Thomas Reynolds

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the special orders during the rule that we are now debating. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

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

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the 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 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

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

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

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

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today provides for the consideration of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 519 is a modified closed rule which is a standard rule for all revenue measures. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Additionally, the rule waives all points of order against the bill. The rule further 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 for consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report 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 between the proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin once noted that ``in this world, nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.'' But while death may be certain, taxes are immortal. That is because our current tax system plays a cruel joke on farmers and small business owners. After years of hard work and sacrifice, building their farm, ranch or business, working Americans hoping to pass on their legacy to their children and grandchildren often find their life's work will instead be passed on to the Federal Government. The death tax is turning the American dream into The Nightmare on Elm Street. The death tax is arguably the biggest threat to the future viability of small businesses, family farms, and ranches. It creates a disincentive to expand and create jobs. It often literally taxes family businesses right out of the family. 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. The death tax has turned Uncle Sam into the Grim Reaper, destroying family-owned farms and ranches with penalties reaching as high as 55 percent and forcing farmers and ranchers to sell off land, buildings, or equipment otherwise needed to operate their businesses. When those farms and ranches disappear, the rural communities and businesses they support also suffer. A piece of community and family history is lost forever. The death tax impact on family farms is so devastating that the Farm Bureau has listed elimination as their number one priority. Think about that. An industry association concerned with all aspects of farming and ranching lists the death tax as the number one threat to the viability of family farming. That is how repressive this tax is. Now, many opponents of eliminating the death tax argue that estate planning is a viable alternative to changing our tax laws. Their theory that our farmers and ranchers should be huddled with accountants rather than growing food for America is both misguided and wrong. They fail to take into account the high cost of estate planning tools, both the time spent away from their businesses and the high price tag that includes attorneys fees, life insurance premiums, and internal labor costs. Would not we rather have small business owners and farmers using their resources to operate and expand their businesses and to create jobs? Too often there is a simplistic approach that we should soak the rich. The problem with that theory, as Ronald Reagan once said, is that everybody gets wet in the process. Nowhere is that more profound than in the death tax; for it is hard working middle American families who are most hurt. But that is not all. 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 revenue. Last year, 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 the past 5 years, family-owned and operated businesses on average spent nearly $125,000 per company just on tax planning alone. These are costs incurred prior to any actual payment of Federal estate taxes. The study found 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 due to the Federal estate tax is over 5,100. Mr. Speaker, a clear majority of participants in this survey indicate that the death of an owner would put their businesses at grave risk because they would be forced to take the purely tax-motivated steps of obtaining loans to redeem the owners stock or using the stock as collateral in order to meet their Federal estate tax obligations. Simply put, death tax stifles growth, discourages savings, stymies job creation, drains resources, and ruins family businesses. It is time we phase out this unfair tax and allow the American dream to be passed on to our children and our future generations. In conclusion, I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the bill's sponsors, for bringing this measure before the House today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

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.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 519 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 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 my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 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 to include extraneous material.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today provides for consideration of the conference report to H.R. 2559, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 1999. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 512 is a standard conference report rule that waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. Additionally, the rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Passage of this rule will allow the House to consider the conference report to the Agriculture Risk Protection Act. The Agriculture Risk Protection Act enjoys broad bipartisan support from colleagues representing farmers and ranchers from all regions of the country. It is the right legislative response to the current plight of our Nation's farmers and ranchers. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that farmers, growers, and ranchers are not experiencing the prosperity that many other Americans enjoy today. Confronted by adverse weather and low prices, they are facing a second year of extreme economic crisis. In fact, apple growers alone lost a staggering $760 million nationwide over the past 3 years, according to USDA statistics. Representing Wayne County, New York, the largest apple producer in New York State and one of the largest in the Nation, this type of statistic is particularly troubling. Growers in my district have been especially hard hit in recent years. Floods, storms, drought, and other severe weather have had a crippling effect on area specialty crop farmers. Just last week, flooding destroyed onion crops that had been planted only days earlier in the Elba mucklands in Genesee County in my congressional district. One local farmer estimated a 75 percent loss on 3,000 acres of onion crop, with an estimated value of $15 million annually. Despite these and other disasters, crop insurance programs have historically been tailored to farmers who grow so-called traditional crops, such as wheat, corn, and soybeans. It is for that reason that I am especially pleased with the conference report which, for the first time, earmarks funds and encourages the development of products for underserved commodities, including specialty crops. This Nation has had a long and proud agricultural history. Agriculture has been and remains a vital part of our Nation's economy and way of life. America's farmers feed not only our Nation but also the world. We must give agriculture producers the tools to manage risk responsibly, and this legislation does just that. This bill provides better insurance coverage at a lower cost for our Nation's farmers. It provides affordable coverage at every level, with strong incentives to purchase higher levels of protection and new flexibility for producers to choose the level of coverage that best meets their needs. This legislation promotes the development of new products for managing risk, empowering universities, co-ops, and individual farmers who work to develop successful policies. It makes sure that every farmer and rancher has the tools necessary for risk preparation. Proactive steps such as these are needed at the Federal level. Under current conditions, too many farmers are unable to afford crop insurance. When natural disasters strike, the Federal Government assists victims with taxpayer dollars. By increasing Federal contributions to crop insurance, such insurance becomes more affordable and there is less need for taxpayer dollars for reactive solutions. H.R. 2559 makes across-the-board reductions in farmer-paid premiums. The bill makes insurance that protects price as well as production more affordable to our farmers. The bill also helps farmers who are hit hard by multiyear disasters to insure more of the yield of what they have proven that they can grow. These changes will help farmers from all regions growing all crops. In short, Mr. Speaker, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act is a common sense, fiscally conservative bill. In passing the conference report, Congress goes a long way to properly prepare for natural disasters that impact agriculture production. In conclusion, I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for bringing this measure before the House today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 512 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4489, the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000. This measure is vital to tourism, trade and industry in Western New York State; and I am pleased to join Chairman Smith in sponsoring this legislation, and am grateful for all his hard work to ease border congestion while ensuring safety and efficiency. H.R. 4489 amends Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, replacing the current requirement that a record of arrival and departure be collected for every alien at every point of entry. Section 110 was an attempt to identify visa overstays in the U.S. Neither Canadian nor U.S. citizens require visas. However, the implementation of this part of the law had the potential to cause more problems than it solved. In 1998 alone, there were more than 76 million entries and exits to the U.S. by Canadian citizens. Some of the largest of those crossing points are along the New York- Ontario border. In fact, Western New York is the largest port in the state of New York. More than $85 billion in goods and services moved back and forth between Western New York and Southern Ontario in 1998 alone. And about $140 million per day moves across its border crossings. It was anticipated that stopping every vehicle entering and exiting the U.S.--as Section 110 required--would have caused 30 hour crossing delays at busy international border points. Business and industry in Western New York hoping to grow from increased trade and commerce simply could not afford those types of delays. As NAFTA continues to encourage trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, the growth in traffic across the U.S./Canada border is expected to continue its 4%-7% annual growth rate over the next decade. Commercial vehicles must cross the northern border quickly and efficiently for U.S. companies to remain globally competitive and attract new foreign investment. Congress must correct the problems associated with Section 110 as currently written to facilitate international commerce and promote continuing economic development in New York State and across the country. This legislation does that and, on behalf of Western New York residents and businesses, I urge its adoption.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), 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.)