Thomas Reynolds

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome the eighth grade class of Gates-Chili Middle School, who arrived in Washington today. These outstanding students have come to our nation's Capitol not only to experience first-hand our government and history, but to show their respect and gratitude to America's World War II veterans. While here, they will be presenting a donation to the American Legion to help build the World War II Memorial. More than two generations removed from the Second World War, these young men and women dedicated their time and their energy to raise $1,000 for the memorial fund. Through a mass production project, the Team 8C Coolaids (as they called themselves), produced CD racks that were sold in school and throughout the community, with the help of the Parent-Teachers Organization. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of these students for their hard work, and for their commitment to ensuring that the sacrifices endured, and the triumph ensured by our nation's World War II veterans will forever be remembered. I ask that this entire Congress join me in saluting the hard work, service and devoting of the eighth grade class at Gates-Chili Middle School.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 111 is a modified closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 8, a bill to phase out the estate tax over 10 years. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Additionally, the rule waives all point of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The rule also provides consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled between a proponent and an opponent. Furthermore, the rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I speak in strong support of this rule and its underlying bill, H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2001. Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is not a new one; the 106th session of Congress voted three times in a bipartisan fashion to eliminate the death tax. In fact, this Congress fell only a handful of votes shy of overturning the Presidential veto. Once again, we have the opportunity to bury the death tax once and for all. And this time I believe we can do it free from the threat of a Presidential veto. 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 tax rates at high war-time levels during the 1930s and 1940s. But they remained relatively unchanged until the Tax Reform Act of 1976. Ironically, the death tax today serves little of the purpose for which it was intended. Rather than prevent the concentrated accumulation of vast wealth, the death tax punishes savings, thrift and hard work among American families. Small businesses and farmers are penalized for their blood and sweat and tears, paying taxes on already-taxed assets. Instead of investing money on productive measures such as business expansion or new equipment, businesses and farms are forced to divert their earnings to tax accountants and lawyers just to prepare their estates. As has been pointed out by the American Farm Bureau, families own 99 percent of our Nation's farms and ranches, and those farmers and ranchers pay taxes at a rate much higher than the population at large. Not long ago, over 100 of some of the richest people in the world, including Bill Gates, Sr., Warren Buffett, Paul Newman, and members of the Rockefeller family, took out a full page ad in The New York Times urging Congress not to eliminate the death tax. It is not, however, these few megamillionaires who most suffer from the punitive effects of the death tax. Had they spent their lives milking herds or plowing fields, they might understand why the Farm Bureau has made elimination of the death tax its number one legislative priority. The victims of the death tax are typically hard-working Americans with medium-sized estates; farmers and small business owners. Their enterprises create jobs, growth, and opportunity in our hometown communities, but every year thousands of heirs are literally forced to sell the family farm or business just to pay off their death taxes. As Farm Bureau president Bob Stallman said during testimony before the Committee on Ways and Means, and I quote, ``Farm operations are capital-intensive businesses whose assets are not easily converted into cash. In order to generate the funds that are needed to pay hefty death taxes, heirs often have to sell parts of their businesses. When parts are sold, the economic viability of the business is destroyed.'' Indeed, with penalties reaching as high as 55 percent, these farmers and ranchers are often forced to sell off land, buildings or equipment otherwise needed to operate those businesses. The death tax is turning the American Dream into the ``Nightmare On Elm Street.'' 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 raises in revenues. Of course, farmers and ranchers are not the only ones facing an unfair and unnecessary burden from the death tax. Not long ago, the Public Policy Institute of New York State conducted a survey on the impact of the Federal estate tax on upstate New York. The findings were alarming. The study found that in a 5-year period, family-owned and operated businesses on the average spent $125,000 per company on tax planning alone. These are costs incurred prior to any actual payment of the Federal estate taxes. They reported that an estimated 14 jobs per business have already been lost as a result of the Federal estate tax planning. For just the 365 businesses surveyed, the total number of jobs already lost to the Federal estate tax is over 5,100, and that is just in upstate New York. According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, nearly 60 percent of business owners say they would add more jobs over the coming years if death taxes were eliminated, more jobs and greater opportunities for our citizens. As William Beach, director for the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, recently wrote, the death tax cuts across all racial and community lines. ``Take the Chicago Defender newspaper, an important voice for the black community for nearly a century,'' Beach wrote. ``When Defender owner John Sengstacke died recently, his granddaughter was forced to seek outside investors and even considered selling the paper to pay off the death taxes, which totaled $4 million. ``More blacks can expect the same experience,'' he continued. ``Income levels in black households have tripled over the last 24 years, and the number of black-owned businesses more than doubled from 1987 to 1997. According to a recent survey, the death tax is the most feared Federal tax'' among these business owners. My rural and suburban district in New York is laden with small businesses and farms. They are owned by hard-working families who pay their taxes, create jobs, and contribute not only to the quality of life of their community, but to this 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? Must Uncle Sam continue to play the Grim Reaper? The fact is they paid their taxes in life on every acre sewn, on every product sold, and every dollar earned. They should not be taxed in death, too. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas); and the ranking member and my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), for their hard work on this measure. I would also like to extend my gratitude to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) for their tireless efforts to once again bring this important measure to the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to bury this unfair tax once and for all by approving both the rule and its underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 8 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Kerns). (Mr. KERNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I think the minority debate might prompt how many speakers would remain. At this point we could close if the gentleman from Massachusetts is prepared to close.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished vice-chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we now have the rule shortly for a vote, I rarely make a prediction of what this House will do, but I see bipartisan support for the rule, and hope we would achieve that. We see some minority members talk about no repeal, some talk about repealing with their plan, and some cosponsors of H.R. 8 as it comes before us. This rule is fair, and the underlying legislation as it comes out for further debate today will allow an opportunity for America to judge that. It is no longer a debate of whether there will or will not be a death tax passed out of here and likely signed into law by the President, but how much and how it plays out, based on versions. That is an important step, because America watched Democratic control with 40 years of big spending, big government. Maybe Mr. Stockman, as quoted by the minority leader, might have spent too much time in the majority-driven Congress of big spending, versus the amount of time seeing the result from 1981 to the year 2000, where we are going to pay down that debt, where we are going to invest in America's future, and we can still give money back to the American people in their pockets, rather than having a big government spender, whether it comes out of Congress or out of the White House, that would drive up spending and taxes for the American people. This plan is part of the overall plan that puts money back in America's pockets and takes the number one issue of NFIB and the American Farm Bureau and puts it to rest, where it is buried once and for all, and that is elimination of the tax bill. 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. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 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. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 83 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, just for information, my understanding is that the Democratic substitute actually probably violates more rules that we are waiving points of order on than the Republican measure of any points that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) brings before us today. House Resolution 83 is a modified closed rule, providing for the consideration of H.R. 3, a bill to reduce individual income tax rates by amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Additionally, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The rule also provides consideration of an amendment in the nature of a substitute, printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled between a proponent and an opponent. Furthermore, the rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I speak in strong support of this rule and its underlying bill, H.R. 3, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001. This bill provides immediate relief to taxpayers by reducing the present-law structure of five income tax rates to four by 2006. Mr. Speaker, 238 years after patriot James Otis first railed that ``taxation without representation is tyranny,'' the American people have found that taxation with representation is not so hot either. Working Americans are spending a greater percentage of their income towards taxes than at any time since World War II. In an era of unprecedented budget surpluses, that is just plain wrong. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act is the first step towards establishing parity and fairness in America's Tax Code. The President's plan gives a tax cut to every American who pays income taxes and gives the lowest income families the largest percentage reduction. When fully implemented, President Bush's tax plan will eliminate the death tax, reduce the marriage penalty, and continue this majority's commitment to fiscal responsibility in paying down our Nation's debt. Equally important, the President's tax plan will spur savings and investment and, in an analysis released just yesterday by the respected Heritage Foundation, will boost economic activity, creating 917,000 new jobs and strengthen the income of taxpayers. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has warned, America's economy is slowing, and relief such as this, that puts more money in the pockets of working families, may very well keep us out of a recession. In my own congressional district, earning the district's family median income of just under $35,000, they would pay no Federal income taxes under the President's plan, saving them more than $1,400. Mr. Speaker, $1,400 is enough to send a child to a semester of community college, make a mortgage payment or pay off a credit card. This is real savings, real money in the pockets of local families. Of course, under the Democrats substitute included within this rule, that family in my district would not be able to afford a semester of community college for their child, pay off their credit card or even make a mortgage payment. That is because in testimony yesterday before the Committee on Rules, the measure's sponsor admitted that the family would pay $700 in Federal income taxes, and that is $700 more than they would pay under President Bush's plan. We all know that it was a position of a previous administration and even some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this plan will benefit only the very rich. The median family income in my district is $34,573, not exactly enough to be featured on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. Under the Republican plan, they would pay nothing, saving more than $1,400. Under the Democratic plan, they would save less than half of that, having to write a check to Uncle Sam each and every year. Whose plan is it that is really helping working families? Now, I know that there have been people that say Americans do not care about this tax cut. They are wrong. Paul Meloon, a husband, father, teacher from Batavia, New York, in my congressional district, recently wrote me about, and I quote, ``whether the country can afford tax cuts.'' ``The people that pay the taxes'' Paul wrote,''can't afford our high taxes. We can't afford so much year after year on Federal programs. No one asks if the taxpayer can afford a tax hike. It's not a matter of affording a tax cut, we demand it.'' Paul, thanks to our President and this Congress, you are going to get the tax relief you need. Mr. Speaker, I have another purely parochial reason for so enthusiastically supporting this tax relief package. Currently, my State gets back only 85 cents of every dollar it sends to the Federal Government. For years, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan released a report detailing the tremendous inequity that New Yorkers were burdened with each and every year, sending their hard-earned dollars to Washington and losing billions of dollars on their investment. As Senator Moynihan himself suggested, the more New Yorkers send to Washington, the bigger the disparity. So maybe we should not send down as much, and let New York's families keep more of their hard earned money to spend how they see fit. Under the President's tax plan, New York State will receive the second most of any State in tax relief, $88.6 billion over 10 years. On average, taxpaying households in New York will receive more than $18,000 of relief over the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that this government is amassing record-breaking surpluses; it is because people are sending too much money to Washington. Today we have the opportunity to give them something they have earned and something they deserve. We can give them some of their money back. I ask only that my colleagues not let this historic opportunity slip by. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), our new chairman of the Committee on Ways and Mean, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our ranking member, for their hard work on this measure as it comes before the House today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) in the spirit of bipartisanship for tax cuts. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. REYNOLDS

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