Thomas Reynolds

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am sure the underlying bill before us today was an arduous undertaking. It represents funding for the Department of Transportation, Department of Treasury, including the IRS, the General Services Administration, the United States Postal Service, the Office of Management and Budget, the White House, Office of Personnel Management, among others. It is a brand new subcommittee that was put together by this House. It is a fair and balanced bill that seeks to continue programs that are working and reform those that are not. By substantially increasing many areas of the bill and maintaining funding in others, this Congress has once again lived up to its commitment to our communities. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and a ``yes'' vote on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I probably need to put the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) on notice that when we move into the bill on the underlying legislation, we will be talking more on the child tax credit than the permanent death tax. I am just encouraged to see in the 107th Congress, three votes that occurred on the death tax. I saw from 41 to 58 Democratic votes along with Republicans and it reassures me that we are on the path of a bipartisan tax cut to end the death tax once and for all that is in this country. We need to see a couple of things. Individuals and families and partnerships or family corporations own 99 percent of all U.S. farms and ranches. Think about that. Individuals, family partnerships or family corporations own 99 percent of all U.S. farms and ranches. I do not want us to ever forget that every acre, every piece of equipment, every business has already been taxed in life, so why should they be taxed in death. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. REYNOLDS. The gentleman and I both know that he was before the committee and asked for this amendment to be considered by the Committee on Rules and now he wants to bring it down. Is that true or not, sir?

Mr. REYNOLDS. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I am a little confused. Last week the gentleman voted against the child tax credit.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Is the gentleman saying he was not in the Committee on Rules or that he did not request this substitute in his presentation before the Committee on Rules when he spoke on two specific amendments, this being one?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I will yield to the gentleman from South Dakota.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman come before the Committee on Rules and advocate the substitute which is contained in the rule today? I think he did, did he not? Did he come and advocate two different amendments before the Committee on Rules, this one being made that was made as substitute inside the rule? Did he or did he not come yesterday before the Committee on Rules and submit testimony before us asking for consideration of this substitute?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 281 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman, and my colleague and neighbor, from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 281 is a modified closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003, legislation to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent. The rule makes in order 1 hour of debate, a minority substitute, and one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is certainly not a new one. In the 106th session, Congress voted several times in a bipartisan fashion to eliminate the death tax. In the 107th session, Congress voted on three separate occasions to eliminate the death tax; but with the death tax relief set to expire in 2011, we might give Dr. Kevorkian a new career as a tax and estate planner. Today, we have the opportunity to bury the death tax once and for all. By way of history, this tax was initially imposed to prevent the very wealthy from passing on their wealth from one generation to the next. At the time, this well-intentioned tax eased concerns about the growing concentration of money and power among a small number of wealthy families. Later, it was used to fund national emergencies, and it became necessary to maintain these high tax rates in high wartime levels during the 1930s and the 1940s, but they remained relatively unchanged until the Tax Reform Act of 1976. Ironically, the death tax served little of the purpose for which it was intended. Rather than prevent the concentrated accumulation of vast wealth, the death tax punished savings and thrift and hard work among American families. Small businesses and farmers have been unfairly penalized for their blood, sweat and tears, paying taxes on already- taxed assets. Instead of investing money on productive measures such as creating new jobs or purchasing new equipment, businesses and farms are forced to divert their earnings to tax accountants and lawyers just to prepare their estates. The victims of the death tax are typically hardworking Americans of medium-sized estates, farmers and small business owners. Their enterprises create jobs and growth and opportunities for our communities, but every year those families were literally forced to sell the family farm or business just to pay off their death taxes. Equally disturbing is the fact that the death tax actually raises relatively little revenue for the Federal Government. Some studies have found that it may cost the government and taxpayers more in administrative and compliance fees than it actually raises in revenue. Of course, farmers and ranchers are not the only ones facing an unfair and unnecessary burden in the death tax. One study conducted by the Public Policy Institute of New York State found that in a 5-year period family-owned and -operated businesses on an average spent $125,000 per company on tax planning alone. These costs are incurred prior to any actual payment of Federal estate taxes. They reported that an estimated 14 jobs per business were lost as a result of Federal estate tax planning. For just the 365 businesses surveyed, the total number of jobs already lost due to the Federal estate tax is 5,100. That was just in upstate New York. My rural and suburban district in New York is laden with small businesses and farms that are owned by hardworking families who pay their taxes, create jobs, and contribute not only to the quality of life in their community but to the Nation's rich heritage. Is it so much to ask that they be able to pass on their industry and hard work, their small business or their farm to their children? Why should Uncle Sam become the Grim Reaper? The fact is they paid their taxes in life on every acre sown, on every product sold, and on every dollar earned. They should not be taxed in death, too. Mr. Speaker, death tax relief was a good idea in the 107th Congress, and it is a good idea now. We should not provide this kind of relief for only a few years. We should provide it permanently. This kind of permanent tax relief for farmers, ranchers, and small business owners that will keep the family business growing and growing is just the kind of relief that is beginning to get this economy moving. Wall Street has shown modest gains not only since Congress passed its tax cut plan but even since we began working on the tax cut itself. As one media report said, ``Economic advisers credit the tax cuts and positive first quarter earnings for the gains.'' Tax cuts work. They work in helping hardworking families keep more of what they earn. They work in allowing people to have greater control over decisions to save and invest, and they work in creating jobs and creating greater economic opportunity for American families. We are on the right course. Let us keep moving forward. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to bury this unfair tax once and for all. Vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my friends from the left always bring up class warfare every time we have a tax cut discussion in this body. I just would point to two aspects of my colleague and friend's remarks. First, Henry Aaron and Alicia Munnell, who are two prominent liberal economists, concluded in their study of the estate tax the following: In short, the estate and gift taxes of the United States have failed to achieve their intended purposes. They raise little revenue, they impose large excess burdens, and they are unfair. Alan Binder, a former member of the Federal Reserve Board, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, found that only about 2 percent of inequity was attributable to the unequal distribution of inherited wealth. Joseph Stiglitz, who served as Chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, found that the estate tax may ultimately increase income equality. Those are the same type of things that Republicans or conservatives or economists who are right of center have said. So there seems to be concurrence on that. I would also say that it is sometimes difficult being a member of the majority to resolve some of the issues of inside baseball upstairs in the Committee on Rules. Sometimes we are attacked because we have open rules, sometimes we are attacked because we have closed rules, modified rules, or whatever happens. In this instance, we just cannot seem to win. The unfortunate aspect of this is that we have today for our colleagues to consider, in the rule that we now have before us, a substitute offered by the Democrats. If the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) does not want this substitute, he should withdraw it. He introduced it, he asked the Committee on Rules to consider it, the Committee on Rules did just that. We also have a recommit, as we have in each and every single rule that we put out on behalf of consideration of legislation since the majority took its control in 1995.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, though it is unfortunate, as a member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman cannot get time from his side.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) came before the Committee on Rules and he introduced his legislation. There is no time I am aware of, in talking to the staff, that the gentleman from North Dakota, from the time he brought the legislation for our consideration until today, that he has asked to withdraw the substitute. So we are moving forward on the Pomeroy substitute. After that is considered, we will move forward with the motion to recommit and then we will, hopefully, go to final passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I am happy to bring the record down and bring it here.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As President Reagan would say, Mr. Speaker, there you go again. Class warfare. I do not know about my colleagues, but I go home every weekend, and I see farmers, and I see small businesses that have worked their hearts out. They have worked hard their whole life on their family farm or in their Main Street business. They are not rich, but they have an estate. They want to pass it to whoever they want. In most instances, that is their children. But to pay the estate tax, they have to sell the family farm. And that just is not right, because they paid taxes on every single portion of the products, goods, and services and then they have to do it again at death tax time. They are not rich, although this would certainly help them, but as I cited in earlier debate, liberal economists and conservative economists all agree the tax does not really do the job. But think about this: The actuaries and life underwriters and everybody else are saying, if you want to die, you want to do it between now and 2010, because God forbid, if it is January 1, 2011. This thing does not work anymore. It is a reasonable thing to tell America and to show America and perform for America with permanent death tax relief. This tax relief is reasonable. I understand my colleagues on the left do not believe in tax cuts. I accept that. But I also want to remind my colleagues and friends, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has indicated, in the Committee on Rules every single amendment had a rollcall vote yesterday. They were all heard, they were all debated, and they all had a vote. We have, in this modified closed rule, included the Pomeroy substitute, and we have included a motion to recommit. We will then have final passage of whatever comes as the result of our colleagues in the conference on the other side. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, apparently as I cited in my remarks before, some of that has not been heard as we get some of the facts out. The left does not want to cut taxes. I accept that. I understand that. We are going to have a debate; and this House has repeatedly cut taxes, including the estate tax in the 106th Congress, the 107th Congress, and now in the 108th Congress. But Henry Aaron and Alicia Munnell, who are two prominent liberal economists, concluded in their study of the estate tax, the estate and gift taxes in the United States have failed to achieve their intended purposes. They raise little revenue, they impose large excess burdens, and they are unfair. Alan Binder, a former member of the Federal Reserve Board appointed by President Clinton, found that 2 percent of the equity was attributable to the unequal distribution of inherited wealth. And Joseph Stiglitz, who served as President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors, found the estate tax may ultimately increase income inequality. The reason I have cited that a second time in this debate is we can keep coming forward and say how bad it is. The liberal economists, just as we have seen from right-of-center economists, have concurred that this is not a functional tax. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that the Senate will quickly respond to the legislation we passed last week, in a prompt response to the decision that they wanted to look at the child tax credit.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I enjoyed that oratory. I would almost think that she voted for the child tax credit last week, but the sad fact is that she did not because she voted the other way. She voted no. We sent a bill over to the other body. I have listened to the presumptions of the other body, of what will happen over there. I have talked to a few Senators. They give me the hope that they are so desirous of voting on this that they are looking forward to a conference and they are looking forward to getting it on the floor. The fact is we are talking about permanent estate tax repeal now. That is what is coming on the floor as we pass this rule, if the body does pass it, and I believe that they will and I believe that we will get bipartisan, Democrat-Republican, support for a permanent estate tax, death tax, however, you want to look at the reality, repeal. As we are listening to the debate shift over to the child tax credit, it is fine to lecture what that is and how it all happened. The fact is last week I voted for a child tax credit and other tax cuts and sent it to the other body. And the fact is the last two orators on the Democratic side did not vote for it. So as we move forward today back on the death tax to make a permanent death tax repeal, Members get to vote up or down on the rule and then they get to vote on a substitute and then they get to vote on a recommit and then final passage. I look forward to today, because I believe that we will get bipartisan support to pass the permanent repeal of the death tax.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I guess she did not have a question. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I welcome so many from the left to join me in cutting taxes. I look forward to that vote when it comes out of conference committee and maybe she can join us with that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.