Thomas Reynolds

Mr. REYNOLDS

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

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. 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. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, if the ranking member would consider, I have one speaker to close. And if he would like to close, then I will do that and yield to the majority leader. If he has more speakers, I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I listened here, I kind of got the same confusion of when I listened to some of my colleagues on the debate when we just did some tax relief not long ago. Class warfare, this is all for the rich. I reminded my colleagues that I come from kind of a small town in upstate New York, and the debate occurred with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) from Harlem, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules from Grand Prairie. None of them are really rich communities, and I cited that the tax bill the House Republicans moved forward on the floor after the adoption of the rule and then later passed took a family of four to make 40,000 bucks in my district and took their tax relief from $1,785 they had to pay down to about $40. I think that is real tax relief. I do not think $40,000 is rich. When I look at the legislation, I watch the press releases all over America say let us get on with it. We are on with it. Today we are either going to vote ``yes,'' and I think it is going to be bipartisan, we are going to vote ``yes'' and send it to the Senate, or we are going to vote ``no.'' But I want to remind some of my colleagues when we get the light of day on this tax bill that was sent to us by the Senate there a couple of things we might have made an improvement on as House Republicans because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might argue that the Republican tax relief plans rob Peter to pay Paul, in other words, tax cuts for the rich. However, the Senate proposed offsets, Customs user fee extensions. I would argue this is robbing Peter to pay Paul because if you are raising taxes on those who actually pay them in order to subsidize tax refunds for those who share in no income tax liability whatsoever, it is fiscally and fundamentally unsound. The only proven way to restrict government spending is to reduce revenues. Tightening the purse strings by providing much needed tax relief is the only way to get money back to hardworking Americans, no matter how wealthy or poor they are. Get it out of Washington and back in the pockets of American taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Sometimes we get lost here a little bit about the result of the 2003 tax cuts. In 2003, 91 million taxpayers will receive on average a tax cut of $1,126 under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003. Sixty-eight million women will see their taxes decline on average by $1,338. Forty- five million married couples will receive an average tax cut of $1,786. Thirty-four million families with children will benefit from an average tax cut of $1,549, and 6 million single women with children will receive an average tax cut of $558. Twelve million elderly taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of $1,401. Twenty-three million small business owners will receive tax cuts averaging $2,209, and 3 million individuals and families will have their income tax liability completely eliminated by this act. Now, today, we are going to do even more, because unlike some of the debate here, let us not kid ourselves, the other body sent a bill that does something for us from now until next election. That is 2004. That is when the child tax credit ends. This bill today, when we vote it up or down, it is going to go to 2010. A $1,000 child tax credit is scheduled to sunset in 2005. It will gradually increase back to $1,000 in 2010. In this bill, it puts it up right up front, now to 2010, a $1,000 tax credit. It eliminates the marriage penalty on the child credit. It accelerates the increase to the refundable child credit. It provides tax relief and enhances tax fairness for members of the Armed Forces. It suspends the tax-exempt status of designated terrorist organizations. It provides tax relief for astronauts who die in space missions. We are getting the job done, Mr. Speaker. America knows it.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I were not here when some of the tax- and-spend left kept spending us through an oblivion of deficits. We were here after 9-11 when we faced terrible tragedy in our country which has caused us to address the war on terrorism, to rebuild our cities, to address some of the complications of an economy that has slowed down. I do not mind that the debate that America hears is whether we have a bigger central government that spends more of their money on programs that the government figures out; or whether the economy began moving because middle America and the poor of America had more money in their pockets to make their decisions what they wanted to do with that money, whether they wanted to pay off a consumer loan, whether they wanted to pay tuition, whether they wanted to use it just to help have some opportunity for their child, their mother, or father. The decision that voters are going to make down the road is whether they want a smaller government that allows people to make more decisions on their hard-earned money, money out of their pocket; or whether they need more money in the downtown central government in Washington, D.C., or some government bureaucrat trying to figure out some way to help them out. I am going to tell the Members, we have started on a tax cut. I read earlier the millions of Americans who are going to benefit across the board. We are now in a situation where we are going to watch. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had every nay and say about what is going to happen with the economy. I do not know, they do not know. But by 2004, in that fourth quarter, we are going to find out whether the economy of consumer goods began moving, confidence of investors began moving, and whether America started to see a resolve from a terrible tragedy of 9-11; to see, as the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) said, in the third and fourth quarters of 2000 when it slowed down, if it moved. If it does move, there are going to be more Republicans on this side of the aisle; if it does not, maybe there will be a little less. But the conviction of the majority is, people have an opportunity and a right to have more money in their pockets for them to decide how to spend it, not Washington. The only proven way to restrict government spending is to reduce revenues. Tightening the purse strings but providing much-needed tax relief is the only way to get money back in the hands of hardworking Americans and out of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), my friend.

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

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, only a week ago I do not think the gentleman was advocating any tax cuts. But I just want to remind our colleagues that are both here and throughout the offices that in fiscal year 2004, in the adopted budget resolution, language was included for the first time limiting the amount of revenue reductions in the Senate to a deficit impact of $350 billion. The House articulated its clear reservations to this maneuver because all revenue measures must originate in the House; we retained our right to develop more measures to reduce the tax burden on the American people. So the options for the Committee on Rules, they could, one, accept the Senate proposals as a whole imposing offset requirements; two, call up an entirely new House bill, starting the process anew, with likely substitutes, in essence dragging out the process that would take the ability to move, and I am not sure whether the gentleman knows for sure we have a quorum tomorrow; and, three, we could stipulate the House prerogative to provide tax relief with a comprehensive proposal that has broad policy support. Why should the House impose offsets when our own budget made room for a proposal just like this, the one I have outlined that does so much for working families across the country? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 270.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 270 is a customary rule relating to the consideration of an amendment to the Senate amendments to H.R. 1308, the Tax Relief, Simplification, and Equity Act of 2003. The rule allows the House to proceed with consideration of legislation providing tax relief to millions of American workers and families. Upon adoption of this resolution, the House will have agreed to the disposition of the Senate amendments. Mr. Speaker, when I return to my district each week, my constituents tell me they want me to do two things: create jobs and cut taxes. Thanks to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act and the Jobs Growth Tax Relief Act, Congress is doing just that, and taxpayers in my district and all across America now have greater control over more of their hard-earned dollars, providing greater incentive for savings and investment and expanding job opportunities. Today's legislation is another important step in our ongoing efforts to create greater fairness in the Tax Code for working families. In fact, upon adoption, it will be retitled the All-American Tax Relief Act in recognition of the fact that it puts even more money back into the hands of more Americans. Mr. Speaker, much of what we are debating today we have debated and supported before. Many of the important measures in H.R. 1308 have passed this body or the other body over the last few years. For instance, the House passed its version of H.R. 1308 by voice vote under suspension in March of this year. Last week the Senate took up H.R. 1308 with revised and added provisions, including an accelerated increase in the refundability of the child tax credit currently scheduled to take place in 2005. While the House language contains the same provision, it has the added benefit of ensuring that the child tax credit remains at $1,000 through 2010, unlike the Senate amendment that offers only the $1,000 tax credit during taxable years 2003 and 2004. Simply put, the House language provides more and longer-lasting benefits for families at all income levels. And it does not take it away in just a couple of years. This bill will eliminate the marriage penalty and the child tax credit even sooner, by raising the phaseout for married couples from $110,000 to $150,000. This is a fundamental issue of fairness. Working men and women should not face a higher tax burden simply because they choose to get married and raise a family. The House bill is more responsive to more Americans than the other body's version in other ways. It honors the men and women of our Armed Forces with over $800 million in tax relief over 11 years. This includes capital gains tax relief on home sales, tax-free death gratuity payments, and tax-free dependent care assistance for members of the military. Our men and women in uniform protect our country and ensure our security every day and deserve sensible tax relief for their hard work and sacrifice. Also, the bill will suspend the tax-exempt status of terrorist organizations, a provision that passed both the House and the other body in 2002. In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill will achieve even greater parity and fairness in the Tax Code. That is something I know my constituents and working Americans all over the country want, need, and deserve. Mr. Speaker, I expect that in the course of this debate, we will hear a great deal about procedural terminology, but this vote is actually quite simple. A ``yes'' vote means greater fairness in the Tax Code and more tax relief for American workers, families, and children. A ``no'' vote stops that relief from moving forward and hurts the very people I know many of my colleagues eagerly want to assist. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are any rubber stamps in that package. Mr. Speaker, in this short time, it is 4:34, daylight, we will have an opportunity to have our colleagues come in, and they are going to vote yes and they will do a tax cut that varies on the All-American Tax Relief Act of 2003, or they will vote no and say all those press releases I put out last week wanting to move expeditiously on this, they do not really matter because now it is before us. Well, it is here. And I must say both the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and others from the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Rules found a solution to meet what seemed to be Republican and Democrats wanting to expedite this bill. And so we took the House resolution with a Senate amendment. The Senate amendment we have disposed with, the House coming back quickly with the amendments to go to the other body. And it is going to be done today. It is not going to be done tomorrow. It is not going to be done next week. We have an opportunity to do it right now. And while we are listening to all of this, some of them on procedure, I just want to remind the esteemed whip that I think we have been debating the merits of this bill for an hour; and some agree, some do not. Pretty soon we will put it up, 4:35, and take a look at how it ends. But I want to remind my colleagues that this bill, as amended, and sent back to the Senate will increase the child credit for $1,000 for an eligible child through 2010; not for some slick promise of 2003 and 2004, and then it slides back after the next election. It is straightforward, straight up, right until 2010. It eliminates the marriage penalty on child credit. It accelerates the increase in the refundable child credit. It provides tax relief and enhances tax fairness for members of the Armed Forces. It suspends the tax-exempt status of designated terrorist organizations and provides tax relief for astronauts who die on space missions. Those pieces of legislation, as they were before us or the other body, have been dealt with in the last several months and years by this body or the other body. So when we get done here with this debate, we are going to have an opportunity, yes or no. If you vote yes, you are going to give America that tax cut. If not, you are going to find some way to wrangle out of it with a press release. But what I heard was everybody wanted to get underway and make this happen. The Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Rules is giving this honorable body that action today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 270 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 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. General Leave

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In listening to the ranking member's remarks, I would first say, to my recollection of the law, no Member of Congress would be eligible for this program. Number two, I want at least the voters of my district and the people of New York to know that while we have listened to class warfare and tax cuts, I know those New Yorkers that make $100,000 in their income, or even as much as $150,000, if you are a fireman or you are a cop, you are a teacher, you are a salesman and work in a store, I know you are not rich. I know you are middle America. And I know that as we look at fair tax relief, it is not just helping the poor or the class warfare message of the rich. We are trying to make sure we take care of the middle class, and we know that $150,000 combined income could be a middle-class income. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, am I to be recognized?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This vote is actually quite simple. A ``yes'' vote means greater fairness in the Tax Code and a mere tax relief for American workers families and children. A ``no'' vote stops that relief from moving forward and hurts the very people I know many of my colleagues eagerly want to assist. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this resolution at the end of the debate. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to know if I can be recognized.