past several years. I am very troubled at the treatment of Tibet. I am very troubled at the saber-rattling which has taken place in the Taiwan Strait. The idea of weapons proliferation and transfer to Pakistan and Iran and potentially other nations troubles me greatly. I will say that, as we look at every single one of these very serious problems, we have to ask ourselves the question: How do we most effectively deal with those problems? Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinarily obvious to me that the most effective way to deal with those problems is to continue to get our Western values into the most populous nation on the face of the earth. Some are unfortunately trying to equate the People's Republic of China with the former Soviet Union. The differences are very, very important and need to be underscored. The Soviet Union had a policy of expansionism throughout eastern and central Europe. At this moment we are up in the Committee on Rules talking about the issue of NATO expansion, and obviously, the Chinese have not been involved in that. Look at the expansion that we saw by the Soviet Union into this hemisphere when through the decade of the 1980's we struggled with this continued pattern of assistance that went to the Communist dictatorship in Nicaragua, exporting its revolution into El Salvador and other countries. So the difference is very, very important. Some people want to create another cold war enemy, Mr. Speaker. We should not do that. It would be irresponsible, a major mistake. The single most powerful force for positive change in the 4,000-year history of China has been the market reforms which have dramatically improved the standard of living. I am convinced that, if we were to in any way cut that off, we would not be isolating China from the United States or the world. What would happen is we would isolate the world's only complete superpower, the United States of America, from the most populous nation in the world. So looking at the allies in that region, we also have to recognize that Hong Kong, which will revert to China in just about 3 weeks, very strongly supports our continuance of most-favored-nation trading status for the People's Republic of China. We have to look at religious leaders. Many religious leaders have come forward saying that their greatest opportunity to continue expanding their message into China is for us to maintain our engagement there. So Mr. Speaker, the debate is going to rage on for the next several weeks. I am very pleased that I am joined by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox), my friend and colleague, and many others in this House who understand that trade promotes private enterprise, which creates wealth, which improves living standards, which undermines political repression. It has happened in the last decade and a half in South Korea, Taiwan, Chile, and Argentina, and it is not going to happen overnight, but clearly, it will help in China. So let us maintain engagement. When the resolution of disapproval does come up here on the House floor, I urge my colleagues to join in voting against it so that we can move ahead in our attempt to get our values, our great values of freedom and democracy and liberty throughout the entire world.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, later this week the House is likely to consider H.R. 1486, the Foreign Policy Reform Act of 1997. I believe that this important legislation, crafted in a responsible and bipartisan manner by the esteemed chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Ben Gilman of Middletown, NY, offers a historic opportunity to move our Nation's foreign policy in the right direction. The legislation reported by the International Relations Committee represents a return to proper congressional authorization procedures. It authorizes spending for the State Department and related agencies, as well as for security, humanitarian, and development assistance at levels agreed to by the House and Senate last week in their votes on the budget resolution, and at levels agreed to by the administration. David Warsh, a business and economics columnist for the Boston Globe, recently wrote a cogent article putting the bill, and Chairman Gilman's leadership, in the proper historical perspective. Namely, it is a plan for development aid in the post-cold war era that rivals the shrewdness of the Marshall Plan itself. Marshall's Inheritor He was a kid sergeant when General George Marshall was Chief of Staff of the Army--an Army Air Corps navigator with 35 missions over Japan. And when Secretary of State Marshall in 1947 announced the ambitious plan for the reconstruction of Europe that has borne his name ever since, Ben Gilman was a GI Bill student at New York University Law School. Now Gilman, the little-known chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, is acting as Marshall's inheritor--in ways that are as yet little understood. Next week Congress takes up his Foreign Policy Reform Act. It is billed as the first major overhaul of the foreign aid establishment since 1961. More to the point, the bill provides a set of tools for the conduct of development aid in the post-Cold War era that are in many ways analogous--opposite in approach but perhaps equal in shrewdness--to the Marshall Plan itself. Chief among its features is a streamlining of the baroque foreign policy establishment that grew up during the half- century contest with the former Soviet Union. Merged into the State Department altogether would be the US Information Agency and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. The Agency for International Development, which now reports directly to the president, also would go to work for the secretary of state instead. The expansion of NATO to the countries of Eastern Europe and Russia itself is authorized as well. Thus the dueling strategies that have given the US government's foreign policy some of its worst moments since the Berlin Wall came down would at last be expected to speak with a single voice. It was one of these smoldering rivalries that burst into flames last month when the Agency for International Development suspended a $14 million contract with a unit of Harvard University that has been consulting to the Russian government on various privatization programs. The reason: The significant others of the two lead advisers--the wife of one, the girlfriend of the other--had been investing heavily in Russian ventures for personal gain. Harvard economics professor Andrei Shleifer and Moscow program director Jonathan Hay were fired from its programs last week by the Harvard Institute for International Development. But the suspended contract is expected to be canceled soon, with permanent damage to the Russian faction that has been Washington's brightest hope for reform. But there were deeper currents. HIID might never have had the contract in the first place but for the rump State Department that was the AID mission to Moscow--something like 300 hard-to-control employees. In fast-moving events after the attempted coup against Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991--and especially after Bill Clinton moved into the White House--the Harvard Institute came to be used as the principal, if unofficial, instrument of US macroeconomic policy in Moscow, responsive to instructions from the White House in ways that the well-entrenched AID mission in Russia never was. It was amid such back-channel maneuvering that the burgeoning conflicts of interest on the part of the administration's preferred advisers, Shleifer and Hays, went unnoticed--or at least unchallenged. With everybody in the foreign policy apparatus working for the president--as they would be under Ben Gilman's Foreign Policy Reform Act--such mischief would be far less likely to occur. Harry Truman called Marshall ``one of the most astute and profound men I have ever known.'' At a distance of 50 years, it is clear that Marshall understood that with a devastating war just ended but an even more threatening possibility in prospect, a concerted effort by the Americans to rebuild Europe would be required to keep Soviet tanks out of Paris. Conditioned by the sacrifices of the war, a bipartisan Congress dug deep and came up with money--$13:5 billion, paltry even at 10 times that sum in current dollars-- necessary to jump-start the European miracle. Peace and prosperity--and a strong line of defense against an expansionist Soviet empire--was the result. Today, the situation is nearly opposite. Instead of a world hobbled by war, the United States looks outward to a world pretty much at peace with itself. Instead of relatively easily repaired physical damage, the harm done to many of the world's great nations--Russia, China, India--has been self- inflicted. It is institutional regeneration that is needed, not spare parts and heating oil. And, of course, instead of facing a powerful and unpredictable foe, America finds itself alone as a global superpower. It is, however, one among many nations seeking to compete in global markets, and without the comfort of an eneny to galvanize its will. In these circumstances, Ben Gilman's approach to foreign policy deserves to be understood for what it is: the best possible approach under the circumstances. It amounts to a return to the stripped-down apparatus with which America entered the post-World War II era: a president who makes foreign policy through his secretary of state, with the advice and consent of Congress, but without the bureaucratic barnacles that have grown up over 50 years. Like the foreign policy of the Marshall Plan, the support for the Foreign Policy Reform Act is selfconciously bipartisan. Freshmen hotheads made a bold attempt to derail Gilman's ascension to the international relations committee's chair (he replaced Representative Lee Hamilton) following the surprise Republican conquest of the House in 1994; he was too much a Rockefeller Republican for some. (A moderate, Gilman was elected to Congress on Richard Nixon's coattails in 1972.) Yet Gil;man works well with his Republican counterpart in the Senate, Jesse Helms. Gilman retains the respect of the Democrats. And he keeps a light checkrein on the Clinton administration, causing few embarrassments, but regularly extracting compromises in cases where he believes US policy is overly soft or harsh--in China, in Bosnia, in Somalia, in Haiti, in the Ukraine. It is picturesque that debate should be scheduled to begin on Gilman's bill on Tuesday--in time to offer the possibility that it could come to a vote in the House on the 50th anniversary of Marshall's famous speech at Harvard, June 5. So never mind the nostalgia. Great deeds are still being undertaken. The shaping economic development around the world has replaced defense as the cutting edge of foreign policy. It is possible that the next 50 years will be even better than the last.