David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and congratulate him on his management of this very important piece of legislation. Let me begin by joining and extending congratulations to our friend from Tucson, Mr. Kolbe, for the superb leadership that he has provided on this measure. I am looking at him at this moment, Mr. Speaker, and he is sitting with the distinguished minority ranking member, Mrs. Lowey. In the Rules Committee yesterday when we were dealing with this issue, everyone was praising the fact that this measure is moving ahead with strong bipartisan support. I think the leadership that Jim Kolbe has provided on this demonstrates his commitment to good public policy and addressing it in a bipartisan way, and I want to extend my hearty congratulations to him. I want to say this measure is very important. We, of course, all have gotten the news this morning of the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, that charismatic al Qaeda leader who has been responsible for some of the most heinous acts and, of course the very, very sad killings and beheadings of a number of people who come to mind; and as the Secretary of Defense said earlier this morning, this man probably has more blood on his hands than any other human being when it comes to terrorist acts in the past few years. So we, I believe, are in the midst of understanding that the leadership that the United States of America is providing through our foreign assistance package is one which is playing a role in helping us win the global war on terror. We obviously are faced today with the potential for great tragedy and retaliation because of the killing of al-Zarqawi, but we also have to recognize that when the members of the Iraqi media lurched to their feet and applauded, celebrating the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, this is a great day for the people of Iraq who do want freedom and liberation and an opportunity to proceed with self-determination. Mr. Speaker, that has come about in large part due to the leadership that Jim Kolbe and Mrs. Lowey and others have provided in this package that we are going to be voting on today. It is an important one, and I know that it is often criticized by many as simply taking U.S. taxpayer dollars and sending them to other parts of the world and, frankly, much of this is expended right here in the United States to help us deal with the development of political pluralism, the establishment of democratic institutions, and very important societal needs that exist in a number of countries in the world. One of the things that I mentioned in the Rules Committee last night, Mr. Speaker, was the fact that Mr. Kolbe serves as a very important member of the House Democracy Assistance Commission and you, Mr. Speaker, are a very important member of that commission as well, and it was one that I was pleased that a little over a year ago Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi came together and established this bipartisan commission that is designed to look at a number of countries that are really beginning to take steps towards democracy that have recently held elections and elected parliaments. We have created a chance for direct parliament-to-parliament consultation, working member to member, with members of these new parliaments, working with staffs, working with officers of these parliaments to make sure that we help them move into establishing the very important things that are in our Constitution and we have a tendency to take for granted. But many in this world are moving towards that, being the responsibility of oversight from the legislative branch to the executive branch, making sure that they deal with constituent service and a wide range of these other things that we in the United States House of Representatives engage in, and I believe that the existence of this commission, which I am very privileged to work with our colleague David Price from North Carolina who serves as the ranking minority member on, is important and much of the funding for that is coming through this appropriation bill that has been put together.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and thank him for his fine leadership on this issue. As Mr. Pombo pointed out when he became before the Rules Committee, we are people now embarking on the 12th vote on this issue, and it is our hope that the other body will, in recognition of the strong broad public support for our exploration in ANWR, will now be able to see us proceed with that. I was thinking about the technological advances that we have made in this country. We have instant messaging. We have this amazing story I saw the other day of a Boeing aircraft that, rather than using 1,500 sheets of aluminum, they now are using one tiny piece of carbon fiber instead. We are seeing surgery being performed by robots successfully, and there is this sense somehow that when it comes to exploration in ANWR that it is sort of as if, you know, people believe that it is like we would have a blindfolded doctor drawing blood from a patient, like we have not made any advances whatsoever in the area of technology when, in fact, the energy industry has been in the forefront of technological advances. So what we are talking about here, Madam Speaker, is using 21st century technology, and as Mr. Pombo said yesterday in the Rules Committee, extraordinarily rigorous, extraordinarily rigorous environmental standards, higher than ever, to explore this tiny little area to see if we might be able to create an opportunity to bring gasoline prices down to the American consumer. It is, to me, a no-brainer. It is a no-brainer because we are doing everything we can to pursue alternative sources of energy. We are doing everything we can to make sure that we conserve. We are taking all of these steps; now let's take this tiny little spot about the size of Dulles International Airport, let's take that tiny spot and explore and simply see if there might be the potential for us to move closer towards domestic energy self-sufficiency. This is a very clear vote. It is the right vote for us to cast. We need to support this rule. As Mr. Bishop said, there was one amendment that was filed, and people understand the issue since we have debated it time and time again. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the underlying legislation so that we can move towards energy self- sufficiency.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. It was a joint effort with President Clinton is what I am saying.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And, Mr. Speaker, what I was arguing is the fact that the economic growth that we saw during the 1990s began before Bill Clinton became President. Virtually every economist has acknowledged that. Now, in 1993, we saw the largest tax increase at that time in our Nation's history. It was put into place, and I voted against it. I said, I am a Republican and I was born to cut taxes. I am proud of the fact that I voted against that tax increase. I will never forget, late one night, Bill Clinton, in giving a speech to business leaders in Houston, Texas, said that he believed that that tax increase in 1993 was too much. He said he raised taxes too much. He later regretted that. He said that his mother told him he shouldn't, when he was tired, give a speech like that. But the fact is I believe the truth came out in that speech that he delivered in 1994. I don't remember exactly when it was. But the tax increase went into effect in 1993. Then we need to look at what happened in the 1990s. A year after the largest tax increase was put into place by President Clinton, what happened? For the first time in four decades the body that, according to article I, section 7, of the U.S. Constitution has the responsibility for taxing and spending changed hands. And what happened? In 1994, we won our majority, 12 years ago. And we immediately began our quest to cut taxes.

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

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, I was just building my argument to talk about the great policies of President Clinton.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Pasco understands this very well, and he has done a great job of providing leadership on these economic growth issues. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Rochester and my friend from Fort Lauderdale are two people for whom I have the highest regard. I really do. I enjoy working with them on the Rules Committee, and I just had the thrill of participating in the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Conference with my friend from Rochester, dealing with areas of concern as it relates to our neighbor to the north. But I have to say, as I listen to the arguments that are being propounded by both of my friends from the other side of the aisle, they represent little more than what I describe as the ideological baggage of the past. Now, my friend from Rochester has just talked about the 1980s. It is true that we saw a tremendous increase in spending during the 1980s, a lot of increased spending in the area of national defense. And we saw the demise of the Soviet Union. The Cold War came to an end. During the 1980s, Mr. Speaker, because of the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act, I think I am the only Member on the floor now who was here at that time, and I am very proud to have voted for that. We put into place across-the-board tax rate reductions, marginal rate reductions. And Mr. Speaker, what happened? We saw a doubling of the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury during the 1980s. People continue to try and rewrite the history of the 1980s, somehow implying that we saw the U.S. economy go right into the tank. We saw a surge in economic growth and a doubling in that flow of revenues to the Treasury. And so I think that this notion of class warfare, us versus them, is a tired, old, failed one. Now, my friend just referred to the tax reduction that an American who is earning $40,000 will get juxtaposed to someone who is earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, who will get a $41,000 tax reduction. And he referred to the fact that someone will earn $40,000 and get a very small tax cut, and that person in the upper bracket will get a $41,000 tax cut. I mean, I would ask my friend, does he advocate that the person earning $40,000 a year get a $41,000 tax cut?

Mr. DREIER. The point that I am making, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that if you look at someone who is paying taxes, you look at what their tax liability is, and again I get to the point that we raise that we have seen the American people who are earning in excess of $200,000 a year, Mr. Speaker, having a tax payment to the Federal Treasury that is twice that of all other taxpayers, twice that of all other taxpayers, the rate of growth of that. And so I think that we need to realize it is the job creators who pay taxes and it is the job creators who, with tax relief, will be able to create more opportunity in this country to make sure that those who are less fortunate, those about whom my friend from Ft. Lauderdale and I are concerned. And to somehow imply that there is not concern on this side of the aisle for those who are trying to have opportunity in this country is a preposterous argument. We care even more, I would argue, because we are the ones who are guaranteeing everything possible to provide them with opportunity will be met. And so I say, Mr. Speaker, that we are in a position where this measure is going to allow investors to plan and save. It will provide a little certainty. And we need to remember that more than half of the American people, 91 million Americans, are today members of the investment class. One of the things we need to note is that many people who are earning $40-, $50-, $60,000 a year, in fact, the income for the median shareholder in this country is $65,000 a year, not considered to be very rich, but they will be the beneficiaries of keeping this capital gains rate and the dividend rate at 15 percent. And so that is why, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a measure which is going to be beneficial all the way across the board.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that my friend in his opening remarks said that he did not question our motives, and I appreciate the fact he did not question our motives. He basically said he thought we were insane. He questioned our sanity. I understand that means slightly insane, but the fact is my friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, appear to be fearless in the face of the facts because the facts clearly are that no matter how you try to obfuscate it we are enjoying tremendous economic growth because of the tax cuts. I am a proud Republican. I am a proud Republican, and by virtue of being a Republican I was born to cut taxes. I am proud of the fact that I was born to cut taxes because I believe that not only should people be able to keep more of their own hard-earned money, but I believe that cutting taxes is what generates the kind of economic growth that will allow us to deal with the extraordinarily pressing problems that my friend from Fort Lauderdale mentioned. It is clear we want to do everything we can to help the underclass, the poor, those struggling to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder. There is no doubt about that. I do not believe we do anything at all to help those who are struggling by trying to penalize the job creators. The founder of my party, Abraham Lincoln, said it best, although I guess he didn't actually say it, but he is always credited with saying that you can't pull up the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. So the standard old argument of class warfare, us versus them, is a tired, worn and failed argument. I believe we need to do everything we can to again look at the facts. The facts are that the first quarter of this year saw a 4.8 percent gross domestic product growth. Virtually unprecedented, very strong, bold, dynamic growth. We are going to see the Federal Reserve have a 250 basis point increase in interest rates. Why? Because they are making sure we do not go into inflation. I am not a proponent of seeing the 16th consecutive increase in rates, but the fact is we do have a growing economy. As we look at those who are struggling to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder, it is very important to note that they are individuals who frankly are enjoying a higher standard of living than has been the case in the past. Last night in the Rules Committee, Mr. Hastings and I engaged in a discussion on homeownership and the savings rate. We know it is regularly discussed that Americans are not huge savers. We do not have as high a savings rate as some other countries do, but when you look at the level of homeownership in this country, the highest level of minority homeownership that this Nation has ever seen, in excess of 50 percent of those in the minority community own their homes. On a nationwide basis, it is nearly 70 percent of the American people own their own homes. That is forced savings. As people pay down their mortgages, they are seeing their asset, their savings increased. Obviously as we see the increase in value of property, we are also seeing those savings increased. So that is taking place today. And to the argument, Mr. Speaker, of this lack of revenues to the Treasury, as I said to my friend just a few minutes ago, during the month of April we actually saw a budget surplus. We saw a budget surplus for the month of April that has come about because of the economic growth that was put into place through these tax cuts. Now we want to encourage investment. We hear Republicans and Democrats alike talk about the need to encourage investment. Frankly, one of the reasons that this measure is so critically important is that we look at the problem of uncertainty out there. The reduction of the rate on capital gains and dividends to 15 percent is, if we do nothing, set to expire in 2008. What does that mean? It means there will be a tax increase that clearly will slow the economy if we do nothing. So what is it that we have found by making sure that we keep that rate low and extending it for at least 2 years? I and a majority of this House would like to make it permanent. Unfortunately, because of rules in the other body, we have not been able to make it permanent. But we need to make it permanent and at least extend it for these 2 years. Why? So the job creators out there can plan and save for the future, so they can make long-term investments that will create more jobs and opportunities for the American worker. Mr. Speaker, if you look at what has happened, again we have seen an increase in the flow of revenues to the Treasury because of what it is that we have done here. My friend raised concern about middle income Americans. That is one of the reasons that we addressed the so-called alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax, because it was not indexed, is a tax that has not just hit the rich, but has hit middle income wage earners. That is exactly why we will be providing relief to millions and millions of middle income workers in this country with the AMT provisions included in this bill. I think it is also important for us to note that there are some real specifics we can point to that we have seen by virtue of these tax cuts that were put into place. In the early part of this decade, time and time again we heard our friends on the other side of the aisle say if you cut taxes the economy is going to go right into the tank and we will see the deficit go sky high when in fact the opposite has been the case in both instances. Between 2002 and 2004 we were able to see a 79 percent increase.

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

Mr. DREIER. Absolutely.

Mr. DREIER. The income of the middle class, that is people earning $40,000 to $70,000 a year.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And my friend has made several very important points, Mr. Speaker. And let me just go back to his earlier argument about the Clinton years. The gentleman is absolutely right. We saw a surge in economic growth during the Clinton Presidency. It was economic growth that actually began before he became President. Virtually every economist has acknowledged that economic growth.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and, Mr. Speaker, I think my friend makes an extraordinarily good and important point about the need to ensure that we have the resources that are necessary to fight the global war on terror and to make sure that we are able to meet all of these pressing demands that are there. The point that I think needs to be made here, and I am going to make it in my remarks in just a few minutes, but when the gentleman was talking about it, it led me to come to my feet. We have seen a surge in revenues to the Federal Treasury in the areas that we are talking about here, in the area of both capital gains and in dividends with that reduction that has taken place, and I know conventional wisdom in the earliest part of this decade was that if we cut taxes we would see a diminution in that flow of revenues, but between 2002 and 2004 we have seen a 79 percent increase in the flow of revenues to the Treasury because of the capital gains cut and a 35 percent increase because of the dividend cut. So I think, though, my friend makes an excellent point about the need to make sure we reduce the deficit and have the resources to meet the pressing needs in the global war on terror and all, but the best way to do that is to keep the economy growing, and that is exactly what this package is doing. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. It is very clear that we are providing relief to middle income wage earners who would get no relief at all under the AMT provisions that our colleagues were very supportive of putting into effect in the past. We are providing relief because we are seeing their standard of living increase. Obviously we have a lot of problems. Gasoline prices, we want to do everything we can to help us attain self-sufficiency by increasing refinery capacity, dealing with boutique fuels and other problems that are out there. But we have seen the standard of living for the American people improve dramatically because of these tax cuts. As I was saying, we have seen a 79 percent increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury between 2002 and 2004 because of reducing that top rate on capital gains to 15 percent. Similarly, from the dividend tax relief we have seen a 35 percent increase. Again, I would harken back to the arguments that were made in the early part of this decade when President Bush came forward and this Republican supported the notion of reducing taxes to increase economic growth, and the argument that was made was it would ruin us. We know we have tremendous costs out there. We have costs like dealing with the war, and thank God we are seeing this week under Mr. Malicki's government a new cabinet go into place in Iraq. We are seeing progress there. Similarly, if you look at the fact that we have tremendous costs related to Hurricane Katrina, unanticipated. We do have responsibilities there. And yes, as my friend from Fort Lauderdale said, it is essential that we do all we can to provide assistance to those who are truly in need and to help them get onto the economic ladder. That is why when you have a 4.7 percent unemployment rate, virtually full employment in this country, we are doing all that we can to find more opportunities, and that is what this measure is all about, and generating the kind of growth that will allow us to have the resources to meet these very pressing needs is essential as well. If you don't vote for this bill, you are voting for a tax increase, you are voting for a tax increase on those middle income wage earners who are getting relief from AMT and on the job creators out there who are successful. So I believe we have a win/win. I hope very much we will see Democrats join with Republicans to keep our economy growing, help us meet the pressing needs that are out there, and make sure we can have the kind of success for which the United States of America is known.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will further yield, just to take each of the points my friend has mentioned, and I thank him for yielding to me on this. First, if you look at this issue of the deficit, I do not know if my friend is aware of the fact that we last month saw a monthly budget surplus in the months of December and January, we actually saw a monthly budget surplus, more money coming in than was going out for that month. That is even though we have to deal with the war on terror, the war in Iraq, because of Hurricane Katrina and those very important needs which my friend has addressed so well. Obviously, meeting the needs of those who are less fortunate is something that is important. I would argue that those in the upper income brackets are paying more, and it is not just my argument. It is actually the facts, and this was pointed out in an op-ed piece the other day. Americans who are earning in excess of $200,000 a year saw nearly twice, actually more than twice, the amount in tax payments than all other Americans earning less than that, meaning that their payments to the Federal Government, even though they got this tax cut, they were paying more in taxes because of the economic growth that we have seen. Actually, it was nearly 20 percent, and so what has happened is the rich are paying more in tax payments to the Federal Government, and so they are not the great beneficiary of this. Yes, they are encouraging more investment, but we have seen an increase in the Federal revenues.

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

Mr. DREIER. The tax cuts, yes. The tax increases did not help the country.

Mr. DREIER. God forbid.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, Americans hail from many different backgrounds, but we are united by our freedoms, our democratic government, and our language. It goes without saying that the Star- Spangled Banner should be sung in English. This Spanish-language anthem is nothing but a cynical attempt to divide our country during the debate on this most vigorous and divisive issue of immigration and illegal immigration. It will not distract from the critical tasks at hand, securing our borders. I am committed to enforcing our immigration laws and effectively reforming our immigration system without providing amnesty, and I believe that all of our colleagues should join in cosponsoring the legislation offered by our colleague from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) H. Res. 793, which will underscore the fact that the Star Spangled Banner should be sung in English.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is sort of interesting that, as I have stood here earlier this week during debate, I have had my intentions questioned by Members on the other side of the aisle throughout this week. Throughout hours of debate yesterday, people were questioning my intentions as we were looking at the issue of lobbying and ethics reform. Having said that, I think it is very important to note that when we were in the minority, about which my friend is speaking, we were often denied even an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit on legislation. Time and time again that happened. When we won the majority in 1994, we provided a guarantee that members of the minority would be able to offer a motion to recommit. We knew full well this opportunity would come forward, and Mr. LaHood was simply asking of the Chair whether or not under the precedents it is appropriate for a Member to stand up, state their opposition to a measure that is about to be voted on, and then offer a motion to recommit. Those precedents were stated.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of May 8 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. The Committee on Armed Services ordered the bill reported on Wednesday, May 3, and is expected to file its report with the House on Friday, May 5. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee up in room H-312 of the Capitol by 12 noon on Tuesday, May 9. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on Armed Services, which will be available on the Web sites of both the Committees on Armed Services and Rules by Friday, May 5. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.