David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I disagree with my dear friend, the gentleman from South Boston, MA, when he says that President Clinton sold out the store on this issue.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2754, legislation to implement the multilateral trade agreement entered into by the President to phase out shipbuilding subsidies and create an international environment conducive to the restoration of a healthy commercial shipbuilding industry in this country. House Resolution 448 is a modified closed rule, providing 1 hour of general debate divided equally among the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Ways and Means and National Security. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The resolution makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute as recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, as modified by the amendment printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules, as an original bill for purpose of amendment. The amendment shall be considered as read. All points of order are waived against the amendment in the nature of a substitute as modified. The rule further provides for consideration of an amendment printed in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules and waives all points of order against the amendment. The amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or the Committee of the Whole. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, for many years, some foreign governments have employed subsidies to protect their commercial shipbuilders from international competition. It was the policy of the United States not to respond in kind, and I strongly support that policy. Manufacturing subsidies are a wasteful drain on the economy and on taxpayers. We should not fall victim to these insidious policies simply because other countries employ them. Seven years ago, rather than throw money away in a race to see who could provide the largest subsidy to commercial shipbuilders, the United States initiated multilateral negotiations with the major shipbuilding nations to come to an agreement to end subsidies. Mr. Speaker, this effort was supported by our commercial shipbuilders who realized that the only long-term hope for the industry in the United States was to reach an agreement. In December 1994, after 5 years of negotiations, an agreement was reached with the European Commission, Norway, South Korea, and Japan, the world's major shipbuilding nations. The meticulously negotiated agreement to end shipbuilding subsidies was scheduled to enter effect on January 1, 1996 and the start date was extended to July 15 due to delays in congressional approval. In past years this trade agreement implementing bill would have been considered by the Congress under what are known as fast-track procedures. Congress would have a clean up-or-down vote on the agreement reached by the administration. Regrettably, the Clinton administration has refused for 3 years to compromise with those in Congress who support trade agreements and support fast-track authority, but who refuse to give the administration carte blanche to include any social policy whim they desire in trade agreements. Clearly, this trade agreement and this implementing bill is the type of trade legislation envisioned when Congress established the fast track procedure. Under fast track, Congress votes up-or-down on legislation, crafted by congressional committees and the administration, to implement an agreement. Amendments are not permitted because they can violate the negotiated agreement, killing the deal by forcing all the tough issues back onto the bargaining table. This rule attempts to limit that possibility, while giving the House a clear vote on the negotiated agreement. The bill reported by the Committee on Ways and Means will implement the agreement negotiated by the President. The provisions from the Committee on National Security, which are consistent with the negotiated agreement, are included as base text. However, the provisions of the Committee on National Security which violates the agreement are offered to the House in one amendment. The choice is very clear: Approve or reject the agreement. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, the vote on the Committee on National Security amendment is the vote on the shipbuilding agreement. If the amendment is approved, we will not be in compliance with the agreement, and it is highly unlikely that negotiations on the agreement will be reopened. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record letters from the Government of Norway, the Government of Japan, and the European Commission, each of which state the negotiations in this agreement will not be reopened. I also include a letter in opposition to the national security agreement which came up to us by Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky, our U.S. Trade Representative.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from south Boston, MA, Mr. Moakley, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentleman who promised those cuts after the tax cuts went into place? Who promised those spending cuts?

Mr. DREIER. Article I, section 7 of the Constitution places all that authority right here in this room.

Mr. DREIER. Has the Democratic Party ever passed a balanced budget?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend, the gentleman from Tucson, AZ [Mr. Kolbe], a free trader. (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Jonesville, WI [Mr. Neumann]. (Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleagues, on both sides of this issue. I am convinced that everyone in this House sincerely wants to see an improvement for those who are at the lower end of the economic spectrum. The other night I was snuggling up on United Airlines with my U.S. News and World Report and happened to read the letters to the editor, and saw this very thoughtful piece from Ed Grady from St. Paul Park, MN, where he says: The legislated minimum wage is a classic example of a good intention and a bad idea, the idea being that government, by simple decree, can increase the earning power of all marginal workers. This line of thinking runs counter to the basic principles of a free society. Government edicts do not make wages rise; they rearrange and redistribute existing wealth. Wages rise in response to the creation of new wealth through greater productivity. Government cannot create or produce anything. Mr. Speaker, we should in fact reject this. We should improve the standards of those at the lower end of the economic spectrum by decreasing the tax and regulatory burden imposed on the private sector. Let us proceed as quickly as possible with a responsible measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me reclaim my time and say that I think it is very important for us to take just a moment to recognize that we all share the same goal. Every single Member in this House wants to have the opportunity to encourage those who are at the lower end of the economic spectrum. The unfortunate thing is that on the other side of the aisle there seems to be a lack of desire to put into place the kinds of small business incentives which economists who believe in the free market are convinced will be necessary to help those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. It is fascinating. I am one who believes that increasing a federally mandated minimum wage is a job killer, it is something that is going to jeopardize opportunities at the lower end of the economic spectrum. But we have recognized that a majority of the Members of this House want to have an up or down vote, and so we are giving the membership an opportunity to have that vote. But those on the other side of the aisle who had a chance for the last several years to have that up or down vote have never seized the opportunity. I also believe that it is important for us to realize that as we look at the tax and regulatory burden that exists for those businesses that are trying to create jobs, that are trying to get those from welfare on to the working roles are in the present situation denied that opportunity, and yet this rule allows us to proceed with that. That is why I hope very much that my colleagues in a bipartisan way will support this rule, which provides a wide range of opportunities for people who are supportive of increasing the minimum wage, those who are opposed to increasing the minimum wage, a wide range of opportunities for them to create economic opportunity for those at the lower end of the spectrum. Support this rule.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I consider the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] to be one of my very good friends, and does he want me to yield him 10 seconds?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this has been a fascinating debate, but all it is is simply our attempt to do what we were denied by the former majority back in 1993. We simply want an up or down vote on whether or not we should impose or continue to maintain a 4.3-cent a gallon gasoline tax on those drivers in this country. This is a small amount of money. I will acknowledge that it is not hundreds of thousands of dollars but it is indicative of what the largest tax increase in American history was. It was imposed on middle income working Americans, and this is a small step but it is a first step towards rectifying that. Frankly, it is interesting to see my liberal friends who imposed this tax will do anything they possibly can to avoid cutting taxes. This rule that we have here today is the exact same rule that was applied to cutting the tax as we had for increasing the tax back in 1993. There was no question back in 1993 that the consumers would be paying the increase in the tax. No question whatsoever. Why should there be a question today as to whether or not the consumers will benefit? The consumers are going to benefit from that. We have press releases, statements that have been made from those ogres in big oil stating that it will be passed on to the consumers. That is what is going to happen. We do not want to see another mandate imposed by the liberals on the private sector. We have confidence in it. We believe that we can move ahead and take that small step towards enhancing the quality of life for those middle income wage earners. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], my dear friend and 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say we have had many more open rules, and to call my friend Jerry Solomon ``Closed-rule-Solomon'' is clearly a misnomer. We in this Congress have seen a dramatic improvement in the free flow of debate, as has taken place on the floor of the Congress here, and the numbers actually prove that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], a member of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could respond very briefly by stating that it is very, very clear that when we brought this issue up in 1993, we tried to get a straight up-or-down vote on this tax increase that was a part of the Clinton overall tax increase legislation, and unfortunately we were denied that. What we are saying now is we do not support mandates. We do not support the constant imposition of constraints from the Federal Government onto the private sector. We have statements that have come from those in the private sector, that they will pass on to your relatives and your constituents who are driving to Disney World or wherever else they want to go this summer, that they will have a 4.3- cents-a-gallon reduction in the tax they have to pay. Now, why we have to proceed with having the Federal Government impose a mandate on us is preposterous to me.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner]. (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my very good friend from Shell Beach, CA, Mrs. Seastrand, who represents the Santa Barbara County area. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that she is the lead author of this legislation which calls for the repeal of the 4.3 cent a gallon gas tax.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentleman if I am correct in assuming that my friend left the other side of the aisle and came over here because of his understanding of the free market process?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3415, legislation to repeal the 4.3 cent increase in the motor fuel excise tax that was instituted back in 1993. This is closed rule providing for 1 hour of debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration. The rule provides for adoption of the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report. The amendment which was crafted by the chairman of the Committee on Commerce is intended to ensure that the revenue loss from the repeal of the Clinton gas tax is fully offset. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Now, Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton has had a somewhat spotty and inconsistent record of aligning words with deeds, particularly when it comes to the issues of both taxes and balancing the budget. It began with promises that he made during that 1992 presidential campaign. He promised to provide middle-income families with a tax cut as well as balance the Federal budget. Upon election, his tax cut proposal changed as fast as the calendar turned. The budget deal he struck with the Democrat-controlled Congress in 1993 raised taxes by $275 billion over 5 years. It was clearly the largest tax increase in history. Incredibly, it also allowed Federal spending to increase by $300 billion. His so-called deficit reduction was projected to add $1 trillion to the national debt. Now, Mr. Speaker, there was no tax cut for middle-income families in the President's 1993 budget. That budget was a tax increase, plain and simple. It was a $275 billion tax increase needed for two reasons: so the President could spend money on new Federal programs and cut less waste from old Federal programs. In light of the President's promise of a middle-class tax cut, the most egregious tax increase in the President's 1993 tax increase bill was a 4.3 cent a gallon increase in the Federal motor fuel excise tax. President Clinton enacted, without a single vote from Republicans in the Congress, the first increase in the gas tax that was not directly tied to spending on highways and bridges. Let me repeat that. It was the first time ever that a gasoline tax increase was imposed that was not tied directly towards spending on highways and bridges. Mr. Speaker, this tax increase targeted middle-income working families, placing a bull's-eye on the wallet of every American that drives to work, goes to the mall, or packs the family into the car to take a vacation. I can distinctly remember 3 years ago when, in our Committee on Rules, we heard testimony on the President's 1993 budget and tax proposal. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans alike, came before our Committee on Rules to request the ability to offer amendments to strike the tax increases on middle- income families. On top of the list of the bipartisan requests was to be able to vote on the Clinton gas tax separately. Needless to say, the Congress was not given an opportunity to vote on the Clinton gas tax increase. I suspect the liberal leadership knew that it would have been soundly defeated. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to get that opportunity. It is long overdue. We want a vote, up or down, on President Clinton's gas tax. It is an unfair tax that targets middle-income suburban and rural families, largely exempting those who live in cities and have a chance to take advantage of mass transit that is so often subsidized by the taxes of suburban and rural families. It also falls much harder on large families with children, who tend to drive larger cars that are not quite as fuel efficient as the smaller ones. Four-point-three cents a gallon may not sound like much, and people have constantly said it will work out to only $25 or $35 a year for people, but when market forces push gas prices above $2 a gallon, as they have in some of the cities that I represent in California, the added burden imposed by the Federal Government hurts. As gas prices have risen over the past few months, government taxation of motor fuel, both at the State and Federal level, has come under increasing scrutiny. The California Assembly recently voted to eliminate the State's double taxation of gasoline, dropping the State's sales tax that was applied to the portion of gas prices accounted for by State and Federal excise taxes. This tax cut should shave off 3 cents a gallon in California, Washington can do its part in reducing prices at the pump by enacting the 4.3-cent reduction proposed by three California Members, the gentlewoman from Shell Beach, CA, Andrea Seastrand, the gentleman from Windsor, CA, Ed Royce, as well as the gentleman from new Jersey, Dick Zimmer. Mr. Speaker, there have been some who have made the absurd argument that reducing the Federal gas tax will not lower gas prices. In response, I would simply recall that there was no question from the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation back in 1993 regarding the impact of President Clinton's 4.3-cent a gallon gas tax increase. The money was unquestionably going to come out of the pockets of families and businesses buying gas. The projected tax tables showed that the consumers were the intended target, not the oil companies. Likewise, there is no question today that regarding the benefits of cutting the gas tax, the free market, something liberals neither appreciate nor understand, will ensure that gas prices will be lower after a tax cut than they would be if taxes were not cut. Two of California's largest oil refining companies, Atlantic Richfield Co. and Chevron, have announced this specific point: The reduction in the Federal tax will be passed along to consumers at gas stations they own. The wholesale price of the gasoline they sell to independent dealers will also be reduced. Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record at this point the announcements from both Arco and Chevron regarding their policy on gas tax reductions.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the 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. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)