David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Newport Beach, CA [Mr. Cox], my friend. By an overwhelming bipartisan majority, better than 2 to 1, 286 to 141, the House has gone on record stating what I have been arguing for the past 7 years, and that is the annual debate on trying to cut off MFN with the People's Republic of China is not the way to deal with the very serious problems that are outlined in this resolution. What this resolution calls for is our looking into, through this process of hearings, the serious problems that we have discussed over the past several hours: Human rights violations, O-ring transfer, the saber rattling with Taiwan, the treatment of Tibet, intellectual property rights violations, those very serious things. That is why I believe the right thing for us to do is to continue trade, obviously, and this House has made that statement, but to move ahead with this resolution that will call for committees to look into the very serious questions that we all very much want to address. As a strong supporter of most-favored-nation trading status with the People's Republic of China, I join in supporting this resolution and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson said, two thinking individuals can be given the exact same set of facts and draw different conclusions. I would like to say that I have very high regard, of course, for my full committee chairman, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, and for the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Pelosi, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Stark, and others and, of course, the gentleman from California, Dana Rohrabacher, and the gentleman from California, Chris Cox, and those who have opposed this. I have to say that it has been great to work in a bipartisan way with my very good friend, the gentleman from California, Bob Matsui, and the gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and the gentleman from Indiana, Tim Roemer, and others and, of course, with the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Crane, who has done a great job on this. And the gentleman from Arizona, Matt Salmon, and so many who are committed to this. The fact of the matter is, it seems to me we need to do everything possible to ensure that we proceed with recognition and strong support for China. We have come to the point where we as a nation are in fact the beacon of hope and opportunity. Last Monday we had a very difficult weather day here, and I was stuck in Pittsburgh and got on an airplane to fly into Washington. I happened to sit next to a man who was a civil engineer, a professor from Iowa, and he lived through the terror, the terror of the Cultural Revolution in China. He looked to me as I was reading some information about China, and he said, my family is still there and I am regularly talking with them about how things are improving in China. Things are improving. They are not perfect. Everything that has been discussed here is very important for us to address. Human rights violations are horrible. Weapons transfers, horrible. We must, as my friend the gentleman from Virginia, Frank Wolf, said, maintain engagement. I and many others here are regularly and consistently engaged in this issue throughout the year. But we cannot simply do what makes us feel good. We must do good. We must do the right thing. There are jobs that are being lost to China, but guess where they are coming from. Not the United States of America. We know they are coming from Taiwan, from South Korea, from Singapore, from Malaysia, from Hong Kong, other nations in the Pacific ripple. That shift is taking place. So we are not losing jobs here, as the people who are supporting this disapproval motion have been claiming. We, in fact, as a Nation, stand for freedom and opportunity, and I am convinced that the free market is the strongest possible force for change in this century. It has been in China. Trade promotes private enterprise which creates wealth, which improves living standards, which undermines political repression. The Cultural Revolution was a horrible time. The great leap forward was a horrible time. A million people were killed during the Cultural Revolution--60 million people starved under Mao Tse-Tung. The Tiananmen Square massacre was a horrible, horrible day for the entire world. I take a back seat to no one on the issue of human rights. I marched up to the embassy to demonstrate my outrage obvious that issue. But I came to the conclusion that disengaging will, in fact, hurt the people we want to help most. That is why it is very important for us to do everything that we possible can to maintain that association. Vote ``no'' on this resolution of disapproval.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Glens Falls for yielding to me, and I do so simply to respond to the statement that was made about the Citizens for a Sound Economy and by my very dear friend from California who reminds me that we agree over 90 percent of the time on issues, as I do with many of my friends on this side of the aisle who disagree with me on this question. Citizens for a Sound Economy feels very strongly about the need to extend MFN because, if we were to cut off trade with China, we would clearly be hurting most the people we want to help here in the United States; the reason being, CSE opposes tax increases. They very much want to cut the tax burden on those working Americans who benefit from toys, shoes, and clothing, and what is necessary is for us to do everything that we can to maintain that. It would be a $600 million tax increase. CSE stands for free trade and lower taxes, and that is the reason they have taken the position that they have.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be on the same side of the issue with my chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], in supporting this rule. I happen to believe that it is a very fair and balanced rule. It has come up in a very timely manner and, as Chairman Solomon said earlier, it is following the procedure that we have gone through in the past. After 7 years of this debate, there is no question at all that the membership of this House, even if they have served here for only 18 months, has had the chance to look at the issue of MFN for China. Cutting off MFN would clearly hurt the United States. It seems to me that, as we look at this question, ending normal relations with China would be devastating. We have all acknowledged that we very much want to do what we can to assist those who have been victimized by reprehensible human rights violations that we have seen for the past several years. Weapons transfers, saber rattling with Taiwan, intellectual property rights violations, Tibet, all of these things are priority concerns of ours. The fact of the matter is we need to recognize that over the past several years, while the situation was horrible on June 4, 1989, with the Tiananmen Square massacre and many other murders have taken place, we saw a video in our Republican conference yesterday showing that. But if we compare the Cultural Revolution that took place under Mao Tse Tung and the Great Leap Forward and the export of revolution as my friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], discussed that took place under Mao Tse Tung to the China of today, while it is not perfect, it is still horrible, it is better than it was. Why? Because today we are engaged. We disengaged from China with Chiang Kai-shek in 1949, left for Taiwan, up until the last several years, when Richard Nixon began that opening in the 1970's. I will tell my colleagues that, as we look at this issue, are we going to take a step backward and go back to the policies where under Mao Tse Tung 60 million Chinese people were starved, a million people during the Cultural Revolution were killed by the government? The answer is a resounding ``no''. What we need to do is we need to recognize that the single most powerful force for change is the one that my party stands strongly for, and that is the free market. We believe very strongly in the free market and the power of it. It is more powerful than any U.S. Government coercion that we could possibly apply. The fact of the matter is, we join together, very much wanting to address these concerns. This rule makes in order a resolution which will allow us to look at the concerns that we will allow us to look at the concerns that we all want to address. But to disengage would be preposterous. The United States of America is the third most populous Nation on the face of the Earth. Yet the People's Republic of China has almost five times the population of the United States. The gentleman from California, Bob Matsui, my very dear friend, said it perfectly. Over the next quarter century it is going to be the single most important relationship that we have. It is very important that we maintain those ties. As I got on a plane, I was stuck in Pittsburgh the night before last. I happened to sit next to a Chinese American civil engineer from Iowa. He brought the issue up to me saying: I lived through the cultural revolution. It was very, very difficult. I saw friends who were victims of the human rights violations, and people were starving. Today when I talk to my family, things have improved. Let us not go back to those horrible times in the past. Let us address our concerns today and move forward. Support this rule and defeat the resolution of disapproval.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with my colleagues in remembering our great colleague, Bill Emerson. I was downstairs listening to a number of the remarks made about Bill's great contribution to the process of representative government, and I would like to take a brief period of time to talk about a very special relationship that I had with Bill. Back in 1993, following some of the scandals that surrounded this place, in a bipartisan way, we saw the Democratic leadership put together the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. It was the first time in a half a century that a bipartisan, bicameral effort to look at institutional reform was assembled. I will tell Members that of the large number of Senators and House Members who were part of this organization, no one was more active and participated at a higher level than Bill Emerson. There is a very important reason for that, Mr. Speaker. Bill Emerson, as I am sure was stated by my colleagues earlier, loved and revered this institution. He understood the fact that it was the greatest deliberative body known to man. He is one who spent a great deal of time trying to see the view held by the American people shift from what is tragically a corrosive cynicism back to what Will Rogers had, which is really a healthy skepticism. Thomas Jefferson wanted the American people to have a skeptical view of us, he thought that to be very healthy, and Will Rogers, again, said that time and time again. Bill Emerson, as one who loved and revered this institution, wanted us very much to get back to that, and that is the reason that Bill Emerson spent so much time working with us on trying to make this institution more accountable to the American people and trying to make this institution as deliberative as it should be. So, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that I, of course, had a long and very warm personal relationship with him. I am a native of the ``Show Me'' State and in fact was just there yesterday. And on several occasions I had the opportunity to visit Bill in his southeastern Missouri district, and I spent time with him here in the Capitol because we were elected together back in 1980, the 97th Congress, a large group of 54 new Republicans to come, and Bill and I were among the two who defeated Democrat incumbent Members of the House of Representatives. So he will be sorely missed. I have had great opportunities to spend personal time with Bill and his wife Jo Ann and other members of their family and it is a very sad day as we note his passing, and I wish all of his relatives and other friends Godspeed.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me the time, and since he mentioned I am on the Committee on Rules, it is great to see this marvelous testimony to the open amendment process we have gone through for the past several hours. Everyone is cheering for it, I can tell. Mr. Chairman, let me say that as we look at this measure, I believe that what we have come to is actually a compromise. We continue to hear the terms veto bait and this is a special interest measure, but it is a bipartisan compromise. It includes the support of the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, a Democrat from the California State legislature who has spent time looking at this, and Chairman Hauser has concluded that the Riggs language is very appropriate. It also enjoys the support of the inclusion of an amendment by the chairman of the subcommittee, who obviously dealt with this Headwaters question which continues to come to the forefront time and time again, and it is excluded. Mr. Riggs has made that point very, very clear. But very, very important is the fact that this addresses the issue of private property rights while it is also looking at the environmental concerns, which my friend from Washington has just raised. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record letters that have come from people who are actually witnessing this debate: Mary and Jack Walsh, who are property owners whose land was pictured here on the easel earlier, and people like Martin and Donna Gift, who I know are very interested in this debate and in fact are being victimized if we do proceed with this. Also a very thoughtful handwritten letter. It is handwritten, so I cannot read exactly. Donmarie Paddock-Bowers. The letters referred to are as follows: Jack Walsh, M.D., Eureka, CA, June 14, 1996. Dear Congressman Riggs: I am writing you in regards to the Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat Designation which is currently impacting our family's property just north of Fortuna, California. My wife Mary and I purchased this previously clear cut property in 1953 when the second growth market was just coming into its own. We never dreamed that we would see it logged in our lifetime. This summer, our son Pat, will have completed his ninth year of selective logging on a sustained yield basis. We are all very proud of our logging operation. The property (880 acres), is completely surrounded by other second growth stands. Why we were arbitrarily placed in this Habitat Designation, without any input from our family or forester is beyond our imagination. (see aerial photos) Just October, our forester, Ron Hunt wrote a detailed letter to Russell Peterson, State Supervisor of Fish and Wildlife in Portland, Oregon. He requested that our property be removed from Habitat Designation for obvious reasons. (no existing habitat) Several follow up inquiries were put off by the Fish and Wildlife Service. We have yet to hear any logical explanation as to why we were placed in the Habitat Designation. (see Ron Hunt's letter). The arrogance of the Fish and Wildlife Service to arbitrarily begin drawing maps which impact our property, we feel is completely unjust. We have more than enough regulations to overcome in an attempt to properly care for our forest. We hope you can help us. Sincerely, Dr. and Mrs. Jack Walsh.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. I am inclined to support this, but I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, if it would be possible for those Members who are seeking the opportunity to speak on this amendment, if they could stand, raise their hands so that there would be some indication as to whether or not we should proceed with this measure. Members who, I guess, have already taken their time would not be included, this would be Members who have not yet taken an opportunity. It appears that there are several Members, Mr. Chairman, who wish to speak on this, so I would propose to my dear friend from Illinois that we extend it to possibly 30 minutes total so that those Members who wish to speak would have the opportunity.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman on this very thoughtful amendment. One of the greatest burdens for those who are trying to attain the American dream of homeownership in Riverside County, the area represented by my friend, Mr. Calvert has been jeopardized by the Endangered Species Act and the overriding costs that have been imposed on those who are trying to be successful. This will in fact play a role in relieving, just a part, a part of that cost burden. I strongly support it and appreciate my friend's bringing forward this thoughtful amendment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing here that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do this almost, not quite but almost as well as President Clinton does when it comes to this issue of twisting and twisting and twisting. The budget before this House balances within 6 years, and it has lower deficits each year than the President's budget, the budget that was voted for by my colleague on the other side of the aisle. My friend from California talked about Medicare. The budget before this House does not cut Medicare. That charge is fiction. It increases Medicare spending from $5,200 per beneficiary to $7,000 per beneficiary. This budget does cut taxes and we are proud of it. It cuts taxes for families. Mr. Speaker, 89 percent of the tax cuts go to families earning less than $75,000 per year. We have had the Congress controlled for decades by my friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, and tragically, they have never brought a balanced budget to us. We have done it for the first time in three decades and they have the temerity to come down here and criticize us for doing just that. The fact of the matter is we need to pass this thing now. The big spenders are opposed to a balanced budget, even though they say they are for it. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, pass this rule, pass the 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, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 448 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. I think it was President Clinton who put this agreement together. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Newport News, VA [Mr. Bateman], a distinguished member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply rise and associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the former chairman not only of the full committee but of the Trade Subcommittee. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] has, as he said, followed this issue very, very closely from its inception and he understands that doing everything that we possibly can to push those other countries that have been involved in subsidization will do nothing but enhance the ability of shipbuilders here in the United States, and I think that that is something that we all want to do. But certainly there are differences of opinion on it and this rule will allow a chance to bring that up. I certainly concur with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] as a fellow free-trader that doing everything that we possibly can to ensure that the amendment of my very good friend from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] does not carry, I think, will go a long way toward assisting a shipbuilding industry in this country. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Portland, ME, former marine, Mr. Longley.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. I would like to close by simply responding to some of the remarks that were made by my friend from Mississippi and to extend hardy congratulations to my friend, the gentleman from Tampa, FL [Mr. Gibbons]. Over the last three decades, in a bipartisan way, the United States of America has stood for free trade. There has been no Member of Congress who has been more diligent in the pursuit of those policies than Sam Gibbons. The benefits to the consumer in the United States have been overwhelming because of the fact that we have successfully broken down barriers. And eliminating those barriers has improved the standard of living and at the same time it has created jobs. The gentleman from Florida has been intimately involved in just the last few years with implementation of the North American Free-Trade Agreement and with the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, that both of those items have been job creators here in the United States. I differ with my friend from Mississippi. I happen to believe that the facts show that over 336,000 jobs here in the United States have been saved because of the North American Free-Trade Agreement. I also feel very strongly that if we look at the difficulties that existed in Mexico, and we juxtaposed those to the peso crisis of 1982, we would have seen a much different response if we had not had the North American Free-Trade Agreement as Sam Gibbons and I and others fought on behalf of. I also believe that this may be the last trade agreement of the very distinguished career of the gentleman from Florida, and so I think that it is important for us as a nation, having benefited from his three decades of work on this issue, to ensure that we move ahead and realize, realize that for our consumer, for those who are trying to find new markets by creating jobs with exports, that we are doing the right thing by passing this agreement. If we pass an amendment to it, it will kill it, and so I hope very much that we will move ahead and do the right thing here. 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, it is quite clear if you judge the agreement as negotiated by the administration to be insufficient, then the national security amendment offers a vehicle to kill it. However, I support ending foreign subsidies. I believe this shipbuilding agreement will achieve that goal. Approving this implementing bill is critical to bringing this agreement into force, so I urge Members to reject the amendment of the Committee on National Security. Mr. Speaker, while the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on National Security hold very different views on the substance of this agreement, they both support this fair floor procedure. It offers the Members a clear and understandable choice: On one hand, the agreement, and on the other hand, continue with U.S. loan guarantee subsidies, which will require this agreement to be renegotiated. I look forward to a good debate when we move to this issue, and I urge all Members to support this rule so we can get to that debate. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following materials:

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to yield myself 10 seconds to respond to the statements of my dear friend from Kentucky and before that to the statements of my friend from Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted for budgets which increase, at an even higher level than this one, the deficits over the next 2 years. They are higher each of the next 2 years. We cannot forget that.

Mr. DREIER. So it is completely paid for. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say it is very interesting that the term ``rich'' has been used, and I understand that momentarily we will be getting a report on the number of times it was used, but I would like to say that in looking at this budget proposal there is nothing in here for a tax cut for the rich. We have the family tax credit, per child tax credit, $500 in here, and I do not know that that is a great big windfall for the rich. It is for the working American out there.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 178, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997, which sets out a fiscally sound and responsible path to a balanced budget in 6 years. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration. The rule provides that the conference report will be considered as read and provides 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important things we can do for future generations of Americans is balance the Federal budget. Big government liberals controlled Congress for decades leaving two legacies that plague America's children. One is a welfare state that impoverishes millions, trapping them in lives of despair, dependent on ineffective bureaucratic institutions. The second is a $5 trillion Federal debt that drags down our private sector economy and forces scarce resources--scarce Federal resources--to be used to pay interest on debt rather than to solve problems. Last year, Congress passed the first balanced budget in a generation. It was designed to address these critical problems. That balanced budget let the President meet his two major campaign promises from 1992, providing a middle class tax cut and ending welfare as we know it. Finally, it is worth noting that the balanced budget saved Medicare from the bankruptcy that the Medicare trustees now foresee as being just 5 years away, just 5 years away. Mr. Speaker, the President lobbied to kill the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution over in the Senate. President Clinton vetoed the balanced budget that was passed last year by this Congress. He vetoed the middle class tax cut. He vetoed the welfare reform plan twice. He vetoed legislation to protect Medicare. In the words of our dear friends at the Washington Post, he encouraged Medagogues to ``scare America's senior citizens for political gain.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, some might say it is unfair to claim that this veto pattern reflects the President's views on these issues. He claims to support a balanced budget. At least two of the eight Clinton budgets released at assorted times over the last year and a half were balanced, at least in a technical sense. The President claims to support tax cuts and has announced a dozen or so ideas for tax cuts over the past 2 years, even some of them in the past 2 weeks, as we have all seen. Of course, the only tax bill that the President has actually implemented and signed is the largest tax increase in American history. He says he wants to reform the welfare system. The President spoke at length recently in support of the Wisconsin welfare reform plan. Regrettably, the administration has failed to approve the implementation of even that same Wisconsin reform plan. Mr. Speaker, if nothing else, this budget process is showing the American people who is serious about the issues of balanced budgets, tax cuts, and welfare reform. While the President down there at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue talks, the Congress delivers serious, thoughtful, responsible proposals. This budget conference report sets out a 6-year budget plan that results in a balanced budget by the year 2002. It accomplishes this in a responsible manner that results in lower deficits each year than those proposed by the President. The President's version of a balanced budget is just the opposite. It is a budget fiction that proposes to dramatically increase spending for 5 years and then slash spending in the last year to balance the budget. That proposal is a joke that mocks the efforts of those who are serious about addressing our chronic budget deficits to save the future of our children. Recent testimony before the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on discretionary spending illustrates the budget games being played by the Clinton administration. In short, the administration budget proposes to increase spending for 1 year in areas such as veterans and space programs, putting off all the cuts to the following years. The administration's own representatives claim that these budget numbers are not serious, that the President only cares about the first year's spending proposal and that cuts in the coming years will be abandoned each year as the time comes. In this way, the budget is scored as reaching balance in 6 years, but the administration's own officials say it will never come to pass. Clearly, the balanced budget proposal offered in the conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 178 is the only serious balanced budget offered to the American people. Of course, the American people deserve more from the Federal Government than a balanced budget. We must address the fact that American families now pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, 34.2 percent, than at any time in American history. This balanced budget cuts the tax burden on American families by $122.4 billion. This budget also solves the problem of the impending bankruptcy of Medicare which, as I said, the administration has indicated is just 5 years away. It does this by updating a Federal health care program largely unchanged since its creation over three decades ago. By bringing Medicare into the 21st century, America's seniors will be offered increased choices and the potential to add new areas of coverage. Medicare spending grows by 6.2 percent per year, increasing spending per beneficiary from $5,200 in 1996 to $7,000 in 2002. By addressing this problem in a serious manner, rather than following the Washington status quo band-aid method, Medicare will be healthy for at least 10 years. Mr. Speaker, it is a cliche to say Talk is cheap. The President has proven time and again that talking about balancing the budget, cutting taxes and reforming welfare is easy to do. However, he has also proven that getting the job done is very hard. He has had both Democrat and Republican Congresses to work with, and he has failed miserably with both. There is no other option. On the other hand, the failure to match talk of balanced budgets with action is very expensive; it is very difficult. We are passing a massive debt burden on to the children of this country, and we are not preparing them to pay the bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the conference report so that we can move forward and proceed with the concrete actions needed to match words with deeds. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the following: [The Budget Conference Report for Fiscal Year 1997, June 12, 1996] Making Life Bettr for All Americans (Prepared by the House Budget Committee, John R. Kasich, Chairman) balances the budget by 2002 Reverses the trend of heaping debt on our children and grandchildren. Will save the average family $2,200 on the cost of a student loan, $900 on an auto loan, and $37,000 on the mortgage of a small home. provides much-needed tax relief Provides desperately needed tax relief for middle-income, working families with children, who are paying more in Federal, State, and local taxes than they spend on food, clothing, and shelter combined. Puts an extra $1,000 in the hands of a family of four. Helps improve the standard of living and savings rate for American families, who for years have seen their real incomes decline. maintains a strong national defense Stabilizes national security while reversing the administration's damaging defense cuts. Makes funds available for a cost-effective and reliable missile defense to protect the American people. Provides funding for a 3-percent military pay raise, increased construction of family housing and child development centers for dependent children of the military, and full funding of readiness objectives. expands veterans' benefits Provides $10.6 billion more than the President over 6 years to provide veterans' medical care, to conduct prosthetic research, to run the National Cemetery system. Improves other services for veterans: raising disabled veterans' auto allowance; improving compensation for surviving spouses; extending back benefit payment limits; providing scholarships for college seniors; converting certain education benefits to the GI Bill; making permanent the Alternative Teacher Certification Program; and funding the Pro Bono Program; at the Court of Veterans Appeals. Preserves and Improves Medicare Ensures that hospital care will be available to seniors and disabled beneficiaries by saving the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund from imminent bankruptcy, extending its life for 10 years. Increases Medicare spending per beneficiary from an $5,200 in 1996 to $7,000 in 2002, without raising deductibles or copayments. Keeps the Medicare Part B premium at the current 25 percent of program costs. Expands the health care options Medicare beneficiaries can choose from: remaining in traditional Medicare or choosing HMOs, point of service plans, provider service organization, medical savings accounts, and fee-for-service plans. Opens the potential for new benefits, such as preventive services, prescriptions or eyeglasses. improves education Protects loans for college, allowing growth in total volume from $26 billion this year to $37 billion in 2002. Saves taxpayers money by capping the government-run direct lending program and achieving modest savings from lenders in the guaranteed lending program--but no student will be denied access to a loan because of this. Protects education for disadvantaged students (Title I), Special Education, Head Start, Pell Grants, and Impact Aid. Delivers more job training with fewer dollars by consolidating 70 separate programs. enhances law enforcement Increases the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund in 1997 by almost $600 million compared with this year. Fully funds the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, giving the Federal Government significant new resources to fight domestic and international terrorism. Protects the Nation's borders by supporting the Immigration in the National Interest Act. protecting our parks and natural resources Provides additional funds each year to improve the National Parks. Recommends safe drinking water and strong clean water programs. Calls for Superfund reforms and provides funding to facilitate hazardous waste cleanup. reforms welfare and medicaid Encourages States to move families off of welfare and into the workforce. Provides $4.5 billion more than current law to assist persons on welfare in obtaining child care so they can enter the workforce. Allows States to consolidate 12 separate child protection programs to better address the problem of child abuse and neglect. Improves the collection of delinquent child support by establishing uniform State tracking procedures to find and crack down on deadbeat non-custodial parents. Improves the system for establishing paternity in cases of out-of-wedlock birth to increase the likelihood that fathers of illegitimate children will contribute to their children's well-being. Allows States to offer health insurance to millions uninsured people. Eliminates Federal micromanagement of Medicaid. Allows States greater flexibility to tailor health programs to their needs while protecting vulnerable populations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from South Boston, MA [Mr. Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 450 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my friend from San Diego in strongly supporting the amendment of the gentleman from Palm Springs. The reason I do so is that there is tremendous uncertainty out there today. All that the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono] is asking is that we have some kind of decision come forward so that we can address what is obviously a very serious and important problem. As my friend from San Diego said, this is not simply a California issue. This is something that has an impact on the entire Nation. Let us see a decision made so the uncertainty that exists will be able to shift to the past.

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