Thomas Reynolds

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not know about everyone, but I know that a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the fact that H.R. 4520 allows taxpayers, especially those in Nevada, Wyoming, the State of Washington, South Dakota, Texas, Alaska, and Florida, to deduct their sales taxes is one that just brings about an opportunity for everyone no matter what their tax bracket is at. But let us not forget, while we kind of rant and rave about all the different aspects of domestic companies that will see taxes decrease, this thing is targeted right into middle America, whether it is on Main Street, USA, or in the fields of America or in those manufacturing plants of our communities, because this is about taking care of small business, our farmers, and small manufacturing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I need to help the gentleman from California understand, particularly for his State, as I understand this legislation, it is designed for States like California and New York that have income tax, that they can deduct either the sales tax or the income tax, depending on how the taxpayer may choose which one they want to make for the deduction. The States that I previously read that do not have an income tax, it allows them to use a sales tax deduction as an opportunity to participate. So let us not lose sight that the taxpayer has an individual option. So I believe that, helping the gentleman who was the previous speaker from California understand that, it is a more correct provision of what we outlined. I also want to remind my colleagues that I believe, as he talked about giveaways and some of the other things, the motion picture industry, which hales greatly from his State and much less from our's, to the dissatisfaction of my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and me, is the fact there are three tax provisions inside this bill that assist the motion picture industry. If he considers those assistance, I do not find how he can take some of the other parts for corporations and call them giveaways. Each would look at what those provisions might mean in their respective categories. Let us not lose sight that this goes right after taking care of middle-class America, with helping our small businesses, helping our farmers, helping our small manufacturers, and making sure it all is accountable to domestic production and opportunity. 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 read this in the Record so many times I can almost do it from memory, but I cannot allow the beating up of this legislation with misnomers or false or inaccurate viewpoints in the debate. This bill does nothing to move jobs overseas. Nothing in this bill moves jobs overseas. I want to remind my colleagues that more tax relief is provided for businesses with proportionately more U.S. operations. The deduction is available for domestic production activities only. The deduction is limited to 50 percent of the wages paid to workers in America. The income attributable to outsourcing does not benefit. Overseas operations of multinationals does not benefit. New taxes are imposed on expatriated entities. The international tax reforms in the bill would not lead to movement of jobs overseas, as many Democrats claim. In fact, these provisions would reduce double taxation on companies, thus encouraging them to keep their headquarters in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we close, if you vote against H.R. 4520, you are voting against exporters, small businesses, farmers, domestic manufacturers, States without an income tax and for ending tobacco quotas. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to create jobs. Our domestic companies currently face countless disincentives to job creation, including onerous taxes, over-regulation, high energy costs, frivolous litigation and spiraling health care costs. For manufacturers and small businesses and farmers that are the entrepreneurial backbone of this country, these obstacles diminish their ability to compete in the international arena. We need to level the playing field. The underlying bill brings us closer than ever before to the equitable and competitive global marketplace that can propel our domestic industries into the 21st century. Free markets and free enterprise are direct outgrowth of the freedoms that we hold dear. I urge my colleagues to embrace this spirit by supporting the rule and the underlying conference report. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, I and move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 807 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 Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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, House Resolution 807 is a same-day rule that provides for consideration of the rule to accompany H.R. 5183, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004. The rule waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, the current extension of the highway bill ends at midnight tonight. The Congress must therefore act immediately to ensure that there is no termination in projects or jobs while we continue to formulate the package that will reauthorize the Transportation Equity Act for another 6 years. The legislation must be moved forward today in order to continue funding for highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit and other programs at the levels approved in the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. 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. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 811 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 Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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, House Resolution 811 is a closed rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 5183, the Surface Transportation Act of 2004. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule further provides one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure currently has under its consideration the multiyear reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act. The current authorization expires at midnight tonight and the bill before us today provides funding for essential programs for an additional 8 months, through May 31, 2005. This extension is necessary to give the authorizing conferees additional time to agree on a larger reauthorization bill. This Congress recognizes the many needs of our Nation and is answering the call by diligently working through its process to produce a bill that deals with the Nation's priorities in a whole host of areas. The final authorization bill will ensure that we have a reliable and stable transportation infrastructure from Federal highways and highway safety to public transportation and motor-carrier safety programs. In the meantime, the extension before us today authorizes $24.5 billion for the Federal Aid Highway program for highway and bridge construction and safety-related infrastructure improvements. Mr. Speaker, $5.2 billion is authorized for the Federal Transit Administration for grants to State and local transit agencies to reduce congestion and ensure mobility for all Americans in urban and rural areas. Additionally, the bill authorizes $200 million for highway safety programs, including programs to encourage seatbelt use and prevent drunk driving. The $287 million is authorized for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for truck and bus-related safety programs. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill also releases the final portion of contract authority and obligation authority for the highway program in fiscal year 2004. This funding was reserved until the end of the fiscal year and is now being used to ensure that States receive at least a 90.5 percent minimum guaranteed rate of return on their Highway Trust Fund contributions. Without our action today, vital programs and projects under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation will be put on hold. States will not be reimbursed with the Federal share of projects. Safety grants will not be provided to States, and transit construction will be halted, all of which puts jobs at risk. Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot allow States and transportation projects to suffer. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying extension. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is now almost October 1, and we are getting into the election season. I expect the gentleman from Massachusetts to have some finger- pointing going on. But I was here, as he was, when the debate occurred on transportation, and I would say that the authorizers had some pretty good, wholehearted debate that seemed to almost be on the same page between Republicans and Democrats, the majority and the minority of this House. I would remind all of us that while we had some harmony passing that legislation in the House and apparently in the other body, they had some harmony on what they passed, we have, as we well know as students of government, to pass an identical piece of legislation in the House, in the Senate and the President to sign it, or if he vetoes it, it would require a two-thirds vote in both of the bodies of Congress. Now, what we have seen, because the other body has publicly debated some of their positions, is that we have disagreements between the House and the other body and we have some from the White House on just what the spending will be. But while we are in an election year, we need to make sure we also get some of the facts back here. And that is that my understanding of this extender, is that the 2005 authorization is using the 2004 levels, and there is absolutely zero loss of anything, that each State will have their money. As a matter of fact, in the underlying legislation, it is my understanding that we will see that the $2 billion that Members on both sides of the aisle worked hard to achieve for their districts will also be distributed to those States under the current formula. Now, I cannot speak for Massachusetts, but I know, in New York, number one, that is going to be fair and equitable money. Number two, it is still a jobs bill that is keeping my people working across my State and, quite frankly, I think across the 50 States. So when we look at this, we also need to come to terms with a funding level of transportation authorization in a future 6-year bill that is equitable for all of us. And we know that different regions of the country have different viewpoints, and we know that non-mass-transit States have different views than those who are in high-growth States looking to develop further road infrastructure in their communities. It is not an easy bill to put together to get a 6-year consensus in this body, let alone between the House, the Senate, and the White House. But the important thing that is to be noted today as we preserve those jobs, those jobs are working, and a ``yes'' vote today keeps these projects moving forward and protects those jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work. I will willing to predict, Mr. Speaker, that we will have strong bipartisan support for the extension over the next 8 months. 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 respect the gentleman and what his view is, but I come from a State that has some complex transportation, from new to old aging infrastructure, to mass transit, to ports, to motor carriers, to dealing with buses and transit systems. As I look at this, if we keep this moving forward by passing this extender, we are going to keep those projects moving forward to protect jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work. It stops transit. I have taken great care to listen to the transportation experts, and they assure me of the following. We came here with such great spirit in the House to pass this legislation, and it was bipartisan work. We certainly lauded both the chairman of the full Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure and the subcommittee chairs who put together this complex bill and in a bipartisan fashion. Yes, there certainly are differences of agreement to different aspects of what I see in the other body just from public statements of negotiation. We have also seen that the White House and Department of Transportation has some of their opinions on this bill as well. I accept the fact that we are getting into the election season, and we are going to have all sorts of consumption going on back home as to what this means. But what my transportation experts of New York say, as well as talking to experts in this body, they tell me that if we do this extension, it is going to maintain the spending in the 2005 authorization and 2004 funding levels and that basically no one will lose any money at all in any of our States or, for the most part, in our districts unless some of the Members do not have a relationship with their State transportation people on some of the priorities that they might be looking for in their State. It is important to understand, for those who are listening to this debate, that this maintains the spending of a multiyear plan in the extension of 8 months, and it does in the 2005 authorization as well as looking at the 2004 funding levels that are currently available. My local folks in New York, the State commissioner and his people, tell me that we will be able to continue in the continuity of a complex transportation system by being able to count on this extension and the funding to continue the multiyear projects. So I do not quite understand the gentleman's aspect of where it starts and stops maybe as he sees the view, because I have been assured that we have continuity of transportation services in a multiyear fashion by extending this. Again, I must say to my colleagues, a ``yes'' vote today keeps those projects moving forward and protects jobs and protects the work and plans that are in our respective States, and a ``no'' vote just plain stops that or puts people out of work.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon for a question.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I said I yield for a question. I do not want to hear the gentleman's debate on my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I thank the gentleman for his question, and what I understand is as follows. Sure, I have projects; I think most Members of this body have specific projects earmarked in our legislation. It is my understanding that the other body would not consider earmarks that we would like to begin in the 2005 project year. Therefore, the compromise of extension, because we have had disagreements between the two bodies and we also have the White House in consideration of getting a final bill, was that we would take $2 billion of funding of Member- earmarked items of 2004 and roll them into our respective States on the existing formulas. That is what makes the States content to have that money back into their aspect of continuing in the projects. The gentleman's influence, as a member of the Oregon delegation, might put an opportunity where the gentleman could talk to the DOT commissioner and begin their projects based on some of the monies they will receive. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is a well-known fact in the House that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is probably the largest of membership in our great body. It amazes me when I look at the members of the committee, that might share from the other side of the aisle, kind of going back and forth between an extension and the 6-year bill, kind of mixing it up. I just want to make sure we have the record straight, although I have said it so many times in this debate already. The extension does not prejudice the 6-year bill. It actually keeps a continuity of funding levels at the authorization of our budget resolution. The gentleman is actually continuing, as previous speakers have, to go back and forth between a simple extension that guarantees all States their money and some planning purposes over the next 8 months versus trying to get to a 6-year bill. I am used to a situation where legislation does not come to the floor as fast as some Members would want, that there is finger-pointing. I also acknowledge that we have disagreements between the other body, the White House and this on getting a conclusion of a 6-year bill. But the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has made sure, with his subcommittee chairmen, that we have an 8-month extension that guarantees each State their money so they can continue in their planning purposes. As I have said before, it clearly says a ``yes'' vote today keeps those projects moving forward and protects jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work and brings that construction to an end. I also want to make sure that some of these alarmist accusations, that there is clear, on-the-record information so that they do not get caught up without a response. As the previous gentleman talked about the fact of money going all over the place, this bill includes an extension of the budgetary firewalls and spending guarantees for the highway category and transit category. These firewalls and guarantees protect the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund to ensure the highway user-related fees are used exclusively for highway transit and highway safety programs. I want to just let America know that we extend those protections in this extension of 8 months, just as it was in underlying legislation in the past. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to the comments of the gentleman, but I was at the point where I wondered if the gentleman intends to vote for the extension or not to vote for the extension, based on your remarks.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, my colleague said it well, we should vote for this rule and then the underlying legislation. As I opened my remarks, I commented that I understand it is the election season. So many of us have to get up and try to say something for back home on whatever that may be. I have talked to planners in my years of service, and some planners I know would like to have an exact fund for the entire length of their career in planning. But the reality is that this bill is going to provide an extension and continuity in both planning and money to our respective States. My State, as I outlined earlier, has a complex transportation network and understands that this extension keeps the funding levels the same as it has been. As a matter of fact, the opportunity of all States will have the same funding levels. So we have continuity of our programmatic services and dollars to the States and for them to also distribute as they see fit the monies that will come in this 8-month extension. It is not easy to formulate an agreement of an extension, and I laud Chairman Young of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and his subcommittee chairman in working with the other body to get a compromise of extension that works so well for our States as we continue this continuity of transportation projects and creating and maintaining the jobs that these construction opportunities exist through the transportation bill. But as we also look here, it is an opportunity for us to continue to get an agreement that both bodies and the White House will look to be a 6-year plan following the extension that is here. My colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), has been clear. A ``yes'' vote today keeps the projects moving and keeps and protects jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work. The extension will do the job and we can continue in having a multi-year plan of the future based on the results of our actions today. So I call upon my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying extension. 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. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize the Swormville Fire Company on the occasion of the dedication of their new fire hall. The Swormville Fire Company has bravely served the citizens of East Amherst, NY, since its incorporation in 1918. The company was founded by a local resident named William Smith, and originally consisted of fifteen members. In 1937, the company completed work on a fire hall, the fire hall that would serve as headquarters until earlier this year. Today, sixty-seven years after that fire hall was built, the company boasts over one hundred members and a top-notch volunteer firefighting operation--so it is fitting that the company should have a new, top- notch fire hall from which to run their operations. Working towards this end, we were able to secure federal funding of more than $130,000 for the company last June. Swormville's brand new fire hall, erected on the same site as their previous one, will serve both the company and the community well. This new, 16,500 square foot facility includes five apparatus bays, an emergency communications room, a training facility, a records storage room, and even a weight room. Since 1918, the Swormville Fire Company has provided a vital service to the community. East Amherst would clearly not be what it is without them. We owe them a debt for gratitude for all they have done over the years, and wish them all the best as they continue to selflessly serve the community in their new fire hall. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this Congress join me in recognizing the Swormville Fire Company and celebrating the dedication of their new fire hall.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 785 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my neighbor, the gentlewoman 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 purpose of debate only. (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 785 is a same day rule that waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules. The rule applies the waiver to a special rule reported on the legislative day September 23, 2004, providing for consideration or disposition of a conference report to accompany the bill H.R. 1308, the Working Families Tax Relief Act. This rule today is the first step to permit the House to consider a conference report that will infuse our economy with job creating tax relief, investment incentives and overall economic growth. For well over a year, this body has been debating the relief provided by the Working Families Tax Relief Act and, with today's action, we once again display our continued commitment to strong economic growth. We also demonstrate to American workers, businesses and families that this Congress will protect their stability. Mr. Speaker, through a series of tax cuts, this Congress has acted to create jobs and protect American families. Our strong leadership has resulted in the shortest and shallowest recession in our Nation's history. A delay in the consideration of this conference report for the Working Families Tax Relief Act will put American jobs and families and the strength of our economy at risk. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule so we may proceed with debate on this time sensitive tax relief package. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there are some points well taken, except we have been working 18 months on this legislation in bipartisan fashion in both bodies and we now have a conclusion. I also think we have certainly got strong opinions as we complete this of Members that will support this and Members that will not. I believe it will pass with some bipartisan support. But also it is important that we have the opportunity that we can get our work done today, because otherwise my belief is that many would ask that we vote tomorrow, which, if we complete our work today, would keep an orderly fashion of having our work done and Members also back into their districts. So, as we move forward, it is my hope that we have a vote on the rule, and that the body will consider that we move forward with the opportunity of reviewing the conference report that was put together in a bipartisan fashion in both the other body and this body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.