David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 19, the San Gabriel Valley lost one of its most eloquent and reasoned voices when longtime resident and business leader F. Al Totter passed away. Following is an article from the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, where Al Totter served as publisher for nearly 24 years: F. Al Totter, who served as publisher of the San Gabriel Valley Tribune for nearly 24 years and led the development of a major suburban newspaper group, died Monday of complications from pneumonia at the Citrus Valley Medical Center, Queen of the Valley campus. He was 66. Totter, who started working at the Tribune as a classified ads manager on its first day of publication in 1955, served as publisher from 1968 to 1992. The Tribune's success--and that of its now sister papers the Pasadena Star-News and the Whittier Daily News, along with small community papers-- reflected the residential and industrial boom of the region that it served. ``More than any other person, Al Totter was responsible for the strength and the growth of this newspaper group, especially of the San Gabriel Valley Tribune,'' said Ike Massey, publisher and chief executive officer of the San Gabriel Valley Newspaper Group. ``I know he will be missed by many in the community.'' Rep. David Dreier, R-San Dimas, a longtime Totter friend, said the region had lost its most eloquent and reasoned voice. ``He was the conscience of the Valley, and that really does describe him. He was an individual who cared deeply about the San Gabriel Valley, who cared deeply about his newspaper and the newspaper industry,'' Dreier said. In 1982, Totter helped arrange the purchase of the Whittier Daily News by Thomson Newspapers, which had purchased the Tribune in 1968. Totter helped arrange Thomson's 1990 purchase of the Pasadena Star-News from William Dean Singleton, who had earlier purchased the paper from Knight-Ridder Co. He was president of the newspaper group when he retired in 1992. Since 1996, all three newspapers have been part of the San Gabriel Valley Newspaper Group, owned by Denver-based MediaNews Group Inc., of which Singleton is president and

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Glens Falls for yielding me the time and for his kind remarks about a very important part of this budget package. I believe that in large part, due to the efforts of Democrats and Republicans in this House who cosponsored H.R. 14, which we introduced on the opening day of the 105th Congress, to take the top rate on capital gains from 28-to-14 percent, due to the fact that we have bipartisan support, I believe we have been able to successfully get President Clinton in this agreement to come on board finally in support of a broad-based, across-the-board reduction in capital gains. We are hoping very much that we will be able to see it at 14 percent. I am happy that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] is trying to pursue that direction of reducing that top rate as low as we can get it. Many of us believe that the top rate on capital gains should be zero, there should be no tax on it whatsoever. This is the single most important part of this tax package. Why? Because the argument that we have so often heard in the past, that a capital gains tax rate reduction is nothing but a tax cut for the rich, is totally false. I am happy to say that Democrats are finally joining Republicans in recognizing that. Why is that no longer the case? Well, we have done a study that shows that, if we had around a 14-or-15 percent top tax on capital gains taxes, we would in fact increase the average take-home pay for the working, average working family by $1,500 per year. We also know that, of the 90 million-some-odd families in this country, as my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch], who is a cosponsor of H.R. 14, has said repeatedly, 63 million own mutual funds. So we have many people who have investments. We have literally $8 trillion that is locked in today, $8 trillion that is locked in because that tax is so high. What we need to also look at is the fact that 40 percent of those realized gains are held by people with incomes of less than $50,000 a year. Our goal with this budget is of course to balance the budget. There is no better way to boost the flow of revenues to the Treasury than to cut the top rate on capital gains. In fact, we found in our study that over a 7-year period we could boost revenues by $211 billion. There is a lot of talk about that so-called windfall that came from the CBO letter with that $125 billion that came in. Quite frankly, reducing the top rate on capital would spur economic growth. It is great that we are pushing at well over 5 percent now. But these assumptions are based on a 2.1-percent growth rate. If we reduce the top rate on capital significantly, we can see a growth rate that is even stronger than that. While we hear about uncertainty in the future economically, this cut in the capital gains tax rate could in fact play a role in ensuring that we do not go into economic recession. So I rise in strong support of the rule and in support of this package. Then we are going to work hard in a bipartisan way to cut the tax on capital gains.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment again, as I have in the past, on one of the most important pieces of legislation that has been introduced in this Congress. It is H.R. 14, which is designed to take the top rate on capital gains from 28 to 14 percent. Now, many people have in the past called this a tax cut for the rich, but we all know from every bit of empirical evidence that we have that it would in fact do more for working families in this country than virtually any of the so-called family tax cuts that we have. In fact, a study by the Institute for Policy Innovations found we could increase the take-home pay for the average family by $1,500 per year if we were able to reduce the top rate on capital gains from 28 to 14 percent. The gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Archer], and others on the Committee on Ways and Means very much want to do this. I am pleased that the President has indicated his support for a broad-based reduction in capital gains. It should be zero, but I will accept 14 percent.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to inform the House that this past Saturday, America lost noted philanthropist and political activist, Margaret Martin Brock. Margaret Brock was a leader in education, civic organizations and in State and national Republican politics. She was a close personal friend of five U.S. Presidents and served proudly as a member of Ronald Reagan's kitchen cabinet. She was a confident and counselor to officeholders throughout the Nation, many here in the Congress who benefited from her encouragement, support, political insight, and friendship. Her genuine interest was in young people. She actively sought out and helped many students further their education. She believed that her investments in young people, especially through funding of scholarships, were investments in the future of our country. She was a strong supporter of my alma mater, Claremont McKenna College, Pepperdine University, and the University of Southern California, in addition to her own Mt. Vernon College located here in our Nation's Capital. She was proud to be a native Californian and throughout her life contributed to the betterment of our State. She actively supported the Los Angeles Mission, Salvation Army, Goodwill Industries, and the Boy Scouts of America. She was a founding member of the Los Angeles Music Center and a founding member of the Junior League of Los Angeles. Margaret Brock's generous encouragement led many of us to choose public service. Her support of higher education and the Republican Party leaves a legacy that will continue for generations to come.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this time out to talk about the historic budget agreement which was completed just this past week and to say that I have some grave concerns about it. I, of course, wish very much that we had been able to take on the issue of entitlements. I wish we could have taken on the proposal to eliminate some Cabinet-level agencies. Of course, I wish that we could have brought about broader tax cuts to stimulate job creation and economic growth. As my friend, the gentleman from Missouri, said in his remarks a few minutes ago, I wish we could have had better numbers in the area of our national security. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I have concluded that this agreement is historic. It is very important for us to proceed with it. Obviously, if we had reelected a Republican Congress and elected a Republican, Bob Dole, as President of the United States, the agreement would look much different than it does today. From my perspective it would look much better than it does today. But it is important that we face the reality of governing. Last November the American people chose to reelect a Republican Congress for the first time in 68 years, and they also chose to reelect Bill Clinton as President of the United States. So that obviously created the situation where we had to do what we could to come to some sort of consensus. It is for that reason that I believe that while not perfect, and I do not like every aspect of it, this is probably the best agreement that could be struck. Why? Because it does focus on our principal goals of trying to gain control of this behemoth, the Federal Government, heading us down the road toward a balanced budget and at the same time reducing the tax burden on working Americans. So if we take all those things into consideration, while not enough, they clearly are steps in the right direction. I am most pleased that an item which I have been focusing on for a number of years and which I introduced on the opening day of the 105th Congress is, I hope, going to be part of the basis from which we move ahead with this budget agreement. I am talking, of course, about reducing the top rate on capital gains. On the opening day of the 105th Congress, I and several of my colleagues, in fact three Democrats and one other Republican, joined with me introducing H.R. 14. We selected the number H.R. 14 because what we do is we take the top rate that now exists of 28 percent on capital gains and we reduce that to a top rate of 14 percent. I was joined by Democrats, the gentlewoman from Missouri, Karen McCarthy, the gentleman from Virginia, Jim Moran, and the gentleman from Texas, Ralph Hall, and my Republican colleague who sits on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Phil English, and the five of us introduced this measure on the opening day. I am very happy to report, Mr. Speaker, that with the cosponsorship of my chief colleague, the gentleman from California, Matthew ``Marty'' Martinez, who represents the same region as I in southern California, we now have over 140 Democrats and Republicans who have joined as cosponsors of H.R. 14. We have heard lots of figures over the last few days as to exactly where we can go on this reduction of capital gains, and we still have a few naysayers out there who will continue to argue that reducing the top rate on capital is nothing but a tax cut for the rich. But every shred of empirical evidence that we have, Mr. Speaker, proves to the contrary. In fact, 40 percent of the capital gains realized in this country are realized by Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year. We continue in our office to get letter after letter from people all over the country who are middle-income wage earners writing to us about how important it is to reduce that top rate on capital. I would like to share just a couple of those letters with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. First, this letter came from a middle-income family that needs capital gains tax cuts to use the proceeds from the sale of farm property to restore savings that largely had been lost to farm losses. Let me read parts of this letter, Mr. Speaker: ``We will soon be married 35 years. We have three grown children and a 5-year-old. After 20 years of marriage we had saved enough money to be able to buy a dairy farm we bought for a total of $270,000, and we still had a little over $100,000 in the bank for a rainy day. ``Fifteen years later we owe $160,000 and have $1,500 in the bank. We have used everything that we had saved trying to make that farm work. We have an opportunity now to sell our farm,'' and I will go through the figures that are here: selling price, $275,000; $25,000 for equipment; $60,000 for 85 head of cattle; and the total of the sale proceeds would be $360,0000. That debt which they referred to in the letter of $160,000 obviously would have to come off the top, and the estimated capital gains tax is $75,000. ``We can't even pay off our bills and have any left over to buy a place to live with the $125,000 remaining. $75,000 in taxes,'' this family writes, ``that is so unfair. If you can get the rate for capital gains'' down to your proposed level, H.R. 14's 14 percent, ``at least we would have an additional $37,500 of our hard-earned money back. We need to start again to try and save enough for our golden years and our 5-year-old.'' Here is an example, Mr. Speaker, of a family that may be, in the eyes of some, very rich. They are dairy farmers who have struggled, and yet the capital gains tax is going to jeopardize the future of their 5- year-old child and this family's plan for retirement. Another example of a middle-income family that needs a capital gains tax cut is for a family that is looking to sell rental property to support an 85-year-old mother. This letter, Mr. Speaker, goes as follows: My wife and I, both retired, are responsible for the care and well-being of my 85-year-old mother-in-law. She is a widow, suffers from Alzheimer's disease, needs round-the- clock care and pays a substantial tax on her Social Security income. She has been living on the income from some very modest residential rentals. We are no longer able to operate those rentals profitably and have to sell. If capital gains taxes were indexed and left at the rate they were when the property was purchased, right around 15 percent, she could just barely continue in her current situation. Now, the difference between whether my mother-in-law will be able to get along on the proceeds from her previously purchased assets or be obligated to rely on Medicaid or some other forms of Government assistance will be determined by how much will be taken away from her by the capital gains tax. This is not a rich versus poor proposition. The amount of tax taken from the proceeds of her hard-earned rental property will affect her lifestyle, will affect what other taxpayers will have to contribute to her care, will affect the quality of her retirement years and the retirement years for my wife and for me and my daughter's college options. So once again, Mr. Speaker, here is a clear example of this not being the rich versus poor or us versus them, class warfare argument. Reducing the top rate on capital gains will in fact have a beneficial impact for middle income wage earners. But let us look even further than that. As we look at the stated goals of a capital gains tax cut, we know that not just middle income wage earners but top Government officials, including the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, have stated that the ideal tax on capital would be zero, not 14 percent, the middle ground that we are offering with H.R. 14, but in fact it would be zero. In fact, before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, said, I think while all taxes impede economic growth to one extent or another, the capital gains tax, in my judgment, is at the far end of the scale and so I argue that the appropriate capital gains tax rate was zero and short of that any cuts, and especially indexing, would, in my judgment, be an act that would be appropriate policy for this Congress to follow. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 14 not only takes that top rate on capital gains from 28 to 14 percent, but it also does index to ensure that working Americans are not forced into higher income tax brackets as they realize some kind of appreciation on their capital investment because of inflation. Also I should state that if we look at the priorities that we have in dealing with this issue of capital gains, what is it that we want to do? We want to encourage economic growth. We want to do everything that we possibly can to increase the take-home pay of working Americans, and, of course, we want to balance the Federal budget. There are some in this Congress and some out there who say you cannot talk about reducing the tax on capital and at the same time be serious about your quest for a balanced budget. We also, as we looked at this balanced budget agreement that has come out over the past several days, have looked at the cost of cutting the top rate on capital gains taxes. Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the projection of the cost, which I do not buy by any means, is about $44 billion. Now, if we look at every bit of empirical evidence that we have had throughout this entire century, every time we have reduced the tax rate on capital what has happened? It has not cost the Treasury anything. It has not cost $44 billion, as the CBO has estimated. What has happened? We have seen a dramatic increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury, going all the way back to 1921, when Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, in the Warren G. Harding administration, brought about a reduction of the tax on capital. What happened? We saw a dramatic increase in the flow of revenues to the Treasury through the roaring twenties. We also have to look back at the Kennedy tax cuts. In 1961, there was not a cost to reducing the top rate on capital. What happened was, we saw an increase in the flow of revenues to the Treasury. More recently, in 1978, the famous Steiger capital gains tax rate reduction, we saw, for the years between 1979, when that rate reduction went into effect, and 1987, when we saw an increase in the capital gains tax, we saw a 500-percent increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury, from $9 to $50 billion coming in from that period of time. And then we saw, in 1987, a concurrent drop in the flow of revenues to the Treasury when the tax rate on capital gains was increased. We also have to look at studies that have been done most recently of our package. The Institute for Policy Innovation did a study just a few years ago showing that a rate cut like that that we have in H.R. 14 would bring about a very dramatic increase in the flow of revenues to the Treasury. In fact, they have stated that they would increase by $211 billion. That obviously is not going to cost anything. The reason for that increase, Mr. Speaker, is that we have today between $7 and $8 trillion of locked-up capital. There are so many people, like the retirees who wrote me these letters and others, who have said, gosh, with a 28-percent rate on capital gains, I cannot afford to sell this item. So what happens? There is this lock-in effect. It is projected today that there is between $7 and $8 trillion that is locked in because that tax is so punitive. Once again, 40 percent of those are held by people with incomes of less than $50,000 a year. We also have to look at the argument that has been going on over the past several days about the need for a broad-based family tax cut. We hear talk regularly about how we have got to help families. Well, Mr. Speaker, I argue that H.R. 14, putting that top rate at 14 percent, would do more to boost the wages of the average working family than virtually any of the so-called family tax cuts that have already been proposed. Yes, I am not opposing those, but I believe that the capital gains tax cut, which would be permanent, would increase it. In fact, that same study done by the Institute for Policy Innovation found that going to a 14-percent rate on the capital gains tax would boost the average family's take-home pay by $1,500 a year over a 7-year period. So if we recognize again that what we are trying to do here is increase economic growth, boost the take-home pay of working Americans and at the same time balance the Federal budget, we can in fact, with a capital gains tax rate reduction, do those things. I mentioned the Federal Reserve Board in that statement. Some have said that tax proposals would, in fact, be received, tax cut proposals would be received less than favorably by the Federal Reserve. Well, those words from the chairman demonstrate that H.R. 14 would be a Fed- friendly tax cut and would not send anything other than a very positive signal. So as we look at where we are headed now in these budget negotiations, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the fair, the balanced, the middle-road position for us to take would be a top rate of 14 percent on capital gains. I will say that I am very encouraged by the words that have come from the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the fact that we have so many Democrats and Republicans joining in this Congress to cosponsor H.R. 14, it signals to me that we can, in fact, have a tremendous benefit, a great win for the American people if, as we proceed with these talks and the final details that the Committee on Ways and Means will report out, that we have a tax that is no higher than 14 percent. I do not claim that cutting the capital gains tax rate will be a cure-all for all the ailments of society. One might conclude from what I have said that I believe that it is a panacea for every problem that we face. I do not think it is. But if we do look at the goals of ensuring that our children and grandchildren are not going to be saddled with horrendous debt in the future, if we look at our desire to increase the take-home wages for working Americans and if we look at our goal of boosting economic growth to ensure that the United States of America will be able to remain competitive internationally, it seems to me that going from 28 to 14 percent is the right thing to do. And for my colleagues who have yet to cosponsor H.R. 14, I hope very much that they will respond to the many letters that my Democratic and Republican colleagues and I have sent around and join in cosponsoring this very important legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, late Saturday afternoon, ABC Sports reported that on August 2, my very dear friends, Beverly and Bob Lewis, will be marking their 50th wedding anniversary. It was not simply because it was their anniversary, but it was the fact that they are the very proud owners of the winner of the Kentucky Derby. Their horse, Silver Charm, won by a neck. It was great for all of us to see Beverly and Bob Lewis stand there with such enthusiasm. It is difficult to imagine two more wonderful human beings, two people who are more deserving of this. So, as they look toward their 50th wedding anniversary, it is difficult, again, to imagine a better gift, unless it would be the Triple Crown.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on April 26-28, over 1,250 high school students from 50 States and the District of Columbia came to Washington, DC to compete in the national finals of ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution.'' After the first round of competition, the top ten teams met on Capitol Hill on April 28 where they demonstrated their knowledge of the Constitution before constitutional scholars, journalists, and lawyers. The competition simulated a congressional hearing in which students' oral presentations were judged on the basis of their knowledge of constitutional principles and their ability to apply them to historical and contemporary issues. That night, the winners were revealed, and I am proud to announce that the team from Arcadia High School in Arcadia, CA, took second place in the national competition. The young scholars worked diligently to reach the national finals and place second overall. The distinguished members of the team that represented Arcadia High School were: Jon Baker, Joseph Cheung, Winne Ching, Anna Chung, Annie Chung, Steve Chung, Karen Dickinson, Scott Esposito, Nathan Flowers-Jacobs, Susan Fu, Jae Vyn Gan, David Han, Tracy Huang, Seoyoung Kim, Jonathon Lee, Michael Lee, Richard Lim, Winston Lin, Tsung-Lin Liu, Maggie Loo, Magaret Ng, Jina Noh, Margarita Ortiz, Harvard Pan, Nikka Rapkin, Christopher Tokeshi, Alexander Trifunac, Jack Wang, Jennie Wang, Wing Yung. I would also like to congratulate their teacher, Ron Morris, whose diligence and sacrifice greatly contributed to the success of the team. The ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution Program'' is the most extensive education program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the principals and values that they represent. Clearly, the team from Arcadia High School showed their extensive knowledge on the significance of the Constitution and its place in history, and I salute them for their excellent showing at the national competition.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Surfside Beach, TX [Mr. Paul]. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the rule.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce], a valued member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of this rule, which will allow for a free and fair debate under an open amendment process. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 133 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from South Boston, MA [Mr. Moakley], my very good friend and the ranking minority member. Pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say that all time that I will be yielding will be for debate purposes only. Mr. Speaker, in the tradition of past housing rules, this rule provides an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997. However, the rule does waive points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with House rules regarding the 3-day availability of committee reports or CBO cost estimates. The main committee report has been available for 3 days, but because it did not include a CBO cost estimate, a supplemental report containing that estimate was filed yesterday, thus requiring these waivers. The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be read by title. It contains a minor waiver of points of order for appropriating in a legislative bill, but I understand that the Committee on Appropriations is not opposed to the waiver, Mr. Speaker. The rule further makes in order an amendment by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] before other amendments are considered, which will be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided between the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for the division of the question. All points of order against the Lazio amendment are waived. If adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment, thus ensuring an open amendment process. Finally, the rule strongly encourages preprinting of amendments in the Record, and allows the Chair to postpone votes and reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, this is a bona fide open rule. Over the years I have had the great honor of referring to the former chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services [Mr. Gonzalez], who is sitting right here on the floor now, as Mr. Open Rule because of his strong commitment to major housing bills and bringing them under an open amendment process. It is a distinction that, after 2 years of experience, I am now transferring from Chairman Gonzalez to the current chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], and I know that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] would strongly support me in that action. While an open rule on a bill of this nature will be time-consuming and contentious, it is essential that we proceed in this nature. Housing policy must be seen in the context of broader welfare policy. Members have strong feelings about the impact of Federal housing programs on low-income families and how these programs should be reformed. An open rule will allow all issues to be debated and will strengthen public confidence in whatever program changes we collectively decide to move ahead with in the House. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the changes called for in the bill are long overdue. Our public housing programs are a failure, and those failures have been known to us now for nearly two decades. Yet, until now, Congress has failed to offer effective solutions to addressing the housing and economic needs of poverty-level families. Instead, we have continued to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on costly and inefficient public housing programs that encourage waste, fraud and abuse, while destroying urban communities and relegating tenants to second class status in Third World living conditions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2 will improve housing conditions and economic opportunity for tenants by substantially deregulating public housing and giving authorities the flexibility they need to operate efficiently and effectively. While H.R. 2 does not fundamentally alter the Federal Government's intrusion into the housing market, nor does it reduce the size of the HUD's bureaucracy, it will go a long way toward reforming our failed public housing programs. For that I applaud the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], for his successful efforts in bringing this bill forward. I look forward to working with him to bring about similar reforms to the remainder of HUD's bureaucracy so we can enhance local control, reduce administrative overhead and cost burdens, maximize the direct flow of housing assistance, and promote our ultimate objective, which is the achievement of economic self-sufficiency for our low-income families. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2 is a good bill that deserves our support. A similar bill passed the House 1 week short of a year ago. More important, this rule provides for an open amendment process, as I have said, that will allow all of the policy issues that we will be considering to come forward with a free debate. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have a couple Members who are very enthusiastic in expressing their desire to speak, but I am having a challenging time to educate them right now; and I do not know if my friend, the gentleman from South Boston, MA [Mr. Moakley] has anyone.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I do so to compliment my friend from Columbus, OH for the leadership role that she has shown on this issue of adoption which is very important. This legislation, as has been said by both of my friends from Ohio, is designed to encourage adoption. There is a pressing need out there, and I believe that this legislation will go a long way toward creating the kind of incentive that is necessary. I also believe that it is very good that we are doing this under the open amendment process, because I understand that there are proposals that some Members who do not sit on the Committee on Ways and Means have that they wish to offer. And it is our hope that they will be able to work those out, and we will be able to continue to move ahead with bipartisan passage of this legislation. I would simply like to urge my colleagues to support the rule and to again congratulate the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] for the stellar leadership that she has shown on this and a wide range of other issues.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about very important programs designed to help those who are truly in need, I am going to mention something that actually could, I believe, do probably more than any of those things that have been talked about to help those who are truly in need; and, yes, it is a reduction of the top rate on the capital gains tax. Now we had a study done not too long ago by the Institute on Policy Innovation, which found that if we could reduce that top rate, as H.R. 14 does, our bill that we introduced on the opening day, to 14 percent, we could, in fact, increase the average take-home pay for a family by $1,500 a year. Now so often people have in the past talked about this capital gains tax rate reduction as being nothing but a tax cut for the rich. But people are finally realizing that if we could allow those literally millions of American families who own mutual funds or other appreciated assets to see a reduction on that top rate, it would, in fact, improve the standard of living for all Americans.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for one moment?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to my friend that we are happy to see the entertainment industry moving to Connecticut partially, but we want them to know that their home continues to be in southern California, and we hope very much they will continue to make base there.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to once again encourage my colleagues to join as cosponsors of H.R. 14, the bill that a number of Democrats and Republicans introduced on the opening day, to put 14 percent as the top rate on capital gains. My friend from New York was just talking about the administration's opposition to dealing with our attempt to repeal the death tax. I am happy to say on capital gains, the job creation and savings encouragement measure, that we have an indication of some support coming from the White House. I hope very much that we can move beyond our 130-plus Democrats and Republicans as cosponsors because reducing the top rate on capital gains will clearly create jobs, increase the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury, and by $1,500 a year increase the take-home pay for working Americans. Reducing the top rate on capital is in fact a family, permanent family tax cut, and I hope everyone will join in cosponsoring H.R. 14.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, here in our Nation's Capital, a young woman was killed in a car accident. This tragedy briefly became the subject of national news because the offending driver was a diplomat of the Republic of Georgia, and the driver was allegedly driving drunk. Thus, a horrible situation for the young woman's family became the focal point for an ad hoc rethinking of the issue of diplomatic immunity, and the reasonable expectation of most Americans that diplomats and their families should not be absolved of all personal responsibility for criminal actions. Diplomatic immunity unquestionably plays an important role in foreign relations between nations. I firmly believe that American diplomats, their staffs and their families must be shielded from abusive prosecution abroad by strict adherence to the international rule of law upon which diplomatic immunity is based. In the United States, the same principles must apply to those associated with diplomatic missions here in Washington, at the United Nations in New York City, and at consulates in California and throughout our country. While the concept of diplomatic immunity remains an important underpinning of peaceful diplomacy, it is time, with the exponential growth of the diplomatic corps, that we reexamine the procedures and policies implicit in the doctrine of diplomatic immunity. In short, while diplomats cannot be held hostage by foreign governments through criminal prosecution of themselves, their families or their staffs, that does not mean that civilized countries cannot agree to hold their own diplomatic personnel accountable in their own judicial systems. I recently met with a now-retired New York City detective, a highly decorated veteran of street wars, who attempted to arrest a young man, the son of a diplomat, who is a serial rapist. I recently met with one of that young man's victims, whose life has never fully returned to normal. I recently met with representatives of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Organization for Victim's Assistance, the National Association of Crime Victims Compensation Boards, the National Black Police Association, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, and the National Law Enforcement Council. These officers, victims, and advocates were assembled by constituents of mine in California who are responsible for an important study of cases of diplomatic immunity abuse. In the book by veteran journalist Chuck Ashman and attorney Pamela Terracott, ``Diplomatic Crime'', they document that the majority of criminal acts which trigger the imposition of diplomatic immunity claims are committed not by Ambassadors or senior ministers, but by their lower ranking staff and family members. They point out that there are cases in which those accused are not only excused but remain in their duty post or are quickly reassigned to another I commend Chuck and Pamela for their dedicated research. I thank victims and police for their determination to shed light on abuses. I appreciate the concern on the part of so many significant police and victims support groups for this issue. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of a drunk driver forced the issue of diplomatic immunity back to the front pages earlier this year. In that one case, the government of the accused has waived his immunity and allowed American procedures for justice to move ahead. What is most significant about that decision is how unique it is in the field. In fact, the knee jerk reaction of most nations, including the United States, is to recall those accused of crimes before there is any determinations as to the merits of the charges. It is my view that the growth in the number of diplomatic personnel, along with media technology that spreads word of crimes across the country in minutes, creates the potential for public outrage that could threaten the entire system of diplomatic immunity sometime in the future. Therefore, I believe that now is the time for Congress to begin an effort to seriously investigate how to improve and protect diplomatic immunity. I recently introduced legislation, H.R. 1236, to get that process underway. I would like to thank Congressman Chris Smith, the chairman of the International Relations Committee's Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights for incorporating the provisions of H.R. 1236 into H.R. 1253, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, which was reported out of the subcommittee on April 9. This legislative effort may be of little comfort to the victims of that serial rapist or to the families of those killed by drunken drivers who have not been called to account in any nation, but I believe it is a step in the right direction. The Congress should know when and where these incidents occur. The Congress and the American people should know the disposition of cases involving American officials overseas accused of crimes. I look forward to the Congress moving forward on this issue, to study the reports we are requesting from the State Department, and to take the lead globally in exploring how to balance the needs of diplomacy and the demands of a changing society. Again, Mr. Speaker, I commend Chuck Ashman and Pamela Terracott for their dedicated research, and thank the victims and those police who have shown such determination to shed light on abuses.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, once again I am proud today to raise and join my colleagues to honor the lives of the 1.5 million men, women, and children who were brutally murdered in the inaugural genocide of the 20th century. Each year, Members of Congress come together to do more than simply remember that the Armenians were the first victims of what is sadly man's bloodiest century. Rather, we are dedicated to the fervent hope that raising the consciousness of past atrocities, such as those which befell the Armenian people, will help prevent similar tragedies in the future. It is often said that before embarking on his planned final solution to the ``Jewish problem,'' Adolph Hitler was heard to say ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and 1986 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, has said, ``He was right. No one remembered them.'' The Nazi Holocaust, the murder of millions of Russians and Ukrainians by the Soviet Government, and the bloody rampage of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, all had their seeds in Anatolia. Each of the murderous regimes depended upon people not remembering or caring. The collapse of the Soviet empire and the independence of Armenia have been important milestones on the road toward freedom for the Armenian people. While very serious conflicts remain to be resolved in the Caucasus region, April 24 will remain an important day for Armenians and Armenian-Americans, who are equally dedicated to remembering the past and working for a brighter future.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 112 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. 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. To conclude my remarks, I remind my colleagues that defeating the previous question is an exercise in futility because the minority wants to offer an amendment that will be ruled out of order as nongermane to this rule and in fact they do not even have an amendment, they do not have a bill. So the vote is without substance. The previous-question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to close debate on this rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The vote has no substantive or policy implications whatsoever. I include an explanation of the previous question for the Record: The Previous Question Vote: What It Means House Rule XVII (``Previous Question'') provides in part that: ``There shall be a motion for the previous question, which, being ordered by a majority of the Members voting, if a quorum is present, shall have the effect to cut off all debate and bring the House to a direct vote upon the immediate question or questions on which it has been asked or ordered.'' In the case of a special rule or order of business resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the previous question is moved following the one hour of debate allowed for under House Rules. The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and amendment on the legislation it would make in order. Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.