David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, another point to add along with that is the fact that the much pooh-poohed statement of the former First Lady, Nancy Reagan, to just say no to drugs played a big role in decreasing the recreational use and the incentive for young people to use drugs, whereas we have from this administration seen very little focus on that issue. The byproduct of that has been a tragic and dramatic increase in the use of drugs. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Glendale, CA [Mr. Rogan], former majority leader of the California State Assembly.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague who addressed me by name and then said I was rude, to ask him to yield time for me to respond that on the issue of campaign finance reform, we obviously are engaging in that debate as we proceed with this rule today. To argue that the only benefit from the North American Free-Trade Agreement has been to send jobs to Mexico is absolutely preposterous. Anyone who looks at the record that we have on the benefits that have been accrued to this Nation from free trade with Mexico and other countries, we obviously have seen tremendous job creation here, and improvements in the standard of living in this country because of free trade. The fact that people exercise their first amendment right to participate politically, that does not need to be investigated. What needs to be investigated is blatant violations of existing Federal law. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Winter Park, FL [Mr. Mica].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me first say I very much appreciate seeing the Washington Times regularly quoted by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I hope it will not be, as often is the case, maligned when Members on this side hold up articles from the Washington Times in the future. I should also say to my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mr. Speaker, that as we look at this issue, if there is evidence of wrongdoing on this side, there is nothing whatsoever that prevents the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight from looking at that. But every shred of evidence that we have of wrongdoing happens to emanate from the other side of the aisle. I think that is really understandably where the focus will continue to be. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Scotsdale, AZ [Mr. Hayworth].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend from Savannah, GA [Mr. Kingston], the hard-working leader of our 1-minute effort.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Winter Park, FL [Mr. Mica], the dynamic subcommittee chairman.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the remarks of my very good friend. The fact of the matter is, if we look at the need for campaign finance reform, I think virtually everyone recognizes that some change needs to take place in the area of campaign finance reform. I strongly support it. I am in the process of drafting legislation right now which will empower the voter to have greater knowledge on where people gain their support. I have a number of other provisions. There are lots of things that are being discussed around here. But let us look at where we are today. The argument is being made that we should rush to the floor immediately with campaign finance reform legislation so that we can debate this, but we need to look at what it is that has led to this very high level of frustration among the American people today. The fact that we read headline stories in virtually every major newspaper in this country on the issue of campaign finance reform, it has to do with violations of current law that are continually reported, and I think we should take a moment to review some of those things that have come to the forefront that have led to this hue and cry for change in the campaign finance law which is simply violations of the present law that now exists today. We have seen $3 million in foreign contributions that have been returned by the Democratic National Committee, 158 fundraisers reportedly held in the White House; they have been called coffees or teas or receptions, but the documents show that they were fundraisers designed to raise between $300,000 and $400,000. Over $100,000 was raised in my area in southern California in a Buddhist temple at an event the Vice President attended among people who have taken a vow of poverty. The Washington Post reported that John Huang had tried to funnel a quarter of a million dollars in illegal donations to the Democratic National Committee through an Asian- American business group. It seems to me that what we need to look at here, Mr. Speaker, as we have this cry for a rush to look at this thing of campaign finance reform, we need to first find out exactly what has happened under current law. And that is our goal here. But to argue that some do not want to do anything to change this system is preposterous because I know that Members of Congress very much do want to bring about a compliance.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Smyrna, GA [Mr. Barr].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in a statement that is more prophetic than he might have imagined when he made it at the time, President Woodrow Wilson said, ``It's not far from the truth to say that Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, while Congress in committee rooms is Congress at work. It is the work of Congress that we hope to accomplish with adoption of this rule. It makes in order at any time today, Wednesday, April 16, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The rule further requires the Speaker or his designee to consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to the rule. The bills that will be considered under suspension of the rules as a result of adopting this rule are noncontroversial and very narrowly tailored, thus making it impractical to bring them up under the order of business resolution from our Committee on Rules. However, scheduling them for consideration today is necessary to ensure that our colleagues are here to do very important committee work. The Committee on Banking and Financial Services is holding an important markup on public housing reform. The Committee on the Budget members are in important negotiations with the administration over the outlines of our balanced budget proposal. The Committee on Commerce is marking up the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Amendments Act. Even our own Committee on Rules will have a hearing tomorrow on improving civility in the House, which is critical, as we all know, to the proper functioning of this institution. Mr. Speaker, for those of our colleagues who are concerned with the pace and direction of our agenda in the House, adoption of this rule is a precondition to ensuring a productive and successful first session of the 105th Congress. Also, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that for 2 years during the 104th Congress, we constantly heard complaints from our friends in the minority that the committee system was being bypassed to expedite major legislation. We now have the opportunity to let our committees deliberate openly and do their work, and they are able to have the full participation of the members of their committees. Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a totally noncontroversial rule. I hope that, unlike last week, we will proceed in a very, very amicable and noncontroversial way as we proceed with this. I urge adoption of the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. DREIER. If my friend will let me respond, I would like to respond to what my friend just said. It is totally untrue to say that the committee is not going to expend any amount of time whatsoever looking into this. If there is evidence of any kind of wrongdoing on this side of the aisle, it clearly will be addressed, and so I mean the fact that they are focusing on this litany of items that continue to be the front page news stories time and time again, that that is their focus, it is understandable because this is what is happening.

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time----

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Fairport, NY [Ms. Slaughter], 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. If I can reclaim my time, I am trying to be as generous as I can. We have Members here who want to speak, and I know the gentleman has time on his side of the aisle. Let me say that if there is evidence of wrongdoing, it is very apparent that they will be looked at on this side of the aisle, but it is so obvious with these things that have taken place from the leadership of their party they desperately need to be addressed, the American people want us to look at those, and then, then we will look at reforming the campaign finance system to take these obvious violations into consideration. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from St. Clairsville, OH [Mr. Ney].

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans. I have to do that, after having heard the vitriolic attacks that are emerging from the Democratic side attacking us for what clearly will be the single most important thing that we can do for working families in this country, and that is reducing the top rate on capital gains from 28 to 14 percent. I am very gratified that we now have, I think it is 127 Democrats and Republicans as cosponsors of this measure. Why? Because Democrats and Republicans know that it is going to benefit working families. It is going to, based on every shred of empirical evidence we have, increase the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury, as it has always done when we unleash that $7 to $8 trillion of locked-in capital that people are concerned about selling because of that rate that is so extraordinarily high. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join as cosponsors of H.R. 14, Democrats and Republicans.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to my friend from Colorado [Mr. McInnis].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Glenwood Springs, CO [Mr. McInnis], a very able member of the Committee on Rules, as we continue this debate on this very important rule that will allow us to debate suspensions today and tomorrow.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Sugarland, TX [Mr. DeLay]. Mr. DeLay. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has repeatedly brought up this incident, including in the media, and has been quoted in the media about an incident where there were lobbyists in the majority whip's office writing legislation. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman to give me the names in the Record of those lobbyists that were in my office writing legislation, and the incident and the time and the date. The least he could do when he makes a statement that is totally incorrect, that he could provide that information to the House, or at least if that is the case and it violates the rules of the House or violates a law, would bring charges against this Member. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order at any time on Wednesday, April 9, 1997, or on Thursday, April 10, 1997, today and tomorrow, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The rule further requires the Speaker or his designee to consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to the rule. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues are aware, clause 1 of House rule 27 allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules on Mondays and Tuesdays. The majority attempted to work with the minority to reach a unanimous-consent agreement to allow suspensions today and tomorrow. However, there was, unfortunately, an objection to that request. Absent a unanimous-consent agreement, a rule is necessary to allow suspensions on these days. Mr. Speaker, this is a totally noncontroversial rule. As many Members on both sides of the aisle have said over the 1-minute period this morning, they want to see us begin moving ahead with our work. We want to do that. We want to take up these measures that could be considered under suspension of the rules. Mr. Speaker, this rule itself is noncontroversial. It requires consultation with the minority, so I hope very much that we can move as expeditiously as possible to pass this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. After 5, it was after 5 so the Members could travel on Tuesday. That was the reason that we proceeded with the suspensions.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentlewoman from Fairport, NY [Ms. Slaughter] and pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time that I am yielding is for debate purposes 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 107 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to inform the House that we now have over 114 cosponsors on the most important family tax cut measure that we could possibly consider. What is that family tax cut measure? It is the bill, H.R. 14, to take the top rate on capital gains from 28 percent to 14 percent. I call it the most important family tax cut measure, Mr. Speaker, because this will in fact, based on two studies that have been conducted, increase the take-home wages of the average American family by $1,500. The argument we have heard in years past is that a capital gains tax rate reduction is nothing but a tax cut for the rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. We need to bring this about. It not only will increase take-home wages, it will help us in our effort to decrease the deficit and deal with our national debt problem. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues if they have not already joined in the cosponsorship of my measure, which includes my colleague, the gentlewoman from Missouri, Karen McCarthy, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Moran, the gentleman from Florida, and several other people who are involved in this in a bipartisan way, I urge Members to cosponsor it.