David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend. The gentleman makes a very important point, that being, we are simply calling for compliance with the present law that exists. And those on the other side of the aisle are saying, well, let us change the law, let us reform campaign finances, and that will address this hue and cry that we are hearing out there from the American people; all they want us to do is, the American people want us to comply with the laws that exist today.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that way. Frankly, everyone cannot handle it quite as well as my friend from Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that it is very interesting to listen to this debate as it proceeds on campaign finance reform. We are actually offering a rule here that would allow us to consider suspensions today and tomorrow to deal with veterans, American Samoa, assisted suicide, and yet the campaign debate here, the debate has proceeded on the issue of campaign finance reform. Since that has happened, I want to take a moment before I yield to my friend from Texas, the majority whip, to talk about legislation I mentioned during the 1-minute period that I hope we will be able to have considered here. If we could get the President on board on it, it would be very helpful, and, frankly, it is much more important to the people whom I am honored to represent here and others from around the country than campaign finance reform. It happens to be the single most important family tax cut that we could offer, and that is a reduction of the top rate on capital gains from 28 percent to 14 percent. As of right now, we have 118 cosponsors. Democrats and Republicans have joined, cosponsoring this. I call it the most important family tax cut because it clearly will increase the take-home wages of working Americans, on average, by $1,500. Unlike many of the family tax cuts, which are temporary, some of those that the President has proposed, this capital gains tax rate reduction would be permanent, creating that boost for working Americans. I hope very much that we are going to be able to proceed with that measure, which also is critically important to our quest of a balanced budget. We want to bring about a reduction in the national debt and get us on that glidepath toward a balanced budget. We know that unleashing the 7 to 8 trillion dollars that is locked in today, people who do not want to sell their family farm, their small business, their home or other appreciated asset because of the fact that that capital gains tax rate is so high, that capital would be unleashed, if we could reduce that rate from 28 to 14 percent, and would go a long way toward increasing the flow of revenues to the Treasury, as it has done every single time throughout this century. Every shred of empirical evidence we have is that it will increase the flow of revenues to the Treasury, going all the way back to President Warren G. Harding, who, in 1921, under his Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, cut the top rate on capital. The flow of revenues to the Treasury increased. In 1961, when President Kennedy did it, the same thing happened; and then when Ronald Reagan did it with the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, we saw that increase. Unfortunately, when we increase the tax on capital, we decrease the flow of revenues to the Treasury. In 1978, when the capital gains tax rate was reduced, we saw, from 1979 to 1987, a 500-percent increase in the flow of revenues to the Treasury from $9 billion to $50 billion, and it began to drop after the 1986 Tax Reform Act went in place. So it seems to me we have a very important issue that I hope we can address here. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], my dear friend.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply say that it is very interesting to listen to the hue and cry over campaign finance reform that comes from my friends on the other side of the aisle. I stated that I have a measure that I am going to be introducing in the not too distant future which would actually encourage greater voter participation, an opportunity for them to participate with campaign contributions. The thing that troubles me, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we are in a position today where we do not have compliance with existing law, and we as Republicans are very proud to stand up for enforcement of the laws which have been flagrantly violated based on reports that we have had in the media. That is what we as Republicans are doing from this side of the aisle. I hope very much that we will be able to get to the bottom of these tremendous abuses of present campaign finance law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as my friend knows, we have just returned from the Easter work period, and we usually have a travel day there following.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me first say to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York, that I very much appreciate her enlightening the House on her legislative agenda for the year, and to say there are many very interesting proposals that she offers. Frankly, there are some solutions that I think are worthy of consideration as we move through the committee process. Let me say, as far as where we are today, I believe that we need to recognize that there are measures that we hope to bring up under suspension of the rules that deal with the veterans of this country. There is a great interest in a bipartisan way to see us move ahead with the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1997, and the other suspension which we are hoping to bring up today, if we can move ahead with this rule, is the American Samoan Development Act of 1997. I know committees are working, and they are trying to deal with many of the very important issues that my friend raised. It is my hope we will be able to just as quickly as possible get to those items, as well as campaign finance reform. I have introduced my own campaign finance reform bill, which I think is very worthy of consideration. Actually, I have not introduced it yet. I am crafting it now and will be introducing it in the not too distant future. I hope we will be able to consider it. But we should look at a wide range of areas.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, once again I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Sugarland, TX [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In conclusion, let me 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. So the vote is without substance, and in fact we do not have a campaign finance reform bill that has even been introduced that would be offered if this were to be ruled germane. The previous question vote itself is nothing more than a procedural motion to close debate on this rule and proceed to the very important vote that we will have allowing us to consider the veterans bill, the American Samoan bill, these suspensions. The vote has no substantive or policy implications whatsoever, that being the previous question vote. Mr. Speaker, at this point I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an explanation of the previous question issue from our House Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to expand on a couple of remarks made by my friend from Houston, Dr. Paul, and to talk about an issue which I actually have raised twice here on the floor today, once during the 1- minutes, and then I discussed it during the time that I was managing the noncontroversial rule that we had for consideration of the suspensions, and that is the issue of capital gains. My friend from Texas, Mr. Paul, said that we should have no capital gains tax, and I happen to agree with that. But frankly, we need to begin moving in the direction of no tax on capital, and I am very pleased to have introduced, with the company sponsorship of many Members, my friend in Huntington Beach, Mr. Rohrabacher, and many others, a bill, H.R. 14. It is called H.R. 14 because it takes the top rate on capital gains from 28 percent to 14 percent. I believe that this measure will go a long way toward increasing the take-home pay of working Americans. Many people used to say that the capital gains tax cut was nothing but a tax cut for the rich, when in fact, we knew all along that by unleashing capital we could create jobs, increase the flow of revenues to the Treasury, but recent studies have shown that we not only can do those things, but on average, the take-home pay of working Americans will increase if we reduce that top rate on capital. One of the things that people have also said who historically have talked about the capital gains tax cut as being nothing but a tax cut for the rich, there has been a realization that average Americans are saving a little more, and they are investing in some things, and we have found that there are 63 million American families that actually own mutual funds of the 90 million some odd families. So there is clearly a broad-based appeal and potential support for reducing the top rate on capital. I say it is broad-based because on the opening day of this Congress, I was pleased that I was joined with Democrats and Republicans to introduce this. In fact, as initial sponsors on our side of the aisle, my colleague who serves on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English] joined me and we had actually three Democrats who joined. The gentlewoman from Kansas City, MO [Ms. McCarthy]; we had the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall]; and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], three Democrats and two Republicans on the opening day were the prime sponsors of this legislation to reduce the top rate on capital. It is not targeted; it does not have the Government going in and selecting whose investment is taxed at a lower rate than someone else's, it simply reduces across the board, cutting in half that top rate. What will this bring about? Well, we have today probably approaching $8 trillion of capital that is locked in because there are widows who are concerned about the prospect of selling their home or other investment because it has appreciated in value. There are family farmers who are concerned about selling, because the capital gains tax rate is so high. There are small business men and women who very much want to sell, but they feel that they should not because that tax is so high. It seems to me that a capital gains tax rate reduction is something that we could put into place to help ensure that we do not slip into recession. I see it as one of the best insurance policies to prevent us from going into recession. Then as I alluded to a moment ago, the increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury which has happened every single time it has been done, reducing the top rate on capital gains in this century, would obviously, based on this empirical evidence, follow our reducing the top rate on capital. Back in 1993 we found that if we had a 15-percent rate on capital gains, we could, over a 7-year period, increase the gross domestic product by $1.3 trillion, create a million new jobs and generate $220 billion in revenues to the Treasury. That comes about because we unleash that $7 trillion to $8 trillion that is locked in. So a capital gains tax rate reduction is critically important in our quest towards a balanced budget, towards trying to deal with the national debt. And unlike the so-called family tax cuts that we continue to hear about, this would be permanent in that it would increase, as I said earlier, the take-home wages by $1,500 for the average American family. Mr. Speaker, we are up to, as of this afternoon, 118 cosponsors for this very important measure, and I would like to encourage the Speaker and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join as cosponsors of this very important measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 105 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Falls Church, VA [Mr. Davis]. (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as 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 to include extraneous material).

Mr. DREIER. 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, this rule once again makes in order House Resolution 91 authorizing funding for all but one of the committees of the House of Representatives for the 105th Congress, but this time under a closed rule providing 1 hour of debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority of the Committee on House Oversight. The rule provides for consideration in the House without intervention of any point of order, it provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of House Resolution 102 shall be considered as adopted. It further provides for one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, the new funding resolution that is made in order by this rule is a reasonable compromise. I applaud the work of Chairman Thomas and others who helped put this compromise together. It will allow our committees to continue operating until May 2 while freezing funding levels for all committees covered by the resolution except the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight at the 104th Congress levels. This will also allow us to maintain our commitment to take the lead in downsizing and streamlining Government. More important, Mr. Speaker, it will allow the Government Reform and Oversight Committees's investigation into campaign fundraising abuses by the Clinton administration to proceed despite the best efforts of our colleagues in the minority to cover up those abuses and undermine our constitutional responsibility to investigate wrongdoing in the executive branch. The resolution also maintains a $7.9 million authorization for a reserve fund for unanticipated expenses of the committees of the 105th Congress because it makes sense. As my colleagues know, at the beginning of the 104th Congress, three annual funding sources for committees consolidated into one biennial calendar year funding resolution to make our committees fully accountable for what they spend. So a small reserve fund fully accounted for and open to public scrutiny to cover unexpected funding emergencies in the second session makes sound business sense. Virtually every well-managed business in America has a reserve fund for unanticipated contingencies. We can benefit from implementing sound business practices in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, failure to pass this rule and the funding resolution it makes in order would leave our committees without funds to operate after March 31. That is the reason I suspect many of our colleagues in the minority oppose this resolution, but it is an irresponsible position and it damages the integrity of the whole institution, not just the majority or minority. I urge my colleagues to do the responsible thing. We are trying to move along as expeditiously as possible because we know many Members want to leave town. I will assure my friends on the other side of the aisle that we hope that we will not consume the entire amount of time here. I hope they will do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Grand Rapids, MI [Mr. Ehlers], a member of the committee.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Winter Park, FL [Mr. Mica], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle]. (Mr. DOOLITTLE 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, we have come to what I think is a very fair and balanced compromise on this issue. We have tried not to consume our entire amount of time because we know both Democrats and Republicans are anxious to get moving, since we have already gone beyond the target adjournment date of yesterday. Mr. Speaker, to close our debate, but not to use the entire amount of time, because I know he will not do that, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my dear friend, the gentleman from Bakersfield, CA [Mr. Thomas], chairman of the Committee on House Oversight. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray] be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1062.